Annex A

NATO CCMS Defence Related Pilot Studies 1980-2000

A-1

The Pilot Studies are presented in Alphabetical Order

AAiirrccrraafftt NNooiissee iinn aa MMooddeerrnn SSoocciieettyy ((PPiilloott SSttuuddyy 11998855--11998899))

AAiirrccrraafftt NNooiissee iinn aa MMooddeerrnn SSoocciieettyy FFoollllooww UUpp GGrroouupp ((PPiilloott SSttuuddyy 11998899--ccuurrrreenntt))•• WWoorrkkiinngg GGrroouupp oonn HHeelliiccoopptteerr NNooiissee PPrreeddiiccaattiioonn MMooddeelllliinngg ((11999922--11999944))•• WWoorrkkiinngg GGrroouupp oonn tthhee EEffffeeccttss ooff TTooppooggrraapphhyy oonn PPrrooppaaggaattiioonn ooff NNooiissee iinn tthhee

VViicciinniittyy ooff AAiirrffiieellddss ((11999911––11999944))• WWoorrkkiinngg GGrroouupp oonn tthhee EEffffeeccttss ooff NNooiissee ffrroomm WWeeaappoonnss aanndd SSoonniicc BBoooommss,,

aanndd tthhee iimmppaacctt oonn HHuummaannss,, WWiillddlliiffee,, DDoommeessttiicc AAnniimmaallss aanndd SSttrruuccttuurreess(1994-current)

CCrroossss--bboorrddeerr EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttaall PPrroobblleemmss eemmaannaattiinngg ffrroomm DDeeffeennccee--rreellaatteeddIInnssttaallllaattiioonnss aanndd AAccttiivviittiieess• PPhhaassee II ((11999922--9955))•• PPhhaassee IIII ((11999955--9988))

DDeeffeennccee EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttaall EExxppeeccttaattiioonnss ((11999900--11999955))(Original title National Environmental Expectations and Requirements in NATOCountries)

EEnnvviirroonnmmeenntt aanndd SSeeccuurriittyy iinn aann IInntteerrnnaattiioonnaall CCoonntteexxtt ((11999966--11999999))

EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttaall AAssppeeccttss ooff RReeuussiinngg FFoorrmmeerr MMiilliittaarryy LLaannddss• PPhhaassee II ((11999944--9966))•• PPhhaassee IIII ((11999966--9988))

EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttaall MMaannaaggeemmeenntt SSyysstteemmss iinn tthhee MMiilliittaarryy SSeeccttoorr ((11999966--22000000))

FFoorrmmss ooff EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttaall EEdduuccaattiioonn iinn tthhee AArrmmeedd FFoorrcceess aanndd tthheeiirr iimmppaacctt oonntthhee ccrreeaattiioonn ooff pprroo--eennvviirroonnmmeennttaall aattttiittuuddeess ((22000011++))

PPrroommoottiioonn ooff EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttaall AAwwaarreenneessss iinn tthhee AArrmmeedd FFoorrcceess ((11998877--11999911))

PPrrootteeccttiioonn ooff CCiivviill PPooppuullaattiioonnss ffrroomm TTooxxiicc MMaatteerriiaall SSppiillllss dduurriinngg MMoovveemmeennttss ooffMMiilliittaarryy GGooooddss ((11999922--22000000))

SSuussttaaiinnaabbllee BBuuiillddiinngg ffoorr MMiilliittaarryy IInnffrraassttrruuccttuurree ((22000000--ccuurrrreenntt))

UUssee ooff SSiimmuullaattoorrss aass aa mmeeaannss ooff rreedduucciinngg EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttaall IImmppaaccttss ccaauusseedd bbyyMMiilliittaarryy AAccttiivviittiieess ((11999900--11999955))

A-2

Each of the commentaries are arranged in sections as follows;Title – Location – Date – Chair(s) – Agenda - Participants – Comment - Report -Follow-up

AAiirrccrraafftt NNooiissee iinn aa MMooddeerrnn SSoocciieettyyOriginal Phase May 1985 – Nov 1989

Pilot Nations – Germany, USA. Directors - Mr G. Vest (established when he wasDeputy Assistant Secretary, US Air Force), Dr Heinz Gummlich (German FederalMinistry of the Environment).

Pilot Study Chair - Mr T.M.W. Moran (USA).

ParticipantsBelgium, Canada, Germany, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain,UK, USA

AgendaThe study was set up in May 1985 under the joint leadership of the USA andGermany. Nine other nations initially supported the Pilot Study (Belgium, Canada,Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and the UK). The studywas the result of the desire of the Allied nations to grapple with the difficult problemof aircraft noise. There were few problems of peacetime military activity thatprompted more adverse reaction, particularly in the more populous areas of WesternEurope. It was strongly supported by the aeronautical industry on both sides of theAtlantic 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: SourceTechnology (possibilities for reducing noise at the source considering both enginesand airframes), Receiver Technology (possibilities for reducing the nuisance on theground) and Operations and Information (airspace management, education, publicinformation).

Pilot Study Sub Group Work

The Source Technology Subgroup considered noise sources in terms of propulsivenoise, rotor/rotorcraft, airframe and sonic boom noise. Propulsive noise was furtherinvestigated in terms of turbo-machinery, combustor and jet exhaust noise. The mostdominant of these noises is the jet exhaust noise which is unfortunately the mostdifficult to suppress because it is primarily generated outside the airframe andtherefore does not lend itself to control through sound absorption in the enginespaces as is generally the case with turbo-machinery or combustion noise. Airframenoise 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 futuresupersonic combat aircraft design because exhaust velocities are likely to beincreased to achieve higher performance. This is in direct contrast to developmentsin subsonic civil aircraft where new turbofan engines are designed with noisereduction in line with international standards (ICAO, FAA etc). Civil technology canassist in noise reduction as shown with the use of a high-bypass-ratio engine for the

A-3

USAF KC-135 tanker aircraft (results are equivalent to a 98% reduction in the noisefootprint).

Rotor noise from helicopters is produced as a result of complex links betweennumbers of sources mostly related to aerodynamic flow around rotor blades,although some helicopters have significant engine noise as well. The “blade-vortexinteraction” (BVI) is the distinctive noise source most commonly associated withhelicopter or rotorcraft operation. The tail rotor can provide additional noise primarilybecause of the mounting arrangement and the interaction of airflow around theaircraft fuselage. The subgroup noted that noise reduction was an element ofsurvivability on the battlefield through reduced acoustic detection.

Sonic boom noise is a significant non-engine noise that has had a long history ofresearch in order to reduce the problem. Some research suggests that aircraft designmay reduce the noise but most reductions seem to relate to reduced speed andcareful routing. Aircraft travelling at high subsonic speeds can produce sonic boomsbecause air movements around the airframe can reach sonic speeds. The subgroupdiscovered that there was almost no detailed source noise data for aircraft operatingat 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 onhumans, concluding that although aircraft noise was disturbing and disruptive therewas little evidence of physical harm to humans or animals, or well-constructedbuildings. It discussed the need for land-use planning and compared nationalapproaches to planning and noise exposure. Noise modelling indices were found tovary considerably between member nations, however a method for convertingbetween national indices was established.

Many of the impacts of noise on humans come about because of the mismatchbetween aircraft operations and the land use of the affected environment. This is aproblem for both civil and military aircraft operation near to airfields; however militaryaircraft have the additional problems associated with operational low level training. Anewer 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 nightoperations, and because helicopter bases tend to be nearer to civil communities thanfixed-wing aircraft bases.

The sub group work was made particularly difficult because although there arespecific standards related to noise induced hearing loss, e.g. by ISO, and researchfindings have been reported by the International Commission on the BiologicalEffects of Noise (ICBEN), little of this related to the NATO CCMS concerns. For

A-4

example, it is unclear at what level noise contributes to disease or other permanenthealth 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 generalcommunity annoyance. The conclusions were that there is no clear evidence thateither living near an airfield or exposure to sonic booms at the level and frequencygenerated by the military would induce hearing loss. It is clear that noise may disruptcommunication and affect performance and behaviour. A special problem may resultfrom the startle effects from low altitude, high-speed flights. The subgroup found thatno 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 isno conclusive evidence of detrimental effects of high intensity sound in highermammals” but added that “until better information is available it would appearprudent to avoid exposure of long duration (several hours a day) to sounds of 90 dBsound pressure and above”. However it has been established that aircraft noise atcertain levels will cause awakening from sleep but it was not clear to what extent thiswould lead to permanent health effects.

The original stimulus for the Pilot Study, the community response to noise, wasstudied. The subgroup conclusions reflected research that noted that annoyance is acomplex issue and involves a combination of activities such as sleep, communicationand recreation. The relationship between annoyance and noise levels has beenestablished empirically through community response surveys. There were alsocriteria for the evaluation of exposure to sonic booms and helicopter noise. Howeverthere was no similar research into single noise events such as occur with low-levelflying. There was also inadequate research into ground operations such as enginetesting and aircraft movement on the ground. Research into the impact of aircraftnoise on animals was almost wholly lacking except for anecdotal evidence fromfarming or conservation.

The effects of aircraft noise and sonic booms on buildings have been the subject ofnumerous studies. The areas of interest have included building vibration, noisetransmission into buildings, structural damage and secondary responses or rattle ofobjects within a building. Much of this work was done in the USA in response toconcerns before the Concorde supersonic aircraft was brought into service. Ingeneral, buildings in good repair should not be structurally damaged at boomoverpressures less than about 11 lb/ft (530 Pa). Current supersonic aircraft createoverpressure 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 inflying and current mitigating procedures and concluded that there were few further

A-5

restrictions possible, without the risk of inadequate training for military missions. TheSubgroup reviewed airspace usage to see if more could be done to alleviatedemands on limited airspace, particularly with computerised airspace managementsystems. The issue of simulation training was reviewed and although simulators forhigh-speed low-level flight did not exist (at this stage) it considered that suchsimulators should be investigated. There was a need to provide the public with moreinformation on the defence related needs for low-level flying.

Air Forces note that they are mitigating impacts of noise through operational trainingrestrictions in particular by increasing the altitude, reducing speed and power settingsover areas of particular sensitivity. Aircraft survivability in military operations isincreased by flying at a very low level (below 250 feet), and major concerns wereraised about the further erosion of pilot skills. Flight simulators were not yet goodenough 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 andtraining of planning staff, aircrew and ground staff for the mitigation of the impact ofnoise. Aircraft taxiing and engine ground running during maintenance are beingcontrolled whenever possible by limiting the numbers of aircraft involved or the use ofremote parts of the airfield. Soundproof test facilities were becoming increasinglycommon.

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) 22-24September 1986 and at Williamsburg (Virginia, USA) 25-29 April 1988 (see CCMSConference list for details).

ReportInterim Reports AC/274-D/225 – C-M(87)41, and AC/274-D/239 – C-M (89)3Final Report CCMS Report 185 (Nov 89). See also Mittenwald Conference CCMSReport 161,

Follow-upThe Final Report suggested that although the work of the Pilot Study had beencompleted the establishment of a Follow-Up Group would allow their activities tocontinue. It would also provide a means by which the recommendations in the reportcould be followed up. A significant list of topics for continued and further researchwas appended. The follow-up group would maintain close links with the NATO’sAdvisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development (AGARD) toencourage co-ordinated activities and avoid duplication of effort. It is AGARD’s taskto foster and improve the interchange of information relating to aerospace researchand development between the NATO nations. AGARD also provides scientific andtechnical advice and assistance to the NATO Military Committee in the field of

A-6

aerospace research and development, with particular regard to military applications.This proposal was agreed in 1990, and led to further work in this field.

AAiirrccrraafftt NNooiissee iinn aa MMooddeerrnn SSoocciieettyy FFoollllooww UUpp GGrroouupp ((PPiilloott SSttuuddyy))1990 – current 2001.

Agenda - to provide an umbrella for further work relating to the study of militarynoise. See Working Group on Helicopter Noise and Working Group on Noise formWeapons and Sonic Booms (below).

Pilot Nations – USA and Canada, under the chairmanship of Gary D Vest, PrincipalAssistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security), USA.

Participants – see each group commentary for participation.

WWoorrkkiinngg GGrroouupp oonn HHeelliiccoopptteerr NNooiissee PPrreeddiiccaattiioonn MMooddeelllliinnggJune 1992- Feb 1994

Public annoyance about helicopter noise around airports and military training areascreated an urgent need for noise prediction modelling. In planning noise abatementhelicopter operations, the need for helicopter noise prediction modelling is thereforeevident. This WG was set up after the CCMS Symposium on Helicopter NoiseAspects of Rotary Wing Aircraft in Monterey, California USA, July 29- August 11991 (see CCMS Conferences) by the Aircraft Noise in a Modern Society Pilot StudyFollow-up Group. The Chair was Mr H-D Marohn (Germany), the co-chair was DrPaul Schomer (USA).

AgendaThe aim of the Working Group was to collect and exchange information on helicopternoise and associated predictive noise models. The main topics studied were:• helicopter noise measurements,• sound propagation,• helicopter noise prediction models.

ParticipantsThe following NATO countries participated: Denmark, Germany, Netherlands,Norway, USA, UK. Switzerland also sent an active participant. The Working Groupheld six meetings between June 1992 and Feb 1994 and published a final report(NATO-CCMS series No 202).

CommentHelicopter noise, as received on the ground, differs from aircraft noise becausehelicopters tend to use lower altitudes and the sound has more low frequencies. Thenoise from helicopters spreads over long distances and grazes across the landsurface. These factors made it necessary to investigate the effectiveness of moresophisticated noise models than those currently based on fixed wing aircraft, whichhad been adjusted for helicopter noise.

A-7

The most important components of helicopter noise come from the main rotor, tailrotor, transmission and gearbox and engine. There are four characteristic noisesfrom the main rotor. The most significant noise is that known as Blade-VortexInteraction (BVI) caused when a blade cuts through the vortices from the same oranother 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 therotor blade. It can be heard when the helicopter is in flight when it resembles a buzzsaw. Rotational noise comes from harmonic variation caused by loads on the rotorblades. 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, anobserver typically hears more noise to the front and to the right hand side of ahelicopter in flight. The BVI effect is heard as a helicopter descends but is usuallyabsent during a climb. It is therefore necessary to build up a picture of a givenhelicopter and the way it behaves during take-off, climb, level flight, descent andlanding as well as in the hover. In addition the loading of the machine will vary thenoise produced.

The Working Group also discovered that there was a lack of specific data that can beused for helicopter noise modelling. Although manufacturers and the designers ofairfields had made a large number of measurements there had been littlestandardisation of emission data. In addition the ISO standards for sound attenuationin air were dated 1975. With the assistance of the US Air Force the Working Groupacquired an extensive set of measurements during a test campaign using helicoptersand sensors in August 1993. These measurements were used to test a newlydeveloped sound propagation algorithm (called SoundProp and LOOKUP). To be ofvalue a model has to be able to predict the actual noise exposure at the receiver fromone or more sources. NATO nations appeared to have a variety of different modelsfor helicopter noise exposure, the Danish had DANSIM, the Netherlands their ownKostenunit-System, and the UK were developing AIRNOISE.

Helicopter noise models need at least three modules, the Input Module, theHelicopter Database and the Computation Module. The results of the test confirmedthe validity of the model, especially for helicopter noise propagation. However therewas a demonstrated demand for more research.

ReportThe 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 noisemeasurement.

• The model developed, SoundProp, seemed appropriate for handling helicoptersound propagation in models.

• There was a strong requirement for an easy-to-use helicopter noise exposuremodel.

• There were still gaps in the modelling, including noise directivity andtopographic influences.

• Further work was needed on a noise exposure metric such to enable thecomparison of helicopter noise influences with fixed-wing aircraft, groundoperations or traffic noise.

A-8

• There was a need to develop a method to assess helicopter noise effects onanimals.

Follow-up proposalsThe WG made recommendations for future study and collaboration, based on theirconclusions. These were passed to the plenary of the Follow-Up Group of the PilotStudy on Aircraft Noise. They urged the Follow-Up Group to adopt as their prioritywork that would:

• Develop methods to establish and use helicopter directivity information innoise 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 onHelicopter Noise was established.

WWoorrkkiinngg GGrroouupp oonn tthhee EEffffeeccttss ooff TTooppooggrraapphhyy oonn PPrrooppaaggaattiioonn ooffNNooiissee iinn tthhee VViicciinniittyy ooff AAiirrffiieellddssAug 1991 – Jun 1994

Sponsor - Aircraft Noise Pilot Study Follow-Up Group

Chair – Jens-Jorgen Bugge (Norwegian Defence Construction Servise)

AgendaThis Working Party was established after a meeting of the NATO CCMS Pilot Studyon 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 theWorking Group was therefore to put forward methods to test and evaluate these. Theaim of the Working Party was to study the topographical aspects of aircraft noiseprediction 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 terraineffects: Slant Range Adjustment; Ground Attenuation for non-flat terrain and varyingsurface properties; and the effect of Noise Barriers. It was decided thatmeteorological effects were too great a topic to handle at this time and it wassuggested that another Working Group handle this.

A-9

When the Working Group was established there were relevant ongoing projectsbeing 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.

CommentThe Working Group held only five meetings (NATO HQ in June 1992, Copenhagen inJanuary 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 issuesand led to the establishment of the NATO CCMS Working Group on the Effects ofNoise from Weapons and Sonic Booms, and the impact on Humans, Wildlife,Domestic Animals and Structures (May 1994).

WWoorrkkiinngg GGrroouupp oonn tthhee EEffffeeccttss ooff NNooiissee ffrroomm WWeeaappoonnss aanndd SSoonniiccBBoooommss,, aanndd tthhee iimmppaacctt oonn HHuummaannss,, WWiillddlliiffee,, DDoommeessttiicc AAnniimmaallss aannddSSttrruuccttuurreessMay 1994 - current 2001

Sponsor - Aircraft Noise Pilot Study Follow-Up Group

AgendaImprovements in conventional arms have led to noisier weapons firing at moredistant targets than in the past. In many cases the training with these weapons, oftenwith ranges to 30kms, has outgrown the land originally set aside for this training. Toaccommodate increased target distances the training area managers have to permitweapons to be fired closer to the boundary thus increasing noise levels inneighbouring communities. Requirement for night firing has further exacerbated theproblem both because people tend to be more sensitive to sounds at night andbecause low-level noise travels to farther distances at night than day. Even whenadjacent land is unoccupied wildlife biologists are concerned about adverse effectson the health of threatened or endangered species.

Early attempts by various NATO countries to regulate weapon noise exposure inlocal communities were hampered by insufficient research. In addition, work that wasdone tended to be carried out in isolation or buried in government reports or subjectto security restrictions. The need for cooperation was raised by Norway at the NATOCCMS 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 andfrom sonic booms. Noise from vehicles, aircraft and helicopters is excluded from thisstudy.

A-10

Working Group Chair - Jens-Jorgen Bugge (Norway)

Participants – Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain,Switzerland, UK, USA.

CommentThe 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 weaponnoise and sonic booms on wildlife, humans and structures.

• Establish an international database/bibliography on findings, surveys andscientific research on these topics.

• Conclude with a report and recommendations.

Working Group Meetings – held one or two each year from the inaugural inMaryland (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 andsmall 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-11

* Need to quantify the impact of impulsive noise and sonic booms onthermal pane windows.

* Need for guidelines on construction and renovation techniques thatcan be used to reduce impacts on structures for impulsive noiseand sonic booms.

* Need for guidelines on assessing the effects on structures, includingprehistoric and historic structures form impulse noise and sonicbooms.

• References, definitions etc

Follow-upThe recommendation suggest that there is need for follow-up work related to thegaps 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 noiseeffects on animals to ensure quality assurance on studies on threatened andendangered species. There was later a proposal for a NATO Charter onEnvironmental Noise and Public Education/Affairs.

CCrroossss--bboorrddeerr EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttaall PPrroobblleemmss eemmaannaattiinngg ffrroomm DDeeffeennccee--rreellaatteedd IInnssttaallllaattiioonnss aanndd AAccttiivviittiieess ((PPhhaassee II))Nov 1992-1995

Chair(s)Mr Sverre Stub (Ambassador, Norway) and Dr Jutta Schlimm (Environment Minister,Germany).

AgendaThe objective of this pilot study, approved as part of the North Atlantic CooperationCouncil's 1992 Work Plan was to develop a basis for international cooperation onsurveying, assessing and preventing cross-border pollution emanating from defence-related installations and activities. The study contained two specific sub-topicsrelating to:

• Cross-border pollution from radioactive materials, primarily those affectingoceans 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 ProtectiveTechnologies).

The geographical areas covered included the following: the Barents and Kara Seas,the Baltic Region and the Black Sea, including the Danube catchments. While thestudy raised important issues with regard to military activities on land and the resultsof 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 wereconcentrated on establishing a status for both chemical and radioactive pollution andthe identification of future threats. Estimate effects and the level of risk involved incase there is total radioactive leakage after defined time intervals were examined anddiscussed, as well as potential future problems emanating from nuclear waste storedon land, in boats, the decommissioning of nuclear submarines during the next five

A-12

years, the consequences of nuclear submarine or ship accidents in arctic water andthe 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 forindividual sites and submarines/ship reactor compartments.

• It was noted that decommissioning and the normal operation of submarinesproduces large amounts of liquid radioactive waste. There seemed to be apotential solution in joint Russian-USA-Norwegian collaboration.

• Although the waste carried by ocean currents from EU facilities was small therewas 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.

ParticipantsBelarus, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece,Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, RussianFed., Slovak Rep., Turkey, Ukraine, USA, Non-NATO country: Japan (observer)

Comment – This Phase was primarily concerned with opening the dialogue betweenthe militaries of NATO and the NACC countries over the most pressing legacies ofthe Cold War.

Report – NATO CCMS Reports: 204 (Vol 1 Radioactive Contamination), 205 (Vol 2Chemical Contamination), 206 (Summary).

Follow-up – the success of this cooperation led to Phase II and to further work in theBlack Sea region to enable environmental collaboration.

A-13

CCrroossss--bboorrddeerr EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttaall PPrroobblleemmss eemmaannaattiinngg ffrroomm DDeeffeennccee--rreellaatteedd IInnssttaallllaattiioonnss aanndd AAccttiivviittiieess ((PPhhaassee IIII))1995-1998

Chair – Mr Sverre Stub (Ambassador, Norway)

AgendaUnder 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. Inpractice the study adopted the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme(AMAP) boundaries that lie between 60 degrees North and the Arctic Circle withsome modifications. Eight countries were covered: Canada, Denmark (Greenlandand 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 andthe Baltic Sea; the Dneiper and Danube and the Black Sea; the Columbia River andthe 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 regionallysignificant 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 inRussia 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 thecatchments 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 ofthese materials. The main problem was the control of radioactive waste and nuclearfuel material that was now surplus. A glimmer of light was that the new JointConvention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and the Safety of RadioactiveWaste Management, although not binding for military material, would probablyinfluence defence-related waste management practices in time.

A-14

Subtopic 4, concerned with the two defence-related problems of non-defuelled,decommissioned submarines and radioactive waste in Latvia, went into detail on therisks of harmful releases and contamination.

The recommendations from Phase II were that:

• NATO militaries should evaluate absolute and relative risk-assessmentmethodologies to address the specific conditions in the Arcticenvironment.

• Priority should be given to PCB releases and active or abandoneddumpsites in the Arctic.

• Monitoring/investigation of river transport of radio-nucleides and effectson the environment should be carried out.

• Before commencing a defence-related activity that involves the use ofradioactive materials, the full life-cycle implications, including wastemanagement and disposal, should be considered.

ParticipantsBelarus, 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.

CommentPhase II was made possible because of the strong financial support of the NorwegianForeign Ministry. It benefited from a high level of participation and the excellentquality of the scientific assessment. There had been considerable concern in Norwayabout the potential harmful effects of the decommissioned nuclear submarines in theRussian Arctic, in particular. This study represented a major step forward in East-West cooperation on a thorny subject.

ReportNATO CCMS Reports 223 (Summary Final Report), 224 (Hazardous materials in theArctic), 225 (Radioactive contamination of rivers and seas), 226 (Management ofdefence related radioactive waste), 227 (Two case studies).

Follow-up – the report states that it considers the role of CCMS has been concludedand that other international organisations and national bodies should now continuewith the work of promoting environmental protection in this field.

DDeeffeennccee EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttaall EExxppeeccttaattiioonnss(Original title National Environmental Expectations and Requirements in NATOCountries)1990-1995

Chair(s)Mr Gary Vest (USA) and Mr John Garlick (MOD, UK), later Mr John Stuart (MOD,UK).

A-15

AgendaThis pilot study has sought to remedy the scarcity of knowledge about nationalexpectations and requirements relating to environmental behaviour. The study ledthe way in putting defence-related environmental issues on the NATO agenda andstimulated discussion and the generation of environmental consideration in manyNATO bodies. It had many achievements; six significant ones are noted here:

• The NATO Environmental Policy Statement which was promulgated as a SeniorCommanders' Guide by the Council by order of the NATO Secretary GeneralManfred Worner dated 13 October 1993 (Document C-M(93)71 refers) (Annex C).

• Guidelines for the NATO Infrastructure Committee on environmental requirementsfor the NATO Infrastructure Programme.

• This study also sought to create within CCMS a mechanism through whichAlliance members could exchange information on national requirements andexpectations and address environmental issues associated with military activities.This ultimately led to the establishment of the CCMS Clearing House forEnvironmental Technical Information.

• An improvement in the recognition of the need for environmental training ofmilitary personnel. The NATO CCMS Principles of Environmental Trainingstatement also attached to C-M(93)71 (Annex C). The NATO Training Group tookup the topic of environmental training and this led to the establishment of theNATO Training Group’s Environmental Training Working Group and the coursesin environmental protection at the NATO School SHAPE in Oberammergau,Bavaria.

• Conference on Environmentally Sound Life Cycle Planning of Military Facilitiesand Training Areas, hosted by the MOD Norway and MOD Czech Republic 23-25September 1992 in Dombas, Norway. This was the first NATO/NACC Conferenceon 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 MODUK 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 theUK 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.

ParticipantsBelgium, 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.

CommentThis 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-16

NATO and by many of the participating NATO nations. It stimulated many CCMSactivities and influenced the NATO military, for example in the continued support ofthe NATO Training Group’s Environmental Training Working Group (ETWG) and theprovision of guest lecturers for courses at the NATO School SHAPE.

ReportNATO CCMS Report 199 (results of a survey of NATO Nations on topics ofenvironmental concern). CCMS Report 211 (Seminar Report).

EEnnvviirroonnmmeenntt aanndd SSeeccuurriittyy iinn aann IInntteerrnnaattiioonnaall CCoonntteexxtt1996-1999

ChairsDr Kurt Leitzmann (Ministry of the Environment, Germany), Mr Gary Vest (DOD USA)

AgendaThe Pilot Study was set up after the NATO CCMS Round Table in Washington in1995. These discussions clearly showed that the potential link betweenenvironmental stress and conflict was in general ill defined and poorly understood.The aim of the study was to prepare a report that summarised the relationshipbetween environmental change and security at the regional, international and globallevel. The main goal was to enable decision makers to integrate environmentalconsiderations into deliberations on security issues. The Pilot Study recognised theprinciple 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 therelationship between environmental change and security. At the same time, a largepart of the pilot study's work was dedicated to developing parameters for responsemechanisms directed towards political stakeholders from different policy sectors. Thefocus of these responses is on reducing the potential incidence or escalation ofconflict, thereby enhancing security at the earliest possible stage. The structure ofthe pilot study reflects this orientation towards practical action. Another characteristicof this pilot study, and something less familiar in military circles, is that it deals with abroad social science issue as it discusses innovative policy responses for dealingwith 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 beconfronted with non-traditional security threats in the future and to have to work ina variety of command structures.

• Assessment of the links between environment and security. This looked at theconsequences of environmental stress; political, economic, social anddemographic and the contextual features that turned stress into conflict. Aconceptual model of the relationship between environmental change and securitywas 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-17

- Migration conflicts. The report recognised that internal migration and cross-border migration could be associated with environmental change.

- Demographically caused migration conflicts. Situations where populationpressure has become acute and environmental conditions degraded.

- International resource conflicts. These are characterised by a asymmetricdependence upon resources. The classic example is river basins wherepeople who live lower down the river are progressively more vulnerable.

- Environmental conflicts due to global environmental change. The long termconsideration of reduced rainfall or seal level rise could work to the detrimentof populations and trigger stress responses.

• Integrated risk assessment. This was to establish guidelines for assessing andprioritising the potential impact of different types of environmental change onsecurity.

• Indicators, data and decision support systems. This chapter looked at the varietyof indicators available ranging from physical parameter such as soil loss toeconomic 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. Theissue was a complex one and the participants could not identify an easy solution orpromote a quick fix. Seven categories of policy areas where actions could beundertaken in response to the impact of environmental stress were presented:

• Characterisation of environmental conditions that could be the rootcause of the conflict.

• Integrated assessment of an environmental issue.• Early warning.• Preventive diplomacy.• Permanent mechanisms for dispute resolution.• Crisis management.• Post-crisis management.

ParticipantsAustria, 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.

CommentThis was an innovative topic for NATO CCMS Environmental Security discussionsthat 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 UpThe follow up is expected to be the province of NATO decision makers andorganisations such as the OSCE and the United Nations through their operationalarms such as UNEP.

A-18

EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttaall AAssppeeccttss ooff RReeuussiinngg FFoorrmmeerr MMiilliittaarryy LLaannddss ((Phase I)1994-1996

Chairs:Dr Fritz Holwarth (Ministry of Environment, Germany) and Mr Gary Vest (DOD USA).

AgendaThis study examined methods and formats for assessing the environmentalcharacteristics of military lands for reuse including land selection criteria, types ofcontamination, risk assessment approaches and prioritisation methodologies. It alsoidentified the most practical, expedient and cost-effective approaches to remediationof the most prevalent types of contamination at eight different types of military sites.The pilot study assessed economic, political, social, legal and other considerationsaffecting the level and extent of each nation's environmental activities. Distilling thisinformation made it possible to identify areas in which a country's environmentalefforts are well developed and areas in which a country might benefit fromassistance. It assembled an extensive listing and description of international andnational, and government and private sector, sources of financing to which individualnations might turn for assistance in financing their environmental projects. Moreovera plan and methodologies for assembling specific project proposals was created.

ParticipantsAustria, Belarus, Canada, Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Latvia,Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovak Republic, Sweden, Ukraine,UK, USA.

CommentThis Pilot Study was promoted by the two nations who had most to offer theNACC/EAPC Partners. The USA had a wealth of experience in dealing withenvironmental aspects of clean up. Germany had recently acquired many areasdespoiled by the military during the Cold War period and was willing to share itsexperience with others.

ReportCCMS A-98 Technical Report (2 Vols) available from NATO Brussels.

Follow-upThe USA funded research carried out by the Institute for Defence Analysis that led tothe production of a document on the Sources of Financial Assistance for theEnvironmental Restoration of Former Military Land. This was aimed at assisting theCEE countries and classified sources from a wide range of government and non-governmental sources.The Pilot Study agreed to a Phase II.

EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttaall AAssppeeccttss ooff RReeuussiinngg FFoorrmmeerr MMiilliittaarryy LLaannddss ((Phase II)1996-1998

Chairs:Dr Fritz Holwarth (Ministry of Environment, Germany) and Mr Gary Vest (DOD USA).

A-19

AgendaPhase II of this study developed five potentially viable project proposals for specificsite 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 thatwill need to be adapted to each nation's own needs and structure. This study hashelped develop expertise in converting military sites to other uses. It has also helpedfoster better understanding of capacity building and problem-solving capabilitiesamong and within all the participating nations.

ParticipantsBelarus, Canada, Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania,Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, Sweden, Ukraine, USA.

CommentThe major value from this effort was the demonstration of cost-effectiveenvironmental remediation. This had relevance well beyond the military sector andlinked to many non-military CCMS Pilot Studies and to NATO Science work. Itbenefited from the generous support of the USA and Germany.

PublicationsThe publications from Phase II were produced by the participating nations and arenot part of the NATO CCMS Report series.

Follow UpThe 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 wasalso considerable commercial interest in the remediation of military land, as much ofit has potential value for alternative uses.

EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttaall MMaannaaggeemmeenntt SSyysstteemmss iinn tthhee MMiilliittaarryy SSeeccttoorr1996-2000

Chair(s) – Mr Cees Nagelhout (MOD Netherlands), Mr Patrick Meehan (DOD USA)

AgendaThe objectives of this pilot study were to identify the possible implications of initiatingand implementing Environmental Management Systems (EMS) in the military sectorand to develop application guidelines, frameworks and models appropriate to themilitary sector. Two subgroups were first established with the following tasks:

• To exchange, review and evaluate experiences and expectations amongcountries regarding EMS.

A-20

• To identify, compare and evaluate standards for EMS that could be used in themilitary sector.

Based on the results of Subgroup 2, the pilot study group decided to use ISO 14001as a framework for further work. Four new subgroups were then established to:

• Identify the benefits and resource requirements for implementation of EMS in themilitary 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 implementenvironmental management systems in the military sector. EMS at the very leastprovides safeguards for top management that environmental legislation is respected.In addition, the ISO 14001 standard demands continual improvement of theenvironmental performance of the (military) organisation. This is unique toenvironmental management systems in general, but specially to the ISO 14001standard. It ensures that the organisation is also capable of meeting theenvironmental challenges that lie ahead. Each Nation should remain free to decide ifand how it implements environmental systems and standards. Those Nations willingto introduce a formal Environmental Management System within their Armed Forcesare advised that NATO acknowledges the standard specification ISO 14001, which isa universally accepted standard.

The final Pilot Study Report is essentially a set of guidance notes for militaryorganisations considering the implementation of EMS. It is 111 pages long andarranged in six chapters.

• The Forward gives an overview of EMS in the Military Sector and uses examplesfrom Denmark, UK, Canada, the USA and the Czech Republic of ways in whichNATO military are adopting formal Environmental Management Systems.

• Chapter 1 provides the reader with an overview of the EMS process andemphasises the role of senior management using a Danish MOD example.

• Chapter 2 deals with the Environmental Policy requirement within the EMS andprovides examples of ways in which organisations can assess their policy needs.

• Chapter 3 is on Planning and, with the use of explanatory annexes, outlines thefour steps in planning an EMS1. 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 organisationsimplement the action plans prepared in the previous phase. It covers aspectsrelated to staff training.

• Chapter 5 deals with environmental monitoring, evaluating and reportingactivities. It assists in the identification of non-conformance with the standard, andthe topics of records and management reviews. Reporting activities includesinternal and external aspects of reports and mentions the importance of style andcontent.

A-21

• Chapter 6 is a brief look at the registration issue. ISO 14001 allows organisationsto self-declare their compliance with the standard and to proceed to a formalregistration through a certification body. However it is pointed out that a rush toregister could lead to a rushed implementation of the EMS, which would be oflittle benefit.

• There is a useful Glossary of terms and a list of references at the back of thereport.

ParticipantsBelarus, 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 formerYugoslav Republic of Macedonia, UK, USA.

CommentThe greatest contribution of this Pilot Study is probably the final report, which wasauthored through a consortium of NATO countries working by email. Theprofessional editing was undertaken by Canada and the USA.

Report - CCMS Report No. 240

Follow-upThe Pilot Study generated much interest and led to a Workshop in EMS inSwitzerland from 22-26 Jan 2001.

FFoorrmmss ooff EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttaall EEdduuccaattiioonn iinn tthhee AArrmmeedd FFoorrcceess aanndd tthheeiirriimmppaacctt oonn tthhee ccrreeaattiioonn ooff pprroo--eennvviirroonnmmeennttaall aattttiittuuddeess..2001-current

Chair – Dr Anna Kalinowska (Ministry of Environment, Poland)

AgendaThe new Pilot Study started with a meeting in Warsaw in March 2001 to establish itsterms of reference. Its main premise is that environmental education is the most cost-effective form of pollution prevention and the Armed Forces, because they educateso many people, can have a significant role to play in developing pro-environmentalattitudes. This can be particularly useful in countries with conscription because anentire age group of young men (and women in some cases) can gain attitudes thatshould last them into their adult lives. In addition, environmental knowledge gainedduring military service can be transferred into the civilian workplace to the benefit ofemployers and the government. The aim of the Pilot Study is to investigate theseideas and if they are proved correct, they could assist governments in their prioritiesfor 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-22

PPrroommoottiioonn ooff EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttaall AAwwaarreenneessss iinn tthhee AArrmmeedd FFoorrcceess1987-1991

Chair – Dr Ulrich Schneider (MOD Germany)

AgendaThis Pilot Study followed on the successful work done by Aircraft Noise in a ModernSociety and turned to consider the Ground Forces in particular. There was a generalrecognition that the Armed Forces, as an integral part of society, must conduct itsactivities in an environmentally sustainable manner. They must also share theresponsibilities for protection of the environment and conserving the natural andcultural resource heritage for future generations. Therefore, a balance must beachieved between the military infrastructure requirements and training activities onthe one hand, and justifiable interests of the population on the other. Consequently, itis necessary for Armed Forces to consider potential environmental consequences oftheir activities and conduct those activities in such a manner as to minimize negativeenvironmental impacts within military mission constraints.

This study developed techniques for promoting environmental awareness in theArmed Forces of member nations. It reviewed present practices in the Armed Forcesof member states and made proposals for improvement, where deemed necessary.A major accomplishment of the Pilot Study was the development of a statement ofprinciples for the "Environmental Awareness and Protection in the Armed Forces".The Pilot Study Group also produced a film, which primarily addressed the fieldbased soldier and showed the need to fulfil military tasks in accordance with therequirements of environmental protection in his or her daily duties.

ParticipantsBelgium, Canada, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, UK, USA.

Comment – The initiative came from Germany because of the sensitivities of thepopulation to the changing circumstances of the end of the Cold War. Military activitythat 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 weremade in influencing NATO MODs of the need for environmental consideration andtraining.

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 inNovember 1990 to establish a Pilot Study on National Environmental Expectationsand Requirements in NATO Countries. However it soon became apparent that thescope was too small and the Pilot Study was renamed Defence EnvironmentalExpectations and chaired by the USA and UK.

An important spin off from this Pilot Study was that when it was clear that it would notcontinue in its present form, the Canadian MOD hosted a meeting to continue theinitiative for improving environmental training. As noted above, this led to theestablishment of the NATO Training Groups’ Environmental Training Working Group(ETWG) which meets twice a year to collaborate over issues relating to training andland management.

A-23

Furthermore, it is considered that the issues raised at the CCMS sponsored DombasConference led to discussions that in time led to the setting up of the Pilot Study onthe Re-Use of Former Military Lands.

PPrrootteeccttiioonn ooff CCiivviill PPooppuullaattiioonnss ffrroomm TTooxxiicc MMaatteerriiaall SSppiillllss dduurriinnggMMoovveemmeennttss ooff MMiilliittaarryy GGooooddss1992-2000

Chair - Canada

AgendaIn the year preceding the initiation of the pilot study, an emergency measuresconference was held in the Czech Republic, which focused on how former militaryunits would undertake more significant roles in response to civil emergencies. Duringthis meeting, several international modal programmes were presented:

• The European Agreement Concerning the International Carriage of DangerousGoods by Road, commonly referred to as ADR.

• The Central Office of International Rail Transport's Agreement on theTransport of Dangerous Goods by Rail, commonly referred to as RID.

• The International Maritime Organisation's International Maritime DangerousGoods Code (IMDG Code).

• The International Civil Aviation Organisation's Technical Instructions on theSafe Transport of Dangerous Goods (ICAO TI's).

• The European Provisions Concerning the International Carriage of DangerousGoods by Inland Waterway (ADN).

A question however, remained unanswered: this was in what way do you makeorganisations and individuals comply with these procedures. The question was at theheart of the issue and invited a consideration of different forms of law, the content ofthe law, compliance programs, culture and resources. The question was ever presentduring the life of the pilot study. The meetings of this pilot study developed the ideasof:

� 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 moreeffective than response in protecting people, property and the environment.

ParticipantsAlbania, 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-24

CommentAlthough this was nominally a military related Pilot Study, in practice it dealt withcivilian regulations and with their adoption and compliance.

ReportCCMS Report No. 234 and Emergency Response Guidebook (2000).

Follow UpFollow-up is likely to be handled by Ministries of Transportation and EmergencyPlanning.

SSuussttaaiinnaabbllee BBuuiillddiinngg ffoorr MMiilliittaarryy IInnffrraassttrruuccttuurree1999-current

Chairs – Mr Maarten Gijsbers (MOD Netherlands) and Mr Bob Gaudette (DNDCanada)

AgendaThis Pilot study started with a proposal for a short term as hoc project made in 1999by the Ministry of Defence of the Netherlands and Department of National DefenceCanada. The objectives of the project were to:

• Establish to what extent participating countries have developed and implementedpolicies 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. Therewere technical presentations from a number of European and North Americancontributors.

The participants agreed that:

1. NATO/EAPC countries could work together to guide and improve environmentalpractices to foster sustainability.

2. Sustainable building requires early planning and particular management practicesthat promote improved environmental performance and reduce life cycle costs.

3. By assessing the environmental performance of building and lands and bysharing lessons learned participating countries can better understand the extentof sustainable activity now taking place and establish benchmarks for the future.

4. NATO CMS can play a role in supporting and coordinating Sustainable Building inthe 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-25

The conclusion from the participants was that there was sufficient material of interestto warrant a proposal to NATO CCMS Plenary for a Pilot Study in late 2000.

ParticipantsBelgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, UK, USA, andFinland, Georgia, Moldova, Lithuania, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sweden,Switzerland.

Comment – This effort came about because of the enthusiasm of the two Chairs forthe 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)

UUssee ooff SSiimmuullaattoorrss aass aa mmeeaannss ooff rreedduucciinngg EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttaall IImmppaaccttssccaauusseedd bbyy MMiilliittaarryy AAccttiivviittiieess..1990-1995

Chair – Mr Cees Nagelhout (MOD Netherlands)

AgendaThis pilot study was set up to investigate how much environmental benefit could begained from the use of simulators. It identified the need for policy analysismanagement tools which would give procurement officers an insight into theenvironmental impacts of different types of weapons training activities and the rolesimulators could play in reducing these impacts.

ParticipantsBelgium (observer), Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg (observer), Netherlands,Norway, Poland, Portugal (observer), UK, USA.

CommentThis was a useful series of technical discussions that helped to move the discussionof simulators and simulation forward so that the environmental benefits could beperceived by military planners as well as the benefits for military skills.

Report - CCMS Reports No. 210 (Pilot Study Final Report), 217 (Proceedings of theSeminar held 6-7 January 1997 at the NATO School SHAPE, Oberammergau,Germany).

Follow-upThe seminar at the NATO School SHAPE was the immediate follow up for this PilotStudy. In practice there has been significant take up of simulation and simulators inthe Armed Forces as they have been more and more constrained by nationalregulations or agreements with conservation and heritage bodies.

End of listing