has developed and institutionalized the Interagency
Conflict Assessment Framework (ICAF), which en-
gages qualitative inputs and diverse participants into
a structured dialogue to develop a common frame of
reference and situational awareness to better address
counterinsurgency, conflict prevention, and interna-
tional engagement planning (Irmer 2009). The Envi-
ronmental Law Institute (ELI), United Nations Envi-
ronmental Program, and University of Tokyo are also
finalizing some 150 qualitative case studies to share
experiences and lessons learned in managing natural
resources in post-conflict countries to support transi-
tions to peace (ELI 2011).
Both analytical approaches have relative pros and
cons (Table 2). Goldstone and AEPI assert a hybrid
system using both will provide a robust, triangulated
analysis approach, which enhances accuracy and max-
imize utility for instability and fragility early warning
(2008; 2010).
Early Warning Approaches and Systems
Building on DODD 3000.5, the 2009 issuance of
DOD Instruction 3000.5 explicitly requires the Under
Secretary of Defense (Intelligence) and Defense Intel-
ligence Agency to develop instability indicators and
warning capabilities, to incorporate all sources (e.g.,
traditional and social sciences), and to maintain both
classified and open-source products for interagency
and partner nations (DOD 2009). AEPI, Mata and Ziaja
identify numerous instability risks and fragility moni-
toring approaches but note many are limited in their
actionable early warning capabilities (2010; 2009). As
such, recent U.S. Army efforts seek to identify and
augment useful early warning systems of instability
incorporating appropriate and available source data,