These actions would provide policy drivers and
resourcing for USG sustainable security actions, but
these programs would still lack a common concep-
tual approach and operating system. As discussed,
sustainable and human security concepts require ap-
proaches aligned to current mission functionalities as
well as natural resource, environmental, and climate
security.
A third recommendation is to establish and sup-
port an interagency community of interest to develop
a common operating framework addressing sustain-
able security and fragility across the USG in an effort
to better align strategies and policies, functions, met-
rics, systems, and institutional lexicons. Currently, the
lack of disaggregated data and monitoring capabilities
at the sub national and local level for fragility, natural
resources, and environmental factors is currently an
impediment for situational awareness and threat as-
sessments. While some nascent USG environmental
and climate security capabilities are under develop-
ment, many of fragility and natural resource analysis
and early warning approaches are not sufficiently
utilizing analytical tools and globally consistent data
resources, or are not integrated into mission-oriented
assessments, functionalities, and systems.
Given this, the final recommendation is to develop
a USG conflict, instability, and fragility early warning
system integrating natural resource, environmental
factors, climate considerations in a geospatially ex-
plicit manner, providing situational awareness for
planning smart power HADR, SSTR operations, and
shaping Phase 0 engagement missions.
Taken together, these recommendations help align
current U.S. national security policy, plans, and pro-
vide capabilities to encompass a more comprehensive
sharon
(sharon)
#1