Policy Brief. European security trends and threats in society: final project summary

Transcription

1 Policy Brief European security trends and threats in society: final project summary Guidance for policy makers and end users on: (i) the meaning and scope of societal security; (ii) the setting of research and innovation agendas within societal security, and; (iii) conducting challenge-oriented research and innovation programmes within security. December 2014 Monica Lagazio Timothy Mitchener-Nissen Rocco Bellanova

2 ETTIS Policy Brief Funded by the Framework Programme European security trends and threats in society: final project summary Guidance for policy makers and end users on societal security and the setting of agendas for associated research and innovation 1 Monica Lagazio, TRI 2 Timothy Mitchener-Nissen, TRI Rocco Bellanova, PRIO 3 Ultimately, priority-setting for societal security R&I is not a scientific but a political process where political choices need to be made. What social rationality can contribute is enhanced transparency and the consideration of all relevant perspectives and interests as a basis for informed political choices. In the modern World characterised by globalisation, the interdependence of diverse actors and the elevation of risk and uncertainty, the concept of security is no longer restricted to the traditional ideal of the state protecting its borders from invasion by foreign aggressors. Civil, social, cultural, political, health, environmental, cyber, and environmental components are widely recognised as being of equal importance as diplomatic and military factors. Hence, policy makers are realising that the provision of security requires a fully integrated, multidimensional and comprehensive approach. Furthermore, there is realisation that the state should no longer be viewed as either the sole object or source of security, with both communities and individuals now legitimately fulfilling each of these roles. 1 This ETTIS policy brief was reviewed by Dr E Anders Eriksson of the Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI) and constitutes an Executive Summary of the complete ETTIS project, including all deliverables and outputs produced. 2 Dr Monica Lagazio is an Associate Director, and Dr Timothy Mitchener-Nissen is a Research Analyst, at Trilateral Research and Consulting (TRI). 3 Dr Rocco Bellanova is a Senior Researcher at the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) 1

3 This comprehensive concept of security is at the foundations of ETTIS: European security trends and threat in Society, a European project funded by the Framework Program 7. ETTIS furthers an understanding of security as societal security, and it explores how this conceptual shift relates to both policy makers and end-users. ETTIS also provides practical and actionable guidance for policy makers when setting research and innovation (R&I) agendas in societal security, as well as for those end-users engaged on the front line when conducting challenge-oriented societal security R&I programmes. This Policy Brief is the third and final brief produced by ETTIS and constitutes an executive summary of the project as a whole. It is specifically targeted at both; (i) policy makers endeavouring to develop societal security R&I programmes, and (ii) end-users seeking to conduct societal security research. Headline findings drawn from across the project are presented below, followed by a series of general recommendations on societal security. Finally, specific recommendations are made for policy makers engaged in R&I agenda-setting in societal security, and then end-users conducting challenge-oriented societal security R&I programmes. Headline findings from ETTIS project The concept of security has shifted from the defence of borders from foreign aggressors to encompass multiple dimensions of actions. They include physical, political, socio-economic, environmental, resource, and health security. To reflect the multidimensional nature of security ETTIS recommends a shift from securing states to securing societies which itself requires a fundamental shift towards producing proactive policies emphasising prevention and increasing societal resilience. Societal security comprises not only the material aspects of life (infrastructures, institutions, possessions, etc.), but also the complex moral and social aspects, such as confidence, trust, belonging, and loyalty. Societal security may be understood as the ability of a society to survive and retain its essential character in the face of changing conditions and possible or actual threats. Through conducting a rigorous assessment of European security research ETTIS has identified a shift in security threats towards civil and societal security dominated by crime, terrorism, and natural disasters. Identified key needs for future R&I include improved surveillance capabilities, disaster management, and protection for private digital data. Identified opportunities include 2

4 producing more effective societal security policies, legal frameworks, and dissemination activities. Past and current security research constitutes a valuable resource to help guide future efforts, but this resource is too often underutilised. ETTIS has produced a taxonomy of diverse R&I models covering the complete spectrum of timeframes and variable levels of social-technical concern. This taxonomy addresses the vastly expanded concept of security as it is applied today. Given the multi-dimensional nature of societal security, a one size fits all approach involving a single model that can cover all R&I is neither feasible nor appropriate. When it comes to responding to future threats, ETTIS has adapted existing approaches used to assist in the prioritisation of R&I priorities. In so doing ETTIS has witnessed that there is an ongoing shift away from identifying and addressing individual threats, towards increasing the resilience of societies so they can better respond to, and recover from, any threat that materialises. General recommendations for policy makers and end-users when it comes to societal security Need for more research on societal securities. The shift towards societal security implies more complexity in the understanding of different sources of security. Somehow, societal security is not a point of arrival but a new departure in engaging with society at large. If more actors participate to the definition of what is worth securing, this means that there are possibly going to be conflicting claims. This implies a quite dynamic approach, where what constitutes societal security is not given once for all for everybody, but should be continuously assessed through interactions with different actors. No ready-made, one-fits-all rationality. Avoid the risk of securitizing societies: i.e. transposing existing military or police mentalities in the solving of issues that do not pertain to these fields (even when they are considered at the core of societal security). Avoid the mirage of technological fixes : technologies and societies co-constitute each other, which means that it is important to understand how different actors interact, make use, modify and may be positively and negatively influenced by technologies. The same technologies can be used with different 3

5 results in different domains. In turns, this implies a dynamic assessment of, and eventual adjustments to, technological solutions (starting as early as their design). Resilience should be nurtured. Societal security challenges are not a novelty. Surely, globalization and digitalization (inter alia) may have emphasized them to the eyes of policy makers and end-users, and have made some of them more compelling. Yet, several actors, including non-professional ones, have developed more or less formalized competences in response to societal security challenges. These skills may form a backdrop of resilience that needs to be nurtured. Policy makers and end-users should be careful in devising societal security solutions that do not hamper resilience, or do not preclude actors to develop complementary, and more tuned, responses. Recommendations for policy makers in the agenda-setting and formation of R&I programmes in societal security Security R&I programs should be guided by a comprehensive understanding of societal security. To further this end, the development of institutional guiding principles can be a valuable tool. Provide guidance and orientation to those creating R&I programmes to ensure that enhancing societal security is prioritised and underpins decision-making. A broader range of addressees needs to be incorporated into the focus of R&I programs in all phases of the programming cycle. Ensure the needs of as broad a range as possible of those affected are included in the agenda-setting and formation of programmes. Social innovation may be equally, if not more, important for enhancing societal security than technological innovation. Consider both social and technological innovation. An outstanding feature of the security field is its breadth and complexity in terms of interdependencies and interactions between security challenges and security solutions. As a result this field is characterized by a high degree of uncertainty and ambiguity. Ensure flexibility and adaptivity of research programmes so they can respond to unforeseen changes and developments. 4

6 The successful embedding of security R&I outputs requires more attention and a more sophisticated approach to managing the interactions with end-users than in many other fields. Ensure the contextual, operational use of the output is embedded in the R&I process itself. If enhancing societal security is supposed to provide the guiding ideas for security R&I programming, then a tight embedding of security R&I policy into security policy during the first phase of structuring the challenge is essential. This can also help ensure that later on R&I results meet actual security needs. Security policy and security R&I policy must be coordinated from the very beginning of agenda-setting and programme formation if later R&I results are to meet actual security needs. The inter-disciplinary cooperation between social sciences/humanities and natural/engineering sciences is crucial. Inter-disciplinary cooperation is a crucial ongoing requirement. Striking the balance between creating centralised R&I efforts and decentralised solutions for concrete security challenges is a critical requirement for security R&I programming. Ensure security R&I programmes can successfully address localised problems with localised solutions. Many security challenges need to address global issues and determinants. For R&I to be meaningful, the incorporation of global security challenges needs to be taken into account in R&I programming. Ensure security R&I programmes can successfully incorporate and address global security problems. Security easily touches upon contentious ethical issues, where ethical principles and other political goals need to be balanced with security needs. Consider and incorporate ethical issues and implications within security R&I agendas and programmes. R&I security planning needs to incorporate international, national, corporate, and civilian perspectives on security which can be very different across various domains. Instead of national security it is more appropriate to speak of societal security, and instead of risks, it is more appropriate to focus on societal security challenges and societal security needs. While this still allows for multiple interpretations, a common lingo will clarify the framing of the research debate and shape the overall direction of the R&I Agenda. R&I security planning needs to employ a much broader concept of security than the one that has typically been employed in national security R&I planning. 5

7 Conducting challenge-oriented R&I programmes in security Challenge- (or mission-) oriented programmes need to meet a number of guiding principles: Providing normative guidance and orientation: The mission to which R&I shall contribute needs to be defined in order to guide research and innovation activities. Respecting diversity of innovations: The diversity of innovation patterns needs to be respected, in particular as regards the balance between technological and social innovation and the pace at which innovation and change occur. Moving towards implementation: Much more emphasis is put on the diffusion and uptake of novel solution, which is why the implementation side of innovation attracts more attention than in the past. Including a broader range of stakeholders: In order to improve societal security, it is necessary to deal differently with the stakeholders of security than in the past. The people concerned about and affected by security matters must be considered as also active players for security. Inter- and transdisciplinarity: Due to the attention to diverse and comprehensive solutions, a broader range of disciplines needs to be involved in specific challenge-oriented R&I activities. Embed specific R&I activities in a global perspectives: Developments at global scale often need to be taken into account in developing specific R&I solutions at European, national or local levels. Improving policy coordination: With the attention to diffusion and implementation of novel solutions, the coherence between R&I policy on the one hand and sectoral policies (such as security policy) needs to be improved. Dealing with uncertainty and complexity: In view of uncertainty about future challenges and possible options for tackling them, adaptivity and flexibility needs to be built into R&I system structures and mission-oriented R&I programmes to allow responding faster to upcoming events and disruptions. Security is often about addressing a large number of identified low probability events with high potential negative consequences, in an environment characterised by great uncertainty over the exact form and timing of the manifestation of these events. This environment creates challenges not only for governments producing national security policies and security R&I 6

8 programmes, but also for the researchers and developers undertaking the programmes. These groups struggle to implement a single correct model of R&I within security. However, no single model of R&I can adequately cater to all the different facets and modern conceptualisations of security, characterised by variable levels of social/technical concern and different rates of change. Designing solutions appropriate for the variety of societal security challenges and societal security needs, requires different innovation models. The models all take a different approach to prioritising and guiding research based on the specific framing of the security challenge at hand. New ways of organizing R&I are required that put a stronger emphasis on societal aspects, and on new mechanisms for moving from research to innovation and widespread realisation of security solutions. Innovation for societal security needs to focus both on fast and slow rate of changes and technical and societal concerns requiring diverse R&I models. To respond to this challenge four types of innovation were identified which together constitute the main taxonomy for research-based opportunities for societal security in ETTIS Once a range of R&I model capable of covering the gamut of societal security has been developed, attention must shift to the challenge of how to prioritise different societal security R&I programmes and research opportunities. 7

9 Priority-setting in societal security R&I is not just a technocratic decision, but one that requires the involvement of a range of actors and stakeholders. The concept of priority-setting in R&I is based on a combination of technical arguments (technical rationality) and social processes (social rationality) to create legitimacy for collective and governmental choices in security research and innovation. Technical rationality provides the lines of reasoning why certain priorities in security R&I should be set; technical rationales provide the reservoir of by and large scientifically accepted lines of reasoning in the context of priority-setting. Social rationality defines the process through which these different technical rationales are interpreted from the individual stakeholders perspectives, their interests, capabilities and concerns, and how they are brought to bear in the various stages of the process of programming and priority-setting. This social dimension is crucial, because technical rationales are far from uncontested, and they may well give rise to conflicts of interest, to some actors winning and others losing. Social rationality needs to complement technical rationality, in particular in areas where controversial values and assessments are likely to exist. Such conflicts of interest might hinder priorities from being implemented, and for good reasons. The balanced involvement of stakeholders in this process is crucial to both dealing with potential conflicts and improving the potential benefits of priorities selected. We need to design processes of priority-setting that not only take technical rationales into account, but that also give stakeholders the opportunity to feed their knowledge, their concerns and their interests into that process. Even when combining technical and social rationality, it is unlikely that clear and uncontested priorities can be found easily. Ultimately, priority-setting is not a scientific, but a political process where political choices need to be made. What social rationality can contribute is enhanced transparency and the consideration of all relevant perspectives and interests as a basis for informed political choices. 8

10 European Security Trends and Threats In Society (ETTIS) focuses on: identifying and assessing opportunities for enhancing societal security, improving situational awareness of policy makers and research planners about the challenges and specifics of societal aspects of security, and informing them about investment options for enhancing societal security. ETTIS delivers a comprehensive framework in support of policy and R&D decision-making on EU and Member State levels. About ETTIS Project type: Collaborative research project Funding scheme: European Union Seventh Framework Programme (SEC ) Start date: 1 January 2012 End date: 31 December 2014 Coordinator: Prof. J. Peter Burgess Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) Grant agreement number: EU contribution: EUR 2,285, ETTIS goals: European Security Trends and Threats In Society (ETTIS) focuses on: identifying and assessing opportunities for enhancing societal security; improving situational awareness of policy makers and research planners about the challenges and specifics of societal aspects of security; and informing them about investment options for enhancing societal security. ETTIS delivers a comprehensive framework in support of policy and R&D decision-making on EU and Member State levels. Contacts: Policy Brief Author: Monica Lagazio (TRI) [email protected] Project Coordinator: J. Peter Burgess (PRIO) [email protected] Co-Author & Dissemination: Timothy Mitchener-Nissen (TRI) [email protected] Website: ETTIS publications and results can be found here (