The document discusses the concept of a comprehensive approach to EU security. It summarizes the structure and goals of the FOCUS project, which aims to develop scenarios for alternative futures of how the EU may implement a comprehensive security approach. The document outlines key drivers that could impact future security environments and influence the comprehensive approach. It also analyzes definitions of the approach from strategic documents and identifies top research needs and themes, including capabilities, crisis management, cybercrime, and foresight methods.

1. Alternative futures of a
comprehensive approach to EU
security
FOCUS Mid-Term
Symposium
Hotel Sacher
Vienna/Austria
Foresight Security Scenarios
Alexander Siedschlag/
13 March 2012 Andrea Jerković

2. FOCUS project structure
2 FOCUS – Foresight Security Scenarios

3. Conceptual starting points
 The comprehensive approach reflects the cross-border and cross-
sector nature of security threats and challenges as well as the
complexity of instruments and objectives in security policy.
 The comprehensive approach addresses the internal-external
continuum.
 Nowadays it focuses on the holistic nature and broad trade-offs in
increasing the security of the EU and its citizenry as a whole.
 The comprehensive approach still lacks an overarching definition, but
there is at least broad agreement that in its external dimension, it
implies integrating the political, security, development, rule of law,
human rights and humanitarian dimensions of the EU’s
international missions and operations.
 However, the concept is not limited to the external dimension.
3 FOCUS – Foresight Security Scenarios

4. Scenario level addressed (“level 2”)
Alternative futures
of the comprehensive
approach
4 FOCUS – Foresight Security Scenarios

5. FOCUS conceptual analysis
 For improved understanding of the prospective conceptual context
where the EU may seek to deliver a comprehensive approach to
security, FOCUS performed an analysis of approx. 50 forward-
looking policy, strategy, and security research definitions of this
concept. Analyzed documents include the following:
 NATO Strategic concept 2010;
 EU Internal Security Strategy 2010;
 Final Report, European Security Research and Innovation Forum
(ESRIF);
 Several selected national security strategies that concentrate on
the comprehensive approach;
 FP7 Work Programme “Security” (2010 and 2011);
 Etc.
5 FOCUS – Foresight Security Scenarios

6. Conceptual evolution
 The comprehensive approach was originally used by NATO (cf. RAND
study 1992), both as an operational approach and a strategic concept. It
involved the coordination of different actors and strategies, with all trying to
achieve political objectives in an increasingly complex environment. The
concept has since undergone a significant expansion of scope.
 The EU first referred to the “comprehensive approach” as a concept for
international crisis management (harmonized deployment of resources,
capabilities and capacities throughout all the crisis management cycle
phases from primary prevention to reconstruction).
 Later, the EU started to apply the term also to the field of civil security and
civil security research, including the description of methodological
requirements for civil security research projects to meet.
 Based on analysis of (approx. 50) pertinent forward-looking definitions,
FOCUS identified a set of possible future definitional components.
6 FOCUS – Foresight Security Scenarios

7. Core ingredients of conceptual definitons of comprehensive approach in
Core ingredients offorward-looking documents
conceptual definitions of
“comprehensive approach” in forward-looking
policy, strategy, and security research documents
Knowledge/anticipation/foresight;
1,4%
Internal-external threat/security
continuum; 2,1%
Common operational picture ; 2,1%
Review of systems (overarching
state-of analysis of currently used
systems); 3,5%
Resilience/ownership; 4,2% Coordination between autonomous
actors ; 11,9%
Effects-based approach to
operations ; 4,9% Division of labour between all actors
involved; 10,5%
Information sharing; 4,9%
Acceptance/ acceptability (ethical
International combination of
aspects); 5,6%
capabilities/pooling ; 10,5%
Civil-military
Integrated assessment and
cooperation/coordination/interaction
decision making (systemic
; 5,6%
approach); 9,8%
All-societal outreach and transfer of
Intervention-based approach (top-
knowledge; 6,3%
down/transfer of solutions, as
7
Developement of capabilities, opposed to bottom-up); 9,1%
including cross-cutting capabilties; FOCUS – Foresight Security Scenarios
7,7%

8. Top-5 and bottom-5 conceptual elements of
“comprehensive approach” in forward-looking
policy, strategy, and security research documents
Top 5 Bottom 5
Coordination between autonomous Resilience/ownership
11.9% 4.2%
actors
Review of systems
Division of labour between all (overarching state-of analysis
10.5% 3.5%
actors involved of currently used systems)
International combination of Common operational picture
10.5% 2.1%
capabilities/pooling
Integrated assessment/ Internal-external
decision making 9.8% threat/security continuum 2.1%
(systemic approach)
Intervention-based approach Knowledge/anticipation/
(top-down/transfer of solutions, as 9.1% foresight 1.4%
opposed to bottom-up)
8 FOCUS – Foresight Security Scenarios

9. FOCUS scenario workshop: Percentage of the assessment
“very important” per suggested dimension of a
comprehensive approach to be developed and applied by the
EU as a civil security provider
Transversality: Consideration of security implications in other policies,
including use of capabilities in a cross-cutting way 20%
Integrated decision-making
42%
Holistic approach to capability development, use of capabilities and
citizen acceptance 31%
EU co-ordination of Member States contributions/capabilities 38%
Combination of EU response and citizen resilience 35%
Building trust
54%
Development of capabilities based on standardisation 23%
Coordination between Member States/involved actors
50%
Internal-external security continuum
38%
Integrated situational picture/information sharing 81%
9 Intelligence and comprehensive threat anticipation
FOCUS – Foresight Security Scenarios
62%

10. Results from the FOCUS scenario workshop and
from the analysis of definitions from forward-
looking strategic/programmatic documents
compared
13%
Knowledge/anticipation/foresight 1%
Internal-external threat/security 8%
continuum 2%
7%
Resilience/ownership 4%
7%
Effects-based approach to operations 5%
17%
Information sharing 5%
All-societal outreach and transfer of 4%
knowledge 6%
Developement of capabilities, including 5%
cross-cutting capabilties 8%
Integrated assessment and decision 9%
making (systemic approach) 10%
International combination of 8%
capabilities/pooling 10%
Coordination between autonomous 11%
actors 12%
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%
FOCUS General Expert Questionnaire results
10 FOCUS – Foresight Security Scenarios
Analysis of definitions of "comprehensive approach" in forward-looking strategic documents

11. Key drivers for alternative futures
of the “comprehensive approach”
 Political and/or religious radicalism
 Organized crime, including piracy, illegal finance transactions, and trafficking of drugs, arms, and humans
 Demographics, with resulting global migration and increasing conflict over natural resources
 Severe political crisis and (civil) war in EU neighbouring or in close countries
 Growing interconnectedness of the internal and the external dimensions of security
 Failed states
 Illegal immigration
 Infectious diseases and health crises
 Disasters, either of human or natural origin, including industrial accidents
 Natural resources and energy transition
 Aggression against national territory or violation of sovereignty territories
 Proliferation of weapon of mass destruction (WMD)
 Terrorism as a strategy of action and political influence
 Cyberattacks and attacks against telecommunication and information systems
 Economic instability, with resulting reduced resources to address external security threats
 Climate change and environmental changes/hazards
 Interruption of essential resource supplies, mainly in the energy sector
 Increasing reliance/dependency on information and communication technologies, with increasing vulnerability
11  Abuse or inadequate use of emerging technologies and newFOCUSknowledge
scientific – Foresight Security Scenarios

12. Eight alternative futures of the
EU comprehensive approach
 Conceptual trend scenario: Assumes that practical ways to efficiently address emerging challenges will be
explored, with no clear-cut roles or strategic processes of capability development.
 Policy strategies consensus scenario: Rests on the assumption that politically agreed/desired futures of
comprehensiveness are going to materialize as foreseen in relevant strategic documents.
 Policy strategies leftovers scenario: Assumption that initiatives will emerge to complete what has not been
achieved so far but remains essential for a true comprehensive approach of the EU as a security provider, following
interdisciplinary assessments and policy advice from experts.
 Field experts scenario: The aim is not only to implement a comprehensive approach to actors, strategies and
capabilities but to ensure indivisible and comprehensive security. Various kinds of resources are mobilized by the
EU to support this process.
 Young academics/new generation scenario: Distinguished by a focus on comprehensive security in terms of
cross-cutting policies and internal consolidation of the EU as a collective actor, engaging with society and
stakeholders.
 Multinationalism scenario: Essentially assumes that the comprehensive approach will be dominated by a couple
of leading Member States and represent a menu of pragmatic choice, characterized by continuous adaptation to
reality.
 Materialism scenario: Foresees a common pragmatic practice of comprehensive security along the security-safety
continuum. This pragmatic practice is largely determined by temporarily prevalent concepts for civil-military
interaction.
 Goal vs. ambition scenario: Is marked by a tension between the comprehensive approach as a common strategic
goal and the actual level(s) of ambition of the EU and its Member States. Limited shared assumptions about threats
and differing views on strategies constrain the EU’s ability to act as a comprehensive security provider.
12 FOCUS – Foresight Security Scenarios

13. Foreseen core of concept of the EU
comprehensive approach
 A comprehensive approach addresses the range of
threats by the full menu of instruments in order to
realize overarching security.
 A comprehensive approach aims to find and implement
overarching solutions to problems, with broad effects
and based on complementarity of actors, while
considering all available options and capabilities, as
well as the normative end-state of the security of
society as a whole.
 A comprehensive approach also entails the tackling of
cross-cutting issues in home affairs.
13 FOCUS – Foresight Security Scenarios

14. Foreseen general research needs
 Balanced, flexible, and effective civilian and military capabilities for domestic
( solidarity clause) and external use;
 Comparative assessment of national policies in crisis management;
 Cybercrime as a global phenomenon causing significant damage to the EU
internal market;
 New technologies for collecting and integrating data from various different
sources;
 Intelligent, knowledge based focusing and filtering functions for new social
media and other open information source monitoring;
 Training schemes for technology use including new social network
technologies;
 Advancement and integration of approaches to foresight, with special
consideration of the following: use driven shifts, user experience as a
dominant influence in the technology trend, identification, and analysis of
disruptors from normative end states.
14 FOCUS – Foresight Security Scenarios

15. Foreseen EU role requirements
 Full recognition of the realities in a variety of countries and regions;
 Permanent screening of risk factors with technical and
analytical/intelligence tools;
 Clear decision-making mechanisms at various stages of the
escalation of threats and risks;
 Diverse capacities for prevention and early action against threats;
 Close communication with supporting players in the specific
situation, with relevant international organizations and NGOs;
 Operational strategy based on the principle of approaching the crisis
as soon as possible, as far from the Union’s border as possible, as
supportive/communal as possible, as peacefully as possible;
 Closer interaction of civilian and military instruments.
15 FOCUS – Foresight Security Scenarios

16. Indicative emergent research themes
related to foreseen EU roles
 Addressing of implementation challenges by the development of indicators for a
net assessment of the effects of a comprehensive approach. This should include
“societal indicators”;
 Dependency on information and communication technology, and technology in
general (address cascading breakdown of systems);
 New methodologies for collecting and integrating data from various different
sources;
 Integrated situational pictures as facilitation for networked operation command
structures;
 Strategies and tools for information exchange among civilian and military actors
in order to provide common, timely and relevant situational awareness;
 Decision-making tools based on joined-up situation analyses, including their use to
secure public acceptance and support;
 Standardized skills development and integrated information systems for a
effective coordination of resources as well as to cooperation between EU Member
States.
16 FOCUS – Foresight Security Scenarios

17. http://www.focusproject.eu
FOCUS is co-funded by the European
Commission under the 7th Framework
Programme, theme "security", call
FP7-SEC-2010-1, work programme topic 6.3-2
"Fore sighting the contribution of security
research to meet the future EU roles“, Grant
Agreement no. 261633.
17 FOCUS – Foresight Security Scenarios