Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
AJEPP-06
Environmental Protection Officers, unit and camp commanders, and the Troop-Contributing Nation or Host Nation holding a NATO-led activity's site
AJEPP-06 is NATO's template for the Environmental File a deploying force keeps to document a camp's environmental condition from occupation through handover, binding through STANAG 6500 rather than setting rules of its own.
AJEPP-06 is the Allied Joint Environmental Protection Publication that lays out a common structure for the Environmental File a NATO force keeps for a camp, base, or other area it uses during a NATO-led activity. It is Edition D, Version 1, promulgated in September 2024, and it was "approved by the nations in the Military Committee Joint Standardization Board" before promulgation. It does not set environmental performance limits of its own; it tells a deploying force what to record, and in what format, as a site moves from planning through deployment, execution, transition and redeployment. Nations record their agreement to use it in STANAG 6500, which is the cover that gives the publication force rather than a separate technical text.
The document is written to the people who run environmental protection for a deployed force: the Environmental Protection Officer (EPO), the unit or camp commander, and the Troop-Contributing Nation (TCN) or Host Nation (HN) holding the site. In a multinational camp it also names the Environmental Management Board, or the lead-nation EPO, as custodian of the file. It does not address a supplier, manufacturer or certification body directly.
"The agreement of nations to use this publication is recorded in STANAG 6500" - that ratification is what gives AJEPP-06 force, and the publication itself "is effective upon receipt" of the edition in front of you. Each Troop-Contributing Nation then applies it under its own national arrangements: the hazardous-material record guidance says plainly that practice "will vary from nation to nation based on specific national policies." A support contractor or construction firm meets it only where an operations order, a contract, or a national instruction brings this format into the work.
Chapter 1 organises the Environmental File around the stages of a NATO activity, from planning through redeployment, and builds it from six recurring document types, each with its own annex and template: the Environmental Baseline Study and Closeout Study (Annex A), the Environmental Impact Assessment (Annex B), the Environmental Condition Report and Spill Report (Annex C), hazardous-material record management (Annex D), the Environmental Handover/Takeover Declaration (Annex E), and an Environmental Protection SOP for the camp itself. Site selection also gets its own criteria before any of this starts: impact on local and cultural resources, waste water, water and power infrastructure, sensitive ecosystems, and pre-existing contamination or flood risk, translated by the EPO into terms a commander can use operationally.
The Environmental Baseline Study (EBS) is meant to run at or near occupation of a site; the Environmental Closeout Study (ECS) runs at handover or before closure, to determine whether military activity has changed the site. Annex A's template covers four sections - Evaluation Particulars, Site Identification, Site Data and Recommendation - working through current and past site use, hydrogeology, existing structures, and HAZMAT storage in detail. Where the ECS turns up new contamination that cannot be corrected before departure, it "must be disclosed to the HN or property owner," with negotiation to follow over what happens next. The template is written with an unusual audience in mind: the evaluator is told the report "may be read by someone unfamiliar with the activity" years after the fact, which is why comments such as "not observed" are preferred to a blank cell.
An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a judgement call rather than a fixed trigger: Annex B names construction, demolition, work near a water body, and significant changes of use as the kinds of project it typically covers, guided by four principles - early planning, an effort proportional to the likely impact, open consultation, and objectivity. The Environmental Condition Report (ECR) is different again: a periodic or incident-driven snapshot of change at a site between the EBS and the ECS, closing on one of two standard findings - that an incident "does not pose an undue risk to the environment" and needs no further action, or that it "has or will result in a significant environmental impact" and needs corrective action or monitoring. A Spill Report captures an individual spill as it happens and later folds into the ECR.
Annex D asks for three record tables in the file: hazardous material held, hazardous waste generated and how it was disposed of, and maintenance of refrigeration or air-conditioning equipment holding 3 kg or more of an ozone-depleting or fluorinated-gas refrigerant. Annex E's Handover/Takeover Declaration is a signed record, co-accepted by the outgoing and incoming parties, confirming the site's condition, any corrective action taken, and any outstanding environmental issues. The camp's own Environmental Protection SOP covers waste, waste water, energy and water use, protection of local flora and fauna, and incident procedures; where a Troop-Contributing Nation writes its own subordinate SOP for its troops, that document "cannot be less stringent than" the lead nation's - easy to overlook in a camp shared between several nations.
Edition D, Version 1 is effective on receipt and supersedes AJEPP-06 Edition C, Version 1, which is to be destroyed under local document-destruction procedure rather than kept in circulation. The document is candid about two gaps. First, environmental sampling and laboratory analysis for an EBS or ECS is guided by "national requirements for laboratory accreditation" because, in its own words, "no NATO standard exists at present" for it. Second, Annex F distinguishes the EBS from a related but separate Environmental Health Site Assessment (EHSA), run by medical rather than engineer branches - the two share data but interpret it for different purposes, environmental impact against human-health exposure, and AJEPP-06 does not cover the EHSA process itself.
AJEPP-06 assumes an Environmental Protection Officer, or equivalent role, already exists to prepare and hold the file; it does not create that function. It also treats the file as sitting inside a wider Environmental Management System, noting that it "will be the most important part of the EMS documentation" - pointing at STANAG 2583 (AJEPP-3) as the framework it belongs to. Its annexes cite AJP-3 for the stages of a NATO operation, STANAG 2582 (AJEPP-2) for hazardous-material and site-selection practice, and STANAG 7141 (AJEPP-4) as the underlying EP doctrine. The EHSA/EBS comparison in Annex F draws on STANAG 2228 (AJP-4.10), STANAG 2561 (covering AJMedP-4), and STANAG 2535 (covering AMedP-4.1). None of these is a mandatory precondition; each is cited as reading behind a particular annex.
AJEPP-06 names no certification, accreditation, or third-party audit scheme, and nothing in it should be read as one. What it describes instead is a chain of internal command accountability: the EPO answers to the commander for monitoring the baseline and for follow-up after a spill or other incident, and the Environmental Management Board or EPO holds custodianship of the file. The closest thing to an external check is the handover itself, where an outgoing force's record is only accepted once the incoming nation or Host Nation co-signs the Environmental Handover/Takeover Declaration. There is no sector scheme, no accredited body, and no route by which an organisation becomes "AJEPP-06 certified."
AJEPP-06 is unclassified and free of charge. NATO's Standardization Document Database lists the current edition; we do not host a copy or sell it.
Producing the Environmental File AJEPP-06 describes is field work: site reconnaissance, sampling, photographs, and sign-off by the people actually running a camp or handling a handover. What ComplyTrain supports is the paper trail around that work. A controlled Environmental Protection SOP that stays version-controlled as it is updated per site or per rotation. Structured records for the Environmental Baseline Study, Condition Reports and Spill Reports, the three hazardous-material record tables, and the signed Handover/Takeover Declaration, so they survive a change of unit rather than living in someone's personal files. Training records showing EPOs and unit personnel were briefed on the SOP in force. Corrective actions raised from a spill report or a condition report tracked through to closure, with the evidence an incoming nation or a later review would want to see.
ComplyTrain does not carry out the site reconnaissance, soil or water sampling, laboratory analysis, or physical spill response an EBS, ECS or Spill Report calls for - that work happens on the ground, and the software only holds and organises what the EPO and supporting specialists produce. Which parts of this file a given contract or tasking order requires is set by that contract and the customer's quality clause, not by us. See what else sits alongside AJEPP-06, including STANAG 6500, in the standards explorer, and talk to us about the documentation trail behind holding one.
Tell us how you need to work with AJEPP-06 and what you need from it. We will come back to you about what ComplyTrain can do.
Thank you. Your list is on its way to your inbox, and we will come back to you on what working with these standards in ComplyTrain involves, usually within one business day.
AJEPP-06 does not bind a contractor directly. Nations record their agreement to use it in STANAG 6500, and a support or construction contractor meets it only when a contract, tasking order, or national instruction requires deliverables built to this file's format - not simply because the document has been published.
No. The document names no certification, accreditation, or third-party audit scheme. Environmental Files are held and reviewed inside the normal NATO chain of command, and accepted at handover by the incoming nation or Host Nation, rather than certified by an outside body.
Both use the same template in Annex A. An Environmental Baseline Study (EBS) is conducted at or near occupation of a site, to record its condition before use; an Environmental Closeout Study (ECS) is conducted at handover or before closure, to determine whether the activity has changed that condition.
A Spill Report captures a single spill or incident as it happens, using the format in Annex C's Appendix 3. The Environmental Condition Report (ECR) is a periodic or incident-driven summary of changes at a site over time, and a completed Spill Report is later folded into it.
Not directly. Annex F distinguishes the Environmental Baseline Study, which AJEPP-06 governs, from a separate Environmental Health Site Assessment run by medical rather than engineer branches; the two share data collection but interpret it for different purposes, and AJEPP-06 does not itself set out the EHSA process.
One system for the whole compliance programme. Start with the module you need most.
Collect information the same way every time, and decide in advance what happens next.
Know whether your controls are operating, not just whether a policy says they exist.
Turn the compliance work you already know about into a plan with owners, dependencies and dates.
Know what you can offer, and hold the evidence behind every configuration you offer it in.
Eight built-in reports across every module, scheduled, delivered, and filed where the evidence lives.
The sector news that matters to your organisation - read and rated by AI, and delivered as a scheduled digest in your own language.
AI reads the tender pack and pulls out the requirements, deadlines and rules - then helps you draft the response from your own approved content, with you reviewing every step.
One current register of the suppliers and partners you depend on - each risk-assessed, re-assessing itself on schedule, and wired straight into your risk register.
See every requirement you face - across every standard, plus your own contracts and policies - traced to the documents, evidence and processes that satisfy it.
Identify, score, treat and review your risks in one place - with AI to help anyone run a proper assessment, and a defensible trail behind every decision.
Assign training, prove it was understood, and hold the competence records an auditor asks for.
Draft compliance documents with AI, keep every version under control, and export them beautifully branded - all in one place.
Audits, corrective actions, processes and approvals in one quality system, organised around ISO 9001.
Medical device manufacturers operate under more regulatory pressure than almost any other sector outside pharmaceuticals. The rules govern how you design a device, how you make it, how you track it after it ships, and how you respond when something goes wrong.
Learn how EU dual-use export controls apply to encryption, sensors, and software, how classification works under Annex I, and why sending source code by email can count as an export.
A practical way to turn in-your-head risk management into a register that survives staff turnover and answers the risk questions now showing up in tenders.