nato’s defence planning processes

IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance


NATO’s Defence Planning Processes

Jim Squelch

Planning Directorate

Defence Policy and Planning Division

NATO International StaffJanuary 2013


ResourcesPlanning

Command and Control (C2)

Planning

NATO Defence Planning

FORCE PLANNING

Logistics Planning

Nuclear Planning

ArmamentsCooperation

NATODEFENCE PLANNING


Defence Policy and Planning Communities

Force Planning

Research & Technology

Civil Emergency Planning

Intelligence

Command, Control & Communication

Planning

Armament Cooperation

Standardisation & Interoperability

Air Traffic Management

Air Defence Logistics Medical


Determine the forces and capabilities required by NATO

Coordinate national defence plans to best support the

interests of the Alliance and establish equitable share of defence burden among Allies

Assess countries’ actions in response to the requirements agreed by them

Remain responsive to new requirements:

Transformation; support to EU; etc.

NATO Force Planning Objectives


Elements of Force Planning

DEFENCEREVIEW

NATO FORCE GOALS

MINISTERIALGUIDANCE

Comprehensive Political Guidance


Force Planning Process

Force

Goals

Ministerial Guidance

June

2006

December

General

Report

DEFENCE REVIEW CONSULTATIONS

June June June

2007 2008

December

Update

Force Goals

FORCE GOAL CONSULTATIONS

December December

2009

DEFENCE REVIEW CONSULTATIONS

General

Report

FORCE GOAL CONSULTATIONS


“To identify and agree measures which seek to optimise synergy between all activities related to the development and delivery of capabilities, either through harmonising or integrating them, as appropriate, while at the same time avoiding unnecessary duplication of efforts and ensuring effectiveness and efficiency.’’

C-M(2008)0055

Aim of Review


PG LoAINT Pol – Mil Analysis

PS

Operations

Lessons Learned

Future TrendsMinimum Capabilities Requirements (MCR)

Compare MCR to Existingand Planned Capabilities

Surplus Capability

Capabilities to be Maintained

Capability ShortfallsRISK

Analysis

Priority Shortfall Areas

Note Synopsis of MCR including Priority Shortfall Areas

Determine Capability Shortfall Solutions

Develop Targets – apportion

National Targets

Multi-National Targets

NATO Targets

Reasonable ChallengeAssociated Risk

National / Multi-National Implementation

NATO Implementation

Monitor / Facilitate

Support

NATO Capability Survey Progress Report Annual Capabilities Report

NATO and National Existing

and Planned Capabilities

Step1

2

3

4

5

Process ModelProcess Model

Agree Targets


In Step 1 – Establish Political GuidanceDevelop single, unified guidance – 4 years + review at 2 years

In Step 2 – Determine RequirementsDevelop single, consolidated list of MCRs - 4 years

In Step 3 – Apportion Requirements & Set TargetsProvide nations one, comprehensive package - 4 years

In Step 4 – Facilitate ImplementationLargely new step; was to add coherence

In Step 5 – Review ResultsProvide more comprehensive assessment - 2 years

Key Stages of NDPP


In Step 1 – Establish Political GuidanceDevelop single, unified guidance

In Step 2 – Determine RequirementsDevelop single, consolidated list of Minimum Capability Requirements

In Step 3 – Apportion Requirements & Set TargetsProvide nations one, comprehensive package

In Step 4 – Facilitate ImplementationLargely new step; intended to add coherence

In Step 5 – Review ResultsProvide more comprehensive assessment

Key Stages of NDPP

Lead – DPPC(R)

Lead – SCs

Lead – SCs – DPPC(R)

Lead – DPPC(R)

Lead – DPPC(R)


Defence Planning Staff Team

• Main task is to provide the necessary staff support.

• Functionally integrated task forces drawing on the civilian and military expertise within the NATO staffs.

• Facilitate cohesion by developing holistic and fully informed products.

• Has not worked. Not resourced and no culture of cyclical planning


Internal Coordination Mechanism

• Senior level body which comprises all stakeholders

• Main tasks:– coordinate composition and work of the staff team;– align and de-conflict staff efforts related to capability

development across planning domains.

• Maintain cohesion in capability development by aligning staff work and recommending (remedial) action to Senior Committee for defence planning (DPPC(R)).

• Formally disbanded in May 2012 – replaced by Capability Development Executive Board


On behalf of the NAC, DPC(sic) and NPG, the DPPC(R) will be responsible:

• for defence planning-related policy

• for coordination and direction of DPP activities

• for integrated advice to the NAC, DPC(sic) and NPG

DPPC(R) will serve as the central body to oversee the work of the NATO committees responsible for the planning domains, and can provide feedback and, as required, defence planning process-related direction to them. AC/281-N(2008)0112-REV3 (INV)

Senior Committee for Defence Planning – DPPC(R)


Partners in 2012

ARM KAZ

CHE UZB ?

UKR

AZE

BLR KGZ

RUS

TKM

TJK

PFPPFP Planning and Review Process (PARP)

AUT FIN SWEIRL

EU

FYR

MAP

Mediterranean Dialogue

BIH

Montenegro

Serbia

GEO

IPAPMDA

MauritaniaAlgeria Egypt TunisiaMoroccoIsrael Jordan

MALTA

Istanbul Coop InitiativeBahrein, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE

NUCNGC


PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE

Planning

And

Review

Process


PARP Milestones

Spring 2012

Spring 2013

Spring 2014

Partnership Goals

ConsolidatedReport

PARPAssessments

Summary Report


ConsolidatedReport

PARPAssessments


Spring 2015

Partnership Goals

Summary Report


PARP and NDPP

• Partners do not share obligations of Allies (eg burden-sharing)

• Not one PARP but 18 PARPs• PARP already an integrated pol-mil process• One body (PPC(PARP)) providing oversight –

Allies + participating Partners• Facilitating implementation already addressed

through IPCPs/IPAP/MAP, Country Specific Plans, POCs, MTTs, PfP Training Centres etc


Elements of NATO-EU Cooperation

• Washington Summit Communique 1999, para 10• Berlin Plus Agreement 17 March 2003

– Security Agreement– Access to NATO planning capabilities and assets/capabilities– Role of DSACEUR– Coherent, mutually reinforcing capability requirements (PARP)

• Capability Group/HTF Plus• Common information-gathering tool (NDPASS)• Staff to staff contacts• “Smart Defence”/”Pooling and Sharing”


PG LoAINT Pol – Mil Analysis

PS

Operations

Lessons Learned

Future TrendsMinimum Capabilities Requirements (MCR)

Compare MCR to Existingand Planned Capabilities

Surplus Capability

Capabilities to be Maintained

Capability ShortfallsRISK

Analysis

Priority Shortfall Areas

Note Synopsis of MCR including Priority Shortfall Areas

Determine Capability Shortfall Solutions

Develop Targets – apportion

National Targets

Multi-National Targets

NATO Targets

Reasonable ChallengeAssociated Risk

National / Multi-National Implementation

NATO Implementation

Monitor / Facilitate

Support

NATO Capability Survey Progress Report Annual Capabilities Report

NATO and National Existing

and Planned Capabilities

Step1

2

3

4

5

Process ModelProcess Model

Agree Targets


- Most Allies’ defence budgets affected – 18 spending less than in 2011

- Maintaining, sometimes increasing, commitments to current operations but at expense of transformation

- Cancellations, postponements and delays of major equipment projects; some capabilities being abandoned

- Restrictions in training levels in some countries

- Cuts in personnel and pay/allowances in a number of countries

- Only four Allies will spend 2% of GDP or more on defence in 2012; 19 will spend 1.5% or less in 2011

- Only seven Allies will spend 20% or more of defence expenditures on major equipment; ten will spend less than 10% in 2012

-- US now provides 77% of Alliance defence spending; was 63% in 2001

Capability Review


Defence Expenditures


2000 prices 2008 2009 2010 2011 2008 2011 (% Change from Previous Year)

Albania 13,652 15,171 2.06 -3.94 7.59 7.52

Belgium 3,574 3,192 9.02 -5.82 -3.92 -1.29

Bulgaria * 965 568 1.26 -21.41 -6.22 -20.16

Canada 16,997 17,981 5.26 5.48 -2.38 2.74

Croatia 4,527 3,746 9.62 -11.61 -6.55 0.17

Czech Republic 43,684 35,326 1.01 10.27 -13.9 -14.83

Denmark 20,230 20,356 3.83 -5.99 6.46 0.54

* Pensions are not included

Defence Expenditures by Country in National Currency



Estonia 2,860 │ 164.4 0.96 -13.38 -2.84 6.88

France* 38,311 │ 31,580 -2.01 │ -14.02 -0.69 -3.14

Germany 30,121 30,676 4.52 2.67 1.61 -2.38

Greece 5,357 3,316.18 9.80 3.14 -19.68 -24.31

Hungary 208,243 157,846 -3.93 -12.75 -8.52 -5.03

Iceland // // // // // //

Italy 13,456 10,187 0.38 -7.14 -10.67 -8.74

* Defence Expenditures, for 2009,do not include the Gendarmerie and, from 2010, include only the deployable part of the Gendarmerie.




Latvia 133 73 -0.6 -37.49 -14.64 3.41

Lithuania 973 668 -0.23 -17.19 -16.58 -0.61

Luxembourg* │ 117 149 │ -32.82 -0.47 31.27 -2.76

Netherlands 6,868 6,474 -1.27 1.36 -4.19 -2.93

Norway** 28,159 │ 28,438 0.14 │ 3.65 -1.08 -1.5

Poland 16,596 22,570 -8.17 10.39 10.98 6.09

Portugal 2,024 2,211 3.25 5.6 2.31 1.08

* From 2008, defense expenditures include only the deployable part of the Police Grand-Ducale.** From 2009, new methodology is used to calculate Pensions.




Romania 1,933 1,473 3.13 -13.78 -6.46 -5.53

Slovak Republic* 22,615 │ 566 4.18 -1.73 -15.21 -9.45

Slovenia 394 341 7.55 -1.63 0.59 -12.69

Spain 9,428 8,112 1.94 -4.96 -6.06 -3.62

Turkey 4,366 4,737 8.8 -0.74 1.75 7.42

United Kingdom 29,927 29,611 4.73 -0.81 1.58 -1.8

United States 577,450 553,347 21.37 2.66 1.75 -8.26

* From 2009, in Euros.




Austria 2218 2026 -4.41 -7.11 -0.54 -1.15

Finland 2059 2298 3.59 12.68 -5.79 5.14

Ireland 866 772 12.62 -4.34 -4.40 -2.51

Sweden 30951 32279 -9.24 -3.49 7.83 0.21



Positive Lessons from OUP

• Speed of Response – six days from UNSCR• NATO Command Structure performed well, with some

reservations• Collateral damage was kept to minimum• “Partnership” worked well – SWE, JOR, QAT, MOR,

UAE integrated into operation• Interoperability effective – eg FR, GR, IT and SP

airbases hosted aircraft from 14 countries• Comprehensive Approach worked – military, civilian

and diplomatic efforts


Negative Lessons from OUP

• Imbalance of capabilities within NATO – over-reliance on US for advanced capabilities like airborne ISR, SEAD and AAR

• Imbalance in levels of specific skills in Command Structure (especially for Targeting, where US had to reinforce)

• Except for US, other Allies had insufficient stocks of precision-guided munitions


Deployable Specialised Assets


Deployable Specialised Assets – incl AAR


50% of LOA – 2 x 90/180


Current Activities

• 150,000 personnel on nine operations• 28 Allies and 26 non-NATO partners• 133,000 in ISAF• 7,000 in KFOR (including ORF Bn)• 7,500 in Operation Unified Protector• OUP – 220 aircraft (25,000 sorties in six months)

– Eleven ships patrolling (3,000 challenges made)– 2,800 humanitarian assistance missions de-

conflicted


Future Challenges

• Discussions of future Capability Targets just begun – for approval by Defence Ministers in June 2013.

• Based on computer-generated operational analysis that was, in turn, based on Political Guidance agreed in March 2011.

• But, results challenged by almost half of Allies.

• Consequences for agreement of Target packages? – 50% Rule

• Emphasises importance of next Political Guidance being completely unambiguous in defining what Alliance force structure needs to be able to achieve.

• Visibility to Ministers to be improved – proposals for “enhancement” of NDPP for February Ministerial


Future Challenges

• “Smart Defence” – some 150 potential projects – 21 Tier 1

• Role of Partners?• Multinational cooperation not easy!!• What happens after ISAF withdrawal?• How to remain engaged with each other?• Solution seen as Connected Forces Initiative• But, will there be money for training and exercises?


Back-up Slides


NATO and EU Capability Codes

NATO

ROSM-G-HQ – RSOM Gp HQ

ROSM-B-HQ – ROSM Bn HQ

RSOM-CTU – sea, rail, air terminals

ROSM-RR – maintain railway

EU

M 200 – ROSM

M 701 – SPODs

P 100 – SPODs

P 101 – APODs

M 150 – maintain railway


BRUSSELS

12 K KMMax SJO range

15 K KMMax SJO- range

8 K KMMax MJO range

8 K KMMax MJO range

12 K KMMax SJO range

29 PS

+ 8 PS

+ 2 PS

Set of Representative PS for DRR 07


NATO European and EU Members

nato’s defence planning processes

Documents

planning domains

yearsin step

pfppfp planning

alliancein step

coherencein step

comprehensive packagein

implementationlargely

unified guidancein step