Towards a Partnership for the 21st Century

The Enhanced and more Operational Partnership - Report by the Political Military Steering Committee on Partnership for Peace

  • Last updated: 11 Mar. 2010 17:29

Overview

  1. At the NATO Summit in Madrid, the Alliance inaugurated the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and introduced a number of significant enhancements to the Partnership for Peace, as recommended by the Senior Level Group on PfP Enhancement (NACC(PfP)(C)D(97)6). The implementation of these recommendations, which included the development of the political consultation, operational and decision-making aspects of the Partnership, has now been brought to fruition. The development of PfP remains a dynamic process and, with the prospect of a greater role for the Partnership in the future, the NAC has been tasked to develop a coherent package of measures to reinforce PfP's operational capabilities for the Washington Summit.
  2. Building on the success of the Partnership since Madrid, at the Washington Summit, NATO Heads of State and Government are invited to endorse new measures to further develop an enhanced and more operational Partnership to meet the challenges of the next century. The Washington Summit will endorse the Political-Military Framework for NATO-led PfP Operations, the expanded and adapted Planning and Review Process, and the more robust practical cooperation, which have resulted from the enhancement process. The Washington Summit will also introduce, as a new element of the enhanced and more operational Partnership, an Operational Capabilities Concept for NATO-led PfP operations, which aims to reinforce the operational capabilities of PfP. Moreover, the Summit will place increased emphasis on training and education.

The Broader Summit Context

  1. At Washington, NATO Heads of State and Government will approve a number of measures to define the role of the Alliance in the 21st Century. The updated Strategic Concept will reflect, inter alia, the increased importance of crisis management as well as Partnership and Cooperation. The Alliance will also agree a Membership Action Plan to assist Partners aspiring to membership. Participation in the enhanced and more operational Partnership is an essential component of this plan. A Defence Capabilities Initiative will support the ability of the Alliance to undertake the full range of its missions. While this initiative will address among other things the challenges of future Alliance multinational operations, it will also have implications for interoperability between Alliance and Partner forces. The enhanced and more operational Partnership will support these initiatives by strengthening Alliance-Partner cooperation and enhancing the ability of Partners to contribute to NATO-led PfP operations.

The Partnership since Madrid

  1. The development of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and the enhanced PfP since Madrid have produced a more capable Partnership that is able to make an important and growing contribution to confidence building and to security and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area. This Partnership is marked by the expanded political dimension of the EAPC and the enhanced cooperation under PfP. The EAPC, through the implementation of the EAPC Basic Document, has proven to be a useful forum for political consultations in areas ranging from developments in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the crisis in Kosovo to broad topics such as peacekeeping and regional security cooperation. The EAPC has also provided a framework for the development of new areas of cooperation such as humanitarian demining and control over transfer of small arms, and for the coordination of disaster relief and humanitarian assistance through the Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre (EADRCC).

  2. The Partnership for Peace is the principal mechanism for forging practical security links between the Alliance and its Partners. Through detailed programmes that reflect individual Partners' capacities and interests, Allies and Partners work towards transparency in national defence planning and budgeting; democratic control of defence forces; preparedness for civil disasters and other emergencies; and the development of the ability to work together, including in NATO-led PfP operations.

  3. PfP, moreover, has demonstrated its flexible and operational character in tailored assistance programmes, such as with Albania, and in its role as an element of the Alliance's overall approach for dealing with the crisis in Kosovo. This has included consultations with Partners in the region. PfP has played a significant role in preparing aspiring nations for possible membership and has been specifically useful in supporting the accession of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland.

  4. The Partnership will continue to evolve, while preserving its basic principles and elements. Its enhanced political, decision-making, and practical elements are well suited to serve as a foundation for the future.

The Enhanced and more Operational Partnership

  1. At the Washington Summit, Heads of State and Government will mark the bringing to fruition of the enhancement process since Madrid. The Political-Military Framework will be endorsed, and the expanded and adapted Planning and Review Process will be brought yet another step forward. The Summit will furthermore launch the Operational Capabilities Concept for NATO-led PfP Operations (OCC) and place increased emphasis on training and education within PfP. The enhanced and more operational Partnership will continue to address the full range of objectives laid out in the 1994 PfP Framework Document. It will also introduce new quality and character to the Partnership, in part to reflect the increased scope and more operational nature of PfP resulting from the enhancement process.

  2. In addition, the enhanced and more operational Partnership will take account of the lessons learned and practical experience gained in IFOR and SFOR. Future NATO-led PfP operations, which introduce new requirements and challenges, are likely to be multinational at lower levels, involving Partners in both command and force structures. They are also likely to be made up of smaller national elements, possibly at battalion or lower levels, be conducted outside NATO territory, and be longer in duration than NATO has planned for in the past. Such operations will place a higher premium on interoperability and present greater challenges to the maintenance of military effectiveness.

  3. The enhanced and more operational Partnership will help prepare the Partners to work with the Alliance in these operations, in particular through the OCC. It will focus on military effectiveness and interoperability during peacetime, improving the Alliance's capability to field an effective and sustainable multinational force with Partners when needed in crisis.

PfP Enhancements Resulting from Madrid

  1. The Political-Military Framework for NATO-led PfP Operations (PMF) which was initiated at Madrid sets out principles, modalities and other guidance for Partner involvement in political consultations and decision-making, in operational planning and in command arrangements. It will enable Partners to participate in the planning and execution of NATO-led PfP operations as closely as practically feasible, and ensure that Partners joining future NATO-led PfP operations are afforded appropriate opportunities to contribute to the provision of political guidance for and oversight of such operations carried out under the ultimate decision-making authority of the NAC. The PMF, the OCC and the CJTF Concept taken together will provide the political-military basis for involving Partner forces and other capabilities in future NATO-led PfP operations. The PMF, which was agreed separately through [PO(99)28], and which will be endorsed at the Washington Summit, is at Appendix A.

  2. The Expanded and Adapted Planning and Review Process (PARP) will continue to be an important tool for enhancing interoperability of forces and capabilities declared available for PfP activities. The forces and capabilities, identified through PARP, will be available in principle for NATO-led PfP operations. PARP Ministerial Guidance will help shape these forces and capabilities through the framework it will establish for future Partnership Goals, and will, inter alia, give strategic direction to the future development of the capabilities provided by Partners for PfP. Through the newly established Partnership Goals the Alliance and Partners will address additional forces and capabilities which are considered valuable for the successful achievement of NATO-led PfP operations. A summary of the way ahead in implementing the expanded and adapted PARP is at Appendix B.

  3. Enhanced Defence-related and Military Cooperation. The SLG report tasked the NATO Senior Committees and the military authorities to support the enhancement of PfP by, inter alia, providing for greater Partner involvement in the PfP work of the committees; by expanding the scope of PfP exercises to reflect the full range of the Alliance's new missions; and by including Partner officers in PfP related work at NATO military headquarters. The overall scope of PfP cooperation has expanded significantly and Partners are increasingly more involved in committee and practical work, which contributes to the development of the PfP programme. A summary of defence-related and military cooperation with recommendations and guidance for further work in these areas are at Appendix C.

New Elements at Washington

  1. The Operational Capabilities Concept (OCC) aims to reinforce PfP's operational capabilities by establishing additional peacetime means and mechanisms for improving the interoperability of Partner forces and, thereby, the ability of the Alliance and Partner forces to operate together in future NATO-led PfP operations. This would give increased flexibility, predictability about potential contributions, and capability in putting together tailored force-packages to mount and sustain future NATO-led PfP operations. It will take account of the ongoing work on multinationality and multinational formations in the framework of PfP. The OCC will further elaborate the idea of a pooling of forces and capabilities potentially available for such operations. The development of enhanced peacetime working relationships between Partner and Alliance headquarters and staffs, and between Allied and Partner formations would facilitate the integration of these forces into a NATO-led force. These relationships would provide more structured arrangements than currently exist within the PfP framework. Another central element of the Concept should be assessment and feedback mechanisms on the operational capabilities of declared forces. Finally, the OCC noting the proven utility of the SOFAs will examine, to the extent possible, enabling mechanisms, such as host nation support, that might facilitate the conduct of NATO-led operations with Partners. An outline Operational Capabilities Concept is at Appendix D.

  2. A PfP Training and Education Enhancement Programme (TEEP) will be developed to optimise and improve training and education in the Partnership. The Programme will aim to increase the ability of training and education efforts to meet the current and future demands of an enhanced and more operational Partnership focussing specifically on interoperability, and to promote greater cooperation and dialogue among the wider defence and security communities in NATO and Partner nations. It will make best use of the human capital invested in the Partnership, promote synergy and efficiency among the PfP training and education activities, and better match these with the Partnership's evolving needs. The crucial importance of training and education for achieving interoperability in key areas of concepts, doctrine, procedures and languages is well known. This importance will grow as the enhanced and more operational Partnership further develops. The TEEP will examine both NATO and national activities, and address the activities "in the spirit of PfP". It will develop recommendations on improving and optimising available tools and on specific mechanisms for improved feedback and assessment. It will place particular emphasis on collaboration, and distributed training, including through the PfP Training Centres, the Consortium of Defence Academies and Security Studies Institutes and the PfP Simulation Network. An outline of the TEEP is at Appendix E.

Way Ahead

  1. At the Washington Summit, Heads of State and Government will be invited to endorse the report on the enhanced and more operational Partnership. The PMSC will immediately start further work on developing the OCC, and on training and education in PfP, based on any further guidance provided by the Summit. An interim report on the development of the OCC and on training and education will be available by mid-September 1999. The full OCC will be ready for agreement by the Autumn 1999 Ministerial meetings -- as part of an overall report on the implementation of the enhanced and more operational Partnership -- with implementation in 2000 and following years.

  2. Resource implications of the enhanced and more operational Partnership must be taken into account by Allies and Partners alike, including all elements of the OCC and training and education as they develop over time. Cost effectiveness and affordability will be key considerations in the further development of the enhanced and more operational Partnership. In line with current PfP activities, implementation will largely rely on national defence budgets and manpower allocations. In view of the many other calls on the common-funded resources and the concerns expressed by the NMAs, the common-funded resource requirements will, however, also need to be kept under review. The Senior Resource Board, in consultation with the NMAs, and the Civil Budget Committee should, therefore, be invited to provide, taking into account their experience on PfP expenditures to date 1, an initial assessment of the potential resource requirements and of their affordability, by the time of the Autumn 1999 Ministerial meetings.

Recommendations

  1. The Council is invited to:
    1. note this report, including its appendices, and agree the recommendations therein and specifically:
      1. agree the outline Operational Capabilities Concept in Appendix D;
      2. agree the outline programme on enhancing training and education in PfP in Appendix E;
    2. agree to forward this report and its appendices to Alliance and Partner Heads of State and Government at the NATO and EAPC Summits respectively;

  2. Following the Summit, the Council would:

    1. task the PMSC, in consultation with Partners, and taking into account further NMA advice, to complete the full Operational Capabilities Concept by the autumn 1999 Ministerial meetings, and to provide an interim report to the NAC by mid-September, 1999;

    2. task the PMSC, in consultation with Partners, taking into account further NMA advice, to provide recommendations for the further development of training and education in PfP by the time of the Autumn 1999 Ministerial meetings;

    3. task the PMSC, in consultation with Partners, to develop a comprehensive report on the overall implementation of the enhanced and more operational Partnership, including progress in follow-on work by the NMAs and relevant committees based on the Political-Military Framework for NATO-led PfP Operations, and progress in the Expanded and Adapted PARP, by the time of the Autumn 1999 Ministerial meetings;

    4. task the Senior Resource Board, in consultation with the NMAs, and the Civil Budget Committee to provide, taking into account their experience on PfP expenditures to date, an assessment of the potential resource requirements and of the affordability of the enhanced and more operational Partnership, by the time of the Autumn 1999 Ministerial meetings.

Appendix A
Political-Military Framework for NATO-led PfP Operations (*)

(*) On 8 February 2010 the North Atlantic Council agreed that the Political Military Framework for NATO-led PfP Operations (PMF) applies to all countries which are recognised by the Council as potential and actual non-NATO contributing nations in the context of a NATO-led operation, in the consultation, planning and execution phases of that operation. Any reference to PfP Partners in the PMF should therefore be taken to apply to all non-NATO contributing nations. The Council further authorised that tihs decision be reflected in the publicly released version of the PMF document.

Purpose

The purpose of this document is to establish "a political-military framework for NATO-led PfP operations to enable Partners to participate in the planning and execution of PfP activities as closely as is practically feasible and to ensure that Partners joining future NATO-led PfP operations be afforded appropriate opportunities to contribute to the provision of political guidance for and oversight over such operations" as mandated by Foreign Ministers on the basis of the Consolidated SLG Report on PfP Enhancement (NACC(PfP) (C) D (97)6). The main aim of this framework is to set out principles, modalities and other guidance for Partner involvement in political consultations and decision making, in operational planning and in command arrangements.

Scope and Context

  1. NATO-led PfP operations are defined as non-Article 5 operations utilising NATO's military structures and incorporating contributions from PfP countries, carried out under the ultimate decision-making authority of the North Atlantic Council (NAC) 2. Other types of non-Article 5 crisis response operations, e.g. involving only Allies, or various combinations of Allies, Partners and other countries operating under ad hoc arrangements, are possible but would need to be considered outside the scope of this political-military framework (PMF) and the mandate given for it.

  2. From a NATO perspective this PMF forms part of a wider framework of conceptual and practical documents and arrangements developed for the Alliance's new missions beyond collective defence. Other key elements of this wider framework are the new Strategic Concept, the new NATO military command structure, the CJTF Concept and its military implementation within the command structure with regard to CJTF headquarters elements, the defence planning process and NATO's new Operations Planning System.

  3. Within PfP this PMF forms part of a wider effort to achieve the overarching aims that guided the Senior Level Group (SLG) in its work on PfP enhancement: to develop a more operational role for PfP, to provide for greater involvement of Partners in PfP decision making and planning and to strengthen the political consultation element in PfP. It also contributes to the aim of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council as stated in the EAPC Basic Document to afford Partner countries, to the maximum extent possible, increased decision-making opportunities relating to activities in which they participate. Other, closely connected elements in this wider effort are the expanded and adapted Planning and Review Process (PARP) and the intensification of the military cooperation within PfP, including through training and exercises, multinational formations, PfP Staff Elements (PSE) in NATO military staffs and commands, peacetime working relationships and other measures aiming at enhancing the operational PfP.

Forms and Phases of Partner Involvement

  1. Partner involvement can in principle occur in two forms: through national representatives and through Partner officers in international positions. Whereas the former allows the direct representation of Partner views and interests, the latter is important as a recognition of the Partner contribution in a true partnership, and as a general contribution to establishing confidence and understanding among Partners and Allies and strengthening their solidarity. In political consultations and decision making the emphasis will almost exclusively be on national representation in committees and working groups; in command arrangements, on the other hand, the emphasis is very largely on the inclusion of Partner officers in international functions, although national liaison arrangements will also play a role. In operational planning both forms play an important role: the development of plans will essentially be in the hand of officers in international functions, the guidance for and approval of the plans will be for national representatives at Military Committee and North Atlantic Council level, on the basis of preparatory work done in other bodies.

  2. With regard to a specific operation and the appropriate Partner involvement, three phases can be distinguished: the consultation phase prior to initiation of military planning, the planning and consultation phase between initiation of military planning and execution of the operation, and the execution phase. In addition, for the purpose of this PMF, the period not related to any particular crisis or operation during which general preparations for possible Partner involvement in a NATO-led operation take place is referred to as non-crisis phase.

  3. During different phases it will be necessary or justified to distinguish between Partners in general and potentially contributing or contributing Partners. Potentially contributing Partners are those which are recognised as such by the Council on the basis of an indication that they are actively considering to contribute to a specific operation. This recognition is without prejudice to a later acceptance by Council as a contributing Partner, nor does it exclude the possibility that other Partners than those previously recognised as potential contributors could be accepted as contributing Partners. Contributing Partners are those that contribute forces/capabilities to a NATO-led operation or support it in other ways which the Council formally accepts, on the basis of military advice, as a contribution.

Non-crisis Phase

  1. During the non-crisis phase the qualification of Partners as contributing or potentially contributing is by definition not applicable. All Partners are given equal opportunities to prepare themselves for possible participation in NATO-led PfP operations through the tools of PfP, under the principle of self-differentiation. The extent to which they make use of these opportunities, however, may have an influence on the Council's decision to accept them as contributors or recognise them as potential contributors to a particular operation.

  2. Of key importance in this respect is the ability of Partner forces to operate together with Allied forces, and the ability of the NATO Military Authorities (NMAs) to assess the capabilities of any Partner forces offered as a contribution. The PARP with its Ministerial Guidance, Partnership Goals and Assessments plays a particularly valuable role in this respect, through developing Partners' understanding of the likely range of potential NATO-led PfP operations and the requirements and capabilities needed to sustain them, as well as increasing NATO's understanding of the scale and nature of potential Partner contributions. This would facilitate the separate certification assessment which would still be needed for specific operations. For Partners not participating in the PARP the Individual Partnership Programmes (IPPs) and the inclusion in them of activities offered under the Partnership Work Programme (PWP), notably the PfP exercise programme, as well as ad hoc arrangements to improve interoperability with NATO forces and allow assessments of the quality of their forces offer alternative opportunities to prepare themselves. The practical military cooperation between NATO and Partner forces and headquarters in training and exercise activities is of particular value in preparing for NATO-led PfP operations. Moreover, possible future new mechanisms to enhance military cooperation between Allies and Partner forces that may be available for NATO-led PfP operations, could play a major role in improving interoperability and providing a framework to assess the military effectiveness of potential future force contributions.

  3. Partner officers serving in international functions in the NATO/PfP framework, especially in PfP Staff Elements (PSE) may be involved in contingency planning for NATO-led PfP operations. When Nations are involved in planning, Partner participation will occur through the use of national liaison officers, or through appropriate involvement of Partner representatives at MC level, e.g. when relevant guidance for operational planning is being given or contingency plans for possible use in a NATO-led PfP operation are approved. This process can help to familiarise Partners with NATO operational planning, as can distribution of the relevant MC documents and supporting planning tools, plus involvement in appropriate aspects of crisis management exercises, all of which will help to reduce the necessary learning time in case of actual crises and operations.

  4. Establishing a detailed set of modalities for possible use in the command arrangements for a NATO-led PfP operation should essentially take place in the framework of the implementation of the CJTF Concept.

Consultation phase

  1. In the beginning of this phase, which is likely to emerge gradually out of the regular pattern of consultations on the security situation in the EAPC framework, all Partners should be equally involved. The emphasis will be on information exchange and sharing of assessments. This may change as the assessments of the situation move towards the possible conclusion that a NATO-led PfP operation may become necessary. At that stage, Partner countries considering a contribution to such an operation should make this known to NATO. This will constitute a first step towards being recognised as potential contributors. In providing information during this stage, NATO's response would take such indications into account and thus the interest of these Partners in receiving information as early and as fully as possible in order both to aid their deliberations on a possible involvement and to learn about the likely scope of their contribution.
  2. This consultation phase ends with the decision by the NAC to initiate military planning for a possible operation, a decision in principle that such an operation will include Partner participation, and the communication of this decision to Partners. In the final stages of this phase it would be in the interest of both the Partners concerned and the Allies if preliminary understandings emerged, partly on the basis of general consultations in the EAPC framework, partly on the basis of bilateral contacts between the respective Partner and the Alliance, on which Partners might be both willing and able to contribute to a NATO-led PfP operation. Ideally the formal recognition of potential contributors would take place when the decision to initiate military planning is taken, so that the political guidance given to the NMAs could already include this planning factor, and the appropriate information and involvement of the potential contributors could start as early as possible. The recognition of potential contributors can, however, also occur throughout the next phase.

Planning and Consultation Phase

  1. During this phase general consultations and information exchange will continue with all Partners in the EAPC framework. At the same time those Partners who have been recognised as potential contributors will be given appropriate opportunities to be informed of and involved in all relevant aspects of planning and other preparatory activities more deeply than others. To this end, consultations with respect to the planned operation will therefore also take place in an "Allies + n" format in relevant fora, including at MC level. Preparations for the command of a possible NATO-led PfP operation should include preparations for appropriate involvement of officers or headquarter modules from potential contributors. Potentially contributing Partners should be fully involved in the decision-shaping process by contributing to preparations of decisions to be taken by the NAC. This means that before the relevant planning documents (Concept of Operations, OPLAN) are approved, while respecting the ultimate decision making authority of the NAC, potentially contributing Partners should be offered opportunities to exchange views with the Allies and associate themselves with the decision. Partners, in case of non-consent, retain the option of dissociating themselves from the decision and, ultimately if deemed necessary, of withdrawing from their planned contribution. The force generation process should include potential contributors. While the NATO commander may choose first to contact Allied nations for possible troop contributions, he will also be authorised to contact Partner nations recognised as potential contributors early in the force generation process.

  2. During this phase and its transition to the execution phase the formal process of accepting and certifying Partner contributions will be initiated and ideally concluded before the execution starts, although if necessary it can also be concluded in the course of the operation. The objective is to begin the operation with Partner forces already integrated, as much as possible, into the multinational NATO-led force. This process may include steps such as the Alliance's invitation to Partners to confirm their intended contributions and to participate in the force generation process. It may also be found during the process that a Partner may not wish or be able to supply the type of capabilities sought by the NATO commander. The final composition of the group of contributing Partners will be determined by the exchange of Participation and Financial letters. Flexibility on this issue is paramount, so that e.g. contributions of Partners who provide periodic contributions on the basis of a troop rotation plan may be accounted for. Potential contributing Partners that do not become actual contributors will be kept informed as appropriate. With the individual contributing Partners being formally recognised, a pattern of Partner/Alliance interaction in further preparations will be established which is based on the three iterative steps of 1) NAC initiation - 2) Partner involvement in decision-shaping through consultations in the EAPC and other fora in Allies +n format - 3) NAC decision. The association of participating Partners with NAC decisions relating to the operation recognises the Partner interest in being involved in the decision-shaping process leading up to actual decisions and gives added political weight to the decisions. These proceedings at NATO HQ are complemented by involvement of contributing Partners in aspects of planning and the force generation process at the military level through the International Coordination Centre (ICC) at SHAPE and, where appropriate, through (temporary) liaison arrangements with the Strategic Commands and their Combined Joint Planning Staff (CJPS) at SHAPE.

Execution Phase

  1. The participation of contributing Partners in the process of providing political guidance and oversight will continue during the course of a NATO-led PfP operation whenever any further political guidance is required, to include significant changes in the OPLAN and the ROEs, in preparation of an 'exit strategy', and in the course of withdrawal planning. In parallel, all EAPC members, i.e. contributing as well as non-contributing Partners, will continue to be involved in information exchange and assessments as described for the consultation phase.

  2. The most direct involvement of contributing Partners during the actual conduct of an operation will be through force contributions and participation in command arrangements. Participation of Partners would depend on the actual command requirements for a given operation and on Partners' definite contributions of forces and capabilities. Proper participation of all contributing nations, generally reflecting the number of nations involved and their individual contributions, needs to be balanced against the principle of military effectiveness. The type of command arrangements for possible Partner participation should, where appropriate, follow the model of a CJTF HQ. Possible arrangements regarding PSE and Partner liaison, based on NMA advice, may also play a role.

  3. In principle, Partners would only fill posts in headquarters which are in the direct chain of command up to and including a CJTF HQ. In military headquarters superior to these HQs, particularly in HQs at the strategic level, contributing countries will normally be represented by liaison officers or military representatives as appropriate in order to satisfy Partner needs as well as NATO military requirements for a close coordination and exchange of information on military operational aspects during the conduct of an actual operation. Contributing Partners' participation may, however, also need to be catered for in other NATO military headquarters involved in planning or conduct of a PfP operation with Partners. The modular approach of the CJTF HQ concept by which Partner staff personnel or assets can augment an existing NATO HQ nucleus should serve as a basic model for Partner participation in all other types of military commands.

  4. For implementation of these guiding principles, the NMAs will complete current conceptual work for ensuring adequate Partner participation by using liaison officers and by the allocation of staff positions within NATO military headquarters. This work should include general criteria for allocation of posts in a military headquarter between NATO and Partners with regard to command and staff functions and the relationship to actual contributions of individual Partners to a given operation.

Related Work

  1. This Framework document will be complemented by work in other fora (e.g. PARP Ministerial Guidance; NMA work on Implementation of CJTF Concept and new Military Command Structure, Operational Planning, Use of Partner Liaison Officers for Specific Activities, Assessment/Certification of Partner Units; CJTF-related work on Intelligence Sharing / Security Agreements; Logistics and CIS concepts; legal and financial aspects. Further consideration will also be given to the case of spill-over from non-Article 5 operations to an Article 5 scenario. During this work, appropriate Partner involvement will have to be ensured. The Political-Military Framework for NATO-led PfP operations will be reviewed and updated if and when required by new developments in the Partnership and within the Alliance.

Appendix B
Expanded and Adapted PARP

The PARP will continue to play a key role in PfP and thus in the further development and implementation of the enhanced and more operational Partnership, and in particular in relation to the development of the OCC. The following represents a summary of way ahead in implementing the expanded and adapted PARP, [PFP/PARP(PMSC)WP(99)18(Revised)].

Status Report on the Expanded and Adapted PARP

Background

  1. On the basis of recommendations contained in the Comprehensive Report on PfP Enhancement which was agreed by Ministers in Spring 1997, the PMSC(PARP) has developed new procedures that will expand and adapt the PARP. These procedures, which were agreed by Permanent Representatives of Allies and Partners participating in the PARP, were brought to the attention of the EAPC meeting at the level of Defence Ministers with all Allies and Partners in June 1998. Major changes to the process embodied in the new procedures include the addition of PARP Ministerial Guidance, Partnership Goals and extension of the planning horizon to six years. In addition, in response to a request from the WEU, the PMSC(PARP) concluded that the PARP could provide an appropriate mechanism to identify and assess the possible contributions of forces and capabilities for WEU-led operations being made available by those PARP participants (Austria, Finland and Sweden) who also currently participate in WEU activities related to defence planning for the WEU.

  2. These changes continue the evolution of PARP and make it resemble the Alliance defence planning process even more closely. Ministerial Guidance will take account of the issues of greatest importance to Allies and Partners in providing overall political guidance for each six year planning cycle. This guidance, which will be developed biennially, will be approved in the Spring of odd years by Defence Ministers of Allies and Partners. participating in the PARP. Partnership Goals, which will also be developed biennially on the basis of PARP Ministerial Guidance, will replace Interoperability Objectives (IOs). Partnership Goals will continue to fulfil the role of IOs in enhancing interoperability for those units and capabilities, including multinational formations, declared for PfP. However they may also seek from Partners additional forces and capabilities required for the success of non Article 5 crisis management operations: support and augmentation modules or national staff officers for CJTF operations, capabilities to address risks posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery means and other particular valuable but scarce resources required for such operations are examples. Partnership Goals will assist Partners in developing capabilities to operate with Allies and will also assist those aspiring to NATO membership to prepare their forces for this.
Current Situation

  1. Implementation of the expanded and adapted PARP has already begun. Although the full introduction of Partnership Goals is not scheduled until 2000, in response to the wishes of a number of Allies and Partners, a limited number have been introduced in the current cycle for those Partners who wish to accept them as supplements to their existing IOs. The Initial Partnership Goals (IPGs) were developed by the NATO Military Authorities in cooperation with the Partnership Coordination Cell and the International Staff on the basis of guidance agreed by the PMSC(PARP). These are being discussed with PARP participants in the course of the current bilateral and multilateral consultations. They will be agreed by June 1999. In parallel with this process, the current IOs, which remain a priority for Partner implementation, are being revalidated and their period of validity is being extended to 2000 to cover the period until the full sets of Partnership Goals are agreed.

  2. The other new main element, PARP Ministerial Guidance will be developed later this Spring, taking account of other work in hand related to the enhanced and more operational Partnership and other initiatives arising from the Washington Summit. The Ministerial Guidance will be developed in the PMSC(PARP) by Allies and Partners participating in the PARP; it will be endorsed by their Permanent Representatives and approved by their Defence Ministers, covering a six year period with emphasis on the first two years of the cycle. In order to ensure transparency it will also then be circulated to all Partners.
The Way Ahead

  1. Partner interest in the PARP remains strong and the level of activities undertaken by Allies and Partners to meet PARP objectives continues to increase Two additional Partners, Georgia and Switzerland, have elected to participate in the current cycle and other Partners have indicated that they are considering participation in the future. The full transition to the expanded and adapted process will be completed with the approval of the full set of Partnership Goals in 2000. PARP remains a vital element of PfP which provides significant scope for Allies and Partners to continue to develop their cooperation and contribute to reinforcing PfP's operational capabilities. PARP also remains one of the most important tools for enabling Partners to achieve the strategic objectives of their individual partnerships.

Recommendation

Council is invited to agree the following recommendation:

  • invite the PMSC/PARP to take this report on the enhanced and more operational Partnership, in particular the Operational Capabilities Concept, into account when developing the PARP Ministerial Guidance in Spring 1999 and future Partnership Goals.

Appendix C
Defence-Related and Military Cooperation

Defence-Related Cooperation

Overview

  1. Practical defence-related cooperation in the NATO Senior Committees and their subordinate structures has greatly contributed to deepen and expand opportunities for Partner participation in their activities, and thereby supported the overall aims of the enhanced PfP. Work by the Senior Committees and subordinate structures will continue to play an increasingly important role, as the enhanced and more operational Partnership develops. The work of these committees and subordinate structures is reported in detail in the latest comprehensive progress report on PfP enhancement to Ministers, [EAPC(C)D(98)24(Revised)], from December 1998. The following gives an overview of some of the most significant initiatives and activities:

    • The Council Operations and Exercise Committee (COEC) has undertaken a wide-ranging programme of activities with Partners, which include Partner participation in preparations of CMX 99 (exercise was cancelled), preparation of a set of generic crisis management documents and updating the Generic Crisis Management Handbook, and a compendium of national crisis management structures and procedures. NATO has undertaken a variety of activities including the dispatch of expert crisis management teams to Partner countries, detailed briefings on NATO crisis management at NATO HQ, briefings and visits to the SITCEN and the provision of expert advice on Operations Centre/Situation Centre operations and organisation.

    • In the context of the Conference of National Armaments Directors' (CNAD) activities, a NATO Team of experts is currently training Albanian military specialists who will soon begin clearance of a significant quantity of unexploded munitions at 11 major sites throughout the country. The team is also providing advice concerning the disposal of thousands of tonnes of obsolete, damaged or excess ammunition located at 140 military storage sites.

    • The NATO Air Traffic Management Committee (NATMC) and its Groups have developed Programmes of Work with full participation of Partners taking into account their advice and recommendations on priorities including the on-going development of a document on Guidance, Procedures and Timetable for Civil-Military Co-ordination of Air Exercises for Partner reference and use.

    • The NATO Air Defence Committee (NADC) inter alia conducts two air defence seminars annually with Partners, one hosted by a Partner nation and the other by a NATO nation.

    • The Senior Civil Emergency Planning Committee (SCEPC) has a wide-ranging programme of cooperative activities with Partners aimed at promoting practical cooperation and interoperability in civil emergency planning and civil crisis management arrangements, including disaster preparedness and disaster relief. This programme includes opening to Partners of the regular meetings of the nine technical Planning Boards and Committees dealing with transportation, supplies, communications, medical and civil protection, which are now meeting on a regular basis with Partners.

    • The Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre (EADRCC) is now fully operational. The EADRCC has proved its value by its continued assistance to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in dealing with the current influx of refugees from Kosovo into Albania and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (1) and in coordinating the responses of EAPC countries to a recent flooding in Ukraine.

    • Partners are involved in the work of the Senior NATO Logisticians Conference (SNLC) and its subordinate bodies on all unclassified items.

    • In the NATO Pipeline Committee (NPC) Partners have participated in meetings and in working groups and working Parties subordinate to the NPC.

    • In the Military Agency for Standardisation (MAS) Partners have been almost fully integrated in 45 of 46 Working Group programmes, and work directly together with Allies on the development of doctrinal and procedural interoperability matters.

Military Cooperation

Overview

  1. The work of the NMAs with Partners to implement the MC Concept for PfP Enhancement [MCM-031-97] and developments on additional measures to further enhance military cooperation in PfP have been reported in detail in the latest comprehensive progress Report on PfP Enhancement to Ministers in December 1998 [EAPC(C)D(98)24(Revised)]. The full spectrum of military cooperation currently in place or envisaged will be required to support the enhanced and more operational Partnership. It is therefore recommended that the NMAs further capitalise and bring to fruition current initiatives, many of which complement or are integral to the OCC. These developments have been further amplified in the interim Advice on the Enhanced and More Operational Partnership [MCM-031-99]. The most significant developments and initiatives include:

    • MC/PS meetings with Partner Military Representatives on PfP military programmes and operational issues and monthly EAPMC/PS meetings;

    • nomination of Partner Military Representatives to Partner Missions; addition of Partner Staff Officers, working in international capacities, in the Partnership Coordination Cell (PCC in Mons: and retention of Partner National Liaison Officers at the NATO HQ in Brussels, at both MNCs and at the PCC;

    • Partner officers' involvement in international functions in aspects of the planning and conduct of PfP activities through the eight established PfP Staff Elements (PSEs) at various NATO headquarters;

    • participation of Partners in CJTF trial exercises and agreement by the MC on consultation with Partners on the modalities for future Partner participation in NATO-led CJTF operations to include possible Partner provision of augmentation/support modules, participation in training and exercises and the use/participation of PSE personnel in their international function in CJTF HQs when activated;

    • development of common modalities for Partner Multinational Formations;

    • development of a concept for a voluntary system to routinely assess Partner units for NATO-led Peace Support Operations; and

    • increasing scope and complexity of the NATO/PfP exercise programme, involving the leadership of Partners, for instance as Exercise Director or Officer in Charge of the Exercise. Development of analysis and lessons learned mechanisms for evaluation of PfP exercises.

Recommendation

  1. Council is invited to agree the following recommendation:

    • task the appropriate NATO Senior Committees and NMAs, in consultation with Partners, to support and contribute to the development of the enhanced and more operational Partnership, in particular the Operational Capabilities Concept and the PfP Training and Education Enhancement Programme .

Appendix D
Operational Capabilities Concept for NATO-led PfP Operations

This appendix sets out the principal features of the Operational Capabilities Concept for NATO-led PfP Operations (OCC) and provides advice and recommended taskings for the development of the full Operational Capabilities Concept by the time of the Autumn 1999 Ministerial meetings. It has been developed on the basis of the PMSC's recommendations noted by the NAC through PO(INV)(99)29 (circulated to Partners under EAPC/PFP(PMSC)N(99)21) and interim NMA advice in MCM-031-99.

Outline Concept

  1. The Operational Capabilities Concept (OCC) is designed to establish new means and mechanisms to reinforce PfP's operational capabilities through enhanced and closer military cooperation. The OCC would seek to improve the interoperability of Partner forces and thereby the ability of Allied and Partner forces to operate together in future NATO-led PfP operations. The OCC has two specific aims:
    1. to improve the ability of Partner forces to contribute to NATO-led PfP operations; and,

    2. to give increased flexibility, predictability about potential contributions, and capability in putting together tailored force packages to mount and sustain future NATO-led PfP operations.

Principles

  1. The development and implementation of the OCC will be governed by several fundamental principles. It must not compromise NATO's integrity and ability to fulfil, independent of Partners, the full range of its missions. It must recognise that the decision to take part in a specific operation is taken on a case-by-case basis by both NATO and Partner nations. It must be open to all Partners, regardless of their levels of progress, aspirations and means, and it must safeguard the basic PfP principles, such as self-differentiation. Finally, training will remain a national responsibility.

Means and Mechanisms to Reinforce PfP's Operational Capabilities

  1. The OCC will be developed, inter alia, on the basis of the following elements:
    1. Pool(s) of Forces and Capabilities:

      The OCC will identify pool(s) of Partner forces and capabilities, which will be further elaborated and will be potentially available for NATO-led PfP operations. In principle, all Partner forces and capabilities declared by nations through PARP or other appropriate mechanisms are potentially available for NATO-led PfP operations. This "declared pool(s)" of forces could include multinational Ally/Partner formations as well as Partner units and multinational formations involving Partners alone.

    2. Established Multinational Formations:

      Multinational formations involving Partners, and possibly Partners and Allies, could be included in the OCC, if agreed by participating nations, as a cohesive contribution to the pool(s) of forces and capabilities. Actual contributions may also be made available in the form of the respective national contingents from such multinational formations.

    3. Peacetime Working Relationships:

      The further development of effective and efficient peacetime working relationships would facilitate the preparation and integration of these forces into a NATO-led PfP operation. The OCC would, therefore, envisage enhanced peacetime working relationships between Partner and Alliance headquarters and staffs, and between Allied and Partner formations. These enhanced relationships would build on the informal peacetime working relationships, which already exist as a result of PfP cooperation to date in the military field. When fully developed, they will represent a new quality in PfP military cooperation, by providing more structured arrangements than currently exist within the PfP framework. Such peacetime working relationships, including regular training and exercises and possible assessment and feedback mechanisms, will foster the habits of cooperation, standardisation and interoperability that are key to military effectiveness in multinational forces.

      NMA advice on the implementation of the CJTF concept in MCM-038-99 notes that based on the successful participation of Partners in CJTF trial exercises, it would be considered advantageous for the Alliance if a pool of trained augmentation modules from Partner nations could be established ready to fill a role in the CJTF HQ. In this context, it will be necessary to consider how the implementation of CJTF could be supported by the peacetime working relations that are envisaged in the OCC.

    4. Assessment and Feedback Mechanisms:

      A central element of the concept will be for the Alliance to assess and provide feedback on the operational capabilities of declared Partner forces. This aims at improving the military effectiveness of those forces requested by Partners to be assessed. Partners could be included in the assessment, as well as in the selection of the appropriate NATO standards to be applied.

      Such militarily effective contributions will thus facilitate the force generation and tailoring process and enhance the Alliance's capability to sustain long duration operations. Once a Partner's declared contribution had been assessed as providing an appropriate capability, Alliance planners might reasonably count it as ready to contribute to NATO-led PfP operations. This will of course have to be subject to the particular circumstances of any operation that arose, and any operational certification process that might be deemed necessary by the appropriate military authorities at the time.

    5. Enabling Mechanisms:

      Subject to a further assessment of the military value and political advisability of formalising enabling mechanisms in advance, while noting the proven utility of the SOFAs, the OCC will address, with a view to standardisation and interoperability, enabling mechanisms that might facilitate the conduct of NATO-led operations with Partners, such as host nation support, cross-servicing, basing, airspace and transit arrangements.

Multinationality

  1. The OCC will take account of the work of the PMSC and other NATO bodies on multinationality and multinational formations in the framework of PfP. The concept will address the challenges and opportunities of multinationality, drawing a distinction between established multinational formations and multinationality as practised in SFOR. It would have a strong "operational" focus, and emphasise the desirability of additional peacetime measures for improving the military effectiveness of multinational forces which are likely to cooperate in future NATO-led PfP operations.

Related Initiatives

  1. Without prejudice to the outcome of ongoing work on other PfP initiatives, the development of the OCC will need to take into account a number of related issues, which have already been implemented or are currently under development. The OCC will support the implementation of the PMF and Partners participation in the CJTF concept. It will also draw on the expanded and adapted PARP and support the Membership Action Plan in enhancing the interoperability of Partner forces with those of the Alliance. The OCC will also build on PfP enhancements, particularly in the military field, that have already been implemented or are currently under development. In this regard, the work underway on common modalities for multinational formations, on the routine assessment of Partner units for NATO-led PfP operations, and on the possible analysis and lessons learned mechanisms for evaluation of PfP exercises will need to be considered. The OCC will also have to take into account improvements to PfP Training and Education suggested in Appendix E.

Political-military Considerations for the Development of the OCC

  1. Initial political-military considerations for the development of the OCC include:

    • The concept should be assessed in terms of its value added.

    • If additional training and exercise activities are recommended as part of the OCC, these should be clearly described. The aim is to increase the quality of PfP training and exercises, not to do more. This might be done by working within currently programmed PfP exercise levels. Such activities would be separate from Alliance Article 5 training.

    • Common training of Allied and Partner forces should not detract from the value and training capacity relating to Article 5.

    • For all elements of the OCC, quality should be emphasised over quantity.

    • The ability of the Alliance and Partners to absorb proposed activities in OCC should be considered.

    • The OCC should seek to improve transparency of in the spirit of PfP activities and to make optimum use of these activities in support of the concept, while respecting their national character.

    • The ability of established multinational formations to be self-supporting and sustainable will be a major consideration. The optimisation of military effectiveness in this regard will be more challenging the lower the level of multinationality.

    • The implementation of peacetime working relationships within the OCC should not result in a loss of military capability for the Alliance.

    • Means and mechanisms using the tools of PfP should be explored to enhance all Partners' ability to take full advantage of the new opportunities offered by the OCC.

Resources

  1. Resource implications for Allies and Partners must be fully taken into account in all elements of the OCC. Cost effectiveness and affordability will be key considerations in the development of the means and mechanisms of the OCC. Although resource estimates will only become available as the activities are developed over time, it is clear that, in line with current PfP activities, implementation will largely rely on national defence budgets and manpower allocations. Additionally, many of the commonly funded activities supporting the enhanced and more operational Partnership, including the OCC when implemented, will have been programmed or budgeted as part of overall Alliance requirements (e.g. exercise budgets, CJTF and Computer-Assisted Exercises capabilities, Peace Support Operations). The focus of the OCC resource implications will be on manpower and specifically the operational impact of assigning that manpower to PfP activities. NATO resource bodies should nevertheless be invited to review, where appropriate in consultation with the NMAs, the common-funded resource implications of the OCC.

Recommendations

  1. Council is invited to agree the following recommendations:
    1. task the PMSC to develop political-military advice on the OCC and report to the NAC by 1 June 1999;

    2. task the NMAs, based on political-military advice to be developed in accordance with the above tasking, to provide further recommendations regarding the OCC's elements by 1 September 1999;

    3. task the PMSC to provide an interim report to the NAC by mid-September 1999;

    4. task the PMSC to develop the full OCC, as part of the comprehensive report on the overall implementation of the enhanced and more operational Partnership, taking into account further military advice, in time for the Autumn 1999 Ministerial meetings; and,

    5. task the Senior Resource Board, in consultation with the NMAs, and the Civil Budget Committee - as part of the tasking in paragraph 19 d. of the main body of this report - to provide an affordability assessment of this concept by the time of the Autumn 1999 Ministerial meetings.

Appendix E
Improving Training and Education in Partnership for Peace

This Appendix develops an outline for a programme to improve and optimise training and education in the Partnership. It takes account of initial military advice.

Outline Programme

Introduction
  1. The December 1998 Ministerial meetings tasked the North Atlantic Council in Permanent Session to identify and put together initiatives underway in PfP, including education and training activities such as the PfP Training Centres, the PfP Simulation Network and the Consortium of Defence Academies and Security Studies Institutes, to form a coherent package of measures to reinforce PfP's operational capabilities.

Aim

  1. The PfP Training and Education Enhancement Programme (TEEP) will provide a structured approach to optimise and improve training and education in the Partnership. Its principal aim is to increase the ability of training and education efforts to meet current and future demands of an enhanced and more operational Partnership, focussing specifically on the achievement of interoperability. It also seeks to promote greater cooperation and dialogue among the wider defence and security communities in NATO and Partner nations.

Importance of Training and Education in the Partnership

  1. As underscored in recent Ministerial meetings there is an awareness that training and education of individuals capable of responding to the challenges of the enhanced and more operational Partnership will be vital for the continued success of the Partnership. In line with the overarching aims of the 1997 SLG Report and subsequent taskings, PfP is assuming a more operational character with greater requirement for interoperability. As PfP cooperation deepens and contains more operational elements, including more robust and sophisticated exercises, demands on qualified human resources have been increasing. This is further complicated by the growing challenge of multinationality at lower levels of command and force structures.

Current Experience

  1. Presently, there is a wealth of training and education opportunities throughout the Partnership based on NATO-sponsored activities, including exercises and NATO Schools, and nationally sponsored activities. Notwithstanding these opportunities, exchanges of national experiences and views at NATO fora, including on the IFOR/SFOR and lessons learned from NATO/PfP exercises, have highlighted a number of continuing shortfalls within the area of interoperability. Experience also shows that there are varying levels of interoperability within Partner nations and different needs to be addressed. If not addressed, these challenges will likely impact on the ability to meet the demands of an enhanced and more operational PfP, including the ability of Partner forces to operate together with those of the Allies in NATO-led PfP operations. Training and education will play a key role in addressing such challenges.

Overall Approach

  1. To take full advantage of the education and training contributions by NATO and Nations to the Partnership, the TEEP seeks to optimise and harmonise NATO and national PfP activities as appropriate and to increase transparency of activities "in the spirit of PfP", and bring them closer to the PfP NATO process.

  2. There is a need to consolidate existing and emerging tools, deepening and improving them where necessary and reinforcing the effectiveness of their contribution to the overall enhanced and more operational Partnership. Without prejudicing the principle that education and training are ultimately national responsibilities, this effort also entails acknowledging multinational cooperation "in the spirit of PfP" as an essential component in taking Partnership to a higher level of cooperation. A basic assumption for this effort is that within the scope of PfP, both Allies and Partners need to concentrate energy and resources, while collecting and sharing lessons learned. One way to accomplish this is to establish PfP Training Centres, where enhanced training and education activities are available to all Allies and Partners. Another is to strengthen existing defence educational institutions by linking them together. A third is to improve training efficiencies by conducting training on a distributed basis, reaching a wider audience at less cost. These and the optimisation of the already existing NATO-sponsored activities are complementary paths that should be taken up in parallel.

Improving NATO's Contribution

  1. Training and education provided by NATO are a central feature of the Partnership Work Programme (PWP). These activities take many forms: individual education at various NATO Schools, NATO-sponsored conferences and workshops, as well as military activities and exercises. Over time, considerable effort has been made to develop and improve these training and education activities. The establishment of the NATO Training Group (NTG) within the International Military Staff, the increasing role of the Military Agency for Standardisation (MAS), the newly established NATO Simulation Policy Group (NSPG), and the Education and Training Branch in the Partnership Coordination Cell (PCC) offer new opportunities for continuing this effort which should be explored. In addition, the PWP feedback system, which has recently been made operational, offers promise for assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of training and education activities. Moreover, programme tailoring to ensure activities offered continue to match evolving requirements would be an important result of ongoing work, and in the context of Individual Partnership Programmes, the possibility to assist Partners to develop a national concept for education and training, including through PARP Ministerial Guidance, should be pursued.

Optimising the Contribution of National and "In the Spirit of" PfP Activities

  1. The important contribution of national and "in the spirit of" PfP activities to the overall Partnership has been recognised and fostered from the early days of PfP. This is particularly true in the training and education field where NATO's capabilities are limited. Just as NATO tools can be improved, national efforts could also be enhanced. Better feedback and assessment mechanisms to assist setting priorities, measuring impact of training on the trained personnel, and designing customised activities, as well as bringing the national PfP training and education activities closer to the NATO process, including by increasing transparency, would complement the endeavours of nations to optimise their offerings. Therefore, a major effort to make more effective use of national contributions should be a part of the TEEP.

Capitalising on Recent Initiatives

  1. Recent initiatives such as the Concept for PfP Training Centres, PfP Simulation Network and the Consortium of Defence Academies and Security Studies illustrate the usefulness of multinational cooperation as essential and complementary components in underwriting a collaborative approach to education in PfP.

  2. PfP Training Centres are national facilities made available to all PfP countries to enhance training and education activities. Through the Concept for PfP Training Centres the Allies and Partners took a significant step to foster a greater role for national training facilities within the Partnership. The Concept allows for a range of NATO involvement in these Centres, including by providing expert advice and assistance. In accordance with the terms set out in the Concept, several PfP Training Centres have already been designated 3, while others are being considered. As more facilities join the family of PfP Training Centres, a network of national facilities should emerge as part of a collaborative approach to training and education.

  3. The TEEP should seek to realise the full potential of the relationship between designated national training centres and PfP established through the Concept for PfP Training Centres. It should explore, inter alia, possible networking of these Centres including through the utilisation of simulation networks and the consortium model. It should also consider their geographical and functional spread, as appropriate, to avoid duplication of efforts and resources and to attain complementarity and wider reach. In facilitating the way ahead, interaction among these Centres would be developed initially through the Clearing House mechanism.

  4. The PfP Consortium of Defence Academies and Security Studies Institutes focuses on civil-military education in national security and strategic-level military planning, and aims at enhancing multinational education through collaborative approaches linking defence practitioners, scholars, and experts into activity-based networks that facilitate information sharing. It may also extend participation in PfP to include universities and non-governmental institutes. The first annual conference in 1998 on "Networking Security Institutions in the Information Age and the Way Ahead for the PfP Consortium" illustrates the important role the Consortium can play in the overall education and training effort.

  5. The Consortium's objectives, which might be further defined by its participants, could include: to foster greater academic and educational opportunities within the defence and security community; to encourage high standards for professional military education; to promote cost-effective education through collaborative distance learning and distributed training, such as via the Internet; to expand dialogue, understanding, and cooperation through security-related research in EAPC countries; and to explore complementary relationships with other institutions such as the NATO Defence College.

  6. Possibilities that offer Allies and Partners greater involvement in the Consortium include: participating in the staffing of an interim secretariat whose work will be coordinated by the US-German George C. Marshall Center and shared among institutions in the Partnership; hosting of an annual conference with work supported by workshops and sub-committees and augmented by joint security studies research projects; disseminating lessons learned through a journal or other appropriate publication; and periodic reports to the PMSC on Consortium activities.

  7. The PfP Simulation Network (SIMNET) focuses on military command and staff training for NATO-led PfP operations. It will be based on the latest developments of the Combined Joint Task Force Concept and should aim to support related concepts. Its approach is to enhance such training through computer assisted technologies and communications that can link national or multinational staffs and remote-site command posts.

  8. Allies and Partners can contribute to the SIMNET's further development by participating as "remote sites" in which the Headquarters leadership role could rotate among nations as part of PfP command post exercises to improve command and staff procedures employed in NATO-led PfP operations. Ways should be explored to take advantage of the PfP SIMNET initiative's ability to maximise the impact of advanced technology on the development of the enhanced and more operational Partnership. This could include, inter alia, exploring relationships and mutual support among the PfP SIMNET, the NATO Simulation Policy Group (NSPG) and the ACE Command and Staff Training Programme (ACSTP). Extending the reach of NATO's own efforts in this area to Partner nations for joint and combined training for NATO-led PfP operations should also be considered. Finally, PfP SIMNET participants could volunteer, on a rotational basis, to host conferences to further develop these concepts and to provide periodic reports on PfP SIMNET activities to NATO's Political-Military Steering Committee meeting in EAPC format.

Main Aspects of the Work Ahead

  1. The work ahead will address the following areas:

    1. Stocktaking:
      In consultation with Partners an accurate assessment should be made of the training and education opportunities available to Partners, including activities "in the spirit of PfP", with a view to identifying more precisely the shortcomings and requirements.

    2. Exercises:
      Exercises are a key element in assessing standards and overall interoperability. Possibilities for further expanding the scope and complexity of exercises should be explored. The study could also investigate the prospects for regular and appropriately sequenced exercises, including Computer-Assisted Exercises (CAX), Command Post Exercises (CPX) and Field Training Exercises (FTX), in relevant PfP Training Centres.

    3. Feedback and assessment mechanisms:
      It is imperative to have adequate transparency, feedback and lessons-learned mechanisms to accurately determine the continuing benefit of training and education activities. These mechanisms are necessary to tailor future activities to the evolving needs of the Partnership, taking into account Partners' absorption capabilities.

    4. Interoperability:
      Further work in the field of training and education could be explored with a view to developing common knowledge of concepts, doctrines, procedures and designs to achieve and maintain the most effective level of interoperability.

    5. Linkages and collaboration:
      Collaboration among training and education institutions, while respecting their national and NATO character, could help improve the quality of the activities offered and promote harmonisation of programmes. At the same time, collaboration could increase regional co-operation, as well as habits and structures of mutual assistance. The full potential of the PfP Training Centres, including their possible networking and the development of the Consortium model, will be explored.

    6. Distributed training:
      The potential of information and remote communication technologies will be brought to bear extensively on the distributed training and education effort. In this regard, existing and other possibilities will be explored with regard to establishing EAPC-wide simulation networks and training programmes in a cost-effective way.

    7. National Training and Education Strategies:
      The need for and possibilities to provide more direct advice to Partner nations in assisting them to develop national strategies for PfP-related education and training will be studied. It should be recognised that PfP countries have different starting points, resources, capabilities, approaches and priorities.

    8. Resources:
      The study should take account of possible resource implications for steps to be agreed to further improve and optimise training and education in PfP.

Recommendations

  1. Council is invited to agree the following recommendations:
    1. task the PMSC to develop political-military advice for the development of specific recommendations on the above issues as needed and report to the NAC by 1 June 1999;

    2. task the NMA's and other appropriate NATO bodies based on political-military advice to be developed in accordance with the above tasking, to provide specific recommendations based on a full stocktaking and assessment of the existing opportunities by 1 September 1999;

    3. task the PMSC to provide an interim report to the NAC by mid-September 1999;

    4. task the PMSC to develop the PfP Training and Education Enhancement Programme, including specific recommendations, as part of the comprehensive report on the overall implementation of the enhanced and more operational PfP, taking into account military advice, in time for the Autumn 1999 Ministerial meetings;

    5. task the Senior Resource Board, in consultation with the NMAs, and the Civil Budget Committee - as part of the tasking in paragraph 19. d. of the main body of this report - to provide an affordability assessment of this Programme by the time of the Autumn 1999 Ministerial meetings.
  1. Reviewed, as far as military common funding is concerned, in the SRB's 2000-2004 Medium Term Resource Plan currently under development.
  2. Footnote 2 to paragraph 2 of Appendix 2 to Annex to the Consolidated SLG Report.
  3. The PfP Training Centre in Ankara, Turkey; Yavoriv training area, Ukraine; Geneva Center for Security Policy, Switzerland; PfP Training Centre in Bucharest, Romania; PfP Training Center in Almnas, Sweden.