NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organization

  • Pakistan, NATO's relations with -
    Last updated: 02-Oct-2012 19:02 News
  • Pakistan earthquake relief operation
    Last updated: 27-Oct-2010 12:38 News SHAPE Updates, news stories and images from the mission EADRCC Situation reports on donations by NATO and partner countries 01 Feb. 2006 - NATO Statement by the Secretary General on the end of the NATO mission in Pakistan 03 Jan. 2006 - SHAPE Kashmir snow does not stop NATO assistance 02 Dec. 2005 - SHAPE NATO teams overcome difficult environment to deliver relief in Pakistan Topics
  • Parliamentary Assembly, The NATO -
    Last updated: 07-Mar-2012 17:04 News
  • Partners across the globe, NATO’s relations with -
    NATO’s relations with partners across the globe NATO cooperates on an individual basis with a number of countries which are not actually part of its formal partnership frameworks¹. Referred to as “partners across the globe” or simply “global partners”, they include Afghanistan, Australia, Iraq, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mongolia, New Zealand and Pakistan. These countries develop cooperation with NATO in areas of mutual interest and actively contribute to NATO operations. Individual global partners choose the areas where they wish to engage in and cooperate with NATO in a spirit of mutual benefit and reciprocity. Over recent years, NATO has developed bilateral relations with each of these countries. Global partners now have the same access to partnership activities as those in formal partnership frameworks. Activities range from joint exercises and operations, to strategic-level training on issues of intelligence, information and technology. The importance of reaching out to countries and organisations across the globe was underlined in the Strategic Concept adopted at the November 2010 Lisbon Summit. At Lisbon, Allied leaders declared their intention, as part of a focused effort to reform NATO’s partnerships policy, to better engage with global partners, contributing significantly to international security. Following up on the Lisbon decisions, Allied foreign ministers approved a new partnerships policy at their meeting in Berlin in April 2011. In line with the new policy, all partners will be treated in the same way, offering them the same basis of cooperation and dialogue. Moreover, there are now more opportunities for meetings in flexible formats, bringing together NATO members and partners with other countries, which NATO may have no bilateral programme of cooperation. These include China, India, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia and Colombia. Such meetings have taken place to consult partners on different issues, such as counter piracy and countering narcotics in Afghanistan. 1. The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, Partnership for Peace, the Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative. Highlights Partners across the globe, or global partners, work with NATO on an individual basis, outside of the Alliance’s traditional partnership frameworks. Global partners have the same access to all of NATO’s partnership activities. Currently, NATO’s global partners include Afghanistan, Australia, Iraq, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mongolia, New Zealand and Pakistan. Support for NATO-led operations The contributions from global partners and other countries to NATO-led operations have a direct, advantageous impact for international peace and security. In the Balkans, Argentinean and Chilean forces have worked alongside NATO Allies to ensure security in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In Kosovo, Argentina has helped NATO personnel provide medical and social assistance to the local population and cooperated on peace agreement implementation since 1999. In Afghanistan, a number of global partners such as Australia, the Republic of Korea and New Zealand, work alongside the Allies as part of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Other countries, such as Japan, support ISAF efforts of stabilisation in Afghanistan without being involved in combat, by funding a large number of development projects and dispatching liaison officers. Pakistan’s support for the efforts of NATO and the international community in Afghanistan remains crucial to the success of the Alliance’s mission, despite past differences. NATO remains committed to engaging with Pakistan in an effort to enlist support to stabilise Afghanistan. The participation of partners in NATO-led peace-support operations is guided by the Political-Military Framework (PMF), which was developed for NATO-led operations. This framework provides for the involvement of contributing states in the planning and force generation processes through the International Coordination Centre at SHAPE. Building on lessons learned and reinforcing the habit of cooperation established through KFOR and ISAF, NATO Allies decided at the 2010 Lisbon Summit to review the PMF in order to update how NATO shapes decisions and works with partner countries on the operations and missions to which they contribute. Typically, partner military forces are incorporated into operations on the same basis as are forces from NATO member countries. This implies that they are involved in the decision-making process through their association to the work of NATO committees, and through the posting of liaison officers in the operational headquarters or to SHAPE. They operate under the direct command of the Operational Commander through multinational divisional headquarters. Regular meetings of the North Atlantic Council, the Alliance’s principal political decision-making body, with ambassadors, ministers and heads of state and government are held to discuss and review the operations. Evolution of relations NATO has maintained a dialogue with countries that are not part of its partnership frameworks, on an ad-hoc basis, since the 1990s. However, NATO’s involvement in areas outside of its immediate region – including Afghanistan and Libya – has increased the need and opportunities for enhanced global interaction. Clearly, the emergence of global threats requires the cooperation of a wider range of countries to successfully tackle challenges such as terrorism, proliferation, piracy or cyber attacks. Dialogue with these countries can also help NATO avert crises and, when needed, manage an operation throughout all phases. Since 1998, NATO has invited countries across the globe to participate in its activities, workshops, exercises, and conferences. This decision marked a policy shift for the Alliance, allowing these countries to have access, through the case-by-case approval of the North Atlantic Council, to activities offered under NATO’s structured partnerships. These countries were known as “Contact Countries”. Significant steps were taken at the 2006 Riga Summit to increase the operational relevance of NATO’s cooperation with countries that are part of its structured partnership frameworks as well as other countries around the world. These steps, reinforced by decisions at the 2008 Bucharest Summit, defined a set of objectives for these relationships and created avenues for enhanced political dialogue, including meetings of the North Atlantic Council with ministers of the countries concerned, high-level talks, and meetings with ambassadors. In addition, annual work programmes (then referred to as Individual Tailored Cooperation Packages of Activities) were further developed. At the 2010 Lisbon Summit, Allies agreed to develop a more efficient and flexible partnership policy, in time for the meeting of Allied foreign ministers in Berlin in April 2011. To this end, they decided to: streamline NATO’s partnership tools in order to open all cooperative activities and exercises to partners and to harmonise partnership programmes; better engage with partners across the globe who contribute significantly to security and reach out to relevant partners to build trust, increase transparency and develop practical cooperation; develop flexible formats to discuss security challenges with partners and enhance existing fora for political dialogue; and build on improvements in NATO’s training mechanisms and consider methods to enhance individual partners’ ability to build capacity.
  • Partnership Action Plan against Terrorism (PAP-T), The -
    The Partnership Action Plan against Terrorism The Partnership Action Plan against Terrorism (PAP-T) is a framework through which Allies and Partner countries work to improve cooperation in the fight against terrorism, through political consultation and a range of practical measures. The PAP-T underlines the importance of protecting fundamental freedoms and human rights, as well as upholding the rule of law in combating terrorism. The Action Plan is the main platform for joint efforts by Allies and Partners in the fight against terrorism. It also reflects the determination of Allies and Partners to keep the Euro-Atlantic Partnership active and relevant to the changing security environment. How does cooperation work in practice? The PAP-T is a key element in the Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme. It has also been offered to countries that participate in NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue and other interested countries, on a case-by-case basis. Participating countries agree on the level of their participation individually with NATO. The Action Plan facilitates greater intelligence sharing and cooperation in areas such as border security, terrorism-related training and exercises, the development of capabilities for defence against terrorist attack and for managing the consequences of such an attack. Consultations and information sharing Allies and Partners consult regularly on their shared security concerns related to terrorism in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC). They also exchange views and experience in seminars and workshops held under EAPC/PfP auspices. Partner countries may seek direct political consultations with NATO, individually or in smaller groups, on their concerns related to terrorism. In addition, NATO and Partner countries have established an EAPC/PfP Intelligence Liaison Unit at the Allied Strategic Command for Operations in Mons, Belgium, to facilitate more effective intelligence exchange. An increasing number of non-NATO countries share information on equipment development and procurement activities to improve their national capabilities to combat terrorism. Through the Conference of National Armaments Directors (CNAD) Defence Against Terrorism Programme of Work, Allies and Partners are developing technological capabilities and solutions for defence against terrorism. Operations and exercises Partner countries and other non-member countries are contributing to NATO-led operations and exercises that help combat terrorism. Russia and Ukraine have contributed frigates to Operation Active Endeavour, NATO’s maritime counter-terrorism operation in the Mediterranean, and Mediterranean-rim countries are also providing intelligence to this operation. Moreover, a number of non-member countries are contributing to the fight against terrorism through their support for NATO-led operations in Afghanistan and in the Balkans. A range of exercises in combating terrorism are regularly undertaken as part of the PfP programme. Exercises organized by individual Allies and Partners “in the spirit of PfP” are also used to develop capabilities for combating terrorism. Assisting Partners’ efforts against terrorism Under NATO’s Political-Military Steering Committee, focused meetings are scheduled by Partners and Allies to address specific needs related to terrorism. Mentoring programmes are being developed on specific terrorism-related issues, in order to share specific experiences in combating terrorism. NATO/PfP Trust Fund projects are also supporting Partner countries by destroying surplus and obsolete munitions or hazardous materials that could pose a security risk in the hands of terrorists.   NATO also supports Partner countries in conducting studies on infrastructure protection and other aspects of defence against terrorism. Allies work with Partners on defence and security-sector reform, primarily through the IPAP and PfP Planning and Review Process (PARP), to support efforts to develop efficient, democratically-controlled, properly-structured and well-equipped forces able to contribute to combating terrorism. Through these mechanisms, Partners can choose to make counter-terrorism a priority area and fix related objectives in coordination with the Alliance. Borders are one of the first lines of defence against terrorism. Under the PAP-T, NATO and Partner countries have been working to enhance various aspects of border management and security, including addressing the challenge of illegal trafficking. Partner countries participating in IPAP and/or PARP can choose to develop objectives in the area of border security. Courses on border security and management are also open to Partners at the NATO School in Oberammergau, Germany, and in the PfP Training Centers in Turkey and Greece. Through the PAP-T, NATO and Partners also cooperate on air defence, air-traffic management, and improving the interoperability of their forces for joint counter-terrorism operations. Cooperation in the fields of logistics and arms control is also ongoing. Targeting terrorist finances The EAPC format of the Economic Committee has provided a forum for exchange of information and views on the economic aspects of the international fight against terrorism. This has included, in particular, regulatory provisions barring the financing of terrorist activity and analysis of the methods and sources of finance for terrorist groups. The NATO Defence College has also dedicated a number of events to examining the financial and economic aspects of the fight against terrorism. Civil emergency planning NATO and Partner countries share related information and actively participate in civil emergency planning activities to assess risks and reduce vulnerability of the civil population to terrorism and attacks using chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear agents. This includes developing crisis-management procedures and active participation in field exercises. Allies and Partners have implemented a civil emergency planning action plan endorsed by the Senior Civil Emergency Planning Committee (SCEPC). In particular, Partners associate themselves with the efforts being undertaken within the SCEPC and its planning boards and committees to work on all possible options to provide support, when requested, to national authorities in the event of a terrorist attack. Cooperating with other international organizations Through the PAP-T, NATO cooperates with a number of international organizations – such as the United Nations, the European Union, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. NATO is committed to cooperation with the United Nations, which has a primary role in the international community’s response to terrorism, and works closely with the UN Counter Terrorism Committee. The PAP-T was communicated to the UN Security Council as an initial contribution to the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1373. Representatives of other international organizations are regularly invited to seminars and other activities organized under the PAP-T. Science and environment The Science for Peace and Security Programme (SPS) promotes scientific cooperation between NATO Allies, Partner countries and Mediterranean Dialogue countries. The programme offers grants to scientists across these countries to collaborate on priority research areas. Defence against terrorism is the first of three key priorities under the SPS work programme. Since the cooperative programme was redirected to security in 2004, over 230 activities have been initiated in a range of topical areas related to defence against terrorism. Special consideration is given to the social and psychological aspects of international terrorism and its root causes. Other areas include the rapid detection of chemical, biological, radiological nuclear (CBRN) agents and weapons, and rapid diagnosis of their effects on people, physical protection against CBRN agents, decontamination and destruction of CBRN agents and weapons, food security, explosives detection, eco-terrorism countermeasures and defence against cyber-terrorism. How did this policy evolve? Meeting at very short notice a day after the September 2001 attacks against the United States, ambassadors from NATO and Partner countries unconditionally condemned the attacks and pledged to undertake all efforts to combat the scourge of terrorism. The PAP-T is a manifestation of this resolve. It was launched by the North Atlantic Council in consultation with Partners at the Prague Summit in 2002. The programme continues to evolve and expand in line with the joint aims and efforts of Allies and Partners.
  • Partnership for Peace Planning and Review Process (PARP)
    Partnership for Peace Planning and Review Process The Planning and Review Process (PARP) aims to promote the development of forces and capabilities by partners that are best able to cooperate alongside NATO Allies in crisis response operations and other activities to promote security and stability. It provides a structured approach for enhancing interoperability and capabilities of partner forces that could be made available to the Alliance for multinational training, exercises and operations. The PARP also serves as a planning tool to guide and measure progress in defence and military transformation and modernisation efforts. PARP is a biennial process that is open to all Partnership for Peace (PfP) partners.  Following the review of NATO’s partnerships policy in April 2011, participation was also opened to all other partners on a voluntary and case-by-case basis subject to NAC approval.  Countries that wish to join NATO must participate in the PARP as a pre-requisite to join the Membership Action Plan (MAP). The MAP provides advice, assistance and practical support tailored to the individual needs of countries wishing to join the Alliance. However, participation in the MAP does not prejudge any decision by the Alliance on future membership. The PARP also provides a planning mechanism for Euro-Atlantic partners that are European Union (EU) members to assist them in developing capabilities for both NATO-led and EU-led operations. Components In recognition of the value the Allies place on force-planning, the 1994 Partnership for Peace (PfP) Framework Document committed NATO to developing a Planning and Review Process (PARP) with partner countries. Launched in 1995, the intent of the first cycle of this PARP was to provide a structured basis for identifying partner forces and capabilities that could be available to the Alliance for multinational training, exercises and operations. This process further enhances interoperability with Allied forces and promotes transparency. Over time, the PARP has developed in several ways in order to serve different purposes. In addition to improving interoperability and increasing transparency, the Alliance also uses the PARP to support reform efforts in the context of the Membership Action Plans, the NATO-Ukraine Commission, the NATO-Georgia Commission, Individual Partnership Action Plans and the Partnership Action Plans on Defence Institution Building. Working mechanism The PARP is a voluntary process. The decision to take part in it is up to each partner country. In order to participate, the interested partner must first complete a PARP Survey, which clarifies the partner’s forces and capabilities available to the Alliance, its wider defence plans, the structure of its forces and its budgetary plans. Based on this information, staff from both the civilian and military sides of the Alliance then develop a package of draft Partnership Goals tailored to the need of each individual partner nation. Next, the partner participates in bilateral talks on these goals with the civilian and military staffs. They then amend them as necessary, followed by discussions between the partner and all of the Allies. Finally, once this process is complete, the Ambassadors of the Allies and the partner country approve the Partnership Goals. The PARP continuously reviews the progress of each country in implementing its Partnership Goals. To this end, based on an updated PARP Survey completed by the partner, the NATO staff produces a PARP Assessment which analyses the advancement of the partner in meeting the agreed Partnership Goals.  The PARP Assessment is then discussed with the partner, reviewed with the Allies and approved by the Allied Ambassadors and the partner concerned. The PARP itself is a two-year process.  The partners and NATO agree to a package of Partnership Goals in even-numbered years and the PARP Assessment in odd-numbered years. Evolution Allies and participating partners jointly developed and agreed to the current PARP procedures and the collective documents related to the PARP. These collective documents, which continue to guide the PARP, include the PARP Ministerial Guidance, which the Allied and partner defence ministers approve; the Consolidated Report, which gives an overview of partners’ progress and contains a detailed section on the forces and capabilities that Allies could make available for crisis response operations; and the Partnership Goal Summary Report. The PARP has moved beyond its primary focus on developing interoperability to also addressing the development of new capabilities. It has the additional function of providing a planning mechanism for the participating partners who are also European Union (EU) members. In this respect, it also assists them in developing capabilities for, and contributions to, the European Union’s military capabilities which reflects the imperative that each nation has only a single set of forces on which it can draw for NATO-led, EU-led or other operations. In the past, the PARP was a vehicle for specifically encouraging defence reform, but has now extended to the wider security sector. For countries that agree, Partnership Goals now also cover reform and development objectives for Ministries of Interior and Finance, as well as Emergency Services, Border Guard Services and Security Services.
  • Partnership for Peace programme, The -
    Last updated: 31-Mar-2014 15:31 News
  • Partnership for Peace Status of Forces Agreement
    Partnership for Peace Status of Forces Agreement The Partnership for Peace (PfP) Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) is a multilateral agreement between NATO member states and countries participating in the PfP programme. It deals with the status of foreign forces while present on the territory of another state. The agreement was originally drawn up in Brussels on 19 June 1995 to facilitate cooperation and exercises under the PfP programme launched a year earlier. Basically, the PfP SOFA applies – with the necessary changes having been made – most of the provisions of an agreement between NATO member states, which was done in London on 19 June 1951. (Some provisions of this so-called NATO SOFA cannot be applied to partner countries for technical reasons.) It is important to note that these SOFAs fully respect the principle of territorial sovereignty, which requires a receiving state to give its consent to the entry of foreign forces. Neither the PfP SOFA nor the NATO SOFA addresses the issue of the presence of the force itself – that would be defined in separate arrangements.  Consequently, it is only after states have agreed to send or receive forces that the SOFAs concerned are applicable. By acceding to the PfP SOFA, the parties to the agreement identify exactly what the status of their forces will be and what privileges, facilities and immunities will apply to them, when they are present on the territory of another state, which is party to the PfP SOFA. All states that are party to the agreement grant the same legal status to forces of the other parties when these are present on their territory. Therefore, once there is a common agreement, for example, regarding a certain operation, training or exercise, the same set of provisions will apply on a reciprocal basis. A common status and an important degree of equal treatment will be reached, which will contribute to the equality between partners.
  • Partnerships : a cooperative approach to security
    Partnerships : a cooperative approach to security
  • Partnerships : Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI)
    Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI) Background ?? Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI) NATO's Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, launched at the Alliance's Summit in the Turkish city in June 2004, aims to contribute to long-term global and regional security by offering countries of the broader Middle East region practical bilateral security cooperation with NATO. ? more News
  • Partnerships : NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue
    NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue Background ?? NATO Mediterranean Dialogue NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue was initiated in 1994 by the North Atlantic Council. It currently involves seven non-NATO countries of the Mediterranean region: Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia. ? more News
  • Partnership tools
    Partnership tools NATO has developed a number of partnership tools and mechanisms to support cooperation with partner countries through a mix of policies, programmes, action plans and other arrangements. Many tools are focused on the important priorities of building capabilities and interoperability, and supporting defence and security-related reform. Most of these partnership tools were originally developed in the framework of NATO’s cooperation with Euro-Atlantic partners through the Partnership for Peace (PfP). However, with the reform of NATO’s partnerships policy in April 2011, steps were taken to open the “toolbox” to all partners, across and beyond existing regional partnership frameworks. From 2012 onwards, all partners have access to a new Partnership Cooperation Menu, which comprises some 1, 400 activities. An Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme (IPCP) is jointly developed and agreed between NATO and each partner country that requests one. These two-year programmes are drawn upon, among other things, the activities in the extensive Partnership Cooperation Menu, according to each country’s specific interests and needs. IPCPs form the basis of a partner’s cooperation with NATO. In addition, a myriad of other tools are available to partners, according to the specific areas of cooperation they wish to develop with the Alliance. Building capabilities and interoperability Partner countries have made and continue to make significant contributions to the Alliance’s operations and missions, whether it be supporting peace in the Western Balkans and Afghanistan, training national security forces in Iraq, monitoring maritime activity in the Mediterranean Sea, or helping protect civilians in Libya. A number of tools have been developed to ensure that partner forces are capable of participating actively in NATO-led operations. They include the following: The Planning and Review Process (PARP) helps develop the interoperability and capabilities of forces which might be made available for NATO training, exercises and operations. It also provides a framework to assist partners to develop effective, affordable and sustainable armed forces as well as promoting wider defence and security-sector transformation and reform efforts. PARP is open to Euro-Atlantic partners on a voluntary basis and is open to other partner countries on a case-by-case basis, upon approval of the North Atlantic Council. Under PARP, planning targets are negotiated with each country and regular reviews measure progress. PARP is conducted by Allies and participating partners together. The Operational Capabilities Concept (OCC) Evaluation and Feedback Programme is used to develop and train partner land, maritime, air or special operations forces that are declared available for NATO-led operations and the NATO Response Force, so that they meet NATO standards. This can often take a few years, but it ensures that partner forces are effective and interoperable with Allied forces once deployed. Some partners use the OCC as a strategic tool to transform their defence forces. The OCC has contributed significantly to the increasing number of partner forces participating in NATO-led operations and the NATO Response Force. The Political-Military Framework (PMF) sets out principles, modalities and guidelines for the involvement of all partner countries in political consultations and decision-shaping, in operational planning and in command arrangements for operations to which they contribute. A review of the Political-Military Framework for NATO-led PfP operations was launched at the 2010 Lisbon Summit to update the way NATO works together with partner countries and shapes decisions on the operations and missions to which they contribute. This review was conducted, in consultation with partners, in 2011. The Defence Education Enhancement Programmes (DEEPs) are tailored programmes through which the Alliance advises partners on how to build, develop and reform educational institutions in the security, defence and military domain. DEEPs focus on faculty building or so-called “educate the educators” programmes. They can cover areas such as how to teach leadership and critical thinking. DEEPs are open to all NATO partners. The Military Training and Exercise Programme (MTEP) allows partners to take part in exercises to promote interoperability. Through the MTEP, a five-year planning horizon provides a starting point for exercise planning and the allocation of resources. The Bi-Strategic Command Military Cooperation Division, which is principally located at SHAPE in Mons, Belgium, is responsible for supporting partner involvement in exercises. In addition, and on a case-by-case basis, Allies may invite partners to take part in North Atlantic Council-level crisis-management exercises that engage ministries in participating capitals, and national political and military representation at NATO Headquarters, in consultations on the strategic management of crises during an exercise. The Partnership Action Plan on Terrorism (PAP-T) is a framework through which Allies and partner countries work to improve cooperation in the fight against terrorism, through political consultation and a range of practical measures. It facilitates consultation and cooperation in areas such as intelligence-sharing, terrorism-related training and exercises, and the development of capabilities for defence against terrorist attack or for dealing with the consequences of such an attack. Other areas of cooperation include border management and security, air defence and air-traffic management. Defence against terrorism is also the first of three key priorities of the NATO Science for Peace and Security (SPS) Programme, which over time has initiated a broad range of activities in topical areas related to the defence against terrorism. PAP-T was launched at the Prague Summit in 2002 and continues to evolve in line with the joint aims and efforts of Allies and partners. Opportunities for cooperation between NATO and partners in the areas of armaments, air defence, and airspace and air traffic management are provided through the Conference of National Armaments Directors (CNAD), the Air Defence Committee (ADC) and the Air Traffic Management Committee (ATMC). Supporting transformation Several tools have been developed to provide assistance to partner countries in their own efforts to transform defence and security-related structures and policies, and to manage the economic and social consequences of reforms. An important priority is to promote the development of effective defence institutions that are under civil and democratic control. Some of the main tools supporting transformation include the following: Individual Partnership Action Plans (IPAPs) offer partners the opportunity to deepen their cooperation with NATO and sharpen the focus on domestic reform efforts. Developed on a two-year basis, these plans include a wide range of objectives and targets for reforms on political issues as well as security and defence issues. They are designed to bring together all the various cooperation mechanisms through which a partner country interacts with the Alliance. Since the launch of the IPAP in 2002, five countries have chosen to develop IPAPs with NATO. The development of IPAPs is open to all partners, on a case-by-case basis, upon approval of the North Atlantic Council. The Partnership Action Plan on Defence Institution Building (PAP-DIB) aims to reinforce efforts by partner countries to reform and restructure their defence institutions to meet domestic needs as well as international commitments. Launched in 2004, the PAP-DIB defines common objectives, encourages exchange of relevant experience and helps tailor and focus bilateral defence and security assistance programmes for partner countries to support them in conducting these reforms. The objectives of the Action Plan include, for instance, effective and transparent arrangements for the democratic control of defence activities, civilian participation in developing defence and security policy, compliance with international norms and practices in the defence sector and effective management of defence spending. The Planning and Review Process (PARP) mechanism serves as a key instrument for implementing the Action Plan’s objectives. Education and training in a number of areas is offered to decision-makers, military forces, civil servants and representatives of civil society through institutions such as the NATO School in Oberammergau, Germany; the NATO Defense College in Rome, Italy; and some 20 national Partnership Training and Education Centres. Moreover, the Education and Training for Defence Reform initiative supports the education of civilian and military personnel in efficient and effective management of national defence institutions under civil and democratic control. In addition, a Professional Development Programme can be launched for the civilian personnel of defence and security establishments to strengthen the capacity for democratic management and oversight. Training provided under such a programme is closely aligned to the partner country's overall defence and security-sector reform objectives and harmonised and de-conflicted with the bilateral efforts of individual Allies and other programmes. Through the Partnership Trust Fund policy , individual Allies and partners support practical demilitarization projects and defence transformation projects in partner countries through individual Trust Funds. The Building Integrity Initiative is aimed at promoting good practice, strengthening transparency, accountability and integrity to reduce the risk of corruption in the defence establishments of Allies and partners alike. This includes developing a tailored programme to support the Afghan National Security Forces as well as supporting good practice in contracting and implementation of the NATO Afghan First Policy. Wider cooperation The NATO Science for Peace and Security (SPS) programme promotes joint cooperative projects between Allies and partners in the field of security-related civil science and technology. Funding applications should address SPS key priorities -- these are linked to NATO’s strategic objectives and focus on projects in direct support to NATO’s operations, as well as projects that enhance defence against terrorism and address other security threats. Disaster response and preparedness is also an important area of cooperation with partners. The Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre (EADRCC) is a “24/7” focal point for coordinating disaster-relief efforts among NATO and partner countries. The Centre has guided consequence-management efforts in more than 45 emergencies, including fighting floods and forest fires, and dealing with the aftermath of earthquakes. Partners are represented on many of the Alliance’s civil emergency planning groups and are also involved in education and training in this area. Women, peace and security and the United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 1325 have been the subject of a policy developed and approved by Allies and partners in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC).  This UN resolution reaffirms the role of women in conflict and post-conflict situations and encourages greater participation of women and the incorporation of gender perspectives in peace and security efforts. The “NATO/EAPC policy for the implementation of UNSCR 1325 on Women, Peace and Security and related issues” was first issued in December 2007 and has since been reviewed. It is supported by an Action Plan, which mainstreams related issues into NATO’s operations and policies. Many partner countries have been associating themselves with this policy including all 22 Partnership for Peace (PfP) countries, as well as partners Afghanistan, Australia, Japan, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates.
  • Partnership Trust Funds
    Partnership Trust Funds Through NATO, individual Allies and partners develop Trust Funds to implement practical demilitarizations and defence transformation projects in non-NATO countries. Trust Fund projects assist principally with the safe destruction of stockpiles of surplus and obsolete landmines, weapons and munitions. Another priority is to help manage the consequences of defence transformation through initiatives such as the retraining of former military personnel and converting military bases to civilian use. Projects include activities promoting transparency, accountability and gender mainstreaming. The Trust Fund policy is an integral part of NATO’s policy of developing practical security cooperation with partners. Any partner country with an individual programme of partnership and cooperation with NATO may request assistance. A specific Trust Fund is then established to allow individual NATO and partner countries to provide financial support on a voluntary basis. Originally, Trust Funds were developed in the framework of NATO’s Partnership for Peace programme – NATO’s programme of practical bilateral cooperation with non-member countries in Europe, the South Caucasus and Central Asia. However, over the years, use of Trust Funds has been extended to countries of the Mediterranean and broader Middle East region, which participate in NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, as well as to Afghanistan. More recently, with the launch of NATO’s new partnership policy at the April 2011 meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers in Berlin, the Trust Fund mechanism was also opened to NATO’s other partners across the globe. By August 2013, Trust Fund projects across 12 countries have helped to destroy: 146 million rounds of small arms ammunition; 4.5 million landmines; 2 million hand grenades; 621,000 pieces of unexploded ordnance (UXO); 570,000 small arms and light weapons; 29,000 tonnes of various munitions, including 8,300 tonnes of cluster sub-munitions (15 million sub-munitions); 10,000 rockets and missiles; 2,620 tonnes of chemicals, including rocket fuel oxidiser (melange); more than 1,470 man-portable air defence systems (MANPADS). In addition, some 11,800 former military personnel in three countries have received retraining assistance through Trust Fund defence transformation projects. The destruction of surplus stockpiles of arms and munitions reduces the threat to individual partner countries as well as the wider region. It also ensures that such materials are put beyond the reach of terrorists and criminals. Highlights Trust Funds promote the safe destruction of surplus and obsolete landmines, weapons and munitions They contribute to capacity-building in areas such as demining and munitions stockpile management They also support the retraining and transition to civilian life of former military personnel Specific Trust Funds are established for each project to allow individual NATO and partner countries to provide financial support on a voluntary basis Projects are open to all NATO partner countries Project development Projects may be initiated by either NATO member states or partner countries. Each project is led on a voluntary basis by a lead nation, which is responsible for gathering political and financial support for the project as well as selecting the executing agent for the project. There can be several lead nations, and a partner country can also take that role. The beneficiary host nation is expected to provide maximum support to the project within its means. Informal discussions with the NATO International Staff help determine the scope of the project. Project proposals set out in detail the work to be undertaken, the costs involved and the implementation schedule. The formal launch of a project is the trigger to start raising funds. Subject to completion of formal legal agreements, work can start once sufficient funds have been received. Trust Fund projects seek to ensure adherence to the highest environmental, health and safety standards, and recycling of materials is an integral part of many projects. Local facilities and resources are used to implement projects, where possible, so as to build local capacity in the partner countries concerned, ensuring sustainability. NATO cooperates actively with other international organisations and other relevant actors on Trust Fund projects to ensure coherence and effectiveness, as well as to avoid duplication of efforts. For example, NATO has cooperated with the International Organization for Migration (IOM), which was, for instance, the executing agent for the retraining Trust Fund projects in the Balkans; the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), which also implemented a NATO-initiated Trust Fund in Tajikistan; the European Commission (EC); and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). Project oversight and implementation The NATO Support Agency (NSPA) – formerly the NATO Maintenance and Supply Agency (NAMSA) –plays an essential role in the development and implementation of Trust Fund projects. It offers technical advice and a range of management services and has often been appointed to act as the executing agent for demilitarization projects by lead nations. This involves overseeing the development of project proposals as well as the competitive bidding process to ensure transparency and value for money in the execution of projects. Once the project proposal is agreed by the lead nation and the host nation, it is presented to the Political and Partnerships Committee in EAPC (Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council) format. This body serves as a formal forum to discuss the project and attract potential support and resources. Evolution of Trust Fund policy The Trust Fund policy was established in September 2000 to assist Euro-Atlantic partner countries in the safe destruction of stockpiled anti-personnel landmines. It provided the Alliance with a practical mechanism to assist partners to meet their obligations under the Ottawa Convention on the prohibition of the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and their destruction. Initial success in the safe destruction of anti-personnel landmines led to an extension of the policy to include conventional munitions, as well as small arms and light weapons. In recent years, the scope of the Trust Fund policy has been further expanded to support wider defence transformation initiatives. It has also been extended geographically and is now open to all partner countries participating in NATO’s structured partnership frameworks – Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council/Partnership for Peace, the Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative –as well as partners across the globe. The implementation of the Trust Fund policy includes measures and activities related to the adoption of best practices, and to the commitment of promoting transparency and good governance. In this context, NATO strives to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on gender mainstreaming in its projects.  
  • Peace support operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina
    Peace support operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina NATO conducted its first major crisis response operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The NATO-led Implementation Force (IFOR) was deployed in December 1995 to implement the military aspects of the Dayton Peace Agreement and was replaced a year later by the NATO-led Stabilisation Force (SFOR). SFOR helped to maintain a secure environment and facilitate the country’s reconstruction in the wake of the 1992-1995 war. In the light of the improved security situation in both Bosnia and Herzegovina and the wider region, the Alliance brought SFOR to a conclusion in December 2004 and the European Union (EU) took on NATO’s stabilisation role. NATO provides planning, logistic and command support for the EU-led Operation Althea, in accordance with the Berlin Plus arrangements agreed between the two organisations. NATO is also maintaining a military headquarters in Sarajevo. It carries out a number of specific tasks related, in particular, to assisting the government in reforming its defence structures, working on counter-terrorism and apprehending war-crime suspects. Bosnia and Herzegovina became a NATO Partner country in December 2006 and is focusing on introducing democratic, institutional and defence reforms, as well as developing practical cooperation in other areas. Aim and implementation of IFOR and SFOR IFOR The Implementation Force (IFOR) was deployed in Bosnia and Herzegovina in December 1995 with a one-year mandate. IFOR operated under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, deriving its authority from UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1031 of 15 December 1995. This gave it a mandate not just to maintain peace, but also, where necessary, to enforce it. As such and strictly speaking, IFOR was a peace enforcement operation, which was more generally referred to as a peace support operation. This was also the case for SFOR. IFOR’s aim IFOR aimed to oversee implementation of the military aspects of the Dayton Peace Agreement, the accord ending the Bosnian War. Its main task was to guarantee the end of hostilities and separate the armed forces of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, on the one hand, and Republika Srpska, on the other. IFOR in the field IFOR oversaw the transfer of territory between the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska, the demarcation of the inter-entity boundary and the removal of heavy weapons into approved cantonment sites. As the situation on the ground improved, IFOR began providing support to organisations involved in overseeing the implementation of the civilian aspects of the Dayton Peace Agreement, including the Office of the High Representative, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the United Nations. IFOR's goals were essentially completed by the September 1996 elections. As the situation was still potentially unstable and much remained to be accomplished on the civilian side, NATO agreed to deploy a new Stabilisation Force (SFOR) from December 1996. SFOR The Stabilisation Force (SFOR) operated under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, deriving its authority from UN Security Council Resolution 1088 of 12 December 1996. As was the case for IFOR, it was a peace enforcement operation that was more generally referred to as a peace support operation. SFOR’s aim SFOR’s primary task was to contribute to a safe and secure environment conducive to civil and political reconstruction. Specifically, SFOR was tasked to deter or prevent a resumption of hostilities; to promote a climate in which the peace process could continue to move forward; and, to provide selective support within its means and capabilities to civilian organisations involved in this process. SFOR in the field FOR’s activities ranged from patrolling and providing area security through supporting defence reform and supervising de-mining operations, to arresting individuals indicted for war crimes and assisting the return of refugees and displaced people to their homes. Keeping the peace SFOR troops carried out regular patrols throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina to maintain a secure environment. Multinational specialised units were deployed to deal with instances of unrest. SFOR also collected and destroyed unregistered weapons and ordnance in private hands, in order to contribute to the overall safety of the population and to build confidence in the peace process. In 2003 alone, SFOR disposed of more than 11,000 weapons and 45,000 grenades. SFOR was also one of several organisations involved in de-mining in Bosnia and Herzegovina. NATO forces carried out some de-mining themselves and helped to set up de-mining schools in Banja Luka, Mostar and Travnik. They also helped to establish a sniffer dog training school in Bihac. Furthermore, SFOR had Multinational Specialised Units (MSU) that assisted the EU Police Mission (EUPM). The EUPM is responsible for helping the Bosnian authorities develop local police forces that meet the highest European and international standards, through monitoring, mentoring and inspecting police managerial and operational capacities. Reforming defence establishments A key aspect of SFOR's work in Bosnia and Herzegovina concerned reform of the country's defence structures, which had been divided into three rival ethnic groups at the end of hostilities. Within the framework of a Defence Reform Commission, both SFOR and NATO worked to help Bosnia and Herzegovina build a unified command and control structure and to develop joint doctrine and standards for training and equipment that are compatible with NATO and Partnership for Peace (PfP) norms. In March 2004, a state-level Defence Minister brought the country’s two separate armies under a single command structure. NATO's military headquarters in Sarajevo has a leadership role in the Defence Reform Commission and is continuing to work on defence reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Arresting war-crimes suspects Although the apprehension of indicted war criminals was officially the responsibility of the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, NATO forces were instrumental in most arrests that have taken place. In total, SFOR brought 39 war-crimes suspects to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague (ICTY). SFOR also provided security and logistical support to ICTY investigative teams as well as surveillance of and ground patrolling around alleged mass graves. Through its military headquarters in Sarajevo, NATO remains committed to bring to justice all war-crimes suspects still at large. Contributing to reconstruction In addition to helping other organisations working on Bosnia and Herzegovina's reconstruction, SFOR launched its own Civil-Military Co-operation (CIMIC) projects in areas such as structural engineering and transportation. SFOR participated in the maintenance and repair of roads and railways in collaboration with the local authorities and other international agencies. This work was critical to providing freedom of movement throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina. Command of the missions As for all NATO operations, political control and co-ordination are provided by the North Atlantic Council, NATO’s senior political decision-making body. Strategic command and control is exercised by NATO’s Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers in Europe (SHAPE) in Mons, Belgium. Command of IFOR Admiral Leighton Smith commanded IFOR (COMIFOR) from the start of the operation on 20 December 1995 until 31 July 1996. Admiral T. Joseph Lopez then took command until 7 November 1996, followed by General William Crouch from 7 November 1996 to 20 December 1996.  The COMIFOR was based at operational headquarters in Zagreb, Croatia.  Lieutenant General Michael Walker, Commander Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps (COMARRC) acted as Commander for IFOR's land component throughout the operation. Command of SFOR Following the hand-over to SFOR in December 1996, the command structure, as directed by the North Atlantic Council (NAC), was broadened to include a deputy SFOR commander, a deputy operational commander and divisional commanders at the head of each MNTF (1,800 - 2,000 troops). This structure comprised 300 staff at HQSFOR at Camp Butmir in Sarajevo, led by the Commander of SFOR (COMSFOR) and three Multi-National Task Forces (MNTFs) working in different areas: MNTF-North (MNTF-N) based in Tuzla; MNTF-Southeast (MNTF-SE) based in Mostar; and MNTF-Northwest (MTNF-NW) based in Banja Luka. Restructuring of SFOR The NAC reviewed SFOR periodically at six monthly junctures to assess the force's effectiveness. On 25 October 1999 the NAC, based upon the improved security situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, reduced and restructured SFOR. Headquarters remained at Camp Butmir in Sarajevo but MNTFs were reduced in size from divisions to brigades. Each MNTF still retained individual brigade commanders. In addition a Tactical Reserve Force of 1,000 battle-ready troops was created. As was the case with IFOR, every NATO member with armed forces committed troops to SFOR. Iceland, the only NATO country without armed forces, provided medical personnel. Outside of NATO countries, contributors were: Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia (which all became NATO members at a later stage), Austria, Argentina, Finland, Ireland, Morocco, Russia, and Sweden; and by special arrangement with the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. All forces incorporated into SFOR came under the command of COMSFOR and the NAC. Commanders of SFOR – COMSFOR   Gen. William Crouch, US A 20 Dec 1996 - 30 Jul 1997   Gen. Eric Shinseki, US A 30 Jul 1997 - 23 Oct 1998   Gen. Montgomery Meigs, US A 23 Oct 1998 - 18 Oct 1999   Lt. Gen. Ronald Adams, US A 18 Oct 1999 - 08 Sep 2000   Lt. Gen. Michael Dodson, US A 08 Sep 2000 - 07 Sep 2001   Lt. Gen. John B. Sylvester, US A 07 Sep 2001 - 07 Oct 2002   Lt. Gen. William E. Ward, US A 08 Oct 2002 - 01 Oct 2003   Maj. Gen. Virgil L. Packett II, US A 02 Oct 2003 - 04 Oct 2004   Brig. Gen. Steven P. Schook, US A 05 Oct 2004 - 02 Dec 2004 The evolution of NATO’s assistance A four-year war started in Bosnia and Herzegovina when Yugoslavia (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia¹, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia) broke up at the end of the Cold War. NATO's involvement in Bosnia and Herzegovina began in 1992. In June of that year, NATO foreign ministers stated that, on a case-by-case basis, the Alliance would support peacekeeping activities under the responsibility of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (subsequently renamed the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe). A month later, in July 1992, NATO began monitoring operations in the Adriatic in support of the UNSCR 713 and 757 imposing an arms embargo and sanctions in the former Yugoslavia. By October 1992, NATO AWACS aircraft were monitoring operations in support of UNSCR 781, imposing a no-fly zone over Bosnia and Herzegovina. And in November, NATO and the Western European Union began to enforce the sanctions and embargo imposed by UNSCR 787. By the end of the year, NATO declared that it stood ready to support peacekeeping operations under the authority of the United Nations. NATO's first ever military engagement After the United Nations authorised the enforcement of a no-fly zone over Bosnia and Herzegovina, NATO began Operation Deny Flight in April 1993. On 28 February 1994, four warplanes violating the no-fly zone were shot down by NATO aircraft in the Alliance's first military engagement. At the request of the United Nations, NATO provided close air support to the UN Protection Force (UNPROFOR) on the ground and carried out air strikes to protect UN-designated safe havens. Air strikes were conducted against targets such as tanks, ammunition depots and air defence radars. NATO’s air operations against Bosnian Serb positions in August and September 1995 helped pave the way for a comprehensive peace agreement. The operation, Deliberate Force, lasted for 12 days and helped shift the balance of power between parties on the ground. It also helped persuade the Bosnian Serb leadership that the benefits of negotiating a peace agreement outweighed those of continuing to wage war. On 14 December 1995, after negotiations in Dayton, Ohio, the General Framework Agreement for Peace was signed in Paris, France. The Dayton Peace Agreement establishes Bosnia and Herzegovina as a single, democratic and multiethnic state with two entities: the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska. And the first major crisis response operation IFOR was the Alliance's first major crisis response operation. It was set up to implement the military aspects of the Dayton Peace Agreement, when NATO took over responsibility for military operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina from UNPROFOR. IFOR’s goals were essentially completed by the September 1996 elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, as the situation was still potentially unstable and much remained to be accomplished on the civilian side, NATO agreed to deploy a new Stabilisation Force (SFOR) from December 1996. Mission hand-over to the European Union At their Istanbul Summit in June 2004, NATO leaders decided to bring SFOR to a conclusion by the end of the year as a result of the improved security situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the wider region. The SFOR mission was officially ended on 2 December 2004. In its place, a European Union-led force is deployed, known as Operation Althea. The Alliance is providing planning, logistic and command support for the EU mission, in the framework of a package of agreements known as "Berlin Plus". These agreements provide the overall framework for NATO-EU cooperation. NATO HQ Sarajevo The primary role of this NATO Military Liaison and Advisory Mission (NATO HQ Sarajevo) is to assist Bosnia and Herzegovina with defence reform. It also aims to help the country meet requirements for its participation in NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme. NATO HQ Sarajevo undertakes certain operational tasks such as counter-terrorism while ensuring force protection, support to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, with the detention of persons indicted for war crimes, and intelligence-sharing with the European Union. In sum, the NATO HQ Sarajevo complements the work of the EU mission with specific competencies. Facts and figures Contributing countries Over the course of these missions, a total of 36 Allied and Partner countries contributed troops. In addition, soldiers from five countries that were neither NATO members nor Partner countries participated at different times, namely Argentina, Australia, Chile, Malaysia and New Zealand. Troop numbers IFOR IFOR was a 60,000-strong force that was deployed for one year. SFOR SFOR originally comprised 31,000 troops. By early 2001 they had been reduced to 19,000 and, in spring 2002, the decision was taken to reduce troops to 12,000 by end 2002. By 2004, they totaled 7,000. 1. Turkey recognises the Republic of Macedonia with its constitutional name.
  • Petroleum Committee
    Petroleum Committee The Petroleum Committee is the senior advisory body in NATO for logistic support to Alliance forces on all matters concerning petroleum, including the NATO Pipeline System (NPS), other petroleum installations and handling equipment. The Petroleum Committee reports to the Logistics Committee on questions related to NATO petroleum requirements and how they are met in times of peace, crisis and conflict, including expeditionary operations. The Petroleum Committee was originally established as the NATO Pipeline Committee in 1956, but was renamed the NATO Petroleum Committee in March 2008 to better reflect its wider role and responsibilities. Its present name was adopted in June 2010 after a thorough review of NATO committees aimed at introducing more flexibility and efficiency into working procedures. At that time the Petroleum Committee also came under the Logistics Committee. Main tasks and responsibilities The Petroleum Committee is responsible for dealing with all matters concerning fuels, oils, lubricants and related products, as well as matters dealing with their receipt, storage, transportation, quality and issue. Specifically, the Petroleum Committee will: review, assess and evaluate, in conjunction with other NATO authorities, the overall Alliance military petroleum logistics organization, policy, plans, procedures and capabilities with the aim of enhancing the interoperability, performance, efficiency, safety, security and effectiveness of support to NATO missions and operations; maintain, in close coordination with NATO member countries, other NATO Committees and organizations, a NATO petroleum crisis management organization and procedures capable of addressing its needs in case of any event that affects the overall supply of petroleum products; develop standardization of petroleum products and handling equipment used by all naval, land and air assets in order to improve the operational efficiency, effectiveness and interoperability of NATO and NATO-led forces; improve the effectiveness of NATO forces through standardization of the facilities, equipment and procedures for handling fuels and lubricant products in routine and expeditionary operations; examine proposals for delivering emerging technologies and make recommendations for the research and development of new equipment in support of NATO’s transformation process; liaise closely with civil standards organizations to gain the benefit of their knowledge and experience in supporting the interoperability of forces and equipment in accordance with the NATO Framework for Civil Standards;   exercise policy control for the operation and maintenance of the NPS and all fuel storage facilities constructed within the NATO Security Investment Programme (NSIP); develop and coordinate proposals concerning the joint civil/military use of existing and new NATO infrastructure petroleum facilities in order to lower capital investment and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) expenses during peacetime; liaise with relevant specialist bodies outside NATO on matters of mutual interest as appropriate; participate in the development of guidelines concerning environmental matters associated with the storage, handling and distribution of petroleum products; report to the Logistics Committee on petroleum logistic matters; participate in and contribute to the activities of the NATO Internal Task Force on Energy Security and assist in developing consolidated proposals to Allies; direct the work of its subordinate bodies in the specific fields of petroleum products and petroleum handling equipment; liaise with the Senior Resource Board, Infrastructure Committee and Civil Emergency planning Committee as appropriate develop in close coordination with other relevant Committees guidelines for civil-military cooperation on petroleum matters as required taking due account of civil standards as appropriate; and provide the focal point and forum for the consideration of all NATO-related petroleum matters. Working mechanisms The Petroleum Committee meets twice a year at NATO Headquarters or as otherwise required and submits annual reports to the North Atlantic Council. Meetings are held in two parts: one in restricted, NATO-only, session and one in open session with Partner, Mediterranean Dialogue, Istanbul Cooperation Initiative and other non-NATO countries as deemed appropriate. These meetings are co-chaired by the Head, Logistics Capabilities (International Staff) and the Deputy Director of the Logistics and Resources Division (International Military Staff). The Petroleum Committee executes its work in conjunction with its two permanent Working Groups: NATO Fuels and Lubricants Working Group develops standardization of fuels, lubricants and associated products used by all naval, land and air assets in order to improve interoperability and the effectiveness of NATO forces. It meets once a year in open session with Partners and, if required, in restricted NATO-only session.  Meetings are held in conjunction with the Army, Aviation and Naval Fuels and Lubricants Working Parties. Petroleum Handling Equipment Working Group improves the effectiveness and interoperability of NATO forces through the standardization of facilities, equipment and procedures for handling fuel and lubricant products. It meets once a year in open session with Partners and, if required, in restricted NATO-only session.
  • Pipeline System, NATO -
    NATO Pipeline System NATO has a pipeline system designed to ensure that its requirements for petroleum products and their distribution can be met at all times. The NATO Pipeline System (NPS) consists of ten distinct storage and distribution systems for fuels and lubricants. In total, it is approximately 12,000 kilometres long, runs through 13 NATO countries and has a storage capacity of 5.5 million cubic metres. The NPS links together storage depots, military air bases, civil airports, pumping stations, truck and rail loading stations, refineries and entry/discharge points. Bulk distribution is carried out using facilities from the common-funded NATO Security Investment Programme. The networks are controlled by national organizations, with the exception of the Central Europe Pipeline System (CEPS), which is a multinational system managed by the Central Europe Pipeline Management Organization. The NPS was set up during the Cold War to supply NATO forces with fuel and it continues to satisfy fuel requirements with the flexibility that today’s security environment requires. The NPS is overseen by the Petroleum Committee, which is the senior advisory body in NATO on consumer logistics and, more specifically, on petroleum issues. The Petroleum Committee reports to the Logistics Committee on all matters of concern to NATO in connection with military fuels, lubricants, associated products and equipment, the NPS and other petroleum installations. Structure and geographical reach The NPS consists of eight national pipeline systems and two multinational systems: The national pipeline systems the Greek Pipeline System (GRPS); the Icelandic Pipeline System (ICPS); the Northern Italy Pipeline System (NIPS); the Norwegian Pipeline System (NOPS); the Portuguese Pipeline System (POPS); the Turkish Pipeline System (TUPS), which comprises two separate pipeline systems known as the Western Turkey Pipeline System and the Eastern Turkey Pipeline System; the United Kingdom Government Pipeline and Storage System (UKGPSS). The two multinational pipeline systems are: the North European Pipeline System (NEPS) located in Denmark and Germany; the CEPS covering Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. This is the largest system. In addition to the national and multinational systems, there are also fuel systems in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain. The optimum utilization of NATO petroleum facilities in peacetime is essential for the proper maintenance of the NPS and the necessary training of its staff. NATO members use the facilities to the fullest extent practicable for military purposes and use spare capacity for commercial traffic providing that does not detract from the primacy of the military use of the system. Historical evolution The NATO Pipeline System was set up during the Cold War to supply Alliance forces with fuel. In order to support the new missions of the Alliance, the emphasis has shifted away from static pipeline infrastructure to the rapidly deployable support of NATO’s expeditionary activities. To this end, NATO has developed a modular concept whereby all fuel requirements can be satisfied through a combination of 14 discrete but compatible modules which can receive, store and distribute fuel in any theatre of operation. The concept also enables both NATO and Partner countries to combine their capabilities to provide a multinational solution to meet all fuel requirements. Even with the emphasis on expeditionary operations, the existing static pipeline infrastructure remains an important asset for the Alliance. Since the end of the Cold War, the NPS has been used to support out-of-area operations from the European theatre or using NATO airfields as an intermediate hub. The sudden increase in fuel demand mainly for airlift and air-to-air refueling can only be met by the NPS which remains the most cost-effective, secure and environmentally safe method of storing and distributing fuel to Alliance forces.
  • Piracy (Counter-piracy operations)
    Last updated: 17-Jun-2014 09:29 newYTPlayer('Q3s6rvk4uWs','70572m'); NATO's counter-piracy flagship tests readiness 11 Mar. 2014 Piracy - The Human Cost 25 Jun. 2012 Taking on the Pirates 17 Apr. 2012 Piracy: Orchestrating the response 10 Feb. 2011 A submarine to combat piracy 03 Jan. 2011 Fighting Piracy - Progress and challenges 11 Nov. 2010 Horn of Africa - The Pirate Menace (The NATO Chronicles (2010), Episode 1) 05 Nov. 2010 News
  • Political and Partnerships Committee (PPC)
    Political and Partnerships Committee (PPC) The Political and Partnerships Committee (PPC) is the single politico-military committee responsible for all NATO’s outreach programmes with non-member countries. It also handles NATO’s relations with other international organizations. The PPC provides the North Atlantic Council with comprehensive and integrated advice across the entire spectrum of NATO’s outreach policy. The committee meets in various formats: “at 28” among Allies; with partners in NATO’s regionally specific partnership frameworks, namely the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, the Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative; with individual non-member countries in “28+1” formats; as well as in “28+n” formats on particular subjects, if agreed by Allies. The PPC was established in April 2010 and succeeded the Political Committee.
  • Procurement Organisation (NPO), NATO -
    The NATO Procurement Organisation (NPO) A NATO Procurement Organisation (NPO) was established on 6 July 2012. This the first step in the creation of a framework for the execution of multinational armament procurement programmes within the Alliance. Until 2014, the NPO is in a design phase during which the structure and processes of the organisation will be developed in order to prepare for the effective execution of multinational procurement programmes. Main tasks and responsibilities During the design phase of the NPO, the aim is to establish a holding body in which multinational procurement programmes could be integrated. The Organisation will draw from the experience of current multinational procurement agencies such as the NATO Eurofighter and Tornado Management Agency (NETMA), NATO Helicopter Management Agency (NAHEMA), NATO Alliance Ground Surveillance Management Agency (NAGSMA), NATO Medium Extended Air Defense System Management Agency (NAMEADSMA), and NATO Airborne Early Warning Programme Management Agency (NAPMA) which will continue to exist until the Agency’s mission is fulfilled or participating nations decide to integrate into the new Organisation. A study assessing the possible merger of the NATO Support and Procurement Organisations, will also take place during the design phase. The Organisation’s structure The NPO is a subsidiary body of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and was established by the North Atlantic Council. The Organisation’s operations are overseen by an Agency Supervisory Board, its sole governing body, which during the design phase will be the Conference of National Armaments Directors. The executive body will be activated when a procurement programme joins the NPO. Evolution Following the design phase the organisational set up will be reviewed either to keep a separate NATO Procurement Organisation or an integrated NATO Support and Procurement Organisation.
  • Proliferation, Committee on -
    Committee on Proliferation (COP) The Committee on Proliferation (CP) is the senior advisory body to the North Atlantic Council on proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their associated delivery systems and chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) defence. The CP is responsible for information sharing, policy development and coordination on the issues of prevention of and response to proliferation, bringing together experts and officials with responsibilities in this field. The CP was created following the June 2010 committee reform, replacing the Senior Politico-Military Group on Proliferation, the Senior Defence Group on Proliferation and the Joint Committee on Proliferation.   The CP meets in two formats: politico-military, under the chairmanship of the Assistant Secretary General for Emerging Security Challenges, and defence format, under national North-American and European co-chairmanship.  The Committee addresses the threats and challenges stemming from WMD proliferation, as well as the international diplomatic responses to them. In its defence format, it also discusses the development of military capabilities needed to discourage WMD proliferation, to deter threats and use of such weapons, and to protect NATO populations, territory and forces. It cooperates with other NATO bodies with competencies in the area of WMD and CBRN defence. It can meet in several ways: Plenary Sessions, Steering Group meetings, Points of Contact meetings, consultations with Partners in 28+1 and 28+n formats. Some of NATO’s largest outreach activities take place under the auspices of the CP: the Annual NATO Conference on WMD Arms Control, Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, organized by the Committee in politico-military format, which gathers a broad range of non-NATO countries, including a number of partners across the globe from Asia and the Pacific. On average, 150 participants from more than 50 countries attend this conference every year.  For the Committee in defence format, the main annual activity of this kind is the International CBRN Defence Outreach event, which has the objective of increasing engagement, exchanging views and sharing best practices on CBRN defence with a wide variety of NATO’s partners.
  • Public Diplomacy (CPD), Committee for -
    Committee for Public Diplomacy (CPD) The Committee on Public Diplomacy (CPD) acts as an advisory body to the North Atlantic Council (NAC) on communication, media and public engagement issues. It makes recommendations to the NAC on how to encourage public understanding of, and support for, the aims of NATO. In this respect, the Committee is responsible for the planning, implementation and assessment of NATO’s public diplomacy strategy To support its objectives, members of the CPD share their experiences on national information and communication programmes and the perception of their respective public regarding the Alliance and its activities. The CPD discusses, develops and makes recommendations regarding NATO’s public diplomacy strategy and activities, where appropriate, in conjuction with national information experts. The CPD was created in 2004, succeeding the Committee on Information and Cultural Relations (CICR), which was one of the Organization’s first committees to be created. This reflected the importance given to information and awareness-raising by NATO’s founding members. A modest information service was created as early as 1950 and was supported in its efforts by the creation of the CICR in 1953. Role of the Committee on Public Diplomacy The Committee on Public Diplomacy (CPD) steers the planning, implementation and assessment of NATO’s public diplomacy strategy and advises the NAC on relevant issues. It analyzes the current and long-term challenges in encouraging public understanding of, and support for, the aims of Alliance. Members of the CPD discuss and exchange views and experiences on national information and communication programmes, in addition to sharing information regarding public perception of the Alliance. Together, they identify potential collective actions and, whenever needed, co-ordinate national actions to raise public awareness and understanding of NATO’s policies and objectives. To improve and reinforce information dissemination in NATO Partner countries, the CPD also designates Contact Point Embassies (CPEs). Within non-NATO countries, the CPD agrees on an embassy from a NATO member country to act as the point of contact for information about the Alliance in the respective host country. Each CPE serves in this position on a rotational basis. In addition to its role in forming the policies that determine the way in which the Alliance communicates with the public, the CPD also maintains a collaborative dialogue with non-governmental organizations such as the Atlantic Treaty Association. Working mechanisms Representatives from each of the NATO member countries constitute the CPD, with the Assistant Secretary General of the Public Diplomacy Division serving as the Chairman and the Public Information Advisor representing the Director of the International Military Staff. For reinforced meetings, communication experts from the capitals of member countries or invited third parties also contribute to CPD discussions. During committee meetings, the CPD examines and approves an annual Public Diplomacy Action Plan or equivalent, which is used to implement the Public Diplomacy Strategy. The Committee may also make additional reports or recommendations to the Council as necessary. The CPD meets regularly, based on a calendar of planned NATO activities, in addition to coming together as needed in response to unexpected events. As regular meetings are normally limited to member countries, the CPD also meets in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) format in order to allow participation by representatives from Partner countries. Periodically, representatives from Contact Point Embassies in Partner country capitals also attend CPD meetings. The CPD reports to the North Atlantic Council. It is supported by staff from the Public Diplomacy Division and does not have any subordinate committees under its remit. Evolution of the Committee on Public Diplomacy The founding members of NATO understood the importance of informing public opinion. As early as August 1950, a modest NATO Information Service was set up and developed in the Autumn with the nomination of a Director. The service – similarly to the rest of the civilian organization of the Alliance – did not receive a budget until July 1951 and effectively developed into an information service in 1952 with the establishment of an international staff headed by a Secretary General (March 1952), to which the information service was initially attached. The Committee on Information and Cultural Relations (CICR) By that time, two entites existed: the Working Group on Information Policy and the Working Group on Social and Cultural Cooperation. These Working Groups were merged in 1953 to form the Committee on Information and Cultural Relations (CICR). The CICR was the precurser to the existing Committee on Public Diplomacy. The role of this committee was to address the challenges of communicating the Alliance’s policies to the public. It held regular meetings with the NATO Information Service to exchange and share information on the development of NATO and national information and communication programmes. It was, nonetheless, made clear from the start that even if the NATO Information Service was later to develop into a coordinated service where programmes would be disseminated NATO-wide, it would never supersede national responsibilities and efforts in the information field. The CICR and the representatives’ respective countries would continue to work in tandem with the International Staff to raise public awareness and understanding of NATO’s policies and objectives. The Committee on Public Diplomacy (CPD) The CICR changed its name to the Committee on Public Diplomacy in 2004 when the Office of Information and Press became the Public Diplomacy Division, therefore better reflecting its aims and objectives. The CPD continues the functions of the CICR, giving advice on the methods and means used to communicate NATO policies and activities to a broad range of audiences with the goal of increasing the level of understanding and awareness of the Alliance.