Partnership for Peace Training and Education

The Partnership for Peace (PfP) Training and Education Enhancement Programme (TEEP)

One of the overarching objectives of the Partnership for Peace Programme remains the enhancement of interoperability of NATO and Partner forces, including those for NATO-led PfP operations. For that purpose, in their 1997 Meeting in Sintra, Ministers established the aim of developing a more operational role for PfP and expanded the scope of NATO/PfP exercises, putting increased emphasis on higher quality and sophistication.

As a result, the importance of education and training to meet the requirements of an intensifying and deepening military co-operation has increased. The two main pillars of NATO/PfP education and operational training are the NATO activities including NATO exercises and Schools, and the nationally sponsored activities.

In this context, the PfP Training and Education Enhancement Programme (TEEP) has been formed. Even though training and education remains essentially a national responsibility, TEEP is designed to help improve interoperability and to promote greater co-operation and dialogue among the wider defence and security communities in NATO and Partner nations, thus ensuring the best use of human and other resources.

The PfP Training Centres have been established at the April 1999 Washington NATO-EAPC Summit as “new tools” in support of NATO-PfP interoperability, together with the PfP Consortium of Defence Academies and Security Studies Institutes and the PfP Simulation Network. NATO has a link to the Training Centres through the NATO School in Oberammergau, Germany and to the Consortium through the NATO Defence College in Rome, Italy.

PfP Training Centres

Nine Allied and Partner Nations participate in providing PfP Training Centres, most of whom focus on operational and tactical level training and instruction in NATO/PfP staff procedures and other individual skills:

• Austria (International Peace Support Command),
• Finland (Finnish Defence Forces International Centre),
• Greece (PfP Training Centre),
• Romania (Regional Training Centre),
• Slovenia (PfP Language Training Centre),
• Sweden (Armed Forces International Centre),
• Switzerland (Centre for Security Policy),
• Turkey (PfP Training Centre),
• Ukraine (Yavoriv Training Area).

From the perspective of the partner nations involved, these facilities are a means of deepening and widening the possibilities of co-operation in training and education both regionally and between Partner and NATO nations.

PfP Training Centres offer courses, seminars and workshops to both military and civilian audiences, providing training and instruction in diverse areas including defence and security policy, defence resource management, official NATO languages, peacekeeping operations and civil-military co-operation. They can also provide areas for training of a more operational character, including offering field training for PfP exercises.

A periodic Conference of PfP Training Centres and other PfP training and educational institutions provides a forum where all participants can explore ways to exchange information, experience and expertise.

For national training centres to be recognised as PfP Training Centres, they must adhere to the following principles:

• the proposed activities fall within the overall scope of PfP and support its objectives, in particular, enhancing Allies/Partner interoperability;
• PfP activities at the Centre will be transparent and open to all members of the PfP;
• the activities of the Centre will aim to promote national and/or regional initiatives without creating dividing lines;
• the Training Centres will contribute to the Partnership Work Plan (PWP), by either offering education and training opportunities, such as workshops or courses, or supporting other PfP activities such as exercises, or both; and in the case of Partner nations, PfP Training Centres will be declared in the Individual Partnership Programme (IPP);
• in order to avoid duplication of efforts and resources, these training centres should, as far as possible, contribute and conform to a regional and functional spread of training facilities.