2. NATO’s Defence Planning Processes
Jim Squelch
Planning Directorate
Defence Policy and Planning Division
NATO International Staff
January 2013

3. Command and Control (C2)
NATO Defence Planning
Armaments
Cooperation
Command and Control (C2)
Planning
Nuclear
Planning
NATO
DEFENCE
PLANNING
Logistics
Planning
Resources
Planning
FORCE PLANNING

4. Defence Policy and Planning Communities
Logistics
Intelligence
Medical
Air Defence
Research &
Technology
Air Traffic
Management
Force Planning
Civil Emergency
Planning
Command, Control
& Communication
Planning
Armament
Cooperation
Standardisation &
Interoperability
We also work closely with members of other planning and policy communities in NATO which provides us with a unique expertise in developing objectives related to interoperability and capabilities

5. NATO Force Planning Objectives
Determine the forces and capabilities required by NATO
Coordinate national defence plans to best support the interests of the Alliance and establish equitable share of defence burden among Allies
Assess countries’ actions in response to the requirements agreed by them
Remain responsive to new requirements:
Transformation; support to EU; etc.

6. Elements of Force Planning
Comprehensive Political Guidance
MINISTERIAL
GUIDANCE
NATO
FORCE
GOALS
DEFENCE
REVIEW

7. Force Planning Process
2006
2007
2008
2009
June
December
June
December
June
December
June
December
DEFENCE REVIEW CONSULTATIONS
DEFENCE REVIEW CONSULTATIONS
FORCE GOAL CONSULTATIONS
FORCE GOAL
CONSULTATIONS
Force
Goals
General
Report
Update
Force Goals
General
Report
Ministerial Guidance

8. Aim of Review
“To identify and agree measures which seek to optimise synergy between all activities related to the development and delivery of capabilities, either through harmonising or integrating them, as appropriate, while at the same time avoiding unnecessary duplication of efforts and ensuring effectiveness and efficiency.’’
C-M(2008)0055

10. Key Stages of NDPP In Step 1 – Establish Political Guidance
Develop single, unified guidance – 4 years + review at 2 years
In Step 2 – Determine Requirements
Develop single, consolidated list of MCRs years
In Step 3 – Apportion Requirements & Set Targets
Provide nations one, comprehensive package - 4 years
In Step 4 – Facilitate Implementation
Largely new step; was to add coherence
In Step 5 – Review Results
Provide more comprehensive assessment - 2 years

11. Key Stages of NDPP
In Step 1 – Establish Political Guidance Develop single, unified guidance In Step 2 – Determine Requirements Develop single, consolidated list of Minimum Capability Requirements In Step 3 – Apportion Requirements & Set Targets Provide nations one, comprehensive package In Step 4 – Facilitate Implementation Largely new step; intended to add coherence In Step 5 – Review Results Provide more comprehensive assessment
Lead – DPPC(R)
Lead – SCs
Lead – SCs – DPPC(R)
Lead – DPPC(R)
Lead – DPPC(R)

12. Defence Planning Staff Team
Main task is to provide the necessary staff support.
Functionally integrated task forces drawing on the civilian and military expertise within the NATO staffs.
Facilitate cohesion by developing holistic and fully informed products.
Has not worked. Not resourced and no culture of cyclical planning

13. Internal Coordination Mechanism
Senior level body which comprises all stakeholders
Main tasks:
coordinate composition and work of the staff team;
align and de-conflict staff efforts related to capability development across planning domains.
Maintain cohesion in capability development by aligning staff work and recommending (remedial) action to Senior Committee for defence planning (DPPC(R)).
Formally disbanded in May 2012 – replaced by Capability Development Executive Board

14. Senior Committee for Defence Planning – DPPC(R)
On behalf of the NAC, DPC(sic) and NPG, the DPPC(R) will be responsible:
for defence planning-related policy
for coordination and direction of DPP activities
for integrated advice to the NAC, DPC(sic) and NPG
DPPC(R) will serve as the central body to oversee the work of the NATO committees responsible for the planning domains, and can provide feedback and, as required, defence planning process-related direction to them AC/281-N(2008)0112-REV3 (INV)

15. Istanbul Coop Initiative Bahrein, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE
Partners in 2012
PFP Planning and Review Process (PARP)
PFP
AUT
FIN
SWE
IRL EU
RUS
TJK
FYR
MAP
Montenegro
IPAP
ARM
AZE
KAZ
MDA
TKM
BIH
Serbia
NUC
NGC
UKR
GEO
MALTA
BLR
CHE
KGZ
UZB ?
Istanbul Coop Initiative
Bahrein, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE
Mediterranean
Dialogue
Algeria
Egypt
Israel
Jordan
Mauritania
Morocco
Tunisia

16. PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE
Planning
And
Review
Process

17. PARP Milestones Partnership Partnership Goals Goals Ministerial
Spring 2012
Spring 2013
Spring 2014
Spring 2015
Partnership
Goals
PARP
Assessments
Partnership
Goals
PARP
Assessments
Consolidated
Report
Consolidated
Report
Summary Report
Summary Report
Ministerial
Guidance
Ministerial
Guidance
This chart shows where we are currently in the PARP.
We have begin the process of developing Partnership Goal packages for individual Partner countries which will then be discussed with each nation (bilateral consultation); before being reviewed in a series of PPC 28+1+? Meetings; before being approved by the Permanent Representatives of Allies and the individual Partner countries concerned during Spring 2012.

18. PARP and NDPP
Partners do not share obligations of Allies (eg burden-sharing)
Not one PARP but 18 PARPs
PARP already an integrated pol-mil process
One body (PPC(PARP)) providing oversight – Allies + participating Partners
Facilitating implementation already addressed through IPCPs/IPAP/MAP, Country Specific Plans, POCs, MTTs, PfP Training Centres etc

19. Elements of NATO-EU Cooperation
Washington Summit Communique 1999, para 10
Berlin Plus Agreement 17 March 2003
Security Agreement
Access to NATO planning capabilities and assets/capabilities
Role of DSACEUR
Coherent, mutually reinforcing capability requirements (PARP)
Capability Group/HTF Plus
Common information-gathering tool (NDPASS)
Staff to staff contacts
“Smart Defence”/”Pooling and Sharing”

21. Capability Review
Most Allies’ defence budgets affected – 18 spending less than in 2011
Maintaining, sometimes increasing, commitments to current operations but at expense of transformation
Cancellations, postponements and delays of major equipment projects; some capabilities being abandoned
Restrictions in training levels in some countries
Cuts in personnel and pay/allowances in a number of countries
Only four Allies will spend 2% of GDP or more on defence in 2012; 19 will spend 1.5% or less in 2011
Only seven Allies will spend 20% or more of defence expenditures on major equipment; ten will spend less than 10% in 2012
- US now provides 77% of Alliance defence spending; was 63% in 2001

22. Defence Expenditures

23. Defence Expenditures by Country in National Currency
2000 prices
(% Change from Previous Year)
Albania , ,
Belgium , ,
Bulgaria *
Canada , ,
Croatia , ,
Czech Republic , ,
Denmark , ,
* Pensions are not included

24. Defence Expenditures by Country in National Currency
2000 prices
(% Change from Previous Year)
Estonia 2,860 │
France* 38,311 │ 31, │
Germany 30,121 30,
Greece 5,357 3,
Hungary 208, ,
Iceland // // // // // //
Italy 13,456 10,
* Defence Expenditures, for 2009,do not include the Gendarmerie and, from 2010, include only the deployable part of the Gendarmerie.

25. Defence Expenditures by Country in National Currency
2000 prices
(% Change from Previous Year)
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg* │ │
Netherlands 6,868 6,
Norway** 28,159 │ 28, │
Poland 16,596 22,
Portugal 2,024 2,
* From 2008, defense expenditures include only the deployable part of the Police Grand-Ducale. ** From 2009, new methodology is used to calculate Pensions.

26. Defence Expenditures by Country in National Currency
2000 prices
(% Change from Previous Year)
Romania 1,933 1,
Slovak Republic* 22,615 │
Slovenia
Spain 9,428 8,
Turkey 4,366 4,
United Kingdom 29,927 29,
United States 577, ,
* From 2009, in Euros.

27. Defence Expenditures by Country in National Currency
2000 prices
(% Change from Previous Year)
Austria
Finland
Ireland
Sweden 27

28. Positive Lessons from OUP
Speed of Response – six days from UNSCR
NATO Command Structure performed well, with some reservations
Collateral damage was kept to minimum
“Partnership” worked well – SWE, JOR, QAT, MOR, UAE integrated into operation
Interoperability effective – eg FR, GR, IT and SP airbases hosted aircraft from 14 countries
Comprehensive Approach worked – military, civilian and diplomatic efforts

29. Negative Lessons from OUP
Imbalance of capabilities within NATO – over-reliance on US for advanced capabilities like airborne ISR, SEAD and AAR
Imbalance in levels of specific skills in Command Structure (especially for Targeting, where US had to reinforce)
Except for US, other Allies had insufficient stocks of precision-guided munitions

30. Deployable Specialised Assets

31. Deployable Specialised Assets – incl AAR

32. 50% of LOA – 2 x 90/180

33. 50% of LOA – 2 x 90/180

34. 50% of LOA – 2 x 90/180

35. Current Activities 150,000 personnel on nine operations
28 Allies and 26 non-NATO partners
133,000 in ISAF
7,000 in KFOR (including ORF Bn)
7,500 in Operation Unified Protector
OUP – 220 aircraft (25,000 sorties in six months)
Eleven ships patrolling (3,000 challenges made)
2,800 humanitarian assistance missions de-conflicted

36. Future Challenges
Discussions of future Capability Targets just begun – for approval by Defence Ministers in June 2013.
Based on computer-generated operational analysis that was, in turn, based on Political Guidance agreed in March 2011.
But, results challenged by almost half of Allies.
Consequences for agreement of Target packages? – 50% Rule
Emphasises importance of next Political Guidance being completely unambiguous in defining what Alliance force structure needs to be able to achieve.
Visibility to Ministers to be improved – proposals for “enhancement” of NDPP for February Ministerial

37. Future Challenges
“Smart Defence” – some 150 potential projects – 21 Tier 1
Role of Partners?
Multinational cooperation not easy!!
What happens after ISAF withdrawal?
How to remain engaged with each other?
Solution seen as Connected Forces Initiative
But, will there be money for training and exercises?

38. Thank You

40. Back-up Slides

41. NATO and EU Capability Codes
M 200 – ROSM
M 701 – SPODs
P 100 – SPODs
P 101 – APODs
M 150 – maintain railway
NATO
ROSM-G-HQ – RSOM Gp HQ
ROSM-B-HQ – ROSM Bn HQ
RSOM-CTU – sea, rail, air terminals
ROSM-RR – maintain railway
Format and approach in developing NATO Capability Codes appears to be different from the approach being used in the EU. Some examples of different codes for apparently similar capabilities are on this slide.
Have not yet discussed this with EU colleagues as part of staff to staff contacts. We still have some internal mind-clearing to do in NATO on the use of Capability Codes first. But we do intend to discuss with EUMS.
It may be that these differences do not matter and that they address different purposes but it will be important to confirm that in order to avoid the possibility that nations are led to undertake unnecessary or additional work as a result of them being asked to use incompatible systems.

42. Set of Representative PS for DRR 07
8 K KM
Max MJO range
BRUSSELS
8 K KM
Max MJO range
12 K KM
Max SJO range
29 PS
15 K KM
Max SJO- range
12 K KM
Max SJO range
+ 8 PS
+ 2 PS
These are the combinations of PSs used in DRR 07.
Note that 29 PSs considered assumed a range from Brussels of up to 8,000 km.
8 covered possible operations between 8,000 km and 12,000 km.
A further 8 looked out to 15,000 km from Brussels.
All this reflects agreement in CPG that Alliance needs capabilities to launch and sustain operations at “strategic distance”.

43. NATO European and EU Members