INTRODUCTION
In general terms, defence planning can be defined as a process aiming to build efficient and effective defence system that, in other words, represents military assets and capabilities that a country or alliance deems necessary to satisfy their defence and security ambitions. In this context, it is important to differentiate between two concepts, which are nevertheless closely interconnected - defence planning and operations planning – where the first one describes a way of how to produce required capabilities and the second one, how to engage them, if need be.
While concentrating on the first concept, it can be said that defence planning actually strives for reacting to current or future security challenges in the world and replies to question: what are the military implications arising from these challenges? And furthermore, what are defence strategic objectives and what military capabilities, in quantitative but also in qualitative terms, are necessary to fulfil strategic objectives? Military capabilities should be understood as a concept encompassing not only forces and equipment, but everything that renders them operational. This includes doctrines, operational concepts, support, training, stocks and munitions, etc. In this way, capability management can take diverse frameworks where the interlinking between respective functions may be defined under several paradigms.[1]
Of course, follow-on concerns might be specified in terms of how identified capabilities can be acquired, how long it will take, who will be responsible for plan execution and, last but not least, how to measure progress towards achieving defined strategic defence objectives. Measuring progress and effectiveness in capability development are definitely very delicate issues for any military organisation. On the other side, measuring progress in capability development, which includes capability trade-offs, assessment of capability strength, identification of capability shortfalls and their prioritisation within the capability planning process. It is expected that an effective implementation of outputs from that process can improve performance of a military organization by ensuring that resources are best allocated.
Intention of this article is to sum up outcomes of analyses aimed at identifying current approaches to capability planning as applied through NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and EU (European Union) planning structures as well as by countries. The article briefly summarises previous work completed under various working format, within national or international institutions dealing with security and defence issues, especially the NATO Science and Technology Organization (NATO STO), Systems Analysis Studies panel which is most relevant to the present study. Capability development is, beyond all doubt, a critical component of defence planning process and thereby, it has been extensively explored in a few previous analytical studies which provide in-depth coverage of capability planning from different perspectives. The key objective of all these analyses was to map how countries matched their force development process with their capability based long-term planning.
1 GENERIC FRAMEWORK FOR DEFENCE PLANNING AND CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT
In general terms, defence planning seeks to ensure that a country or a multinational community has the necessary assets and capabilities, i.e. military forces, infrastructure and facilities to fulfil given tasks throughout the full spectrum of its missions. Thus, the core task of defence planning is to identify and develop such capabilities in terms of quality and quantity which are needed for conducting the whole spectrum of operations according to the established level of ambitions. This is the reason for which this process is perceived as a very complex discipline having a direct impact on effectiveness and efficiency in dealing with national or common security and defence. At the same time, it is of note that there is no generally recognised and applied defence planning which should be based on universally accepted techniques or procedures. In any case, the ultimate product of defence planning, no matter if there is a national or NATO/EU planning, is a set of military capabilities which are supposed to enable to accomplish respective strategic goals in security and defence area. As such, defence planning is a complex, multi-stage, iterative process, including several stages, which are commonly interconnected, where the process of identification and achieving capabilities needed for accomplishing defined level of ambition plays a very crucial role. The sequence from strategic level to acquisition of required capability, through all relevant steps, is schematically illustrated in the Figure 1.
Figure 1: Generic framework of sequencing from strategy to capability acquisition[2]
Capability planning constitutes an integral part of a complex process, i.e. defence planning. It is expected that this process will be conceived in order to investigate possible future operating environments and develop plans to adapt defence organisation and military force structure to those environments. It can be assumed that a carefully designed defence planning process should ensure cohesion across various planning disciplines, so as to achieve overall force cost-effectiveness over the long term. And identification of capabilities needed for achieving defined objectives and subsequent development of required capabilities is considered as a key discipline of the defence planning process. So, in this context, capability planning cannot be seen as a simplified stand-alone process and isolated from all relevant security challenges.
1.1 Interaction between NATO/EU and national approaches to capability planning
From a generic perspective, many member countries forming international security and defence community, above all NATO, EU or UN (United Nations), consider the defence planning approach, as used by NATO, as the most suitable instrument for transforming challenging political guidance into military capabilities, which are defined as indispensable for a successful conducting of operations. In this context, the NATO Defence Planning Process (NDPP) is the principal vehicle for the synchronisation and harmonisation of capability development efforts undertaken by Allies individually or collectively.[3] As such, NATO continues to offer opportunities for increased coherence of capability development with partner countries and the EU. To this end, NATO continues to work closely with the EU to support capability development and interoperability with a view to avoiding unnecessary duplication and maximising cost-effectiveness.[4] A fact accentuating a need for closer cooperation between NATO and the EU is that the 21 countries are members of both NATO and the EU, not counting those countries, which are not NATO members but participate in specific NATO partnership programmes. So, for all these countries it is almost impossible to split up their planning processes and differentiate planning procedures while conceiving national contributions to NATO and to the EU. For above-mentioned reason, the process setting up of national capability planning is very often matching against the NDPP. Actually, many of national strategic documents refer to NATO and the NDPP, although there is no explicitly given that the national capability planning should reflect principles as implemented in the Alliance.
It is fully understandable that the one of national capability planning objectives shall be to achieve requirements stemming from the NATO level of ambitions. However, the question is whether to this end, it is indeed necessary to explore NDPP with a view to implement them into national environment. The analyses of national defence planning processes conclude that countries are using specifically tailored national approaches to capability planning.[5] Diversity and fragmentation of national approaches to capability planning is due to different strategic concerns, which stems from national security and defence policies and which may not be necessarily consistent with NATO common defence and security or EU common security and defence policy. Results of the analyses[6] illustrate that no country has implemented planning procedures in the form of an integral process as used through NATO or EU. Even though countries use neither NATO nor EU planning practice as a whole, principles as applied through NATO are commonly influencing national approaches far more than it is with the case of EU planning principles.[7]
In some cases, countries are using some fragments from the NATO or EU capability planning processes, properly adapted to national objectives. What is symptomatic for national approaches to capability planning is a close interconnection between identification of capability requirements and existing military force structure, which results in situation when newly identified capability requirements are a priori affiliated to relevant force units or countries tend to pre-identified force units, which shall achieve capabilities as appropriate. As long as countries want to be really coherent with NATO/EU planning procedures, they should pay high attention to outputs from national planning processes to be in line with NATO/EU requirements for capabilities. In order to provide an effective interaction between national planning processes and the NATO/EU planning process, national planning process is proposed to use the same taxonomies as in NATO/EU planning documents. With respect to this aspect, assigned national assets and capabilities should have quantitative and qualitative parameters in line with NATO/EU requirements. This approach would be also supportive to acquisition and procurement process when it is necessary to clearly specify technical performance parameters of weapon systems and other military equipment.
1.2 Findings derived from analysis of national capability planning processes
The synthesis of outcomes of the research focused on national approaches points out the fact that there is indeed no national capability planning process which could be strictly considered as identical to NATO or EU planning processes.[8] In addition, due to complexity of national concerns and interests in the area of foreign and security policy, it is hardly conceivable to create a unified NATO or EU planning process, which might be implemented as a standard by all countries. Nevertheless, the principles, based on which the NDPP is constructed, influence the national approaches far more than the EU planning scheme. In spite of differences between NDPP and EU planning process, it is possible to trace up a need for harmonising and synchronising national planning processes with NATO/EU ones as well as for standardising elaboration of national inputs to NATO or EU planning process.[9]
Another neuralgic point relates to national responses to the NATO’s Defence Planning Capability Survey (DPCS). In fact, one part of the DPCS, titled EU Military Capability Questionnaire (EUMCQ), is meant for gathering contributions of EU member states to be subsequently put into Force Catalogue (FC). In this respect, the DPCS is perceived as a single gathering tool summarising national contributions for both NATO and EU, even if the NATO and EU capability requirements, are different and as such they are supposed to be operationally used in a different way. Thus, the crucial point stemming from this fact is for NATO nations and EU member states, to differentiate their national contributions with respect to NATO and EU capability requirements. A specificity of national approaches to capability planning is mostly due to national security and defence policies which shall not be necessarily harmonised with NATO or EU strategic objectives. After all, outcomes of the analysis[10] highlight the fact that there is not any country which has implemented planning procedures in the form of an integral process as applied by NATO or EU.
With respect to national capability planning processes, in general terms, countries are introducing approaches specifically tailored for their military force structures, envisaged operational engagements of their force units and capabilities which are assessed as indispensable for achieving expected level of ambition. At the national level of planning, it is typical that identified capability requirements are affiliated in advance to relevant force units. Especially while assigning priorities in capability development, countries usually tend to pre-identified force units which are supposed to get relevant capabilities.[11]
A common aspect, which accentuates a need for correlating national and NATO/EU approaches, is the mechanism when individual countries produce and submit their national contributions to NATO or to the EU. National contributions containing respective capabilities are effectively building materials based on which both NATO and the EU level of ambitions are constructed. As a general rule, national contributions should accordingly reflect capability taxonomy, which has been agreed to be commonly used by both NATO and EU. In October 2011 and subsequently in January 2020, NATO (namely Director General of International Military Staff) has distributed Bi-SC Agreed Capability Codes and Capability Statements[12], which was developed with a view to provide the NATO and EU common language for area of defence planning and operations planning, and defines the capabilities requirements as used in DPCS/EUMCQ. This document was furthermore completed by another document, titled Bi-SC Capability Hierarchy[13], whose aim is to introduce a single taxonomy and hierarchical structure of Main Capability Areas.
A reflection of NATO/EU capability requirements into national contributions is therefore a critical issue for an effective cooperation between both national and NATO/EU sides. This is also a reason for which NATO and EU planning structures are permanently seeking to harmonise and synchronise national planning processes with NATO/EU ones. Thus, regardless the diversity of national approaches to capability planning, the final conclusion is that national planners should ensure that national planning processes are able to:
- generate contributions to NATO and the EU which strictly meet identified capability requirements;
- put the stated national contributions in a standard format by using agreed NATO/EU capability taxonomy and terminology with a view to provide smooth transfer of declared national capabilities into NATO or EU capability planning procedures. [14]
2 ANALYSIS OF NATO AND EU APPROACHES TO CAPABILITY PLANNING
The crucial task, which is assigned to both NATO and EU in the defence planning area, is basically identical - identification and development of capabilities needed for conducting the whole spectrum of operations as prescribed by respective level of ambitions. This can be considered as a matter of fact even if NATO and the EU were founded and built up under different historical circumstances and within different defence and security environments, which significantly influenced respectively NATO and EU level of ambition. Therefore, the NATO and EU approaches to capability planning have three core differences as for the planning processes:[15]
- NATO planning process is based on the strictly cyclic principle (4-year cycle inside which there is a 2-year reviewing process). Even if the EU applies, for the time being, a linear, sequential planning principle, there is an explicit intention to adapt the EU planning process to the NDPP principles. The aim of this initiative is to initiate the alignment with the relevant steps of NDPP in terms of synchronisation and harmonisation;[16]
- NATO planning process deals with both deployable and stationary military assets and capabilities e.g. military air bases, military training facilities or military fuel storage installations, while EU capability planning process is dealing with deployable military assets and force units only. The reason is that the EU primary objective is to conduct crisis management operations outside the European area;
- Relationship between NDPP and national planning processes is based on the Top Down approach[17], which means that NATO addresses capability deficiencies, identified as outcomes of respective steps of the NDPP and specified as capability targets, to NATO countries in order to achieve expected readiness for action and thereby fulfil minimum capability requirements needed for achieving expected military operation end-states. On the other hand, the EU is applying Bottom Up approach[18]. In this case, EU planning structures present identified and defined capability requirements. Nevertheless, delivering respective assets covering identified requirements is entirely under responsibility of EU member states. Relations between NATO and EU approaches to defence planning and capability development are schematically illustrated in the Figure 2.
Figure 2: Relationship between NATO and EU planning mechanisms[19]
2.1 Specificity of NATO approach to capability planning
The aim of NATO Defence Planning Process is to provide a framework within which national and Alliance defence planning activities are harmonized and synchronised to meet agreed targets in the most effective way. The primary roles of the NDPP is to facilitate the identification, development and delivery of NATO´s present as well as future capability requirements and to establish a common framework for the integration and rationalisation of capability development across all NATO structures. It is focused on the short-term (up to 6 years), mid-term (6 – 19 years) and long-term planning (20 years and beyond).
The NDPP assists the Allies is considering and realising their capability targets – the sum of which provides NATO with their assets and capabilities needed to carry out the NATO´s Level of Ambition. The NATO Defence Planning Process consists of five steps as follows:[20]
Step 1 - Establish Political Guidance
Step 2 - Determine Requirements
Step 3 - Apportion Requirements and Set Targets
Step 4 - Facilitate Implementation
Step 5 - Review Results
These steps are respectively conducted in the form of individual sequence operations. However, the process, as a whole, is of a cyclic character. Establish Political Guidance, Determine Requirements and Apportion Requirements and Set Targets (Steps 1, 2 and 3) are conducted in sequence every four years. While the Review Results (Step 5) is conducted every two years and efforts to facilitate implementation (Step 4) are continuous and, therefore, conducted in parallel with all the other steps (see Figure 3).
Figure 3: The NATO Defence Planning Process[21]
The last step in the cycle is the capability review, taking place every two years. NATO staff and planning bodies assess whether the Allies, all together, can provide contributions consisting of assets and capabilities, in quantitative and qualitative terms, in order to reach the minimum requirements as defined in step two of the NDPP cycle. The review process begins with the development of the Defence Planning Capability Survey (DPCS), which is NATO’s primary information gathering tool for the NDPP. This seeks detailed information on national policies and plans (particularly in relation to the implementation of apportioned NATO capability targets), information on the national inventory of military forces and associated capabilities, any relevant non-military capabilities potentially available for NATO-led operations, and national financial plans. The DPCS addresses the information required by all of the entities within the NATO planning domains and other associated bodies and staffs.
Based on the individual assessments, the Defence Planning Capability Report highlights individual, multinational and collective progress on capability development in relation to the NATO Level of Ambition and other agreed objectives. The report also includes a summary of the associated risks and any potential mitigation measures.
In addition, the Defence Planning Capability Report should contain any further guidance deemed necessary to steer future capability development, including any proposed changes to NATO’s defence planning priorities. The report is issued in June of even years, after being agreed by respective NATO authorities and endorsed by national defence ministers. The summary of existing and planned national capabilities, performance in implementing apportioned capability targets, operational commitments and progress in multinational efforts, is reported in the Defence Planning Capability Review for respective period. In a final step, results are reviewed in order to determine the degree to which NATO’s political objectives, ambitions and associated targets have been met and to offer feedback and direction for the next cycle of the defence planning process.
2.2 EU approach to capability development
In accordance with the Lisbon Treaty and the EU Global Strategy[22] the EU is supposed to organise CSDP (Common Security and Defence Policy) operations where military element would act alongside with non-military elements, i.e. intergovernmental agencies such as police, justice, diplomacy, non-governmental organisations etc. Crisis management operations integrating respective instruments of all EU´s policies naturally implicate a more complex approach to the planning of military capabilities which should be so appropriately correlated to relevant civilian capabilities needed for conducted such a type of operations. The specific character of CSDP operations is aggregating military and civilian elements. This aspect also requires a specific approach to identification of relevant capabilities and of course, a specific process of their development. With a view to provide substantial national contributions to be beneficial for the EU, member states have to thoroughly interpret capability requirements which are defined as indispensable for accomplishing the EU level of ambition.
In fact, the capability planning in the EU[23] consists of the three main instruments: Headline Goal Process (HLG)[24], the Capability Development Mechanism (CDM), that consists of developing three catalogues, i.e. Requirements Catalogue, Force Catalogue and Progress Catalogue, and the Capability Development Plan (CDP). A proper perception of EU capability requirements and subsequent reflection of these requirements in national contributions in terms of military capabilities is an essential step of the EU capability development process. The interaction between EU Global Strategy, HLG 2010, respective catalogues and CDP is shown in the Figure 4. In this context, it should be said that the pivotal reference for capability development within the EU is the Capability Development Plan (CDP). The aim of the CDP, which was produced and implemented by the European Defence Agency (EDA) in 2008, is to provide a full capability picture that supports decision-making processes at EU and national level. It addresses security and defence challenges from the perspective of European capability development, looks at the future operational environment and defines EU capability development priorities agreed by Member States.[25]
Figure 4: EU capability planning and development architecture (source: author)
As for the CDP, the mechanism of this instrument is composed of four interconnected strands:
- Strand A identifies existing capability shortfalls;
- Strand B concentrates on future capability trends out to 2035;
- Strand C looks at the potential for European cooperative activities in the area of armaments programs, defence research and technology etc.;
- Strand D summarises and assesses the lessons learned from CSDP military missions and operations.
The CDP process results in the articulation of priority areas so that EU member states will have a better common understanding of short-term capability requirements, what orientations for enhanced European defence capability cooperation exist over the medium-term and which longer-term defence capability needs should be planned for (up to 2035). The CDP provides an assessment of short-term, mid-term and long-term capability trend analysis, comprising the analysis of capability shortfalls in the context of EU CSDP, lessons learned from recent EU-led operations, planned capabilities and associated activates aimed at future European cooperation, and finally the long-term capability trends, considering innovative technologies and subsequent adaptation of military needs, following future capability requirements.[26]
Strand A consists of two main phases:
- Development of the three catalogues: Requirements Catalogue, Force Catalogue, Progress Catalogue from which the Requirements Catalogue represents a detailed set of required capabilities;
- Scrutinising, Assessing, Evaluating and Prioritising Process (SAEP Process).
The SAEP Process serves as the main reference and scrutiny mechanism for Strand A because it sets capability shortfalls against potential operational risks and vulnerabilities that may emerge during an operation. SAEP Process is basically carried out under the CDM and managed by EU Military Committee (EUMC) assisted by EU Military Staff (EUMS) and respective subject matter experts of EDA, or, if need be, other EEAS institutions. Moving from the CDM into the CDP is a critical moment for the credibility of EU defence capability prioritisation. The results of the SAEP Process are summarised in the Progress Catalogue. This catalogue constitutes a reference document providing a cascading effect of evidence-based analysis to support national planning of EU member states. As for interconnection between CDP and CDM, the SAEP process serves as the main reference for Strand A because it sets capability shortfalls against potential operational risks and vulnerabilities that may emerge during CDSP operations, and for Strand D, which takes stock of the capability-relevant lessons learned from CSDP operations. The most tangible output of the CDP is the set of EU capability development priorities. These priorities reflect existing capability shortfalls that should be the focal point of the processes and programmes running inside or outside the CDP, i.e. PESCO, Coordinated Annual Review on Defence (CARD), European Defence Fund (EDF) and the European Defence Industrial Development Programme (EDIDP).[27]
2.3 Convergence of NATO and EU capability planning terminology and taxonomy
Even though it exists a large scale of differences between EU and NATO defence planning procedures, one aspect appears as a positive signal for further convergence of NATO and EU processes. For a long time, national defence planners have been facing a quite tricky issue – how to conceive national contributions with regard to different capability requirements in NATO and in the EU. Combination of different capability terminology and taxonomy used in NATO and the EU was the cause of many discrepancies. A fact of note is that until recently NATO used the structure of capability requirements specified in Bi-SC Capability Code and Capability Statements, while the EU used capability requirements specifically structured in respective Requirements Catalogue. The capability requirements and their taxonomy in NATO and EU documents were diametrically different.[28] A clear difference in capability requirements structure and terminology is obvious while searching Defence Planning Capability Survey 2010 which contains NATO Capability Codes and Capability Statements (in the Supplement 1) and EU Capability Codes (in the Supplement 2).[29]
A turning point came in October 2011 when a modified version of Bi-SC Agreed Capability Codes and Statements[30] was issued. This document should provide a consistency as for common NATO and EU terminology of capability requirements and their taxonomy, but it should be also supportive of national planners when conceiving their national contributions to NATO/EU Defence Planning Capability Survey (DPCS) and EU Military Capability Questionnaire (EUMCQ).
Another substantial step in harmonising and synchronising respective NATO and EU planning came in August 2015, when Bi-SC Capability Hierarchy[31] was issued, establishing the hierarchical structure of capabilities and providing description of relevant capability areas (Main Capability Areas - MCA). As illustrated in the Figure 5, the hierarchical structure of Main Capability Areas accentuates on C3 (Consult, Command, Control) together with Inform. These two Main Capability Areas are creating the frame for others, i.e. Prepare, Project, Protect and Sustain. However, Engage represents the centre of gravity for all related activities.
Figure 5: Capability Hierarchy Main Capability Areas[32]
The key contribution stemming from both documents to harmonising and synchronising NATO and EU capability planning processes could be summarised as follows:
- Establishing the single list of capability requirements unifying and integrating the area of defence planning and operations planning to be used by commonly by NATO, EU and national planners;
- Structuring of capability requirements in respective groups (Capstone, Principal and Enabling Capability Statements) defining key characteristics and effects that should be achieved;
- Establishing the hierarchy of main capability areas based on existing and accepted capability frameworks as used through NATO, EU and other countries.
2.4 NATO and EU planning approaches – Summary of outcomes
The overall outcomes of analysis comparing NATO and EU approaches to capability planning confirm two essential issues which are in close interaction:
- Impossibility to implement a single defence planning paradigm identical for both NATO and the EU due to specificities concerning the level of ambition as stated for NATO and the EU;
- Countries constituting membership of both NATO and the EU cannot efficiently differentiate their contributions to both organisations due to technical and administrative specificities of the two different planning processes.[33] In fact, both NATO and EU planning processes are primarily focused on completing assets and capabilities required for achieving their level of ambition, which cannot be necessarily in line with strategic objectives stemming from national security and defence policies;
However, national contributions in terms of force units and assets are to be seen as a crucial input to NATO or EU defence planning processes. It is of note that there would be beneficial if national processes implement NATO/EU capability terminology and taxonomy. This step apparently does not require a coincident implementation of planning processes as used in NATO or in EU into a national environment. The implementation of the common NATO and EU capability terminology and taxonomy in national processes would undoubtedly avoid duplication of effort when providing appropriate inputs to NATO/EU defence planning processes.
3 SYNTHESIS OF OUTCOMES OF ANALYSES EXPLORING NATO, EU AND NATIONAL APPROACHES
A key factor that has driven the alignment of approaches to capability planning is the number of countries which are members of both NATO and the EU. The number of 21 countries is undoubtedly of a paramount importance in conducting these efforts. For some of these 21 countries it is symptomatic the application of so-called single set of forces principle as a basis for conceiving their national contributions for NATO or EU bidding process. Basically, the single set of forces principle stems from the fact that respective countries have only one set of armed forces which cannot be split in two and separately developed to achieve different NATO and EU level of ambition objectives. So, this is the reason why some of countries typically submit an identical set of assets and capabilities as a national input to both NATO and EU defence planning regardless of the stated capability requirements.
Of course, this practice might evoke questions to what extent countries tailor their proposed contribution to the requirement. But as findings from analysis confirm, countries tend to use NATO defence planning principles while preparing and developing their contributions. National contributions in the terms of military forces and assets stemming from bidding processes are key inputs for NATO and EU defence planning processes. That is why both NATO and the EU planning structures seek to develop and implement an appropriate mechanism that avoids duplication of effort:
- Enabling countries to design their national contributions in the context of NATO and EU capability requirements;
- Enabling to scrutinize and assess national forces and assets submitted to NATO or the EU through respective bidding process.
The comparative analyses lead to identification of the following key activities:
- Collating of NATO and EU requirements on capabilities into the single list of capability codes and capability requirements and their structuring in main capability areas;
- Aggregation of capability requirements to respective force units, services, components or other relevant groupings in accordance with force structure (air, land, maritime, enabling);
- Classification of capability requirements in accordance with priorities (Capstone, Principal, Enabling Capability Statements);
In order to provide an effective interaction between national planning processes and the NATO/EU planning process, national planning process should ideally use the same taxonomies as given in NATO/EU planning documentation. With respect to this aspect, if a national contribution, being the subject of a NATO or EU bidding process, has ambition to be a significant contribution to NATO/EU, then assigned national assets and capabilities should provide facts and information on quantitative and qualitative parameters in line with NATO/EU requirements. This prerequisite can be covered by implementation of principles based on which NATO and EU planning tools are working. A significant degree of fragmentation in national defence planning approaches is apparently the result of different national concerns in security and defence policies. Consequently, it is unlikely it will ever be possible to align many national planning processes with those of NATO or the EU. However, national contributions in terms of force units and assets are the key input to NATO or EU defence planning processes.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
For national planning processes, it would be definitely beneficial to implement and use common NATO/EU capability terminology and taxonomy, of course, provided this terminology and taxonomy also meet national requirements. This benefit could be achieved without the requirement to implement the identical planning processes as used in NATO or in EU into a national environment. The implementation of the common NATO and EU capability terminology and taxonomy in national processes would avoid duplication of effort when providing appropriate inputs to NATO/EU defence planning processes. The key elements of the NATO and EU processes that would benefit from this would be applications/functions which include matching of capability requirements against available force units and assets. With regard to results of the analysis of national approaches to capability planning, it is not conceivable that an integral package of all applications/functions would be implemented into national environment in line with NATO or EU defence planning processes. However, some of relevant applications/functions, appropriately tailored and modified on specific national conditions, could be a basis for measuring progress and effectiveness of capability planning.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CARD |
Coordinated Annual Review on Defence |
CDM |
Capability Development Mechanism |
CDP |
Capability Development Plan |
CSDP |
Common Security and Defence Policy |
C3 |
Consult, Command, Control |
DPCS |
Defence Planning Capability Survey |
EDA |
European Defence Agency |
EDF |
European Defence Fund |
EDIDP |
European Defence Industrial Development Programme |
EU |
European Union |
EUMC |
EU Military Committee |
EUMCQ |
EU Military Capability Questionnaire |
EUMS |
EU Military Staff |
HLG |
Headline Goal |
MCA |
Main Capability Areas |
NATO |
North Atlantic Treaty Organization |
NATO STO |
NATO Science and Technology Organization |
NDPP |
NATO Defence Planning Process |
PESCO |
Permanent Structured Cooperation |
SEAP |
Scrutinising, Assessing, Evaluating and Prioritising |
REMARKS AND CITATIONS
[1] The most common paradigm, being used within the NDPP and, under various modifications, by several NATO nations, is DOTMLPFI model, which integrates the essential capability elements - Doctrines, Organisation, Training, Materiel, Leadership, Personnel, Facility and Interoperability. Nevertheless, besides the DOTMLPFI model, the UK Ministry of Defence uses the Defence Lines of Development (DLOD) for itemising capability elements, Australia Department of Defence uses for managing capability development so-called Fundamental Inputs to Capability (FIC).
[2] Brustlein Corentin (ed.). Mutual Reinforcement: CSDP and NATO in the Face of Rising Challenges. Focus stratégique, No. 93, IFRI: Paris, France. 2020. ISBN: 979-10-373-0082-9. p. 24.
[3] NATO STO (ed.). Key Performance Indicators in Measuring Military Outputs - Capability Planning. STO Technical Report, STO-TR-SAS-096. NATO Science and Technology Organization Research and Technology Organization: Neuilly-sur-Seine, France: NATO, 2018, 58 p. ISBN 978-92-837-2153-6.
[4] NATO (ed.). The NATO Defence Planning Process. NATO Secretary General, PO(2016)0655 (INV). Brussels, Belgium, 2016. 1-1 p.
[5] MAULNY, Jean-Pierre, Sylvie MATELLY, Fabio LIBERTI. Analyse comparée des planifications capacitaires par pays de l’Union européenne et perspectives pour des orientations communes dans le cadre de la PESD et impact sur les programmations nationales. Notes de l’IRIS Septembre 2005. Paris, France: IRIS, 2005. p. 209.
[6] The comparative analysis, carried out by RTG SAS-096 (see reference 3) was focused on identification of those aspects which are identical for both NATO and EU and which might be also beneficial for optimising the national capability planning process. Since the substance of the both NATO and EU processes lies in identification and development of required capabilities, the analysis was primarily aimed at comparing those procedures which are meant in both organisations to define capability requirements, identify and prioritise capability shortfalls.
[7] NATO STO (ed.). Key Performance Indicators in Measuring Military Outputs - Capability Planning. STO Technical Report, STO-TR-SAS-096. NATO Science and Technology Organization Research and Technology Organization: Neuilly-sur-Seine, France: NATO, 2018, 58 p. ISBN 978-92-837-2153-6.
[8] NATO STO (ed.). Key Performance Indicators in Measuring Military Outputs - Capability Planning. Chapter 2. STO Technical Report, STO-TR-SAS-096. NATO Science and Technology Organization: Neuilly-sur-Seine, France: NATO, 2018. ISBN 978-92-837-2153-6.
[9] EEAS (ed.) EUMC guidance for the further development of the EU Headline Goal Process into a new EU Military Capability Planning Process. EEAS(2018) 939. Belgium: Brussels. 2018.
[10] PETRÁŠ, Zdeněk. Analysis of approaches to capability planning used by NATO nations and EU member states within their national defence planning processes. Economics and Management, 2016, no. 2/2016, p. 48. ISSN 1802-3975.
[11] NATO STO (ed.). Key Performance Indicators in Measuring Military Outputs - Capability Planning. STO Technical Report, STO-TR-SAS-096. NATO Science and Technology Organization: Neuilly-sur-Seine, France: NATO, 2018. ISBN 978-92-837-2153-6.
[12] - SHAPE/ACT (ed.). BI-SC Agreed Capability Codes and Capability Statements. CPPCAMFCR/JM/281143. Mons, Belgium, 2011.
- SHAPE/ACT (ed.). BI-SC Agreed Capability Codes and Capability Statements. SH/SDP/SDF/CFR/DPF/19 003782. Mons, Belgium, 2020.
[13] SHAPE/ACT (ed.). Bi-SC Capability Hierarchy. SH/PLANS/JCAP/FCP/15-310118. Mons, Belgium, 2015.
[14] PETRÁŠ, Zdeněk. Analysis of approaches to capability planning used by NATO nations and EU member states within their national defence planning processes. Economics and Management, 2016, no. 2/2016, p. 48. ISSN 1802-3975.
[15] MAULNY, Jean-Pierre, Sylvie MATELLY, Fabio LIBERTI. Analyse comparée des planifications capacitaires par pays de l’Union européenne et perspectives pour des orientations communes dans le cadre de la PESD et impact sur les programmations nationales. Les Notes de l’IRIS Septembre 2005. Paris, France: IRIS, 2005. p. 209
[16] EEAS (ed.) EUMC guidance for the further development of the EU Headline Goal Process into a new EU Military Capability Planning Process. EEAS(2018) 939. Belgium: Brussels.2018.
[17] Item, p. 199
[18] Item, p. 209
[19] Brustlein Corentin (ed.). Mutual Reinforcement: CSDP and NATO in the Face of Rising Challenges. Focus stratégique, No. 93, IFRI: Paris, France. 2020. ISBN: 979-10-373-0082-9. p. 25.
[20] NATO (ed.). The NATO Defence Planning Process. NATO Secretary General, PO(2016)0655 (INV). Brussels, Belgium, 2016. 1-7 p.
[21] NATO RTO (ed.). Analytical Support to Defence Transformation - Analytic Implications of the NATO Defence Planning Process. Meeting Proceedings RDP. RTO-MP-SAS-081. MP-SAS-081-09. CSO: Neuilly-sur-Seine, France. p. 9-12. ISBN 978-92-837-0116-3.
[22] COUNCIL OF THE EU (ed.). European Union Global Strategy: Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe. General Secretariat of the Council. Brussels, Belgium, 2016, 60 p.
[23] Defence planning and capability development process in the EU does not have a single, commonly agreed concept for calling this process.
[24] Headline Goal 2010 (HLG 2010) is the redefinition of the former Headline Goal 2003 approved by the Council of the EU on 4 May 2004 and validated by the European Council of 17 and 18 June 2004. This document sets out the objectives of being achieved by 2010 to respond with rapid and decisive action applying a fully coherent approach to the whole spectrum of crisis management operations covered by the Treaty on the EU. The text of this document is valid up to now.
[25] EUROPEAN DEFENCE AGENCY (ed.). The EU capability Development Priorities – 2018 CDP Revision. EDA Brussels, Belgium: EDA, 2018, 20 s.
[26] Kepe, Marta, James Black, Jack Melling, Jess Plumridge. Exploring Europe’s capability requirements for 2035 and beyond - Insights from the 2018 update of the long-term strand of the Capability Development Plan. RAND Europe, EDA Brussels, Belgium: EDA, 2018, 44 s
[27] SEDE (ed.). EU Defence: The White Book implementation process. Study. European Parliament’s Subcommittee on Security and Defence (SEDE): Brussels, Belgium. 2018. 99 p. doi:10.2861/534879, ISBN: 978-92-846-4341-7.
[28] NATO STO (ed.). Key Performance Indicators in Measuring Military Outputs - Capability Planning. STO Technical Report, STO-TR-SAS-096. NATO Science and Technology Organization: Neuilly-sur-Seine, France: NATO, 2018. p. 3-24. ISBN 978-92-837-2153-6.
[29] NATO (ed.). Defence Planning Capability Survey 2010. AC/281-N(2010)0014-FINAL (EWG(R)). Brussels, Belgium, 2010.
[30] SHAPE/ACT (ed.). BI-SC Agreed Capability Codes and Capability Statements. SHAPE/CPPCAMFCR/JM/281143. Mons, Belgium, 2011.
[31] SHAPE/ACT (ed.). Bi-SC Capability Hierarchy. SH/PLANS/JCAP/FCP/15-310118. Mons, Belgium, 2015.
[32] ITEM. p. 6.
[33] DE LANGLOIS, Maurice. OTAN et PSDC: vers un rapprochement des processus capacitaires. Note de recherche stratégique n°20 – juin 2015Paris, France: IRSEM, 2015, p. 1 2. ISSN 2430-598. Available at: http://www.defense.gouv.fr/actualites/operations/notes-de-recherche-strategique