RFG: SENIOR RESOURCE BOARD JUNE 28 & 29 PLENARY

C O N F I D E N T I A L USNATO 000383 SIPDIS SIPDIS STATE FOR EUR-RPM (MONAHAN) DEFENSE FOR OASD/ISA (EURO-NATO); USDAT&L/DUSD-IE (VAUGHT); OASD/NII (HANSEN); EUCOM J4-EN ENGINEER DIV (MC) (CAPT JACKSON); CENTCOM-J4-E (COL FLANAGAN); JOINT STAFF J-4 (MR MACKIE),J-5 (LTC SEAMON) E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/01/2011 TAGS: AORC MARR NATO SUBJECT: RFG: SENIOR RESOURCE BOARD JUNE 28 & 29 PLENARY REF: A. SRB-A(2007)0008 ¶B. PO(2005)0098 ¶C. SRB-N(2005)0010-ADD13 ¶D. SG(2006)0839+AS1 ¶E. SG(2007)0413 ¶F. SRB-N(2007)0040 ¶G. SRB-N(2007)0019 ¶H. CMCM-0004-2007 ¶I. SG(2007)0396 ¶J. SRB-N(2007)0041 ¶K. SRB-WP(2007)0001-REV4 ¶L. MCM-0052-2007 ¶M. SRB-N(2007)0030-REV1 ¶N. SRB-D(2007)002+COR1 ¶O. SRB-D(2007)0005 Classified By: ACT DEFAD JOHN HOAG. REASON 1.4.(B/D) ¶1. (C) The Senior Resource Board (SRB),meeting in Brussels on June 28 and 29, will consider the draft of the 2008 to 2012 Medium Term Resource Plan (MTRP),the proposed funding policy for Pakistan's participation in NATO Training courses, and endorsement of the capability packages (CP) for deployable air command and control (C2) ground based sensors and vital security projects for command facilities. The Board will hear status reports on the outsourcing of the Kandahar Air Field (Afghanistan) operations and the force generation of the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) to support the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) operations; the resource aspects of the current operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, and Darfur; and the establishment of the new NATO Office of Resources (NOR). The Board will hear status reports and consider the way ahead for any outstanding work for: the funding of transportation for short-notice deployment of the NATO Response Force (NRF),funding implications of NATO participation in humanitarian operations, the NATO Command Structure (NCS) peacetime manning review, the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) Transition Plan, the protection against cyber attacks, the Missile Defense Feasibility Study, the Air Command and Control System (ACCS) implementation, the funding for Defense Against Terrorism (DAT),and the economic benefit assessment for resource burdensharing. The Board will hear briefings on implementation of the NATO Security Investment Program (NSIP) and on Allied Command Transformation,s (ACT) research and technology activities and resource management structure. Unless otherwise directed by OOB June 28, Mission will take the positions detailed herein. END SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR GUIDANCE. ¶2. (C) Mission has reviewed reference documents for the June 28 and 29 SRB meetings (Ref A agenda) and recommends the following U.S. positions: RESOURCE PLANNING AND POLICY ISSUES ITEM I. CRISIS RESPONSE OPERATIONS AND MISSIONS RESOURCE UPDATES ¶A. ISAF: The Board will receive status reports from the NATO Military Authorities (NMAs) and the Chairmen of the implementing committees (Infrastructure and Military Budget) regarding the force generation process, investment, O and M, and outsourcing for the Afghanistan operation. Mission recommends noting the updates. SHAPE will report on the status of outsourcing support services at the Kandahar Aerial Port of Disembarkation (APOD) to enable NATO to assume responsibility for the APOD this summer. The Military Budget Committee (MBC) recently requested the Board,s guidance regarding establishing a financial ceiling for the Kandahar air operations contractor,s liability. The Board recently requested a legal opinion from the NATO legal advisor. Mission recommends noting the update and supporting further discussion in a preparatory session upon receipt of the legal opinion. The NMA's will also report on the ISR offers from the recent force generation conference, on the Military Committee (MC) deliberations of the ISR Minimum Military Requirement (MMR), and whether outsourcing should still be considered. Current estimates for ISR are 28 MEURO per year if provided by a lead nation and 93.2 MEURO per year, if fully outsourced. IAW agreed ISAF funding arrangements (Ref B),the SRB must approve any outsourcing. Mission recommends supporting outsourcing of the portions of the ISR capability not fulfilled by the force generation offers. ¶B. BALKANS: The Board will receive status reports from the NMAs and the Chairmen of the implementing committees on common funded investment, O and M, and outsourcing for the Balkans operations. SHAPE will provide a specific report on the Kosovo transition plan, the periodic mission review, the results of the Camp Nothing Hill establishment, Kosovo audit, and the Camp Butmir NATO and European Union (EU) cost shares. Mission will note the updates. ¶C. NATO TRAINING MISSION IRAQ (NTM-I): The Board will receive status reports on the force generation process, common-funded investment and O and M, and trust funding, from the NMAs, the IS, and the Chairmen of the implementing committees. At France,s request, SHAPE will brief the resource development plan (RDP) which includes infrastructure, CIS and budgetary requirement projections for the next 12 months and forecasts for the next three years. In previous preparatory sessions, France, supported by Belgium, objected to SHAPE,s assumption in the RDP that the NTM-I mentors and advisors were eligible for common funding. The US, supported by the UK, Canada, and Italy advocated that the mentors and trainers were part of the HQ element (similar to NATO HQ Sarajevo) and thus eligible for common funding. As no agreement was reached by the Board, France will likely block common funding for the mentors and advisor in the MBC 2007 mid year review and the 2008 budget screening. Should this occur, Mission recommends advocating in the MBC, a request for an SRB eligibility determination. The Board will also note an IS trust fund report that includes the U.S. pledged and provided funds of 390 KEURO ($500K) in 2005 and 794.16 KEURO ($1,000,000) in 2006 (Ref C, not yet issued). ¶D. NATO LOGISTICAL SUPPORT TO THE AFRICAN UNION MISSION IN SUDAN (AMIS). The Board will hear briefings from SHAPE on mission progress and potential mission expansion, and from the Chairmen of the implementing committees on common funded expenditures. Mission is unaware of any funding issues and will note the briefings. ITEM II. REPORT ON ISSUES WITH CURRENT OR FUTURE RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS. The Chairman will update the Board on the status of the following issues with resource implications, seek initial views, and consider the way ahead: ¶A. Short-Notice Deployment of the NRF. The NAC agreed the compromise proposal to provide financial support for short-notice deployments of the NRF for a two year period (Ref D). The compromise proposal stipulates a flat rate of reimbursement to nations, below actual costs, that would only be available to those nations that have put in motion ways to meet their air-lift needs, such as ownership of aircraft, participation in SALIS or the C-17 consortium or purchasing the A400M. In agreeing the proposal, the NAC tasked the MC to define the meaning of short notice deployments to ensure that common funding covered only genuinely urgent requirements and in this context to advise on the appropriate balance of air-lift and sea-lift. Despite months of discussions, the MC was unable to agree a definition to short notice deployments. On June 14, Defense Ministers tasked the SRB and MC to urgently work in parallel on the funding of short notice deployment of the NRF and to report conclusions in one month (Ref E). An informal meeting was held on June 21 to discuss the recent Ministerial tasking and consider the I.S. non-paper (forwarded to Washington agencies). The Board agreed that it was practical to proceed with some financial aspects of the tasker despite not having an agreed definition of short notice deployment. Due to time constraints, nations were requested to submit written comments to the paper for an early I.S. revision. ¶B. Funding Implications of NATO participation in Humanitarian operations. The NAC tasked the SRB to develop a report on the funding implications of NATO's participation in humanitarian operations on the basis of the final MC and SCEPC reports on lessons learned from the Pakistan earthquake relief operation and the assistance to the U.S. following Hurricane Katrina. Based upon the Board's informal discussions, the IS will prepare a document that proposes that the current principles of eligibility for common funding be maintained and trust funds should be used to support engineering projects and the transportation of humanitarian supplies for these operations (Ref F, not yet issued). Mission will forward the document to Washington Agencies upon receipt and propose a way ahead. ¶C. Update on the Peacetime Establishment (PE) Review of the NATO Command Structure (NCS). On December 7, 2006, the Leader of the International Military Staff (IMS) Review Task Force briefed the Board and the Executive Working Group (EWG) on the proposed options for an adapted NCS which range from maintaining the current structure with some internal rebalancing to full closure of some geographical command locations. The IMS drafted a report for MC consideration which recommends the closure of three component commands in ACO, the relocation of some ACT Staff Element Europe personnel from Mons to Brussels, and a five sector CIS structure for NCSA for consideration by the MC. The Board considered the potential resource implications of the IMS proposal and concluded that it is not possible at this stage to provide reliable and detailed cost analysis of the proposal under discussion in the MC (Ref G). In May, the MC Chairman sent an interim report to the NAC on Phase I confirming that nations are in agreement on the proposals for ACT, NCSA, and to a peacetime establishment of 12,500 personnel, but noting that agreement could not be reached for the ACO command structure. The NAC considered, but was unable to agree, the MC Chairman,s proposal for a new ACO structure: maintain four component commands, two air at Ramstein and Izmir, one maritime at Northwood, and one land at Heidelberg; establish six deployable joint staff elements (DJSE),three within the command structure (Naples, Madrid (affiliated with JC Lisbon),and Heidelberg (affliated with JFC Brunssum)),and three provided by nations from the force structure (Ref H and I). The Board will meet jointly with the EWG on June 22 to discuss the way ahead. During the plenary meeting, the Chairman will update the Board on the MC, NAC and Ministerial deliberations. ¶D. CAOC Transition Plan. SHAPE will report on the status of the development of the resource estimates and implementation timelines for the MC approved Interim CAOC Structure for the ACCS Implementation which collocates four existing legacy CAOCs with four planned NCS CAOCs (Uedem, Poggio Renatico, Finderup/Karup and Larissa). Upon activation, the four NCS CAOCs will be international entities and enable the parallel running of the legacy NATINADS operations and the ACCS testing and training until ACCS reaches Full Operational Capability. Mission recommends noting the status and encouraging early completion of the estimates and schedules. ¶E. Protection against Cyber Attacks. At the June Ministerial meeting, the Defense Ministers noted the recent cyber attacks against Estonia,s electronic infrastructure and indicated that urgent work is needed to enhance the ability to protect information systems of critical importance to the Alliance against cyber attacks. The Board will hear a report on the Ministerial deliberations and determine if any action by the Board is warranted. ¶F. Missile Defense. The Council tasked the Board to provide a preliminary assessment of the affordability of the recommendations of the Missile Defense Feasibility Study for a NATO-wide architecture and one mid-course interceptor. In preliminary discussions, many nations preferred to include the possible contribution of the potential US site in Poland and the Czech Republic in the cost analysis and the Board tasked the IS to prepare a report outlining the resource issues of the potential NATO Missile Defense program (Ref J, not yet issued). Recently, the NAC tasked the EWG, MC, and CNAD to assess the political, military, and technical implications of the proposed U.S. missile defense system in Europe. The Board will hear an update on the status of the report. Mission recommends supporting consideration of affordability at an early preparatory session. ¶G. ACCS. During the April plenary meeting, the UK rep requested that the I.S. present a full briefing on ACCS covering hardware, software, and manpower. The Board will hear status reports on the development of the briefing. ¶H. Funding for Defense Against Terrorism. The Council tasked the Board to consider possible funding sources for the DAT activities and submit a report by January 19, 2007. The Chairman advised the Private Office that the Board would not be able to meet the Council remit timeline as it is awaiting the MMR. The NMAs will report on the status of the MMR development. Mission will note the update. ITEM III. BURDEN-SHARING DISCUSSIONS ECONOMIC BENEFIT. In July 2005, the Council agreed the SRB-proposed new cost-share arrangements for the NATO budgets, i.e., future changes in cost shares, to have them more closely align with Gross National Income (GNI) (with the U.S. excepted),and tasked the SRB to continue its work in reviewing burden-sharing arrangements to identify more equitable and stable mechanisms. The Board agreed, as a first part of the burden-sharing arrangements, the detailed mechanism to be used to assess the nationally provided manning of NATO critical operational activities. The Chairman will report on the status of the follow-on burden-sharing work to review economic benefits nations derive from NATO common funding. Mission will note this effort, which will not include the U.S. ITEM IV. NATO HEADQUARTERS RESOURCE REFORM. In April 2006, the NAC agreed that the SRB should assume a lead policy and planning role in all military resource areas and that the MBC and IC should be oriented towards implementation. In February 2007, the Council agreed to establish a NATO Office of Resources (NOR) and new terms of reference (TOR) for the resource committees which establishes a heirarchical structure, i.e. the IC and MBC reporting to the SRB. On April 4, the Board agreed to again revise the IC TOR to designate that the future IC chairman will be nationally sourced in lieu of a member of the I.S. Mr. Peltier (US), the current international Director NOR, will update the Board on the establishment of the NOR. The MBC Chairman requested the Board's advice on the interpretation of the recently agreed terms of reference with respect to level of approval (MBC, SRB or NAC) for PE changes, audit reports, personnel appointment extensions, and accrediation of centers of excellence. At a June 21 informal meeting, the Board considered a I.S. non-paper (forwarded to Washington agencies) which advocated reducing the approval levels. Mission supported the lowest level of approval (e.g. MBC and IC) consistent with proper oversight. France, the Netherlands, and Spain were unable to agree the proposal and as such, many nations pressed for an interim solution until the issue could be resolved. The I.S. will draft interim solution for the Board's consideration which will recommend that the MBC approval requests be subject to SRB endorsement prior to submission to the NAC. ITEM V. ACT TRANSFORMATION UPDATE. ACT will brief on the ongoing research and technology activities at the Command and on ACT,s resource management organisation structure and functions. Mission will forward the briefings upon receipt. ITEM VI. NSIP IMPLEMENTATION. During the presentation of the 2006 SRB annual report to Council, the NAC invited the SRB to provide a broad analysis of the reasons for the decline in NSIP expenditures over the last four years and the delays in deployable command, control and consultation projects, and possible actions to rectify the situation. The I.S. will brief the Board on this issue and Mission will forward the briefing upon receipt and recommend a way ahead. ITEM VII. 2008-2012 MEDIUM TERM RESOURCE PLAN. The Board will consider the draft of the draft 2008 to 2012 MTRP (ref K) to include the establishment of the 2008 contribution ceilings for the NSIP and military budget. The MC provided a consolidated impact statement at zero nominal growth (Ref L) and an assessment of the requirements for the period of the MTRP. For the NSIP, the NMAs conclude that the current ceiling of 640.5 MEURO will be adequate for 2008, but would need to be increased in the later years to accommodate emerging requirements. The NMAs expressed concern about the low implementation rate of the program affecting the delivery of critical capabilities. For the Military Budget, substantial increases will be required for CRO/Missions as a result of Afghanistan mission increases and the expansion of common funding eligibility for operations. The NMAs recommended that the ISAF ISR be funded under the NSIP in lieu of Military Budget funding, however, the Board in preparatory session did not support this recommendation. SHAPE submitted estimates for ISR capabilities provided by a lead nation (28 MEUROs) and through outsourcing (93.2 MEUROs). The recent force generation conference fully sourced the aircraft collection requirements, and thus Mission recommends supporting the lead nation figure of 28 MEUROs for a total ISAF budget of 229.4 MEUROs. ACO submitted a requirement for 41.5 MEUROs for ACO participation in the strategic airlift capability (SAC) which is above and beyond the airlift requirements identified to support ongoing operations. In preparatory meetings, no other nation expressed a willingness to support funding for this requirement in 2008, pending an endorsement of the MMR and an eligibility determination. The NMAs concluded that the NAEW&C should be funded at 270.6 MEUROs, however, at the MBC's recommendation, the Board concluded that an additional 1 MEUROs should be added to cover the requirements identified in the recently agreed CP Addendum which provides additional facilities and equipment for the NAEW& C. The NMAs recommended funding levels for ACO, ACT, and ALTBMD of 125 MEUROS, 322.5 MEUROs, and 6.2 MEUROs respectively (a total of 98 MEUROs above the 2007 allocation). The ACO figure includes additional funding of 6 MEUROs for additional requirements from ACCS implementation. For NCSA, actually part of the ACO budget, an additional 12.5 MEURO annually is require to fund the civilianization/contracting of unfilled military billets per the Spearhead Study, which mission supports. Mission recommends supporting the following 2008 budget ceilings: NSIP 640.5 MEURO (ZNG requested level). MILITARY BUDGET 1179.8 MEURO (broken down as follows): Pensions 68.4 MEURO (requested level) NAEW&C 271.6 MEURO (requested level 1 M) CRO/Missions 289.4 MEURO (includes ISR, excludes SAC) Headquarters: Inflation 2% (ZRG) ACO 311.4 MEURO (ZRG 6 M for ACCS) ACT 124.2 MEURO (ZRG 3%) IMS 34.1 MEURO (ZRG) NCSA 72.4 MEURO (ZRG 12.5 M Spearhead) NACMA 2.1 MEURO (requested) ALTBMD 6.2 MEURO (ZRG 3.2 M) -------------- HQ Total 550.4 MEURO MISSION COMMENT: Mission does not anticipate agreement on the ceilings at the plenary. Nations are likely to support the proposed amounts for NAEW and pensions, and we believe a consensus is forming on the NSIP ZNG and the CRO figure of 289.4 MEURO. The headquarters budget remains the most contentious issue: while all nations appear to be ready to fund ZRG (523.6 MEUROs),a few nations object to any funding beyond this figure even to include additional NCSA funding per the Spearhead Study which most nations place as the highest priority additional requirement. Any increase beyond ZRG for ACT is problematic. It is generally accepted that ACT must do a better job of showing meaningful results from their previously funded efforts, or ACT will not receive increased funding, particularly in view of the necessity for nations to fund considerably more CRO costs. For ACO, any funding beyond the ZRG will be difficult to achieve. END MISSION COMMENT. ITEM VIII. FUNDING POLICY FOR PARTICIPATION OF PAKISTANI PERSONNEL IN NATO TRAINING COURSES. The Board considered under silence procedure expiring June 11, the proposed funding policy for Pakistan; participation in NATO training courses which recommends common funding of Pakistan,s participation at the NATO schools in the same manner as participation of Partnership for Peace (PfP) and Mediterranean dialogue nations (Ref M). France broke the silence, advocating trust funding in lieu of common funding. In further preparatory discussions, the US, supported by UK, CA, IT, DK, NL and LA insisted that the Pakistani initiative was in direct support of the ISAF mission, thus should not be dependent on trust funding. Mission recommends to maintain this position and if agreement can not be reached, advocating a Chairman's report to the Private Office. ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES CAPABILITY PACKAGE AND STAND-ALONE PROJECTS. ITEM IX.A. I.S./IMS CAPABILITY PACKAGE OVERVIEW: The Board will receive the regular IS/IMS status report on the active and pending capability packages. Mission will note the briefings. ITEM IX.B. SACT CAPABILITY PACKAGE 9A0202 DEPLOYABLE GROUND BASED SENSORS FOR AIR C2 SURVEILLANCE AND IDENTIFICATION. The Board will consider endorsement of this CP (Ref N),which will provide the deployable ground based sensors to support the deployable ACCS elements. The CP has a priority of 2 and the required capabilities are categorized as Essential 1. The NSIP investment costs included in this CP are 212.6 MEURO (not including 20.7 MEUROs in NACMA administrative expenses); annual O and M costs are estimated at 8 MEUROs; and 174 new military manpower posts are required by 2013. The CP is based on an assumption that nations (Germany, Denmark and Czech Republic) can make available three deployable air defense radars and one deployable passive tracker by 2010. The MC is considering endorsement of the CP under silence procedure expiring June 27. Mission recommends supporting endorsement of the CP, subject to MC endorsement. ITEM IX.C. SHAPE RECOMMENDED CAPABILITY PACKAGE 5A0150 VITAL SECURITY PROJECTS FOR NATO COMMAND FACILITIES. The Board will consider endorsement of this CP (Ref O),which will provide the vital security projects for NATO command facilities. This CP contains the force protection, health and safety projects contained in the proposed SHAPE, JFC Brunssum, JC Lisbon, and JFC Naples headquarters CPs, for which consideration is deferred pending the finalization of the PE Review (see item II above). The CP has a priority of 2 and the required capabilities are categorized as Essential 1. The NSIP investment costs included in this CP are 16.2 MEURO; there are no additional O and M costs nor manpower requirements. The MC is considering endorsement of the CP under silence procedure expiring June 25. Mission recommends supporting endorsement of the CP, subject to MC endorsement. NULAND