MEETING OF NATO SPS

UNCLAS USNATO 000451 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: AMGT MARR NATO PGOV PREL TSPL SUBJECT: MEETING OF NATO SPS ¶1. (U) Summary. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Science for Peace and Security (SPS) Committee met on March 23, 2007, at NATO Headquarters. The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) met at NATO Headquarters on March 22, 2007. The U.S Representative was Dr. Vigdor L. Teplitz (NASA/Goddard); the alternate representative was Dr. Robert Rudnitsky (OES/SAT AAAS Fellow from Stanford). The committee received reviews of several projects and of the implementation of the Work Program, which has received a 25% funding cut. France and Germany dropped objections to the U.S. advocated commercialization project. The U.S. and U.K representatives argued successfully against creating a Partnership Action Plan on Environmental Security (PAP-E). All guidance cable goals were accomplished. ¶2. (U) 2007 SPS Work Program. Implementation of the Work Program was driven by a 25% cut in funding. Decisions were taken to reduce funding mechanisms and panel meetings. Dual status, which previously allowed new members to choose between lead country and partner country roles on projects, was eliminated. Staff reviewed the budget; the U.S. Rep requested breakdowns by panel and funding year. ¶3. (U) Afghanistan. NATO has made aiding Afghanistan a priority for the organization. The Secretariat requested that SPS support this priority in its work; work on satellite internet connectivity (virtual silk highway) is proceeding. No one raised the issue of whether it would be used by the military. ¶4. (U) Top-down Activities. SPS received information on several projects. Individual projects are in the 150K Euro range. SPS approved the important project "Melange Conversion in Afghanistan and/or Uzbekistan" which could run somewhat more. Finally, Bob Dyer of EPA gave a presentation on the Franz Josef Land project. ¶5. (U) Partnership Action Plan on Environmental Security (PAP-E). The U.S Representative supported the United Kingdom in concerns about a proposed Partnership Action Plan on Environmental Security. The work will go forward but not the extra bureaucracy. ¶6. (U) Commercialization. U.S. Delegate again advocated for a Commercialization pilot project that would help bring selected SPS R&D projects to market using partnerships with NATO member country companies. Neither France nor Germany, which had previously opposed the project, expressed concerns at this meeting. Greece opposed it but said privately she was uninstructed on it. It was agreed to review it under a silence procedure after circulating updated documents. ¶7. (U) NATO-Russia Council. The NRC(SPS) reviewed selected ongoing projects including a controversial Russian-Italian terrorism data center. The session included a proposal from the NATO Political office for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) to detect terrorist threats. The French Representative called it too operational for SPS. ¶8. (U) Euro Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC). The EAPC-format session included briefing partners on SPS structure, briefing all on panel activities, and a tour de table. The last item was notable for increased frankness and sophistication in PC presentations. ¶9. (U) The next meetings will take place at NATO Headquarters, October 18-19, 2007 and March 13-14, 2008. OLSON