1. PARP PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE PfP PLANNING AND REVIEW PROCESS
PARP began in 1995 and was deliberately modelled on NATO force planning. Has been one of the key elements in Partnership for Peace (PfP) and absorbs a significant amount of effort by defence planning staffs and Allies in NATO. Significant similarities [in both process and content] with Alliance defence planning. Supports also the development of non-NATO EU nations’ capabilities for the Headline Goal.
But it is significantly different in some respects from force planning with Allies.
First, NATO members plan and commit their forces for Article 5 operations and common defence whereas PARP nations declare forces that may become available for non-Art 5 operations i.e. PfP missions - on a voluntary basis.
Second, the principle of self-differentiation is another element that differs in the two systems. Self-differentiation means that the individual Partner chooses whether to take part in the process and, if so, chooses which planning targets to accept and when to implement them. There is no “consensus minus one”
Third, NATO force planning is driven by military requirements for the Alliance to be able to fulfil the tasks NATO nations have collectively decided. PARP is a process at Allies+1 therefore there are, effectively, 16 separate PARP processes and it is a more politically-driven activity.
PARP
Gordon Monaghan
Force Planning Directorate
Defence Policy and Planning Division
NATO International Staff

2. CURRENT PARTICIPATION
PARTICIPATING
NOT PARTICIPATING
RUS
SWI
SWE
CURRENT PARTICIPATION
ALB
FIN
IRL
KAZ
KYR
MOL
TAJ
TUM
UZB
GEO
BLR
AZE
ARM
UKR
AUS
CRO
the fomer Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia1
To-day there are 20 PfP countries. Of these, 16 are participating in PARP.
The latest country to join PARP was Belarus in 2004.
1 Turkey recognises the Republic of Macedonia with its constitutional name.

3. GENERAL OBJECTIVE
ESTABLISH /ASSESS INTEROPERABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTNER FORCES
DEVELOP FORCES AND CAPABILITIES FOR
PEACE SUPPORT OPERATIONS, SEARCH AND RESCUE AND HUMANITARIAN AID
This slide sets out the original objectives of PARP.
These were centred around the development of interoperability.
But PARP has moved on considerably since then and now embraces capabilities for all non-Article 5 operations. It has become a much more robust planning process aiming at reaching common views on the military requirements for the crisis management operations in which Allies and Partners will take part together and developing the capabilities needed for these.

4. PARP CYCLE Guidance Target Setting Implementation PARP MINISTERIAL
PARTNERSHIP
GOALS
COUNTRY
ASSESSMENT
Partnership planning consists of three main elements Ministerial Guidance, Partnership Goals, and a biennial review which results in the formal assessment of each participant.
The first two elements constitute mechanisms for target-setting and the review provides the process by which we monitor progress in national implementation.
Ministerial Guidance is developed by the 26 Allies and the, currently, 16 PARP participating nations together.
This political guidance leads on to the development of planning targets 12 months later. These Partnership Goals, which are updated every two years, are developed by the NATO military authorities and the International Staff.
Every other year we focus on producing an assessment of the plans of each PARP nation and their performance in meeting the agreed planning targets.
Summary
Report
Consolidated
Report
2-year cycle

5. MINISTERIAL GUIDANCE
Prepared every two years and approved by Defence Ministers in June of odd-numbered years
Establishes general planning assumptions, e.g.
Types of operations
Duration
Combat effectiveness
Guidance for the development of Partnership Goals, e.g.
Enhancement of preparedness
Capabilities to counter terrorism
Resource Guidance
Support for development of EU military capabilities (four)
The first element of the planning cycle is Ministerial Guidance, which provides the key “political” framework, approved by participating Defence Ministers, for force planning policy guidance. The fact that it is developed by Allies and Partners together is very significant and indicates that PfP is a real partnership rather than NATO setting the rules and Partners being asked to fall into line
It is developed every two years and sets out the planning assumptions to guide Partner planning.
In giving guidance for the development of Partnership Goals it places emphasis on issues of particular importance to the Alliance. Also identifies areas where greater effort is needed such as interoperable C3I, provision of CS/CSS, sustainability and rotation of forces, their survivability and strategic mobility.
Resource guidance concerns the need for adequate planning and budgeting systems, establishment of priorities,and of course the need for adequate resources to be made available, if necessary through restructuring.
For Au, Fin, Irl, Swe also supports devt of Euro capabilities.

6. INTEROPERABILITY OBJECTIVES
PARTNERSHIP GOALS
INTEROPERABILITY OBJECTIVES
in first two cycles
(1995 AND 1997)
Originally, planning targets were called Interoperability Objectives.
As the name suggests, they focussed very much on developing interoperability between Partners and Allies, especially to emphasise doctrine, training (including language training) and procedures.
Current planning targets are known as Partnership Goals.
These address interoperability, but also ask Partners to develop particular capabilities that nations need to participate effectively in NATO-led PfP operations.
Examples are deployability and mobility, air defence, engineer units, NBC defence, information systems, support and augmentation for CJTF Headquarters and civil-military cooperation capabilities.
Overall, about half of the Partnership Goals accepted by Partners in 2004 were identical, or were very similar to NATO Force Goals.
Formally, Partnership Goals are addressed to those units that Partners make available for PfP activities. However, in the MAP process they are addressed to an aspirant’s entire force structure and many non-aspirant nations find that it makes sense to implement them more widely in their force structures.
Partnership Goals are also used to support those countries preparing for possible membership of the Alliance under the Membership Action Plan or MAP. Many of these Partnership Goals are more demanding and go beyond military planning targets. Increasingly, additional planning targets are being addressed to those countries that have developed an Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP).
PARTNERSHIP GOALS
introduced in 1999/2000
reviewed for 2002

7. PARTNERSHIP GOAL (EXAMPLE)
PG G 0355: LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS
1. Improve English language skills of all personnel (military and civilian) who are to cooperate with NATO forces in NATO-led PfP operations, exercises and training, or with NATO staffs. These individuals must be able to communicate effectively in English, with added emphasis on operational terminology and procedures.
Continue to ensure that all personnel planned for participation in NATO staffs or other multinational headquarters, and MOD, Joint Forces Staff and other staff personnel who are routinely involved with NATO issues, have English language skills at the minimum as follows (listening, speaking, reading, writing):
a. Officers: SLP
b. NCOs: SLP
By the end of 200X, ensure that the following personnel subject to deployment on NATO-led PfP operations and exercises or training have the minimum English language skills as follows:
b. Appropriate NCOs, OR-5 and above likely to have frequent contacts with personnel of other nations: SLP
c. Enlisted personnel of all services planned to operate tactical communications or operate on NATO communications networks: SLP
This is an example of a Partnership Goal from the 2004 PARP package.
It deals with the topic of most interest to this audience – training standards for the English language.
Rationale
Military Tasks for Interoperability

8. REVIEW
OBJECTIVES
To understand each nation’s overall defence organisation, force structure and plans
To assess actual Partnership Goal implementation
To assess overall forces
Levels, structure, readiness, modernisation, capabilities for peace support operations
To highlight results
one of the foundations for the next Partnership Goal cycle
The Review provides the means by which each country’s plans are assessed in terms of implementation of Partnership Goals and the declarations of forces potentially available for NATO-led operations.
To do this we need to place it’s efforts in the context of it’s defence organisation and force structure.
On the basis of a Partner’s response to a survey we develop a draft assessment and then visit the capital to revise and amend it.
The Review also provides the baseline for the development of the next round of Ministerial Guidance and Partnership Goals.

9. € NATO/IS ASSESSMENT Analysis of country’s defence structure
Nation’s force plans and levels by service
Declarations for NATO-led operations
Overall response to Partnership Goals
Personnel, logistics and readiness
PfP activities
Financial and economic considerations €
The individual assessments provide, for the Political Military Steering Committee meeting in PARP format (or PMSC(PARP)), an analysis of each country’s plans to meet the targets it has been set.
They also provide information on a participant’s general approach to Partnership and the PfP activities it has undertaken or in which it plans to participate - and of course the financial and economic background to a Partner’s defence plans..
The PMSC(PARP) considers each of these assessments in turn. Procedurally, this is a Allies+1 process but transparency is encouraged and increasingly Partners invite other PARP participants to attend their multilateral meetings, either as observers or as active participants, seated at the table.
Many also agree to circulate copies of their assessments to other participants.

10. APPROVED BY PERMREPS AND THEN BRIEFED TO DEFENCE/FOREIGN MINISTERS
CONSOLIDATED REPORT
CONSOLIDATED
REPORT
SUMMARY OF
EACH ASSESSMENT
NATO PFP POLICY,
COMMITMENTS AND
CAPABILITIES
The PARP Assessments are also followed by a Consolidated Report, developed by Allies and PARP participants, which provides an overview of progress in the PARP process, highlighting any problem areas that need to be address in the PARP Ministerial Guidance that is developed in parallel with it.
The Consolidated Report is approved by the Ambassadors of Allies and PARP nations together and then forwarded to the Defence Ministers of the 41 countries (Allies and Partners) at the meeting of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council at which they are also asked to approve the PARP Ministerial Guidance.
The eagle-eyed among you may also have spotted on an earlier slide that at the time that Partnership Goals are approved, we also develop a more abbreviated report called the Summary Report, which provides information on what we are seeking from participating Partners through Partnership Goals.
APPROVED BY PERMREPS AND THEN BRIEFED TO DEFENCE/FOREIGN MINISTERS

11. MEMBERSHIP ACTION PLAN (MAP)
Launched at 1999 Washington Summit
Seven partners joint NATO in Three current aspirants.
Defence/military aspects of preparation largely taken forward through PARP
Aim is to prepare aspirants as fully as possible for future membership before any invitations to join NATO
BUT, always emphasised that NATO membership would be a political decision
I should mention at this point the Membership Action Plan launched at the Washington Summit in 1999.
Its aim is to prepare countries wishing to join NATO for the responsibilities of possible future membership. Three countries are currently aspirants. Would like to emphasise that NATO is serious about the “open-door” policy and that we continue our work with the remaining aspirants on the assumption that it is a question of “when” they will become Alliance members, not “if” they are invited to join in the future.
Unlike for other PARP participants, Partnership Goals addressed to aspirants concern their entire defence organisation and force structure. The PARP process has played, and is playing, a major role in preparing nations for the defence and military related aspects of the MAP, particularly through Assessments of progress in reforming their armed forces and implementation of Partnership Goals.
But the MAP never meant that, if all Partnership Goals are fulfilled, there would be an automatic invitation to join the Alliance. Allies had always made it clear that such invitations would be based on political decisions to be taken in the light of circumstances at the time.

12. MAP-RELATED PARTNERSHIP GOALS
FOR ASPIRANT NATIONS ONLY
FORCE STRUCTURE REVIEW
LEGAL/CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS
REINFORCEMENT / HNS
NATINADS
FREQUENCY MANAGEMENT
SECURITY COOPERATION WITH NATO
Many of the Partnership Goals have been very important for the Membership Action Plan. And for these we ask aspirants countries to apply them throughout their force structures.
Therefore many PGs, for aspirants are specifically intended to address future collective defence arrangements. We have also developed a number of PGs that would be indispensable for future Alliance membership based on the experiences of the accession process with our three newest members.
Some of these are shown on this slide.
However, in general, we did not want to create a dividing line in the PARP process between aspirants and other Partners. Therefore almost all Partnership Goals available to aspirants have also been made available to other Partners if they wish to accept them.

13. PARTNERSHIP ACTION PLANS
VOLUNTARY AND SELF-DIFFERENTIATED
PAP-T - on terrorism
PAP-DIB - on defence institution building
A few words on Partnership Action Plans
Recent innovations to build on the success of MAP but designed to assist Partners who do not seek to join the Alliance.
Entirely up to individual Partner if it wishes to take advantage of and what their individual plan may contain.
May however wish to include elements from templates provided by the PAP-T which has been developed or the PAP-DIB.

14. THE FUTURE Caucasus & Central Asia
Serbia and Montenegro & Bosnia and Hercegovina
NATO Response Force
Mediterranean Dialogue & Istanbul Cooperation Initiative

15. OPEN QUESTIONS ON LANGUAGE TRAINING
Changes in exam standards?
Are standards set out in Partnership Goals too high?
Relevance of current tuition material?
Separate requirements for military and civilian staffs?
Before I take questions these are some of the questions in my own mind that may be worth debating:

16. Questions?