From: <a href="http://www.aftenposten.no/spesial/wikileaksdokumenter/article3973864.ece">Aftenposten</a><br>
Date: 9.7.2007: RE

<pre>
C O N F I D E N T I A L USNATO 000408 
SIPDIS 
SIPDIS 
STATE FOR EUR-RPM (MONAHAN); 
DEFENSE FOR OASD/ISA (EURO-NATO); USDAT&L/DUSD-IE (VAUGHT); 
OASD/NII (HANSEN); EUCOM FOR 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: REPORT OF SENIOR RESOURCE BOARD PLENARY MEETING JUN 28 & 29, 2007 
REF:
A. USNATO 00383 DTG 221423Z JUN 07 
B. SECSTATE 90005 DTG 272156Z JUL 07 
C. SRB-N(2007)0040 
D. PO(2005)0098 
E. AC/281-N(2007)0062 
F. SRB-N(2007)0041 
G. SRB-WP(2007)0001-REV6 
Classified By: ACTING DEFAD JAMES ENGLE. REASON 1.4.(B/D)

1. (U)
SUMMARY: The Senior Resource Board (SRB), meeting on June 28
and 29, endorsed the Capability Package (CP) for Vital
Security Projects for NATO Command Facilities and agreed on
plans of action for a variety of resource issues. The
following topics were considered: CP for Deployable Ground
Based Sensors for Air Surveillance and Identification; the
Afghanistan, Iraq, and Kosovo operations resources; the 2008
to 2012 medium term resource plan (MTRP); Missile Defense
affordability assessment; funding arrangements for NATO
assistance to humanitarian operations; NATO Command Structure
Peacetime Establishment (PE) Review; short notice deployment
of the NATO Response Force (NRF); Air Command and Control
System (ACCS) implementation; the economic benefits to nations
aspect of burdensharing; the Combined Air Operations Center
(CAOC) transition plan; cyber defense; the NATO Security
Investment Program (NSIP) implementation; and the funding
policy for Pakistani personnel participation in NATO courses.
The Board received status reports on the resource aspects of
the current operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Balkans, and
Sudan. The Board also received briefings on the ongoing NATO
resource reform activities and the Allied Command
Transformation (ACT) Research and Technology activities. END
SUMMARY.

2. (C)
Details of the SRB deliberations follows:

RESOURCE PLANNING AND POLICY ISSUES 

ITEM I. 
CRISIS RESPONSE OPERATIONS (CROs) AND MISSIONS RESOURCE UPDATES. 
A.
International Security Assistance Force (ISAF): Allied Command
Operations (ACO) briefed the Board on the status of their
ongoing campaign to counter insurgents, and reported that the
NATO Maintenance and Supply Agency (NAMSA) had awarded all
real life support contracts for Kandahar Airfield (KAF);
however, most contracts will not be fully operational until
September 6, 2007. Noting that the U.S. is scheduled to turn
over operations on June 30, 2007, ACO is coordinating with
U.S. military authorities to bridge the gap in services. NAMSA
has exercised options to the support contracts, thus
increasing the cost, due to the apparent non-availability of
some U.S. infrastructure foreseen to be transferred to NATO.
The Communications Information System (CIS) and air traffic
control (ATC) contracts are significantly delayed; the CIS
backbone is now scheduled to be operational in February 2009,
and the ATC services will transition to NATO in August 2009.
ACO has put Combined Joint Task Force (CJTF) assets in place
to mitigate the CIS shortfalls, and is coordinating with the
U.S. to extend their provision of ATC services for two years.
ACO also reported that the KAF footprint is nearing capacity
and may not be able to accommodate any new missions. The
Government of Afghanistan approved NATO use of additional
adjacent real estate, and ISAF will expand the fence line in
the winter. ACO reported that the recent force generation
conference had fulfilled between 90 and 100 percent of the
Minimum Military Requirement (MMR) for the Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) collection and full
motion video exploitation capability through offers from
Italy, the UK, and the U.S. However, only 10 percent of the
theater-wide dissemination capability and 5 percent of the
archival and storage capability are fulfilled. ACO will submit
an assessment of the ISR capability gap to the Military
Committee (MC) for further deliberations. MISSION NOTE: The
U.S. offer of two Predator sorties per day under national
operational control (OPCON) will not be eligible for common
funding reimbursement, as they do not fulfill the Theater
Capability Statement of Requirement (TCSOR) of being OPCON to
COMISAF. END MISSION NOTE. The Infrastructure Committee (IC)
Chairman reported that authorizations for ISAF to date are
440.4 million Euro (MEuro), and expenditures for 2007 are
approaching 100 MEuro. The Military Budget Committee (MBC)
Chairman reported that ACO submitted a pre-mid-year ISAF
budget update that does not require a budget supplement at
this time. The MBC agreed to unfreeze 14.5 MEuro in credits
carried forward from 2006 for the additional ISAF
requirements, and will consider any further ISAF requirements
as part of the mid-year budget review in September.
B.
BALKANS: ACO will provide an operational update for the
Balkans in November in lieu of an autumn periodic mission
review. The KFOR portion will focus on operations and possible
future tasks to build up the Kosovo Security Force. ACO
continues prudent planning for the implementation of the
Kosovo settlement proposal presently before the United Nations
(UN) Security Council and foresees for KFOR a reduction in
maneuver units, greater emphasis on out-of-theater reserves,
and a consolidation of footprint and support functions to
increase the tooth to tail ratios. ACO and the European Union
(EU) reviewed the Camp Butmir, Bosnia, cost share principles
and agreed to retain them; however, the NATO cost share will
be reduced by deleting the NATO personnel located in downtown
Sarajevo from the calculation. As a consequence of the KFOR
Camp Nothing Hill audit which notes that construction
commenced prior to IC project authorization, ACO reported that
they are now conducting pre-deployment common funding (NSIP
and Military Budget) training. ACO will submit a report to the
Board outlining the lessons learned and further action taken,
upon receipt of the final audit report on the incident.
C. NATO TRAINING MISSION 
IRAQ (NTM-I): ACO reported that on June 11, the NAC approved
the NATO provision of Gendarmerie-type training with Italy as
the lead nation using their Carabinieri forces as a model. The
training will commence on September 1, 2007, for a two-year
period, and will consist of eight sessions, each twelve weeks
long, and with each session training a cadre of 450 Iraqi
personnel. The US will fund and construct, at no cost to NATO,
the infrastructure and force protection requirements, to
include contract guard services, for the Gendarmarie-type
training facilities at Camp Dublin. France, supported by
Belgium and Spain, insisted that the NTM-I long-term resource
development plan (LTRDP), briefed in a previous preparatory
session, should be revised to reflect trust funding for the
proposed mentors and advisors. The US, the UK, and Italy all
supported ACO,s assessment that the mentors and advisors were
part of the crisis establishment headquarters and thus
eligible for common funding. The Board agreed to further
discussions on this issue at an early preparatory session. The
IS reported that 27 nations (including Switzerland) had
pledged trust fund contributions that fully covered the 2007
requirements and most of the 2008 requirements. The total
estimated costs for NTM-I trust fund training from 2005
through the end of 2007 (including gendarmerie training) is
9.0 MEuro. 13.1 MEuro having been pledged to date, there is a
surplus of 4.1 MEuro that can be used for 2008 requirements.
The Board, noting the surplus, agreed that the trust funds
could also be used to fill gaps in transportation for
equipment donations.
D.
NATO LOGISTICAL SUPPORT TO THE AFRICAN UNION (AU)
MISSION IN SUDAN (AMIS).
ACO reported that since NATO had undertaken the AMIS mission
in June 2005, NATO nations have supported four rotation cycles
and have moved over 22,000 AU troops at a cost of 12.4 MEuro.
ACO is monitoring the progress of the UN activities for their
three-phased plan for Darfur. The light support package,
consisting of technical and communication support, is already
in place. The heavy support package entails approximately 3700
personnel, and was approved by President Bashir in April. The
hybrid operation was unconditionally agreed on June 17. UN/AU
implementation planning for the heavy support package is
ongoing and includes contracting for camp expansions scheduled
to be ready in 6 to 7 months. The AMIS mandate, and thus NATOs
support to AMIS, ended on June 30. On June 19, the AU agreed
to extend the AMIS mandate, and a written request from the AU
to extend the NATO support is anticipated shortly. On June 7,
the NAC approved the provision of NATO airlift support for the
AU Mission in Somalia (AMISOM). The Burundi battalion will
likely be ready to deploy in four to five weeks; however, no
formal request for NATO airlift has been made by the AU.

ITEM II. REPORTING ISSUES WITH CURRENT AND 
FUTURE RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS. 
A. Short Notice Deployment of the NRF.
The MC continues to discuss the definition of short notice
deployment and is considering limiting common funding to a 20
to 30-day timeline and to the transportation of key enablers
for the initial operational capability of the NRF. Consensus
is building around common funding for all forms of
transportation (air, sea, and land). The Board met in informal
session prior to the plenary: noting the 30-day timeline to
complete the task directed by Ministers; agreed to proceed
with developing funding arrangements despite there being no MC
agreement on the definition of short notice deployments; and
tasked the IS to prepare a non-paper for discussions at a July
informal session.
B. Funding Implications of NATO participation in Humanitarian
Operations.
Some nations expressed initial views on the IS non-paper
issued June 27 (Ref C) which advocated a limited number of
amendments to the agreed common funding for non-article V
operations (Ref D). While most that spoke supported the IS
approach, Germany and Belgium advocated no changes to the
agreed common funding eligibility for operation until
assessment on the impact on force generation could be made.
The Board, noting the late distribution of the paper, agreed
to consider the IS non-paper at an early preparatory session.
C. NATO Command Structure (NCS) Peacetime Establishment Review.
The IMS reported that nations are unable to agree to the
latest proposal to change the command structure, citing issues
with the number of component commands and the geographical
distribution. MISSION NOTE: During a June 29 EWG meeting,
nations generally agreed to complete Phase I before moving to
Phase II and that work would proceed on the basis of the
current command structure and geographical distribution and
the non-contentious Phase I proposals. The IS will issue a
strawman paper this week and the EWG will discuss the issue
again on July 9. END MISSION NOTE.
D. CAOC Transition Plan.
The MC has yet to agree the flags to post for the NCS to
include the CAOCs, thus adding to the overall shortfalls in
manning the CAOCs. ACO intends to revise the ACCS Foundation
Capability CP to include the interim CAOC structure.
E.
Protection Against Cyber Attacks.
At the Riga Summit, Heads of State and Government agreed to
pursue cyber defense within NATO and tasked the EWG to
consider the implementation of NATO cyber defense. MISSION
NOTE: On June 29, the EWG held initial discussions on an IS
paper (Ref E) which outlined possible definitions of
information systems of critical importance to the Alliance,
responsibilities in the protection of these key information
systems, and possible measures for improving NATOs cyber
defenses, the latter of which may involve additional common
funded resources. The EWG will consider definitions,
responsibilities, and possible measures of defense at a
further meeting on July 13. END MISSION NOTE. The Board agreed
to return to the issue when warranted.
F. Missile Defense.
The IS reported that they recently completed their preliminary
assessment on the funding of a NATO missile defense capability
(Ref F). The cost of a NATO Missile Defense System would be
between 8 to 27 Billion Euro and thus, using exclusively the
NSIP and the Military Budget, was unaffordable within current
common funded ceilings. The IS noted that this assessment did
not take into consideration the proposed U.S. missile defense
system which should substantially reduce the costs. The NMAs
will develop an addendum to the Missile Defense Feasibility
Study stand alone project to consider the implications of the
proposed U.S. missile defense system for early consideration
by the nations. The Board agreed to discuss the IS paper at an
early preparatory session.
G. ACCS.
The IS reported that 1.7 billion Euro is programmed for NSIP
investment to support the ACCS; however, the program is
currently three years behind schedule, and thus NACMA has sent
a letter of default to the contractor. Not included in the
current programming are 105 MEuro for required software
upgrades. The factory system test is scheduled for mid-2008
and, if acceptable, is planned to trigger the approval to
proceed with replication at the remaining sites. The IS
anticipates that the factory system test will likely be
delayed by another 6 months and does not recommend proceeding
with any replication until the factory system test is
undertaken and deemed acceptable. An NSIP funded project is
under contract to study alternative solutions in the event
that the current contractor defaults. The IS anticipates that
the ACCS contractor will eventually deliver a working system,
but the final cost and the time of delivery remain a concern.
H. Funding for Defense Against Terrorism (DAT).
The MC agreed advice to the NAC on the program for defense
against terrorism. The IS will evaluate the MC advice and
develop a non-paper for further consideration which will also
include ongoing DAT activities throughout NATO.

ITEM III. BURDEN-SHARING DISCUSSIONS ECONOMIC BENEFIT. 
Canada expressed disappointment that, despite several informal
discussions, no measurable progress had been made by the Board
on the burdensharing discussion for the economic benefit to
nations of hosting NATO headquarters and infrastructure.
Canada indicated that, while they have no intention of
revisiting the cost sharing agreement, they will not be in a
position to move to Phase II of the cost share adjustment
(i.e. increasing their cost shares), scheduled for January,
2008, without marked progress on the evaluation of economic
benefits to host nations. The UK, supported by several
nations, noted that some national positions are completely
incompatible on this issue and offered as an alternative to
consider greater participation by nations in the NATO Airborne
Early Warning Capability (i.e., by all of the new member
nations) and putting in place agreements to increase host
nation support to NATO headquarters throughout the command
structure. The Board agreed to continue informal discussions.

ITEM IV. NATO HEADQUARTERS RESOURCE REFORM.
Peltier (US), Director of the NATO Office of Resources (NOR),
updated the Board on the progress of establishing the NOR.
Office relocations to collocate the resource committee
Chairman and the NOR Director and staff are complete. The
final operating capability of the NOR is scheduled for
September 1, 2007. Currently, the NOR is expending
approximately 30 percent of their effort supporting the crisis
response operations and approximately 50 percent of their
workload maintaining NATO capabilities. The Director holds
monthly meetings with the new ACO Capabilities Management
Division and plans to hold similar monthly coordination
meeting with ACTs new Integrated Resource Management Division.
The Chairman offered an interim solution to handle the urgent
PE changes to implement the results of the Spearhead Study in
which the Board, upon MBC confirmation that the necessary
budgetary arrangements are in place, would advise the
Secretary General that nothing now prevents him from SIPDIS
submitting the PE changes to the Council for approval.
Germany, supported by Spain, stated that any solution should
not set a precedent nor add additional steps in the approval
process, and therefore were unable to agree. The U.S. rep
insisted that the agreed MBC terms of reference be adhered to.
The MBC reports to the SRB. Therefore, the MBC should not
submit documents directly to the NAC unless so directed by the
SRB. The board agreed to further discussions in an early
informal meeting.

ITEM V. ACT TRANSFORMATION UPDATE.
ACT briefed the board on their ongoing future capabilities,
research, and technology development activities to include:
the NATO live, virtual, constructive simulation for training;
effect-based approach to operations; improvements to force
protection and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear
(CBRN) capabilities; and a capability development support and
synthesis (CDSS) tool. ACT intends to establish an integrated
resource management division upon conclusion of the PE review
and will brief the Board on the new structure at the October
plenary meeting.

ITEM VI. NSIP IMPLEMENTATION.
The IS briefed the Board on their analysis of the slow NSIP
implementation rate, highlighting that SHAPE and the agencies
will execute approximately 50 percent of the NSIP in the
coming years, and historically they have had low execution
rates. Some structural issues identified include insufficient
use of architectural and engineering firms by the agencies,
impassive implementation system with no accountability
mechanism, and that host nations take on commitments beyond
their capacity to deliver. The IS will develop an action plan
to improve NSIP implementation which the Board will consider
at a future preparatory session, with the ultimate goal of
producing a report for the NAC.

ITEM VII. 2008-2012 MEDIUM TERM RESOURCE PLAN (MTRP).
Consensus appears to be reached per guidance on the 2008 NSIP,
pensions, AWACS operations and maintenance (O&M), and CRO O&M
budget ceiling figures. On the military headquarters O&M
budget ceilings, the Chairman conducted a tour de table in
which four nations (UK, CA, DK and PL) supported a figure of
528 MEuro, two nations (BE, GE) were willing to support a
figure of 536 MEuro, 15 nations were able to support a figure
546.1 MEuro, and two nations (U.S. and TU) supported a figure
of 550.4 MEuro. The Chairman, noting the majority able to
support the 546.1 MEuro figure, placed the MTRP under silence
procedure approval, expiring July 6, recommending this figure
for the headquarters O&M budget (Ref G, e-mailed to Washington
agencies).

ITEM VIII. FUNDING POLICY FOR PARTICIPATION OF PAKISTANI PERSONNEL IN NATO 
TRAINING COURSES.
France insisted on maintaining a distinction between Partner
nations (PfP and Mediterranean Dialogue) and Contact nations
for NATO operations, and to use trust funding for the latter.
The US, the UK, Denmark, The Netherlands, Turkey, and Italy
all advocated common funding, noting that Pakistan is a
primary contact country for ISAF, and ISAF is the Alliances
highest priority. Thus Pakistans participation in NATO courses
should not be dependent on trust funding. Several nations made
pleas for flexibility from France and offered compromise
language. The IS will revise the proposed language to indicate
that agreement is on a non-precedent setting basis, noting the
unusual circumstances surrounding the issue, and the Board
will consider the revised paper at an early preparatory
session.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES CAPABILITY PACKAGE AND STAND-ALONE PROJECTS. 

ITEM IX.A. I.S./IMS CAPABILITY PACKAGE OVERVIEW.
The IMS briefed the status of new CPs. At nations request in
the MC, the SCs will validate the projects in the revised
Logistics Replenishment and Supply CP against the Defense
Requirements Review 2007 (DRR07). Three CPs are under joint
staff screening: Electronic Warfare, the Southern Region Bulk
Fuel Assets, and an addendum to the Maritime Shore-Based
Communications CP. The IMS noted that nations deferred
consideration of the four ACO headquarters CPs, pending the
outcome of the PE review. Six CPs are expected to be submitted
by December 2007: Offensive and Defensive Air Assets, Command
and Control Services for Operations, Satellite and Wireless
Communication Transmission Services, and Core Information
Processing Services. The Air Transport, the Air to Air
Refueling, and Communication Systems for the NRF CPs are
delayed until the second quarter of 2008; and the Northern
Region Bulk Fuel Assets is deferred pending the outcome of the
DRR07.

ITEM IX.B. SACT CAPABILITY PACKAGE 9A0202 DEPLOYABLE GROUND BASED
SENSORS FOR AIR C2 SURVEILLANCE AND IDENTIFICATION.
The IMS reported that The Netherlands extended silence in the
MC until July 6. ACO noted the ongoing negotiation between
SHAPE and the Spanish Ministry of Defense to change the
location of the planned garrison site for NATOs southern based
deployable ACCS entities from Moron Air Base to Torrejon Air
Base, and the IS confirmed that such a relocation would be
cost neutral and any changes in location will be subject to MC
agreement. France confirmed their participation in this CP.
The board agreed to consider endorsement of the CP upon MC
endorsement.

ITEM IX.C. SHAPE RECOMMENDED CAPABILITY PACKAGE 
5A0150 VITAL SECURITY PROJECTS FOR NATO COMMAND FACILITIES.
The IMS reported that the MC endorsed the CP on June 25. The
CP will be funded by 25 nations as France confirmed that they
will not participate. The Board endorsed the CP and agreed it
should be forwarded to the Defense Planning Committee for
final approval.

NULAND
</pre>