Food for thought 02-2021 The Diverse Approaches to Land Force Interoperability in Europe. Written by Luca Dilda, Lucia Santabarbara AN EXPERTISE FORUM CONTRIBUTING TO EUROPEAN CONTRIBUTING TO FORUM AN EXPERTISE SINCE 1953 ARMIES INTEROPERABILITY European Army Interoperability Center Paolo D’Alesio, Simone Rinaldi This paper was drawn up by Luca Dilda, Lucia Santabarbara, Paolo D’Alesio and Simone Rinaldi under the supervision and guidance of Mr Mario Blokken, Director of the Permanent Secretariat. This Food for Thought paper is a document that gives an initial reflection on the theme. The content is not reflecting the positions of the member states but consists of elements that can initiate and feed the discussions and analyses in the domain of the theme. All our studies are available on www.finabel.org TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 3 Interoperability: framework, benefits, and challenges 3 Bilateral and multilateral cooperation at the intra-state level 5 Industrial Cooperation 8 Future expectations 8 Interoperability in the EU 9 EU framework for interoperability 10 EU interoperability in practice 12 Interoperability in NATO 14 Conclusion 17 Bibliography 19 2 INTRODUCTION For three decades, various international chal- edge the critical importance of interoperabili- lenges have shaped European behaviour in ty between states in this process. the fields of security and defence. The end of Consequently, this study analyses interopera- the Cold War and the rise of expeditionary bility in the land forces domain. It focuses on warfare have led to several transformations af- intra-state cooperation, EU coordination, and fecting all European states and their defence NATO co-action. Accordingly, multiple part- frameworks. Contemporary challenges, and nerships and projects have been launched to new threats, have reshaped national political pursue enhanced international cooperation. and military agendas. It has encouraged the This Food for Thought investigates how the exploration of innovative approaches to mil- concept of interoperability is applied at in- itary matters. Europeans have progressively tra-state, EU, and NATO levels. It will high- re-nationalised their defence policies. How- light coordination and underscore cooper- ever, in times of crisis, European states have ation between actors. The analysis has been been inclined to cooperate. This tendency to- conducted through a combination of quanti- wards improving operational effectiveness and tative and qualitative research methods: data- optimising defence procurements identifies bases, trends and charts, case studies, as well the major reasons why military cooperation as a review of the published literature. must increase. Therefore, we must acknowl- INTEROPERABILITY: FRAMEWORK, BENEFITS, AND CHALLENGES The terminteroperability exists in several con- ty for Allies to act together coherently, effectively texts, such as computing, telecommunication, and efficiently to achieve tactical, operational commerce, and industry; it can be defined as and strategic objectives”1. Moreover, NATO multiple systems’ ability to exchange infor- believes interoperability allows multination- mation and work together efficiently. It is al-forces to collaborate to improve opera- not limited to these sectors; it is also relevant tional approaches2. This can relate to com- to the military domain. Here, it refers to the munications, infrastructure, equipment, and ability of organisations or individuals to coop- knowledge sharing3. Therefore, interopera- erate to achieve common objectives. bility is a factor in the following areas: tech- NATO defines interoperability as the “abili- nology, strategy, operations, and tactics. The 1. NATO, “Interoperability: Connecting NATO Forces”. 2020. NATO. Available at: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_84112.htm#:~:text=NATO’s%20interoperability%20 policy%20defines%20the,tactical%2C%20operational%20and%20strategic%20objectives 2. Ibid. 3. Ibid. The Diverse Approaches to Land Force Interoperability in Europe 3 tactical domain is where all other dimensions emerged in its vocabulary and has rapidly be- combine and are put into practice4. Whilst come a priority for Member States. Together the tactical level necessitates functional tac- with European governments, EU Institutions tics, techniques, and shared procedures, stra- have created dedicated tools, defined mili- tegic interoperability requires political deci- tary and civilian structures, and built defence sions. Indeed, the tactical level’s strengths and agencies. benefits come from the practical interchange However, within both NATO and the EU, of units and equipment5. interoperability between armed forces has It is possible to observe numerous examples of played a vital role in improving the forces’ military interoperability worldwide; however, readiness. On the EU front, Member States Europe emerges as one of the most promis- have shaped EU defence with structures and ing areas for land forces cooperation. Recent tools that enhance the EU’s capabilities for ef- collaborative projects identify three levels of fective crisis management and for intervening interoperability: in security and defence affairs7. These proce- • Intra-state. dures have created an institutional framework • Within the European Union (EU). to strengthen cooperation and integration • Within NATO. processes in the EU defence sphere. Strong cooperation between European armies In Europe, various forms of military coopera- has become vital in dealing with European se- tion have appeared; however, their modalities curity threats ranging from border protection depend on intergovernmental agreements ne- to terrorism. The former became the focus of gotiated between participating states. regulations in 2019, aimed at ameliorating They may have diverse purposes and natures the interoperability of information concern- or varying levels of integration. For instance, ing border security and access to the EU8. French President Emmanuel Macron pro- When interoperability between armed forces posed the European Intervention Initiative is efficient, it is an exceptional asset, and it has (EI2); to rapidly enhance European crisis many advantages; however, interoperability management capability. To achieve this, the must overcome several hurdles, often related EI2 aimed at creating improved interoperabil- to equipment, politics, and economics. ity between multinational forces via a shared National forces have access to weapons that modus operandi. Nine EU countries agreed to frequently differ from those available to oth- cooperate starting from June 20186. At pres- er countries. This stems from the desire to ent, EI2 can count on the participation of 13 protect national defence industries (and their EU Member States and Norway. economic benefits). However, at the tacti- From NATO’s perspective, interoperability cal level, interoperability is efficient when is a central concept, at the core of concerns equipment and units are interchangeable. since the Alliance’s foundation. From an Therefore, the standardisation of supplies and EU perspective, interoperability has recently equipment becomes essential if interoperabil- 4. Hura, Myron, Gary McLeod, Eric V. Larson, James Schneider, Daniel Gonzales, Daniel M. Norton, Jody Jacobs, Kevin M. O’Connell, William Little, Richard Mesic, and Lewis Jamison, Interoperability: A Continuing Challenge in Coalition Air Operations. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2000. Available at: https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1235. html. 5. Ibid. 6. Zandee, D. and Kruijver, K., 2019. The European Intervention Initiative Developing A Shared Strategic Culture for European Defence. The Hague: The Clingendael Institute. 7. Menon A. 2012, “Defence Policy”, in E. Jones, A. Menon and S. Weatherill (eds), “The Oxford Handbook of the European Union”, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 585-599. 8. Cornella, Alessia, Linda Zamengo, Alexandre Delepierre, and Georges Clementz. 2020. “Fighting Terrorism: The Need for Multi-Level Intervention and EU Interoperability”. FINABEL Food For Thought. 4 ity is to improve and increase the operational to cede sovereignty over their armed forces. effectiveness of collaborating forces9. National decision-makers prefer to maintain National forces must consider the defence their ability to defend themselves. They con- budget and the resource gaps of their part- sider military authority a national prerogative; ners10. During a 2014 NATO summit, EU ergo, military interdependence is not neces- members of NATO were asked to contribute sarily considered viable as it may be politically 2% of their GDP to defence by 2024. How- undesirable14. ever, estimates show that only seven com- Finally, interoperability partners may dispute plied with this request11. More recently, the control of operations. Moreover, they may de- COVID-19 pandemic has caused massive velop different strategies to achieve the same losses to European GDP; and as has hap- objectives; after identifying and analysing the pened in the past, during times of economic factors that may jeopardise a mission, the al- contraction defence expenditures have under- lies may choose divergent courses of action. gone massive cuts12. If they are not aligned, interoperability might Nevertheless, it is relevant to mention how be lost15. budgets are used. According to the Europe- However, interoperability has proven benefi- an Parliament (EP), European Union Mem- cial in numerous circumstances: it increases ber States combined are the second-largest