Standardization Journal - European Defence Agencyeda.europa.eu/docs/documents/Standardization_Journal_2011_final_version.pdf25 STANAG Implementation Monitoring Steven Lapsley, UK MOD

Standardization Journal

3 | 2011

StandardizationJournal

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 ForewordPatrick Rey, EDA (acting) Director Armaments

3 Successful TLM by means of StandardizationChristian Schleippmann, EDA Principal Officer Armaments Cooperation, Armaments Directorate

4 Travelling Back Through Time - Standardisation in Ancient Lands of Myth and MysteryDr.Claudia Urbanovsky, Consultant and Standardization Expert

7 EDA approach to achieve SDR StandardizationCarlo Zammariello, EDA Software Defined Radio Principal Officer, Armaments Directorate

10 EDA Industry Standardization WorkshopLiva Veita, Representative of Delegation of Latvia to NATO and EU

13 The Standardization Policy Concept of the Federal German GovernmentBjörn Kowalske, BWB – Team P1.4

15 Single European Sky civil-military interoperability and the challenges in Military standardizationDominique Colin, Standardisation expert, EUROCONTROL /Civil military ATM Coordination Division

17 ENNSA: A European Network of National Safety Authorities on AmmunitionVassilis Tsiamis, EDA Senior Officer Defence Industry, Industry and Market Directorate

19 Defence Standardization management - best practice and beyondDavid G Wilkinson, International Standardization Manager, UK MOD Defence Standardization

25 STANAG Implementation MonitoringSteven Lapsley, UK MOD NATO Standardization Manager

DISCLAIMER: THE OPINIONS AND STATEMENTS IN EACH OF THE "JOURNAL" ARTICLES ARE THOSE EXPRESSED BY THE AUTHORS AND ARE NOT NECESSARILY ENDORSED BY EDA.

© EUROPEAN DEFENCE AGENCY, 2011

THOSE WISHING TO USE THE CONTENTS OF THIS SITE FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN THEIR PERSONAL USE ARE REQUESTED TO APPLY IN WRITING TO: [email protected]

COVER IMAGE: PHOTOXPRESS.COM


FOREWORD

It gives me great pleasure to welcome you to this third issue of EDA’s Standardization Journal.

Since 2005 EDA has been involved in bringing Member States’ standardization experts together in the Materiel Standardization Group (MSG) to improve and harmonise the different national approaches.

Standardization is a strategic tool for the future development of the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base and to prepare more affordable armaments programmes. But as standardization from the civil world enables the broadening of the industrial base and helps foster innovation and competitivity, it is gaining more and more influence on military systems. Interacting with the stakeholders in the civil world becomes paramount for the greater good of Defences.

Therefore EDA is coordinating closely with the European Commission and is actively cooperating with the European Standardization body such as CEN-CENELEC.

The current issue of the journal is relying heavily on contribution from Member States experts, reflecting the engagement of pMS, industry and stakeholders. Standardization is an extremely wide field, so we decided to inform you about current projects related to this subject. Furthermore the journal provides you with some background information on standardization best practice management and a view on the STANAG implementation.

I would like to thank all authors contributing to this issue for their efforts. I hope that you enjoy the following articles concerning European standardization issues.

PATRICK REYEDA (ACTING) DIRECTOR ARMAMENTS

2


SUCCESSFUL TLM BY MEANS OF STANDARDIZATION

Through Life Management (TLM) in defence procurement programmes is the art of distributing and applying means to fulfil the ends of armaments procurement policy. Improving the effectiveness and the efficiency of European Armaments Co-operation is one of EDA’s strategic aims. Cooperation is not only effective in the early phases of an armaments programme but also in the long term view with regard to possible common logistics in maintaining, using and even sharing equipment. Considering the long periods of in-service and through-life supply phases makes them even more important. It is essential to support the development and adoption of global standards from the early programme phase because they play a key role in achieving interoperability for promoting operational effectiveness and guaranteeing a fair competition in the EDTIB. This is realized in standardization strategies which are currently developed at EDA for programmes on Unmanned Air Systems and Software Defined Radio. The standardization strategy is a part of the overall Through Life Management.

The development of the standardization strategy is realized in the preparation phase of a programme. The Material Standardization Group advises on the projects and establishes, as a network of national defence standardization experts, a link to EDA’s participating Member States. For specific technological areas, a set of best practice standards have been identified. Other stakeholders such as the European Commission, relevant

European Standardization Bodies, public authorities (e.g. EUROCONTROL, EASA, EUROCAE) and industry have to be involved for further consultation.In particular the identification of necessary new standards is a critical issue.

Once a standardization strategy is developed it needs to be updated during the life cycle of the project. The common selection and promotion of best practice standards supports interoperability of equipment throughout its life cycle. A harmonized set of accepted standards for defence purposes regardless of their civilian or military origin and an easy to use access to these standards is an identified objective which is going to be realized in the near future.

CHRISTIAN SCHLEIPPMANNEDA PRINCIPAL OFFICER ARMAMENTS COOPERATION

3Credits: Morguefile.com


TRAVELLING BACK THROUGH TIME - STANDARDISATION IN ANCIENT LANDS OF MYTH AND MYSTERYWe all know it: Standards have been around for a very long time….and so have standardisation experts like us!

Ample historical and archaeological evidence allows to trace back systematic standardisation to 7000 BCE.

SYSTEMATIC STANDARDISATION IN 7000 BCE

Relics from ancient civilisations such as Babylon and early Egypt provide ample evidence that standardisation was being used as far back as seven thousand years ago. There are even traces in Sumerian of written standards, or rather standards written in stone.

The earliest standards were the physical standards for weights and measures. Archaeologists have found plenty of these physical standards and you can admire them in many museums and collections around the world.

They provided a single reference point against which all other weights and measures in that specific society could be standardised. As trade and commerce developed, written documents evolved quickly after the physical standards. These documents set down mutually agreed standards for products and services such as agriculture, ships, buildings, weapons and so on. In order to make standards accessible to all stakeholders in a certain field, many were engraved in stone on places of meeting, temple walls, administrative buildings, and pillars on markets. A surprising amount of such standardisation documentation has survived to our day and can be admired in museums around the world.

The comparison of the dimensions of buildings with the descriptions of contemporary writers is another source of information on early standards.

In this specific field of standards for weight and measure some have even survived into our time and are still in use:

TECHNICAL STANDARDS FROM THE BRONZE AGE

For example the inhabitants of the Indus Valley Civilization (3000–1500 BC. Mature period 2600–1900 BC) developed a sophisticated procedure of standardization, using weights and measures, evident by the excavations made at the Indus valley sites. Standardized weights were excavated for example from

Sumerian Standard on Beer(Sikaru) Brewing from the Codex of Hammurabi approx. 1750 BCE

4


Mohenjodaro, Harappa, and Chanhu-daro.This technical standardization enabled gauging devices to be effectively used in angular measurement and measurement for construction. Calibration was also found in measuring devices along with multiple subdivisions in case of some devices. The earliest known uniform systems of weights and measures seem all to have been created at some time in the 4th and 3rd millennia BC among the ancient peoples of Egypt, Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley. Some digs seem also to confirm a standardization system in this field in Elam in what is today Iran.

But the most astounding of these ancient systems was that of the Indus Valley Civilization. The Indus Valley peoples achieved great accuracy in measuring length, mass, and time. Their measurements were extremely precise since their smallest division, which is marked on an ivory scale found in Lothal was approximately 1.704 mm (1/16 inch), the smallest division ever recorded on a scale of the Bronze Age. Yes, you read right….1,704mm in the Bronze Age!The centralized weight and measure system served the commercial interest of Indus merchants as smaller weight measures were used to measure luxury goods while larger weights were employed for buying bulkier items, such as food grains etc.The proof that this standardization system was applied universally in the Indus Valley, comes from bricks found by archeologists all over the region. The bricks have all dimensions that correspond to the measure units found in the famous construction towns of Lothal, Surkotada, Kalibangan, Dolavira, Harappa and Mohenjo-daro. The decimal system was thought to be used but in fact, feet and inches are a more accurate indication of the measure used. The measuring devices found in the Indus Valley actually meet the standards used in South Indian architecture and engineering which are feet and inches. In Tamil Nadu, the ancient standardized ‘inch’ is still used in the traditional architectural forms of Vaastu Shastras. Systematic Time Count – The Mother of all Standards Another interesting example of pre-historic standardization is the creation of a calendar. Ancient civilizations relied upon the apparent motion of the sun, moon and stars through the sky to determine the appropriate time to plant and harvest crops, to celebrate holidays and to record important events. Over 30,000 years ago, our Ice Age ancestors in Europe made the first rudimentary attempts to keep track of days by scratching lines in caves and gouging holes in sticks and bones. Later, as civilizations developed agriculture and began to farm their lands, they needed more precise ways to predict seasonal changes. Therefore the scratched lines and gouging holes became more uniform and developed literally into ‘regional standards’. One of those, carved into stone can be admired in France in the Dordogne region. It dates back to the Upper Paleolitic, is attributed to the Aurignacian culture is

Standardized Weights from the Indus Valley Civilization approx. 2000 BCE

5


a lunar calendar and was used to document the phases of the moon.

The Sumerians in the Tigris/Euphrates valley devised a calendar very similar to the one we use today. 5,000 years ago, the Sumerian farmer used a calendar that divided the year into 30-day months. Each day was divided into 12 hours and each hour into 30 minutes. The Egyptians were the first to develop the 365-day calendar and can be credited with logging 4236 BC as the first year in recorded history. They based the year’s measurement on the rising of the “Dog Star” or Sirius every 365 days. This was an important event as it coincided with the annual inundation of the Nile, a yearly occurrence that enriched the soil used to plant the kingdom’s crops

CONCLUSIONS

Apart the measure and weight standards which had from the beginning impacts that went beyond tight knit local communities, most very ancient Standards discovered by archaeologists were in a sense unique documents and part of a ‘single contract’ between a specific supplier and a specific purchaser. Later the concept of common Standards evolved, where the same Standard could be used across a range of transactions. The first traces of such common Standards come from the Indus Valley and Egypt. This portability, offering a uniform set of criteria, is the basis of modern standardisation. It used common knowledge, requirements and needs to avoid reinventing the wheel. It became quickly very popular throughout the Ancient World.

6DR.CLAUDIA URBANOVSKY

CONSULTANT AND STANDARDIZATION EXPERT


EDA approach to achieve SDR StandardizationThe concept of Software Defined Radio (SDR) holds the promise to provide many benefits for greater interoperability, re-configurability, improved spectrum utilization, and a more efficient equipment lifecycle. It is considered the next step in the evolution of wireless communications systems and it is an enabler for even more innovative concepts like Network Enabled Capability and Cognitive Radio. The standardization of SDR technology is an essential element for the successful deployment of this technology in the commercial, public safety and defence domain.

CURRENT SITUATION

The Military Software Communication Architecture (SCA) is an open architecture framework, i.e. a set of standard, to designer elements of hardware and Software which have to operate in harmony within a Software defined radio (SDR). SCA is the approach chosen by both the U.S. military Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) and European military Radios programs (ESSOR, German SVFuA) enabling programmable radios to load waveforms (WFs), run application, and be networked into an integrated system.

SCA has reached a critical phase in its evolution.

The US JTRS JPEO (Joint Program Executive Office) has undertaken a new project called “SCA next”, with the stated objective to evolve the SCA 2.2.2 (current baseline for both European and US SDR developments). As a consequence of this new US initiative the SDR European Community (both ESSOR Nations and Germany) have been also forced to move down a similar path, with the aim of avoiding significant divergences and incompatibilities between their current development and the final new architecture “SCA 3.0” (expected to be finalized by beginning of 2012). The Wireless Innovation Forum (WINNF) is currently very active to assess the divergences.

Should this occur, economies of scale will be lost and costs associated with deploying radio products supporting this architecture will rise.The issue with the SCA is that the development of the standards is being managed as a “procurement activity” supported by government funding. Because issue like Security architecture implementation, for example, have national or regional interest (and can therefore best be handled through government programmes), the final result is that we have now three different developments of the SCA running in parallel (US SCA, ESSOR SCA and German SCA). Moreover SCA brings the additional issue of considering how the evolution of the SCA can be managed to maximize the benefit for all SDR stakeholders, in Europe and US.

In that prospective, EDA has recently presented a plan for a short term way forward in order to support the standardization of both the SCA and the HDR WF (EDA 3 baskets mode and associated short term way forward plan) making the best of ETSI (European Telecommunication Standardization Institute), WINNF and NATO experience. This standardization plan has raised initial interest from the main international SDR stakeholders (FI, FR, IT, PL, ES, SE, DE and US) at working level.

EDA PROPOSAL

The most pragmatic way to mitigate the abovementioned risks is to establish a coordinating body on international SCA standards of representatives (governments and industries) from all relevant national and regional programs. Participants should be encouraged, with the aim to participate to provide broader coordination for the evolution of the SCA worldwide and to facilitate faster and less costly deployment of capabilities into the field. Such a standardization

7


approach should be international in scope, with an open collaborating model and well defined practices to develop and approve standards.

Standardized SDR constitutes a major industrial and technological challenge facing both European nations and the United States in order to allow emergence of common open standards. In this respect EDA is playing a central role to leverage a fruitful cooperation program between the European nations and the United States, as a major way to increase benefit through a shared standardization of Software Communications Architecture and of the High Data Rate WaveForm (HDR WF).

Based on its independent position in the international SDR community, the ETSI appears to be the ideal body for the standardization of the SCA. ETSI Technical Committee Radio Reconfigurable System (TC RRS) and has already a very strong role defining SDR standards for the products which are procured for

public safety and civilian security users, under EC open procurement regulations. ETSI is also the major body for standardization of the telecommunication products in the Europe, and the only official body recognized by both the European Commission and the USA.

Because WINNF is currently is the only active body that is assessing divergences and incompatibilities between the SCA 2.2.2 and the new USA project called “SCA next”, EDA consider it to be an added value having this industrial forum involved in the standardization process (as a possible CM of ETSI WG5 in the TC RRS). WINNF is the most important industrial technical forum with big expertise and deep knowledge of the SCA based SDR.

THE EDA THREE BASKET MODEL APPROACH

A three baskets approach has been proposed the first time during the EDA SDR conference in Tuusula, Finland 17-18/11/2009.The first basket (whose custodianship could be assigned to ETSI)

Figure: Three baskets approach for SDR standardization

8


would include technologies potentially accessible to everyone, in a market driven approach; governments would control content and release of defence related product specifications in order to guarantee compatibility with non-public Applications Programming Interface specifications as well as backward compatibility.The second basket includes more sensitive issues (e.g. security APIs), for which accessibility would be restricted to trusted partners; involved governments would handle custodianship directly. There may also be need for a third basket which deals specifically with individual nations’ sensitive information.In the three baskets approach, the distribution of the Security and Crypto API are controlled, while the other APIs are public.

It is important to remember that “standardization is an important pre-condition to fulfil the building of a strong European Defence industry".EDA does not develop standards but its pMS are users and modifiers of standards. Therefore effective SDR standardization must be based on a partnership between European/USA governmental bodies and Defence industries. In addition, effective dialogue and full consideration of NATO’s initiatives must be maintained to avoid duplication and ensure coherence.

BENEFITS OF SDR STANDARDIZATION

The definition of a standard for SDR technology is an important factor for the competitiveness of the industries, especially in the defence domain.

Additionally, the benefit of SDR European standardization can be extended to Public Safety and commercial domains as well, which will continue to make SDR systems competitive in price. To be really effective, the definition of a common SDR standard should not be limited to the European market but should be extended to a global level. In this context, the collaboration with US government and industry is essential and of paramount importance.

Standardization provides a number of benefits including:

• Standards facilitate access to open markets for innovative products, services, processes,• Standards allow new entrants to obtain market recognition by complying with or exceeding quality levels endorsed by standards,• Standards allow innovative products and services to interoperate with complementary products,• Key to support of innovation chain by standards is the diffusion of knowledge created in R&D as early and effective as possible,• Standards allow easier and effective integration of different technologies, which is a critical aspect in SDR technology.

CARLO ZAMMARIELLOEDA SOFTWARE DEFINED RADIO PRINCIPAL OFFICER

ARMAMENTS DIRECTORATE

9


EDA INDUSTRY STANDARDIZATION WORKSHOPOn 15 September 2010, at the request of the EDA participating Member States’ Material Standardization Group (MSG), an “EDA Industry Standardization Workshop” was held in the premises of the CEN/CENELEC Management Centre (CCMC) in Brussels. The workshop was open to all interested parties in order to engage the wider stakeholder community – industry, Member States and NATO representatives.

In order to fully understand the aim of this workshop I will provide some background.

In 2009 the European Defence Agency (EDA), taking into account the requirements of the Member States, set up a study into “The Role of European Industry in the Development and Application of Standards”, which was managed by ASD-STAN. The study delivered 85 recommendations’ appertaining to the development of improved standardization management processes for the benefit of Member States, Industry and NATO. The recommendations spanned three timeframes, short, medium and long term, and were carefully studied by the Materiel Standardization Harmonization Team (MSHT).

After the initial MSHT evaluation, it was decided to hold an Industry Workshop in order to share the findings, invite further stakeholder input and develop an Action Plan to resolve the outstanding recommendations.

The main themes of the workshop were:

- the MOD-Industry Interface,- the defence/civil standards relationship,- selection of standards,- accessing standards,- managing standards in contracts.

At the beginning of the workshop, the EDA Chairman gave a presentation on the EDA structure, standardization policy, recommendations from the EDA study as well as ongoing and future work and tools.

The Strategic Standardization Forum for Aerospace (SSFA) representative, Laura Hitchcock, presented the US Industry’s comments/responses to the findings and recommendations contained in the EDA Study.

It was stated that:

The study was valuable for highlighting the importance of standards to defence acquisition and the opportunity to be involved could provide mutual benefits for MOD Project Officers and Industry.

However, the current economic realities may have a strong impact on the implementation of the recommendations and consequently, the prioritization of activities was important in order to avoid spending the majority of resources on initiatives that gain the least amount of efficiencies.

Concerns were raised relating to the study having a heavy emphasis on NATO but without acknowledging Canada and the US as part of NATO and consequently, care would need to be taken to ensure the implementation of the recommendations did not create trade barriers or fracture industry sectors serving EU MODs.

10


THE MOD-INDUSTRY INTERFACE

The presentation was delivered by Jean-Luc Le Dore, DGA, France. The presentation gave a review of the study recommendations, including the MOD-Industry interface and its global picture. Two major tools for improving the MOD-Industry interface were identified:

- the Joint CEN-CENELEC Stakeholder Forum for Defence Procurement Standardization (JSFDPS ) and,

- The European Handbook for Defence Procurement (EHDP).

The JSFDPS has recently been established to improve the interaction between the military and civil standards communities in Europe and act as a forum for consideration of new standardization management activities to assist defence procurement in Europe.

The EHDP is a major tool to assist MOD Project Managers and Industry with the selection and application of best practice standards.

The main conclusions were that great progress had been made since the study was issued in July 2009 and there was a need for an Action Plan in order to fill the remaining standardization gaps.

THE DEFENCE/CIVIL STANDARDS RELATIONSHIP

The presentation was delivered by Peter Hecker, DIN, Germany. The presentation gave an inside view of the defence-civil standards relationship in Germany and an oversight of the study recommendations appertaining to this relationship.The speaker said that many of the recommendations were already implemented. However, the status of the implementation differed in the EDA participating Member States and it was necessary to consider not only the greater use of civil standards, but also obsolescence and interchangeability; participation in civil

standardisation committees was a long term task.

SELECTION OF STANDARDS

The presentation was delivered by Hans Kopold, BWB, Germany. The presentation gave an Executive Summary of the Study findings to the topic and detailed analysis of it.

The main conclusion was that all recommendations related to the issue of “Selection of Standards” are already addressed by ongoing activities / initiatives of CEN Workshop 10 Phase III (European Handbook for Defence Procurement), the European Defence Agency‘s Materiel Standardization Group (EDA MSG), the Materiel Standardization Harmonization Team (MSHT). It is of high importance that all stakeholders (industry, governmental standardization experts and standardization organisations) commonly support these activities / initiatives with their expertise. This is especially true for the future maintenance and completion of the EHDP and industry‘s input and feedback to the European Defence Standardization Information System (EDSIS).

ACCESSING STANDARDS

An accessibility analysis shows that currently:

- NATO STANAGs and other NATO standardization documents in the future will be without classification wherever possible. (Note: “NATO UNCLASSIFIED” is a restricting classification).

- Civil standards published by Standards Developing Organisations (SDOs) can be accessed and purchased online via the SDO‘s websites.

- Defence Standards of most of the pMS can be accessed without problems.

- At the moment there is a link provided in the EHDP website that

11


directs users to the the Standards Developing Organisations that publish the standards.

The main conclusion was that joint access to the “best practice standards” still needs to be investigated. Therefore, EDA will organize a study to assess the feasibility of joint access to standards in order to either supplement or to replace pMS and industry arrangements for the access and provision of standards.

MANAGING STANDARDS IN CONTRACTS

The presentation was delivered by Dave Wilkinson, DStan, United Kingdom. The presentation covered 3 recognized problem areas whilst managing standards in contracts:

- Standards during the “invitation to tender” and “contractual negotiation” stages.- Standards during the life of the contract- The maintenance of old equipment built to standards that have been superseded.

All these areas where presented to the workshop in order to stimulate discussions and possible reactions.

WORKSHOP EVALUATION AND NEXT STEPS

Evaluation of the comments and questions identified the following next steps:

- Further evaluation of the study and workshop will be conducted.- The MSHT will prioritise the list of recommendations that have not been addressed and will involve all stakeholders.- A new study on the accessibility of standards will be commissioned.- The custodianship of the EHDP will transfer to EDA- Stronger involvement with industry will be promoted.- The workshop forum should meet regularly with industry.- Industry to be asked to set part of the agenda and deliver presentations at the next workshop.- EDSIS will be further developed and expanded.- The EDA/MSHT action plan will be expanded.

LIVA VEITA REPRESENTATIVE OF DELEGATION OF LATVIA TO NATO AND EU

- The Best Practice Model will be trialled by nations.- Closer US/EU relations will be promoted.

PERSONAL NOTE

I think this was good start to bring together industry and EDA Member States in order to stimulate dialogue. I hope that in future this will be regarded as one of the success stories.

12


THE STANDARDIZATION POLICY CONCEPT OF THE FEDERAL GERMAN GOVERNMENT

On 2 September 2009 - during one of its last meetings before the elections - the German Government approved the “Standardization Policy Concept of the German Government” (Normungspolitisches Konzept der Bundesregierung).

This concept defines the objectives the Federal Government wants to achieve by supporting the development of norms and standards. It describes measures required to implement the concept and it also provides approaches for the financial support of standardization by the different ministries.

The Standardization Concept of the Federal German Government is the successor to the “German Standardization Strategy” which was developed in 2004 by the Deutsches Institut für Normung DIN (German Institute for Standardization) in cooperation with stakeholders from industry, science and governmental authorities.

The German Government’s Standardization Concept is structured into the following parts:

Part 1: Objectives of the Federal Government

Part 2: Implementation Actions of the Ministries

Part 3: Expectations of the Federal Government in Standardization

A harmonized funding concept for the promotion of standardization by the ministries of the Federal Government is described in an Annex to the Concept.In the concept the German Government emphasises that (among others ):• The sustained support of standardization processes is an essential task of the governments of successful industrial nations.• Instruments such as the development of norms and standards provide important contributions to the functioning of the European Single Market and world-wide trade.• Norms and standards can contribute decisively to the opening of markets, technology transfer and deregulation in the field of technical legislation. With its “Standardization Policy Concept of the German Government”, the Federal German Government takes advantage of the benefits of standardization and defines specific attainable goals. Regarding public procurement and defense materiel standardization the following objectives and measures are to be highlighted in particular:

Objective 1: In the framework of the adopted financing line, the Federal Government sup-ports standardization to enhance Germany's competitiveness as an economic power and exporting country and undertakes to ensure that standardization supports the sustainability objectives of the Federal Government.• Involvement in the Material Standards Harmonization Team (MSHT) for the harmonization of defense related standards on a European level.

13


Objective 2: The Federal Government uses standardization to support the implementation and dissemination of innovation and research results.• Appropriate consideration of standardization in the syllabuses used in vocational training, in the academic courses for natural, engineering and business management degrees and in advanced vocational training.

Objective 3: The Federal Government makes increasing use of standardization to reduce the volume of and accelerate the legislation process.• Active involvement of the public sector (federal, state and sometimes the local level) in the standardization process as stakeholder Fostering access to technical standards for authorities, creating the necessary prerequisites.

Objective 4: The Federal Government promotes possibilities for informing and involving the stakeholders and letting them exert an influence on standardization.• Funding translations of standards and draft standards into German, and also in special cases (e.g. defence-related standardization) also translations of German standards into English.

Objective 5: The Federal Government increasingly sees standards as part of the tendering, awarding and contractual bases of public procurement procedures.• Reference to standards in tendering and awarding guidelines and in concrete technical specifications in public procurement procedures, making reference to requirements in terms of quality and economic efficiency. ANNEX: A HARMONIZED FUNDING CONCEPT

In the Annex a harmonized funding concept for the promotion of standardization by the ministries of the Federal Government is described. The positive experience gained since 2004 by the Federal Office of Defense Technology and Procurement (BWB) by

awarding annual contracts under private law to the German Institute for Standardization (DIN) are explicitly mentioned in the Concept. Based on these contracts, DIN provides all the necessary services for German Defence Standardization as it provides for the other standardization committees.

CONCLUSION

To achieve the defined goals, the Federal Government advocates efficient, targeted cooperation of all organizations and bodies involved in standardization, and calls on the organizations and bodies to work together in an efficient, targeted manner. In the opinion of the Federal Government, all technical regulation bodies involved in standardization must undertake to abide by the "Golden Rules" of standardization work as stipulated in particular by the World Trade Organization (WTO) (such as consensus, openness and involvement of the stakeholders, transparency, neutrality, coherence). Standardization does not mean restriction by rules and regulations, standardization provides the common language understood by all stakeholders.

BJÖRN KOWALSKEBWB – TEAM P1.4

14


SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY CIVIL-MILITARY INTEROPERABILITY AND THE CHALLENGES IN MILITARY STANDARDISATION

For the military, standardisation is a major activity designed to improve operational efficiency. Standardisation was born in antiquity. It first applied to organisation of the armies, then to tactics. Technical standardisation was developed later on, first for gears and equipment then for fortification, when the State became more involved in military affairs. Today standardisation is successfully used in the framework of allied coalitions to improve interoperability. It is an exceptional multiplier of effectiveness. The Single European Sky (SES) programme expands this existing need to civil-military interoperability. New requirements related to civil-military interoperability are raised and current methods may not be fully adapted to fulfil this need.

Since the beginning, the North Atlantic treaty organization (NATO) strongly relied on standards. Success in that matter cannot be questioned. More than 1700 standardisation agreements (STANAG) cover all the aspects of organization, tactics, ammunitions, land, sea and air assets and so on. Very few are related to air traffic management (ATM). But the NATO standardisation activities are evolving aiming at strengthen them and even to get them a new life: Civil standards are to be used more and more for military assets, expected to become the major source for standards in the future. For the deployment of SES systems, on the ground and airborne, a lot of new civil standards will have to be developed. Then how can the military be sure that the military requirements – those necessary to safeguard their primary mission – are covered by these civil standards? Can the military expect that a sole agreement between the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) is up to the task?

ETSI is one of the official standardisation body in the European

Union but standards come from various and numerous sources, most of them being the industry. Large resources will be required to deal with the coming standardisation need in ATM and the related Communication, Navigation and Surveillance (ATM/CNS) domain. The military technical expertise is usually more focused on combat systems and ATM/CNS experts are scarce across Europe. The operational characteristics of the military ATM/CNS systems are very different from the civil systems. Their architecture is therefore also different. Military systems must already adapt to more and more demanding operation theatres and new threats. But they in addition have the appropriate level of interoperability with an aeronautical civil environment, which is widely restructuring itself in the framework of SES. The civil environment is, in fact, the day to day general environment for training. The civil requirements must first be evaluated, compared with military systems performance and met in an appropriate way. Standardisation allows minimizing the consequences of such a resource consuming process. It must be worked on at the earliest stages of the civil SES processes, just like operational standardisation is handled between the military forces.

Making sure that civil-military interoperability is maintained with time requires truly common standards. Such standards are necessary to ensure that the investment made by the military to make compliant some of their SES services and systems are valuable. Using civil standards is just a partial answer to the challenge.

Asking the industry to insert military requirements in the civil standards appears to be twofold hypothetical: first, the dialogue mechanisms between the industry and the military stakeholders are not in place to ensure that military interests are drafted in a comprehensive and accurate way. Second, the civil-military nature of 15

Credits: Photoxpress.com


the standards, which would remain civil with a military “hue”, cannot be safeguarded with time.

Industry obviously has a major role to play. For the military a partnership at the continental level with the industry and international organisations with a capacity of coordination and cooperation would provide some guarantees and it would cover too transatlantic and beyond civil-military requirements.Some cooperation mechanisms will have to be invented with all the organisations which are directly involved in the drafting of standardisation documents, in particular those mentioned in SES interoperability regulation, EUROCONTROL and EUROCAE. In the implementing rules that refine the SES essential requirements, provisions should be inserted to facilitate to the greater extend the subsequent interoperability between civil and military services and systems. Such an action helps standardisation activities a lot because it deals with the framework the standard itself applies in.

Standardisation is an essential but a non visible activity. The optimisation of the scarce resources devoted by the military for standardisation activities, being in kind or in cash, and the quality of the coordination between the military themselves will be one of the key for the success of SES civil-military interoperability.

Some SESAR (SES ATM research programme) experts are already authorized to provide information to technical standardization working groups (WG) when the maturity of the project is deemed sufficient. This aims at decreasing the time necessary before deployment. The military requirements have to be integrated in the standardisation cases, whatever structure is implemented within the projects. In addition to the standardisation needs, the standardisation development plan and the standardisation roadmap provided by the SESAR projects, other standards will be necessary and other adapted processes will have to be invented. The exact number of standards necessary for SES is not known as of today.

But they will be numerous, probably above 200. A selection will have to be performed by the military to optimize the scarce available resources, not at the State level, but at the European level because no Sate is able to deal with it alone.

Implementation of the SES decisions is the responsibility of each State. Cooperation between them will be mandatory to reach the objectives of the regulation and the successful existing military interoperability will have to be preserved to ensure that the military mission in coalition can be performed.

All the resources will have to be used. The existing institutional framework is by no means an obstacle to reach the objective of interoperability. On the contrary, its pluralistic nature is a chance to be efficiently able to answer the challenges of SES standardisation for the sake of civil-military interoperability: The diversity of the organisations brings flexibility to the States to face the institutional challenges as well as the quantitative and qualitative needs in resources. Nonetheless the military will have to provide a certain amount of expertise in the domain of ATM/CNS standardisation.

Disclaimer: this article reflects the opinion of the author and is not an official position of EUROCONTROL.

DOMINIQUE COLINSTANDARDISATION EXPERT

EUROCONTROL /CIVIL MILITARY ATM COORDINATION [email protected]

16


ENNSA: A EUROPEAN NETWORK OF NATIONAL SAFETY AUTHORITIES ON AMMUNITION

“…we commit ourselves to continuous and active review of our collective progress towards the realisation of the successful European DTIB which we have sketched above – and we commit ourselves in particular to working on the increased transparency, growing mutual confidence and closer convergence of EDTIB policies upon which success will depend…” (Ministers of Defence, EDTIB Strategy, May 2007)

The work of identifying Europe’s key industrial capabilities derives from the Agency’s EDTIB Strategy. Defence Ministers and National Armaments Directors subsequently tasked the Agency to work on identifying the key industrial capabilities to be preserved or developed in Europe. Ammunition is one of the pilot areas EDA is already working on since 2008, with a view to address the Ammunition sector from the perspective of both the demand and the supply side.

While working on the EDTIB pilot test case on Ammunition and more specifically in the area of the qualification procedures used by the pMS, it was identified that ammunition safety policies and procedures are an important factor and therefore have a direct relation not only with the level of safety, but also among others with the cost and interoperability/interchangeability of ammunition. Moreover it was identified that pMS procedures, terminology and practices vary, even among NATO nations of EU using NATO STANAGS.

Ammunition Safety is a key factor from all operational, financial or industrial perspectives. European harmonisation in this field would contribute to the implementation of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), by strengthening the ammunition European

Defence Technological and Industrial Base (DTIB), improving harmonisation among pMS while supporting also their coordination and finally creating the prerequisites for a common European ammunition market.

EDA’s participating Member States (pMS) and industry as well agreed that there is room for improvement on harmonisation of pMS practices and that more communication between pMS ammunition safety authorities and related experts would be a good start. It was then when the idea of the establishment of a European Network of National Safety Authorities (ENNSA) on Ammunition came in, with a view to improve the situation in Europe and fill the identified gaps.

On 19 March 2010 the Steering Board (SB) in National Armaments Directors formation approved the launch of a preparatory phase on the creation of such a Network, in order to prepare a proposal for its establishment at the autumn 2010 SB-NADs;

EDA worked in close contact with experts from its Member States to prepare a proposal on the establishment of this Network. European ammunition industry, which participates in the Ammunition project actively with a network of PoCs coming from more than 24 industries and also through ELDIG (the Land Sectoral Group of ASD), contributed as well with the industrial perspective on this important issue.

Finally, on 14 October 2010 the EDA Steering Board in National Armaments Directors formation approved the establishment of the European Network of National Safety Authorities on Ammunition (ENNSA) and also its scope of work and principles.

17


ENNSA is planned to be used by the EDA participating Member States and Norway as a stand-alone platform for better communication of the pMS National Safety Authorities on Ammunition, not as a supranational Safety Authority at EU-level or even as an additional authority for the development of new standards since key words for its work are envisaged to be: Communication and .Exchange of information and expertise or identification-analysis and guidance for better harmonisation in relation to the standards on ammunition safety, in the field of all kind of ammunition through the whole of its life cycle, already used by the pMS seem to be the core of the scope of this Network. On the other hand, complementarities, avoiding duplication, with NATO related work, coordination with relevant networks/bodies/groups or initiatives already established at a European level (i.e., MSHT, MSG, DTEB, etc), regular contact with industry and no obligation for the pMS on the accepted level of ammunition safety are some of its principles.

On 7th and 8th of December 2010 EDA hosted the first ENNSA meeting with the participation of representatives from 15 pMS and Norway but also the Chairman of NATO/AC 326 and representatives from NATO/MSIAC. The participants had the opportunity to present national authorities and procedures, to discuss in detail the expectations from this Network and to better define short term and long term actions on the way ahead.

On the second day, Industry participated in this meeting as well. ASD/ELDIG is establishing a mirror group of experts to communicate with ENNSA in the future.

Participants recognized the Network as a channel for communication, exchange of information and sharing best practice experience on all ammunition safety related issues, including use of Ammunition such as transportation and storage. Exploring possibilities to harmonize qualification procedures are considered a priority.

The Network developed already its agenda of issues to be further analysed in the forthcoming months, giving priority to the implementation of the NATO STANAGS. One of the main results of this first meeting was that perception of National Safety Authorities and the way they implement national/international standards are significant factors in building confidence. More harmonised approach to NATO STANAGS implementation would be beneficial for both member states and the industry.

The next meeting of ENNSA is planned to take place on 14th-15th of June 2011.

VASSILIS TSIAMISEDA SENIOR OFFICER DEFENCE INDUSTRY

INDUSTRY AND MARKET DIRECTORATE

Vibration test

18


DEFENCE STANDARDIZATION MANAGEMENT - BEST PRACTICE AND BEYOND

INTRODUCTION

In September 2007, the Materiel Standardization Harmonisation Team (MSHT) held a 2 day Standardization Management Workshop in Bratislava, Slovakia where the major agreement was to design a “Best Practice Defence Standardization Management” organisation (referred to hereafter as the Best Practice Model).

BENEFITS

The benefits of developing such a model were seen to include the provision of:

• a catalyst for nations to re-think their nation’s standardization management strategy;

• a model for nations new to “standardization management” to develop their organisations against;

• an incentive to explore “best practice” activities in greater depth including how the nations currently manage those activities;

• opportunities to consider centralising standardization functions on an international basis - such as the standardization training provided by Poland;

The model is also a valuable source of reference for taking best practice a step further through international cooperation. Standardization management cooperation between nations has never been greater and the MSHT nations’ defence standardization organizations are working closely together to identify best practice, share resources and develop products that can be used multinationally.

IDENTIFYING BEST PRACTICE

Subsequently, the MSHT Nations were encouraged to respond to a number of questions aimed at identifying best practice for key elements of standardization management. The key elements that have been addressed to date are:

• stakeholder management strategy and representation;• cooperation between civil and defence standardization bodies;• NATO STANAG ratification and implementation management;• communication management;• defence standards management;• advice and guidance;• standardization management and training.

So far, 20 nations (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom and the USA) have contributed to the development of the Best Practice Model.

HEALTH CHECK

As indicated earlier, the aim is not only to identify what is currently best practice but to seek to introduce improvements on a national basis and through multilateral cooperation on an international scale.

The 7 key elements listed above have been subjected to a health check i.e. to discover how closely nations are operating to perceived 19

Credits: Photoxpress.com


best practice.

Note 1: The health check consists of a simple comparison of relevant nations’ responses against the questions asked. For example, Element 2: “Cooperation between civil and defence standardization bodies” – 6 questions were asked, 19 nations participated, 102 answers were analysed, 10 answers were deemed not relevant because 5 nations did not develop defence standards (not a best practice requirement), 92 responses were deemed relevant, 40 answers aligned with best practice. So we were left with 40 positive answers against 92 responses = 43%.

Note 2: A simple colour coding was used to highlight the perceived health of each element i.e.

The health check also consisted of an evaluation of the movement of nations individually and multilaterally (via the MSHT) towards best practice as represented in the model. Examples of that movement towards best practice are as follows:

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY AND REPRESENTATION

The MSHT members were instrumental in the creation of (and are participating in) the newly formed Joint CEN-CENELEC Stakeholder Forum for Defence Procurement Standardization (JSFDPS); with the aim of improving the cooperation between MODs, Industry and Civil Standards Bodies.

The Italian MOD has introduced a Joint Committee of MOD/National Defence Industry/Civil Standardization Bodies with great success and expects the committee to have a significant influence on their national standardization management strategy. France also has a Joint Committee of MOD/National Defence Industry/Civil Standardization Bodies, called the Defence – Industry Standardization Coordination Committee (CCNDI); and have recently installed another committee, with almost the same representatives, in order to mirror the CEN-CENELEC JSFDPS.

20


21


The UK has created a MOD Standardization Stakeholder Board; its first meeting is scheduled for April 2011. The primary purpose of this forum is to set the strategic direction for standardization within the UK MOD and to ensure that good practice is identified and embedded in policies and processes.

The MSHT has established a close working relationship with the NATO Committee for Standardization Representatives (CSREPS) in order to reduce the risk of duplication of effort and to provide expertise in identifying and developing best practice national processes for monitoring the implementation of NATO STANAGs.The MSHT has addressed nations’ standardization management problems and those include “bottom up” standardization issues that needed the input of nations more experienced in standardization management or have expertise in a specific element of standardization management.

COOPERATION BETWEEN CIVIL AND DEFENCE STANDARDIZATION BODIES

The MSHT members active in the JSFDPS, are encouraging CEN-CENELEC to provide greater and earlier visibility of civil standardization projects that may/will impact on the defence environment. The aim is for those projects to be communicated via the European Defence Standardization Information System (EDSIS).

The UK MOD is working with the British Standards Institute (BSI) on the development of BSI’s Defence Standardization Committee. The committee will be chaired by the UK MOD Defence Standardization (DStan) – Team Leader and will encompass a broad spectrum of defence-civil standardization activities. These activities will include reaching agreement on a common position to present at the CEN-CENELEC JSFDPS.The Czech Republic is in the process of establishing Points of Contact between their MOD and Czech Office for Standards, Metrology and Testing (UNMZ) regarding access, development and

maintenance of European Norms (ENs) in MOD areas of interest. France is relying more on NATO for its military standards, who in turn are encouraging Civil Standards Bodies to transform current NATO standards into civil standards. Slovakia is giving consideration to the adoption of suitable defence standards by their Slovak Standards Institute.

NATO STANAG RATIFICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION MANAGEMENT

The UK DStan organisation has taken onboard the responsibility of managing the UK ratification process for NATO Military Committee STANAGS as well as its previous responsibility for the NATO Conference of National Armaments Directors (CNAD) STANAGs.

Spain believes the establishment of a STANAG implementation monitoring process is a cornerstone. To help reach this goal, they have developed a powerful material Standards Catalogue containing data of all STANAGs and Allied Publications (APs) updated weekly from the NATO Standardization Agency (NSA) website.

France has a monitoring process which is not yet fully implemented but monitoring will be improved in 2011 following promulgation of AAP-03(J): “Production, Maintenance and Management of NATO Standardization Documents”. Italy currently has a mechanism to monitor ratification of STANAGs. Their intention is to extend such a mechanism to the implementation stage but it is still being evaluated. The Swedish Armed Forces and the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) are going to take a decision on a new standardization policy where a procedure for implementation of all kinds of standards is an important part.

The MSHT are working in cooperation with the NATO CSREPS to identify best practice as far as the monitoring of STANAG implementation is concerned.22


COMMUNICATION MANAGEMENT

Belgium is developing a Communications Strategy and Plan. Germany is considering how to improve their defence standardization communication management. France is aiming to develop and implement a standardization communication strategy. The UK is developing a Strategic Business and Communications Plan.

The MSHT is utilising a number of communication vehicles including EDA Extranet Forums, EDA website, European Standardization Journal. They also identified the need for a European Defence Standardization Information System (EDSIS) to act as the European portal for standardization management information. EDA provided the infrastructure and skills to develop EDSIS which currently provides nations with a shop window for their standardization projects and to invite collaboration in search of best practice. The EDA are currently developing EDSIS, steered by the MSHT, to include standardization management proposals, problems, people (expertise), policies, procedures, publication (standards), provision (standards access) and training.

DEFENCE STANDARDS MANAGEMENT

Germany, UK and other nations cooperated in the development and publication of dual-national defence standard VG 97000/UK Def Stan 68-118: De-icing and Anti-icing Fluid for Airfields and Flight Decks – published in German and English. The UK and DEU cooperated in the development and publication of UK Defence Standard 61-23: Generic Fuel Cell – published in English and German. Poland and Germany are cooperating in the development of “water treatment”

standards. Germany and the UK are cooperating in the translation of defence standard abstracts in order to make the content of UK Defence Standards more visible to international colleagues.

An EDA study was let into the “Role of European Industry in the Development and Application of Standards”. The study report contained 85 recommendations which were evaluated by the MSHT; the results of which can be found on the EDA Extranet Forums for the MSHT and Industry. A MOD/Industry Workshop was convened in September 2010 and further work is being undertaken by the MSHT and NATO’s CSREPS.

The MSHT also recognised a problem experienced by many (possibly all) nations with accessing standards. As a result the EDA agreed to let a contract for a study into the feasibility of joint access to standards in order to supplement or replace present national arrangements. Centralizing the provision of standards is expected to result in a more efficient supply of standards and overall cost savings to the EDA participating Member States (and defence industries).

ADVICE AND GUIDANCE

The MSHT members are active in the development of the European Handbook for Defence Procurement (EHDP) which will provide Project Managers with a European MOD/Industry list of assessed best practice standards and advice on their application.

The UK lowered its threshold for contracts that are subject to mandatory evaluation from above £10M to above £5M, which increases the number of contracts that will be subjected to DStan scrutiny regarding the correctness of standards listed.

23


STANDARDIZATION MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING

For 2011, Germany have decided to organize lectures (approx. 10 hrs) on standardization at the Armed Forces Administration School (Bundeswehrverwaltungsschule) in Mannheim. It is also considered that presentations by the German Institute for Standardization (DIN) will be given on certain topics. Germany are considering starting in 2011, on a three times per year basis, 2 hours of presentations/lectures on standardization to candidates (about 100-120) who will become civil servants in middle and higher management of the German Armaments Branch. Belgium plan to develop a national standardization course that will be given on a periodic base to all the stakeholders.

The MSHT have recognised the need for enhanced standardization management training which would be of benefit to the nations and organisations/committees such as NATO, EDA, MSHT by standardizing the understanding and terminology of standardization management. Within the MSHT, Latvia is leading on gathering and analysing information from the nations regarding the provision of standardization courses.

THE WAY FORWARD

In these days of shrinking resources, it makes good business sense for nations to continue to work collectively towards improving standardization management internationally and projecting those improvements into national processes. Therefore, it is anticipated that multilateral cooperation will continue in key areas such as the development of the EHDP, EDSIS and bilateral defence standards; also in the improvement of working relationships with Industry and Civil Standards Bodies. Such cooperation will result in standardization management cost savings, improved quality of standards, enhanced standards selection guidance for Project Managers, greater awareness, visibility and resolution of standardization problems some of which impact on battlefield operations, greater use of civil standards with a resulting reduction in

defence standards, improved MOD/Industry partnerships in the development and application of standards, enhanced battlefield interoperability, reduced risks to the battlefield operatives and the sustainability of their equipment etc.

DAVID G WILKINSONINTERNATIONAL STANDARDIZATION MANAGER

UK MOD DEFENCE STANDARDIZATION24


STANAG Implementation MonitoringIn June 2009 NATO Defence Ministers endorsed and agreed to implement the NATO Defence Planning Process (NDPP). The NDPP provides a framework within which national and NATO defence planning objectives can be harmonised to meet collectively agreed targets and address recognised shortfalls. In order to achieve this, an agreed action plan led to an interoperability initiative which identified that incoherent, sporadic, ratification and implementation of agreed STANAGs across member nations was one of the causes of interoperability shortfalls on operations.

With the identification of these interoperability shortfalls, the Defence Planning Capability Survey 2010 (DPCS) therefore included, for the first time, a section on Interoperability focusing solely on national implementation of STANAGS.

The DPCS is being collated and coordinated by NATO and European Policy (NEP), a business unit within the MOD acting under the authority of DG Sec Pol, with UK Defence Standardization (DStan) being tasked to lead on the interoperability section. This part of the survey consisted of a series of interoperability related questions against an identified list of 145 mission critical STANAGS. This survey highlighted that whilst many nations have an established, robust process to manage STANAGS through their development to ratification and promulgation, it was apparent that the UK and many other nations, did not have a mechanisms in place to confirm that the STANAGS have actually been implemented. The conclusion drawn from the survey is that nations need to address this critical shortfall by extending the robust ratification and promulgation process to encompass implementation monitoring and thus ensure interoperability.

In attempting to tackle the implementation tracking shortfall DStan has agreed on the concept of having a stakeholder network which includes front-line commands, support and capability areas. Utilising Coordinating Members (CM) identified within the stakeholder network to take ownership of STANAGs (procedural and material) implementation monitoring within their domain, feeding implementation data back to DStan to produce a national report on STANAG implementation.

Due to the possible interoperability shortfalls coupled with the time and money spent on development, drafting, ratification and promulgation of STANAGS, it is vital to the legitimacy of the standardization process, that NATO and the nations are able to confirm that the STANAGS have actually been implemented.

Discussions in the Standardization Management and Interoperability fora confirmed that other NATO nations had identified similar shortfalls in their processes. Consequently, the UK has agreed to brief its partners on lessons learned during the development of its own STANAG implementation monitoring process. The aim is to create a process that is practicable, achievable, and robust and adds value.

Discussions are ongoing nationally and internationally to establish a relevant, appropriate and auditable process that supports NATO’s ambition to enhance interoperability. However, the UK also believes that it is incumbent upon NATO to continually validate the effectiveness of the standardization process and the contribution it makes to the success of the Alliance. Since the late 90’s, NATO forces have been involved almost continuously in operations and the

25


evidence of their relative yet tangible success has allowed NATO to accept a relaxation of many areas of its standardization process e.g. CREVAL/TACEVAL. However, all allies should guard against assumptions that success on operations indicates that their national and multinational standardization processes are fully effective.

In conjunction with extending the ratification, promulgation and implementation process, DStan are actively pursuing the creation of the Standardization Stakeholder Board. The primary purpose of this forum is to set the strategic direction for Standardization within the UK MoD and to ensure that good practice is identified and embedded in policies and processes. DStan are convinced that this top down approach coupled with bottom up process changes is the way to successfully tackle STANAG implementation monitoring. STEVEN LAPSLEYUK MOD NATO STANDARDIZATION MANAGER

26


The European Defence Agency was established under a Joint Action of the Council of Ministers on 12 July, 2004, "to support the Member States and the Council in their effort to improve European defence capabilities in the field of crisis management and to sustain the European Security and Defence Policy as it stands now and develops in the future”.

EDA acts as a catalyst, promotes collaborations, launches new initiatives and introduces solutions to improve defence capabilities. But it can only succeed when its shareholders – the participating Member States – deliver these capabilities.

STANDARDIZATION

The importance of standardization in European armaments co-operation and the development of the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base are often understated.

The September 2008 Competitiveness Council adopted conclusions on standardization and innovation considering “the essential contribution which standardisation can make towards developing innovation and competitiveness, by facilitating access to markets, enabling interoperability between new and existing products, services and processes, enhancing protection of users, giving consumers confidence in innovations and disseminating research results.” Of the 29 conclusions, many can be read directly across to defence.

The European Commission is reviewing its action plan for European standardization in light of these conclusions. The Commission has provided a key impetus for defence standardization reform. Its report on “Standardization Systems in the Defence Industries of the European Union and the United States” brought about theEuropean Handbook for Defence Procurement, the EDA’s European Defence Standards Information System (EDSIS) and helped to steer European standardization generally.

A “Euro-Interoperability” study requested by the European Parliament’s Subcommittee for Security and Defence suggested a CSDP Standardization Agency within the framework of EDA, with a stronger civil-military component. Progress is not that advanced but nonetheless European Defence Standardization has matured in the past three years. The EDA’s Materiel Standardization Group (MSG) is now able to shape and propose new standardization policy and standardization initiatives. The current structures, in particular the Materiel Standards Harmonisation Team (MSHT), are delivering results. The standardization agenda presented to the EDA Steering Board in September 2006 has been realised and the MSHT, now firmly established, is consistently the most active participating Member States Forum in the EDA.