IM' CETLR'CORDS FILE

Date of receipt :
of /
INTERNATIONAL STAFF
DEFENCE POLICY & PLANNING

SECRETARIAT INTERNATIONAL
P0LITIQuE & PLANS DE DEFENSE
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

22 November 2005 ACTION MEMO

DPP(2005)0772
P0 REF: 4665/2005

To Director of the Private Office

cc ASG for Political Affairs and Security Policy
Director, International Military Staff
Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Defence Policy and Planning

From ASG for Defence Policy and Planning

Subject : MC 536, NATO Policy for Infrastructure Engineering for Logistics

Issue

1. The Senior NATO Logisticians' Conference (SNLC) Policy for Infrastructure

Engineering for Logistics (IEL), which was approved by the Military Committee on 28
October 2005 as MC 536, requires final approval by Council. The IEL policy provides for
better transparency in relation to logistics related engineering tasks associated with
supporting a deployed force, and aims to strengthen coordination between logistics and
engineer staffs by enhancing both the effectiveness and efficiency of engineering
support. It also places due emphasis on NATO's increasing requirement for
multinationality.

Recommendation

2. To forward MC 536 to the Council for approval under a silence procedure.

Timescale

3. End of silence procedure on 16 December 2005.

ATON
CMC .L. FCIMS
nc'c ... SUPACT
rIMS ... ADMICON
CO HRO
I EXCEL LEGAL
tNT HDREG
p&P ..k. SAcEUREp.M
C:RS .. SACTREP .".
o's ..k MILREPS NATO UNCLASSIFIED
LR V —1—

C3S
PtA RECORDS ... IMS Control Nr: I05007550
 NATO UNCLASSIFIED

DPP(2005)0772

Background
4. The Alliance's suite of logistic policy documents does not contain clear guidance
on the provision or support of IEL. Recognising this deficiency, the Spring 2002 meeting of
the SNLC concluded that a specific policy for NATO was required to provide better
coverage of this function. The IEL policy will improve the clarity and definition of
responsibilities over logistics tasks, which then form part of broader engineering Force
Support responsibly. Care will be required when implementing the policy, to ensure that it
is not used to justify unnecessary common funded projects on national territory.

5. The proposed IEL policy defines the responsibilities of NATO and nations in control,
coordination and execution of logistics infrastructure functions on operations, and places
greater emphasis on co-operation between logistics and engineer staffs in enhancing
both the effectiveness and efficiency of supporting deployed forces.
Financial

6. None

Media Implications
7. None

J.P. Colston

Action Officer:c.ciocirlan
Drafted by: C.Ciocirlan
Concurred by: B.Cantin
Coordinated with: R Wenmakers
S. Duckworth/Dl (RPCS)
Typed by: J. Ely

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
-2-
 NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to Partners
22 November 2005 DOCUMENT
C-M(2005)01 00
Silence Procedure ends:
16 Dec 2005 16:00

MC 536
NATO POLICY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING FOR LOGISTICS (IEL)

Note by the Secretary General

1. Crisis Response operations require that infrastructure engineering capabilities be

readily available to enable the deployment and sustainment of forces during NATO led
operations. Infrastructure engineering has significant implications for the conduct of
logistic support operations in a theatre of operations. It requires that sufficient force
support engineering capabilities be made available for its execution. Recognizing this, the
Spring 2002 Senior NATO Logisticians' conference concluded that a specific NATO Policy
for Infrastructure Engineering for Logistics (IEL) was required to provide better guidance
for this function. The general IEL policy was approved by Council as one of the logistics
functions set out in the NATO Principles and Policies for Logistics (C-M(2003)101). The
policy highlights the need for logistics planners to work with NATO and national engineers
to ensure engineering force and capability requirements are adequately addressed.

2. The purpose of this document is to expand on the initial policy for IEL in support of
NATO-led operations, while maintaining coherence with existing NATO engineering
practice. It aims to strengthen coordination between logistics and engineer staffs in
enhancing both the effectiveness and efficiency of supporting deployed forces, and
places due emphasis on NATO's increasing requirement for multinationality.

3. The document is now transmitted to the Council for its consideration and approval.
I do not believe that it requires discussion in Council, and unless I hear to the contrary
from a member of the Council by 16.00 hrs on Friday, 16 December 2005, I will take it
that the policy is agreed.

(Signed) Jaap de Hoop Scheffer

1 Annex Action Officer: C. CIOCIRLAN

Original: English

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
—1—
 NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to Partners

ANNEX 1
C-M(2005)01 00

MC 536
NATO POLICY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING FOR LOGISTICS (IEL)

INTRODUCTION

1. A considerable engineering effort is being deployed on current NATO-led

operations to ensure that deployed military force or capability can be sent into a theatre
and subsequently sustained. The effectiveness of engineers will certainly continue to be
improved but it also requires suitable logistic policy coverage.

PURPOSE

2. The purpose of this document is to establish the policy for Infrastructure

Engineering for Logistics (IEL) in support of NATO operations while remaining coherent
with existing NATO engineering doctrine.

SCOPE

3. The policies set out in this document expand on the initial IEL policy promulgated
in C-M(2003)1011, NATO Principles and Policies for Logistics, which define the
responsibilities of NATO and NATO nations in control, co-ordination and execution of
logistic infrastructure functions on operations.

APPLICABILITY

4. This policy applies to peacetime and to the full spectrum of potential NATO
operations (Article 5 as well as non-Article 5 CR0) from crisis through conflict. This
includes those operations conducted with the United Nations (UN), the European Union
(EU) and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), as well as to
non-NATO nations participating in NATO-led military operations.

RELATED NATO ENGINEERING POLICY AND DOCTRINE

5. AJP 3.12 NATO Joint Engineering Doctrine covers combat support engineering,
force support engineering, the engineering task chain and the alignment of responsibilities.
Force Support Engineering encompasses the deliberate, longer-term preparation for, and
indirect support to ongoing or future operations as well as those military engineering tasks
associated with sustaining the joint force throughout all stages of an operation.
Infrastructure Engineering is an element of Force Support Engineering.

Also MC 319/2.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
1—1
 NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to Partners

ANNEX 1
C-M(2005)01 00

Definitions

6. Logistics is the science of planning and carrying out the movement and
maintenance of forces. In the most comprehensive sense, those aspects of military
operation which deals with:

6.1 design and development, acquisition, storage, movement, distribution,

maintenance, evacuation, and disposal of material;

6.2 transport of personnel;

6.3 acquisition or construction, maintenance, operation and disposition of facilities;

6.4 acquisition or furnishing of services; and

6.5 medical and health service support.

7. Infrastructure is defined as all fixed and permanent installations, fabrications or

facilities for the support and control of military forces, which can include:

7.1 temporary or existing accommodation, airfields, ports, railways, roads, bridges

and other permanent or semi-permanent installations designed to operate for an extended
period of time at a specific location;

7.2 the associated fortifications, power, bulk fuel and water (both supply and disposal);

7.3 support of maritime shore-based facilities;

7.4 the use of suitable and appropriate in-service fabrications and equipment; and

7.5 use or adaptation of Host Nation (HN) facilities and buildings.

8. Infrastructure Engineering for Logistics (IEL)2 covers the construction,

restoration, acquisition, repair, maintenance and disposal of those infrastructure facilities
required to mount, deploy, accommodate, sustain and re-deploy military forces. This also
includes construction, restoration and maintenance of lines of communication (LOC5), and
facilitation of environmental protection.

IEL POLICIES

9. Responsibility. NATO and national authorities have a collective responsibility for

IEL support to NATO operations.

2 The definition was approved by the Military Committee in MC 319/2 and by the North Atlantic Council in C-
M(2003)1O1.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
1-2
 NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to Partners

ANNEX 1
C-M(2005)01 00

10. Co-operation. On operations, infrastructure in-theatre is critical for both

operational and logistic purposes. Close co-operation between logistics and engineer
staffs will be essential in enhancing both the effectiveness and efficiency of supporting
deployed forces.

11. Organization. In CJTF operation, a Joint Force Engineer (JFEngr) will be

assigned. His staff is the focal point for all aspects of engineer intelligence, operations,
policy/plans and infrastructure. Within the Multinational Joint Logistic Centre (MJLC) an
Infrastructure Co-ordination Cell (ICC) will be established. If an MJLC is not established
the IEL co-ordination role will be performed within the CJ4 organization.

12. Prioritisation. Within a Joint Operations Area (JOA), the Joint Force Commander
(JFC) is responsible for the prioritisation of the IEL effort on advice of the JFEngr. These
priorities will influence efforts in related disciplines of Host Nation Support (HNS), Civil-
Military Co-operation (CIMIC), public operations, budgeting, and contracting that will
support IEL effort.

13. Provision. IEL is an essential enabler for the Joint Force Commander (JFC) to
accomplish his logistics mission in an operation and may be provided by the Host Nation
(HN), units of the Joint Force, units of the National Support Elements, or contracted
vendors.

14. Labour. Use of Force Support Military Engineers should be taken into
consideration when planning for IEL during the entry and implementation phases of an
operation or when force protection or freedom of movement is at stake. As the operation
shifts from implementation to stabilization, the broader use of third party contractors or
HNS should be considered. The JFC should take into account the advantages of
employing military engineers or local contractors, or an appropriate mix of civil and military
engineering capabilities, during the various phases of the operation.

15. Infrastructure Investment. NATO will normally limit the Infrastructure Investment
to those areas required by the mission and defined by the support requirements. This may
include the construction or, more commonly, the repair or enhancement of roads, bridges
and other LOCs; as well as logistics installations and HO facilities to austere Minimum
Military Requirement (MMR) standards.

16. Resources. All requirements, as a rule, will be submitted within the framework of
Capability Packages (CPs). However, urgent military requirements, which need to be
implemented promptly in order to meet an urgent operational requirement, may be
submitted using an Urgent Requirement Request.

16.1. Capability Packages. The NATO Security Investment Programme (NSIP) is a

common funded programme to acquire operational capabilities for military commanders
that exceed the national defence requirements of individual nations. The SOs should

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
1-3
 NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to Partners

ANNEX 1
C-M(2005)01 00

identify IEL requirements eligible for the NSIP as well as manpower and operation and
maintenance (O&M) requirements and incorporate them into appropriate CPs.

16.2 Urgent Requirements. Urgent requirements are military requirements, which are
in line with the guidelines for common funding that, for reasons of urgency based on
operational, safety, economic or environmental considerations, cannot follow the CP
procedures. Urgent requirements are to be submitted by the Host Nation to NATO HQ
where the Infrastructure Committee, based on its authority given by the Senior Resources
Board (S RB), may subsequently authorize the funds needed for implementation.

17. Project Execution. Military engineers, HN support, contracts or a combination of

these may undertake infrastructure projects. All options must be considered when planning
for IEL during all phases of an operation in order to maximize the effectiveness and
efficiency of deployed military engineers. Special consideration should be given to the
support of the force exit strategy.

18. Capability Planning. To ensure that adequate IEL forces and capabilities have
been planned for in the Defence Planning Process (DPP) (i.e. Combat Support! Combat
Service Support! Force Plans), NATO and national logistics defence planners must
coordinate with engineers to ensure that NATO's engineering force and capability
requirements are properly defined and adequately addressed.

IMPLEMENTATION

19. The SCs are to integrate these principles and policies into their concepts, doctrine,
directives and procedures. NATO and Partner nations are encouraged to adapt their
concepts, doctrine and procedures accordingly.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
1-4