Paper delivered to APCMCOE during Birger Heldt's (Folke Bernadotte Academy, Sweden) visit to research Australian civil-military coordination

1. Sweden’s Approach till Civil Military
Coordination and Cooperation: The Example of
International Peace Operations
Birger Heldt
Folke Bernadotte Academy
Birger.Heldt@folkebernadotteacademy.se
Monday, April 4, 2011

2. 3<%*%4=1'/(4>&?$"@(41'>('+%./%0%%+?45'(+%&.@(41A'BCDEFGHBH'
'I!F,%*'(+%&.@(41' '!(4'I!F,%*'(+%&.@(41'
%!!!"
!"#$%&'()'*%+,(-%*'+%./%0%%+%&1'
$#!!"
$!!!"
#!!"
!"
$&'(" $&#%" $&#)" $&)!" $&)'" $&)(" $&*%" $&*)" $&(!" $&('" $&((" $&&%" $&&)" %!!!" %!!'" %!!("
2%.&'''''''''''''''''' '3("&/%'.4*'5&.+67'8(,0%'9%&4.*(:%';/.*%#-'
Monday, April 4, 2011

3. Some Related Concepts
§ Civil-Military Cooperation/Coordination (military lead [NATO])
§ joint strat./oper. planning supporting the military tasks/goals
§Whole-of-government (all government actors cooperate)
§ cross-agency cooperation/coordination among “equals”
§ Comprehensive Approach (top-down in terms of goals-execution)
§ borderless cross-agency: focus on the overall tasks/goals/effect
§ joint analysis (strat.)->plan (strat.)->execute (oper., tact.)->LL
§ Integrated Missions (planning and execution; but slow to act)
§ only UN with resources under a single umbrella and leadership?
Monday, April 4, 2011

4. Why the Comprehensive Approach?
§ Common in other areas (mediation; UN- vs non-UN PKOs, etc.)
§ No longer purely military operations/tasks: many actors
§ Division of labour
§ Avoid duplication, avoid/reduce turf mentality/habits
§ Increase efficiency, interdependence: interlinked effects; synergies
§ No single actor has sufficient resources: coordinate resources
§ But difficult: resources, cultures (incl. plan), mandates/goals, time
of actors
Monday, April 4, 2011

5. Some Tools for the Comprehensive Approach
§ Canada, Denmark, NL: MFA unit, executive, policy creation,
limited R/D
§ Australia (APCMCOE): DoD-owned COE, co-staffed, training, LL,
policy, doctrine, not executive
§ UK (Stabilization Unit): co-owned/staffed (MoD, FCO, DfiD;
Armed Forces, etc.), plan, executive, LL, policy
§ Sweden (FBA): government agency, not co-owned, executive,
training, LL, policy
Monday, April 4, 2011

6. Sweden: Strategic Level (Analysis, Planning)
§ Request-->Govt-->MFA-->relevant departments, joint discussions
-->Govt decision-->prel. planning starts-->Govt proposition--
>Parliament decision-->Govt decision->final planning-> execution
§ Relevant government agencies are in touch, exchange info., but
§ strictly speaking no joint or formalized analysis among agencies
§ strictly speaking no joint or formalized planning among agencies
§ No clear government guidelines on jointness, just a concept
§ No formalized coordination/cooperation structures among agencies
§ informal groups, own initiatives: unclear mandates, exchange of
information, culture of cooperation, concepts personal links
Monday, April 4, 2011

7. Sweden: Operative Level (Execution, Lessons Learned)
§ Execution
§ no formalized joint execution among agencies
§ no formalized coordination/cooperation structures among
agencies
§ informal groups, own initiatives, but: unclear mandates,
exchange of information, culture of cooperation, personal links
§ Lessons Learned
§ in the process: discussions on joint data gathering tool, etc.
Monday, April 4, 2011

8. Sweden: Areas in Need of Refinement
§ Government goal: unchanged actor roles and responsibilities;
compatible with international approaches
§ improved coordination: analysis, planning, execution, LL
§ formalized and permanent structures at all levels?
§ coordinated training?
§ staff exchange?
§ closer horizontal and vertical linking throughout the chain
§ Concrete government guidelines for the goals?
§ military-strategic doctrine in the works
§ Guidelines on cooperation/coordination at strategic and tactic level
Monday, April 4, 2011