EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH ALEXANDER WEIS
Over recent months, the European Defence Agency (EDA) has been gradually entrusted with a vast range of projects ranging from pilot training and helicopter modernisation to development of the future transport helicopter and the next generation of observation satellites. It is currently preparing a three-year work programme that should serve as a base for three-year budgetary planning The negotiation of an agreement with OCCAR, to be responsible for the management of armaments projects conceived at the EDA, and the consolidated legal base provided by the Lisbon Treaty should finally provide the Agency with more operational responsibility - as long as the political will is there. At this critical time for EDA development, its executive director has agreed to answer Agence Europe's questions. (O.J./transl.jl)
Agence Europe: You have said several times that you want EDA to stop being a « paper mill » and to get involved in concrete projects. Can you give us a view of how these concrete projects are now evolving?
Alexander Weis: I will try to do so, but it's very demanding because I know journalists like facts and figures. And of course, I am not the project officer, but I will try to do so. Maybe we could structure the presentation in in the following way: We are very much oriented toward the next Steering Board and the Council of Ministers. Both events will take place on the 16th of November, and we are currently preparing the agenda for these two meetings. Helicopters are of course on the list. MUSIS (Ed.: the next generation of observation satellites) is not on the list because it is not mature enough to be presented to the ministers. Maritime surveillance will be on the list. This will also be the case for other issues such as pooling and sharing of defence related assets. As you know we are currently working on the creation of a European air transport fleet based on the A 400M aircraft but also on already delivered and available aircrafts, like the C-130 or Casa aircraft produced by Spain. The idea is to put these assets together in a common structure to make these capabilities available not only for those Member States who are operating these aircrafts, but also for those who do not have this kind of capabilities. (…) Twelve Member States signed a declaration of intent last year in November, and we have further detailed the work now. We are close to an agreement on the next operational document, which is a letter of intent. It is not legally binding but it is very politically binding when defence ministers agree a letter of intent. And apart from the 12 signing members, there already 4 who are very supportive. So the number of ministers who could sign this letter of intent might increase. It addresses very much organisational, legal aspects, less technical or technological aspects. (…)
The subject of helicopters is of course another great example. Our intention is to have two things on the agenda for defence ministers: the first is related to our short term work strand, which is training. We are currently preparing a helicopter training programme to be launched in November, maybe, and to be started in early 2010. It will consist of a mixture of simulator-based training and exercises. (…) We have already conducted two exercises, one in the French Alps, in Gap, earlier this year, and another in the Spanish Pyrenees, just before summer. And we have received other exercise proposals from other participating Member States: Spain would like to organise another exercise, I think, in 2011, and Sweden is proposing an exercise in 2010. (…) The objective is to make the air crews more able to fly in demanding operational and environmental scenarios: hot and high or specific situations. If you land in snow, the rotor creates a huge cloud of snow or, if you land in the desert, it creates a huge cloud of dust ; you can't see the ground anymore. So the pilot needs information on how far he is from the ground in order to avoid obstacles and have a safe landing. So the aim is to get commitments from our Member States to contribute with staff and also money.
The other project is of course related to helicopter upgrade. (…)We have identified that roughly 300 Mi helicopter exist in the inventory of our participating Member States. NATO has established a Stanag proposing to these Member States an upgrade programme, but Member States considered this Stanag too ambitious and too expensive. We had another discussion with our Member States. We proposed to them what we called an upgrade menu, less demanding technically and less expensive. We will organise on 24 September a workshop, mainly with Mi operator countries, to see if they are willing to commit to such upgrades. If they are ready to commit, we will have this project launched on the 16th of November.
A.E.: And when will we get the first upgraded aircrafts ?
A.W.: I would say it will take at least another year. So by 2011.
A.E.: We were told some months ago that the first equipment and crews will be deployed on the Afghan theatre. Will this be the case or not?
A.W.: This was an issue which was discussed with the Czech Republic and Hungary. They discussed it within the steering board of this helicopter trust fund created by France and the United Kingdom, because they wanted to get money from the trust fund for this upgrade. They got the money for the upgrade, but this grant was linked to the request to deploy these helicopters to Afghanistan. And as far as I know - but this is not EDA business (this trust fund has been established - for technical reasons, I was told - at SHAPE) and it is not a NATO initiative - it's still a Franco-British initiative, helicopters have been upgraded and I understand they will be deployed in Afghanistan. But we have trained the Czech aircrews to be deployed now in Afghanistan, therefore we know that they will be deployed in the next few weeks.
The third project on helicopters - and I love it because it has such potential - is the future transport helicopter. And I was in the US early September. And you know the United States is a very important country. The challenge for the US is of course to accept EDA as the interlocutor in Europe for discussing capabilities development. For them, NATO is still the place where transatlantic cooperation takes place. So I went to the US. By the way, I visited the plants of Boeing in Philadelphia and also the Sikorsky helicopter plant in Stradford Connecticut to understand more about the existing CH 47 programme for Boeing and the CH 53K project for Sikorsky. Both helicopters could serve to a certain extent as a basis for a transatlantic cooperation on the future transport helicopter. You remember that there is this Franco-German initiative, established as a category B project at EDA, to look together on the development of a 32 tonne helicopter, with an initial capability by 2018/2020. And France and Germany expect to order 60 aircraft: 20 for France and 40 for Germany. For 60 helicopters, it doesn't make any sense to develop such a programme. We are talking of development costs of roughly 3 billion euros. So the idea is to base this new development very much on existing technology. This technology does of course exist in the US, in Boeing with the CH 47 programme, and in Sikorski related to CH53K. So we went to the US. We had very constructive talks and we received a very good impression of the capability of the two companies. They are very keen to work with, if I may call it, the European champion, Eurocopter. But there is another champion in Europe: Western Agusta. There is potential for industrial cooperation across the Atlantic, and both companies are of course interested in this cooperation. But it is not just a matter for the companies - they are interested in business, this is normal. The key issue is how does the US administration perceive of EDA and what is their perception as EDA as a place for transatlantic cooperation. So we went to Washington and met with Pentagon officials. And they are very pragmatic. We are far away from any kind of cooperation, but what we agreed upon is to have an informal meeting once a year, between EDA and the Pentagon to talk about subjects of common interest. Because there are issues you cannot tackle at EU level only. The US is so important in the defence area. You have to coordinate at least, when it comes to setting standards for software defined radio, to ensure interoperability with the US forces. Not necessarily to cooperate, but at least to coordinate. And the same applies to the setting of standards for UAV flying in general air traffic. You can set your standards at EU level, but this would allow your UAV's only to fly over Europe. (…) Again, it is not yet really about cooperation. Because of legal and political constraints we are not allowed to cooperate with the US, we are only allowed to have informal contacts with the US.
A.E.: Do you also plan to have informal contacts with General Abrial?
A.W.: I have had already. I met with Stéphane Abrial before he took office in Norfolk. I met with him at the Paris Air Show very briefly (…) and I invited him to come to EDA to be briefed in detail about our business and our potential for coordination with the Allied Command Transformation. He came to EDA. It was before the summer break. We briefed him and he was very much impressed by our work and he is of course aware of the political constraints between NATO and EDA, but we agreed to stay in contact.
So this is helicopters and the US side has now taken the initiative to organize what they call a heavy lift conference on 18-20 October in Paris, for discussion between the US and Europe on the potential of cooperation for such a capability. It's quite an impressive agenda: a two day conference, starting on the 18th with a dinner. Good papers addressing in a very systematic way all the key questions: What about the scenarios? What about requirements? What about the on going R/T activities? What are the next steps now? (…) A very good initiative, but it's not an EDA initiative. It's an initiative taken by the Pentagon. They come to Paris, to organize here a conference on transatlantic cooperation. Great. I like it.
So what else? Pooling and sharing. You might remember that the European Council in its conclusions of last December said that pooling and sharing of capabilities and defence assets might be an option. The Swedish Presidency has taken this issue up and we organised on the 9th of September a workshop to identify assets that might be pooled or shared. I'm keen on the idea of sharing helicopters, but this is only an idea. It has to be discussed by the Member States. If you take, for example, the fact that eleven EU Member States have ordered six hundred NH-90 helicopters, at least this shows that there is a potential for pooling and sharing. We need to define and to analyse in a very detailed way the added value, and what could be the interest of the users of NH-90 to share with others, and those who are not using NH-90 to use them in the future.
Very high on the Presidency's agenda is furthermore a topic which is called “level playing field”. This is a very complex issue. What is called “level playing field”? It is the question of ownership of defence companies; it is the question of golden shares of governments; it is the question of state aid to defence companies ; it is also the question of export support from governments to defence companies. This all is very, very critical. (…) The principal idea behind level playing field is to create the same conditions for all industrial actors in European defence equipment, and so to establish a European defence equipment market (…) with real market rules. To avoid market distortions, we need to create one set of rules. (…)
A.E.: Do you get enough support from the European Commission on this issue?
A.W.: The Commission is very keen to support this activity. There are very good experts in this area. DG Enterprise, but also DG Market. And we are very closely linked. And again, on 9 September, we had a workshop here, coordinated with the Swedish Presidency. And the Presidency will organise another event here in Brussels. I think it is on the 9th of October, on the level of National Armament Directors, to discuss this and to prepare a ministerial political declaration to be signed on 16 November. My perception is that political declaration are beautiful, but I would like to link these to at least some kind of roadmap. A road map to define the next steps for the implementation of this declaration. But it will largely depend on the willingness of the Member States to support this issue.
A.E.: All these projects will fit in the next work programme. Can you explain to us us what it will look like? When will we see the first concrete results?
A.W.: When we started to establish this three year work plan a few months ago, the principal idea was to make our work more coherent and to create more transparency towards our participating Member States. (…) This was a huge exercise, internally. Imagine, we had a two day conference at EDA where each staff member was supposed to present his or her project and had to say what the milestones are, what the expectations are, and what the requests are as far as resources, staff and money, are concerned. It created a better overview than we have ever had before.
So we were able to establish this first draft of our work plan for the years 2010-2012 within a few months and Member States were amazed. But it is not perfect. We have to re-profile it a little bit, we have to re-orientate some of our work, we have to refine it, readjust it. (…) It's the only way to go. Everyone who looks at this work, internally or in Member States, they are just amazed by the amount of information and the level of transparency. How will it look in the future? We will establish an updated work plan every year (…) In 2010, we will establish another one for the period 2011-2013. It will become a rolling exercise, and the different projects will be updated, some will be closed down, some new activities will appear. (…) I am very interested in re-profiling this work plan. Maybe there are some activities that can be deleted, because they are not very productive. I must of course propose these deletions to the Member States. I cannot take the decision on my own. (…) We have been trying since I arrived to convince France, Germany and Spain to come with their UAV project to EDA, but these three Member States are reluctant - due to the potential of Turkey's participation that would lead to a major difficulty for us - to establish this project as a category B project (…) So I will recommend we give it up. It makes no sense to continue to work on this issue. But this is just one example. (…) The work plan will slowly and smoothly be re-orientated (…) and we will very much focus in the future on the CDP's projects, but not only, because there are also other projects in the interest of a coalition of Member States brought to EDA.
A.E.: Do you expect some concrete achievements in 2010, 2011, 2012?
A.W.: I will give you an example. We have launched this force protection programme. It is a research and technology programme and 19 Member States plus Norway contribute 55 million euros to this programme for three years. In the first call, we included a project named “Guarded”. This is about a demonstrator in the form of a small robot that is able to neutralise IEDs (Ed.: improvised explosive devise), which are the number one killer for our troops. It weighs some 50 kg and can be operated at distance. (…) Our aim is to have the first demonstration of this real equipment in spring next year, here at EDA, during a R/T Directors Steering Board meeting, maybe outside in the garden, maybe inside the building. And we have the intention to have a demonstration under operational conditions and then it stands ready for deployment. But this is just one example.
A.E.: What are your budget expectations for this period of three years?
A.W.: We all understand we are living in difficult financial times, but again my credo is that EDA's budget is not a part of the financial crisis. Cooperation can be a part of the solution: to cooperate more will lead us to saving scarce resources in our Member States. However, defence budgets are under pressure, and we have to be realistic. When we discussed, under this three year work programme, with our officers what will be needed as far as staff is concerned, as far as additional money is concerned, we had a request for 18 new staff members and 16 million euros operational budget only (Ed.: in 2009, the operational budget did not exceed 8 million). That is just unrealistic. I cannot imagine that Member States would agree. (…) We have currently a budget of thirty million euros, and we will try to get a moderate increase to 31 million. And this will allow us to recruit four more staff members. It could be a good compromise, but this has still to be discussed with the Member States.
A.E: 31 million for 2010, what will be the figure for 2011?
A.W.: It's too early to talk about the figures for 2011 and 2012. I have to consult the Member States first. But of course, the three year financial framework means a budget for 2010 and ceilings for 2011 and 2012, which are to be agreed by the Council on the 16 of November. This is the objective.
A.E.: Why?
A.W.: Because the joint action says we have to establish such a financial framework. We - not the EDA only, but the Member States have already failed three times in the past to establish such a three-year financial framework. And this year, with our three-year work plan, we have for the first time a sound basis for the calculation of this three-year financial framework. This is part of the reason why it was so important to establish this three year work plan. (…) I understand my Member States very well: they want to see where their money goes.
A.E.: You are currently negotiating an agreement with OCCAR. When will this agreement be in place?
A.W.: We received a mandate by the national armament directors in April this year to negotiate this administrative arrangement with OCCAR and we achieved an informal agreement between OCCAR and EDA. This draft has aleady been submitted to our Member States. We received some comments from our Member States, just a few days ago, and we have to assess this internally. The objective is to have this administrative arrangement agreed by the Council on the 16th of November. Some of our Member States have said we need simultaneously an EU-OCCAR security agreement because it goes hand in hand. EDA is not in charge of this EU-OCCAR security agreement. It is the secretariat of the Council and they are currently discussing with OCCAR. (…) Both agreements ideally should be agreed on the 16th of November. For the administrative arrangement, we have established a common understanding with OCCAR. There was no problem at all. (…) They are very much interested to be, if I may put it like that, the work bench, not of EDA but of those Member States who want to use the services of OCCAR.(…)
A.E.: What will the cooperation look like?
A.W.: I don't believe that EDA is a management organisation. I think we should not be in charge of managing complex development projects. There is another organisation who has established rules and best practices and that is OCCAR. So EDA's role could be to initiate and to generate projects and programmes. And as soon as concrete project management starts, OCCAR - its staff and its knowledge - could be used for negotiating contracts establishing technical arrangements for development and procurement. What is important for us - this is mentioned in the draft agreement - is that the OCCAR is already involved during the programme preparation here at EDA. They can contribute with their knowledge to (…) the definition of military requirements, to the definition of the project. (…) It's very promising. It's a logical step. And it's only about sharing the work and making best use of the practices already established in OCCAR.
A.E.: It is now foreseen that the Lisbon Treaty could enter into force at the end of this year or in early 2010. What will the impact of this be on EDA and cooperation with the Commission?
A.W.: Cooperation with the Commission is for the time being based on two areas: civil security and the research framework programme. (…) We see a huge potential of coordination between their activities and our Member States' activities on military research and technologies. So we are already coordinating on a day to day basis, but we want to do it more systematically and in a better synchronised way (…) and we received the task from our Ministers of Defence in May to establish what we call the European framework cooperation. This very much relates to specific capability which still need to be defined in detail. It might be related to situational awareness: information, surveillance, reconnaissance to create a comprehensive picture of an operational theatre. The Commission is of course working in this area already and there is another European (but not EU) institution which is the European Space Agency (…).So it is only natural that we try to synchronise and coordinate with the Commission and the European Space Agency. It is still too early to talk about the content. But our idea is to propose to our Ministers the content of such a project aiming at a situation awareness capability at the November ministerial meeting. (…)There is a huge potential for synergies. Because why should military operators and civilian operators invest on both sides? Why don't we make better use of European taxpayer's money?
A.E.: The Lisbon Treaty also gives a legal basis for a European armament policy. What does this mean for EDA?
A.W.: The Lisbon Treaty says (…) there has to be a decision on the seat, statute and operational rules of the European Defence Agency. The question is what is going to happen in reality. It could be a copy-paste exercise from the joint action, because for the time being our legal basis is this joint action of 2004. After the Treaty has come into force, the Lisbon Treaty will be the legal basis for EDA. (…) The Lisbon Treaty says that we should establish an armament's policy. This provision of the Lisbon Treaty was drafted at a time when EDA didn't exist. We have established an armaments strategy in the meantime. We very much believe that this strategy but also elements from our R/T strategy and our industrial strategy are exactly what was in the mind of those people who drafted the Lisbon Treaty before the establishment of EDA.
A.E.: Do you see a role for EDA in standardisation?
A.W.: Yes I do. It is very much related to concrete capabilities. For example, standards for software defined radio, standards for UAV are key elements of our work plan. EDA is coordinating different national standards in order to develop European standards.
A.E.: Same question for certification…
A.W.: Same answer: yes. Look at our activity, we call it airworthiness. It is a procedure to certify aircraft to allow them to fly (…). According to UK experts - and they are very serious - roughly 20% of the overall cost of the cooperative programme could be saved through one common certification procedure. We currently have the situation that an aircraft like the Eurofighter or the NH-90 have to be certified in each customer country separately from each other. If we had had a common certification procedure in Europe, if we had had common certification criteria, we could have saved 20% of the cost of these programmes. And this is a tremendous amount of money. It counts in billions. Airworthiness is one of the most promising activities in EDA, as far as costs are concerned.