Vanguard Magazine

G GLOBaL DEFENCE www.vanguardcanada.com DECEMBER 2015/JANUARY 2016 31 Security challenges confronting national defence organizations today are complex and dynamic. Read about how this is impacting 60 nations from around the world. Global defence perspective © 2015 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership. All rights reserved. 4845-15 1215 www.pwc.com/ca/publicsector 4845-15_quarter_AD.indd 1 2015-12-02 11:37 AM in their immediate geographic area. These nations spend modestly on Defence, but many contribute to UN peacekeeping operations or multilateral coalition operations in some fashion. Developments and implications The Defence Map's diversity reflects the variety of the threats and challenges facing Defence organizations around the world. Map- ping Defence prioritization and security posture creates a more useful framework for analyzing these sixty nations. In addition to the segment, a number of broader insights emerge that should be of interest to Defence leaders around the world, and those who monitor them: Expect Movement on the Map: There is a tremendous amount of growth in the lower half of the Map where 31 nations have seen significant recent growth that is expected to continue in the next five years. But this raises important questions: how might countries like India, Japan, and Poland, for example, make efforts to increase their global security posture and move into the upper half of the Map over time? Conversely, persisting constraints on the Constrained Force Projectors may drive a shift down and left on the map for several nations in this category. Global Players Under Severe Pressure: The preponderance of nations that have a globally oriented security posture are also un- der significant budgetary pressure as evidenced by the fact that spending in ten of the twelve nations in the top half of the Map has declined or remained flat in the past five years. With generally flat Defence spend in these nations expected over the next five years, nations such as the United States, the UK, France, Australia and Canada will be hard pressed to maintain their robust level of global engagement in the coming years. To keep their current levels of security posture, these nations must prioritize readiness and training so that their forces can continue to conduct opera- tional deployments as the security environment evolves. More- over, these nations will face a difficult balance maintaining their technical edge in challenging fiscal environments. Cost-Cutting Dominating Strategy: Institutional reform ef- forts focused on cost-cutting are a major emphasis among almost all of the nations that have a globally-oriented security posture. Global Power Projectors (such as the United States), Constrained Force Projectors (like the UK) and Coalition Partners (such as Canada) are all undertaking initiatives to increase efficiencies and reduce overhead or personnel expenses. These efforts are being accompanied by a mandate for greater cost-consciousness and ac- countability for Defence assets. A Focus on Institutional and National Capacity: Further- more, institutional reform efforts focused on capacity building are a priority principally in those nations in the lower half of the Map. Robust Self-Defenders (such as the UAE), Threat-Focused Self-Defenders (like India) and Territorial Self-Defenders (such as Japan) are less focused on efficiencies than on building the institu- tional capabilities of their respective ministries of Defence. Collaboration in Procurement: Cooperative efforts are par- ticularly prevalent among the nations that have lower levels of Defence prioritization. Cooperative procurement efforts, for ex- ample, are much more prevalent among the Coalition Partners and the Territorial Self-Defenders than the Robust Self-Defend- ers. That being said, the elevated costs of major weapons systems, such as the F-35, is driving broader international collaboration even among major Defence spenders who have large budgets. Asymmetric Threats and Cyber "Insecurity" Gaining Prom- inence: Regardless of where a nation currently resides on the Map, vulnerabilities to asymmetric threats such as terrorism and cyber crime/attack are driving investment in new, non-traditional defensive and offensive capabilities. Such investment has pro- found implications for the nature of the future forces with respect to recruitment, training, career development and retention. The Defense map's diversity reflects the variety of the threats and challenges facing defense organizations around the world.

• Cover