Permanent secretary: DefMin lacks internal control, security undermanned

Aiming to improve clarity and oversight, Kaimo Kuusk, who took office as permanent secretary of Estonia's Ministry of Defense on September 1, is implementing some key changes to the structure and leadership of the ministry this spring.
What will the new undersecretary for defense industry and innovation be focusing on?
The existing Innovation Department will be part of their responsibility, and we're creating a new Defense Industry Department. This undersecretary will lead the shaping and development of defense industry policy, acting as a driver and coordinator at the same time.
What does this mean in practice — what's going to improve? What will get better?
First of all, there will be a specific point of contact for defense industry companies, universities and research institutions. And of course also for the Estonian Defense Forces (EDF) and the Estonian Defense League (EDL) as consumers. Several defense industry companies have told me since late fall that they need one person to communicate with. They'll be involved in attracting defense industry clients.
So they'll be coordinating current funding rounds as well?
Exactly. And the defense industry also has concerns about how they can test their stuff. The first step is to finalize the product, and then conduct field tests. For defense industry companies, it's crucial that we can demonstrate to international markets that our EDL or EDF have already tested certain things. We're creating a single point of contact to facilitate these testing opportunities.
Hasn't cooperation between the Estonian Defense and Aerospace Industry Association (EKTL) and the EDF been smooth without the Defense Ministry's involvement?
It isn't going very smoothly. The Estonian Military Academy, the Headquarters of the EDF and even the EDL do play a role here. But I must admit there's not a lot of clarity.
I understand the new undersecretary will also be handling the issue of defense industry parks. By the way, has the Defense Ministry found a solution to the Ämari park dispute? Meaning will this dispute be pursued to a legal conclusion, or are you approaching some sort of compromise?
Last night it seemed like we were very close to reaching a compromise, where anyone who wants to develop the defense industry in Estonia will be able to do so, and we'd find the necessary infrastructure and land for everyone.
What would the ministry's proposed compromise look like?
Let's get this settled first, then we'll make it public.
The ministry is merging the current positions of undersecretary for defense planning and undersecretary for defense readiness, and creating a single undersecretary position for defense capability. Why is this change necessary?
On one hand, it's logical that these two areas belong together. They've actually been combined in the Ministry of Defense in the past, and together, they form a single force-building process. On one side, we plan, budget and cooperate with procurements, and on the other, we make sure the forces are ready and have the will to defend.
The will to defend includes reserve troops, conscription as well as active-duty servicemembers. We're paying greater attention to this human factor, and as a whole, I find that very logical.
Will all the departments currently split between the two undersecretaries fall under the new undersecretary, or will there be changes in the departmental structure?
Strategic communication, for example, we'll be bringing under the permanent secretary, where it logically belongs if you look at how it's organized in other ministries.
And one more aspect is very important to me, considering how much additional funding is going into defense — oversight. Based on my five months of experience, I must admit that there are gaps here. Internal oversight is practically nonexistent, security is undermanned and auditing is inadequate.
We're creating a separate department under the permanent secretary that will handle all of this. Including monitoring the implementation of the minister's decisions. For example, how far along we are executing a decision made some eight months ago. Strengthening this oversight aspect is critical.
How could the situation you described even come to be at the Defense Ministry? You've surely rewound this process, so to speak.
I haven't really delved into the historical aspects of it yet. It's possible to do so, but I assessed the current situation, and we're moving forward from here.
What risks arise when a system gets a lot of money but has poor internal control?
We're unable to respond to challenges quickly, and this applies to any incidents that could or have happened in this field. The time it takes to gain an overview of a situation is unacceptably long, if it even happens at all.
And talking about future defense sector investments, it's important to have a clear overview so that procurements can all be conducted transparently and honestly, following the rules. The National Audit Office has played a significant role here. Based on my five months' experience, it seems we haven't always been the best partner to the National Audit Office.

Does this mean that when the National Audit Office conducted its defense procurements audit, they didn't receive all the necessary info?
There have been delays, and there have also been cases where the audit pointed out issues. What I want is that we take these remarks, fix them and check again in, say, half a year on how far we've gotten with improving our processes.
Does your house conduct its own procurement audits?
We have an audit lead in the ministry — one person. Clearly insufficient capacity, in my opinion.
What do the existing audits show? Has everything been done well so far?
There are question marks that I definitely want to look into further, but I won't start getting into that live on the radio here.
Are these question marks about state procurements little slip-ups that can happen from time to time, or are they ones where you think state money has maybe gone to the wrong place?
There are careless mistakes, but they're not the most important ones. But as for the other question marks, I'm really not going to start getting into that on live on the radio right now.
When will we find out?
Once the work is finished
What does it mean that security is undermanned?
The Ministry of Defense isn't just the building here on Sakala tänav. The Ministry has to coordinate the activities of the entire area of government. The security we currently have can keep the main building safe, but we still have quite a lot more to do in terms of coordination.
But to ensure security isn't undermanned, and to create a new internal control department, we need additional funding.
I believe we can find these resources and look ahead in our planning process. There are areas where we can't cut back, because otherwise we'll end up with foolish 20/20 hindsight later.
Alright. But let's come back to what will improve with the merging of the current undersecretary for defense planning and undersecretary for defense readiness positions.
This is the clarity aspect. For example, tasks that, the way I see it, could have been on one side turn out to be the responsibility of the other side. We're merging them. This way it will be clearer, and it will also make it easier for other government institutions and ministries to communicate with us.
Still, what kind of leap in quality are you expecting? Are there any processes that have been stalled thanks to the current division of responsibilities? What are some examples of what might change?
Major planning processes that we do every year or every two years will become more understandable within the field as well. And the transition of resources to defense readiness will become much smoother.
Critics say the undersecretary positions are being merged mainly to replace [defense planning undersecretary] Tiina Uudeberg and [defense readiness undersecretary] Susan Lilleväli. How would you respond to this?
When the structural changes take effect on March 1, we will be creating a completely new undersecretary position and merging two existing ones. So it's clear that the requirements in terms of skills and qualities will change. So there will be a competition for these two positions in any case.
If this structural change weren't necessary, would you as the new permanent secretary be able to move forward with the current team? Or do I understand correctly that you believe the team needs different skills, knowledge and experience?
Every leader works with a team, and I'm clearly a team player. Every team has its own roles. Some are defense players, others shoot three-pointers and some are on defense. But supporting each other is important in any case, so maintaining this team spirit, forming this team is a daily job for a leader.
And you'd want a slightly different team than the one you were given to captain?
That's the nature of the captain's story: you need a team suited for the ocean you're sailing on.
--
Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!
Editor: Aili Vahtla