Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
STANAG 2586
Defence and NATO organisations producing, exchanging or publishing geospatial data under a contract or tasking that invokes STANAG 2586 or the AGeoP-08 profile it covers
STANAG 2586 is NATO's agreement covering AGeoP-08, the profile that standardizes geospatial metadata so NATO and its nations can interpret, discover and publish geospatial data and services.
STANAG 2586 is the NATO Standardization Agreement covering the NATO Geospatial Metadata Profile. This promulgation is dated 25 February 2019, and its own SUPERSEDED DOCUMENTS section states that it replaces an earlier STANAG 2586, Edition 2, and folds in STANAG 7136, Edition 3, into a single agreement.
A STANAG is the agreement by which NATO nations commit to implement a standard, not the technical specification itself. STANAG 2586's own text is short and administrative: an aim, a set of interoperability requirements, and the ratification, implementation and reporting machinery. The metadata elements themselves sit in a separate publication, AGeoP-08, Edition B, which the STANAG names as the standard participating nations "agree to implement the following standard." Anyone actually building a geospatial metadata catalogue needs AGeoP-08's own text, not this cover agreement.
The stated aim is "to standardize geospatial metadata elements in support of the Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) in NATO," so that NATO and its nations can "interpret the metadata of the geospatial data and services produced by or supplied to NATO," "discover and explore the geospatial data and services," and "manage, disseminate and publish geospatial dataset, dataset series and web services." None of the three is developed further here; the detail sits in AGeoP-08.
STANAG 2586 binds nations, not suppliers. "This STANAG is effective upon receipt and ready to be used by the implementing nations and NATO bodies," and "the partner nations are invited to adopt" it, a lighter standing than the commitment on participating member nations. A nation is bound through ratification, recorded in the NATO Standardization Document Database (NSDD): "the national decisions regarding the ratification and implementation of this STANAG are provided to the NSO." Implementation is a further, separate step. NATO itself is regarded as having implemented the STANAG "when the NATO Command Structure has promulgated in its orders, manuals or instructions, the specifications laid down in this STANAG and is prepared to utilize the NATO Geospatial Metadata Profile to manage and provide geospatial metadata to nations." A nation is regarded as having implemented it once it "has promulgated in its national orders, manuals or instructions, the minimum set of geospatial metadata elements documented in this STANAG," so it can produce metadata for NATO's use and read metadata NATO supplies. Within NATO, the profile "shall be implemented in CN/PN Reporting Process and ACO geospatial e-Catalogue as mandated by NATO Geospatial Policy (MC 0296/3)." A supplier meets STANAG 2586, or the AGeoP-08 elements it covers, only where a contract or tasking says so; this cover sets no obligation reaching a supplier directly.
Nations are "invited to report on their effective implementation of the STANAG in accordance with AAP-03," and partner nations are likewise "invited to report on the adoption of the STANAG in accordance with AAP-03" - an invitation, not stated here as a duty. The STANAG "is to be reviewed at least once every five years," with the result "recorded within the NSDD," and any nation or NATO body may propose changes at any time to the tasking authority, for the next review to process.
The cover lists a further set of documents under "OTHER RELATED DOCUMENTS," without saying which, if any, must already be in place: the DGIWG Metadata Foundation 2.0, the ISO 19115 family and related geographic-information standards, ISO 8601 and ISO 639-2, three IETF RFCs on UTF-8, URIs and UUIDs, NATO's own confidentiality metadata labelling STANAG, NATO Geospatial Policy MC 0296, and STANAG 2599 on geospatial support doctrine. It names them as related reading rather than prerequisites.
STANAG 2586 names no certification scheme and no audit of a supplier or a product. Nations report ratification and implementation to the NSDD, and are invited to report effective implementation "in accordance with AAP-03." Review of the STANAG runs on a fixed five-year cycle recorded in the NSDD, not through an assessor visiting an organisation. Nobody is "STANAG 2586 certified"; the cover never uses that language.
STANAG 2586 covers AGeoP-08, the publication participating nations "agree to implement" and where the metadata elements actually live. Among the "OTHER RELATED DOCUMENTS" it names NATO's own STANAG 4774 and the ADatP-4774 publication it covers, on confidentiality metadata label syntax, and STANAG 2599 and the AJP-3.17 doctrine it covers, on geospatial support. Reporting on implementation and adoption both run "in accordance with" AAP-03. Outside our catalogue, it also names the DGIWG Metadata Foundation 2.0, ISO 639-2:1998, ISO 8601:2004, ISO 19106:2004, ISO 19115-1:2014, ISO 19115-2:2009, ISO/TS 19115-3:2016, ISO/TS 19139:2007, three IETF RFCs (3629, 3986, 4122), MC 0296, and AC/322-N(2011)0130, all listed as related documents rather than requirements.
STANAG 2586 and the AGeoP-08 profile it covers are followed in how an organisation actually produces, tags and manages geospatial data, not inside a compliance platform: a GIS or data team applies AGeoP-08's metadata elements when it catalogues a dataset, dataset series or web service, and a nation's own implementation process checks that the resulting metadata can be read and interpreted against NATO's profile.
What ComplyTrain does for that kind of work generally is give an organisation one auditable place to hold the procedures for producing geospatial metadata to a documented standard, the training records for the staff who tag and review it, and the evidence trail - non-conformances, corrective actions, document control - that a national implementation review or a customer's quality representative will ask to see.
ComplyTrain does not build, populate or validate a geospatial metadata catalogue, decide whether a dataset's metadata meets AGeoP-08, or report a nation's implementation to NATO. Those are GIS, data-management and national-authority tasks, carried out against the profile itself and the NSDD reporting mechanism this STANAG describes.
Which STANAGs and Allied Publications actually apply to a given programme is set by the contract and the customer's quality clause, not by us. Browse the explorer to see what sits alongside STANAG 2586 and AGeoP-08, and talk to us about the evidence trail once you know which ones are in your contract.
Tell us how you need to work with STANAG 2586 and what you need from it. We will come back to you about what ComplyTrain can do.
Thank you. Your list is on its way to your inbox, and we will come back to you on what working with these standards in ComplyTrain involves, usually within one business day.
Only where a nation has ratified and implemented it, and it reaches a supplier only where a contract or tasking invokes it. The cover states it is "effective upon receipt and ready to be used by the implementing nations and NATO bodies," with partner nations only "invited to adopt" it.
STANAG 2586 is the NATO agreement by which nations commit to implement a standard; AGeoP-08, Edition B is the publication that actually specifies the geospatial metadata elements. Participating nations "agree to implement the following standard," naming AGeoP-08.
No. STANAG 2586 describes nations ratifying and reporting implementation to NATO, recorded in the NATO Standardization Document Database. It names no certification or audit scheme for a supplier, a product, or a dataset.
Per its own SUPERSEDED DOCUMENTS section, this promulgation supersedes an earlier STANAG 2586, Edition 2, and STANAG 7136, Edition 3, combining both into a single agreement.
Partner nations have a lighter standing than member nations: the cover states "the partner nations are invited to adopt this STANAG," an invitation rather than the ratification duty it places on participating nations.
One system for the whole compliance programme. Start with the module you need most.
Collect information the same way every time, and decide in advance what happens next.
Know whether your controls are operating, not just whether a policy says they exist.
Turn the compliance work you already know about into a plan with owners, dependencies and dates.
Know what you can offer, and hold the evidence behind every configuration you offer it in.
Eight built-in reports across every module, scheduled, delivered, and filed where the evidence lives.
The sector news that matters to your organisation - read and rated by AI, and delivered as a scheduled digest in your own language.
AI reads the tender pack and pulls out the requirements, deadlines and rules - then helps you draft the response from your own approved content, with you reviewing every step.
One current register of the suppliers and partners you depend on - each risk-assessed, re-assessing itself on schedule, and wired straight into your risk register.
See every requirement you face - across every standard, plus your own contracts and policies - traced to the documents, evidence and processes that satisfy it.
Identify, score, treat and review your risks in one place - with AI to help anyone run a proper assessment, and a defensible trail behind every decision.
Assign training, prove it was understood, and hold the competence records an auditor asks for.
Draft compliance documents with AI, keep every version under control, and export them beautifully branded - all in one place.
Audits, corrective actions, processes and approvals in one quality system, organised around ISO 9001.
Medical device manufacturers operate under more regulatory pressure than almost any other sector outside pharmaceuticals. The rules govern how you design a device, how you make it, how you track it after it ships, and how you respond when something goes wrong.
Learn how EU dual-use export controls apply to encryption, sensors, and software, how classification works under Annex I, and why sending source code by email can count as an export.
A practical way to turn in-your-head risk management into a register that survives staff turnover and answers the risk questions now showing up in tenders.