the programme of action implementation monitor (phase 1) · iv small arms survey occasional paper...

The Programme of Action Implementation Monitor (Phase 1) Assessing Reported Progress

by Sarah Parker with Katherine Green

An Occasional Paper of the Small Arms Survey

30

ii Small Arms Survey Occasional Paper 30 Parker with Green The Programme of Action Implementation Monitor iii

Copyright

Published in Switzerland by the Small Arms Survey

© Small Arms Survey, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva 2012

Published in August 2012

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of the Small Arms Survey, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Publications Manager, Small Arms Survey, at the address below.

Small Arms Survey Publications ManagerGraduate Institute of International and Development Studies 47 Avenue Blanc, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland

Copy-edited by Anthony DrummondProofread by Stephanie Huitson

Typeset by Frank Benno Junghanns www.raumfisch.de/sign

Printed by coprint in Geneva and by CRW Graphics in New York

ISBN 978-2-9700816-2-3ISSN 1661-4445

ii Small Arms Survey Occasional Paper 30 Parker with Green The Programme of Action Implementation Monitor iii

The Small Arms Survey

The Small Arms Survey is an independent research project located at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, Switzerland. Established in 1999, the project is supported by the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs and current contributions from the Governments of Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The Survey is grateful for past support received from the Governments of France, New Zealand, and Spain. The Survey also wishes to acknowledge the financial assistance it has received over the years from different United Nations agencies, programmes, and institutes.

The objectives of the Small Arms Survey are: to be the principal source of public information on all aspects of small arms and armed violence; to serve as a resource centre for governments, policy-makers, researchers, and activists; to monitor national and international initiatives (governmental and non-governmental) on small arms; to support efforts to address the effects of small arms proliferation and misuse; and to act as a clearinghouse for the sharing of information and the dissemination of best practices. The Survey also sponsors field research and information-gathering efforts, especially in affected states and regions. The project has an international staff with ex pertise in security studies, political science, law, economics, develop-ment studies, sociology, and criminology, and collaborates with a network of researchers, partner institutions, non-governmental organizations, and govern ments in more than 50 countries.

Small Arms Survey Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies 47 Avenue Blanc, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland

t + 41 22 908 5777 f + 41 22 732 2738 e [email protected] www.smallarmssurvey.org

iv Small Arms Survey Occasional Paper 30 Parker with Green The Programme of Action Implementation Monitor v

Contents

List of figures and tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

About the authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Abbreviations and acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Classifying and ’unpacking’ the commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Point allocation system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Eligibility and applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Reviewing and scoring states’ national reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

What do the PoAIM scores represent? How should the PoAIM scores be interpreted? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

What do the PoAIM scores tell us about implementation? . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

What do the PoAIM scores tell us about reporting? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Annexe A. PoAIM scoring guidelines and criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Annexe B. PoAIM scores by theme and subregion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Publications list . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

iv Small Arms Survey Occasional Paper 30 Parker with Green The Programme of Action Implementation Monitor v

List of figures and tables

Figures

1 PoAIM scores by theme (regional average) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Tables

1 Point allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2 Available points. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3 Reporting states by rank and score (as a % of maximum eligible points) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4 Comparison of states’ scores before and after submission of their 2012 reports (before and after their use of the revised UNODA reporting template) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

vi Small Arms Survey Occasional Paper 30 Parker with Green The Programme of Action Implementation Monitor vii

About the authors

Sarah Parker is a senior researcher with the Small Arms Survey. She has

been engaged in small arms research since 2005 and has authored and co-

authored several publications on different aspects of Programme of Action

implementation, including Implementing the UN Programme of Action on Small

Arms and Light Weapons: Analysis of the National Reports Submitted by States

from 2002 to 2008 and Analysis of National Reports: Implementation of the UN

Programme of Action on Small Arms and the International Tracing Instrument in

2009–10. She served on the Australian delegation at the Third and Fourth

Biennial Meeting of States and the Arms Trade Treaty negotiations in 2012.

Katherine Green is a consultant with the Small Arms Survey who has been

engaged on disarmament and arms control issues since she began working

with the Geneva Forum in January 2011. Katherine moved to Geneva in Janu-

ary 2011 after completing her Master’s Degree in Peace and Conflict Studies

at the University of Queensland in Australia, during which she focused her

research on arms control and disarmament.

vi Small Arms Survey Occasional Paper 30 Parker with Green The Programme of Action Implementation Monitor vii

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Philip Alpers and his colleagues at GunPolicy.org

for their assistance with French and Spanish translations and analysis of

national reports. We would also like to thank Glenn McDonald and Marcus

Wilson, who reviewed the report and provided invaluable insight and sug-

gestions. Additionally, we extend our appreciation to David Atwood, Glenn

McDonald, and Patrick McCarthy for their advice and input into the method-

ology for the scoring of states’ implementation efforts. Finally, our thanks

go to Nadine Sahouri, Akmal Karimov, and Gabrielle Bonneville for their

assistance in translating the national reports.

viii Small Arms Survey Occasional Paper 30 Parker with Green The Programme of Action Implementation Monitor 1

Abbreviations and acronyms

ATF United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

BMS4 Fourth Biennial Meeting of States to Consider Implementation of the Programme of Action

DDR Disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration

EUC End-user certificate

IFRT Interpol Firearms Reference Table

INTERPOL International Criminal Police Organization

ITI International Tracing Instrument

IWETS International Weapons and Explosives Tracking System

NCA National coordination agency

NPC National point of contact

PoA UN Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects

PoAIM Programme of Action Implementation Monitor

PoA-ISS Programme of Action Implementation Support System

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNIDIR United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research

UNODA United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs

viii Small Arms Survey Occasional Paper 30 Parker with Green The Programme of Action Implementation Monitor 1

Introduction

The UN Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit

Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects (PoA) celebrated

its tenth anniversary in July 2011. UN Member States will hold a second two-

week conference in August–September 2012 to review progress made in

implementation of the PoA and the International Tracing Instrument (ITI).1

More than a decade after the PoA’s adoption, many stakeholders are now

asking: (1) has the PoA been implemented; (2) has such implementation had

an impact on the illicit small arms trade, or what difference has it made?

Many states called for an assessment of PoA implementation in their 2010

national reports and statements to the Fourth Biennial Meeting of States to

Consider Implementation of the PoA (BMS4). Indeed the BMS4 outcome doc-

ument records that ‘[S]tates also recognized the need for a comprehensive

assessment of progress in the implementation of the Programme of Action,

10 years following its adoption, as an input for the 2012 Review Conference’

(UNGA, 2010).

The Small Arms Survey launched the PoA Implementation Project in

March 2011 in response to that call. This is a multi-year project designed to

assess the implementation and impact of the PoA and the ITI through several

phases:

1. Phase 1: an assessment of the extent to which states have implemented

the PoA and the ITI using national reports (relying exclusively on the

information states provide on their PoA/ITI implementation);

2. Phase 2: an assessment of whether states have implemented the PoA and

the ITI based on an objective evaluation and verification of implementa-

tion efforts (through an analysis of national legislation, independent

country studies, and other sources); and

3. Phase 3: an assessment of whether implementation efforts (assessed in

Phases 1 and 2) have had an impact on the illicit trade in small arms, spe-

cifically with reference to the PoA objectives.

2 Small Arms Survey Occasional Paper 30 Parker with Green The Programme of Action Implementation Monitor 3

For the first phase, the Survey created a tool, known as the PoA Imple-

mentation Monitor (PoAIM), designed to evaluate states’ PoA and ITI imple-

mentation. The PoAIM consists of a scoring system that uses indicators

derived from the PoA and International Tracing Instrument commitments

to assign points based on national implementation efforts and rank states

according to their reported implementation efforts. Details of the methodol-

ogy used to ‘score’ states’ implementation performance are outlined below

and in Annexe A.

This report contains the first set of findings obtained through the PoAIM

‘scoring’ system based on a review of all 652 national reports submitted by

states between 2002 and 11 June 2012.2 The report is divided into three parts.

The first part provides an overview of the methodology used to score states’

reported implementation efforts; the second part provides details of the

PoAIM findings; and the third part comprises recommendations and conclu-

sions arising from the analysis.


Methodology

The aim of this study is to provide an overview of states’ efforts to imple-

ment the PoA and the ITI, based on an analysis of national reports submitted

between 2002 and 11 June 2012.3 The assessment included development of a

template (score-sheet) that facilitated the capture, classification, and scoring

of information in national reports on states’ PoA and ITI implementation. A

description of how implementation commitments were classified, how the

score-sheet was developed, and how information was captured and scored,

follows.

Classifying and ’unpacking’ the commitments

National level commitments related to the PoA (UNGA, 2001) and the ITI

(UNGA, 2005) 4 were classified under the following thematic headings:

1. National coordination agencies (PoA, para. II.4);

2. National points of contact (PoA, para. II.5; ITI, paras. 25, 31(a));

3. Manufacture (PoA, paras. II.2, 3, 6);

4. Marking (ITI, paras. 7–10, 31(b));

5. Record-keeping (PoA, para. II.9; ITI, paras. 12, 13);

6. Cooperation in tracing (PoA, para. II.37; ITI, paras. 33, 35)

7. International transfer (PoA, paras. II.2, 3, 6, 11–13, 15);

8. Brokering (PoA, paras. II.6, 14);

9. Stockpile management (PoA, para. II.17);

10. Surplus identification and/or disposal (PoA, paras. II.18, 19);

11. Public awareness (PoA, para. II.20); and

12. Other (illegal possession, stockpiling, and trade) (PoA, paras. II.3, 6).5

The paragraphs in the ITI and part II of the PoA were then broken down into

their constituent commitments, providing a complete list of every specific na -

tional level commitment. So, for example, the commitment in paragraph II.2


of the PoA to ‘put in place […] adequate laws, regulations and administra tive

procedures to exercise effective control […] over the export, import, transit or

retransfer of such weapons’ was divided into three discrete commitments to

establish: (1) laws, regulations, and administrative procedures to control the

export (and retransfer) of small arms; (2) laws, regulations, and administrative

procedures to control the import of small arms; and (3) laws, regulations, and

administrative procedures to control the transit of small arms.

Commitments were further divided into primary and subsidiary com-

mitments. For example, the commitment in paragraph II.17 of the PoA6

regarding stockpile management was divided into one primary commit-

ment,7 and seven subsidiary commitments.8

Finally, commitments were classified as firm, for example, where states

‘will require’ 9 or ‘will ensure’ 10 certain action; conditional, for example,

where states are required to take action ‘where possible’ 11 or ‘where appro-

priate’ 12; or encouraged practice, for example, where states ‘are encouraged’ 13

to take certain action.

Point allocation system

Points were awarded when states indicated that they had fulfilled one or

more of these commitments in their national reports. Points were allocated

to identified commitments as follows:

• a full point (1 point) was allocated to each firm, primary commitment;

• a half point (1/2 point) was allocated to each conditional, primary commit-

ment;

• a half point (1/2 point) was allocated to each encouraged, primary commit-

ment;

• a half point (1/2 point) was allocated to each firm, subsidiary commitment;

• a quarter point (1/4 point) was allocated to each conditional, subsidiary

commitment; and

• a quarter point (1/4 point) was allocated to each encouraged, subsidiary

commitment.

A breakdown of how points were allocated to each commitment is included

in Table 1 below.


Table 1 Point allocation

Firm Conditional Encouraged practice

Primary 1 point 1/2 point 1/2 point

Subsidiary 1/2 point 1/4 point 1/4 point

The total maximum available score where all commitments were included

was 56.75 points. A detailed breakdown of the points available for each theme

is included in Table 2.

Table 2 Available points

Theme Maximum available points

National coordination agencies 1

National point of contact 2

Manufacture 3

Marking 14.25

Record-keeping 4

Cooperation in tracing 1.5

International transfer 12

Brokering 3.5

Stockpile management 4.5

Surplus identification and/or disposal 4

Public awareness 1

Other 6

Total maximum available score 56.75

Eligibility and applicability

States were considered ‘eligible’ for every commitment. Therefore, each ele-

ment of every commitment and the associated points were considered ‘appli-

cable’ to a state unless it provided information in one or more of its national

reports that indicated a particular thematic area or specific issue was not

relevant or applicable to it. There were exceptions, however.

For example, even if a state indicated that it neither manufactures small

arms nor has small arms manufacturers on its territory, the commitment to


have manufacturing controls in place and to criminalize illegal manufacture

(PoA, paras. II.2, 3) was still considered ‘applicable’ since illicit manufacture

can potentially occur anywhere. In some cases, this might consist of a ban on

the manufacture of small arms. In contrast, the obligation to mark firearms at

manufacture (ITI, para. 8(a)), however, was considered ‘not applicable’ to such

a state, as was the commitment to keep manufacturing records (ITI, para.

12(a)). Consequently, the associated points were deducted from its maximum

eligible score.

Accordingly, a maximum eligible score was calculated for each state, rep-

resenting all the points it could potentially be awarded under the scoring

system.

Reviewing and scoring states’ national reports

The following method was used to determine national scores and rankings:

1. A separate score-sheet was created for each reporting state.

2. All national reports from all reporting states were reviewed in reverse

chronological order.

3. Information given in each report that was relevant to each of the PoA and

ITI commitments and the related question in the score-sheet template

was recorded in the relevant section of the state’s score-sheet.

4. A determination was made as to whether any commitments were ‘not

applicable’ to the state based on information in its report(s).

5. A determination was made as to whether the information provided by

the state was sufficient to ascertain whether the reporting state had ful-

filled the applicable commitment and could thus be awarded a corres-

ponding associated point score.

6. A maximum eligible score and an actual total score (the number of points

actually earned by the state) were determined for each reporting state.

These figures were used to generate a percentage score (actual points

divided by the total eligible points). Table 3 in the second part of this

report presents the percentage score (PoAIM score) for each reporting

state from highest to the lowest score.


In this, first phase of the PoA Implementation Project involving (exclusively)

a review of states’ national reports, information provided was taken at face

value. In other words, no attempt was made to verify (or clarify) the infor-

mation in the reports. Nor was an assessment made of the adequacy of the

measures and implementation efforts states reported on. If, for example, a

state reported it has export controls in place but gave no further details on

their nature, on the identity of the export licensing authority, or on its criteria

for assessing export licence applications, it was still awarded the points.

• Contradictory information: as noted above, national reports were reviewed

in reverse chronological order. In some instances, information in the most

recent reports contradicted earlier reports. This sometimes reflected

‘progress’ in a state’s implementation efforts. For example, a state might

have reported in 2004 that it had no brokering legislation in place, whereas

in 2008 it reported that such legislation existed. Conversely, there were

instances where a state indicated in an earlier report that, for example, it

had a National Coordinating Agency (in the form of an inter-ministerial

coordinating body), but stated unequivocally that this was not the case in

a later report. Where a state provided contradictory information that was

not the consequence of ‘progress’, the information provided in the most

recent report was relied on.

• Ambiguous information: at times the information in national reports was

unclear, preventing a reader from ascertaining with absolute certainty that

the state was reporting that it had carried out a certain activity or fulfilled

a specific commitment. In such instances, scorers were directed to give

states ‘the benefit of the doubt’ in their interpretation of the information.

For example, if a state reported that the loss of a firearm incurs a penalty,

but did not specify whether this applied to arms held by civilians or mili-

tary personnel, states were awarded the applicable half point in the con-

text of the subsidiary commitment under stockpile management to have

procedures and sanctions in place in the event of theft or loss of small

arms (PoA, para. II.17).

• Irrelevant and inaccurate information: in some instances, states provided in -

for mation under subject headings or in response to the reporting template

that was not relevant to the subject heading or question being posed. For


example, many states provided information on controls governing fire-

arms dealers and retailers in the context of brokering. Unless the state

clearly indicated that these controls covered brokering activities (for exam-

ple, ‘dealers, including brokers, must have a licence to trade’), it was not

awarded the applicable points.


Findings

The results of the PoAIM scoring of states’ national reports from 2002 to

mid-2012 are reflected in Table 3 (which lists states according to their PoAIM

score from highest to lowest). As noted above, the scores are presented as

percentages of the maximum eligible score for each reporting state. Annexe

B provides an overview of states’ PoAIM scores by sub-region, and gives a

detailed breakdown of their scores for each thematic section of the PoAIM

score-sheet.

Table 3 Reporting states by rank and score (as a % of maximum eligible score)

Country Final score (%)

1. Portugal 93.36

2. Mexico 91.96

3. Croatia 91.10

4. Switzerland 89.77

5. Germany 89.57

6. Hungary 88.84

7. Czech Republic 87.91

8. Norway 87.77

9. Finland 87.68

10. Estonia 87.20

11. South Korea 87.19

12. Lithuania 86.27

13. Nicaragua 85.33

14. Albania 82.98

15. Ecuador 82.94

15. Poland 82.94

17. Mali 82.89

18. Bosnia and Herzegovina 81.99

19. Romania 81.77


20. Canada 81.41

21. Philippines 80.57

22. Australia 80.19

23. India 80.09

24. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

79.90

25. Tanzania 78.87

26. Algeria 78.48

27. Bulgaria 78.33

28. United States 78.26

29. Latvia 78.00

30. Russian Federation 76.23

31. Burkina Faso 76.12

32. Panama 76.00

33. Botswana 75.00

33. Trinidad and Tobago 75.00

35. United Kingdom 73.95

36. Colombia 73.66

37. Argentina 73.37



38. Austria 72.56

39. Liechtenstein 70.44

40. Burundi 70.21

41. Japan 69.60

42. China 69.46

43. Mozambique 69.41

44. Kazakhstan 68.95

45. Moldova 68.75

46. Niger 68.02

47. Peru 67.35

48. Denmark 67.00

49. Sierra Leone 66.84

50. Sweden 66.67

50. Slovenia 66.67

52. Benin 66.50

53. Belarus 66.18

54. Netherlands 65.96

55. Ireland 65.31

56. Namibia 63.83

57. France 63.77

58. Fiji 63.54

59. Paraguay 63.46

60. Senegal 63.07

61. Serbia 63.03

62. Brazil 62.33

63. Democratic Republic of the Congo

61.70

64. Antigua and Barbuda 61.62

65. Venezuela 61.05

66. Slovakia 59.61

67. Israel 59.02


68. Spain 58.45

69. Luxembourg 58.15

70. Pakistan 57.97

71. Uruguay 57.79

72. Belgium 57.14

73. Iceland 56.00

74. Sri Lanka 55.79

75. Italy 55.67

76. Ukraine 55.32

77. Morocco 55.32

78. Greece 55.17

78. Malaysia 55.17

80. Zimbabwe 54.65

81. Papua New Guinea 54.55

82. Turkey 53.93

83. New Zealand 53.20

84. Guatemala 52.17

85. Honduras 52.05

86. Togo 51.90

87. Uganda 51.32

88. Maldives 50.54

89. Thailand 50.25

90. El Salvador 50.00

90. Eritrea 50.00

92. Indonesia 49.75

93. Zambia 49.42

94. Cyprus 48.91

95. South Africa 48.77

96. Côte d’Ivoire 48.68

97. Solomon Islands 48.31

98. Lesotho 47.13



99. Ethiopia 46.91

100. Chile 45.81

101. Kenya 45.35

102. Rwanda 44.71

103. Iran 44.33

103. Jordan 44.33

105. Malta 44.19

106. Georgia 43.90

107. Azerbaijan 43.35

108. Armenia 42.51

109. Marshall Islands 41.21

110. Egypt 40.89

111. Cambodia 40.24

112. Cuba 39.75

113. Guyana 39.53

114. Ghana 38.95

115. Costa Rica 38.10

115. Vietnam 38.10

117. Kyrgyzstan 36.96

118. Bangladesh 36.71

119. Syria 35.90

120. Saudi Arabia 34.48

121. Liberia 34.12

122. Jamaica 32.61

123. Iraq 31.94

124. Guinea 30.59

125. Tunisia 28.92

126. Tajikistan 28.57

127. Dominican Republic 27.37

128. Bolivia 26.63

129. Andorra 25.56


130. Oman 25.29

131. Gambia 25.12

132. Republic of the Congo 25.00

133. Djibouti 24.63

134. Monaco 24.44

135. Turkmenistan 22.66

136. Haiti 20.69

137. Mauritius 20.00

138. Sudan 19.32

139. Malawi 18.48

140. Angola 16.59

141. São Tomé and Príncipe 15.76

142. Libya 15.22

143. Bahrain 14.13

144. Grenada 13.04

144. Qatar 13.04

146. Swaziland 11.96

146. United Arab Emirates 11.96

148. Yemen 11.82

149. Nigeria 10.84

150. Gabon 9.66

151. Chad 7.88

151. Guinea-Bissau 7.88

153. Madagascar 7.45

154. Lebanon 5.95

155. Central African Republic

5.91

156. Cameroon 3.94

157. Barbados 3.86

158. Equatorial Guinea 2.17

159. Mauritania 1.97


What do the PoAIM scores represent? How should the PoAIM scores be interpreted?

The PoAIM score for each state reflects how well the state has implemented

its PoA and ITI commitments overall according to its national reports. The sepa-

rate PoAIM score for each theme reflected in Annexe B tells us how well a

state has implemented its PoA and ITI commitments within each thematic

area according to its national reports.

States that achieved a high PoAIM score provided sufficiently detailed

information in their national reports to indicate that they have implemented

a high number of PoA and ITI commitments, both primary and subsidi-

ary. States that received a low score did not provide enough—or sufficiently

detailed—information in their national reports to determine whether they

are implementing or have implemented their national level PoA and ITI

commitments. This could indicate that they had not fulfilled the PoA and ITI

commitments, but it could also indicate that they had not provided sufficient

information on their implementation efforts in their national reports.

What do the PoAIM scores tell us about implementation?

The outcomes of the PoAIM scoring mechanism allow us to make a number

of observations regarding reported implementation of the PoA and the ITI.

A breakdown of scores by region, for example, enables us to make some

assumptions about thematic priorities in the various regions.

Figure 1 illustrates the average PoAIM scores per theme, by region. Each

average is expressed as a percentage of the maximum possible points for

that theme. We can see clearly from the chart that reporting states in Africa

scored well (relative to other states and to other themes) with respect to the

PoA commitment to establish National coordination agencies (NCAs) as well

as the PoA commitment to develop and implement public awareness and

confidence building programmes (PoA, para. II.20). In contrast, they scored

poorly in relation to PoA and ITI commitments with respect to marking and

brokering commitments.


Figure 1 PoAIM scores by theme (regional average)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

NCAsNPCs

Manufac

ture

Marking

Record-ke

eping

Tracin

g

Intl. tra

nsfer

Brokerin

g

Stock

piles

Surplus

Publi

c aware

ness

Other

Africa Americas Asia Europe Oceania%

By contrast, reporting states in Europe scored poorly (relative to other states

and other themes) with respect to the PoA commitment on NCAs, but

achieved the best average scores with respect to PoA commitments relating

to manufacture and international transfer (import, export, and transit con-

trols). Part of the reason for this is that 73% of reporting states in Africa (67%

of the total number of states in the region) report that they have established

an NCA or National Commission on Small Arms, dedicated to policy guid-

ance, research, and monitoring of efforts to address the illicit trade in small

arms, in accordance with the commitment in paragraph II.4 of the PoA. Yet,

only 34% of reporting states in Europe (33% of the total number of states in

the region) report they have established such a body. Another 15% of report-

ing states in Europe indicate that, although they do not have a separate or

distinct body responsible for policy guidance and small arms oversight, a

certain level of inter-agency coordination exists on the issue among various

ministries.


Figure 1 also illustrates clearly that all regions scored poorly (relative to

their average scores for other themes) on marking and brokering (and to a

lesser extent on record-keeping). The adoption of the ITI in 2005 expanded

states’ commitments with respect to marking, record-keeping, and tracing

of small arms considerably compared to those included in the PoA. Conse-

quently, the marking section of the PoAIM scoring template is considerably

longer than most other thematic areas (with the exception being interna-

tional transfers) since it breaks down each of the separate commitments in

paragraphs 8 and 9 of the ITI.14 States are therefore expected to provide more

information on their marking practices than in other areas. (See Annexe A

for a detailed overview of each of the commitments listed in paragraphs 8

and 9 of the ITI and an explanation of how information in national reports

on these issue areas was reviewed and assessed.)

Part of the reason why reporting states scored poorly (with a few excep-

tions) under this theme is that, in the PoAIM scoring template, the marking

section has the highest maximum number of available points (14.25 points)

due to the large number of commitments related to marking in the ITI.

States also scored poorly with respect to marking because they rarely pro-

vided information that was sufficiently clear or detailed to allow for an unam-

biguous determination of ITI implementation. This was particularly the case

with respect to import marking. Under paragraph 8(b) of the ITI, states will

require to the extent possible appropriate simple marking on each imported

small arm or light weapon, permitting identification of the country of import

and, where possible, the year of import […]; and require a unique marking, if the

small arm or light weapon does not already bear such a marking 15 (with tempo-

rary imports excluded from the requirement).

States provided a range of information relating to this commitment. Certain

states reported that they do mark weapons imported into their territories after

they arrive with the year of import and/or the country of import; some indi-

cated that they require the manufacturer in the country of origin to mark the

firearms with import markings (such as the country of import and/or year of

import) prior to exporting them; some reported that they ensure that import-

ers mark weapons with information on the importer once they are imported;


some expressly noted that they import only weapons that are already marked

by the manufacturer in the country of origin with manufacture markings or

that they do not import ‘unmarked’ small arms; some reported that imported

weapons are marked with manufacture markings (which presumably means

they are marked by the manufacturer before import); and some replied ‘yes’

to question 6.13 in the revised UNODA (United Nations Office for Disarma-

ment Affairs) reporting template, which asks: ‘Does your country require

that [small arms and light weapons] imported into your country be marked

at the time of import?’, and then described the manufacture markings in

response to the request for details of the information on import markings

(PoA-ISS, n.d.b., question 6.13.1).

In short, it is difficult to say, unequivocally, just how many states are

implementing the commitment contained in paragraph 8(b) of the ITI to

mark imported small arms. Our findings suggest that some 43 (27%) report-

ing states give a clear indication that they require imported small arms to be

marked with import markings as distinct from manufacture markings, with

29 (18%) confirming this marking must indicate the country of import and

21 (13%) specifying it must include the year of import. A further 31 (19.5%)

reporting states indicate that they require a unique marking to be applied to

an imported arm if it does not already bear one in accordance with the ITI

provision on import marking. Reporting on this issue strongly reflected that

this commitment is not well understood by reporting states or, at a mini-

mum, that they do not share the same understanding of its meaning and

what is required to fulfil its terms.

It is also apparent that other marking commitments are similarly not

well understood or that clarity is lacking on what is required in order to

fulfil them. For example, paragraph 8(d) of the ITI stipulates that states must

ensure that all small arms held by government armed and security forces

are ‘duly’ marked, and notes that such markings do not necessarily have to

meet the requirements relating to manufacture markings referred to in sub-

paragraph 8(a). States appear to interpret the phrase ‘duly’ marked in several

ways, with some reporting they require state-held weapons to bear mark-

ings equivalent to those applied at the time of manufacture; others indicating

they apply specific, unique markings to state-held weapons (such as a coat


of arms or other national emblem); and others simply stating they require

such arms to be marked. Are any or all of these measures sufficient to deter-

mine that a state is fulfilling this commitment? Without further elaboration

or guidance on what is meant or intended by ‘duly’ marked, the answer must

be ‘yes’.

Another marking commitment (in fact, encouraged practice) that is poorly

reported on is paragraph 8(e) of the ITI, under which states agree to encour-

age small arms manufacturers ‘to develop measures against the removal or

alteration of markings’. Under a relevant heading, or in response to question

19 of the revised UNODA reporting template: ‘Does your country encour-

age manufacturers of [small arms and light weapons] to develop measures

against the removal or alteration of markings?’, some 10 per cent of states

reported it is a criminal offence to remove, alter, or obliterate the markings on

a weapon in their countries in the context of this commitment. While crimi-

nalization of tampering with markings constitutes a measure against their

removal or alteration, it does not amount to encouraging manufacturers to

develop measures against removal or alteration. At the same time, it should

be noted however, that many states did provide details of measures taken

by manufacturers to make the removal or alteration of markings difficult or

impossible, as well as information concerning technological developments

aimed at ensuring the permanency or recoverability of markings.

Brokering appears to be another area where not all reporting states have

a clear understanding of what ‘brokering’ is or what types of activities it cov-

ers. In many instances states provided information on ‘dealers’ in the context

of ‘brokering’ (under a heading marked ‘brokering’ or in response to the

previous UNODA reporting template under section 8 on ‘Brokering’); others

gave information on import and export agents and even customs brokers.

When scoring states on their reported implementation of the brokering

commitments in paragraph II.14 of the PoA, scorers had to be mindful of

the fact that many states consider that if they have regulations governing

‘dealers’, then they do have controls in place governing brokers. Without more

information on the nature of these controls and what activities they cover it

is unclear whether ‘brokering’ is regulated. This begs the question: how well


understood is the issue of brokering among states? Are they aware of what

the commitment to control brokering implies or requires?

These are just examples of some of the ways in which the results of the

PoAIM scoring can be used and interpreted, and what they tell us about

reported implementation.

What do the PoAIM scores tell us about reporting?

One of the aims of the PoAIM project is to generate a clearer picture of the

extent to which states have implemented their PoA and ITI commitments.

In part, it was anticipated that this would help identify those countries and

regions where implementation is relatively weak, so that cooperation and

assistance efforts could be geared to target them. It was nonetheless also

understood that a review of implementation efforts based on national reports

can only permit an assessment of reported implementation. In this regard,

the PoAIM scores, and the scoring exercise generally, tell us much about the

quality of national reports and reporting practices.

In some reports, states expressly indicated they have not fulfilled certain

commitments by answering either ‘no’ to a direct question in the previous

reporting template such as ‘Does your country use authenticated end-user

certificates?’ (UNIDIR, n.d., question 7(iii)), or ‘none’ to a question such as

‘What national measures exist to safeguard [surplus] stocks prior to their

disposal?’ (UNIDIR, n.d., question 6(iii)). Generally, however, states scored

poorly on all or certain commitments because they did not provide relevant

or sufficient information to indicate whether they had implemented a com-

mitment. In other words, poor reporting—not necessarily weak implementa-

tion—accounted predominantly for the low PoAIM scores of some countries.

This is well illustrated by the change in scores attributed to those states

that used the revised UNODA reporting template (PoA-ISS, n.d.a.)16 for

their 2012 national reports (see Table 4). Most of the questions in the revised

UNODA reporting template are structured so that states must answer ‘yes’ or

‘no’ and/or select one or more relevant responses from a drop-down menu.

By way of contrast, the previous UNODA reporting template contained more


‘open’ and fewer questions overall. Consequently, many states that used the

revised UNODA reporting template provided information—or responded

to specific questions—that were more closely aligned to the wording of rele-

vant PoA and ITI commitments.

Of the 55 states that submitted national reports for 2012 by 11 June 2012, 40

used the revised UNODA reporting template. Table 4 compares the PoAIM

scores of 23 states before and after submission of their 2012 report (before

and after their use of the revised UNODA reporting template).17

Table 4 Comparison of states’ scores before and after submission of their 2012 reports (before and after their use of the revised UNODA reporting template)

Country Score before 2012 report (%)

Score after 2012 report (%)

Increase in score (as a % of original score)

1. Albania 55.67% 82.98% 49.05%

2. Benin 37.65% 66.50% 76.65%

3. Botswana 49.29% 75.00% 52.16%

4. Burkina Faso 34.86% 76.12% 118.34%

5. Burundi 41.82% 70.21% 67.90%

6. Croatia 66.03% 91.10% 37.97%

7. Cyprus 30.21% 48.91% 61.92%

8. Ecuador 28.08% 82.94% 195.38%

9. Estonia 55.50% 87.20% 57.12%

10. Guatemala 37.63% 52.17% 38.63%

11. India 50.19% 80.09% 59.58%

12. Liechtenstein 34.45% 70.44% 104.48%

13. Luxembourg 30.57% 58.15% 90.23%

14. Mali 26.60% 82.89% 211.66%

15. Mexico 66.03% 91.96% 39.27%

16. Morocco 25.00% 55.32% 121.28%

17. Namibia 30.61% 63.83% 108.51%

18. Nicaragua 54.55% 85.33% 56.43%

19. Portugal 67.46% 93.36% 38.39%

20. Sierra Leone 33.47% 66.84% 99.70%

21. Tanzania 42.93% 78.87% 83.70%

22. Trinidad and Tobago 39.18% 75.00% 91.45%

23. United Kingdom 56.81% 73.95% 30.18%


As Table 4 illustrates, PoAIM scores increased by 30% or more as a conse-

quence of states using the revised UNODA reporting template. In some cases,

the improvement was quite dramatic. For example, the scores of Ecuador and

Liechtenstein increased by 195% and 104%, respectively.

The revised UNODA reporting template benefits states that wish to

report on their implementation as well as researchers and others who wish

to review national reports, since it is ‘user-friendly’ and relatively easy for

states to complete and generates more detailed, readily comparable informa-

tion than national reports using the previous reporting template or using

no template at all. As foreseen at BMS4, ‘the development of a standardized

reporting template [has enhanced] the comparability of reports’ (UNGA,

2010, para. 35).

The analysis of the first national reports using the new template neverthe-

less reveals several dangers inherent in its use. For instance, there is a risk

that states may reply ‘yes to all’ since they will generally want to be seen to

be implementing their PoA and ITI commitments, and the template forces

them to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ or make no selection, but this could imply that

their answer is ‘no’. In the previous version of the reporting template, how-

ever—and if states do not use either template—they are free to omit informa-

tion that indicates they have not fulfilled certain commitments.

Additionally, while the revised UNODA reporting template invites states

to give details of measures or controls they have in place, in some instances

there is no opportunity for them to elaborate on their implementation

measures. For example, in section 5 on ‘Stockpile Management’, the report

asks whether the state has standards and procedures relating to stockpile

manage ment and, if so, invites it to ‘check relevant boxes’, that list the sub-

sidiary commitments in PoA II.17 (appropriate locations for stockpiles, physi-

cal security measures, and so on). There is no provision for the reporting

state to give details of any of its existing standards and procedures, even

if it ticks one or more boxes. Such information would be useful because it

provides examples of good and best practice that other states could use to

inform own their standards and procedures. That obviously weakens the

information exchange function of national reporting.


Conclusion

One of the aims of this study was to determine the extent to which states

are fulfilling their commitments under the PoA and the ITI. It turns out that

the Phase 1 findings of the PoA Implementation Monitor often tell us more

about national reporting practices than they do about PoA and ITI imple-

mentation. More fundamentally, the study illustrates some of the limitations

associated with using national reports as the basis for assessing implemen-

tation—above all the fact that states frequently do not provide clear or com-

plete information on implementation in their reports.

Despite such constraints, the PoAIM findings do serve to highlight those

areas where reporting and reported implementation are weak, suggesting a

need for enhanced international cooperation and assistance in these areas.

The study also reveals that reporting states often have different interpreta-

tions of what certain PoA and ITI provisions require of them—for example,

in the areas of brokering and import marking—highlighting the need for the

further elaboration of these commitments.

The Phase 1 findings can assist UN Member States in identifying themes

for future meetings. It remains to be seen whether they will also encour-

age states to provide clear, detailed accounts of their implementation efforts.

While good reporting requires states to make a significant investment of

time and resources, the revised UNODA reporting template, coupled with

the shift to a biennial reporting schedule for both the PoA and ITI, should

ease the reporting burden. Widespread use of the template will also make

the comparison of national reports easier.

Currently, national reporting is the only means of assessing implementa-

tion of the PoA and ITI by the UN membership as a whole. If states do not

use this mechanism to indicate, with some precision, what they are doing to

fulfil their commitments, it is difficult to say much about ‘progress made in

the implementation of the Programme of Action’ (PoA, para. IV.1.a) absent

new mechanisms.


Bibliography

Algeria. 2012. Rapport national 2012 sur la mise en ouvre: du Programme d’Action des Nations en vue

de prevenir, combattre et eliminer le commerce illicite des armes legeres sous tous ses aspects (UN-

PoA-SALW); et de l’Instrument international visant a permettre aux Etats de proceder a l’identifi-

cation et au tracage rapides et fiables des armes legeres et de petit calibre. <http://www.poa-iss.org/

CASACountryProfile/PoANationalReports/2012@[email protected]>

Democratic Republic of the Congo. 2012. Rapport De La Republique Democratique Du Congo Sur La

Mise En Oeuvre Du Programme D’action Des Nations Unies Et Du Protocole De Nairobi En Vue

De Prevenir, Combattre Et Eliminer Le Commerce Illicite Des Armes Legeres Et De Petit Calibre

Sous Tous Ses Aspects. <http://www.poa-iss.org/CASACountryProfile/PoANationalReports/

2012@[email protected]>

ITI, see UNGA, 2005.

PoA, see UNGA, 2001.

PoA-ISS (United Nations Programme of Action Implementation Support System). n.d.a. ‘Pro-

gramme of Action: Reporting.’ < http://www.poa-iss.org/Poa/Poa.aspx>

— . n.d.b. ‘UN Programme of Action: Reporting Tool.’

<http://http://www.poa-iss.org/reporting/>

UNGA (United Nations General Assembly). 2001. Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and

Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects (‘Pro-

gramme of Action’). Report of the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small

Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects. A/CONF.192/15 of 20 July.

<http://www.poa-iss.org/PoA/PoA.aspx>

— . 2005. International Instrument to Enable States to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reli-

able Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons (‘International Tracing Instrument’).

A/60/88 of 27 June (annexe).

<http://www.poa-iss.org/InternationalTracing/InternationalTracing.aspx>

— . 2010. Report of the Fourth Biennial Meeting of States to Consider the Implementation of the

Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and

Light Weapons in All Its Aspects. A/CONF.192/BMS/2010/3 of 30 June (sec. V).

<http://www. poa-iss.org/BMS4/Outcome/BMS4-Outcome-E.pdf>

UNIDIR (United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research). n.d. Assistance Package: Guidelines

for reporting on implementation of the United Nations Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat

and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.

<http://unidir.org/pdf/activites/pdf2-act247.pdf>


An

nex

e A

. Po

AIM

sco

rin

g gu

idel

ines

an

d c

rite

ria

✔

Indi

cate

s th

e na

ture

of t

he in

form

atio

n an

d ci

rcum

stan

ces

whe

re r

epor

ting

stat

es w

ere

awar

ded

an a

pplic

able

poi

nt.

✖

Indi

cate

s th

e na

ture

of t

he in

form

atio

n an

d ci

rcum

stan

ces

whe

re r

epor

ting

stat

es w

ere

not a

war

ded

an a

pplic

able

poi

nt.

N/A

In

dica

tes

the

natu

re o

f the

info

rmat

ion

and

circ

umst

ance

s w

here

the

com

mitm

ent w

as c

onsi

dere

d no

t app

licab

le to

a r

epor

ting

stat

e.

Po

A/I

TI

sour

cePo

A o

r IT

I pr

ovis

ion

Scor

e-sh

eet

ques

tion

Scor

ing

crit

eria

Max

. sc

ore

1N

atio

nal

co

ord

inat

ion

age

nci

es

1.1

PoA

II.4

To e

stab

lish,

or

desi

gnat

e as

app

ropr

iate

, na

tiona

l coo

rdin

atio

n ag

enci

es o

r bo

dies

an

d in

stitu

tiona

l in

fras

truc

ture

re

spon

-si

ble

for

polic

y gu

idan

ce,

rese

arch

and

m

onito

ring

of

effo

rts

to p

reve

nt,

com

-ba

t and

era

dica

te th

e ill

icit

trad

e in

sm

all

arm

s an

d lig

ht w

eapo

ns in

all

its a

spec

ts.

This

sho

uld

incl

ude

aspe

cts

of t

he i

llici

t m

anuf

actu

re, c

ontr

ol, t

raffi

ckin

g, c

ircu

la-

tion,

bro

keri

ng a

nd t

rade

, as

wel

l as

trac

-in

g, fi

nanc

e, c

olle

ctio

n an

d de

stru

ctio

n of

sm

all a

rms

and

light

wea

pons

.

Doe

s the

sta

te h

ave

a N

atio

nal

coor

dina

tion

agen

cy

(NC

A)

(som

etim

es

calle

d N

atio

nal

com

mis

sion

)?

If th

e an

swer

is

yes,

a f

ull

poin

t was

aw

arde

d.

✔ If

a s

tate

exp

ress

ly i

ndic

ated

it

had

esta

blis

hed

an N

CA

or

a N

a-tio

nal

com

mis

sion

on

smal

l ar

ms

(e.g

. an

swer

ed ‘

yes’

to

ques

tion

1 in

the

rev

ised

UN

OD

A r

epor

ting

tem

plat

e),

it re

ceiv

ed a

ful

l po

int.

This

incl

uded

inst

ance

s w

here

a p

artic

ular

min

istr

y—e.

g. th

e M

inis

try

of D

efen

ce (

e.g.

Uru

guay

) or

the

Min

istr

y fo

r Eu

rope

an a

nd I

nter

na-

tiona

l Aff

airs

(e.g

. Aus

tria

)—re

port

edly

ser

ves

as t

he N

CA

, or

whe

re

the

Nat

iona

l poi

nt o

f con

tact

(NPC

) was

the

NC

A (e

.g. B

otsw

ana

and

Ken

ya).

✖ I

f a

stat

e re

plie

d ‘n

o’ t

o qu

estio

n 1

in t

he r

evis

ed U

NO

DA

rep

ort-

ing

tem

plat

e, o

r exp

ress

ly s

tate

d it

does

not

hav

e an

NC

A o

r Nat

iona

l C

omm

issi

on, i

t rec

eive

d ze

ro p

oint

s.

1

If th

e st

ate

indi

cate

s it

has

a sy

stem

of

inte

r-ag

ency

coo

r-di

natio

n, b

ut h

as n

ot e

stab

-lis

hed

a se

para

te N

CA

, it

re-

ceiv

ed a

hal

f poi

nt.

✔ If

a s

tate

did

not

spe

cify

whe

ther

it h

as a

n N

CA

or a

Nat

iona

l Com

-m

issi

on o

n sm

all a

rms,

but

did

rep

ort t

hat:

•

it ha

s so

me

form

of

inst

itutio

nal,

inte

r-ag

ency

coo

pera

tion

or c

o-or

dina

tion

mec

hani

sm,

or i

nter

-age

ncy

grou

p de

alin

g w

ith s

mal

l ar

ms

issu

es;

•

it is

in th

e pr

oces

s of

est

ablis

hing

a N

atio

nal C

omm

issi

on (e

.g. S

er-

bia

and

Yem

en);

•

it ha

s es

tabl

ishe

d a

com

mis

sion

res

pons

ible

for

a s

peci

fic a

spec

t of

sm

all

arm

s co

ntro

l su

ch a

s ex

port

con

trol

coo

rdin

atio

n (e

.g.

Mol

dova

); or

•

it

does

not

hav

e an

NC

A p

er s

e, b

ut th

at a

spe

cific

age

ncy

or m

inis

-tr

y is

res

pons

ible

for

coor

dina

ting

effo

rts

to a

ddre

ss th

e ill

icit

trad

e in

sm

all a

rms

(e.g

. Den

mar

k),

a ha

lf po

int w

as a

war

ded.

Su

bto

tal o

f sec

tio

n 1

1


2N

atio

nal

po

int o

f co

nta

ct

2.1

PoA

II.5

To

est

ablis

h or

des

igna

te,

as a

ppro

pria

te,

a na

tiona

l po

int

of c

onta

ct t

o ac

t as

a l

i-ai

son

betw

een

Stat

es o

n m

atte

rs r

elat

ing

to th

e im

plem

enta

tion

of th

e Pr

ogra

mm

e of

Act

ion.

Doe

s th

e st

ate

have

a

na-

tiona

l poi

nt o

f con

tact

(NPC

) (s

omet

imes

ca

lled

natio

nal

foca

l po

int)

on

PoA

im

ple-

men

tatio

n?

✔ S

tate

s th

at c

lear

ly in

dica

ted

they

hav

e an

NPC

or a

nat

iona

l ‘lia

ison

’ of

ficer

(e.

g. T

ajik

ista

n) o

n Po

A i

mpl

emen

tatio

n w

ere

awar

ded

a ha

lf po

int.

Whe

re it

was

not

cle

ar w

heth

er a

n N

PC w

as d

esig

nate

d fo

r the

Po

A o

r th

e IT

I, it

was

ass

umed

it w

as fo

r th

e fo

rmer

.

✖ S

tate

s th

at s

impl

y lis

ted

the

cont

act

deta

ils o

f a

pers

on/m

inis

try,

w

ithou

t ind

icat

ing

whe

ther

the

latte

r was

the

desi

gnat

ed N

PC o

n Po

A

or I

TI i

mpl

emen

tatio

n, w

ere

not

awar

ded

the

half

poin

t. St

ates

tha

t re

port

ed th

ey a

re in

the

proc

ess

of e

stab

lishi

ng a

n N

PC (e

.g. C

ypru

s)

wer

e no

t aw

arde

d th

e av

aila

ble

poin

t.

0.5

If th

e an

swer

is

yes,

hav

e de

-ta

ils b

een

prov

ided

(e.g

. min

-is

trie

s in

volv

ed,

nam

e of

the

pe

rson

(s)

desi

gnat

ed a

s th

e N

PC(s

), an

d co

ntac

t det

ails

)?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a ha

lf po

int f

or a

ny d

etai

ls t

hey

prov

ided

on

the

NPC

(e.g

. the

per

son/

min

istr

y in

volv

ed a

nd/o

r co

ntac

t det

ails

).

✖ S

tate

s w

ere

not

awar

ded

a ha

lf po

int

if th

ey p

rovi

ded

cont

act

de-

tails

of p

erso

ns w

ithou

t ind

icat

ing

whe

ther

they

wer

e th

e de

sign

ated

N

PCs

(e.g

. Uni

ted

Ara

b Em

irat

es).

0.5

2.2

ITI

para

. 25

Stat

es w

ill d

esig

nate

one

or m

ore

natio

nal

poin

ts o

f co

ntac

t to

exc

hang

e in

form

a-tio

n an

d ac

t as

a l

iais

on o

n al

l m

atte

rs

rela

ting

to t

he i

mpl

emen

tatio

n of

thi

s in

-st

rum

ent.

Doe

s th

e st

ate

have

an

NPC

fo

r IT

I im

plem

enta

tion?

✔

Sta

tes

wer

e aw

arde

d a

half

poin

t if t

hey

clea

rly

indi

cate

d th

ey h

ave

an N

PC fo

r ITI

impl

emen

tatio

n or

‘tra

cing

coo

pera

tion’

. Whe

re it

was

un

clea

r whe

ther

the

NPC

was

des

igna

ted

for t

he P

oA o

r the

ITI,

it w

as

assu

med

it w

as fo

r the

form

er. I

f a s

tate

indi

cate

d th

at th

e N

PC fo

r the

Po

A a

nd t

he I

TI w

as t

he s

ame

entit

y/pe

rson

, po

ints

wer

e aw

arde

d un

der

both

sec

tions

.

0.5

IT

I pa

ra. 3

1(a)

Stat

es w

ill,

as s

oon

as p

ossi

ble

afte

r th

e ad

optio

n of

th

is

inst

rum

ent,

prov

ide

the

Secr

etar

y-G

ener

al,

thro

ugh

the

De-

part

men

t fo

r D

isar

mam

ent

Affa

irs

of

the

Secr

etar

iat,

with

th

e fo

llow

ing

in-

form

atio

n, u

pdat

ing

it w

hen

nece

ssar

y:

(a) N

ame

and

cont

act i

nfor

mat

ion

for t

he

natio

nal p

oint

(s) o

f con

tact

.

If th

e an

swer

is

yes,

has

the

st

ate

prov

ided

the

nam

e an

d co

ntac

t in

form

atio

n fo

r th

e N

PC(s

) to

UN

OD

A (

e.g.

min

-is

trie

s in

volv

ed,

nam

e(s)

of

th

e pe

rson

(s)

desi

gnat

ed a

nd

cont

act d

etai

ls)?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a ha

lf po

int f

or a

ny d

etai

ls t

hey

prov

ided

on

the

NPC

suc

h as

the

pers

on/m

inis

try

invo

lved

and

/or

cont

act d

etai

ls.

0.5

Su

bto

tal o

f sec

tio

n 2

2

▼


Po

A/I

TI

sour

cePo

A o

r IT

I pr

ovis

ion

Scor

e-sh

eet

ques

tion

Scor

ing

crit

eria

Max

. sc

ore

3M

anu

fact

ure

3.1

PoA

II.2

To p

ut i

n pl

ace,

whe

re t

hey

do n

ot e

xist

, ad

equa

te l

aws,

reg

ulat

ions

and

adm

inis

-tr

ativ

e pr

oced

ures

to

exer

cise

effe

ctiv

e co

ntro

l ove

r the

pro

duct

ion

of s

mal

l arm

s an

d lig

ht w

eapo

ns w

ithin

the

ir ar

eas

of

juri

sdic

tion

[…],

in o

rder

to

prev

ent

ille-

gal

man

ufac

ture

of

and

illic

it tr

affic

king

in

sm

all a

rms

and

light

wea

pons

, or

thei

r di

vers

ion

to u

naut

hori

zed

reci

pien

ts.

Doe

s th

e st

ate

have

la

ws,

re

gula

tions

, an

d ad

min

istr

a-tiv

e pr

oced

ures

gov

erni

ng th

e m

anuf

actu

re o

r pr

oduc

tion

of

smal

l arm

s?

a) I

f th

e an

swer

is

yes,

a f

ull

poin

t was

aw

arde

d.

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int

if th

ey i

ndic

ated

: th

ey h

ad l

aws,

re

gula

tions

, or a

dmin

istr

ativ

e pr

oced

ures

on

the

man

ufac

ture

of s

mal

l ar

ms;

that

man

ufac

ture

rs m

ust b

e lic

ense

d or

oth

erw

ise

auth

oriz

ed to

m

anuf

actu

re s

mal

l arm

s.

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

also

aw

arde

d a

full

poin

t if t

hey

did

not e

xpre

ssly

sta

te

they

had

suc

h la

ws,

or

did

not i

dent

ify th

e re

leva

nt la

ws,

but

did

pro

-vi

de d

etai

ls o

f es

tabl

ishe

d le

gisl

atio

n or

reg

ulat

ions

on

the

requ

ire-

men

t to

mar

k w

eapo

ns a

t the

tim

e of

man

ufac

ture

, or f

or m

anuf

actu

r-er

s to

kee

p re

cord

s.

✖ S

tate

s w

ere

not a

war

ded

the

avai

labl

e po

int f

or h

avin

g la

ws,

reg

u-la

tions

, and

/or a

dmin

istr

ativ

e pr

oced

ures

gov

erni

ng th

e m

anuf

actu

re/

prod

uctio

n of

sm

all a

rms

if th

ey s

impl

y lis

ted

the

rele

vant

legi

slat

ion

with

out s

peci

fyin

g w

hat a

spec

ts o

f sm

all a

rms

cont

rol i

t cov

ered

. E.g

., if

a st

ate

repo

rted

it

had

a Fi

rear

ms

Act

with

out

indi

catin

g w

hat

as-

pect

s of

fire

arm

s co

ntro

l it r

egul

ated

, no

poin

t was

aw

arde

d. If

, how

-ev

er,

the

title

of

the

Act

cle

arly

ind

icat

ed i

ts p

urpo

se (

e.g.

Fire

arm

s M

anuf

actu

ring

Act

) a

poin

t w

as a

war

ded.

Sta

tes

that

rep

orte

d th

ey

had

crim

inal

ized

ille

gal m

anuf

actu

re b

ut th

at g

ave

no in

form

atio

n on

th

e re

leva

nt c

ontr

ols

in p

lace

rec

eive

d ze

ro p

oint

s.

1

b) S

tate

s th

at i

ndic

ate

such

la

ws

are

unde

r de

velo

pmen

t (e

.g.

are

bein

g dr

afte

d or

re-

view

ed

by

parli

amen

t) re

-ce

ived

a h

alf p

oint

.

✔ S

tate

s th

at r

epor

ted

they

wer

e in

the

proc

ess

of s

tren

gthe

ning

man

-uf

actu

ring

con

trol

s (e

.g.

Mor

occo

), or

tha

t m

anuf

actu

ring

law

s w

ere

‘und

er d

evel

opm

ent’,

or

that

dra

ft la

ws

wer

e un

der

cons

ider

atio

n,

wer

e aw

arde

d a

half

poin

t.

c)

Stat

es

that

in

dica

te

they

ha

ve n

o la

ws

on m

anuf

actu

re

beca

use

they

req

uire

ass

ist-

ance

to

deve

lop

them

and

ha

ve r

eque

sted

it,

rec

eive

d a

half

poin

t.

✔ S

tate

s th

at (1

) rep

orte

d th

ey h

ave

no m

anuf

actu

ring

law

s or

lack

ed

capa

city

to e

stab

lish

or d

evel

op th

em, a

nd (2

) rep

orte

d th

ey h

ave

re-

ques

ted

assi

stan

ce s

peci

fical

ly f

or t

hat

purp

ose,

and

/or

(3)

incl

uded

a

requ

est f

or a

ssis

tanc

e in

thei

r nat

iona

l rep

orts

, wer

e aw

arde

d a

half

poin

t.

✖ N

o po

ints

wer

e aw

arde

d fo

r m

ere

expr

essi

ons

of w

illin

gnes

s (e

.g.

‘we

wou

ld li

ke to

hav

e la

ws

on m

anuf

actu

ring

, but

we

don’

t hav

e ca

-pa

city

’).

d) S

tate

s th

at i

ndic

ate

they

ha

ve n

o la

ws

on m

anuf

actu

re,

or t

hat

give

no

info

rmat

ion

on w

heth

er t

hey

have

suc

h la

ws,

rec

eive

d ze

ro p

oint

s.

✖ S

tate

s th

at r

epor

ted

they

do

not

have

law

s on

sm

all

arm

s m

anu-

fact

ure

or p

rodu

ctio

n re

ceiv

ed z

ero

poin

ts, b

ut th

e in

form

atio

n th

ey

gave

was

rec

orde

d.


e)

Stat

es

that

in

dica

te

they

pr

ohib

it

man

ufac

ture

re

-ce

ived

a fu

ll po

int.

✔ S

ever

al s

tate

s re

port

ed t

hat

smal

l ar

ms

man

ufac

ture

is

proh

ibite

d on

thei

r ter

rito

ry (e

.g. E

ritr

ea a

nd T

rini

dad

& T

obag

o). I

n m

ost i

nsta

nc-

es, t

hey

repo

rted

tha

t thi

s is

refl

ecte

d in

nat

iona

l leg

isla

tion

(sug

gest

-in

g th

ey h

ad la

ws

and

regu

latio

ns p

rohi

bitin

g m

anuf

actu

re).

If a

stat

e in

dica

ted

it pr

ohib

its s

mal

l ar

ms

man

ufac

ture

or

prod

uctio

n bu

t di

d no

t sp

ecify

the

app

licab

le n

atio

nal

legi

slat

ion,

it

was

pre

sum

ed t

hat

the

ban

had

been

pas

sed

into

law

or

had

been

com

mun

icat

ed p

ub-

licly

in s

ome

othe

r w

ay.

f) Z

ero

poin

ts a

re g

iven

to

stat

es

that

m

erel

y in

dica

te

they

do

no

t m

anuf

actu

re

smal

l arm

s an

d lig

ht w

eapo

ns.

✖ S

tate

s th

at i

ndic

ated

the

y do

not

man

ufac

ture

sm

all

arm

s or

tha

t th

ere

are

no m

anuf

actu

rers

ope

ratin

g on

the

ir te

rrito

ries

wer

e no

t aw

arde

d a

poin

t (u

nles

s th

ey a

lso

indi

cate

d th

at m

anuf

actu

re i

s pr

o-hi

bite

d an

d/or

indi

cate

d th

at la

ws,

regu

latio

ns a

nd a

dmin

istr

ativ

e pr

o-ce

dure

s ar

e in

pla

ce,

even

tho

ugh

ther

e is

cur

rent

ly n

o sm

all

arm

s pr

oduc

tion

taki

ng p

lace

or

no c

ompa

nies

are

cur

rent

ly a

utho

rize

d to

m

anuf

actu

re s

mal

l arm

s).

N/A

How

ever

, w

here

sta

tes

indi

cate

d th

at t

hey

do n

ot m

anuf

actu

re

smal

l ar

ms,

the

mar

king

and

rec

ord-

keep

ing

com

mitm

ents

with

re-

spec

t to

man

ufac

ture

rs w

ere

cons

ider

ed ‘n

ot a

pplic

able

’ (se

e be

low

).

Stat

es w

ere

deem

ed n

ot to

man

ufac

ture

sm

all a

rms

if th

ey e

xpre

ssly

in

dica

ted

that

they

do

not m

anuf

actu

re s

mal

l arm

s, a

s w

ell a

s w

here

th

ey r

epor

t th

at o

nly

craf

t m

anuf

actu

re t

akes

pla

ce (

or t

hat

they

do

not

man

ufac

ture

‘sop

hist

icat

ed’

firea

rms

(e.g

. B

enin

)); o

r if

they

indi

-ca

ted

that

onl

y ‘lo

cal’,

non

-ind

ustr

ial

man

ufac

ture

tak

es p

lace

, or

if

they

indi

cate

d th

ere

is n

o ‘s

igni

fican

t’ pr

oduc

tion

(e.g

. Ken

ya—

whi

ch

we

assu

med

mea

ns o

nly

craf

t).

3.2

PoA

II.3

To a

dopt

and

im

plem

ent,

in t

he S

tate

s th

at h

ave

not

alre

ady

done

so,

the

nec

-es

sary

leg

isla

tive

or o

ther

mea

sure

s to

es

tabl

ish

as

crim

inal

of

fenc

es

unde

r th

eir

dom

estic

law

the

ille

gal

man

ufac

-tu

re, [

…] o

f sm

all a

rms

and

light

wea

pons

w

ithin

thei

r ar

eas

of ju

risd

ictio

n, in

ord

er

to e

nsur

e th

at t

hose

eng

aged

in

such

ac-

tiviti

es c

an b

e pr

osec

uted

und

er a

ppro

-pr

iate

nat

iona

l pen

al c

odes

.

Has

the

sta

te e

stab

lishe

d il-

lega

l m

anuf

actu

ring

of

smal

l ar

ms

as a

cri

min

al o

ffenc

e?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int i

f the

y: r

epor

ted

they

hav

e cr

imi-

naliz

ed th

e ill

egal

man

ufac

ture

of s

mal

l arm

s; o

r gav

e de

tails

of c

rim

i-na

l pen

altie

s ap

plic

able

to il

lega

l man

ufac

ture

; or i

ndic

ated

that

sm

all

arm

s le

gisl

atio

n in

clud

ed m

anuf

actu

ring

con

trol

s, a

nd t

hat

crim

inal

pe

nalti

es e

xist

for

brea

ches

of t

he le

gisl

atio

n.

✖ S

tate

s re

ceiv

ed n

o po

ints

if th

ey m

erel

y in

dica

ted

they

hav

e ta

ken

actio

n ag

ains

t illi

cit m

anuf

actu

rers

. The

rea

son

for

this

is t

wof

old:

(1)

they

rece

ived

a p

oint

for s

uch

info

rmat

ion

unde

r the

nex

t que

stio

n (3

.3);

and

2) s

uch

info

rmat

ion

was

not

con

side

red

suffi

cien

t to

ind

icat

e w

heth

er th

ey h

ad in

stitu

ted

crim

inal

pro

ceed

ings

aga

inst

per

petr

ator

s.

1

3.3

PoA

II.6

To id

entif

y, w

here

app

licab

le, g

roup

s an

d in

divi

dual

s en

gage

d in

the

ille

gal

man

u-fa

ctur

e, t

rade

, st

ockp

iling

, tr

ansf

er,

pos-

sess

ion,

as

wel

l as

fina

ncin

g fo

r ac

quis

i-tio

n, o

f ill

icit

smal

l ar

ms

and

light

wea

p-on

s, a

nd t

ake

actio

n un

der

appr

opri

ate

natio

nal

law

aga

inst

suc

h gr

oups

and

in-

divi

dual

s.

Has

th

e st

ate

take

n ac

tion

agai

nst

any

grou

p or

ind

ivid

-ua

l(s) e

ngag

ed in

ille

gal m

an-

ufac

turi

ng o

f sm

all

arm

s (e

.g.

thro

ugh

pros

ecut

ion)

?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int i

f the

y re

port

ed t

hey

have

iden

ti-fie

d an

d/or

take

n ac

tion

agai

nst g

roup

s or

indi

vidu

als

enga

ged

in il

le-

gal m

anuf

actu

ring

of s

mal

l arm

s (e

.g. t

hrou

gh ‘i

nves

tigat

ions

’, ‘a

rres

ts’,

‘pro

secu

tions

’, or

the

prov

isio

n of

sta

tistic

s on

the

num

ber

of p

erso

ns

arre

sted

or

caug

ht in

the

cont

ext o

f ille

gal m

anuf

actu

re).

N/A

If a

sta

te r

epor

ted

that

no

illeg

al m

anuf

actu

re h

as ta

ken

plac

e on

its

ter

rito

ry,

or d

id n

ot m

entio

n w

heth

er g

roup

s or

ind

ivid

uals

hav

e be

en p

rose

cute

d, th

is q

uest

ion

was

mar

ked

as ‘n

ot a

pplic

able

’.

1

Su

bto

tal o

f sec

tio

n 3

3


Po

A/I

TI

sour

cePo

A o

r IT

I pr

ovis

ion

Scor

e-sh

eet

ques

tion

Scor

ing

crit

eria

Max

. sc

ore

4M

arki

ng

N

atu

re o

f th

e m

arki

ngs

4.1

ITI p

ara.

7

& 8

The

choi

ce o

f met

hods

for

mar

king

sm

all

arm

s an

d lig

ht w

eapo

ns is

a n

atio

nal p

re-

roga

tive.

Sta

tes

will

ens

ure

that

, w

hat-

ever

met

hod

is u

sed,

all

mar

ks r

equi

red

unde

r th

is in

stru

men

t are

on

an e

xpos

ed

surf

ace,

con

spic

uous

with

out

tech

nica

l ai

ds o

r to

ols,

eas

ily r

ecog

niza

ble,

rea

d-ab

le,

dura

ble

and,

as

far

as t

echn

ical

ly

poss

ible

, rec

over

able

.

(Pri

mar

y co

mm

itmen

t): D

oes

the

stat

e re

quir

e th

at m

arks

m

ade

on a

sm

all

arm

at

the

time

of m

anuf

actu

re,

at t

he

time

of t

rans

fer

from

gov

ern-

men

t st

ockp

iles

to

civi

lian

use,

in t

he p

osse

ssio

n of

gov

-er

nmen

t ar

med

and

sec

urity

fo

rces

, or

mar

ks m

ade

on i

l-lic

it sm

all

arm

s fo

und

on i

ts

terr

itory

are

‘on

an

expo

sed

surf

ace,

co

nspi

cuou

s w

ith-

out

tech

nica

l ai

ds

or

tool

s,

easi

ly

reco

gniz

able

, re

ad-

able

, du

rabl

e an

d, a

s fa

r as

te

chni

cally

po

ssib

le,

reco

v-er

able

’?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int i

f the

y us

ed a

ny o

f the

phr

ases

or

wor

ds c

onta

ined

in

para

grap

h 7

of t

he I

TI (

e.g.

‘du

rabl

e’,

‘reco

ver-

able

’), o

r if

they

ind

icat

ed m

arks

are

per

man

ent

or m

ade

in s

uch

a w

ay a

s to

mak

e th

em r

ecov

erab

le. E

.g.,

‘uni

que,

rel

iabl

e, v

isib

le, d

is-

tinct

and

eas

ily r

ecog

niza

ble’

(e.g

. Pak

ista

n).

✖ S

tate

s th

at p

rovi

ded

info

rmat

ion

on t

he m

etho

d of

mar

king

(e.

g.

stam

ping

, en

grav

ing

or l

aser

) on

ly r

ecei

ved

a po

int

if th

ey a

lso

indi

-ca

ted

that

they

ens

ured

mar

ks a

re d

urab

le, p

erm

anen

t etc

. (e.

g. In

dia)

.

1

Loca

tio

n o

f th

e m

arki

ngs

4.2

&

4.3

ITI

para

. 10

Stat

es w

ill e

nsur

e th

at e

very

sm

all a

rm o

r lig

ht w

eapo

n al

way

s re

ceiv

es th

e un

ique

m

arki

ngs

pres

crib

ed

in

subp

arag

raph

8(

a) a

bove

. A

uni

que

mar

king

sho

uld

be

appl

ied

to a

n es

sent

ial o

r st

ruct

ural

com

-po

nent

of

the

wea

pon

whe

re t

he c

om-

pone

nt’s

des

truc

tion

wou

ld r

ende

r th

e w

eapo

n pe

rman

ently

in

oper

able

an

d in

capa

ble

of r

eact

ivat

ion,

suc

h as

the

fr

ame

and/

or

rece

iver

, in

co

mpl

ianc

e w

ith p

arag

raph

7 a

bove

. St

ates

are

en-

cour

aged

, whe

re a

ppro

pria

te to

the

type

of

wea

pon,

als

o to

app

ly t

he m

arki

ng

pres

crib

ed i

n su

bpar

agra

ph 8

(a)

abov

e or

oth

er m

arki

ngs

to o

ther

par

ts o

f th

e w

eapo

n su

ch a

s th

e ba

rrel

and

/or s

lide

or

cylin

der o

f the

wea

pon,

in o

rder

to a

id in

th

e ac

cura

te id

entifi

catio

n of

the

se p

arts

or

of a

giv

en w

eapo

n.

(Pri

mar

y co

mm

itmen

t): D

oes

the

stat

e re

quir

e un

ique

m

arki

ngs

to b

e ap

plie

d to

an

esse

ntia

l or

st

ruct

ural

co

m-

pone

nt o

f th

e w

eapo

n (e

.g.,

the

fram

e or

the

rece

iver

)?

(Enc

oura

ged

prac

tice)

: D

oes

the

stat

e re

quir

e m

arki

ngs

to

be m

ade

on t

he b

arre

l an

d/or

sl

ide

or

cylin

der

of

the

wea

pon?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int i

f the

y in

dica

ted

that

mar

king

s ar

e ap

plie

d to

an

‘ess

entia

l’ or

‘str

uctu

ral’

com

pone

nt o

f a w

eapo

n, o

r if

they

spe

cific

ally

men

tione

d th

at t

hey

mar

k th

e ‘fr

ame’

or

‘rece

iver

’, (th

e bo

dy,

cham

ber,

cylin

der,

bree

ch b

lock

, an

d ba

rrel

—e.

g. I

ndia

), or

‘hou

sing

’ (e.

g. Ic

elan

d).

✔ S

tate

s th

at in

dica

ted

mar

king

s ar

e ap

plie

d to

the

barr

el a

nd/o

r slid

e or

cyl

inde

r of t

he w

eapo

n, a

s pe

r the

enc

oura

ged

prac

tice

outli

ned

in

the

seco

nd s

ente

nce

to p

arag

raph

10

of t

he I

TI, w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int.

In t

his

cont

ext,

it w

as d

eem

ed s

uffic

ient

if

the

stat

e in

dica

ted

it m

arks

‘acc

esso

ries

’ as

wel

l as

esse

ntia

l par

ts o

r su

bsta

ntia

l com

po-

nent

s (e

.g.

Liec

hten

stei

n an

d Sw

itzer

land

), or

rep

orte

d th

at ‘

vari

ous

part

s’ a

re m

arke

d (N

ew Z

eala

nd).18

1


Mar

kin

g at

man

ufa

ctu

re

4.4

ITI

para

. 8(a

)St

ates

will

: (a

) A

t th

e tim

e of

man

ufac

-tu

re o

f ea

ch s

mal

l ar

m o

r lig

ht w

eapo

n un

der

thei

r ju

risd

ictio

n or

con

trol

, eith

er

requ

ire

uniq

ue m

arki

ng p

rovi

ding

the

na

me

of t

he m

anuf

actu

rer,

the

coun

try

of m

anuf

actu

re a

nd t

he s

eria

l nu

mbe

r, or

mai

ntai

n an

y al

tern

ativ

e un

ique

use

r-fr

iend

ly m

arki

ng w

ith s

impl

e ge

omet

ric

sym

bols

in

com

bina

tion

with

a n

umer

ic

and/

or

alph

anum

eric

co

de,

perm

ittin

g re

ady

iden

tifica

tion

by a

ll St

ates

of

the

coun

try

of m

anuf

actu

re;

and

enco

urag

e th

e m

arki

ng o

f su

ch a

dditi

onal

inf

orm

a-tio

n as

the

year

of m

anuf

actu

re, w

eapo

n ty

pe/m

odel

and

cal

ibre

.

(App

licab

ility

que

stio

n): D

oes

the

stat

e no

t m

anuf

actu

re o

r pr

oduc

e sm

all a

rms

(i.e.

ther

e is

no

proc

ess

for m

arki

ng a

rms

at m

anuf

actu

re b

ecau

se t

he

stat

e do

es n

ot m

anuf

actu

re

smal

l arm

s)?

N/A

If

a st

ate

indi

cate

d it

does

not

man

ufac

ture

arm

s or

tha

t sm

all

arm

s m

anuf

actu

re w

as p

rohi

bite

d, t

he r

equi

rem

ent

to m

ark

smal

l ar

ms

at th

e tim

e of

man

ufac

ture

was

con

side

red

‘not

app

licab

le’.

Ac-

cord

ingl

y, t

he p

oint

s ap

plic

able

to

the

sect

ion

in t

he s

core

-she

et o

n m

arki

ng a

t m

anuf

actu

re (

4.5–

4.11

) w

ere

dedu

cted

fro

m t

he s

tate

’s

max

imum

elig

ible

sco

re u

nles

s it

repo

rted

tha

t, ev

en t

houg

h it

does

no

t m

anuf

actu

re s

mal

l ar

ms,

it

has

legi

slat

ion

or r

egul

atio

ns r

equi

r-in

g m

anuf

actu

rers

to a

pply

all

the

mar

king

s re

quir

ed u

nder

the

ITI a

t th

e tim

e of

man

ufac

ture

, and

pro

vide

d su

ffici

ent i

nfor

mat

ion

to e

arn

it al

l the

ava

ilabl

e po

ints

und

er th

e m

arki

ng c

omm

itmen

ts r

elat

ing

to

man

ufac

ture

(e.g

. Uru

guay

).Th

e re

quir

emen

t to

mar

k at

the

time

of m

anuf

actu

re w

as a

lso

con-

side

red

‘not

app

licab

le’

to s

tate

s th

at c

laim

ed n

o fo

rmal

sm

all

arm

s pr

oduc

tion

activ

ity t

akes

pla

ce o

n th

eir

terr

itori

es,

and/

or t

hat

they

on

ly a

ccom

mod

ated

cra

ft, ‘

loca

l’, o

r ar

tisan

al p

rodu

ctio

n.19

4.5

(P

rim

ary

com

mitm

ent):

Doe

s th

e st

ate

requ

ire

smal

l ar

ms

to b

e m

arke

d at

the

tim

e of

m

anuf

actu

re?

a) I

f th

e an

swer

is

yes,

a f

ull

poin

t was

aw

arde

d.

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int i

f the

y in

dica

ted

that

fire

arm

s ar

e m

arke

d at

the

tim

e of

man

ufac

ture

, ev

en i

f th

ere

are

no r

egul

atio

ns

requ

irin

g th

is (

e.g.

Fra

nce;

leg

isla

tion

is u

nder

dev

elop

men

t in

New

Z

eala

nd).

✖ S

tate

s w

ere

not

awar

ded

poin

ts w

ith r

espe

ct t

o m

arki

ng c

omm

it-m

ents

if th

ey s

impl

y in

dica

ted

that

they

mar

k w

eapo

ns in

acc

orda

nce

with

reg

iona

l or

int

erna

tiona

l ob

ligat

ions

gen

eral

ly,

with

out

bein

g m

ore

spec

ific

(e.g

. Su

dan)

. A

dditi

onal

ly,

the

com

men

t th

at m

arki

ng

‘sho

uld

be th

e re

spon

sibi

lity

of th

e m

anuf

actu

rers

’ (e.

g. T

haila

nd) w

as

not c

onsi

dere

d co

mpa

tible

with

the

requ

irem

ent t

o en

sure

that

man

u-fa

ctur

ers

mar

k sm

all a

rms

at th

e tim

e of

man

ufac

ture

.

1

b) I

f th

e re

port

ind

icat

es t

hat

the

stat

e is

will

ing

to m

ark

smal

l arm

s an

d lig

ht w

eapo

ns

at m

anuf

actu

re b

ut d

oes

not

have

the

capa

city

to d

o so

(e.g

. it

has

no m

arki

ng m

achi

nes)

, an

d th

at i

t ha

s re

ques

ted

as-

sist

ance

in th

is r

egar

d, a

hal

f po

int w

as a

war

ded.

✔ If

a s

tate

: (1

) in

dica

ted

that

it

is n

ot a

ble

to m

ark

wea

pons

at

the

time

of m

anuf

actu

re, o

r (2)

indi

cate

d th

at it

doe

s no

t hav

e th

e ca

paci

ty

to d

o so

and

has

requ

este

d as

sist

ance

in th

is re

gard

, and

/or (

3) in

clud

ed

such

a r

eque

st in

its

natio

nal r

epor

t, it

rece

ived

a h

alf p

oint

.

▼


Po

A/I

TI

sour

cePo

A o

r IT

I pr

ovis

ion

Scor

e-sh

eet

ques

tion

Scor

ing

crit

eria

Max

. sc

ore

Co

nte

nt o

f mar

kin

g

Man

dat

ory

mar

king

s20

4.6

ITI

para

. 8(a

)(S

ubsi

diar

y co

mm

itmen

t):

Doe

s th

e st

ate

requ

ire

that

m

arki

ngs

mad

e at

the

tim

e of

man

ufac

ture

inc

lude

the

na

me

of th

e m

anuf

actu

rer?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a ha

lf po

int i

f the

y re

port

ed t

hat m

anuf

actu

r-er

s m

ust m

ark

smal

l arm

s w

ith th

e na

me

or ‘i

dent

ity’ o

f the

man

ufac

-tu

rer,

or th

e m

anuf

actu

rer’s

‘tra

dem

ark’

at t

he ti

me

of m

anuf

actu

re.

0.5

4.7

ITI

para

. 8(a

)(S

ubsi

diar

y co

mm

itmen

t):

Doe

s th

e st

ate

requ

ire

that

m

arki

ngs

mad

e at

the

tim

e of

man

ufac

ture

inc

lude

the

co

untr

y of

man

ufac

ture

?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a ha

lf po

int i

f the

y sp

ecifi

cally

rep

orte

d th

ey

ensu

red

wea

pons

wer

e m

arke

d at

the

time

of m

anuf

actu

re w

ith in

for-

mat

ion

incl

udin

g th

e co

untr

y of

man

ufac

ture

or p

lace

of m

anuf

actu

re.

✖ A

lthou

gh in

som

e in

stan

ces

if a

wea

pon

is m

arke

d w

ith t

he n

ame

of t

he m

anuf

actu

rer

this

will

ind

icat

e th

e co

untr

y of

man

ufac

ture

, st

ates

wer

e no

t aw

arde

d th

e ap

plic

able

hal

f poi

nt h

ere

if th

ey r

epor

t-ed

that

wea

pons

mus

t be

mar

ked

with

the

nam

e of

the

man

ufac

ture

r un

less

the

y ex

pres

sly

repo

rt t

hat

the

coun

try

of m

anuf

actu

re m

ust

be i

ndic

ated

. A

s no

ted

by P

eru,

a m

anuf

actu

rer

can

have

fac

tori

es

in m

ore

than

one

cou

ntry

(lic

ense

d pr

oduc

tion)

, an

d so

a m

ark

indi

-ca

ting

the

nam

e of

the

man

ufac

ture

r is

not

suf

ficie

nt t

o in

dica

te t

he

coun

try

of m

anuf

actu

re (a

nd fu

lfil t

he IT

I com

mitm

ent).

0.5

4.8

ITI

para

. 8(a

)(S

ubsi

diar

y co

mm

itmen

t):

Doe

s th

e st

ate

requ

ire

that

m

arki

ngs

mad

e at

the

time

of

man

ufac

ture

inc

lude

a s

eria

l nu

mbe

r?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a ha

lf po

int i

f the

y re

port

ed t

hat m

anuf

actu

r-er

s m

ust m

ark

smal

l arm

s w

ith a

ser

ial n

umbe

r or n

umer

ical

‘cod

e’ a

t th

e tim

e of

man

ufac

ture

.

0.5

Ad

dit

ion

al m

arki

ngs

4.9

ITI

para

. 8(a

)(E

ncou

rage

d pr

actic

e—

Add

i tion

al m

arki

ngs)

: D

oes

the

stat

e re

quir

e th

at

mar

king

s m

ade

at th

e tim

e of

m

anuf

actu

re in

clud

e th

e ye

ar

of m

anuf

actu

re?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a qu

arte

r po

int

if th

ey r

epor

ted

that

the

y re

-qu

ire

that

mar

king

s m

ade

at th

e tim

e of

man

ufac

ture

incl

ude

the

year

of

man

ufac

ture

.

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

also

aw

arde

d a

quar

ter

poin

t if

they

ind

icat

ed t

hat

smal

l ar

ms

man

ufac

ture

d on

the

ir te

rrito

ries

mus

t be

pro

of-m

arke

d (s

ince

pro

of m

arks

indi

cate

the

year

of p

roofi

ng) (

e.g.

Aus

tria

).

0.25

4.10

ITI

para

. 8(a

)(E

ncou

rage

d pr

actic

e—

Add

i tion

al m

arki

ngs)

: D

oes

the

stat

e re

quir

e th

at

mar

king

s m

ade

at t

he t

ime

of m

anuf

actu

re i

nclu

de t

he

wea

pon

typ

e or

mod

el?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a qu

arte

r po

int

if th

ey r

epor

ted

that

the

y re

-qu

ire

that

mar

king

s m

ade

at th

e tim

e of

man

ufac

ture

incl

ude

info

rma-

tion

on th

e w

eapo

ns ty

pe o

r m

odel

.

0.25


4.11

ITI

para

. 8(a

)(E

ncou

rage

d pr

actic

e—

Add

i tion

al m

arki

ngs)

: D

oes

the

stat

e re

quir

e th

at

mar

king

s m

ade

at t

he t

ime

of m

anuf

actu

re i

nclu

de t

he

calib

re?

✔ S

tate

s re

ceiv

ed a

qua

rter

poi

nt i

f th

ey r

epor

ted

that

the

y re

quir

e m

arki

ngs

mad

e at

the

time

of m

anuf

actu

re to

incl

ude

(info

rmat

ion

on)

the

calib

re.

0.25

Mar

kin

g at

imp

ort

4.12

ITI

para

. 8(b

)St

ates

will

: (b)

req

uire

to

the

exte

nt p

os-

sibl

e ap

prop

riat

e si

mpl

e m

arki

ng

on

each

im

port

ed s

mal

l ar

m o

r lig

ht w

eap-

on, p

erm

ittin

g id

entifi

catio

n of

the

cou

n-tr

y of

im

port

and

, w

here

pos

sibl

e, t

he

year

of

impo

rt a

nd e

nabl

ing

the

com

pe-

tent

aut

hori

ties

of t

hat

coun

try

to t

race

th

e sm

all

arm

or

light

wea

pon;

and

re-

quir

e a

uniq

ue m

arki

ng, i

f the

sm

all a

rm

or l

ight

wea

pon

does

not

alr

eady

bea

r su

ch

a m

arki

ng.

The

requ

irem

ents

of

th

is s

ubpa

ragr

aph

need

not

be

appl

ied

to t

empo

rary

im

port

s of

sm

all

arm

s an

d lig

ht w

eapo

ns f

or v

erifi

able

, la

wfu

l pu

r-po

ses,

nor

for

the

per

man

ent

impo

rt o

f m

useu

m a

rtef

acts

.

(App

licab

ility

que

stio

n):

Doe

s th

e st

ate

indi

cate

it d

oes

not

impo

rt

smal

l ar

ms

(i.e.

th

ere

is n

o pr

oces

s fo

r m

ark-

ing

arm

s at

im

port

bec

ause

th

e st

ate

does

no

t im

port

sm

all a

rms)

?

N/A

If a

sta

te in

dica

ted

it (1

) doe

s no

t mar

k ar

ms

at th

e tim

e of

impo

rt;

(2) d

oes

not i

mpo

rt a

rms

and

ther

efor

e th

e pr

ovis

ions

reg

ardi

ng m

ark-

ing

at im

port

wer

e no

t app

licab

le; o

r (3

) doe

s no

t im

port

sm

all a

rms

unle

ss th

ey a

re a

lrea

dy m

arke

d w

ith a

uni

que

mar

king

, que

stio

ns 4

.13

to 4

.16

wer

e co

nsid

ered

‘not

app

licab

le’.

4.13

(P

rim

ary

com

mitm

ent):

Doe

s th

e st

ate

requ

ire

that

sm

all

arm

s be

mar

ked

at t

he t

ime

of (u

pon)

impo

rt?

a) I

f th

e an

swer

is

yes,

a f

ull

poin

t was

aw

arde

d.

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int i

f: (1

) the

y re

port

ed th

at im

port

ed

smal

l ar

ms

are

mar

ked

at t

he t

ime

of i

mpo

rt w

ith t

he c

ount

ry o

f im

-po

rt a

nd/o

r th

e ye

ar o

f im

port

; (2

) th

ey a

nsw

ered

‘ye

s’ t

o qu

estio

n 6.

13 o

f the

rev

ised

UN

IDIR

rep

ortin

g te

mpl

ate

and

incl

uded

info

rma-

tion

on t

he i

mpo

rt m

arki

ngs

appl

ied;

(3)

the

y in

dica

ted

they

hav

e a

mar

king

sys

tem

for

impo

rted

wea

pons

(e.g

. Tha

iland

rep

orte

d it

had

its ‘o

wn

syst

em o

f gu

n m

arki

ng f

or i

mpo

rted

gun

s’);

(4)

they

ind

icat

-ed

impo

rted

arm

s m

ust b

e m

arke

d by

the

impo

rter

(e.g

. Ger

man

y) o

r th

e di

stri

buto

r (e.

g. A

ustr

ia);

(5) t

hey

indi

cate

d th

at im

port

ed w

eapo

ns

mus

t be

mar

ked

by t

he m

anuf

actu

rer

with

impo

rt m

arki

ngs

(e.g

. Co-

lom

bia—

‘impo

rt y

ear’;

Bra

zil—

nam

e of

the

impo

rter

).

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a ha

lf po

int i

f the

y in

dica

ted

that

wea

pons

are

no

t im

port

ed u

nles

s th

ey b

ear

man

ufac

ture

mar

king

s.

✖ S

tate

s re

ceiv

ed z

ero

poin

ts if

the

y m

erel

y re

port

ed t

hat ‘

impo

rted

ar

ms

are

mar

ked’

, as

thi

s w

as c

onsi

dere

d to

o am

bigu

ous

and

coul

d im

ply

that

the

sta

te e

nsur

ed i

mpo

rted

arm

s be

ar m

anuf

actu

re m

ark-

ings

or

that

they

app

ly im

port

mar

king

s to

impo

rted

arm

s.

1


Po

A/I

TI

sour

cePo

A o

r IT

I pr

ovis

ion

Scor

e-sh

eet

ques

tion

Scor

ing

crit

eria

Max

. sc

ore

b) I

f th

e re

port

ind

icat

es t

hat

the

stat

e is

will

ing

to m

ark

smal

l arm

s an

d lig

ht w

eapo

ns a

t man

ufac

ture

bu

t doe

s no

t ha

ve t

he c

apac

ity

to

do s

o (e

.g.

it ha

s no

mar

king

ma-

chin

es),

and

that

it

has

requ

este

d as

sist

ance

w

ith

mar

king

, it

re-

ceiv

ed a

hal

f poi

nt.

✔ S

tate

s th

at i

ndic

ated

the

y la

ck c

apac

ity t

o m

ark

impo

rted

arm

s, a

nd/o

r th

at

they

hav

e re

ques

ted

assi

stan

ce in

this

reg

ard,

wer

e aw

arde

d a

half

poin

t.

✖ S

tate

s re

ceiv

ed z

ero

poin

ts i

f th

ey s

impl

y in

dica

ted

they

req

uire

ass

ista

nce

with

mar

king

gen

eral

ly.

Co

nte

nt o

f mar

kin

g

4.14

ITI

para

. 8(

b)

(Sub

sidi

ary

com

mitm

ent):

Doe

s th

e st

ate

requ

ire

that

mar

king

s m

ade

at t

he t

ime

of i

mpo

rt i

nclu

de t

he

coun

try

of im

port

?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a ha

lf po

int i

f the

y sp

ecifi

cally

rep

orte

d th

at: (

1) th

ey e

n-su

re w

eapo

ns a

re m

arke

d at

the

time

of im

port

with

the

nam

e of

the

coun

try

of

impo

rt; (

2) th

ey e

nsur

e w

eapo

ns a

re m

arke

d at

the

time

of im

port

with

lette

rs o

r in

itial

s in

dica

ting

the

coun

try

of i

mpo

rt;

3) t

hey

ensu

re w

eapo

ns a

re m

arke

d at

th

e tim

e of

im

port

with

the

add

ress

of

the

impo

rter

, an

d th

at t

his

incl

udes

suf

-fic

ient

inf

orm

atio

n to

ind

icat

e th

e co

untr

y of

im

port

(e.

g. t

he U

nite

d St

ates

re-

quir

es th

at th

e ‘c

ity a

nd s

tate

of t

he im

port

er’ b

e m

arke

d. T

his

wou

ld p

rovi

de s

uf-

ficie

nt in

form

atio

n to

iden

tify

the

coun

try

of im

port

).

0.5

4.15

ITI

para

. 8(

b)

(Sub

sidi

ary

com

mitm

ent):

Doe

s th

e st

ate

requ

ire

that

mar

king

s m

ade

at t

he t

ime

of i

mpo

rt i

nclu

de t

he

year

of i

mpo

rt?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a ha

lf po

int i

f the

y sp

ecifi

cally

rep

orte

d th

at th

ey e

nsur

e w

eapo

ns a

re m

arke

d at

the

time

of im

port

with

the

year

of i

mpo

rt.

0.5

4.16

ITI

para

. 8(

b)

(Sub

sidi

ary

com

mitm

ent):

Doe

s th

e st

ate

ensu

re t

hat

if an

im

port

ed

smal

l ar

m d

oes

not

bear

a u

niqu

e m

arki

ng

(i.e.

m

arki

ng

prov

idin

g th

e na

me

of th

e m

anuf

actu

rer,

the

coun

try

of m

anuf

actu

re,

and

the

seri

al

num

ber,

or

an

alte

rnat

ive

uniq

ue u

ser-

frie

ndly

mar

king

with

si

mpl

e ge

omet

ric

sym

bols

in c

om-

bina

tion

with

a n

umer

ic a

nd/o

r al

-ph

anum

eric

cod

e, p

erm

ittin

g re

ady

iden

tifica

tion

by a

ll st

ates

of

the

coun

try o

f man

ufac

ture

), it

requ

ires

a un

ique

mar

king

to b

e ap

plie

d to

th

e im

port

ed a

rm?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a ha

lf po

int i

f the

y sp

ecifi

cally

rep

orte

d th

ey e

nsur

e th

at

unm

arke

d im

port

ed w

eapo

ns a

re m

arke

d at

som

e st

age

afte

r the

y w

ere

impo

rted

.

✖ S

tate

s re

ceiv

ed z

ero

poin

ts i

f th

ey s

impl

y re

port

ed t

hat

‘unm

arke

d w

eapo

ns’

are

dest

roye

d or

that

all

smal

l arm

s in

the

coun

try

mus

t be

mar

ked

(alth

ough

this

in

form

atio

n w

as c

onsi

dere

d su

ffici

ent t

o in

dica

te th

at th

e st

ate

ensu

res

that

arm

s he

ld b

y th

e ar

med

forc

es a

re m

arke

d).

0.5

Mar

kin

g o

f arm

s tr

ansf

erre

d fr

om

sta

te s

tock

pile

s to

civ

ilian

use

4.17

ITI

para

. 8(

c)

Stat

es w

ill: (

c) E

nsur

e, a

t the

tim

e of

tran

sfer

from

gov

ern-

men

t st

ocks

to

perm

anen

t ci

vilia

n us

e of

a s

mal

l ar

m

(App

licab

ility

que

stio

n):

Doe

s th

e st

ate

indi

cate

tha

t ar

ms

from

sta

te

stoc

kpile

s ar

e no

t tra

nsfe

rred

to c

i-vi

lian

use?

N/A

If a

sta

te e

xplic

itly

indi

cate

d it

does

not

tran

sfer

arm

s fr

om s

tate

sto

ckpi

les

to

civi

lians

, or

tha

t ar

ms

are

neve

r tr

ansf

erre

d fr

om g

over

nmen

t st

ockp

iles

to c

ivil-

ian

use,

or

that

suc

h tr

ansf

ers

are

proh

ibite

d, t

his

ques

tion

was

con

side

red

‘not

ap

plic

able

’ (e.

g. C

anad

a).


or l

ight

wea

pon

that

is

not

mar

ked

in

a m

anne

r th

at

allo

ws

trac

ing,

th

e ap

pro-

pria

te

mar

king

pe

rmitt

ing

iden

tifica

tion

of t

he c

oun-

try

from

who

se s

tock

s th

e tr

ansf

er o

f th

e sm

all

arm

or

light

wea

pon

is m

ade.

4.18

&

4.

19

D

oes

the

stat

e en

sure

tha

t sm

all

arm

s tr

ansf

erre

d fr

om s

tate

sto

ck-

pile

s to

civ

ilian

use

are

mar

ked?

a) If

the

answ

er is

yes

, a h

alf p

oint

w

as a

war

ded.

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int

if th

ey i

ndic

ated

tha

t th

ey m

ark

smal

l ar

ms

tran

sfer

red

from

gov

ernm

ent

stoc

kpile

s to

per

man

ent

civi

lian

use

(reg

ardl

ess

of

whe

ther

the

y sp

ecifi

ed t

hat

the

mar

king

s m

ust

indi

cate

the

cou

ntry

tra

nsfe

rrin

g th

e st

ocks

),21 o

r if

they

rep

lied

‘yes

’ to

que

stio

n 18

.2 o

f th

e re

vise

d U

NO

DA

re-

port

ing

tem

plat

e.

1

b) I

f a

stat

e re

port

s it

is w

illin

g to

m

ark

smal

l arm

s an

d lig

ht w

eapo

ns

tran

sfer

red

from

st

ate

stoc

kpile

s bu

t doe

s no

t ha

ve t

he c

apac

ity

to

do s

o (e

.g.

it ha

s no

mar

king

ma-

chin

es)

and

that

it

has

requ

este

d as

sist

ance

with

mar

king

, it r

ecei

ved

a qu

arte

r po

int.

✔ If

a s

tate

indi

cate

d it

is n

ot a

ble

to m

ark

smal

l arm

s tra

nsfe

rred

from

sta

te s

tock

-pi

les,

or

that

it d

oes

not h

ave

the

capa

city

to d

o so

, and

that

it h

as r

eque

sted

as-

sist

ance

with

mar

king

, or i

t inc

lude

d a

requ

est i

n th

is re

gard

in it

s na

tiona

l rep

ort,

a ha

lf po

int w

as a

war

ded.

Mar

kin

g o

f sta

te-h

eld

sm

all a

rms

4.20

ITI

para

. 8(

d)

Stat

es w

ill:

(d) T

ake

all

nec-

essa

ry m

easu

res

to e

nsur

e th

at a

ll sm

all a

rms

and

light

w

eapo

ns i

n th

e po

sses

sion

of

gov

ernm

ent

arm

ed a

nd

secu

rity

forc

es fo

r the

ir o

wn

use

at t

he t

ime

of a

dopt

ion

of t

his

inst

rum

ent

are

duly

m

arke

d.

Doe

s th

e st

ate

ensu

re t

hat

smal

l ar

ms

in th

e po

sses

sion

of t

he a

rmed

fo

rces

are

mar

ked?

a) I

f th

e an

swer

is

yes,

a f

ull

poin

t w

as a

war

ded.

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int i

f the

y re

port

ed th

at: (

1) w

eapo

ns h

eld

by ‘t

he

stat

e’,

‘the

arm

ed f

orce

s’,

the

arm

y, o

r ‘s

tate

-ow

ned’

fire

arm

s (e

.g.

Dem

ocra

tic

Rep

ublic

of

the

Con

go)

are

mar

ked

or ‘

duly

mar

ked’

(e.

g. I

srae

l an

d Ja

pan)

; or

(2

) ‘a

ll’ s

tate

wea

pons

are

mar

ked;

or

(3)

‘mili

tary

’ w

eapo

ns a

re m

arke

d (e

.g.

Arg

entin

a). S

tate

s w

ere

also

aw

arde

d a

full

poin

t if t

hey

indi

cate

d th

at ‘a

ll w

eap-

ons

proc

ured

’ ar

e pr

oper

ly m

arke

d (th

e in

fere

nce

bein

g th

at t

he w

eapo

ns a

re

proc

ured

for

the

sta

te).

Whe

re a

sta

te s

aid

all

gove

rnm

ent-

held

wea

pons

are

m

arke

d, o

r th

at g

over

nmen

t an

d se

curi

ty f

orce

s’ w

eapo

ns a

re m

arke

d, b

ut d

id

not s

peci

fy w

heth

er th

ese

arm

s ar

e he

ld b

y th

e ar

med

forc

es o

r pol

ice,

they

wer

e co

nsid

ered

to

incl

ude

wea

pons

hel

d by

the

arm

y an

d po

lice

or g

over

nmen

-ta

l ag

enci

es (

e.g.

For

mer

Yug

osla

v R

epub

lic o

f M

aced

onia

and

Gua

tem

ala)

; if

stat

es re

port

ed th

ey re

cord

the

mar

king

s on

arm

ed s

ervi

ces

wea

pons

(e.g

. Ken

ya),

this

was

con

side

red

suffi

cien

t to

ind

icat

e th

at s

tate

-hel

d w

eapo

ns a

re m

arke

d.

Whe

re s

tate

s re

port

ed th

at a

ll w

eapo

ns in

the

coun

try

mus

t be

mar

ked

this

was

co

nsid

ered

suf

ficie

nt t

o in

dica

te t

hat

arm

ed f

orce

s’ w

eapo

ns a

re m

arke

d. T

he

corr

espo

ndin

g fu

ll po

int

was

not

, ho

wev

er,

awar

ded

for

the

mar

king

of

polic

e w

eapo

ns (s

ee b

elow

), as

it w

as n

ot c

onsi

dere

d ‘fa

ir’ t

o aw

ard

poin

ts to

bot

h th

e ar

med

forc

es a

nd p

olic

e ba

sed

on s

uch

vagu

e in

form

atio

n

✖ I

f, fo

r ex

ampl

e, a

sta

te r

epor

ted

that

all

unm

arke

d w

eapo

ns in

the

coun

try

are

cons

ider

ed il

lega

l, or

that

hol

ders

of u

nmar

ked

wea

pons

are

sub

ject

to c

rim

inal

sa

nctio

ns, t

his

info

rmat

ion

was

not

con

side

red

suffi

cien

t to

indi

cate

that

all

stat

e-he

ld w

eapo

ns m

ust b

e m

arke

d (e

.g. F

iji).

1


Po

A/I

TI

sour

cePo

A o

r IT

I pr

ovis

ion

Scor

e-sh

eet

ques

tion

Scor

ing

crit

eria

Max

. sc

ore

b) If

a s

tate

repo

rts

it is

will

ing

to m

ark

smal

l ar

ms

and

light

w

eapo

ns h

eld

by t

he a

rmed

fo

rces

but

doe

s no

t ha

ve t

he

capa

city

to

do s

o (e

.g.

it ha

s no

mar

king

mac

hine

s),

and

that

it

has

requ

este

d as

sist

-an

ce

with

m

arki

ng,

a ha

lf po

int w

as a

war

ded.

✔ If

a s

tate

ind

icat

ed i

t is

not

abl

e to

mar

k sm

all

arm

s he

ld b

y th

e ar

med

forc

es, o

r do

es n

ot h

ave

the

capa

city

to d

o so

, and

that

it h

as

requ

este

d as

sist

ance

with

mar

king

, or

inc

lude

d a

requ

est

in t

his

re-

gard

in it

s na

tiona

l rep

ort,

it w

as a

war

ded

a ha

lf po

int.

4.21

D

oes

the

stat

e re

quir

e or

en-

sure

tha

t sm

all

arm

s he

ld b

y or

in

the

poss

essi

on o

f th

e po

lice

are

mar

ked?

a) I

f th

e an

swer

is

yes,

a f

ull

poin

t was

aw

arde

d.

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int i

f the

y re

port

ed th

at w

eapo

ns h

eld

by:

‘the

stat

e’,

‘the

polic

e’,

or ‘

stat

e se

curi

ty f

orce

s’, a

re m

arke

d, o

r th

at ‘a

ll’ s

tate

wea

pons

are

mar

ked.

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

also

aw

arde

d a

poin

t if t

hey

indi

cate

d th

at ‘a

ll w

eapo

ns

proc

ured

’ are

pro

perl

y m

arke

d (th

e in

fere

nce

bein

g th

at th

e w

eapo

ns

are

proc

ured

for

the

sta

te),

or i

f th

ey r

epor

ted

that

all

‘gov

ernm

ent’

firea

rms

are

mar

ked

(e.g

. Jap

an).

Whe

re a

sta

te u

sed

the

revi

sed

PoA

rep

ortin

g te

mpl

ate

and

repl

ied

‘yes

’ to

ques

tion

18: ‘

Doe

s yo

ur c

ount

ry ta

ke m

easu

res

to e

nsur

e th

at

all

[sm

all

arm

s an

d lig

ht w

eapo

ns]

in t

he p

osse

ssio

n of

gov

ernm

ent

arm

ed a

nd s

ecur

ity

forc

es f

or t

heir

own

use

are

duly

mar

ked

?’ (e

m-

phas

is a

dded

), it

was

aw

arde

d a

full

poin

t for

bot

h ar

med

forc

es a

nd

polic

e.

1

b) If

a s

tate

indi

cate

s th

at it

is

will

ing

to m

ark

smal

l arm

s hel

d by

the

pol

ice

but

does

not

ha

ve th

e ca

paci

ty to

do

so (e

.g.

it ha

s no

mar

king

mac

hine

s),

and

that

it

has

requ

este

d as

-si

stan

ce w

ith m

arki

ng,

it re

-ce

ived

a h

alf p

oint

.

✔ If

a s

tate

indi

cate

d it

is n

ot a

ble

to m

ark

smal

l arm

s he

ld b

y th

e po

-lic

e, o

r doe

s no

t hav

e th

e ca

paci

ty to

do

so, a

nd th

at it

has

req

uest

ed

assi

stan

ce w

ith m

arki

ng, o

r in

clud

ed a

req

uest

in th

is r

egar

d in

its

na-

tiona

l rep

ort,

it w

as a

war

ded

a ha

lf po

int.

Mea

sure

s to

pre

ven

t th

e re

mo

val o

r al

tera

tio

n o

f mar

kin

gs

(App

licab

ility

que

stio

n): D

oes

the

stat

e in

dica

te t

hat i

t doe

s no

t man

ufac

ture

sm

all a

rms?

N/A

Whe

re a

sta

te e

xpre

ssly

indi

cate

d it

does

not

man

ufac

ture

sm

all

arm

s, th

is q

uest

ion

was

con

side

red

‘not

app

licab

le’.

4.22

ITI

para

. 8(e

)St

ates

will

: (e)

Enc

oura

ge m

anuf

actu

rers

of

smal

l arm

s an

d lig

ht w

eapo

ns to

dev

elop

m

easu

res

agai

nst t

he re

mov

al o

r alte

ratio

n of

mar

king

s.

(Enc

oura

ged

prac

tice)

: D

oes

the

stat

e en

cour

age

man

ufac

-tu

rers

to

deve

lop

mea

sure

s ag

ains

t th

e re

mov

al o

r al

tera

-tio

n of

mar

king

s?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a ha

lf po

int

if: (1

) th

ey u

sed

the

UN

OD

A r

e-po

rtin

g te

mpl

ate

and

repl

ied

‘yes

’ to

ques

tion

19: ‘

Doe

s yo

ur c

ount

ry

enco

urag

e m

anuf

actu

rers

of

[sm

all a

rms

and

light

wea

pons

] to

dev

el

op m

easu

res

agai

nst

the

rem

oval

or

alte

ratio

n of

mar

king

s?’

(rega

rd-

less

of

whe

ther

the

y pr

ovid

ed d

etai

ls o

f th

e m

easu

res

intr

oduc

ed);

0.5


(2)

they

pro

vide

d de

tails

of

mar

king

met

hods

or

tech

nolo

gy d

evel

-op

ed to

pre

vent

tam

peri

ng (e

.g. J

apan

rep

orte

d th

at it

use

s la

ser

tech

-no

logy

aga

inst

tam

peri

ng w

ith m

arki

ngs;

the

Uni

ted

Stat

es r

epor

ted

that

man

ufac

ture

rs a

re re

quir

ed b

y la

w to

ens

ure

that

all

mar

king

s ar

e m

ade

to a

spe

cific

sta

ndar

d he

ight

and

dep

th s

o as

to b

e re

sist

ant t

o al

tera

tion,

obl

itera

tion,

or

sani

tizat

ion;

and

tha

t the

US

Bur

eau

of A

l-co

hol,

Toba

cco,

Fir

earm

s an

d Ex

plos

ives

(A

TF)

coop

erat

es w

ith t

he

firea

rms

indu

stry

to

upda

te a

nd e

xpan

d th

ese

mea

sure

s as

app

ropr

i-at

e, in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

ITI a

nd a

s ne

w te

chno

logy

and

met

hods

be

com

e av

aila

ble)

.

✖ S

tate

s re

ceiv

ed z

ero

poin

ts i

f th

ey i

ndic

ated

in

thei

r re

spon

se t

o th

e U

NO

DA

que

stio

n th

at t

hey

have

cri

min

aliz

ed t

he r

emov

al o

r al

-te

ratio

n of

mar

king

s. W

hile

cri

min

aliz

atio

n m

ight

det

er o

r pre

vent

the

rem

oval

of m

arki

ngs,

it i

s no

t com

men

sura

te w

ith e

ncou

ragi

ng m

an-

ufac

ture

rs t

o de

velo

p m

easu

res

agai

nst

the

rem

oval

of

mar

king

s, a

s re

quir

ed u

nder

par

agra

ph 8

(e) o

f the

ITI.

Mar

kin

g an

d r

eco

rdin

g, o

r d

estr

uct

ion

, of i

llic

it w

eap

on

s

4.23

(App

licab

ility

que

stio

n): D

oes

the

stat

e in

dica

te t

hat

it ha

s no

t/ne

ver

foun

d ill

icit

arm

s on

its

terr

itory

?

N/A

If a

sta

te re

port

ed it

has

not

foun

d ill

icit

smal

l arm

s on

its

terr

itory

, th

is q

uest

ion

was

con

side

red

‘not

app

licab

le’.

4.24

ITI

para

. 9;

PoA

II.1

6

Doe

s th

e st

ate

ensu

re

that

ill

icit

smal

l ar

ms

foun

d on

its

te

rrito

ry

(or

smal

l ar

ms

that

are

con

fisca

ted,

sei

zed,

or

co

llect

ed)

are

uniq

uely

m

arke

d an

d re

cord

ed (o

r re

g-is

tere

d), o

r de

stro

yed

?

✔ A

sta

te w

as a

war

ded

a fu

ll po

int i

f it i

ndic

ated

that

illic

it sm

all a

rms

foun

d on

its

terr

itory

are

(1) m

arke

d an

d re

cord

ed; (

2) d

estr

oyed

; or (

3)

mar

ked

and

reco

rded

and

/or

dest

roye

d; o

r (4

) pr

ovid

ed i

nfor

mat

ion

abou

t wea

pons

sei

zed

or c

onfis

cate

d an

d de

stro

yed.

✔ A

sta

te w

as a

war

ded

a ha

lf po

int i

f it i

ndic

ated

that

illic

it sm

all a

rms

foun

d on

its

terr

itory

are

mar

ked

or r

ecor

ded.

✖ S

tate

s w

ere

not

awar

ded

a po

int

for

dest

ruct

ion

if th

ey i

ndic

ated

th

e la

tter

was

pen

ding

and

had

not

yet

occ

urre

d (e

.g. B

enin

, Gui

nea)

.

1

4.25

ITI p

ara.

9Pe

ndin

g su

ch m

arki

ng,

and

reco

rdin

g in

ac

cord

ance

with

sec

tion

IV o

f thi

s in

stru

-m

ent,

or d

estr

uctio

n, t

hese

sm

all

arm

s an

d lig

ht w

eapo

ns w

ill b

e se

cure

ly s

tore

d

Doe

s th

e st

ate

ensu

re

that

ill

icit

smal

l arm

s fo

und

on it

s te

rrito

ry a

re s

ecur

ely

stor

ed

prio

r to

mar

king

and

rec

ord-

ing,

or

dest

ruct

ion?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int i

f the

y ga

ve in

form

atio

n in

dica

ting

that

sei

zed,

col

lect

ed,

and

confi

scat

ed a

rms

are

stor

ed p

endi

ng f

ur-

ther

act

ion

(des

truc

tion

or d

ispo

sal),

and

that

incl

uded

det

ails

on

who

st

ores

the

wea

pons

(e.g

. pol

ice,

mili

tary

, or ‘

cour

ts’ (

e.g.

Ben

in),

or o

n ho

w t

he w

eapo

ns a

re s

tore

d (e

.g.,

in F

ranc

e, a

rms

seiz

ed a

s pa

rt o

f ju

dici

al p

roce

dure

s ar

e se

aled

as

evid

ence

and

kep

t in

the

cust

ody

of

the

cour

t); i

f th

ey i

ndic

ated

con

fisca

ted

arm

s ar

e ‘s

uper

vise

d’ (

e.g.

K

enya

); or

if

in r

espo

nse

to q

uest

ion

13.2

of

the

UN

OD

A r

epor

ting

tem

plat

e: ‘W

hat a

ctio

n w

as ta

ken

with

res

pect

to th

e [s

mal

l arm

s an

d lig

ht w

eapo

ns] f

ound

, sei

ze[d

] or

confi

scat

ed?’

they

che

cked

the

box

labe

lled

‘Sto

re s

ecur

ely

pend

ing

furt

her

actio

n’.

1


Po

A/I

TI

sour

cePo

A o

r IT

I pr

ovis

ion

Scor

e-sh

eet

ques

tion

Scor

ing

crit

eria

Max

. sc

ore

Info

rmat

ion

exc

han

ge

4.26

ITI p

ara.

31

(b),

PoA

III

.12

Subm

it in

form

atio

n on

nat

iona

l mar

king

pr

acti

ces

to U

NO

DA

(ITI p

ara.

31(

b)) S

tate

s w

ill, a

s so

on a

s po

s-si

ble

afte

r the

ado

ptio

n of

this

inst

rum

ent,

prov

ide

the

Secr

etar

y-G

ener

al,

thro

ugh

the

Dep

artm

ent f

or D

isar

mam

ent A

ffai

rs

of t

he S

ecre

tari

at,

with

the

fol

low

ing

in-

form

atio

n, u

pdat

ing

it w

hen

nece

ssar

y:

[…]

(b)

Nat

iona

l m

arki

ng p

ract

ices

rel

at-

ed t

o m

arki

ngs

used

to

indi

cate

cou

ntry

of

man

ufac

ture

and

/or

coun

try

of im

port

as

app

licab

le.

Exch

ange

info

rmat

ion

on n

atio

nal m

ark-

ing

syst

ems

(PoA

III.

12)

Stat

es a

re e

ncou

rage

d to

ex-

chan

ge in

form

atio

n on

a v

olun

tary

bas

is

on th

eir n

atio

nal m

arki

ng s

yste

ms o

n sm

all

arm

s an

d lig

ht w

eapo

ns.

Has

the

sta

te s

ubm

itted

info

r-m

atio

n to

UN

OD

A o

n its

na-

tiona

l m

arki

ng p

ract

ices

re-

late

d to

mar

king

s us

ed to

indi

-ca

te c

ount

ry o

f m

anuf

ac tu

re

and/

or c

ount

ry o

f im

port

, as

ap

plic

able

? O

r ha

s th

e st

ate

shar

ed in

form

atio

n sp

ecifi

cally

on

its n

atio

nal m

arki

ng s

yste

m

with

oth

er c

ount

ries

or o

rgan

i-za

tions

?

✔ S

tate

s th

at r

epor

ted

they

hav

e su

bmitt

ed i

nfor

mat

ion

to U

NO

DA

on

the

mar

king

s th

ey u

se t

o id

entif

y th

e co

untr

y of

man

ufac

ture

, or

on

how

the

y in

dica

te t

he c

ount

ry o

f m

anuf

actu

re (

e.g.

, R

oman

ia

stam

ps th

e le

tters

‘RO

’ on

wea

pons

to in

dica

te R

oman

ia is

the

coun

-tr

y of

man

ufac

ture

), w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int.

✔ S

tate

s th

at r

epor

ted

they

sha

re i

nfor

mat

ion

spec

ifica

lly o

n th

eir

natio

nal

mar

king

sys

tem

s w

ith o

ther

cou

ntri

es o

r or

gani

zatio

ns a

lso

rece

ived

a fu

ll po

int.

1

Su

bto

tal o

f sec

tio

n 4

14.2

5

5R

eco

rd-k

eep

ing

R

eco

rds

of m

anu

fact

ure

/man

ufa

ctu

rin

g re

cord

s

5.1

PoA

II.9

, IT

I par

a.

12(a

)

(PoA

II.9

) To

ens

ure

that

com

preh

ensi

ve

and

accu

rate

rec

ords

are

kep

t for

as

long

as

pos

sibl

e on

the

man

ufac

ture

, hol

ding

an

d tr

ansf

er o

f sm

all a

rms

and

light

wea

p-on

s und

er th

eir j

uris

dict

ion.

The

se re

cord

s sh

ould

be

orga

nize

d an

d m

aint

aine

d in

su

ch a

way

as

to e

nsur

e th

at a

ccur

ate

in-

form

atio

n ca

n be

pro

mpt

ly r

etri

eved

and

co

llate

d by

com

pete

nt n

atio

nal a

utho

ritie

s.

(ITI

para

. 12

(a))

From

the

tim

e of

the

ad

optio

n of

thi

s in

stru

men

t, re

cord

s pe

r-ta

inin

g to

mar

ked

smal

l ar

ms

and

light

w

eapo

ns w

ill,

to t

he e

xten

t po

ssib

le,

be

kept

ind

efini

tely

, bu

t in

any

cas

e a

Stat

e w

ill e

nsur

e th

e m

aint

enan

ce o

f:

(a)

Man

ufac

turi

ng r

ecor

ds f

or a

t le

ast

30

year

s.

(App

licab

ility

que

stio

n): D

oes

the

stat

e m

anuf

actu

re s

mal

l ar

ms

or a

re s

mal

l ar

ms

man

-uf

actu

red

in th

e st

ate?

N/A

As

note

d ab

ove,

if a

sta

te re

port

ed it

doe

s no

t man

ufac

ture

sm

all

arm

s (o

r tha

t onl

y cr

aft m

anuf

actu

re e

xist

s on

its

terr

itory

), sc

ore-

shee

t qu

estio

ns 5

.2 a

nd 5

.3 w

ere

cons

ider

ed ‘n

ot a

pplic

able

’. If

a st

ate

does

no

t m

entio

n w

heth

er i

t m

anuf

actu

res

such

wea

pons

, qu

estio

ns 5

.2

and

5.3

wer

e co

nsid

ered

‘app

licab

le’.


5.2

PoA

II.9

, IT

I par

a.

12(a

)

Doe

s th

e st

ate

ensu

re

that

[c

ompr

ehen

sive

and

acc

urat

e]

reco

rds o

f man

ufac

ture

d sm

all

arm

s un

der

thei

r ju

risd

ictio

n ar

e ke

pt?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a ha

lf po

int i

f the

y re

port

ed th

at: (

1) re

cord

s of

m

anuf

actu

re a

re k

ept;

or (2

) the

y ke

ep re

cord

s of

man

ufac

ture

d sm

all

arm

s; o

r (3

) m

anuf

actu

rers

and

lice

nce

hold

ers

are

requ

ired

to

keep

re

cord

s of

thei

r tr

ansa

ctio

ns.

0.5

Du

rati

on

5.3

ITI

para

. 12(

a)D

oes

the

stat

e m

entio

n fo

r ho

w l

ong

reco

rds

of m

anu-

fact

ured

sm

all

arm

s m

ust

be

kept

?

a) S

tate

s ind

icat

ing

that

reco

rds

of m

anuf

actu

red

smal

l ar

ms

mus

t be

kep

t in

defi

nite

ly r

e-ce

ived

a h

alf p

oint

.

✔ If

a s

tate

ind

icat

ed t

hat

man

ufac

ture

rs m

ust

keep

rec

ords

or

that

re

cord

s of

man

ufac

ture

d sm

all

arm

s m

ust

be k

ept

‘inde

finite

ly’

(or

‘per

man

ently

’), it

was

aw

arde

d a

half

poin

t.

✖ S

tate

s th

at s

impl

y re

port

ed th

ey k

eep

reco

rds

for

‘as

long

as

nece

s-sa

ry’ (

e.g.

Phi

lippi

nes)

did

not

qua

lify

to re

ceiv

e th

e po

int a

lloca

ted

for

keep

ing

reco

rds

‘inde

finite

ly’.

✖ N

o po

ints

wer

e aw

arde

d to

sta

tes

that

rep

orte

d m

anuf

actu

rers

m

ust k

eep

reco

rds

for 1

0 ye

ars

and

then

tran

sfer

them

to th

e re

leva

nt

auth

oriti

es, b

ut d

id n

ot in

dica

te fo

r ho

w lo

ng th

e au

thor

ities

wer

e re

-qu

ired

to k

eep

the

reco

rds

(e.g

. Sw

itzer

land

).

✖ S

imila

rly,

sta

tes

that

ind

icat

ed t

heir

reco

rds

wer

e ‘c

ompu

teri

zed’

or

sto

red

‘ele

ctro

nica

lly’ w

ere

only

aw

arde

d a

half

poin

t if t

hey

con-

firm

ed th

at r

ecor

ds s

tore

d in

suc

h w

ays

wer

e ke

pt in

defin

itely

or

per-

man

ently

.

0.5

b) S

tate

s re

port

ing

that

reco

rds

of m

anuf

actu

red

smal

l ar

ms

mus

t be

kep

t fo

r at

lea

st 3

0 ye

ars

rece

ived

a h

alf p

oint

.

✔ If

a s

tate

ind

icat

ed t

hat

man

ufac

ture

rs m

ust

keep

rec

ords

or

that

re

cord

s of

man

ufac

ture

d sm

all a

rms

mus

t be

kept

for a

t lea

st 3

0 ye

ars,

it

rece

ived

a h

alf p

oint

.

✖ I

f a s

tate

indi

cate

d th

at r

ecor

ds o

f man

ufac

ture

mus

t be

kept

for

a pe

riod

less

than

30

year

s, it

was

not

aw

arde

d a

half

poin

t, bu

t the

in-

form

atio

n w

as r

ecor

ded.

Rec

ord

s o

f tra

nsf

ers

5.4

PoA

II.9

To e

nsur

e th

at c

ompr

ehen

sive

and

accu

rate

re

cord

s ar

e ke

pt f

or a

s lo

ng a

s po

ssib

le

on th

e m

anuf

actu

re, h

oldi

ng a

nd t

rans

fer

of s

mal

l ar

ms

and

light

wea

pons

und

er

thei

r ju

risd

ictio

n. T

hese

rec

ords

sho

uld

be o

rgan

ized

and

mai

ntai

ned

in s

uch

a w

ay a

s to

ens

ure

that

acc

urat

e in

form

a-tio

n ca

n be

pro

mpt

ly r

etri

eved

and

col

-la

ted

by c

ompe

tent

nat

iona

l aut

hori

ties.

Doe

s th

e st

ate

ensu

re

that

[c

ompr

ehen

sive

and

acc

urat

e]

reco

rds

of s

mal

l ar

ms

tran

s-fe

rs (

e.g.

im

port

s or

exp

orts

, or

tra

nsfe

rs f

rom

sta

te s

tock

-pi

les

to

perm

anen

t ci

vilia

n us

e, o

r tr

ansf

ers

from

dea

lers

to

civ

ilian

s) a

re k

ept?

✔ P

oint

s w

ere

awar

ded

to s

tate

s th

at p

rovi

ded

info

rmat

ion

on,

inte

r al

ia:

reco

rds

they

kee

p of

exp

ort,

impo

rt,

or t

rans

it lic

ence

s, o

r au

-th

oriz

atio

ns i

ssue

d; r

equi

rem

ents

tha

t de

aler

s (a

nd m

anuf

actu

rers

) m

ust

keep

rec

ords

of

sale

s an

d ot

her

tran

sact

ions

. In

form

atio

n on

w

ho k

eeps

the

reco

rds,

and

on

wha

t rec

ords

are

kep

t was

als

o no

ted.

0.5

▼


Po

A/I

TI

sour

cePo

A o

r IT

I pr

ovis

ion

Scor

e-sh

eet

ques

tion

Scor

ing

crit

eria

Max

. sc

ore

Du

rati

on

5.5

PoA

II.9

, IT

I par

a.

12(b

)

From

the

tim

e of

the

ado

ptio

n of

thi

s in

-st

rum

ent,

reco

rds

pert

aini

ng t

o m

arke

d sm

all a

rms

and

light

wea

pons

will

, to

the

exte

nt p

ossi

ble,

be

kept

ind

efini

tely

, bu

t in

any

cas

e a

Stat

e w

ill e

nsur

e th

e m

ain-

tena

nce

of:

[…] (

b) A

ll ot

her r

ecor

ds, i

nclu

ding

reco

rds

of im

port

and

exp

ort,

for a

t lea

st 2

0 ye

ars.

Doe

s th

e st

ate

men

tion

for

how

lo

ng

reco

rds

of

smal

l ar

ms

tran

sfer

s m

ust b

e ke

pt?

a) I

f th

e st

ate

repo

rts

that

re-

cord

s of

sm

all

arm

s tr

ansf

ers

mus

t be

kept

‘ind

efini

tely

’, it

rece

ived

a h

alf p

oint

.

✔ If

a s

tate

indi

cate

d th

at im

port

ers

and

expo

rter

s m

ust k

eep

reco

rds

or t

hat

reco

rds

of s

mal

l ar

ms

tran

sfer

s m

ust

be k

ept

‘inde

finite

ly’

(or

‘per

man

ently

’), it

rec

eive

d a

half

poin

t.

✖ I

f a s

tate

rep

orte

d th

at im

port

ers

and

expo

rter

s m

ust k

eep

reco

rds

for

a ce

rtai

n pe

riod

of t

ime

and

then

han

d th

em o

ver

to t

he r

elev

ant

auth

oriti

es,

but

did

not

indi

cate

for

how

lon

g th

e au

thor

ities

are

re-

quir

ed t

o ke

ep t

he r

ecor

ds,

no p

oint

was

aw

arde

d. S

imila

rly,

sta

tes

that

ind

icat

ed t

heir

reco

rds

are

‘com

pute

rize

d’ o

r st

ored

‘el

ectr

oni-

cally

’ rec

eive

d ze

ro p

oint

s, u

nles

s th

ey c

onfir

med

that

reco

rds

stor

ed

in s

uch

way

s ar

e ke

pt in

defin

itely

or

perm

anen

tly.

0.5

b) I

f th

e st

ate

indi

cate

s th

at

reco

rds

of s

mal

l ar

ms

tran

s-fe

rs m

ust

be k

ept

for

at l

east

20

yea

rs,

it re

ceiv

ed a

hal

f po

int.

✔ If

a s

tate

indi

cate

d th

at im

port

ers

and

expo

rter

s m

ust k

eep

reco

rds

or t

hat

reco

rds

of s

mal

l ar

ms

tran

sfer

s m

ust

be k

ept

for

at l

east

20

year

s, it

rec

eive

d a

half

poin

t.

✖ If

a s

tate

indi

cate

d th

at re

cord

s of

tran

sfer

s m

ust b

e ke

pt fo

r a p

erio

d le

ss t

han

20 y

ears

, it

was

not

aw

arde

d a

half

poin

t, bu

t th

e in

form

a-tio

n w

as r

ecor

ded.

Rec

ord

s o

f ho

ldin

gs o

r G

ENER

AL

5.6

PoA

II.9

To e

nsur

e th

at c

ompr

ehen

sive

and

acc

u-ra

te r

ecor

ds a

re k

ept

for

as l

ong

as p

os-

sibl

e on

the

man

ufac

ture

, ho

ldin

g an

d tr

ansf

er o

f sm

all a

rms

and

light

wea

pons

un

der

thei

r ju

risd

ictio

n. T

hese

rec

ords

sh

ould

be

orga

nize

d an

d m

aint

aine

d in

su

ch a

way

as

to e

nsur

e th

at a

ccur

ate

in-

form

atio

n ca

n be

pro

mpt

ly r

etri

eved

and

co

llate

d by

com

pete

nt n

atio

nal a

utho

ritie

s.

Doe

s th

e st

ate

ensu

re

that

[c

ompr

ehen

sive

an

d ac

cu-

rate

] re

cord

s of

sm

all

arm

s ho

ldin

gs

(e.g

. sm

all

arm

s he

ld

by

arm

ed

forc

es)

are

kept

?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a ha

lf po

int

if th

ey i

ndic

ated

tha

t re

cord

s of

st

ate

hold

ings

are

kep

t (e

.g.

inve

ntor

ies

of a

rmed

for

ces

wea

pons

), an

d/or

if th

ey in

dica

ted

that

rec

ords

of c

ivili

an h

oldi

ngs

are

kept

(e.g

. a

regi

ster

of

licen

sed

indi

vidu

als)

. In

form

atio

n on

who

kee

ps t

he

reco

rds,

and

on

wha

t rec

ords

are

kep

t was

als

o no

ted.

A h

alf p

oint

was

als

o aw

arde

d in

situ

atio

ns w

here

the

sta

te d

oes

not

spec

ify

whe

ther

the

reco

rds

to b

e ke

pt r

elat

e to

‘man

ufac

ture

’, ‘tr

ans

fer’,

or ‘

hold

ings

’, bu

t sim

ply

indi

cate

s th

at it

kee

ps re

cord

s of

‘mar

ked

smal

l arm

s’ g

ener

ally

.

0.5

Du

rati

on

5.7

PoA

II.9

, IT

I par

a.

12(b

)

From

the

tim

e of

the

ado

ptio

n of

thi

s in

-st

rum

ent,

reco

rds

pert

aini

ng t

o m

arke

d sm

all a

rms

and

light

wea

pons

will

, to

the

exte

nt p

ossi

ble,

be

kept

ind

efini

tely

, bu

t in

any

cas

e a

Stat

e w

ill e

nsur

e th

e m

ain-

tena

nce

of:

[…]

(b)

All

othe

r re

cord

s,

incl

udin

g re

cord

s of

impo

rt a

nd e

xpor

t, fo

r at

leas

t 20

yea

rs.

Doe

s th

e st

ate

men

tion

for

how

lo

ng

reco

rds

of

smal

l ar

ms

hold

ings

mus

t be

kept

?

a) I

f th

e st

ate

indi

cate

s th

at

reco

rds

of s

mal

l ar

ms

hold

-in

gs m

ust b

e ke

pt ‘i

ndefi

nite

-ly

’, it

rece

ived

a h

alf p

oint

.

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

cons

ider

ed t

o ke

ep r

ecor

ds o

f ho

ldin

gs ‘

inde

finite

ly’

and

awar

ded

a ha

lf po

int i

f the

y in

dica

ted

that

rec

ords

(e.g

. a r

egis

ter

of c

ivili

an-h

eld

wea

pons

and

/or

an in

vent

ory

of s

tate

-hel

d w

eapo

ns)

are

kept

‘ind

efini

tely

’ or

‘per

man

ently

’.

✖ S

tate

s w

ere

not c

onsi

dere

d to

kee

p re

cord

s of

hol

ding

s ‘in

defin

itely

’ if

they

rep

orte

d th

ey k

eep

them

‘for

as

long

as

poss

ible

’ (e.

g. M

exic

o,

Para

guay

); fo

r ‘a

s lo

ng a

s ne

cess

ary’

(e.

g. P

hilip

pine

s); f

or ‘

as l

ong

as

need

ed’;

for

‘as

long

as

the

law

req

uire

s th

em’

(e.g

. Ja

pan)

; or

the

re

was

‘no

time

limit’

(e.g

. Aus

tria

, Ice

land

, Tha

iland

); or

‘the

info

rmat

ion

0.5


in th

e re

cord

s do

es n

ot e

xpir

e’ (e

.g. D

omin

ican

Rep

ublic

); or

if s

tate

s si

mpl

y in

dica

ted

that

rec

ords

are

kep

t el

ectr

onic

ally

or

in c

ompu

ter-

ized

form

(with

out s

peci

fyin

g w

heth

er th

ey w

ere

stor

ed in

defin

itely

); or

that

they

kee

p re

cord

s of

sta

te w

eapo

ns fo

r as

long

as

they

pos

sess

th

em a

nd fo

r on

e ye

ar a

fter

thei

r di

spos

al (e

.g. J

apan

).

b) I

f th

e st

ate

indi

cate

s th

at

reco

rds

of s

mal

l ar

ms

hold

-in

gs m

ust b

e ke

pt f

or a

t lea

st

20 y

ears

, it

rece

ived

a h

alf

poin

t.

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a ha

lf po

int

if th

ey s

peci

fied

that

rec

ords

of

hold

ings

(e.g

. a r

egis

ter

of c

ivili

an-h

eld

wea

pons

and

/or

an in

vent

ory

of s

tate

-hel

d w

eapo

ns) a

re k

ept f

or a

t lea

st 2

0 ye

ars.

✖ I

f a

stat

e in

dica

ted

that

rec

ords

of

hold

ings

mus

t be

kep

t fo

r a

pe-

riod

less

than

20

year

s, it

was

not

aw

arde

d a

half

poin

t, bu

t the

info

r-m

atio

n w

as r

ecor

ded.

Rec

ord

s ke

pt b

y co

mp

anie

s go

ing

ou

t of b

usi

nes

s fo

rwar

ded

to s

tate

5.8

ITI p

ara.

13

Stat

es w

ill r

equi

re th

at r

ecor

ds p

erta

inin

g to

sm

all a

rms

and

light

wea

pons

hel

d by

co

mpa

nies

that

go

out o

f bus

ines

s be

for-

war

ded

to t

he S

tate

in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith

its n

atio

nal l

egis

latio

n.

Doe

s th

e st

ate

have

nat

ion-

al

legi

slat

ion

requ

irin

g th

at

reco

rds

pert

aini

ng

to

smal

l ar

ms

held

by

com

pani

es t

hat

go

out

of

busi

ness

be

fo

r-w

arde

d to

the

stat

e?

✔ If

a s

tate

rep

orte

d th

at c

ompa

nies

that

go

out o

f bus

ines

s or

cea

se

trad

ing

are

requ

ired

to fo

rwar

d th

eir

reco

rds

to th

e st

ate;

or

that

com

-pa

ny r

ecor

ds m

ust

be f

orw

arde

d to

the

sta

te a

s a

mat

ter

of c

ours

e,

rega

rdle

ss o

f w

heth

er t

he c

ompa

ny h

ad c

ease

d tr

adin

g (e

.g.

Swit-

zerla

nd r

epor

ts t

hat

man

ufac

ture

rs m

ust

keep

rec

ords

for

10

year

s an

d th

en h

and

them

ove

r to

can

tona

l au

thor

ities

); or

ans

wer

ed ‘

yes’

to

que

stio

n 20

.3 o

f th

e re

vise

d U

NO

DA

rep

ortin

g te

mpl

ate,

it

was

aw

arde

d a

half

poin

t (re

gard

less

of

whe

ther

it

stip

ulat

ed t

hat

the

re-

quir

emen

t fo

r co

mpa

nies

tha

t ce

ase

trad

ing

to f

orw

ard

thei

r re

cord

s to

the

sta

te is

incl

uded

in la

ws

or r

egul

atio

ns o

r ‘in

acc

orda

nce

with

its

nat

iona

l leg

isla

tion’

, as

requ

ired

und

er p

arag

raph

13

of th

e IT

I).22

1

Su

bto

tal o

f sec

tio

n 5

4

6C

oo

per

atio

n in

trac

ing23

6.1

PoA

II.3

7,

ITI p

ara.

33

(PoA

II.3

7) T

o en

cour

age

Stat

es a

nd t

he

Wor

ld C

usto

ms

Org

aniz

atio

n, a

s w

ell

as

othe

r re

leva

nt o

rgan

izat

ions

, to

enha

nce

coop

erat

ion

with

the

Inte

rnat

iona

l Cri

mi-

nal

Polic

e O

rgan

izat

ion

(Inte

rpol

) to

id

enti f

y th

ose

grou

ps a

nd in

divi

dual

s en

-ga

ged

in th

e ill

icit

trad

e in

sm

all a

rms

and

light

wea

pons

in

all

its a

spec

ts i

n or

der

to a

llow

nat

iona

l au

thor

ities

to

proc

eed

agai

nst

them

in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith t

heir

na

tiona

l law

s.

(ITI

para

. 33

) St

ates

, w

here

app

ropr

iate

, w

ill c

oope

rate

with

the

Inte

rnat

iona

l Crim

i-na

l Pol

ice

Org

aniz

atio

n (In

terp

ol) t

o su

p-po

rt t

he e

ffect

ive

impl

emen

tatio

n of

thi

s in

stru

men

t.

Has

the

stat

e co

oper

ated

with

IN

TER

POL

in t

he t

raci

ng o

f sm

all a

rms?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int

if th

ey m

entio

ned

INTE

RPO

L in

th

eir

repo

rt (

rega

rdle

ss o

f w

heth

er t

hey

expl

icitl

y in

dica

ted

they

co-

oper

ate

with

INTE

RPO

L in

the

trac

ing

of s

mal

l arm

s). S

tate

s w

ere

also

aw

arde

d a

full

poin

t if

they

exp

ress

ed w

illin

gnes

s to

coo

pera

te w

ith

INTE

RPO

L (e

.g.

Saud

i A

rabi

a) e

ven

if th

ey h

ave

not

yet

done

so

be-

caus

e, e

.g.,

they

hav

e no

t en

gage

d in

tra

cing

or

rece

ived

tra

cing

re-

ques

ts.

1


Po

A/I

TI

sour

cePo

A o

r IT

I pr

ovis

ion

Scor

e-sh

eet

ques

tion

Scor

ing

crit

eria

Max

. sc

ore

6.2

ITI p

ara.

35

(PoA

III

.9)

Stat

es, w

here

app

ropr

iate

, in

acco

rdan

ce

with

Inte

rpol

’s s

tatu

tory

rul

es, a

re e

ncou

r-ag

ed to

mak

e fu

ll us

e of

Inte

rpol

’s m

echa

-ni

sms

and

faci

litie

s in

im

plem

entin

g th

is

inst

rum

ent.

(Enc

oura

ged

prac

tice)

: H

as

the

stat

e us

ed a

ny IN

TER

POL

mec

hani

sms

and

faci

litie

s fo

r tr

acin

g pu

rpos

es (

e.g.

, In

ter-

natio

nal

Wea

pons

an

d Ex

-pl

osiv

es T

rack

ing

Syst

em d

a-ta

base

—IW

ETS,

24 I

NTE

RPO

L Fi

rear

ms

Ref

eren

ce

Tabl

e—IF

RT,

IN

TER

POL

Fire

arm

s Tr

ace

Req

uest

).

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a ha

lf po

int

if th

ey r

epor

ted

they

hav

e us

ed

IWET

S an

d/or

IFR

T.

0.5

Su

bto

tal o

f sec

tio

n 6

1.5

7In

tern

atio

nal

Tra

nsf

er

Ex

po

rt (a

nd

re-

exp

ort

)

7.1

PoA

II.2

&

12

(PoA

II.2

) To

put i

n pl

ace,

whe

re th

ey d

o no

t exi

st, a

dequ

ate

law

s, r

egul

atio

ns a

nd

adm

inis

trat

ive

proc

edur

es

to

exer

cise

ef

fect

ive

cont

rol

over

the

pro

duct

ion

of

smal

l arm

s an

d lig

ht w

eapo

ns w

ithin

thei

r ar

eas

of ju

risd

ictio

n an

d ov

er t

he e

xpor

t, im

port

, tra

nsit

or r

etra

nsfe

r of s

uch

wea

p-on

s, i

n or

der

to p

reve

nt i

llega

l m

anuf

ac-

ture

of a

nd il

licit

traf

ficki

ng in

sm

all a

rms

and

light

wea

pons

, or

the

ir di

vers

ion

to

unau

thor

ized

rec

ipie

nts.

(PoA

II.1

2) T

o pu

t in

plac

e an

d im

plem

ent

adeq

uate

law

s, r

egul

atio

ns a

nd a

dmin

is-

trat

ive

proc

edur

es to

ens

ure

the

effe

ctiv

e co

ntro

l ove

r the

exp

ort a

nd tr

ansi

t of s

mal

l ar

ms

and

light

wea

pons

, inc

ludi

ng th

e us

e of

aut

hent

icat

ed e

nd-u

ser c

ertifi

cate

s an

d ef

fect

ive

lega

l and

enf

orce

men

t mea

sure

s.

Doe

s th

e st

ate

have

law

s, r

eg-

ulat

ions

an

d ad

min

istr

ativ

e pr

oced

ures

gov

erni

ng t

he e

x-po

rt (

or r

e-ex

port

) of

sm

all

arm

s?

a) I

f th

e an

swer

is

yes,

a f

ull

poin

t was

aw

arde

d.

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int

if th

ey r

epor

ted

they

hav

e la

ws,

re

gula

tions

, an

d/or

adm

inis

trat

ive

proc

edur

es g

over

ning

the

exp

ort

of s

mal

l arm

s. T

o re

ceiv

e th

e po

int,

it w

as a

lso

suffi

cien

t for

a s

tate

to

indi

cate

it h

as a

‘law

on

trad

ing

in in

tern

atio

nal g

oods

’ (e.

g. V

ietn

am).

1

b) I

f th

e st

ate

indi

cate

s su

ch

law

s ar

e un

der

deve

lopm

ent

(e.g

. ar

e be

ing

draf

ted

or a

re

unde

r co

nsid

erat

ion

by p

arlia

-m

ent),

it re

ceiv

ed a

hal

f poi

nt.

✔ If

a s

tate

rep

orte

d it

was

in th

e pr

oces

s of

con

side

ring

, str

engt

hen-

ing,

or d

evel

opin

g la

ws,

regu

latio

ns, a

nd/o

r pro

cedu

res

to c

ontr

ol th

e ex

port

, ‘re

-exp

ort’,

or

retr

ansf

er o

f sm

all

arm

s, o

r th

at s

uch

law

s ar

e ‘u

nder

dev

elop

men

t’, o

r th

at d

raft

law

s ar

e un

der

cons

ider

atio

n, it

re-

ceiv

ed a

hal

f poi

nt.


c) If

the

stat

e in

dica

tes

it do

es

not

have

law

s on

exp

ort

(or

re-e

xpor

t) be

caus

e it

requ

ires

as

sist

ance

to

deve

lop

them

an

d ha

s re

ques

ted

it, a

hal

f po

int w

as a

war

ded.

✔ If

a s

tate

: (1

) in

dica

ted

that

it

does

not

hav

e la

ws

on t

he e

xpor

t or

re

-exp

ort o

f sm

all a

rms

or la

cks

capa

city

to e

stab

lish

or d

evel

op s

uch

law

s, a

nd t

hat

it re

ques

ted

assi

stan

ce s

peci

fical

ly f

or t

hat

purp

ose;

an

d/or

(2) i

nclu

des

a re

fere

nce

to th

at r

eque

st in

its

natio

nal r

epor

t(s),

it re

ceiv

ed a

hal

f poi

nt.

✖ Z

ero

poin

ts w

ere

awar

ded

for

mer

e ex

pres

sion

s of

will

ingn

ess

(e.g

. ‘w

e w

ould

like

to h

ave

law

s on

exp

ort,

but w

e do

n’t h

ave

capa

city

’).

d) If

the

stat

e in

dica

tes

it pr

o-hi

bits

the

expo

rt (o

r re-

expo

rt)

of s

mal

l arm

s fr

om it

s te

rrito

ry,

it re

ceiv

ed a

full

poin

t.

✔ I

f a

stat

e in

dica

ted

that

the

exp

ort

(or

re-e

xpor

t) of

sm

all

arm

s is

pr

ohib

ited

unde

r its

nat

iona

l le

gisl

atio

n, i

t w

as a

war

ded

a fu

ll po

int

for

havi

ng e

xpor

t con

trol

s in

pla

ce.

✖ T

his

sect

ion

was

con

side

red

‘not

app

licab

le’ t

o st

ates

that

repo

rted

th

ey p

rohi

bit

the

expo

rt o

f ar

ms,

but

hav

e pr

oced

ures

for

re-

expo

rt

(e.g

. Vie

tnam

).

e) If

the

stat

e in

dica

tes

it do

es

not

have

law

s on

exp

ort

or

re-e

xpor

t, or

doe

s no

t gi

ve

info

rmat

ion

on w

heth

er it

has

su

ch l

aws,

it

rece

ived

zer

o po

ints

.

✖ I

f a s

tate

indi

cate

d it

does

not

hav

e la

ws

on th

e ex

port

or r

e-ex

port

of

sm

all

arm

s, n

o po

ints

wer

e al

loca

ted,

but

the

inf

orm

atio

n w

as r

e-co

rded

.

7.2

(A

pplic

abili

ty q

uest

ion)

: Doe

s th

e st

ate

indi

cate

it

does

not

ex

port

sm

all a

rms?

N/A

Thi

s se

ctio

n w

as c

onsi

dere

d ‘n

ot a

pplic

able

’ to

sta

tes

that

ex-

pres

sly

indi

cate

d th

ey d

o no

t m

anuf

actu

re a

rms

and

ther

efor

e di

d no

t exp

ort (

e.g.

Tog

o); o

r re

port

ed th

at th

ey p

rohi

bit t

he e

xpor

t or

re-

expo

rt o

f sm

all a

rms.

7.3

PoA

II.1

1Li

kew

ise,

to e

stab

lish

or m

aint

ain

an e

ffec-

tive

natio

nal s

yste

m o

f exp

ort a

nd im

port

lic

ensi

ng o

r aut

horiz

atio

n, a

s w

ell a

s m

eas-

ures

on

inte

rnat

iona

l tra

nsit,

for t

he tr

ans-

fer

of a

ll sm

all

arm

s an

d lig

ht w

eapo

ns,

with

a v

iew

to c

omba

ting

the

illic

it tr

ade

in s

mal

l arm

s an

d lig

ht w

eapo

ns.

Doe

s the

sta

te re

quire

exp

orts

(o

r re

-exp

ort)

of s

mal

l ar

ms

to b

e lic

ense

d or

oth

erw

ise

auth

oriz

ed b

y th

e st

ate?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int

if th

ey r

epor

ted

that

the

ir ex

port

co

ntro

l sy

stem

incl

udes

a r

equi

rem

ent

that

the

exp

ort

of s

mal

l ar

ms

be li

cens

ed o

r au

thor

ized

by

a co

mpe

tent

aut

hori

ty.

1

7.4

PoA

II.1

1To

ass

ess

appl

icat

ions

for

exp

ort

auth

ori-

zatio

ns a

ccor

ding

to s

tric

t nat

iona

l reg

ula-

tions

and

pro

cedu

res

that

cov

er a

ll sm

all

arm

s an

d lig

ht w

eapo

ns a

nd a

re c

onsi

sten

t w

ith th

e ex

istin

g re

spon

sibi

litie

s of

Sta

tes

unde

r re

leva

nt i

nter

natio

nal

law

, ta

king

in

to a

ccou

nt in

par

ticul

ar th

e ris

k of

div

er-

sion

of t

hese

wea

pons

into

the

illeg

al tr

ade.

Doe

s th

e st

ate

asse

ss a

pplic

a-tio

ns fo

r exp

ort (

or r

e-ex

port

) au

thor

izat

ions

ac

cord

ing

to

natio

nal

regu

latio

ns a

nd p

ro-

cedu

res

that

ar

e co

nsis

tent

w

ith it

s re

spon

sibi

litie

s un

der

inte

rnat

iona

l law

?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int i

f the

y re

port

ed th

at: (

1) th

ey a

pply

ce

rtai

n cr

iteri

a to

lice

nsin

g de

cisi

ons

that

take

into

acc

ount

risk

s su

ch

as th

e di

vers

ion

of a

rms

into

ille

gal t

rade

or

the

use

of a

rms

to v

iola

te

hum

an ri

ghts

in th

e de

stin

atio

n co

untr

y; o

r (2)

they

app

ly th

e cr

iteria

or

stan

dard

s ag

reed

as

part

of a

reg

iona

l or

mul

tilat

eral

fram

ewor

k su

ch

as t

he W

asse

naar

Arr

ange

men

t or

the

EU

Com

mon

Pos

ition

whe

n m

akin

g a

deci

sion

to a

utho

rize

an

expo

rt o

r gr

ant a

n ex

port

lice

nce;

or

(3) t

hey

asse

ss o

r mak

e lic

ensi

ng d

ecis

ions

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

eir

exis

ting

inte

rnat

iona

l obl

igat

ions

(inc

ludi

ng th

e Po

A).

1


Po

A/I

TI

sour

cePo

A o

r IT

I pr

ovis

ion

Scor

e-sh

eet

ques

tion

Scor

ing

crit

eria

Max

. sc

ore

7.5

PoA

II.1

2To

put

in p

lace

and

impl

emen

t ade

quat

e la

ws,

reg

ulat

ions

and

adm

inis

trat

ive

pro-

cedu

res

to e

nsur

e th

e ef

fect

ive

cont

rol

over

the

exp

ort a

nd t

rans

it of

sm

all a

rms

and

light

wea

pons

, in

clud

ing

the

use

of

auth

entic

ated

end

-use

r ce

rtifi

cate

s an

d ef

fect

ive

lega

l an

d en

forc

emen

t m

eas-

ures

.

Doe

s th

e st

ate

requ

ire a

uthe

n-tic

ated

end

-use

r ce

rtifi

cate

s (E

UC

s) a

s pa

rt o

f its

exp

ort (

or

re-e

xpor

t) co

ntro

l/lic

ensi

ng

syst

em?

a) I

f th

e st

ate

requ

ires

end

- us

er c

ertifi

cate

s (EU

Cs)

as p

art

of i

ts e

xpor

t (o

r re

-exp

ort)

cont

rol/l

icen

sing

sys

tem

, it r

e-ce

ived

a q

uart

er p

oint

.

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a qu

arte

r po

int

if th

ey r

epor

ted

they

req

uire

an

EU

C a

s pa

rt o

f the

ir ex

port

con

trol

sys

tem

s, o

r if t

hey

indi

cate

d th

at

end-

user

doc

umen

tatio

n is

use

d.

0.5

7.6

b)

If

the

stat

e re

quir

es a

nd

auth

entic

ates

EU

Cs

or o

nly

uses

aut

hent

icat

ed E

UC

s, i

t re

ceiv

ed a

hal

f poi

nt.

✔ If

a s

tate

rep

orte

d th

at E

UC

s ar

e re

quir

ed a

s pa

rt o

f th

e ex

port

lic

ensi

ng p

roce

ss a

nd t

hat

such

EU

Cs

wer

e au

then

ticat

ed,

‘ver

ified

’, or

‘cer

tified

’ (A

rgen

tina)

by

its c

onsu

lar

offic

ials

or

repr

esen

tativ

es in

th

e im

port

ing

stat

e, o

r th

at it

ens

ures

suc

h EU

Cs

are

not f

orge

d or

fal-

sifie

d, it

was

aw

arde

d a

half

poin

t.

✖ S

tate

s re

ceiv

ed z

ero

poin

ts if

they

sim

ply

repo

rted

that

EU

Cs

mus

t be

‘ori

gina

l’.

7.7

PoA

II.1

3To

mak

e ev

ery

effo

rt, i

n ac

cord

ance

with

na

tiona

l law

s an

d pr

actic

es, w

ithou

t pre

j-ud

ice

to t

he r

ight

of

Stat

es t

o re

-exp

ort

smal

l ar

ms

and

light

wea

pons

tha

t th

ey

have

pre

viou

sly

impo

rted

, to

not

ify t

he

orig

inal

exp

ortin

g St

ate

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

eir b

ilate

ral a

gree

men

ts b

efor

e th

e re

tran

sfer

of t

hose

wea

pons

.

Doe

s th

e st

ate

notif

y th

e st

ate

that

or

igin

ally

so

ld

it th

e w

eapo

ns [

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith

thei

r bi

late

ral

agre

e-m

ents

] be

fore

it

re-e

xpor

ts

thos

e w

eapo

ns

to

anot

her

coun

try?

✔ If

a s

tate

indi

cate

d th

at it

alw

ays,

or s

omet

imes

(e.g

. Den

mar

k) n

oti-

fies

the

orig

inal

exp

ortin

g st

ate

befo

re r

e-ex

port

ing

or r

etra

nsfe

rrin

g sm

all a

rms,

or d

oes

so if

requ

ired

unde

r the

term

s of

or a

s a

cond

ition

of

the

cont

ract

, or

‘whe

n ne

cess

ary’

, it w

as a

war

ded

a fu

ll po

int.

✖ S

tate

s re

ceiv

ed z

ero

poin

ts i

f th

ey r

epor

ted

they

req

uire

‘no

n- re

-ex

port

’ cl

ause

s in

EU

Cs

whe

n ex

port

ing

smal

l ar

ms,

or

that

rec

ipi-

ent s

tate

s m

ust n

otify

them

pri

or to

re-

expo

rtin

g or

ret

rans

ferr

ing

the

arm

s.

1

Imp

ort

7.8

PoA

II.2

To p

ut i

n pl

ace,

whe

re t

hey

do n

ot e

xist

, ad

equa

te l

aws,

reg

ulat

ions

and

adm

in-

istr

ativ

e pr

oced

ures

to

ex

erci

se

effe

c-tiv

e co

ntro

l ove

r th

e pr

oduc

tion

of s

mal

l ar

ms

and

light

w

eapo

ns

with

in

thei

r ar

eas

of ju

risd

ictio

n an

d ov

er t

he e

xpor

t, im

port

, tra

nsit

or r

etra

nsfe

r of s

uch

wea

p-on

s, i

n or

der

to p

reve

nt i

llega

l m

anuf

ac-

ture

of a

nd il

licit

traf

ficki

ng in

sm

all a

rms

and

light

wea

pons

, or

the

ir di

vers

ion

to

unau

thor

ized

rec

ipie

nts.

Doe

s th

e st

ate

have

la

ws,

re

gula

tions

, an

d ad

min

istr

a-tiv

e pr

oced

ures

go

vern

ing

the

impo

rt o

f sm

all a

rms

into

its

terr

itory

?

a) I

f th

e an

swer

is

yes,

a f

ull

poin

t was

aw

arde

d.

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int

if th

ey r

epor

ted

they

hav

e la

ws,

re

gula

tions

, and

/or

adm

inis

trat

ive

proc

edur

es in

pla

ce g

over

ning

the

im

port

of s

mal

l arm

s. T

o re

ceiv

e th

e po

int,

it w

as a

lso

suffi

cien

t for

a

stat

e to

ind

icat

e it

has

a ‘la

w o

n tr

adin

g in

int

erna

tiona

l go

ods’

(e.

g.

Vie

tnam

).

1


b) I

f th

e st

ate

indi

cate

s su

ch

law

s ar

e un

der

deve

lopm

ent

(e.g

. ar

e be

ing

draf

ted

or a

re

unde

r co

nsid

erat

ion

by p

ar-

liam

ent),

it

rece

ived

a

half

poin

t.

✔ If

a s

tate

rep

orte

d it

is in

the

proc

ess

of c

onsi

deri

ng, d

evel

opin

g, o

r st

reng

then

ing

law

s, r

egul

atio

ns, a

nd/o

r pr

oced

ures

to c

ontr

ol th

e im

-po

rt o

f sm

all a

rms,

or t

hat s

uch

law

s ar

e ‘u

nder

dev

elop

men

t’, o

r tha

t dr

aft l

aws

are

unde

r co

nsid

erat

ion,

it w

as a

war

ded

a ha

lf po

int.

c) If

the

stat

e in

dica

tes

it do

es

not

have

law

s on

im

port

be-

caus

e it

requ

ires

ass

ista

nce

to d

evel

op t

hem

and

has

re-

ques

ted

it,

a qu

arte

r po

int

was

aw

arde

d.

✔ If

a s

tate

: (1)

indi

cate

d th

at it

doe

s no

t hav

e m

anuf

actu

ring

law

s or

la

cks

capa

city

to e

stab

lish

or d

evel

op la

ws

on im

port

, and

(2) i

ndic

at-

ed t

hat i

t has

req

uest

ed a

ssis

tanc

e sp

ecifi

cally

for

that

pur

pose

, and

/or

(3)

inc

lude

s a

refe

renc

e to

tha

t re

ques

t in

its

nat

iona

l re

port

(s),

it w

as a

war

ded

a ha

lf po

int.

✖ P

oint

s w

ere

not

awar

ded

for

mer

e ex

pres

sion

s of

will

ingn

ess

(e.g

. ‘w

e w

ould

like

to h

ave

law

s on

impo

rt, b

ut w

e do

n’t h

ave

capa

city

’).

d) If

the

stat

e in

dica

tes

it pr

o-hi

bits

th

e im

port

of

sm

all

arm

s an

d lig

ht w

eapo

ns i

nto

its t

erri

tory

, it

rece

ived

a f

ull

poin

t.

✔ If

a s

tate

indi

cate

d th

at th

e im

port

of s

mal

l arm

s is

pro

hibi

ted

unde

r its

nat

iona

l law

, it w

as a

war

ded

a fu

ll po

int f

or h

avin

g im

port

con

trol

s in

pla

ce.

e) I

f th

e re

port

ind

icat

es t

he

stat

e do

es n

ot h

ave

law

s on

im

port

(or

doe

s no

t gi

ve i

n-fo

rmat

ion

on w

heth

er i

t ha

s su

ch l

aws)

, ze

ro p

oint

s w

ere

awar

ded.

✖ If

a s

tate

indi

cate

d it

does

not

hav

e la

ws

on th

e im

port

of s

mal

l arm

s,

no p

oint

s w

ere

allo

cate

d, b

ut th

e in

form

atio

n w

as r

ecor

ded.

7.9

(A

pplic

abili

ty q

uest

ion)

: Doe

s th

e st

ate

indi

cate

it

does

not

im

port

sm

all a

rms?

N/A

Thi

s se

ctio

n w

as c

onsi

dere

d ‘n

ot a

pplic

able

’ to

sta

tes

that

ind

i-ca

ted

they

do

not i

mpo

rt s

mal

l arm

s or

that

the

impo

rt o

f sm

all a

rms

is p

rohi

bite

d.

7.10

PoA

II.1

1Li

kew

ise,

to

esta

blis

h or

mai

ntai

n an

ef-

fect

ive

natio

nal s

yste

m o

f exp

ort a

nd im

-po

rt li

cens

ing

or a

utho

riza

tion,

as

wel

l as

mea

sure

s on

inte

rnat

iona

l tra

nsit,

for

the

tran

sfer

of a

ll sm

all a

rms

and

light

wea

p-on

s, w

ith a

vie

w t

o co

mba

ting

the

illic

-it

trad

e in

sm

all a

rms

and

light

wea

pons

.

Doe

s th

e st

ate

requ

ire

im-

port

s of

sm

all

arm

s to

be

li-ce

nsed

or

othe

rwis

e au

thor

-iz

ed b

y th

e st

ate?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int i

f the

y re

port

ed t

hat t

heir

impo

rt

cont

rols

inc

lude

a r

equi

rem

ent

that

the

im

port

of

smal

l ar

ms

be l

i-ce

nsed

or

auth

oriz

ed b

y a

com

pete

nt a

utho

rity

.

1

▼


Po

A/I

TI

sour

cePo

A o

r IT

I pr

ovis

ion

Scor

e-sh

eet

ques

tion

Scor

ing

crit

eria

Max

. sc

ore

Tran

sit

7.11

PoA

II.

2 &

12

(PoA

II.2

) To

put i

n pl

ace,

whe

re th

ey d

o no

t exi

st, a

dequ

ate

law

s, r

egul

atio

ns a

nd

adm

inis

trat

ive

proc

edur

es

to

exer

cise

ef

fect

ive

cont

rol

over

the

pro

duct

ion

of

smal

l arm

s an

d lig

ht w

eapo

ns w

ithin

thei

r ar

eas

of ju

risd

ictio

n an

d ov

er t

he e

xpor

t, im

port

, tra

nsit

or r

etra

nsfe

r of s

uch

wea

p-on

s, i

n or

der

to p

reve

nt i

llega

l m

anuf

ac-

ture

of a

nd il

licit

traf

ficki

ng in

sm

all a

rms

and

light

wea

pons

, or

the

ir di

vers

ion

to

unau

thor

ized

rec

ipie

nts.

(PoA

II.1

2) T

o pu

t in

plac

e an

d im

plem

ent

adeq

uate

law

s, r

egul

atio

ns a

nd a

dmin

-is

trat

ive

proc

edur

es t

o en

sure

the

effe

c-tiv

e co

ntro

l ove

r the

exp

ort a

nd tr

ansi

t of

smal

l ar

ms

and

light

wea

pons

, in

clud

ing

the

use

of a

uthe

ntic

ated

end

-use

r ce

r-tifi

cate

s an

d ef

fect

ive

lega

l an

d en

forc

e-m

ent m

easu

res.

Doe

s th

e st

ate

have

la

ws

gove

rnin

g th

e tr

ansi

t of s

mal

l ar

ms

acro

ss it

s te

rrito

ry?

a) I

f th

e an

swer

is

yes,

a f

ull

poin

t was

aw

arde

d.

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int

if th

ey r

epor

ted

they

hav

e la

ws,

re

gula

tions

, and

/or a

dmin

istr

ativ

e pr

oced

ures

gov

erni

ng th

e tr

ansi

t of

smal

l arm

s. S

tate

s th

at in

dica

ted

they

defi

ne ‘e

xpor

t’ to

incl

ude

tran

-si

t, an

d ha

ve e

xpor

t con

trol

s in

pla

ce, w

ere

also

aw

arde

d a

full

poin

t (e

.g. C

anad

a).

✖ I

nfor

mat

ion

indi

catin

g th

at a

ll ‘tr

ansf

ers’

are

sub

ject

to

auth

oriz

a-tio

n w

as n

ot c

onsi

dere

d su

ffici

ent t

o co

nfirm

tha

t tra

nsit

mus

t be

au-

thor

ized

(e.g

. Sou

th K

orea

).

1

b) I

f th

e st

ate

indi

cate

s su

ch

law

s ar

e un

der

deve

lopm

ent

(e.g

. ar

e be

ing

draf

ted

or a

re

unde

r co

nsid

erat

ion

by p

ar-

liam

ent),

a

half

poin

t w

as

awar

ded.

✔ If

a s

tate

rep

orte

d it

is i

n th

e pr

oces

s of

con

side

ring

, de

velo

ping

, or

str

engt

heni

ng l

aws,

reg

ulat

ions

, an

d/or

pro

cedu

res

to c

ontr

ol t

he

tran

sit

of s

mal

l ar

ms,

or

that

suc

h la

ws

are

‘und

er d

evel

opm

ent’,

or

that

dra

ft la

ws

are

unde

r co

nsid

erat

ion,

it w

as a

war

ded

a ha

lf po

int.

c) If

the

stat

e in

dica

tes

it do

es

not

have

law

s on

tra

nsit

be-

caus

e it

requ

ires

ass

ista

nce

to d

evel

op t

hem

and

has

re-

ques

ted

it,

a qu

arte

r po

int

was

aw

arde

d.

✔ If

a s

tate

: (1

) in

dica

ted

that

it

does

not

hav

e la

ws

on t

rans

it or

it

lack

ed c

apac

ity t

o es

tabl

ish

or d

evel

op s

uch

law

s, a

nd (

2) in

dica

ted

that

it

has

requ

este

d as

sist

ance

spe

cific

ally

for

tha

t pu

rpos

e, a

nd/o

r (3

) in

clud

es a

ref

eren

ce t

o th

at r

eque

st f

or a

ssis

tanc

e in

its

nat

iona

l re

port

(s),

it re

ceiv

ed a

qua

rter

poi

nt.

✖ P

oint

s w

ere

not

awar

ded

for

mer

e ex

pres

sion

s of

will

ingn

ess

(e.g

. ‘w

e w

ould

like

to h

ave

law

s on

man

ufac

turi

ng, b

ut w

e do

n’t h

ave

ca-

paci

ty’).

d) If

the

stat

e in

dica

tes

it pr

o-hi

bits

the

tran

sit o

f sm

all a

rms

and

light

wea

pons

acr

oss

its

terr

itory

, a

full

poin

t w

as

awar

ded.

✔ If

a s

tate

indi

cate

d th

at t

he t

rans

it of

sm

all a

rms

acro

ss it

s te

rrito

ry

is p

rohi

bite

d un

der

its n

atio

nal l

aw, i

t rec

eive

d a

full

poin

t for

hav

ing

tran

sit

cont

rols

in

plac

e, a

nd t

he r

emai

nder

of

the

tran

sit

com

mit-

men

ts w

ere

cons

ider

ed ‘n

ot a

pplic

able

’ (e

.g.

Papu

a N

ew G

uine

a re

-po

rted

tha

t th

e im

port

of

wea

pons

was

pro

hibi

ted,

and

tha

t tr

ansi

t w

as th

eref

ore

‘ille

gal’)

.


e) If

the

stat

e in

dica

tes

it do

es

not

have

law

s on

tra

nsit

(or

does

not

giv

e in

form

atio

n on

w

heth

er i

t ha

s su

ch l

aws)

, it

rece

ived

zer

o po

ints

.

✖ I

f a s

tate

indi

cate

d it

does

not

hav

e la

ws

on th

e tr

ansi

t of s

mal

l arm

s ac

ross

its

terr

itory

, no

poin

ts w

ere

allo

cate

d, b

ut th

e in

form

atio

n w

as

reco

rded

.

7.12

(A

pplic

abili

ty q

uest

ion)

: Doe

s th

e st

ate

indi

cate

it

proh

ibits

or

doe

s no

t per

mit

the

tran

sit

of s

mal

l ar

ms

acro

ss i

ts t

erri

-to

ry?

N/A

Thi

s se

ctio

n w

as c

onsi

dere

d ‘n

ot a

pplic

able

’ to

sta

tes

that

ind

i-ca

ted

they

do

not p

erm

it th

e tr

ansi

t of a

rms

acro

ss th

eir

terr

itori

es, o

r th

at p

rohi

bit t

he tr

ansi

t of a

rms.

7.13

PoA

II.1

1Li

kew

ise,

to

esta

blis

h or

mai

ntai

n an

ef-

fect

ive

natio

nal s

yste

m o

f exp

ort a

nd im

-po

rt li

cens

ing

or a

utho

riza

tion,

as

wel

l as

mea

sure

s on

inte

rnat

iona

l tra

nsit,

for

the

tran

sfer

of a

ll sm

all a

rms

and

light

wea

p-on

s, w

ith a

vie

w t

o co

mba

ting

the

illic

-it

trad

e in

sm

all a

rms

and

light

wea

pons

.

Doe

s th

e st

ate

requ

ire

the

tran

sit

of s

mal

l ar

ms

to b

e li-

cens

ed o

r ot

herw

ise

auth

or-

ized

by

the

stat

e?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int i

f the

y re

port

ed th

at th

e tr

ansi

t of

smal

l arm

s ac

ross

thei

r ter

rito

ries

mus

t be

licen

sed

or a

utho

rize

d by

a

com

pete

nt a

utho

rity

.

1

7.14

PoA

II.1

2To

put

in p

lace

and

impl

emen

t ade

quat

e la

ws,

reg

ulat

ions

and

adm

inis

trat

ive

pro-

cedu

res

to e

nsur

e th

e ef

fect

ive

cont

rol

over

the

exp

ort a

nd t

rans

it of

sm

all a

rms

and

light

wea

pons

, in

clud

ing

the

use

of

auth

entic

ated

end

-use

r ce

rtifi

cate

s an

d ef

fect

ive

lega

l an

d en

forc

emen

t m

eas-

ures

.

Doe

s th

e st

ate

requ

ire a

uthe

n-tic

ated

end

-use

r ce

rtifi

cate

s (E

UC

s) a

s pa

rt o

f its

tra

nsit

cont

rol/l

icen

sing

sys

tem

?

a)

If th

e st

ate

sim

ply

indi

-ca

tes

it re

quir

es

end-

user

ce

rtifi

cate

s (E

UC

s) a

s pa

rt o

f its

tr

ansi

t co

ntro

l/lic

ensi

ng

syst

em,

a qu

arte

r po

int

was

aw

arde

d.

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a qu

arte

r po

int

if th

ey r

epor

ted

that

the

y re

-qu

ire

an E

UC

as

part

of t

heir

tran

sit c

ontr

ol s

yste

ms

(as

dist

inct

from

th

eir

expo

rt c

ontr

ol s

yste

m);

or i

f th

ey i

ndic

ated

tha

t en

d-us

er d

ocu-

men

tatio

n is

use

d as

par

t of

tra

nsit

cont

rols

; or

if

they

rep

orte

d th

at

they

con

side

r ‘e

xpor

ts’ t

o in

clud

e tr

ansi

t, an

d th

at E

UC

s ar

e re

quir

ed

as p

art

of t

heir

expo

rt c

ontr

ol s

yste

m (

e.g.

Can

ada)

; or

if

unde

r th

e ge

nera

l he

adin

g re

latin

g to

‘im

port

, ex

port

and

tra

nsit’

a s

tate

ind

i-ca

ted

EUC

s ar

e re

quir

ed f

or a

utho

riza

tion,

it

was

ass

umed

thi

s al

so

appl

ied

to tr

ansi

t (e.

g. A

ustr

ia).

✖ S

tate

s w

ere

not a

war

ded

a qu

arte

r po

int h

ere

if th

ey r

epor

ted

that

EU

Cs

are

requ

ired

as

part

of t

he e

xpor

t con

trol

sys

tem

, with

out i

ndi-

catin

g w

heth

er th

e la

tter a

lso

cove

red

the

tran

sit o

f arm

s, o

r rep

ortin

g se

para

tely

/dis

tinct

ly th

at E

UC

s ar

e re

quir

ed a

s pa

rt o

f tra

nsit

cont

rols

.

0.5

7.15

b)

If

the

stat

e re

quir

es a

nd

auth

entic

ates

EU

Cs

or o

nly

uses

aut

hent

icat

ed E

UC

s, i

t re

ceiv

ed a

hal

f poi

nt.

✔ If

a s

tate

rep

orte

d th

at E

UC

s ar

e re

quir

ed a

s pa

rt o

f the

tran

sit c

on-

trol

sys

tem

and

tha

t EU

Cs

are

auth

entic

ated

, ‘v

erifi

ed’,

or ‘

cert

ified

’ by

its

con

sula

r of

ficia

ls o

r re

pres

enta

tives

in

the

impo

rtin

g st

ate,

or

that

it e

nsur

es E

UC

s ar

e no

t for

ged

or fa

lsifi

ed, i

t was

aw

arde

d a

half

poin

t.

✖ S

tate

s w

ere

not

awar

ded

a ha

lf po

int

if th

ey s

impl

y re

port

ed t

hat

EUC

s m

ust b

e ‘o

rigi

nal’.

▼


Po

A/I

TI

sour

cePo

A o

r IT

I pr

ovis

ion

Scor

e-sh

eet

ques

tion

Scor

ing

crit

eria

Max

. sc

ore

Oth

er

7.16

PoA

II.3

To a

dopt

and

im

plem

ent,

in t

he S

tate

s th

at h

ave

not a

lrea

dy d

one

so, t

he n

eces

-sa

ry l

egis

lativ

e or

oth

er m

easu

res

to e

s-ta

blis

h as

cri

min

al o

ffenc

es u

nder

the

ir

dom

estic

la

w

the

illeg

al

man

ufac

ture

, po

sses

sion

, sto

ckpi

ling

and

trad

e of

sm

all

arm

s an

d lig

ht

wea

pons

w

ithin

th

eir

area

s of

jur

isdi

ctio

n, i

n or

der

to e

nsur

e th

at th

ose

enga

ged

in s

uch

activ

ities

can

be

pro

secu

ted

unde

r ap

prop

riat

e na

tion-

al p

enal

cod

es.

Has

the

sta

te e

stab

lishe

d th

e ill

egal

int

erna

tiona

l tr

ade

in

smal

l ar

ms

as a

cri

min

al o

f-fe

nce?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int

if th

ey:

(1)

repo

rted

the

y ha

ve

crim

inal

ized

the

ille

gal

trad

e in

sm

all

arm

s at

the

int

erna

tiona

l le

vel

(i.e.

ens

urin

g it

is a

cri

min

al o

ffenc

e fo

r an

y pe

rson

und

er it

s ju

risd

ic-

tion

to tr

ade

or s

ell s

mal

l arm

s to

ove

rsea

s bu

yers

with

out a

lice

nce)

; or

(2) g

ave

deta

ils o

f cri

min

al p

enal

ties

appl

icab

le to

ille

gal m

anuf

ac-

ture

; or

(3)

rep

orte

d th

at t

heir

smal

l ar

ms

legi

slat

ion

incl

udes

man

u-fa

ctur

ing

cont

rols

, and

that

crim

inal

pen

altie

s ar

e in

pla

ce fo

r bre

ache

s of

the

rele

vant

legi

slat

ion.

Not

e: A

dis

tinct

ion

was

mad

e be

twee

n th

is c

omm

itmen

t an

d th

e co

mm

itmen

t re

flect

ed i

n qu

estio

n 12

.5 o

f th

e sc

orin

g gu

idel

ines

(b

elow

). A

ful

l po

int

was

aw

arde

d he

re f

or i

nfor

mat

ion

on t

he c

rim

i-na

lizat

ion

of t

rade

at

the

inte

rnat

iona

l lev

el o

r on

inte

rnat

iona

l tra

ns-

fers

and

sm

uggl

ing

acro

ss b

orde

rs,

whi

le a

ful

l po

int

was

aw

arde

d un

der

ques

tion

12.5

for

info

rmat

ion

rega

rdin

g th

e cr

imin

aliz

atio

n of

tr

ade

at t

he n

atio

nal o

r do

mes

tic l

evel

. If

the

repo

rt d

id n

ot s

peci

fy,

and

sim

ply

resp

onde

d ‘tr

ade’

, the

full

poin

t was

aw

arde

d he

re (7

.16)

.

✖ S

tate

s w

ere

not a

war

ded

a po

int i

f the

y m

erel

y in

dica

ted

that

they

ha

ve t

aken

act

ion

agai

nst i

llici

t man

ufac

ture

rs. T

he r

easo

n fo

r th

is is

tw

ofol

d: (1

) the

y re

ceiv

ed a

poi

nt fo

r suc

h in

form

atio

n un

der t

he n

ext

ques

tion

(7.1

7); a

nd (2

) thi

s in

form

atio

n w

as n

ot c

onsi

dere

d su

ffici

ent

to in

dica

te w

heth

er th

ey h

ave

inst

itute

d cr

imin

al p

roce

edin

gs a

gain

st

perp

etra

tors

.

1

7.17

PoA

II.6

To

iden

tify,

w

here

ap

plic

able

, gr

oups

an

d in

divi

dual

s en

gage

d in

the

illeg

al […

] tr

ansf

er, [

…]

of il

licit

smal

l arm

s an

d lig

ht

wea

pons

, an

d ta

ke a

ctio

n un

der

appr

o-pr

iate

nat

iona

l la

w a

gain

st s

uch

grou

ps

and

indi

vidu

als.

Has

th

e st

ate

take

n ac

tion

agai

nst

any

grou

p or

ind

ivid

-ua

l(s)

enga

ged

in t

he i

llega

l tr

ansf

er

of

smal

l ar

ms

(e.g

. th

roug

h pr

osec

utio

n)?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int i

f the

y re

port

ed t

hey

have

iden

ti-fie

d an

d/or

take

n ac

tion

agai

nst a

ny g

roup

s or

indi

vidu

als

enga

ged

in

illeg

al (i

nter

natio

nal)

tran

sfer

s of

sm

all a

rms,

illic

it tr

affic

king

, or

smug

-gl

ing

(e.g

. thr

ough

‘inv

estig

atio

ns’,

‘arr

ests

’, ‘p

rose

cutio

ns’,

or th

roug

h th

e pr

ovis

ion

of s

tatis

tics

on th

e nu

mbe

r of p

erso

ns a

rres

ted

or c

augh

t in

the

cont

ext o

f ille

gal t

rans

fers

or

illic

it tr

affic

king

).

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

also

aw

arde

d a

half

poin

t he

re i

f th

ey g

ave

deta

ils o

f th

e ag

enci

es e

ngag

ed in

iden

tifyi

ng a

nd ta

king

act

ion

agai

nst g

roup

s or

indi

vidu

als

invo

lved

in il

lega

l (in

tern

atio

nal)

tran

sfer

s of

sm

all a

rms,

an

d/or

they

indi

cate

d th

at th

ese

agen

cies

are

wor

king

to id

entif

y pe

r-so

ns e

ngag

ed in

this

ille

gal t

rade

.

N/A

If

a st

ate

repo

rted

the

re h

as b

een

no i

llega

l m

anuf

actu

re o

n its

te

rrito

ry, o

r did

not

men

tion

whe

ther

gro

ups

or in

divi

dual

s ha

ve b

een

pros

ecut

ed, t

his

ques

tion

was

mar

ked

‘not

app

licab

le’.

1


7.18

PoA

II.1

5To

tak

e ap

prop

riat

e m

easu

res,

inc

ludi

ng

all l

egal

or

adm

inis

trat

ive

mea

ns, a

gain

st

any

activ

ity th

at v

iola

tes

a U

nite

d N

atio

ns

Secu

rity

Cou

ncil

arm

s em

barg

o in

acc

ord-

ance

with

the

Cha

rter

of

the

Uni

ted

Na-

tions

.

Has

the

stat

e ad

opte

d la

ws

or

take

n ot

her

mea

sure

s ag

ains

t ac

tiviti

es th

at v

iola

te a

rms

em-

barg

oes?

a) I

f th

e an

swer

is

yes,

a f

ull

poin

t was

aw

arde

d.

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int h

ere

if th

ey: (

1) p

rovi

ded

deta

ils o

f le

gisl

atio

n in

pla

ce to

impl

emen

t UN

or

regi

onal

arm

s em

barg

oes

at

the

natio

nal l

evel

; or (

2) re

port

ed th

at it

is a

cri

min

al o

ffenc

e un

der i

ts

natio

nal l

aws

to tr

ansf

er a

rms

in v

iola

tion

of a

n em

barg

o; o

r (3

) gav

e de

tails

of p

enal

ties

asso

ciat

ed w

ith a

ctiv

ities

invo

lvin

g ar

ms

emba

rgo

viol

atio

ns; o

r (4)

indi

cate

d th

ey re

spec

t and

/or i

mpl

emen

ted

arm

s em

-ba

rgoe

s in

som

e ot

her

way

.

1

b) I

f th

e st

ate

indi

cate

s su

ch

law

s ar

e un

der

deve

lopm

ent

(e.g

. ar

e be

ing

draf

ted

or a

re

unde

r co

nsid

erat

ion

by p

arlia

-m

ent),

it re

ceiv

ed a

hal

f poi

nt.

✔ If

a s

tate

rep

orte

d it

was

in th

e pr

oces

s of

con

side

ring

, dev

elop

ing,

or

str

engt

heni

ng l

egal

and

adm

inis

trat

ive

mea

sure

s ag

ains

t act

iviti

es

that

vio

late

arm

s em

barg

oes,

or

indi

cate

d th

at s

uch

law

s ar

e ‘u

nder

de

velo

pmen

t’, o

r th

at d

raft

law

s ar

e un

der

cons

ider

atio

n, i

t w

as

awar

ded

a ha

lf po

int.

c) If

the

stat

e in

dica

tes

it do

es

not h

ave

law

s pe

naliz

ing

em-

barg

o vi

olat

ions

bec

ause

it r

e-qu

ires

ass

ista

nce

to d

evel

op

them

and

has

req

uest

ed it

, a

quar

ter

poin

t was

aw

arde

d.

✔ If

a s

tate

: (1)

indi

cate

d th

at it

doe

s no

t hav

e la

ws

or a

dmin

istr

ativ

e m

easu

res

agai

nst

activ

ities

tha

t vi

olat

e ar

ms

emba

rgoe

s, o

r la

cks

ca-

paci

ty to

est

ablis

h or

dev

elop

suc

h la

ws

or m

easu

res,

and

(2) i

ndic

at-

ed t

hat i

t has

req

uest

ed a

ssis

tanc

e sp

ecifi

cally

for

that

pur

pose

, and

/or

(3)

incl

udes

a r

efer

ence

to

that

req

uest

for

ass

ista

nce

in a

ny o

f its

na

tiona

l rep

ort(s

), a

quar

ter

poin

t was

aw

arde

d.

✖ P

oint

s w

ere

not

awar

ded

for

mer

e ex

pres

sion

s of

will

ingn

ess

(e.g

. ‘w

e w

ould

like

to im

plem

ent a

rms

emba

rgoe

s, b

ut w

e do

n’t h

ave

ca-

paci

ty’).

d) If

the

stat

e in

dica

tes

it pr

o-hi

bits

th

e tr

ansf

er

of

arm

s th

at v

iola

te a

rms

emba

rgoe

s,

it re

ceiv

ed a

full

poin

t.

✔ If

a s

tate

indi

cate

d th

at it

pro

hibi

ts o

r ban

s th

e tr

ansf

er o

f sm

all a

rms

in v

iola

tion

of a

n ar

ms

emba

rgo,

it w

as a

war

ded

a fu

ll po

int.

e) If

the

stat

e in

dica

tes

it do

es

not

have

law

s on

arm

s em

-ba

rgoe

s (o

r do

es n

ot g

ive

in-

form

atio

n on

whe

ther

it

has

such

law

s),

zero

poi

nts

wer

e aw

arde

d.

✖ I

f a

stat

e in

dica

ted

it do

es n

ot h

ave

law

s or

oth

er m

easu

res

to i

m-

plem

ent a

rms

emba

rgoe

s, n

o po

ints

wer

e al

loca

ted,

but

the

info

rma-

tion

was

rec

orde

d.

Su

bto

tal o

f sec

tio

n 7

12

▼


Po

A/I

TI

sour

cePo

A o

r IT

I pr

ovis

ion

Scor

e-sh

eet

ques

tion

Scor

ing

crit

eria

Max

. sc

ore

8B

roke

rin

g

8.1

PoA

II.1

4To

dev

elop

ade

quat

e na

tiona

l le

gisl

atio

n or

adm

inis

trat

ive

proc

edur

es r

egul

atin

g th

e ac

tiviti

es o

f th

ose

who

eng

age

in

smal

l ar

ms

and

light

wea

pons

bro

keri

ng.

This

leg

isla

tion

or p

roce

dure

s sh

ould

in-

clud

e m

easu

res

such

as

regi

stra

tion

of b

ro-

kers

, lic

ensi

ng o

r au

thor

izat

ion

of b

roke

r-in

g tr

ansa

ctio

ns a

s w

ell a

s th

e ap

prop

riate

pe

nalti

es fo

r al

l illi

cit b

roke

ring

act

iviti

es

perf

orm

ed w

ithin

the

Sta

te’s

jur

isdi

ctio

n an

d co

ntro

l.

(Pri

mar

y co

mm

itmen

t): D

oes

the

stat

e ha

ve l

aws

or p

ro-

cedu

res

regu

latin

g br

oker

ing

activ

ities

pe

rfor

med

w

ithin

its

juri

sdic

tion

and

cont

rol?

a) I

f th

e an

swer

is

yes,

a f

ull

poin

t was

aw

arde

d.

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int i

f the

y in

dica

ted

they

hav

e sp

ecifi

c le

gisl

atio

n go

vern

ing

brok

erin

g in

pla

ce; t

hat ‘

inte

rmed

iari

es’ m

ust b

e au

thor

ized

(e.g

. Mon

aco)

.

✖ S

tate

s w

ere

not g

iven

poi

nts

if th

ey s

impl

y re

port

ed e

.g. t

hat d

eale

rs

mus

t be

lic

ense

d, u

nles

s th

ey p

rovi

ded

mor

e in

form

atio

n in

dica

ting

that

bro

kerin

g ac

tiviti

es a

re c

over

ed. S

imila

rly, s

tate

s w

ere

not a

war

ded

the

poin

t if t

hey

mer

ely

indi

cate

d th

at c

usto

ms

brok

ers

are

regu

late

d (e

.g. M

oldo

va).

1

b) I

f th

e st

ate

indi

cate

s su

ch

law

s ar

e un

der

deve

lopm

ent

(e.g

., ar

e be

ing

draf

ted

or a

re

unde

r co

nsid

erat

ion

by p

arlia

-m

ent),

it re

ceiv

ed a

hal

f poi

nt.

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a ha

lf po

int

if th

ey i

ndic

ated

tha

t br

oker

ing

cont

rols

are

‘und

er d

evel

opm

ent’,

or a

re b

eing

dra

fted

or c

onsi

dere

d;

or i

f th

ey i

ndic

ated

the

y w

ill d

evel

op b

roke

ring

law

s at

som

e fu

ture

da

te (e

.g.

as p

art

of a

n ex

erci

se t

o ha

rmon

ize

or u

pdat

e th

eir

legi

sla-

tion

in th

e fu

ture

) (e.

g. B

urki

na F

aso)

, or t

hat t

hey

will

be

addr

esse

d in

a

revi

ew o

f leg

isla

tion

(e.g

. Gha

na),

or a

re b

eing

con

side

red

as p

art o

f a

legi

slat

ive

revi

ew (e

.g. S

eneg

al).

✖ S

tate

s w

ere

not a

war

ded

poin

ts if

they

sim

ply

indi

cate

d th

at a

utho

r-iti

es h

ad ‘d

iscu

ssed

’ bro

keri

ng le

gisl

atio

n (e

.g. T

haila

nd).

c) If

the

stat

e in

dica

tes

it do

es

not

have

law

s on

bro

keri

ng

be ca

use

it re

quir

es

assi

st-

ance

to

deve

lop

them

and

ha

s re

ques

ted

it, a

hal

f poi

nt

was

aw

arde

d.

✔ If

a s

tate

indi

cate

d th

at: (

1) it

has

no

law

s on

bro

keri

ng o

r la

cks

ca-

paci

ty t

o es

tabl

ish

or d

evel

op t

hem

, an

d (2

) it

has

requ

este

d as

sist

-an

ce s

peci

fical

ly fo

r th

at p

urpo

se, a

nd/o

r (3

) a r

eque

st fo

r as

sist

ance

w

as in

clud

ed in

its

natio

nal r

epor

t(s),

a ha

lf po

int w

as a

war

ded.

✖ P

oint

s w

ere

not

awar

ded

for

mer

e ex

pres

sion

s of

will

ingn

ess

(e.g

. ‘w

e w

ould

like

to h

ave

law

s on

bro

kerin

g bu

t we

do n

ot h

ave

capa

city

’).

d) If

the

stat

e in

dica

tes

it pr

o-hi

bits

bro

keri

ng, i

t rec

eive

d a

full

poin

t.

✔ If

a s

tate

ind

icat

ed t

hat

brok

erin

g is

pro

hibi

ted

unde

r its

nat

iona

l la

w, i

t was

aw

arde

d a

full

poin

t, an

d th

e qu

estio

n as

to

whe

ther

the

st

ate

requ

ires

the

reg

istr

atio

n of

bro

kers

and

the

lic

ensi

ng o

f br

oker

-in

g ac

tiviti

es w

as t

hus

labe

lled

‘not

app

licab

le’ (

e.g.

Eri

trea

, Eth

iopi

a,

and

Mau

ritiu

s).

e) I

f th

e st

ate

indi

cate

s th

at

brok

erin

g is

cov

ered

by

othe

r la

ws,

it r

ecei

ved

a fu

ll po

int.

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int i

f the

y in

dica

ted

that

, alth

ough

they

ha

ve n

o sp

ecifi

c le

gisl

atio

n on

bro

keri

ng, t

he la

tter

is c

over

ed u

nder

ot

her

exis

ting

legi

slat

ion

such

as

expo

rt c

ontr

ols

(e.g

. C

anad

a an

d N

ew Z

eala

nd).

In s

uch

inst

ance

s, t

hey

wer

e no

t aw

arde

d th

e po

ints

al

loca

ted

unde

r th

e su

bsid

iary

com

mitm

ents

to

regi

ster

bro

kers

and

lic

ence

eac

h br

oker

ing

tran

sact

ion

(eve

n if

they

indi

cate

d th

at b

roke

rs

cond

uctin

g ex

port

s re

quir

ed e

xpor

t lic

ence

s or

aut

hori

zatio

n).


f) If

the

stat

e in

dica

tes

it do

es

not

have

law

s on

bro

keri

ng

(or

does

not

giv

e in

form

atio

n on

whe

ther

it

has

such

law

s),

it re

ceiv

ed z

ero

poin

ts.

✖ I

f a

stat

e in

dica

ted

it do

es n

ot h

ave

law

s on

bro

keri

ng,

no p

oint

s w

ere

allo

cate

d, b

ut th

e in

form

atio

n w

as r

ecor

ded.

g) I

f th

e st

ate

indi

cate

s th

at

ther

e ar

e no

bro

kers

on

its

terr

itory

or

that

no

brok

erin

g ac

tivi

ties

are

car

ried

out

, it

rece

ived

zer

o po

ints

.

✖ S

tate

s th

at r

epor

ted

ther

e ar

e no

bro

kers

or

brok

erin

g ac

tiviti

es o

n th

eir t

erri

tori

es w

ere

not a

war

ded

any

poin

ts, n

or w

ere

any

prov

isio

ns

mad

e ‘n

ot a

pplic

able

’ (ev

en if

sta

tes

expr

essl

y in

dica

ted

they

did

not

ne

ed b

roke

ring

law

s si

nce

brok

erin

g di

d no

t exi

st o

n th

eir

terr

itori

es).

Such

info

rmat

ion

was

non

ethe

less

rec

orde

d.

8.2

PoA

II.1

4(S

ubsi

diar

y co

mm

itmen

t):

Reg

istr

atio

n of

bro

kers

Doe

s th

e st

ate

have

a

sys-

tem

of r

egis

teri

ng b

roke

rs (i

.e.

keep

ing

reco

rds

of th

e id

enti-

ty o

f per

sons

eng

aged

in b

ro-

keri

ng a

ctiv

ities

with

in i

ts j

u-ri

sdic

tion

and

cont

rol)?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a ha

lf po

int i

f the

y re

port

ed th

at b

roke

rs m

ust

be r

egis

tere

d; o

r if

they

kee

p a

reco

rd o

f aut

hori

zed

brok

ers,

or

a ‘d

i-re

ctor

y of

sup

plie

rs’

in t

he c

onte

xt o

f br

oker

ing

(e.g

. C

olom

bia

(our

tr

ansl

atio

n)).

✖ S

tate

s w

ere

not

awar

ded

the

appl

icab

le p

oint

if

they

mer

ely

indi

-ca

ted

that

dea

lers

mus

t be

regi

ster

ed (e

.g. U

rugu

ay).

0.5

8.3

PoA

II.1

4(S

ubsi

diar

y co

mm

itmen

t):

Lice

nsin

g or

aut

horiz

atio

n of

br

oker

ing

tran

sact

ions

Doe

s th

e st

ate

requ

ire b

roke

r-in

g tra

nsac

tions

invo

lvin

g sm

all

arm

s to

be

licen

sed

or o

ther

-w

ise

auth

oriz

ed b

y th

e st

ate?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a ha

lf po

int

if th

ey r

epor

ted

that

bro

kers

re-

quir

e a

licen

ce o

r per

mit

for e

ach

brok

erin

g ac

tivity

; or i

f the

y in

dica

t-ed

in

gene

ral

term

s th

at b

roke

rs m

ust

obta

in a

lic

ence

or

auth

oriz

a-tio

n (w

ithou

t spe

cify

ing

whe

ther

this

app

lied

to e

ach

brok

erin

g tr

ans-

actio

n).

0.5

8.4

PoA

II.1

4(S

ubsi

diar

y co

mm

itmen

t):

App

ropr

iate

pen

altie

s fo

r ill

icit

brok

erin

g ac

tiviti

es

Has

th

e st

ate

esta

blis

hed

pena

lties

for

illi

cit

brok

erin

g ac

tiviti

es?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a ha

lf po

int i

f the

y in

dica

ted

they

hav

e cr

imin

al-

ized

illic

it or

unl

awfu

l br

oker

ing,

or

that

the

se o

ffenc

es a

re c

over

ed

unde

r la

ws

agai

nst

illic

it tr

affic

king

or

smug

glin

g (e

.g.

Papu

a N

ew

Gui

nea)

, or

if

they

inc

lude

d pe

nalti

es f

or i

llici

t de

alin

gs u

nder

the

he

adin

g of

‘br

oker

ing’

(e.

g. N

ew Z

eala

nd).

Det

ails

of

the

appl

icab

le

pena

l ties

wer

e al

so r

ecor

ded

(but

no

addi

tiona

l poi

nts

wer

e aw

arde

d;

stat

es w

ere

not p

enal

ized

for

omitt

ing

this

info

rmat

ion)

.

0.5

8.5

PoA

II.6

To id

entif

y, w

here

app

licab

le, g

roup

s an

d in

divi

dual

s en

gage

d in

[…

] fin

anci

ng f

or

acqu

isiti

on, o

f illi

cit s

mal

l arm

s an

d lig

ht

wea

pons

, an

d ta

ke a

ctio

n un

der

appr

o-pr

iate

nat

iona

l la

w a

gain

st s

uch

grou

ps

and

indi

vidu

als.

Has

the

sta

te t

aken

leg

al a

c-tio

n ag

ains

t an

y gr

oup

or

indi

vidu

al(s

) en

gage

d in

ille

-ga

l fin

anci

ng f

or a

cqui

sitio

n of

sm

all

arm

s (e

.g.

thro

ugh

pros

ecut

ion)

?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int i

f the

y re

port

ed t

hey

have

iden

ti-fie

d an

d/or

take

n ac

tion

agai

nst a

ny g

roup

s or

indi

vidu

als

enga

ged

in

illic

it br

oker

ing

or il

lega

l fina

ncin

g fo

r acq

uisi

tion

(e.g

. thr

ough

‘inv

es-

tigat

ions

’, ‘a

rres

ts’,

‘pro

secu

tions

’, or

thro

ugh

the

prov

isio

n of

sta

tistic

s on

the

num

ber

of p

erso

ns a

rres

ted

or c

augh

t in

the

con

text

of

illic

it br

oker

ing

or fi

nanc

ing

for

acqu

isiti

on).

N/A

If

a st

ate

repo

rted

tha

t no

illi

cit

brok

erin

g or

ille

gal

finan

cing

fo

r ac

quis

ition

has

tak

en p

lace

on

its t

erri

tory

, or

doe

s no

t m

entio

n w

heth

er g

roup

s or

ind

ivid

uals

hav

e be

en p

rose

cute

d in

thi

s re

gard

, th

is q

uest

ion

was

mar

ked

as ‘n

ot a

pplic

able

’.

1

Su

bto

tal o

f sec

tio

n 8

3.5


Po

A/I

TI

sour

cePo

A o

r IT

I pr

ovis

ion

Scor

e-sh

eet

ques

tion

Scor

ing

crit

eria

Max

. sc

ore

9St

ock

pile

man

agem

ent a

nd

sec

uri

ty

9.1

PoA

II.1

7To

ens

ure,

sub

ject

to

the

resp

ectiv

e co

n-st

itutio

nal

and

lega

l sy

stem

s of

Sta

tes,

th

at th

e ar

med

forc

es, p

olic

e or

any

oth

er

body

aut

hori

zed

to h

old

smal

l ar

ms

and

light

wea

pons

est

ablis

h ad

equa

te a

nd d

e-ta

iled

stan

dard

s an

d pr

oced

ures

rel

atin

g to

the

man

agem

ent

and

secu

rity

of

thei

r st

ocks

of t

hese

wea

pons

. The

se s

tand

ards

an

d pr

oced

ures

sho

uld,

int

er a

lia,

rela

te

to:

appr

opri

ate

loca

tions

for

sto

ckpi

les;

ph

ysic

al

secu

rity

m

easu

res;

co

ntro

l of

ac

cess

to

stoc

ks;

inve

ntor

y m

anag

emen

t an

d ac

coun

ting

cont

rol;

staf

f tr

aini

ng;

secu

rity

, acc

ount

ing

and

cont

rol o

f sm

all

arm

s an

d lig

ht w

eapo

ns h

eld

or t

rans

-po

rted

by

oper

atio

nal u

nits

or a

utho

rize

d pe

rson

nel;

and

proc

edur

es a

nd s

anct

ions

in

the

even

t of t

heft

s or

loss

.

(Pri

mar

y co

mm

itmen

t):

Has

th

e st

ate

esta

blis

hed

stan

d ard

s an

d pr

oced

ures

for m

anag

ing

and

ensu

ring

the

sec

urity

of

stat

e st

ockp

iles?

a) I

f th

e an

swer

is

yes,

a f

ull

poin

t was

aw

arde

d.

✔ If

a s

tate

repo

rted

it h

as s

tock

pile

man

agem

ent s

tand

ards

and

pro

ce-

dure

s in

pla

ce, o

r pr

ovid

ed in

form

atio

n on

any

one

of t

he s

ubsi

diar

y co

mm

itmen

ts b

elow

, it r

ecei

ved

a fu

ll po

int.

✖ I

f a st

ate

repo

rted

it h

as n

o st

ockp

iles (

e.g.

Gre

nada

), th

e as

sum

ptio

n w

as m

ade

that

it h

as n

o ar

med

forc

es’ s

tock

pile

s (p

ossi

bly

beca

use

it ha

s no

arm

y), b

ut th

at it

doe

s ha

ve s

tock

pile

s be

long

ing

to th

e po

lice

forc

e or

ano

ther

law

enf

orce

men

t bod

y.

1

b) If

the

stat

e in

dica

tes

it do

es

not h

ave

the

capa

city

to m

an-

age

its s

tock

pile

s an

d th

at i

t ha

s re

ques

ted

assi

stan

ce i

n th

is r

egar

d, i

t re

ceiv

ed a

hal

f po

int.

✔ If

a s

tate

ind

icat

ed t

hat:

(1)

it di

d no

t ha

ve s

tock

pile

man

agem

ent

proc

edur

es o

r lac

ked

capa

city

to e

stab

lish

or d

evel

op th

em, a

nd (2

) it

has

requ

este

d as

sist

ance

spe

cific

ally

for

that

pur

pose

, and

/or

(3) a

re-

ques

t for

ass

ista

nce

was

incl

uded

in it

s na

tiona

l rep

ort(s

), it

rece

ived

a

half

poin

t.

✖ P

oint

s w

ere

not

awar

ded

for

mer

e ex

pres

sion

s of

will

ingn

ess

(e.g

. ‘w

e w

ould

like

to h

ave

stoc

kpile

man

agem

ent p

roce

dure

s bu

t we

do

not h

ave

capa

city

’).

9.2

PoA

II.1

7(S

ubsi

diar

y co

mm

itmen

t):

App

ropr

iate

loca

tions

for

stoc

kpile

s

Doe

s th

e st

ate

ensu

re

that

st

ockp

iles

are

loca

ted

in a

p-pr

opri

ate

plac

es?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a ha

lf po

int i

f the

y pr

ovid

ed d

etai

ls o

f cri

teri

a th

ey a

pply

whe

n as

sess

ing

the

loca

tion

of s

tock

pile

s, s

uch

as e

nsur

ing

they

wer

e ‘a

way

fro

m t

he n

atio

nal

boun

dari

es’

and

a sa

fe d

ista

nce

from

pop

ulat

ed a

reas

(e.

g. B

ulga

ria)

; or

are

in

a ‘s

ound

loc

atio

n’ f

or

stoc

kpile

s (e

.g. D

RC

). St

ates

wer

e al

so a

war

ded

a ha

lf po

int i

f the

y re

-pl

ied

‘yes

’ to

ques

tion

10 o

f the

rev

ised

UN

OD

A r

epor

ting

tem

plat

e:

‘Doe

s yo

ur c

ount

ry h

ave

stan

dard

s an

d pr

oced

ures

rel

atin

g to

the

m

anag

emen

t an

d se

curit

y of

[sm

all a

rms

and

light

wea

pons

] hel

d by

th

e ar

med

forc

es, p

olic

e or

any

oth

er e

ntity

aut

horiz

ed to

hol

d w

eap

on

s?’,

and

ticke

d th

e bo

x ‘a

) A

ppro

pria

te l

ocat

ions

for

sto

ckpi

les’

in

ques

tion

10.1

reg

ardi

ng t

he p

rovi

sion

s in

clud

ed i

n th

ese

stan

dard

s an

d pr

oced

ures

.

0.5


9.3

PoA

II.1

7(S

ubsi

diar

y co

mm

itmen

t):

Phys

ical

sec

urity

mea

sure

s

Doe

s the

sta

te h

ave

stan

dard

s an

d pr

oced

ures

in

plac

e re

-la

ting

to th

e ph

ysic

al s

ecur

ity

mea

sure

s it

take

s to

ens

ure

the

secu

rity

of

its s

tock

pile

s (e

.g. a

re t

he s

tock

pile

s gu

ard-

ed?

Are

the

y ke

pt i

n lo

cked

w

areh

ouse

s? e

tc.)?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a ha

lf po

int

if th

ey p

rovi

ded

deta

ils o

f ph

ysi-

cal s

ecur

ity m

easu

res

take

n w

ith re

spec

t to

stat

e st

ockp

iles,

incl

udin

g:

guar

ding

of

stoc

ks,

lock

ed w

areh

ouse

s, a

larm

sys

tem

s, s

urve

illan

ce

etc;

or

if th

ey s

impl

y in

dica

ted

they

ens

ure

‘sec

ure

stor

age’

of

stat

e w

eapo

ns (e

.g. R

wan

da).

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

also

aw

arde

d a

half

poin

t if t

hey

repl

ied

‘yes

’ to

ques

-tio

n 10

of t

he r

evis

ed U

NO

DA

rep

ortin

g te

mpl

ate:

‘Doe

s yo

ur c

oun

try

have

sta

ndar

ds a

nd p

roce

dure

s re

latin

g to

the

man

agem

ent

and

secu

rity

of [

smal

l arm

s an

d lig

ht w

eapo

ns]

held

by

the

arm

ed f

orce

s,

polic

e or

any

oth

er e

ntity

aut

horiz

ed t

o ho

ld w

eapo

ns?’

, an

d tic

ked

the

box

‘b) P

hysi

cal s

ecur

ity m

easu

res’

in q

uest

ion

10.1

rega

rdin

g th

e pr

ovis

ions

incl

uded

in th

ese

stan

dard

s an

d pr

oced

ures

.

0.5

9.4

PoA

II.1

7(S

ubsi

diar

y co

mm

itmen

t):

Con

trol

of a

cces

s to

sto

cks

Doe

s th

e st

ate

have

any

re-

stri

ctio

ns i

n pl

ace

on a

cces

s to

its

stoc

kpile

s?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a ha

lf po

int i

f the

y re

port

ed th

at: (

1) o

nly

auth

or-

ized

per

sonn

el h

ad a

cces

s to

sto

ckpi

les;

or

(2)

only

one

or

a lim

ited

num

ber o

f peo

ple

had

keys

to th

e st

ocks

; or (

3) th

at p

erso

ns w

ho a

cces

s st

ocks

mus

t be

acco

mpa

nied

by

an a

utho

rize

d pe

rson

(e.g

. Arg

entin

a).

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

also

aw

arde

d a

half

poin

t if t

hey

repl

ied

‘yes

’ to

ques

-tio

n 10

of t

he r

evis

ed U

NO

DA

rep

ortin

g te

mpl

ate:

‘Doe

s yo

ur c

oun

try

have

sta

ndar

ds a

nd p

roce

dure

s re

latin

g to

the

man

agem

ent

and

secu

rity

of [

smal

l arm

s an

d lig

ht w

eapo

ns]

held

by

the

arm

ed f

orce

s,

polic

e or

any

oth

er e

ntity

aut

horiz

ed t

o ho

ld w

eapo

ns?’

, an

d tic

ked

the

box

‘c) C

ontr

ol o

f acc

ess

to s

tock

s’ in

que

stio

n 10

.1 r

egar

ding

the

prov

isio

ns in

clud

ed in

thes

e st

anda

rds

and

proc

edur

es.

0.5

9.5

PoA

II.1

7(S

ubsi

diar

y co

mm

itmen

t):

Inve

ntor

y m

anag

emen

t and

ac

coun

ting

cont

rol

Doe

s th

e st

ate

have

st

and-

ards

and

pro

cedu

res

in p

lace

fo

r in

vent

ory

man

agem

ent

or

acco

untin

g co

ntro

l of

its

st

ockp

iles

(e.g

., th

roug

h m

onth

ly s

tock

-tak

ing)

?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a ha

lf po

int i

f the

y pr

ovid

ed in

form

atio

n on

how

of

ten

stoc

ks a

re c

ount

ed (

daily

, w

eekl

y, m

onth

ly,

quar

terl

y) a

nd b

y w

hom

; or

if

they

indi

cate

d th

at s

tock

s ar

e ‘m

onito

red

regu

larl

y’ (

Dji -

bo

uti)

or ‘r

evie

wed

’, or

that

‘spo

t che

cks’

are

con

duct

ed (e

.g. B

enin

).25

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

also

aw

arde

d a

half

poin

t if t

hey

repl

ied

‘yes

’ to

ques

tion

10 o

f th

e re

vise

d U

NO

DA

rep

ortin

g te

mpl

ate:

‘D

oes

your

cou

ntry

ha

ve s

tand

ards

and

pro

cedu

res

rela

ting

to th

e m

anag

emen

t and

sec

urit

y of

[sm

all a

rms

and

light

wea

pons

] hel

d by

the

arm

ed fo

rces

, pol

ice

or a

ny o

ther

ent

ity a

utho

rized

to h

old

wea

pons

?’, a

nd ti

cked

the

box

‘d)

Inve

ntor

y m

anag

emen

t an

d ac

coun

ting

cont

rol’

in q

uest

ion

10.1

re

gard

ing

the

prov

isio

ns in

clud

ed in

thes

e st

anda

rds

and

proc

edur

es.

0.5

9.6

PoA

II.1

7(S

ubsi

diar

y co

mm

itmen

t):

Staf

f tra

inin

g

Doe

s th

e st

ate

have

st

and-

ards

and

pro

cedu

res

for

staf

f tr

aini

ng i

n st

ockp

ile m

anag

e-m

ent?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a ha

lf po

int i

f the

y pr

ovid

ed d

etai

ls o

f spe

cific

tr

aini

ng p

rovi

ded

to s

taff—

e.g.

trai

ning

on

safe

sto

rage

(e.g

. Cam

bodi

a)

or o

n st

ockp

ile m

anag

emen

t (e.

g. B

enin

).

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

also

aw

arde

d a

half

poin

t if t

hey

repl

ied

‘yes

’ to

ques

-tio

n 10

of t

he r

evis

ed U

NO

DA

rep

ortin

g te

mpl

ate:

‘Doe

s yo

ur c

oun

try

have

sta

ndar

ds a

nd p

roce

dure

s re

latin

g to

the

man

agem

ent

and

secu

rity

of [

smal

l arm

s an

d lig

ht w

eapo

ns]

held

by

the

arm

ed f

orce

s,

polic

e or

any

oth

er e

ntity

aut

horiz

ed t

o ho

ld w

eapo

ns?’

, an

d tic

ked

the

box

‘e) S

taff

trai

ning

’ in

ques

tion

10.1

reg

ardi

ng th

e pr

ovis

ions

in-

clud

ed in

thes

e st

anda

rds

and

proc

edur

es.

0.5


Po

A/I

TI

sour

cePo

A o

r IT

I pr

ovis

ion

Scor

e-sh

eet

ques

tion

Scor

ing

crit

eria

Max

. sc

ore

9.7

PoA

II.1

7(S

ubsi

diar

y co

mm

itmen

t):

Secu

rity,

acc

ount

ing

and

con

trol

of

smal

l ar

ms

and

light

w

eapo

ns h

eld

or tr

ansp

orte

d

Doe

s th

e st

ate

have

sta

ndar

ds

and

proc

edur

es i

n pl

ace

to

ensu

re

that

st

ate

stoc

kpile

s ar

e ke

pt s

ecur

e du

ring

tra

ns

port

?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a ha

lf po

int i

f the

y ga

ve in

form

atio

n in

dica

ting

they

hav

e st

anda

rds

and

proc

edur

es in

pla

ce to

ens

ure

that

sto

cks

are

kept

sec

ure

duri

ng t

rans

port

—e.

g. p

olic

e es

cort

s ac

com

pany

tru

cks

carr

ying

sto

cks

(e.g

. Phi

lippi

nes)

.

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

also

aw

arde

d a

half

poin

t if t

hey

repl

ied

‘yes

’ to

ques

-tio

n 10

of t

he r

evis

ed U

NO

DA

rep

ortin

g te

mpl

ate:

‘Doe

s yo

ur c

oun

try

have

sta

ndar

ds a

nd p

roce

dure

s re

latin

g to

the

man

agem

ent

and

secu

rity

of [

smal

l arm

s an

d lig

ht w

eapo

ns]

held

by

the

arm

ed f

orce

s,

polic

e or

any

oth

er e

ntity

aut

horiz

ed t

o ho

ld w

eapo

ns?’

, an

d tic

ked

the

box

‘f) S

ecur

ity,

acco

untin

g an

d co

ntro

l of

sm

all

arm

s an

d lig

ht

wea

pons

hel

d or

tra

nspo

rted

by

oper

atio

nal

units

or

auth

oriz

ed p

er-

sonn

el’

in q

uest

ion

10.1

reg

ardi

ng t

he p

rovi

sion

s in

clud

ed i

n th

ese

stan

dard

s an

d pr

oced

ures

.

0.5

9.8

PoA

II.1

7(S

ubsi

diar

y co

mm

itmen

t):

Proc

edur

es a

nd s

anct

ions

in

the

even

t of t

heft

or lo

ss

Doe

s th

e st

ate

have

pro

ce-

dure

s an

d sa

nctio

ns o

r pe

n-al

ties

that

are

app

lied

in t

he

even

t of

the

ft or

los

s fr

om

stat

e st

ockp

iles?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a ha

lf po

int

if th

ey i

ndic

ated

tha

t: (1

) th

efts

an

d lo

sses

fro

m s

tate

sto

ckpi

les

mus

t be

rep

orte

d, e

.g.

to a

sup

erio

r or

com

man

ding

offi

cer;

or

(2)

disc

iplin

ary

actio

n w

as t

aken

with

re-

spec

t to

loss

es o

r the

ft fr

om s

tock

pile

s; o

r (3)

san

ctio

ns e

xist

ed fo

r any

br

each

of

secu

rity

pro

cedu

res

or in

stru

ctio

ns (e

.g.

New

Zea

land

), or

fo

r no

n-co

mpl

ianc

e w

ith s

afe

stor

age

requ

irem

ents

(e.g

. Ind

ones

ia).

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

also

aw

arde

d a

half

poin

t if t

hey

repl

ied

‘yes

’ to

ques

-tio

n 10

of t

he r

evis

ed U

NO

DA

rep

ortin

g te

mpl

ate:

‘Doe

s yo

ur c

oun

try

have

sta

ndar

ds a

nd p

roce

dure

s re

latin

g to

the

man

agem

ent

and

secu

rity

of [

smal

l arm

s an

d lig

ht w

eapo

ns]

held

by

the

arm

ed f

orce

s,

polic

e or

any

oth

er e

ntity

aut

horiz

ed t

o ho

ld w

eapo

ns?’

, an

d tic

ked

the

box

‘g)

Proc

edur

es i

n th

e ev

ent

of t

heft

or l

oss’

in

ques

tion

10.1

re

gard

ing

the

prov

isio

ns in

clud

ed in

thes

e st

anda

rds

and

proc

edur

es.

0.5

Su

bto

tal o

f sec

tio

n 9

4.5

10Su

rplu

s26 id

enti

fica

tio

n a

nd

dis

po

sal

10.1

PoA

II.1

8 To

regu

larly

revi

ew, a

s ap

prop

riate

, sub

ject

to

the

resp

ectiv

e co

nstit

utio

nal a

nd le

gal

syst

ems

of S

tate

s, th

e st

ocks

of s

mal

l arm

s an

d lig

ht w

eapo

ns h

eld

by a

rmed

forc

es,

polic

e an

d ot

her

auth

oriz

ed b

odie

s an

d to

ens

ure

that

suc

h st

ocks

dec

lare

d by

co

mpe

tent

nat

iona

l au

thor

ities

to

be s

ur-

plus

to

requ

irem

ents

are

cle

arly

ide

nti-

fied,

that

pro

gram

mes

for t

he re

spon

sibl

e di

spos

al,

pref

erab

ly t

hrou

gh d

estr

uctio

n,

of s

uch

stoc

ks a

re e

stab

lishe

d an

d im

ple-

men

ted

and

that

suc

h st

ocks

are

ade

quat

e-ly

saf

egua

rded

unt

il di

spos

al.

Doe

s th

e st

ate

(regu

larl

y) r

e-vi

ew s

tate

-hel

d st

ockp

iles

to

iden

tify

wea

pons

that

are

sur

-pl

us to

req

uire

men

ts?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int i

f the

y re

port

ed th

at th

ey re

gula

rly

revi

ew s

tock

s to

ide

ntify

sur

plus

, in

clud

ing

‘regu

lar

chec

ks o

n se

rv-

icea

bilit

y’ (L

esot

ho);

or if

they

pro

vide

d de

tails

of h

ow th

ey d

eter

min

e w

heth

er th

ey h

ave

surp

lus

smal

l arm

s.

1


(App

licab

ility

que

stio

n):

Doe

s th

e st

ate

indi

cate

it d

oes

not h

ave

surp

lus?

N/A

If

a st

ate

indi

cate

d it

has

‘no

surp

lus’

and

has

nev

er h

ad o

ne,

ques

tions

10.

2 to

10.

4 w

ere

mar

ked

‘not

app

licab

le’.

✖ I

f a s

tate

rep

orte

d it

has

no s

urpl

us a

t pre

sent

or

duri

ng t

he r

epor

t-in

g pe

riod

, bu

t in

clud

ed i

nfor

mat

ion

that

ind

icat

es i

t ha

s sy

stem

s in

pl

ace

for

the

disp

osal

of

surp

lus

smal

l ar

ms,

or

gave

det

ails

on

the

met

hods

of

dest

ruct

ion

of p

ast

surp

luse

s, i

t w

as n

ot m

arke

d as

‘no

t ap

plic

able

’ (e.

g. Ja

pan

and

Nig

er).

10.2

PoA

II.1

8To

regu

larly

revi

ew, a

s app

ropr

iate

, sub

ject

to

the

resp

ectiv

e co

nstit

utio

nal a

nd le

gal

syst

ems

of S

tate

s, th

e st

ocks

of s

mal

l arm

s an

d lig

ht w

eapo

ns h

eld

by a

rmed

forc

es,

polic

e an

d ot

her

auth

oriz

ed b

odie

s an

d to

ens

ure

that

suc

h st

ocks

dec

lare

d by

co

mpe

tent

nat

iona

l au

thor

ities

to

be s

ur-

plus

to

requ

irem

ents

are

cle

arly

ide

nti-

fied,

that

pro

gram

mes

for t

he re

spon

sibl

e di

spos

al,

pref

erab

ly t

hrou

gh d

estr

uctio

n,

of s

uch

stoc

ks a

re e

stab

lishe

d an

d im

ple-

men

ted

and

that

suc

h st

ocks

are

ade

-qu

atel

y sa

fegu

arde

d un

til d

ispo

sal.

How

doe

s th

e st

ate

disp

ose

of s

urpl

us s

mal

l arm

s?✔

Sta

tes

that

rep

orte

d th

ey d

estr

oy s

ome

or a

ll sm

all a

rms

iden

tified

as

‘su

rplu

s’, o

r th

at g

ave

deta

ils o

f su

rplu

s de

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es i

n th

eir n

atio

nal r

epor

ts, w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int.

If th

e st

ate

indi

cate

d it

dest

roys

‘sto

ckpi

les’,

it w

as a

ssum

ed th

is r

elat

ed to

sur

plus

or

obso

-le

te w

eapo

ns w

ithin

sto

ckpi

les

(e.g

. Ind

ones

ia).

If a

stat

e re

port

ed it

dis

pose

s of

sur

plus

by

mea

ns o

ther

than

des

truc

-tio

n, a

rec

ord

was

kep

t of t

he d

ispo

sal m

etho

ds u

sed

(e.g

., sa

le to

an-

othe

r sta

te; d

onat

ion

to a

noth

er s

tate

; tra

nsfe

r to

anot

her s

tate

age

ncy;

sa

le to

civ

ilian

s; s

ale

or tr

ansf

er to

lega

l ent

ities

(e.g

. mus

eum

s, p

riva

te

secu

rity

com

pani

es, e

tc.))

.

1

10.3

PoA

II.1

9To

des

troy

sur

plus

sm

all

arm

s an

d lig

ht

wea

pons

des

igna

ted

for

dest

ruct

ion,

tak

-in

g in

to a

ccou

nt,

inte

r al

ia,

the

repo

rt o

f th

e Se

cret

ary-

Gen

eral

of

the

Uni

ted

Na-

tions

on

met

hods

of d

estr

uctio

n of

sm

all

arm

s, l

ight

wea

pons

, am

mun

ition

and

ex

plos

ives

(S/

2000

/109

2) o

f 15

Nov

em-

ber

2000

.

If th

e st

ate

dest

roys

sur

plus

w

eapo

ns,

does

it

use

any

of

the

dest

ruct

ion

met

hods

lis

t-ed

in t

he r

epor

t of t

he S

ecre

-ta

ry-G

ener

al o

n m

etho

ds o

f de

stru

ctio

n (S

/200

0/10

92)

of

15 N

ovem

ber

2000

?

✔ If

a s

tate

incl

uded

info

rmat

ion

on t

he m

etho

d of

des

truc

tion

used

to

des

troy

sm

all a

rms

(whe

ther

they

be

surp

lus

or s

eize

d, c

onfis

cate

d,

or c

olle

cted

wea

pons

), an

d th

e m

etho

d id

entifi

ed m

atch

ed o

ne o

f th

e m

etho

ds li

sted

in th

e re

port

of t

he S

ecre

tary

-Gen

eral

(bur

ning

or

mel

ting;

ope

n-pi

t de

tona

tion;

cut

ting/

shre

ddin

g; b

endi

ng/c

rush

ing;

du

mpi

ng a

t sea

; bur

ial o

n la

nd),

a fu

ll po

int w

as a

war

ded.

Info

rmat

ion

incl

uded

in re

port

s on

quan

titie

s or e

stim

ates

of s

urpl

us a

nd

surp

lus d

estru

ctio

n w

as re

cord

ed, b

ut n

o ad

ditio

nal p

oint

s wer

e aw

arde

d.

N/A

If th

e st

ate

repo

rted

it d

oes

not d

estr

oy s

urpl

us, a

nd d

ispo

ses

of it

in

som

e ot

her

way

, thi

s qu

estio

n w

as m

arke

d ‘n

ot a

pplic

able

’.

1

10.4

PoA

II.1

8To

regu

larly

revi

ew, a

s app

ropr

iate

, sub

ject

to

the

resp

ectiv

e co

nstit

utio

nal a

nd le

gal

syst

ems

of S

tate

s, th

e st

ocks

of s

mal

l arm

s an

d lig

ht w

eapo

ns h

eld

by a

rmed

forc

es,

polic

e an

d ot

her

auth

oriz

ed b

odie

s an

d to

ens

ure

that

suc

h st

ocks

dec

lare

d by

co

mpe

tent

nat

iona

l au

thor

ities

to

be s

ur-

plus

to

requ

irem

ents

are

cle

arly

ide

nti-

fied,

that

pro

gram

mes

for t

he re

spon

sibl

e di

spos

al,

pref

erab

ly t

hrou

gh d

estr

uctio

n,

of s

uch

stoc

ks a

re e

stab

lishe

d an

d im

ple-

men

ted

and

that

suc

h st

ocks

are

ade

-qu

atel

y sa

fegu

arde

d un

til d

ispo

sal.

Doe

s th

e st

ate

ensu

re

that

su

rplu

s st

ockp

iles

are

safe

-gu

arde

d un

til

thei

r de

stru

c-tio

n or

dis

posa

l?

✔ S

tate

s th

at re

port

ed th

at s

urpl

us s

tock

s ar

e pl

aced

in s

ecur

e st

orag

e (e

.g. R

ussi

an F

eder

atio

n), o

r are

sto

red

in th

e sa

me

way

as

othe

r arm

a-m

ents

(e.g

. Rom

ania

), w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int.

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

also

aw

arde

d a

full

poin

t if t

hey

mar

ked

the

optio

n ‘d

) St

ore

sepa

rate

ly’ i

n re

spon

se to

que

stio

n 10

.4 o

f the

rev

ised

UN

OD

A

repo

rtin

g te

mpl

ate:

‘W

hen

stoc

ks a

re i

dent

ified

as

surp

lus,

wha

t ac

tio

ns d

oes

your

cou

ntry

take

with

reg

ard

to th

e su

rplu

s?’

1

Su

bto

tal o

f sec

tio

n 1

04


Po

A/I

TI

sour

cePo

A o

r IT

I pr

ovis

ion

Scor

e-sh

eet

ques

tion

Scor

ing

crit

eria

Max

. sc

ore

11P

ub

lic a

war

enes

s

11.1

PoA

II.2

0To

dev

elop

and

im

plem

ent,

incl

udin

g in

co

nflic

t and

pos

t-co

nflic

t situ

atio

ns, p

ub-

lic

awar

enes

s an

d co

nfide

nce-

build

ing

prog

ram

mes

on

the

prob

lem

s an

d co

nse-

quen

ces

of t

he il

licit

trad

e in

sm

all

arm

s an

d lig

ht w

eapo

ns i

n al

l its

asp

ects

, in

-cl

udin

g, w

here

app

ropr

iate

, the

pub

lic d

e-st

ruct

ion

of s

urpl

us w

eapo

ns a

nd th

e vo

l-un

tary

sur

rend

er o

f sm

all

arm

s an

d lig

ht

wea

pons

, if p

ossi

ble,

in c

oope

ratio

n w

ith

civi

l soc

iety

and

non

-gov

ernm

enta

l org

an-

izat

ions

, with

a v

iew

to e

radi

catin

g th

e il-

licit

trad

e in

sm

all a

rms

and

light

wea

pons

.

Has

the

sta

te c

arri

ed o

ut a

ny

publ

ic a

war

enes

s an

d co

nfi-

denc

e bu

ildin

g pr

ogra

mm

es

on t

he p

robl

ems

and

cons

e-qu

ence

s of

the

illic

it tr

ade

in

smal

l arm

s an

d lig

ht w

eapo

ns

(e.g

., pu

blic

des

truc

tion

of s

ur-

plus

wea

pons

and

the

vol

un-

tary

sur

rend

er o

f sm

all a

rms)

?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int

if th

ey p

rovi

ded

info

rmat

ion

on

any

awar

enes

s-ra

isin

g ac

tivity

tha

t ha

s ta

ken

plac

e on

the

ir te

rrito

ry

incl

udin

g: g

un b

uyba

cks

or c

olle

ctio

n pr

ogra

mm

es,

publ

ic d

estr

uc-

tion

cere

mon

ies,

civ

ilian

dis

arm

amen

t ca

mpa

igns

, an

d am

nest

ies,

ca

mpa

igns

to

war

n th

e pu

blic

abo

ut t

he p

rese

nce

of i

llici

t gu

ns i

n th

eir

com

mun

ities

, or

the

mis

uses

of w

eapo

ns in

the

hom

e.

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

also

aw

arde

d a

full

poin

t if t

hey

repo

rted

that

they

en-

sure

all

legi

slat

ion

and

regu

latio

ns g

over

ning

sm

all

arm

s w

ere

mad

e pu

blic

; or

if th

ey h

ave

orga

nize

d se

min

ars

to in

form

the

publ

ic a

bout

th

eir

expo

rt c

ontr

ol r

egim

es.

✖ S

tate

s w

ere

not

awar

ded

a po

int

for

awar

enes

s-ra

isin

g ac

tiviti

es

they

may

hav

e pa

rtic

ipat

ed in

or

cont

ribu

ted

to in

oth

er c

ount

ries

.

1

11.2

PoA

II.2

0H

as

the

stat

e co

nduc

ted

a ca

mpa

ign

for

the

volu

ntar

y su

rren

der

of s

mal

l ar

ms

(i.e.

w

eapo

ns a

re c

olle

cted

fro

m

civi

lians

or

ex

-com

bata

nts,

w

ho h

and

them

in v

olun

taril

y or

in e

xcha

nge

for

paym

ent)?

✖ I

nfor

mat

ion

in r

epor

ts r

elat

ing

to th

e co

llect

ion

of s

mal

l arm

s w

as

reco

rded

, but

no

addi

tiona

l poi

nts

wer

e aw

arde

d.

11.3

PoA

II.2

0H

as t

he s

tate

hel

d pu

blic

cer

-em

onie

s in

volv

ing

the

dest

ruc-

tion

of s

urpl

us s

mal

l arm

s?

✖ I

nfor

mat

ion

in r

epor

ts r

elat

ing

to p

ublic

des

truc

tion

cere

mon

ies

was

rec

orde

d, b

ut n

o ad

ditio

nal p

oint

s w

ere

awar

ded.

Su

bto

tal o

f sec

tio

n 1

11

12O

ther

Po

sses

sio

n

12.1

PoA

II.3

To a

dopt

and

im

plem

ent,

in t

he S

tate

s th

at h

ave

not

alre

ady

done

so,

the

nec

-es

sary

leg

isla

tive

or o

ther

mea

sure

s to

es

tabl

ish

as

crim

inal

of

fenc

es

unde

r th

eir

dom

estic

law

the

ille

gal

man

ufac

-tu

re,

poss

essi

on,

stoc

kpili

ng a

nd t

rade

of

sm

all

arm

s an

d lig

ht w

eapo

ns w

ithin

th

eir

area

s of

juri

sdic

tion,

in o

rder

to

en-

sure

that

thos

e en

gage

d in

suc

h ac

tiviti

es

can

be p

rose

cute

d un

der

appr

opri

ate

na-

tiona

l pen

al c

odes

.

Has

the

sta

te e

stab

lishe

d ill

e-ga

l po

sses

sion

of

smal

l ar

ms

as a

cri

min

al o

ffenc

e?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int

if th

ey r

epor

ted

they

hav

e cr

imi-

naliz

ed t

he i

llega

l st

ockp

iling

of

smal

l ar

ms

at t

he n

atio

nal

leve

l; or

th

ey g

ave

deta

ils o

f cr

imin

al p

enal

ties

appl

icab

le t

o ill

egal

sto

ckpi

l-in

g; o

r the

y in

dica

ted

that

thei

r sm

all a

rms

legi

slat

ion

incl

udes

res

tric

-tio

ns o

n st

ockp

iling

(or c

ontr

ols

gove

rnin

g w

eapo

ns s

tora

ge),

and

that

cr

imin

al p

enal

ties

exis

t for

bre

ache

s of

the

appl

icab

le le

gisl

atio

n.

✖ S

tate

s re

ceiv

ed z

ero

poin

ts if

they

mer

ely

indi

cate

d th

ey h

ave

take

n ac

tion

agai

nst p

erso

ns in

unl

awfu

l pos

sess

ion

of s

mal

l arm

s. T

he r

ea-

son

for

this

is t

wof

old:

(1) t

hey

rece

ived

a p

oint

for

such

info

rmat

ion

unde

r th

e ne

xt q

uest

ion

(12.

2); a

nd (

2) t

his

info

rmat

ion

was

not

con

-si

dere

d su

ffici

ent

to i

ndic

ate

whe

ther

the

y ha

ve i

nstit

uted

cri

min

al

proc

eedi

ngs

agai

nst p

erpe

trat

ors.

1


12.2

PoA

II.6

To id

entif

y, w

here

app

licab

le, g

roup

s an

d in

divi

dual

s en

gage

d in

the

ille

gal

man

u-fa

ctur

e, t

rade

, st

ockp

iling

, tr

ansf

er,

pos-

sess

ion,

as

wel

l as

fina

ncin

g fo

r ac

quis

i-tio

n, o

f ill

icit

smal

l ar

ms

and

light

wea

p-on

s, a

nd t

ake

actio

n un

der

appr

opri

ate

natio

nal

law

aga

inst

suc

h gr

oups

and

in-

divi

dual

s.

Has

th

e st

ate

take

n ac

tion

unde

r ap

prop

riat

e na

tion-

al l

aw a

gain

st a

ny g

roup

or

indi

vidu

al(s

) fo

r ill

egal

po

s-se

ssio

n of

sm

all

arm

s (e

.g.

thro

ugh

pros

ecut

ion)

?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int i

f the

y re

port

ed th

ey h

ave

iden

tified

an

d/or

take

n ac

tion

agai

nst g

roup

s or

indi

vidu

als

for i

llega

l pos

sess

ion,

‘a

cqui

sitio

n’, ‘

use’

, or

‘car

ryin

g’ o

f sm

all a

rms

(e.g

. thr

ough

‘inv

estig

a-tio

ns’,

‘arr

ests

’, ‘p

rose

cutio

ns’,

or th

roug

h th

e pr

ovis

ion

of st

atis

tics o

n th

e nu

mbe

r of p

erso

ns a

rres

ted

or c

augh

t in

the

cont

ext o

f ille

gal p

osse

ssio

n).

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

also

aw

arde

d th

e po

int i

f the

y in

dica

ted

that

‘few

’ per

-so

ns o

r ‘v

irtu

ally

no

grou

p or

indi

vidu

al’

has

enga

ged

in s

uch

activ

i-tie

s, in

dica

ting

they

hav

e ta

ken

som

e le

vel o

f act

ion

agai

nst t

hem

(e.g

. Fi

ji).

N/A

If

a st

ate

repo

rted

tha

t no

inc

iden

ts i

nvol

ving

ille

gal

poss

essi

on

have

occ

urre

d on

its

terr

itory

, or

did

not

men

tion

whe

ther

gro

ups

or

indi

vidu

als

have

bee

n pr

osec

uted

, thi

s qu

estio

n w

as m

arke

d ‘n

ot a

p-pl

icab

le’.

1

Sto

ckp

ilin

g

12.3

PoA

II.3

To a

dopt

and

im

plem

ent,

in t

he S

tate

s th

at h

ave

not

alre

ady

done

so,

the

nec

-es

sary

leg

isla

tive

or o

ther

mea

sure

s to

es

tabl

ish

as

crim

inal

of

fenc

es

unde

r th

eir

dom

estic

law

the

ille

gal

man

ufac

-tu

re,

poss

essi

on,

stoc

kpili

ng a

nd t

rade

of

sm

all

arm

s an

d lig

ht w

eapo

ns w

ithin

th

eir

area

s of

juri

sdic

tion,

in o

rder

to

en-

sure

that

thos

e en

gage

d in

suc

h ac

tiviti

es

can

be p

rose

cute

d un

der

appr

opri

ate

na-

tiona

l pen

al c

odes

.

Has

the

sta

te e

stab

lishe

d il-

lega

l or

illi

cit

stoc

kpili

ng o

f sm

all

arm

s as

a c

rim

inal

of-

fenc

e?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int

if th

ey r

epor

ted

they

hav

e cr

imi-

naliz

ed t

he i

llega

l st

ockp

iling

of

smal

l ar

ms

at t

he n

atio

nal

leve

l; or

ga

ve d

etai

ls o

f cr

imin

al p

enal

ties

appl

icab

le t

o ill

egal

sto

ckpi

ling;

or

indi

cate

d th

at t

heir

smal

l ar

ms

legi

slat

ion

incl

udes

res

tric

tions

on

stoc

kpili

ng (o

r co

ntro

ls g

over

ning

wea

pon

stor

age)

, and

that

cri

min

al

pena

lties

exi

st fo

r br

each

es o

f the

app

licab

le le

gisl

atio

n.

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

also

aw

arde

d a

full

poin

t if t

hey

indi

cate

d ill

egal

sto

ck-

pilin

g is

cov

ered

und

er o

ther

law

s (e

.g.

Ger

man

y—co

vere

d by

leg

is-

latio

n on

ille

gal p

osse

ssio

n of

sm

all a

rms)

.

1

12.4

PoA

II.6

To id

entif

y, w

here

app

licab

le, g

roup

s an

d in

divi

dual

s en

gage

d in

the

ille

gal

man

u-fa

ctur

e, t

rade

, st

ockp

iling

, tr

ansf

er,

pos-

sess

ion,

as

wel

l as

fina

ncin

g fo

r ac

quis

i-tio

n, o

f ill

icit

smal

l ar

ms

and

light

wea

p-on

s, a

nd t

ake

actio

n un

der

appr

opri

ate

natio

nal

law

aga

inst

suc

h gr

oups

and

in-

divi

dual

s.

Has

th

e st

ate

take

n ac

tion

unde

r ap

prop

riat

e na

tion-

al l

aw a

gain

st a

ny g

roup

or

indi

vidu

al(s

) en

gage

d in

ille

-ga

l st

ockp

iling

of

smal

l ar

ms

(e.g

. thr

ough

pro

secu

tion)

?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int

if th

ey r

epor

ted

they

hav

e id

en-

tified

and

/or

take

n ac

tion

agai

nst a

ny g

roup

s or

indi

vidu

als

enga

ged

in i

llega

l st

ockp

iling

, ‘s

tori

ng’

(or

‘sto

rage

’27)

(e.g

. th

roug

h ‘in

vest

iga-

tions

’, ‘a

rres

ts’,

‘pro

secu

tions

’, or

thro

ugh

the

prov

isio

n of

sta

tistic

s on

th

e nu

mbe

r of p

erso

ns a

rres

ted

or c

augh

t in

the

cont

ext o

f ille

gal p

os-

sess

ion)

.

N/A

If a

sta

te r

epor

ted

that

no

inci

dent

s of

ille

gal s

tock

pilin

g ha

ve o

c-cu

rred

on

its te

rrito

ry, o

r did

not

men

tion

whe

ther

gro

ups

or in

divi

du-

als

have

bee

n pr

osec

uted

, thi

s qu

estio

n w

as m

arke

d ‘n

ot a

pplic

able

’.

1

▼


Po

A/I

TI

sour

cePo

A o

r IT

I pr

ovis

ion

Scor

e-sh

eet

ques

tion

Scor

ing

crit

eria

Max

. sc

ore

Trad

e

12.5

PoA

II.3

To a

dopt

and

im

plem

ent,

in t

he S

tate

s th

at h

ave

not

alre

ady

done

so,

the

nec

-es

sary

leg

isla

tive

or o

ther

mea

sure

s to

es

tabl

ish

as

crim

inal

of

fenc

es

unde

r th

eir

dom

estic

law

the

ille

gal

man

ufac

-tu

re,

poss

essi

on,

stoc

kpili

ng a

nd t

rade

of

sm

all

arm

s an

d lig

ht w

eapo

ns w

ithin

th

eir

area

s of

juri

sdic

tion,

in o

rder

to

en-

sure

that

thos

e en

gage

d in

suc

h ac

tiviti

es

can

be p

rose

cute

d un

der

appr

opri

ate

na-

tiona

l pen

al c

odes

.

Has

the

sta

te e

stab

lishe

d th

e ill

egal

tra

de i

n sm

all

arm

s as

a

crim

inal

offe

nce?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a fu

ll po

int

if: (

1) t

hey

repo

rted

the

y ha

ve

crim

inal

ized

the

ille

gal

trad

e in

sm

all

arm

s at

the

nat

iona

l le

vel

(i.e.

m

akin

g it

a cr

imin

al o

ffenc

e fo

r an

y pe

rson

to

trad

e, d

eal

in,

or s

ell

smal

l arm

s w

ithou

t a li

cenc

e); o

r (2)

they

gav

e de

tails

of c

rim

inal

pen

-al

ties

appl

icab

le to

ille

gal t

rade

; or

(3) t

hey

indi

cate

d th

at t

heir

smal

l ar

ms

legi

slat

ion

incl

udes

con

trol

s go

vern

ing

gun

deal

ers

and

reta

ilers

, an

d th

at c

rim

inal

pen

altie

s ex

ist f

or b

reac

hes

of th

e ap

plic

able

legi

sla-

tion.

Not

e: A

dis

tinct

ion

was

mad

e be

twee

n th

is c

omm

itmen

t an

d th

e co

mm

itmen

t re

flect

ed i

n qu

estio

n 7.

16 o

f th

e sc

orin

g gu

idel

ines

(a

bove

). A

ful

l po

int

was

aw

arde

d he

re f

or i

nfor

mat

ion

on t

he c

rim

i-na

lizat

ion

of tr

ade

at th

e na

tiona

l or d

omes

tic le

vel,

whi

le a

poi

nt w

as

give

n un

der

ques

tion

7.16

for

inf

orm

atio

n re

gard

ing

the

crim

inal

iza-

tion

of tr

ade

at th

e in

tern

atio

nal l

evel

or o

n in

tern

atio

nal t

rans

fers

and

sm

uggl

ing

acro

ss b

orde

rs. I

f the

rep

ort d

id n

ot s

peci

fy th

e di

stin

ctio

n,

and

sim

ply

said

‘tra

de’,

the

poin

t was

aw

arde

d un

der

ques

tion

7.16

.

✖ S

tate

s w

ere

not a

war

ded

a po

int i

f the

y m

erel

y in

dica

ted

they

hav

e ta

ken

actio

n ag

ains

t ill

icit

trad

ers.

The

rea

son

for

this

is

twof

old:

(1)

th

ey r

ecei

ved

a po

int

for

such

inf

orm

atio

n un

der

the

next

que

stio

n (1

2.7)

; an

d (2

) th

is i

nfor

mat

ion

was

not

con

side

red

suffi

cien

t to

ind

i-ca

te w

heth

er th

ey h

ave

inst

itute

d cr

imin

al p

roce

edin

gs a

gain

st p

erpe

-tr

ator

s.

1

12.6

PoA

II.6

To id

entif

y, w

here

app

licab

le, g

roup

s an

d in

divi

dual

s en

gage

d in

the

ille

gal

man

u-fa

ctur

e, t

rade

, st

ockp

iling

, tr

ansf

er,

pos-

sess

ion,

as

wel

l as

fina

ncin

g fo

r ac

quis

i-tio

n, o

f ill

icit

smal

l ar

ms

and

light

wea

p-on

s, a

nd t

ake

actio

n un

der

appr

opri

ate

natio

nal

law

aga

inst

suc

h gr

oups

and

in-

divi

dual

s.

Has

th

e st

ate

take

n ac

-tio

n ag

ains

t an

y gr

oup

or

indi

vidu

al(s

) en

gage

d in

the

ill

egal

tr

ade

in

smal

l ar

ms

(e.g

. thr

ough

pro

secu

tion)

?

✔ S

tate

s w

ere

awar

ded

a po

int

if th

ey r

epor

ted

they

hav

e id

entifi

ed

and/

or t

aken

act

ion

agai

nst

any

grou

ps o

r in

divi

dual

s en

gage

d in

th

e ill

egal

tra

de,

‘dis

trib

utio

n’,

‘sal

e’,

or ‘

deal

ing’

of

smal

l ar

ms

(e.g

. th

roug

h ‘in

vest

igat

ions

’, ‘a

rres

ts’,

‘pro

secu

tions

’, or

thro

ugh

the

prov

i-si

on o

f st

atis

tics

on t

he n

umbe

r of

per

sons

arr

este

d or

cau

ght

in t

he

cont

ext o

f ille

gal t

radi

ng).

N/A

If a

sta

te r

epor

ted

no in

cide

nts

of il

lega

l tra

de h

ave

occu

rred

on

its t

erri

tory

, or

did

not

men

tion

whe

ther

gro

ups

or i

ndiv

idua

ls h

ave

been

pro

secu

ted,

this

que

stio

n w

as m

arke

d as

‘not

app

licab

le’.

1

Su

bto

tal o

f sec

tio

n 1

26


An

nex

e B

. Po

AIM

sco

res

by

them

e an

d s

ub

regi

on

Them

eNCAs

NPC

Manufacture

Marking

Record-keeping

Cooperation in tracing

International transfer

Brokering

Stockpiles

Surplus

Public awareness

Other

TOTA

L SC

OR

E

AFR

ICA

East

ern

Afr

ica

Bur

undi

100%

100%

100%

57%

50%

100%

68%

100%

89%

75%

100%

25%

70.2

1%

Com

oros

Djib

outi

100%

50%

0%7%

13%

67%

36%

0%44

%0%

100%

33%

24.6

3%

Erit

rea

100%

100%

100%

38%

17%

0%31

%67

%56

%10

0%10

0%0%

50.0

0%

Ethi

opia

100%

50%

83%

13%

0%0%

60%

100%

44%

75%

100%

50%

46.9

1%

Ken

ya10

0%50

%10

0%29

%17

%0%

64%

20%

56%

0%10

0%33

%45

.35%

Mad

agas

car

0%0%

0%0%

17%

67%

18%

0%0%

0%0%

0%7.

45%

Mal

awi

0%50

%0%

29%

17%

0%18

%0%

0%50

%0%

0%18

.48%

Mau

riti

us0%

50%

0%10

%17

%0%

36%

67%

11%

0%0%

33%

20.0

0%

Moz

ambi

que

100%

100%

100%

57%

33%

67%

93%

0%56

%75

%10

0%10

0%69

.41%

Rw

anda

100%

50%

50%

29%

17%

0%67

%40

%33

%50

%10

0%67

%44

.71%

Seyc

helle

s

Som

alia

Tanz

ania

100%

100%

100%

86%

100%

100%

73%

100%

33%

25%

100%

100%

78.8

7%


Them

e

NCAs

NPC

Manufacture

Marking

Record-keeping



Brokering

Stockpiles

Surplus

Public awareness

Other

TOTA

L SC

OR

E

Uga

nda

100%

50%

100%

21%

13%

67%

70%

20%

89%

75%

100%

67%

51.3

2%

Zam

bia

100%

50%

100%

0%17

%10

0%78

%0%

44%

75%

100%

100%

49.4

2%

Zim

babw

e10

0%50

%50

%29

%67

%10

0%73

%40

%44

%10

0%10

0%33

%54

.65%

Ave

rage

79%

61%

63%

29%

28%

48%

56%

40%

43%

50%

79%

46%

44.4

5%

Mid

dle

Afr

ica

Ang

ola

100%

50%

0%14

%0%

67%

5%0%

0%25

%10

0%25

%16

.59%

Cam

eroo

n0%

0%50

%0%

0%0%

9%0%

0%0%

0%0%

3.94

%

Cen

tral

Afr

ican

R

epub

lic0%

0%50

%7%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

100%

0%5.

91%

Cha

d10

0%50

%0%

0%0%

0%9%

0%0%

0%10

0%0%

7.88

%

Rep

ublic

of t

he

Con

go10

0%0%

50%

10%

33%

0%36

%0%

33%

0%10

0%33

%25

.00%

Dem

ocra

tic

Rep

ublic

of t

he

Con

go

100%

50%

100%

29%

17%

100%

73%

60%

56%

75%

100%

100%

61.7

0%

Equa

tori

al G

uine

a 10

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

2.17

%

Gab

on0%

50%

50%

0%0%

0%18

%0%

0%0%

0%25

%9.

66%

São

Tom

é an

d Pr

ínci

pe50

%0%

100%

0%13

%0%

18%

0%22

%0%

0%67

%15

.76%

Ave

rage

61%

22%

44%

7%7%

19%

19%

7%12

%11

%56

%28

%16

.51%

No

rth

ern

Afr

ica

Alg

eria

100%

100%

100%

54%

75%

67%

96%

40%

56%

100%

100%

100%

78.4

8%

Egyp

t50

%50

%10

0%32

%38

%0%

39%

0%67

%75

%10

0%0%

40.8

9%

Liby

a0%

50%

100%

0%0%

0%9%

0%44

%0%

0%33

%15

.22%


Mor

occo

100%

100%

50%

38%

100%

100%

50%

0%10

0%50

%0%

33%

55.3

2%

Sout

h Su

dan

Suda

n10

0%25

%25

%7%

13%

67%

14%

40%

0%0%

100%

50%

19.3

2%

Tuni

sia

0%50

%67

%0%

17%

0%53

%0%

33%

0%0%

67%

28.9

2%

Ave

rage

58%

63%

74%

22%

40%

39%

43%

13%

50%

38%

50%

47%

39.6

9%

Sou

ther

n A

fric

a

Bot

swan

a10

0%10

0%10

0%52

%10

0%10

0%68

%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%0%

75.0

0%

Leso

tho

100%

25%

50%

33%

33%

67%

53%

0%56

%75

%10

0%50

%47

.13%

Nam

ibia

100%

100%

25%

48%

67%

100%

75%

20%

100%

75%

100%

0%63

.83%

Sout

h A

fric

a0%

50%

100%

40%

25%

0%45

%40

%67

%50

%10

0%10

0%48

.77%

Swaz

iland

100%

0%0%

10%

17%

0%18

%0%

0%0%

100%

0%11

.96%

Ave

rage

80%

55%

55%

37%

48%

53%

52%

32%

64%

60%

100%

30%

49.3

4%

Wes

tern

Afr

ica

Ben

in10

0%10

0%10

0%68

%63

%10

0%71

%0%

56%

0%10

0%50

%66

.50%

Bur

kina

Fas

o10

0%10

0%10

0%66

%63

%67

%67

%20

%10

0%75

%10

0%10

0%76

.12%

Cap

e V

erde

Côt

e d’

Ivoi

re10

0%10

0%10

0%7%

25%

67%

80%

20%

56%

50%

100%

100%

48.6

8%

Gam

bia

100%

50%

67%

0%13

%0%

45%

0%11

%25

%10

0%33

%25

.12%

Gha

na10

0%50

%10

0%10

%33

%67

%55

%20

%0%

0%10

0%10

0%38

.95%

Gui

nea

100%

50%

25%

24%

33%

0%40

%20

%33

%25

%10

0%0%

30.5

9%

Gui

nea-

Bis

sau

100%

50%

0%7%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

100%

0%7.

88%

Libe

ria

100%

50%

67%

9%0%

0%67

%0%

33%

50%

100%

33%

34.1

2%

Mal

i10

0%10

0%10

0%65

%10

0%10

0%83

%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%33

%82

.89%

Mau

rita

nia

0%0%

0%0%

0%67

%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%1.

97%

Nig

er10

0%10

0%83

%67

%67

%10

0%10

0%10

%44

%75

%10

0%0%

68.0

2%

Nig

eria

100%

25%

0%7%

0%0%

0%0%

44%

0%10

0%0%

10.8

4%


Them

e

NCAs

NPC

Manufacture

Marking

Record-keeping



Brokering

Stockpiles

Surplus

Public awareness

Other

TOTA

L SC

OR

E

Sene

gal

100%

50%

100%

29%

33%

67%

80%

40%

89%

0%10

0%10

0%63

.07%

Sier

ra L

eone

100%

100%

75%

61%

63%

0%60

%20

%10

0%75

%10

0%75

%66

.84%

Togo

100%

50%

25%

43%

33%

100%

40%

0%89

%0%

100%

100%

51.9

0%

Ave

rage

93%

65%

63%

31%

35%

49%

52%

17%

50%

32%

93%

48%

44.9

0%

AM

ERIC

AS

Car

ibb

ean

Ant

igua

and

B

arbu

da10

0%10

0%10

0%47

%67

%13

%71

%10

0%10

0%10

0%0%

0%61

.62%

Bah

amas

Bar

bado

s0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

50%

3.86

%

Cub

a0%

50%

50%

17%

13%

67%

67%

0%10

0%0%

0%67

%39

.75%

Dom

inic

a

Dom

inic

an

Rep

ublic

0%50

%33

%18

%33

%67

%36

%0%

0%50

%10

0%0%

27.3

7%

Gre

nada

0%0%

50%

0%0%

0%36

%0%

0%0%

0%33

%13

.04%

Hai

ti10

0%50

%0%

14%

13%

0%27

%0%

0%0%

100%

67%

20.6

9%

Jam

aica

0%50

%0%

29%

33%

67%

55%

40%

0%0%

100%

33%

32.6

1%

Sain

t Kitt

s an

d N

evis

Sain

t Lu

cia

Sain

t V

ince

nt a

nd

the

Gre

nadi

nes

Trin

idad

and

Tob

ago

100%

100%

100%

38%

67%

100%

73%

100%

100%

100%

100%

67%

75.0

0%

Ave

rage

38%

50%

42%

20%

28%

39%

46%

30%

38%

31%

50%

40%

34.2

4%


Cen

tral

Am

eric

a

Bel

ize

Cos

ta R

ica

0%50

%50

%21

%17

%0%

75%

0%56

%0%

0%10

0%38

.10%

El S

alva

dor

50%

50%

100%

10%

17%

67%

67%

29%

56%

25%

100%

100%

50.0

0%

Gua

tem

ala

100%

50%

100%

52%

33%

67%

67%

20%

22%

0%10

0%75

%52

.17%

Hon

dura

s10

0%50

%10

0%10

%33

%0%

200%

60%

56%

50%

100%

100%

52.0

5%

Mex

ico

100%

100%

100%

89%

63%

67%

95%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

91.9

6%

Nic

arag

ua10

0%10

0%10

0%89

%10

0%67

%75

%80

%10

0%75

%10

0%75

%85

.33%

Pana

ma

0%10

0%10

0%57

%33

%67

%73

%71

%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%76

.00%

Ave

rage

64%

71%

93%

47%

42%

48%

93%

51%

70%

50%

86%

93%

63.6

6%

Sou

th A

mer

ica

Arg

enti

na10

0%50

%10

0%68

%10

0%0%

91%

20%

67%

50%

100%

100%

73.3

7%

Bol

ivia

50%

50%

100%

10%

33%

0%39

%0%

33%

0%10

0%0%

26.6

3%

Bra

zil

50%

50%

100%

68%

63%

0%80

%40

%0%

25%

100%

100%

62.3

3%

Chi

le10

0%50

%10

0%32

%25

%0%

57%

80%

33%

0%10

0%10

0%45

.81%

Col

ombi

a10

0%10

0%10

0%75

%75

%10

0%89

%60

%33

%0%

100%

100%

73.6

6%

Ecua

dor

100%

100%

100%

75%

88%

0%71

%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%82

.94%

Guy

ana

50%

50%

50%

38%

33%

0%50

%0%

33%

50%

100%

33%

39.5

3%

Para

guay

100%

100%

100%

52%

33%

67%

58%

29%

33%

100%

0%10

0%63

.46%

Peru

100%

100%

100%

38%

33%

100%

79%

20%

33%

100%

100%

100%

67.3

5%

Suri

nam

e

Uru

guay

100%

50%

50%

82%

67%

0%68

%0%

33%

50%

100%

0%57

.79%

Ven

ezue

la50

%50

%10

0%18

%75

%0%

95%

80%

22%

75%

100%

100%

61.0

5%

Ave

rage

82%

68%

91%

51%

57%

24%

71%

39%

38%

50%

91%

76%

59.4

5%


Them

e

NCAs

NPC

Manufacture

Marking

Record-keeping



Brokering

Stockpiles

Surplus

Public awareness

Other

TOTA

L SC

OR

E

No

rth

Am

eric

a

Can

ada

100%

100%

100%

70%

63%

100%

93%

40%

67%

100%

100%

100%

81.4

1%

Uni

ted

Stat

es50

%50

%10

0%81

%88

%10

0%68

%10

0%78

%75

%10

0%67

%78

.26%

Ave

rage

75%

75%

100%

75%

75%

100%

81%

70%

72%

88%

100%

83%

79.8

3%

ASI

A

Cen

tral

Asi

a

Kaz

akhs

tan

100%

50%

100%

40%

13%

0%10

0%40

%10

0%75

%10

0%10

0%68

.95%

Kyrg

yzst

an50

%0%

100%

19%

0%0%

36%

40%

78%

25%

0%10

0%36

.96%

Tajik

ista

n0%

25%

100%

0%13

%0%

45%

0%33

%50

%10

0%67

%28

.57%

Turk

men

ista

n 10

0%0%

50%

0%13

%67

%45

%0%

0%0%

0%10

0%22

.66%

Uzb

ekis

tan

Ave

rage

63%

19%

88%

15%

9%17

%57

%20

%53

%38

%50

%92

%39

.28%

East

ern

Asi

a

Chi

na50

%10

0%10

0%81

%63

%67

%48

%60

%89

%25

%10

0%10

0%64

.46%

Japa

n 0%

100%

100%

40%

25%

100%

85%

86%

67%

100%

0%10

0%69

.60%

Mon

golia

Nor

th K

orea

Sout

h K

orea

100%

100%

100%

75%

100%

67%

77%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

87.1

9%

Ave

rage

50%

100%

100%

65%

63%

78%

70%

82%

85%

75%

67%

100%

75.4

2%

Sou

ther

n A

sia

Afg

hani

stan

Ban

glad

esh

100%

25%

50%

35%

13%

0%41

%40

%33

%25

%10

0%50

%36

.71%


Bhu

tan

Indi

a10

0%10

0%10

0%79

%75

%67

%79

%40

%10

0%10

0%0%

67%

80.0

9%

Iran

100%

50%

100%

28%

25%

67%

55%

0%56

%0%

100%

100%

44.3

3%

Mal

dive

s10

0%10

0%0%

38%

33%

0%68

%10

%10

0%75

%0%

0%50

.54%

Nep

al

Paki

stan

0%25

%10

0%53

%50

%10

0%86

%40

%44

%0%

100%

75%

57.9

7%

Sri L

anka

100%

50%

100%

19%

33%

0%93

%29

%33

%50

%10

0%10

0%55

.79%

Ave

rage

83%

58%

75%

42%

38%

39%

70%

26%

61%

42%

67%

65%

54.2

4%

Sou

th-e

aste

rn A

sia

Bru

nei

Cam

bodi

a10

0%50

%10

0%29

%17

%0%

50%

0%22

%25

%10

0%10

0%40

.24%

Indo

nesi

a10

0%50

%10

0%25

%38

%67

%61

%60

%67

%25

%10

0%67

%49

.75%

Laos

Mal

aysi

a10

0%50

%10

0%21

%63

%67

%64

%80

%33

%75

%10

0%10

0%55

.17%

Mya

nmar

Phili

ppin

es10

0%10

0%10

0%65

%63

%10

0%10

0%10

%89

%10

0%10

0%75

%80

.57%

Sing

apor

e

Thai

land

100%

100%

50%

28%

0%67

%82

%0%

100%

50%

100%

0%50

.25%

Tim

or-L

este

Vie

tnam

0%50

%10

0%28

%38

%67

%53

%0%

33%

25%

0%67

%38

.10%

Ave

rage

83%

67%

92%

33%

36%

61%

68%

25%

57%

50%

83%

68%

52.3

5%

Wes

tern

Asi

a

Arm

enia

50%

50%

100%

14%

25%

0%55

%40

%56

%25

%10

0%10

0%42

.51%

Aze

rbai

jan

0%0%

100%

32%

38%

0%64

%40

%44

%0%

100%

100%

43.3

5%

Bah

rain

0%0%

0%19

%17

%67

%18

%0%

22%

0%0%

0%14

.13%

Cyp

rus

100%

50%

50%

24%

33%

67%

68%

80%

56%

75%

0%0%

48.9

1%


Them

e

NCAs

NPC

Manufacture

Marking

Record-keeping



Brokering

Stockpiles

Surplus

Public awareness

Other

TOTA

L SC

OR

E

Geo

rgia

100%

50%

100%

7%13

%67

%73

%10

0%22

%25

%10

0%75

%43

.90%

Iraq

100%

50%

100%

12%

13%

0%45

%60

%33

%0%

100%

0%31

.94%

Isra

el0%

100%

50%

35%

63%

67%

69%

80%

63%

75%

100%

67%

59.0

2%

Jord

an10

0%50

%10

0%21

%25

%67

%45

%20

%67

%25

%10

0%10

0%44

.33%

Kuw

ait

Leba

non

0%50

%0%

0%0%

0%0%

43%

0%0%

0%0%

5.95

%

Om

an0%

25%

0%10

%33

%0%

47%

0%56

%25

%10

0%0%

25.2

9%

Qat

ar0%

100%

0%0%

0%0%

36%

0%0%

0%0%

0%13

.04%

Saud

i Ara

bia

0%50

%10

0%28

%38

%67

%27

%0%

44%

0%10

0%67

%34

.48%

Syri

a0%

50%

50%

7%25

%0%

55%

60%

44%

0%10

0%75

%35

.90%

Turk

ey10

0%50

%10

0%51

%38

%0%

50%

40%

100%

0%0%

67%

53.9

3%

Uni

ted

Ara

b Em

irat

es10

0%25

%0%

0%17

%67

%0%

20%

0%0%

0%67

%11

.96%

Yem

en50

%0%

0%7%

0%0%

18%

0%33

%0%

100%

0%11

.82%

Ave

rage

44%

44%

53%

17%

23%

29%

42%

36%

40%

16%

63%

45%

32.5

3%

EUR

OP

E

East

ern

Eu

rop

e

Bel

arus

0%10

0%10

0%47

%25

%0%

86%

80%

89%

50%

100%

100%

66.1

8%

Bul

gari

a0%

50%

100%

72%

63%

0%91

%10

0%78

%10

0%10

0%10

0%78

.33%

Cze

ch R

epub

lic50

%10

0%10

0%86

%10

0%67

%79

%10

0%10

0%75

%10

0%10

0%87

.91%

Hun

gary

0%10

0%10

0%79

%88

%67

%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%0%

100%

88.8

4%

Mol

dova

50%

50%

100%

19%

33%

100%

100%

0%89

%10

0%10

0%10

0%68

.75%


Pola

nd50

%10

0%10

0%65

%50

%67

%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%67

%82

.94%

Rom

ania

100%

100%

100%

42%

100%

67%

100%

100%

89%

100%

100%

100%

81.7

7%

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

50%

100%

100%

61%

50%

100%

85%

40%

56%

100%

100%

100%

76.2

3%

Slov

akia

100%

100%

100%

39%

38%

0%75

%80

%44

%50

%10

0%10

0%59

.61%

Ukr

aine

50%

100%

100%

19%

17%

0%88

%60

%44

%50

%10

0%67

%55

.32%

Ave

rage

45%

90%

100%

53%

56%

47%

90%

76%

79%

83%

90%

93%

74.5

9%

No

rth

ern

Eu

rop

e

Den

mar

k50

%50

%10

0%47

%25

%10

0%93

%60

%56

%10

0%10

0%67

%67

.00%

Esto

nia

0%10

0%10

0%88

%75

%0%

96%

100%

100%

100%

100%

67%

87.2

0%

Finl

and

0%10

0%10

0%86

%88

%10

0%79

%80

%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%87

.68%

Icel

and

0%50

%10

0%35

%33

%33

%71

%29

%44

%75

%0%

83%

56.0

0%

Irel

and

0%10

0%10

0%38

%63

%67

%92

%80

%33

%50

%10

0%67

%65

.31%

Latv

ia0%

100%

100%

43%

83%

67%

92%

100%

100%

75%

100%

80%

78.0

0%

Lith

uani

a0%

100%

67%

62%

100%

67%

96%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

86.2

7%

Nor

way

100%

100%

100%

71%

67%

100%

85%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

87.7

7%

Swed

en50

%50

%67

%35

%63

%67

%95

%60

%78

%10

0%10

0%67

%66

.67%

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

50%

50%

100%

54%

75%

100%

79%

86%

100%

100%

100%

33%

73.9

5%

Ave

rage

25%

80%

93%

56%

67%

70%

88%

79%

81%

90%

90%

76%

75.5

8%

Sou

ther

n E

uro

pe

Alb

ania

100%

100%

50%

57%

67%

100%

88%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

82.9

8%

And

orra

0%50

%10

0%0%

33%

0%27

%0%

33%

0%0%

100%

25.5

6%

Bos

nia

and

Her

zego

vina

100%

100%

100%

75%

38%

100%

79%

100%

100%

100%

100%

67%

81.9

9%

Cro

atia

0%10

0%10

0%84

%88

%67

%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%91

.10%


Them

e

NCAs

NPC

Manufacture

Marking

Record-keeping



Brokering

Stockpiles

Surplus

Public awareness

Other

TOTA

L SC

OR

E

The

form

er

Yugo

slav

Rep

ublic

of

Mac

edon

ia

100%

50%

100%

62%

75%

0%94

%20

%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%79

.90%

Gre

ece

100%

50%

50%

39%

25%

67%

86%

20%

56%

50%

100%

67%

55.1

7%

Ital

y10

0%10

0%50

%58

%38

%0%

68%

20%

100%

50%

0%0%

55.6

7%

Mal

ta0%

50%

100%

10%

0%0%

95%

40%

33%

0%0%

67%

44.1

9%

Mon

tene

gro

Port

ugal

0%10

0%10

0%86

%88

%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%93

.36%

San

Mar

ino

Serb

ia50

%50

%50

%37

%25

%67

%83

%10

0%44

%10

0%10

0%10

0%63

.03%

Slov

enia

100%

50%

100%

21%

75%

67%

100%

100%

44%

100%

0%10

0%66

.67%

Spai

n10

0%10

0%10

0%60

%63

%67

%69

%80

%0%

0%0%

100%

58.4

5%

Ave

rage

63%

75%

83%

49%

51%

53%

82%

65%

68%

67%

58%

83%

66.5

1%

Wes

tern

Eu

rop

e

Aus

tria

100%

50%

100%

63%

50%

67%

100%

60%

33%

100%

100%

67%

72.5

6%

Bel

gium

100%

100%

100%

35%

63%

67%

77%

80%

22%

75%

0%33

%57

.14%

Fran

ce50

%50

%10

0%44

%10

0%67

%52

%80

%89

%10

0%0%

67%

63.7

7%

Ger

man

y0%

100%

100%

89%

63%

67%

96%

80%

100%

100%

100%

100%

89.5

7%

Liec

hten

stei

n10

0%10

0%10

0%68

%63

%0%

86%

100%

100%

50%

0%0%

70.4

4%

Luxe

mbo

urg

100%

100%

0%38

%17

%0%

80%

80%

100%

100%

0%0%

58.1

5%

Mon

aco

0%0%

100%

0%0%

0%45

%80

%0%

0%0%

67%

24.4

4%

Net

herl

ands

50%

100%

100%

33%

17%

67%

96%

60%

100%

75%

0%33

%65

.96%

Swit

zerl

and

100%

100%

100%

79%

88%

100%

91%

100%

100%

75%

100%

100%

89.7

7%

Ave

rage

67%

78%

89%

50%

51%

48%

80%

80%

72%

75%

33%

52%

65.7

6%


OC

EAN

IA

Fiji

100%

50%

100%

14%

33%

67%

85%

80%

33%

100%

100%

100%

63.5

4%

Papu

a N

ew G

uine

a10

0%50

%10

0%19

%33

%67

%60

%20

%33

%75

%10

0%10

0%54

.55%

Solo

mon

Isl

ands

0%50

%10

0%30

%13

%0%

64%

0%56

%50

%10

0%10

0%48

.31%

Mar

shal

l Isl

ands

100%

50%

50%

26%

75%

67%

45%

0%22

%10

0%0%

0%41

.21%

Aus

tral

ia10

0%10

0%10

0%56

%75

%10

0%95

%40

%10

0%10

0%10

0%67

%80

.19%

New

Zea

land

50%

50%

50%

49%

50%

0%77

%80

%67

%25

%10

0%0%

53.2

0%

Ave

rage

75%

58%

83%

33%

47%

50%

71%

37%

52%

75%

83%

61%

56.8

3%


Endnotes

1 Under paragraph 38 of the International Instrument to Enable States to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons (International Tracing Instrument or ITI), states have agreed to ‘review the implementation and future development of this instrument within the framework of conferences that review the United Nations Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects’.

2 All national reports submitted by states are available on the website of the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA)—the Programme of Action Implementation Support Sys-tem (PoA-ISS). See PoA-ISS (n.d.a.) for all submitted national reports.

3 With the exception of the 2012 reports submitted by Algeria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for which translation was not available in time to complete the report (Algeria, 2012; Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2012).

4 A note on citations: for ease of reference, this report cites PoA and ITI paragraphs rather than the UN General Assembly documents in which they appear. Example: (PoA, para. II.37).

5 Commitments relating to disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) were not included in the review and analysis. Points initially allocated for implementation of DDR commitments were removed from the final scoring system because they were only rele-vant to a handful of post-conflict countries and were ‘not applicable’ in most states. More-over, those states that had undergone DDR programmes generally did not provide sufficient detail in their national reports to determine whether they had fulfilled the commitment to ‘develop and implement’ an effective DDR programme, as outlined in paragraph II.21 of the PoA (i.e. effective collection, control, storage, and destruction of small arms, or an alternative means of disposal whereby weapons are marked and the alternate form of disposal or use is recorded and specific provisions for these programmes were included in peace agreements).

6 ‘To ensure, subject to the respective constitutional and legal systems of States, that the armed forces, police or any other body authorized to hold small arms and light weapons establish adequate and detailed standards and procedures relating to the management and security of their stocks of these weapons. These standards and procedures should, inter alia, relate to: appropriate locations for stockpiles; physical security measures; control of access to stocks; inventory management and accounting control; staff training; security, accounting and control of small arms and light weapons held or transported by opera-tional units or authorized personnel; and procedures and sanctions in the event of thefts or loss’ (PoA, para. II.17).

7 A commitment to ensure that the armed forces, police, or any other body authorized to hold small arms and light weapons establish adequate and detailed standards and proce-dures relating to the management and security of their stocks of these weapons.


8 Commitments to include standards on: appropriate locations for stockpiles; physical secu-

rity measures; control of access to stocks; inventory management and accounting control;

staff training; security, accounting, and control of small arms and light weapons held or

transported by operational units or authorized personnel; and procedures and sanctions

in the event of theft or loss.

9 Under the ITI, for example, ‘States will require that records pertaining to small arms and

light weapons held by companies that go out of business be forwarded to the State’ (ITI,

para. 13; emphasis added).

10 Under the ITI, for example, ‘States will ensure that accurate and comprehensive records

are established for all marked small arms’ (ITI, para. 11; emphasis added).

11 Under the ITI, for example, ‘States will […] require to the extent possible appropriate sim-

ple marking on each imported small arm or light weapon, permitting identification of the

country of import and, where possible, the year of import, and enabling the competent

authorities of that country to trace the small arm or light weapon’ (ITI, para. 8(b); emphasis

added).

12 Under the ITI, for example, ‘States, where appropriate, in accordance with Interpol’s statu-

tory rules, are encouraged to make full use of Interpol’s mechanisms and facilities in im-

plementing this instrument’ (ITI, para. 35; emphasis added).

13 Under the ITI, for example, states will mark weapons at the time of manufacture with

certain markings (the name of the manufacturer, the country of manufacture, and the

serial number) ‘and encourage the marking of such additional information as the year of

manufacture, weapon type/model and caliber’ (ITI, para. 8(a); emphasis added).

14 For example, marking at the time of manufacture, import marking, marking of small arms

transferred from government stockpiles to permanent civilian use, ensuring state-held

weapons are duly marked, encouraging small arms manufacturers to develop measures

against the removal or alteration of markings, and marking and recording (or destroying)

illicit weapons found on states’ territories.

15 Temporary imports are excluded from the requirement.

16 In the framework of the mechanism for Coordinating Action on Small Arms, the United

Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Institute for Disarmament

Research (UNIDIR), UNODA, and the Small Arms Survey jointly developed an assistance

package to help Member States prepare their national reports. This assistance package was

first developed in 2003 and revised in 2006, and included reporting guidelines; it can be

downloaded at UNIDIR (n.d). Many states used these guidelines as a template for prepar-

ing and submitting their national reports. In 2011, UNODA revised the reporting template

and made it available to Member States on the PoA-ISS website at: <http://www.poa-iss.org/

reporting/>

17 Thirty-five of the 40 states were scored before their 2012 reports became available. Accord-

ingly, they were re-scored/their score-sheets were supplemented by their 2012 reports,

and their PoAIM scores adjusted.

18 Originally, an additional or separate half point was awarded if the state reported that it

marks the barrel and/or slide or cylinder of the weapon, as per the encouraged practice

outlined in the second sentence of paragraph 10 of the ITI. However, the two commitments

were merged into one.


19 The ITI does not specify the nature and scale of manufacture that must occur for marking

at manufacture to be undertaken or required. It could be argued that no exceptions to the

requirement to mark small arms at manufacture should be made—i.e. all small arms

should be marked at manufacture regardless of the scale of the manufacturer’s operations.

For the purposes of this report/analysis, however, we relied on states’ interpretation of

whether they consider manufacture to take place on their territories. Accordingly, if a state

indicated ‘weapons are not manufactured in our country’ (except for homemade weapons),

we excluded them from all manufacture-related commitments, other than the commit-

ment to have manufacturing controls in place.

20 Paragraph 8(a) of the ITI permits states to employ one of two marking methods: a unique

marking providing the name of the manufacturer, country of manufacture and serial

number; or alternatively, a unique user-friendly marking using geometric symbols in com-

bination with a numeric and/or alphanumeric code, permitting identification of country

of manufacture. The PoAIM scoring guidelines included provisions to score either form of

marking employed by states, with an equivalent number of points awarded to ensure no

state was penalized for choosing one method over the other.

21 Initially, this commitment was broken down into its two constituent parts: a requirement

to ensure government stocks transferred to civilians are marked (in a manner that allows

tracing); and a requirement to mark them so as to permit the identification of the country

transferring the arms if they are not already marked. States were awarded half a point if

they indicated that they ensure that any arms transferred from government stocks to civil-

ians are marked, and an additional half point if they reported that such markings must

indicate the country from whose stocks the transfer was made. Ultimately, however, the

two parts of the commitment were merged into one and a single point awarded to states

that reported they mark small arms at the time of transfer from government stocks to

permanent civilian use, regardless of whether they indicated the nature of the markings

applied.

22 Initially, this commitment was broken down into its two constituent parts: a requirement

to ensure records pertaining to small arms held by companies that go out of business are

forwarded to the state; and a requirement to ensure this obligation is included in/reflected

in national legislation. Ultimately, however, the two parts of the commitment were merged

into one and a single point awarded to states that reported they require companies that go

out of business to submit or forward all records held by them to the government. Part of

the reason for this is that question 20.3 of the revised UNODA reporting template asks: ‘In

the event that they go out of business, are companies engaged in [small arms and light weapons]

activities […] required to submit all records held by them to the government?’, and does not spec-

ify whether this is done in accordance with national legislation. Accordingly, it did not

seem fair to penalize reporting states for not providing the additional information.

23 Part V of the International Tracing Instrument (paragraphs 14 to 23) contains extensive

provisions with respect to cooperation on tracing and undertakings related to the submis-

sion of and responses to tracing requests. Originally, the PoAIM scoring guidelines in-

cluded these commitments and points were allocated to the elements contained in para-

graphs 14 to 23. However, while many states mentioned that they cooperate or engage in

making or responding to tracing requests, almost no state provided sufficient details of


the process they followed in this respect to earn the points originally allocated. Since these

commitments were considered ‘not applicable’ to the vast majority of states because they

do not report on tracing activities, it did not seem fair to penalize those states that did re-

port on them since they provided insufficient information to receive points. Accordingly,

the additional commitments—and associated points—were removed from the scoring

system.

24 The mechanism was formerly known as IweTS. It is now known as the ‘INTERPOL Fire-

arms Tracing System’, but references to IWeTS appear in the national reports under review

because they date back to 2002.

25 Some states were awarded a half point here and a half point under record-keeping ‘holdings’

in question 5.6 of the scoring guidelines if they indicated that they keep records of state-

held arms.

26 States provided different interpretations of the term ‘surplus’, with some indicating they

consider ‘surplus’ to be an excess of stock, while treating ‘obsolete’ arms as a separate

category; others indicated that ‘surplus’ includes ‘obsolete’ and unserviceable weapons.

Accordingly, some states reported that they have no surplus, but that they do have obsolete

weapons (e.g. Togo); yet others indicated they have ‘no surplus’, but that they had decom-

missioned and destroyed some weapons (e.g. Senegal). In reviewing and scoring states,

where ‘obsolete’ weapons were described as surplus, they were classified as such. Where

states made a distinction by reporting, for example, ‘we don’t have surplus but we do have

obsolete weapons’, this section was considered ‘not applicable’ (except in the case of Bot-

swana, which included information in its 2012 report on surplus and obsolete weapons

and then claimed that it had never had to deal with surplus weapons—only with obsolete

weapons).

27 Although the PoA uses the term ‘stockpiling’ as distinct from ‘storage’, points were allo-

cated here if states mentioned they have criminalized illegal storage. The main reason for

this is that the Spanish version of the PoA uses the term ‘las existencias’, which can be

translated as either ‘stockpiling’ or ‘storage’. Accordingly, although they arguably involve

distinct activities (with ‘stockpiling’ relating to the act of keeping a significant number or

quantity of small arms, and ‘storage’ relating to how weapons are stored or secured to

prevent theft and unauthorized access), information on either activity was deemed rele-

vant for this PoA commitment.


Publications list

Occasional Papers1 Re-Armament in Sierra Leone: One Year After the Lome Peace Agreement, by Eric Berman,

December 2000

2 Removing Small Arms from Society: A Review of Weapons Collection and Destruction Programmes,

by Sami Faltas, Glenn McDonald, and Camilla Waszink, July 2001

3 Legal Controls on Small Arms and Light Weapons in Southeast Asia, by Katherine Kramer (with

Nonviolence International Southeast Asia), July 2001

4 Shining a Light on Small Arms Exports: The Record of State Transparency, by Maria Haug, Martin

Langvandslien, Lora Lumpe, and Nic Marsh (with NISAT), January 2002

5 Stray Bullets: The Impact of Small Arms Misuse in Central America, by William Godnick, with

Robert Muggah and Camilla Waszink, November 2002

6 Politics from the Barrel of a Gun: Small Arms Proliferation and Conflict in the Republic of Georgia,

by Spyros Demetriou, November 2002

7 Making Global Public Policy: The Case of Small Arms and Light Weapons, by Edward Laurance

and Rachel Stohl, December 2002

8 Small Arms in the Pacific, by Philip Alpers and Conor Twyford, March 2003

9 Demand, Stockpiles, and Social Controls: Small Arms in Yemen, by Derek B. Miller, May 2003

10 Beyond the Kalashnikov: Small Arms Production, Exports, and Stockpiles in the Russian Federa-

tion, by Maxim Pyadushkin, with Maria Haug and Anna Matveeva, August 2003

11 In the Shadow of a Cease-fire: The Impacts of Small Arms Availability and Misuse in Sri Lanka, by

Chris Smith, October 2003

12 Small Arms in Kyrgyzstan: Post-revolutionary Proliferation, by S. Neil MacFarlane and Stina

Torjesen, March 2007, ISBN 2-8288-0076-8, also in Kyrgyz and Russian (first printed as Kyr-

gyzstan: A Small Arms Anomaly in Central Asia?, by S. Neil MacFarlane and Stina Torjesen,

February 2004)

13 Small Arms and Light Weapons Production in Eastern, Central, and Southeast Europe, by Yudit

Kiss, October 2004, ISBN 2-8288-0057-1

14 Securing Haiti’s Transition: Reviewing Human Insecurity and the Prospects for Disarmament, Demo-

bilization, and Reintegration, by Robert Muggah, October 2005, updated, ISBN 2-8288-0066-0

15 Silencing Guns: Local Perspectives on Small Arms and Armed Violence in Rural South Pacific Islands

Communities, edited by Emile LeBrun and Robert Muggah, June 2005, ISBN 2-8288-0064-4

16 Behind a Veil of Secrecy: Military Small Arms and Light Weapons Production in Western Europe,

by Reinhilde Weidacher, November 2005, ISBN 2-8288-0065-2

17 Tajikistan’s Road to Stability: Reduction in Small Arms Proliferation and Remaining Challenges, by

Stina Torjesen, Christina Wille, and S. Neil MacFarlane, November 2005, ISBN 2-8288-0067-9

18 Demanding Attention: Addressing the Dynamics of Small Arms Demand, by David Atwood,

Anne-Kathrin Glatz, and Robert Muggah, January 2006, ISBN 2-8288-0069-5


19 A Guide to the US Small Arms Market, Industry, and Exports, 1998–2004, by Tamar Gabelnick,

Maria Haug, and Lora Lumpe, September 2006, ISBN 2-8288-0071-7

20 Small Arms, Armed Violence, and Insecurity in Nigeria: The Niger Delta in Perspective, by Jennifer

M. Hazen with Jonas Horner, December 2007, ISBN 2-8288-0090-3

21 Crisis in Karamoja: Armed Violence and the Failure of Disarmament in Uganda’s Most Deprived

Region, by James Bevan, June 2008, ISBN 2-8288-0094-6

22 Blowback: Kenya’s Illicit Ammunition Problem in Turkana North District, by James Bevan, June

2008, ISBN 2-8288-0098-9

23 Gangs of Central America: Causes, Costs, and Interventions, by Dennis Rodgers, Robert Muggah,

and Chris Stevenson, May 2009, ISBN 978-2-940415-13-7

24 Arms in and around Mauritania: National and Regional Security Implications, by Stéphanie Pézard

with Anne-Kathrin Glatz, June 2010, ISBN 978-2-940415-35-9 (also available in French)

25 Transparency Counts: Assessing State Reporting on Small Arms Transfers, 2001–08, by Jasna

Lazarevic, June 2010, ISBN 978-2-940415-34-2

26 Confronting the Don: The Political Economy of Gang Violence in Jamaica, by Glaister Leslie,

November 2010, ISBN 978-2-940415-38-0

27 Safer Stockpiles: Practitioners’ Experiences with Physical Security and Stockpile Management

(PSSM) Assistance Programmes, edited by Benjamin King, April 2011, ISBN 978-2-940415-54-0

28 Analysis of National Reports: Implementation of the UN Programme of Action on Small Arms and the

International Tracing Instrument in 2009–10, by Sarah Parker, May 2011, ISBN 978-2-940415-55-7

29 Blue Skies and Dark Clouds: Kazakhstan and Small Arms, by Nicolas Florquin, Dauren Aben, and

Takhmina Karimova, May 2012, ISBN 978-2-9700771-5-2 (also available in Kazakh and Russian)

Special Reports1 Humanitarianism Under Threat: The Humanitarian Impact of Small Arms and Light Weapons, by

Robert Muggah and Eric Berman, commissioned by the Reference Group on Small Arms

of the UN Inter-Agency Standing Committee, July 2001

2 Small Arms Availability, Trade, and Impacts in the Republic of Congo, by Spyros Demetriou,

Robert Muggah, and Ian Biddle, commissioned by the International Organisation for Mi-

gration and the UN Development Programme, April 2002

3 Kosovo and the Gun: A Baseline Assessment of Small Arms and Light Weapons in Kosovo, by

Anna Khakee and Nicolas Florquin, commissioned by the United Nations Development

Programme, June 2003

4 A Fragile Peace: Guns and Security in Post-conflict Macedonia, by Suzette R. Grillot, Wolf-

Christian Paes, Hans Risser, and Shelly O. Stoneman, commissioned by United Nations

Development Programme, and co-published by the Bonn International Center for Conver-

sion, SEESAC in Belgrade, and the Small Arms Survey, June 2004, ISBN 2-8288-0056-3

5 Gun-running in Papua New Guinea: From Arrows to Assault Weapons in the Southern Highlands,

by Philip Alpers, June 2005, ISBN 2-8288-0062-8

6 La Republique Centrafricaine: Une etude de cas sur les armes legeres et les conflits, by Eric G.

Berman, published with financial support from UNDP, July 2006, ISBN 2-8288-0073-3


7 Small Arms in Burundi: Disarming the Civilian Population in Peacetime (Les armes legeres au

Burundi : apres la paix, le defi du desarmement civil), by Stéphanie Pézard and Nicolas Florquin,

co-published with Ligue Iteka with support from UNDP–Burundi and Oxfam–NOVIB, in

English and French, August 2007, ISBN 2-8288-0080-6, ISSN 1661-4453

8 Quoi de neuf sur le front congolais ? Evaluation de base sur la circulation des armes legeres et de

petit calibre en Republique du Congo, par Robert Muggah et Ryan Nichols, publié avec le

Programme des Nations Unies pour le Développement (PNUD)–République du Congo,

décembre 2007, 2-8288-0089-X

9 Small Arms in Rio de Janeiro: The Guns, the Buyback, and the Victims, by Pablo Dreyfus, Luis

Eduardo Guedes, Ben Lessing, Antônio Rangel Bandeira, Marcelo de Sousa Nascimento,

and Patricia Silveira Rivero, a study by the Small Arms Survey, Viva Rio, and ISER, December

2008, ISBN 2-8288-0102-0

10 Firearms-related Violence in Mozambique, a joint publication of the Ministry of the Interior of

Mozambique, the World Health Organization–Mozambique, and the Small Arms Survey,

June 2009, ISBN 978-2-940415-14-4

11 Small Arms Production in Brazil: Production, Trade, and Holdings, by Pablo Dreyfus, Benjamin

Lessing, Marcelo de Sousa Nascimento, and Júlio Cesar Purcena, a joint publication with

Viva Rio and ISER, September 2010, ISBN 978-2-940415-40-3

12 Timor-Leste Armed Violence Assessment Final Report, edited by Robert Muggah and Emile

LeBrun, a joint publication of ActionAid, AusAID, and the Small Arms Survey, October

2010, ISBN 978-2-940415-43-4

13 Significant Surpluses: Weapons and Ammunition Stockpiles in South-east Europe, by Pierre Gobinet,

a study of the RASR Initiative, December 2011, ISBN 978-2-9700771-2-1

14 Enquête nationale sur les armes legeres et de petit calibre en Côte d’Ivoire: les defis du contrôle des

armes et de la lutte contre la violence armee avant la crise post-electorale, by Savannah de

Tessières, a joint publication of the UNDP, the Commission Nationale de Lutte contre la

Prolifération et la Circulation Illicite des Armes Légères et de Petit Calibre, Côte d’Ivoire,

and the Small Arms Survey, April 2012, ISBN 978-2-9700771-7-6

15 Capabilities and Capacities: A Survey of South-east Europe’s Demilitarization Infrastructure, by

Pierre Gobinet, a joint publication of the Regional Approach for Stockpile Reduction, the

US Department of State’s Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement, and the Small Arms

Survey, April 2012, ISBN 978-2-9700771-7-6

16 Availability of Small Arms and Perceptions of Security in Kenya: An Assessment, by Manasseh

Wepundi, Eliud Nthiga, Eliud Kabuu, Ryan Murray, and Anna Alvazzi del Frate, a joint

publication of the Kenya National Focus Point on Small Arms and Light Weapons and the

Small Arms Survey, June 2012, ISBN 978-2-9700771-8-3


Book SeriesArmed and Aimless: Armed Groups, Guns, and Human Security in the ECOWAS Region, edited by

Nicolas Florquin and Eric G. Berman, May 2005, ISBN 2-8288-0063-6

Armes mais desoeuvres: Groupes armes, armes legeres et securite humaine dans la region de la CEDEAO,

edited by Nicolas Florquin and Eric Berman, co-published with GRIP, March 2006, ISBN

2-87291-023-9

Targeting Ammunition: A Primer, edited by Stéphanie Pézard and Holger Anders, co-published

with CICS, GRIP, SEESAC, and Viva Rio, June 2006, ISBN 2-8288-0072-5

No Refuge: The Crisis of Refugee Militarization in Africa, edited by Robert Muggah, co-published

with BICC, published by Zed Books, July 2006, ISBN 1-84277-789-0

Conventional Ammunition in Surplus: A Reference Guide, edited by James Bevan, published in co-

operation with BICC, FAS, GRIP, and SEESAC, January 2008, ISBN 2-8288-0092-X

Afghanistan, Arms and Conflict: Armed Groups, Disarmament and Security in a Post-war Society, by

Michael Bhatia and Mark Sedra, April 2008, published by Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-45308-0

Ammunition Tracing Kit: Protocols and Procedures for Recording Small-calibre Ammunition, developed

by James Bevan, June 2008, ISBN 2-8288-0097-0

Kit de Tracage des Munitions: Protocoles et Procedures de Signalement des Munitions de Petit Calibre,

developed by James Bevan, co-published with GRIP, June 2008, ISBN 2-8288-0097-0

The Central African Republic and Small Arms: A Regional Tinderbox, by Eric G. Berman with Louisa

N. Lombard, December 2008, ISBN 2-8288-0103-9

Security and Post-Conflict Reconstruction: Dealing with Fighters in the Aftermath of War, edited by

Robert Muggah, January 2009, published by Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-46054-5

La Republique Centrafricaine et les Armes Legeres: Une Poudriere Regionale, by Eric G. Berman with

Louisa N. Lombard, co-published with GRIP, May 2009, ISBN 978-2-87291-027-4

The Politics of Destroying Surplus Small Arms: Inconspicuous Disarmament, edited by Aaron Karp,

July 2009, published by Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-49461-8

Primed and Purposeful: Armed Groups and Human Security Efforts in the Philippines, by Soliman M.

Santos, Jr. and Paz Verdades M. Santos, with Octavio A. Dinampo, Herman Joseph S. Kraft,

Artha Kira R. Paredes, and Raymond Jose G. Quilop, a joint publication of the South–South

Network for Non-State Armed Group Engagement and the Small Arms Survey, April 2010,

ISBN 978-2-940415-29-8

the programme of action implementation monitor (phase 1) · iv small arms survey occasional paper...

Documents