Fourth Biennial Meeting of States

on Illicit Trade in Small Arms

7^th & 8^th Meetings (AM & PM)

Scattered, Fragmented Weapons-Tracing Data Hinders Effectiveness

 

of Attack on Illicit Small Arms Trade, Biennial Meeting Told

 

Speakers Discuss 2005 International Tracing Instrument,

With Some Suggesting Current Instrument Be Made Legally Binding

Weapons-tracing data was currently often scattered, unreliable and fragmented, hindering the effectiveness of the world’s attack on the illegal small arms trade, many delegates told the Fourth Biennial Meeting on combating the trade today, as States also began consideration of its final document by agreeing on the annex covering the international tracing instrument.

Arms transfer licensing authorities often faced great difficulties accessing records of tracked illegal small arms and, even when obtaining these documents, the information was frequently fragmented, Belgium’s representative said, referring to the International Instrument to Enable States to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons, which was adopted in 2005 as part of the 2001 Programme of Action against the illicit small arms trade.

“Putting the pieces of the puzzle together by sharing this tracing information on a bilateral, regional and even a global level would improve the ability to assess the risk of diversion and increase accountability,” he said, adding that this approach could include end-user certificates and the commitment by destination States to promptly notify States of origin in the case of theft, or loss of the small arms concerned.

However, the representative of Guatemala said the financial burdens of establishing tracing systems were heavy, especially for developing States, and he called for increased support.  But, the representative of Australia said a multimillion dollar reporting system was not necessary, pointing out that his country’s system had cost about $A 1,000.

In addition, civil society could do its part to help to raise awareness and build capacity in States, with non-governmental organizations playing an important role in tracing and information exchange, Switzerland’s representative said.  To further bolster tracing information exchanges, States should appoint a national focal point on the subject, he added.

Yet another missing piece in the fight against illegal weapons was the dearth of tracing laws that was hampering advances in the field of information sharing, the United States’ representative said.  One way to put heft behind an international tracing instrument would be by making it legally binding, a number of representatives recommended.  Algeria’s representative echoed this call, urging States to include strongly worded language to that effect in consideration of this meeting’s final document.

Some representatives said the scope of arms tracing should go beyond weapons themselves, and cover ammunition and explosives.  The representative of Chile said, given the high-tech nature of modern ballistics, ammunition should also be marked.  This and other proposals would only bolster the implementation of the Programme of Action, he said.

Speaking earlier today on the topic of the follow-up on the implementation of the Programme of Action were the representatives of Guatemala, Nicaragua, Namibia, United Republic of Tanzania and Angola, as well as a representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

Speaking on the topic of the international tracing instrument were the representatives of China, Argentina, Spain (on behalf of the European Union), Burkina Faso, Dominican Republic, Japan, Morocco, Jamaica (on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM)), India, France, Kenya, Canada, Thailand and Peru, along with the representatives of the ICRC and of the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL).

On the consideration of the draft final document, statements were made by the representatives of Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, Egypt, Czech Republic, Senegal, Spain (on behalf of the European Union), Congo, Mexico, Netherlands, Mali, Italy, Iran, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, United States, Russian Federation, Australia, United Republic of Tanzania, Syria, India, Morocco, Algeria and New Zealand.

The Meeting of States will reconvene at 10 a.m. Friday, 18 June, to continue its consideration of its draft and to adopt a final document.

Background

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 met today to conclude its discussion from yesterday (see Press Release DC/3249) and to consider implementation of the International Instrument to Enable States to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons.

Statements

LUIS FERNANDO CARRANZA ( Guatemala) said it would be advisable to have regional and subregional meetings regarding the Programme of Action’s implementation.  He supported the biennial submission of national reports and suggested that the Secretariat of the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs should report on updates concerning the implementation of the Programme of Action.  Universal participation of these biennial meetings and conferences should also be supported, especially since some developing countries faced difficulties in participating.  To this end, sponsorship should support these countries to broaden their participation.  He supported the role played by civil society on follow-up and monitoring of the Programme’s implementation.  He highlighted that Guatemala had set up a national commission as a focal point for the Programme’s implementation.

MARIA RUBIALES DE CHAMORRO ( Nicaragua) said her country had complied with tracing activities and had submitted the required reports.  The national commission had implemented a comprehensive action plan, spanning health and education sectors and already achieving concrete results.  These successes included the destruction of thousands of arms and explosive devices.  She appealed to the international community for support for training and other activities that would target the issue of arms surpluses.  Nicaragua had, in this area, already destroyed a high percentage of surpluses.  It was a priority objective for controlling small arms, including tracing and work on databases.  She was proud to announce that tomorrow Nicaragua would be officially recognized as a territory free of anti-personnel mines.

DESIDERIUS SHILUNGA ( Namibia) said a fully functional national focal point had been decentralized to 13 regions of Namibia, in keeping with a five-point strategic plan.  The 2010-2011 annual work plan covered themes including public education, national policy review, stockpile management, border control and capacity-building.  Successes had included creating a functional institutional framework, drafting an amendment bill on arms and ammunition legislation and the establishment of a rudimentary computerized centralized firearm registry system.

However, despite these successes, Namibia still faced challenges in implementing its programme on the proliferation of small arms, including the finalization of the arms and ammunition legislation, implementing the awareness-raising campaign, establishing an accurate firearms database, and regulating brokers and brokering.  Namibia would continue to demonstrate a firm commitment to implement all agreed international, regional and subregional instruments and mechanisms on small arms and would further encourage subregional cooperation and networks for information sharing among law enforcement agencies.  He urged other States in a position to do so to render technical and financial assistance, both bilaterally and multilaterally, to overcome the challenges facing countries like his own.

JUSTIN N. SERUHERE (United Republic of Tanzania), associating his delegation with the statements made on behalf of the African Group, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Southern African Development Community (SADC), and the East African Community (EAC), said his country was also affected by the menace of small arms and light weapons.  The United Republic of Tanzania had destroyed more than 12,000 weapons in total in the course of implementing the Programme of Action.  In the matter of “tracing”, more than 62,000 civilian firearms had been digitized, whereas in “marking”, more than 3,000 state firearms had been marked.  The majority of the weapons had been voluntarily surrendered by the owners.  He also joined other Member States who had called for addressing the causes of conflicts and promoting sustainable human development.

ROBERT M. YOUNG, of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), said reducing the humanitarian consequences of the uncontrolled spread of small arms and light weapons would only occur if measures were taken to control weapons supplies, limit the risks facing potential victims and change the behaviour of arms carriers.  States should tackle these issues in a holistic manner.  After adopting the Programme of Action, States must deliver results on the ground.

While innovative projects existed, more were needed, he said, and work should include violence-prevention strategies, context-specific and comprehensive approaches and improved respect for the norms of international humanitarian law.  The ICRC emphasized the need for capacity-building efforts to ensure that military, police, security forces and other arms bearers used weapons in accordance with these laws, and applicable human rights law.  For its part, the ICRC provided practical support for States to train armed forces and security.  Capacity-building and demand-oriented efforts needed to be seen as an integral part of the implementation of the Programme of Action.

ISMAEL A. GASPAR MARTINS (Angola), aligning his delegation with statements made by the African Group, the Southern African Development Community (SADC), and the Non-Aligned Movement, said that the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons was an overt threat to the peace, development and security of countries.  It was for that reason that Angola joined its voice to the calls made by those who preceded him in favour of a common approach in the fight against illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons.  The fact that Angola was a country recovering from armed conflict forced it to prioritize the fight against the proliferation and illicit trafficking in small arms, in the context of peace consolidation and the national reconciliation policy.  That task engaged the entire Angolan society, Government, non-governmental organizations and civil society.  In that connection, during the past two years a national programme to collect illegal weapons had been implemented.  He reiterated an appeal to the international community, in particular traditional partners in the fight, to continue to provide the necessary support for the achievement of the goals of the Programme of Action.

Opening Remarks on International Tracing Instrument

As the Meeting turned its attention to implementation of the International Instrument to Enable States to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons, WILLIAM KULLMANN, as a Friend of the Chair, presented a discussion paper (document A/CONF.192/BMS/2010/WP.4) on the International Tracing Instrument.

Statements

SUN LEI ( China) said that the International Tracing Instrument was an important guiding document in efforts to combat the illicit trading in small arms and light weapons.  During the past five years, the international community had recognized the importance of tracing and marking weapons, and had promoted the implementation of the International Tracing Instrument in a comprehensive manner.  Illicit trading was still severe, however, and the international community needed to further implement the Tracing Instrument.  In particular, States should ensure that manufacturers apply markings during the production process, and should establish and complete a recordkeeping system on the manufacturing, use, possession and transfer of small arms and light weapons.  States should also establish a national point of contact for both the Programme of Action and the Tracing Instrument.  In addition, developed countries should provide assistance to developing countries in institution-building and personnel training.

GARY FLEETWOOD ( Australia) said tracing was a critical factor in the battle against the spread of small arms and light weapons.  For its part, Australia had established registration of guns, including BB-guns, and tracing was facilitated by identifying serial numbers through databases.  A multimillion dollar reporting system was not necessary; Australia’s system cost about $1,000 Australian dollars, he said.  However, concerns remained.  Australia required all firearms produced or imported to the country to carry a unique serial number, the keystone for a successful tracing system.  Current projects included studying how arms travelled from the licit to the illicit markets.  Sadly, a number of countries producing arms had not complied with Australia’s requests for information.  A recent case of illegal weapons imported from the United States saw Australia partnering with the United States Government to address the problem.  Visits to a United States weapons manufacturer followed, for information gathering on tracing issues.  Cost-effective systems could be developed for tracing challenges.

ANDRES MATIAS MEISZNER ( Argentina) said his country had complied with national tracing requirements, including the marking of weapons for export.  Tracing and registration was being carried out and thousands of firearms and materials had been destroyed under current law.  Civil society had been involved, including a disarmament network of non-governmental organizations.  Congress was considering further legislation, and the Government was working with civil society to implement its disarmament policies.  His country was able to provide technical assistance in a number of areas.

LUIS GOMEZ NOGUEIRA (Spain), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said one of the most important practical achievements of the Programme of Action was the International Tracing Instrument.  Despite its non-legally-binding nature, its provisions were precise and detailed.  States were asked to ensure a wide exchange of information on traced arms and bilateral, regional and multilateral approaches should be used.  The European Union had supported the Instrument through projects including organizing regional workshops, training courses and awareness-raising activities.  It was essential to report on the implementation of the Instrument.  National reports on the Instrument represented an exceptional tool to assess the needs and gaps that still existed to ensure its full implementation.  He called on States to continue to submit their national reports.

FRANK MEEUSSEN (Belgium) said his country had made strides in small arms recordkeeping and tracing, including fulfilling requests and signing a bilateral arrangement with the United States regarding access and use of eTrace.  Belgium also supported non-governmental organization activities and believed that improved information sharing with all concerned parties would help to stem the problem of the diversion of arms.  Unfortunately, the records of tracked illegal small arms were currently fragmented and often difficult to access for arms transfer licensing authorities.  “Putting the pieces of the puzzle together by sharing this tracing information on a bilateral, regional and even a global level would improve the ability to assess the risk of diversion and increase accountability,” he said.  Using this approach could necessitate the inclusion in the end-user certificate of the commitment by the destination State to promptly notify the State of origin in the case of theft, or loss of the small arms concerned.  An arms trade treaty would indeed be another tool, provided it contained a provision on the risk of diversion.

ABDOULAYE BARRO (Burkina Faso), aligning his delegation with statements made on behalf of the African Group and the Non-Aligned Movement, restated his delegation’s commitment to the fight against the scourge of small arms and light weapons.  His delegation hoped that, at the end of the Meeting, the international community would be bolstered by secure and efficient instruments to eliminate, or at least reduce significantly, illicit weapons.  His delegation also hailed any subregional initiatives for assistance and cooperation, and hoped that the Meeting would place emphasis on assistance and training measures in the field of identification and manufacturing.  He also expressed support for measures related to the acquisition of reliable marking and tracing equipment.  In addition, he thanked the non-governmental organizations and others who were supporting Burkina Faso in its attempts to eliminate the illicit trafficking in firearms.

MILICA TERRERO ( Dominican Republic) hailed the important and interesting documents submitted on the International Tracing Instrument.  Her delegation underscored the importance of having such an instrument to combat illicit trafficking in firearms and, therefore, had established a constant information exchange system among national institutions that had a relationship with the firearms issue.  That enabled her Government to have absolute control from the manufacturer to the end-user.  Marking devices had been put in place at the manufacturing level, in order to trace from the factory to the end-user.  The sale of small firearms to individuals had been prohibited, with allowance only for the import of light arms that were shooting rifles, although cartridges were marked.  Therefore, there were now national controls.  In 2006, more than 3,000 small arms were destroyed, and, at the end of this year, there were plans to destroy another 1,300 firearms, as a result of operations carried out nationally with the view of tracing illegal weapons that were not licensed and which might be in the hands of the civilian population, she said.

STEVEN COSTNER ( United States) said several reasons for the International Tracing Instrument lagging behind include the lack of tracing laws and insufficient cooperation among Governments.  Successes included his Government’s cooperation with 30 States on tracing and regulation projects.  The United States’ eTrace programme was available to a growing number of States, with 2,800 law enforcement agencies worldwide now using the system.  Recent efforts to supply States with marking machines were another stride.  Challenges remained on marking and tracing weapons, but his country was committed to working towards identifying solutions.

KEIKO YANAI ( Japan) said her country had required serial number marking and many manufacturers were using laser marking equipment to reduce tampering.  Legislation was being considered to address marking-related issues.  Tracing could identify sources, trends and other related information that would lead to a greater understanding of trafficking.  Japan had, among things, exchanged information through Interpol and international seminars, and had provided financial support for workshops on firearms control and related topics.  Based on the Tracing Instrument, she hoped each State would bolster its marking and tracing activities.

SIHAM MOURABIT ( Morocco) said that the adoption of the International Tracing Instrument in 2005 was a major step forward.  It was certainly desirable to have a legally binding instrument in that regard, but that should not prevent States from working together to implement it.  The instrument was an essential means whereby the identification of weapons was ultimately made possible.  Correct implementation of the International Tracing Instrument would make it possible to remove, or dismantle unlawful or illicit networks.  The instrument also sought to facilitate and enhance cooperation between States parties.  In strengthening the exchange of information between States to make the tracing system more effective, States needed to take into account the necessary confidentiality of data that was transmitted for the correct operation of tracing operations and dismantling of illicit firearms networks. Her delegation was also of the view that the International Tracing Instrument should be consolidated through the formulation of an international instrument on illicit brokering.

RAYMOND O. WOLFE (Jamaica), speaking on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), said that as a region where pockets of significant gun-related violence existed, CARICOM attached importance to all efforts aimed at regulating the manufacture and trade in small arms and light weapons.  Of critical importance to the process was marking and tracing, and its value could not be overstated, nor should its worth be downplayed in any effort geared towards the effective regulation of the illicit trade.  CARICOM had made repeated calls for the establishment of a broad global approach to marking and tracing, which it believed would help in creating the establishment of internationally accepted norms and standards that would effectively eliminate the illicit trade in small arms.

CARICOM Member States did not manufacture arms, nor were they large-scale importers of weapons, he said.  It was undeniable that the easy access to illegal small arms and ammunition directly contributed to the rising levels of gun-related violence.  The net result was an unwarranted burden on social and economic systems, forcing CARICOM’s Governments to divert already meagre resources to address its debilitating effects on its societies.  CARICOM recognized the tremendous role that the International Tracing Instrument could play in addressing that situation, and was convinced that its possible effectiveness was grossly retarded by the fact that it was not legally binding.  Efforts should be geared towards the development and adoption of a legally binding instrument.

JURG LAUBER ( Switzerland) said the International Tracing Instrument implementation was a priority for his country.  It was an essential tool in ending the illegal small arms trade.  The challenge at the last biennial meeting remained.  A focal point should be appointed to work with information exchanges, and States should enhance partnerships with INTERPOL, along with its electronic tracing activities.  Non-governmental organizations had a major role in tracing and information exchange.  Civil society could build capacity in States and raise awareness.  The United Nations Coordinating Action on Small Arms international small arms standards project should bolster the implementation of the Instrument.

MOHAMMED BELAOURA ( Algeria) said the International Tracing Instrument was a major tool of the Programme of Action.  Prompt and rapid tracing of small arms was a central requirement, and his country’s activities were included in its current national report.  Marking, registration and tracing cooperation were key.  Algeria required all firearms to be marked by serial numbers.  A national register of weapons covered the Armed Forces and law enforcement agencies.  Provinces must submit files on civilian weapons owners that are entered into a national database.  New technology made it possible to better combat terrorist activities.  Different ballistics registers were being pooled and connections were being established between national and INTERPOL databases.  However, more needed to be done on tracing.  The Instrument was not binding and, therefore, it was not always possible to exchange much-needed information.  Cooperation in that area could be improved, and Algeria appealed for a recommendation consistent and strongly worded for consideration here.

AMANDEEP SINGH GILL ( India) said that small arms produced in India were uniquely marked, and the details of the country’s marking system were included in its national report.  Imported firearms were also marked and registered properly by the importer.  Civilians were only allowed to have a weapon with a license, and such weapons must be presented for inspection once a year.  The majority of illicit weapons seized in India were from insurgent groups, terrorists and criminals, and were not marked.  Those details were included in the annex of the country’s national report.  States must fulfil their obligations under the International Tracing Instrument and India was ready to cooperate with other States, INTERPOL and United Nations agencies in order to implement that instrument.  His delegation looked forward to hearing about the work in INTERPOL and United Nations agencies on facilitating tracing, as well as promoting a multilateral platform for sharing of information.

Mr. SIRAKOV ( France) said his delegation endorsed the statement made on behalf of the European Union.  Since adopting the Programme of Action in 2001, France had constantly pointed out that the Programme was simply one stage in an evolving process.  The International Tracing Instrument was the outcome of an initiative by France and Switzerland beginning in 2002, and was currently the most important achievement emanating from the Programme of Action.  His delegation, however, regretted that references to ammunition and peacekeeping operations were not included in the instrument, as well as the fact that it was not legally binding.  He called for the continued implementation of the very detailed instrument, and said that was only possible with political determination on the part of States.

FRANCIS KIMENIA ( Kenya) said his country abided by the Nairobi Protocol and the best practices guidelines, marking all weapons at the time of manufacture.  All small arms and light weapons used by the State were also marked.  An arms marking process had as its goal to mark all weapons by 2011, and additional marking machines were being sought to speed up the process.  Brokers were also being registered.  The firearms bureau was operating a weapons database.  The Government called upon the international community for additional marking machines, so that the process could be completed.

MURRAY ANDREW SMITH ( Canada) said international cooperation in tracing was essential to combat illicit trafficking, as it would identify diversion areas.  Tracing could also provide intelligence to law enforcement agencies.  Canada had, among other things, traced arms imported by dealers, worked with other Governments on tracing efforts, and assisted foreign police in firearms exported from Canada.  Any tracing system required expertise, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had developed a firearms reference table system to help facilitate arms controls.

LUIS FERNANDO CARRANZA ( Guatemala) said that there should be a binding instrument with regard to tracing and marking.  It was necessary to have an international marking standard that stipulated the component of the arms being marked, its size and depth.  Such a standard could be suggested through a voluntary implementation manual for States, with the goal of turning it into an international standard.  He restated his delegation’s belief that technical and financial assistance was needed.  Regarding information possessed by States, he said a flexible, secure system of information exchange with other States was needed, as well as a bilateral, regional and international information exchange system.

LUEJIT TINPANGA ( Thailand) said her delegation believed that the proper and effective marking of firearms was significant in the prevention of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons.  As such, her Government had put in place laws and procedures to ensure proper marking and identification of weapons, and was currently in the process of amending its firearms act, which had been in use since 1947.  Following that amendment, the ministry of the interior of Thailand would proceed with the introduction of an advanced firearms protection project.  She added that industry cooperation was also essential for creating and maintaining an effective firearms tracing system.

RICARDO BURIE DELVA ( Chile) said ammunitions and explosives should be included in the Programme of Action, since weapons could simply not operate without them.  Technological advances meant firearms had more destructive power, and marking these ballistics represented another measure of control.  Manufacturers of ammunition and cartridge reloading devices should also be addressed.  These proposals would bolster the implementation of the Programme.

VITALIANO GALLARDO ( Peru) said the International Tracing Instrument should be binding in nature.  Capacity-building in institutions should also cover training and technological areas, in addition to bolstering international cooperation.  Among the various problems to be addressed, there was the question of the homemade manufacturing of weapons and ammunition.  The instrument needed to take that aspect into account.  Peru had held a workshop on the International Tracing Instrument, which furthered Government involvement.

VÉRONIQUE CHRISTORY, of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said that effective marking, record-keeping and tracing significantly enhanced responsible arms transfer practices and were an essential tool in protecting civilians from the unregulated availability of small arms and light weapons.  The ICRC urged all States to implement scrupulously all the provisions of the International Tracing Instrument.  In particular, marking arms at the moment of import could better ensure successful tracing.  Marking of government stockpiles was also key, in order to be able to trace weapons once they had left the stockpile.  Accurate and comprehensive record-keeping through computerized systems was the best way to ensure consistent record maintenance and swift retrieval.  Although not specifically required by the International Tracing Instrument, the ICRC urged all States to actively trace weapons recovered during or after an armed conflict.  States should maximize tracing cooperation and ensure that they had adopted the laws, regulations and administrative procedures to ensure the effective implementation of that instrument.

TRACY HITE, of INTERPOL, said INTERPOL’s firearms programme was a dynamic and evolving set of tools to give member countries the law enforcement tools necessary to effectively trace and identify small arms and light weapons.  INTERPOL had created four powerful tools for effective firearms tracing.  Those included an INTERPOL firearms reference table, which contained more than 250,000 firearms references and more than 57,000 images to assist in identifying firearms.  That database was in French and English and was updated annually.  A second tool was the INTERPOL firearms trace request, which was a communications platform.  The third tool was the INTERPOL ballistic information network, the newest programme, which was designed to allow equipped member countries to share and compare ballistic data and currently had six participating countries.  The fourth tool was an online training programme for investigators, she said.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record