Controlling SALW Kenya and Uganda May 2011

8/20/2019 Controlling SALW Kenya and Uganda May 2011

1/26

WORKING

PAPER

Controlling small arms andlight weapons in Kenya and Uganda

Progress so far

May 2011


2/26

Controlling small arms and

light weapons in Kenya and Uganda

Progress so far

SAFERWORLD

MAY 2011


3/26

Acknowledgements

Tis paper was researched and written by James Ndung’u and Manasseh Wepundi

with contributions rom Richard Nabudere. Tanks also go to Saerworld’s Kenya team

or their additional editorial and advisory support, to Hesta Groenewald or overall

co-ordination o this research, to officials and stakeholders in the countries selected

as case studies or their eedback and analysis and to the Kenya and Uganda National

Focal Points.

Tis paper was made possible by unding rom the Governments o the Netherlands,

the United Kingdom and Sweden.

© Saerworld May . All rights reserved. No part o this publication may bereproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any orm or by any means

electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without ull attribution.

Saerworld welcomes and encourages the utilisation and dissemination o the material

included in this publication.


4/26

Contents

Acronyms

1. Introduction 1

2. Origins and mandate of SALW control structures 2

3. The Regional Centre on Small Arms 4

RESCA’s strategy 5

Progress towards strategy implementation 6

Progress to date 7

4. National Focal Points 8

The Kenya National Focal Point 8

Uganda National Focal Point on Small Arms and Light Weapons 11

5. Conclusions 15

6. Recommendations 18

References 19


5/26

DTF District Task Force on SALW

KIDDP Karamoja Integrated Disarmament and Development Programme

KNFP Kenya National Focal Point on SALW

NAP National Action Plan (for SALW Management and Control)

NFP National Focal Point on SALW

PTF Provincial Task Force on SALW

RECSA Regional Centre on Small Arms

RTF Regional Task Force on SALWSALW small arms and light weapons

SAS Small Arms Survey

UNFP Uganda National Focal Point on SALW

UNPOA United Nations Programme of Action

UPDF Uganda People’s Defence Force

Acronyms


6/26

1 Introduction ACCORDING TO NATIONAL REPORTS submitted to the United Nations Office or

Disarmament Affairs, as o at least countries worldwide had established

National Commissions or the control o small arms and light weapons (SALW),

while countries had nominated a National Point o Contact.1 While the overall

number o commissions already established appears encouraging, the mandate and

effectiveness o these institutions may vary significantly rom one country to another.2

Te establishment o effective co-ordination bodies is a crucial first step towards the

development and implementation o national SALW control strategies that effectively

address small arms prolieration.3

Tis working paper is written against a background o continued ormation o national

co-ordination mechanisms or the control o SALW globally and the persistent

question as to whether existing and emerging structures are living up to expectations.

It assesses the achievements and challenges aced by two such structures, namely the

National Focal Points or SALW (NFPs) control in Kenya and Uganda, while also

examining the record o a supporting regional body, the Regional Centre on Small

Arms (RECSA). Preliminary conclusions and recommendations are drawn at the

end o the paper targeting RECSA, the two governments and also external actors like

donors and civil society. A combination o desk research and selected interviews with

NFP staff and external stakeholders inormed the research.

Kenya and Uganda have been selected or analysis because they were among the first

countries in the East Arican region to establish co-ordination bodies ollowing agree-

ment o the Nairobi Declaration on the Problem o the Prolieration o the Illicit Small

Arms and Light Weapons in the Great Lakes Region and Horn o Arica (the ‘Nairobi

Declaration’) in the year and as such have had sufficient time to demonstrate

both successes and ailings. Te paper does not claim to be a comprehensive study on

the effectiveness o NFPs in the region as this would require more substantial research

and many more case studies. It does however provide an overview o the issues affect-

ing SALW control efforts in the region which can be built on in subsequent research.

1 Kytömäki E and Yankey-Wayne V, Five Years of Implementing the United Nations Programme of Action on Small Arms andLight Weapons: Regional Analysis of National Reports, (United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, Geneva, 2006),www.unidir.org/pdf/ouvrages/pdf-resume92-9045-181-5-en.pdf, 13 April 2011.

2 United Nations Development Programme, How to Guide The Establishment and Functioning of National Small Arms andLight Weapons Commissions, (Geneva: Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery, 2008).

3 South Eastern and Eastern Europe Clearing House for the Control of SALW, Guide to RMDS/G, 1.10 4th Edition (SEESAC,2006b), www.seesac.org/resources/RMDS%2001.10%20%20Guide%20to%20RMDS%20(Edition%204).pdf,13 April 2011.


7/26

4

East Africa Police Chiefs Cooperation Organisation’s mandate of joining police efforts against trans-national and organisedcrime, qualifies it to address SALW-related security concerns.

5 Recently, the UN has embarked on developing International Standards for SALW Control (ISACs), which include standardsrelated to national co-ordinating mechanisms on SALW control. However, the various UN ISACs are work in progress and donot yet constitute UN international standards on SALW control.

6 United Nations Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in SALW of July 2001.

7 Nairobi Protocol for the Prevention, Control and Reduction of SALW in the Great Lakes Region, Horn of Africa and theBordering States signed in April 2004 and entered into force, following ratification by two-thirds of its signatories, in May 2006.

2 Origins and mandate ofSALW control structures

PRIOR TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SALW STRUCTURES in East Arica like

RECSA and the Kenya and Uganda NFPs, SALW initiatives were largely under the

dockets o oreign affairs ministries and law enorcement agencies at regional and

national levels. At the regional level, the Eastern Arica Police Chies Cooperation

Organisation4 founded in and the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development

were particularly active in peace and security issues.

Te establishment o the various SALW control structures can thereore be seen as

an offshoot o various international and regional initiatives that emerged around the

world in the late s as the lethality o SALW became more appreciated. SALWprolieration was initially given attention by the United Nations through the Secretary

General’s Agenda or Peace, with a ocus on ‘micro-disarmament’. Subsequently,

SALW initiatives were initiated by the United Nations, individual governments,

regional and sub-regional organisations and non-governmental organisations. In

Arica, an Arican Union heads o government meeting adopted a decision concerning

co-operation in the search or solutions to the problems posed by the prolieration o

SALW in Arica. At the Arican Union Assembly o Heads o State and Governments

held in Algiers, rom – July , the Summit endorsed the holding o a

Continental Conerence o Arican Experts on Small Arms in . Te signing o

the Nairobi Declaration on March was ollowed nine months later by that o

the Bamako Declaration on an Arican Common Position on the Illicit Prolieration,

Circulation and rafficking o Small Arms and Light Weapons (‘Bamako Declaration’).

Te Bamako conerence (and Declaration) in developed an Arican Common

Position on the Illicit Proliferation, Circulation and Trafficking of SALW in preparation

or the UN Conerence on the Illicit rade in SALW in All its Aspects rom – July

in New York.

Te above initiatives all underscore the importance o establishing regional and

national bodies to co-ordinate action against illicit SALW prolieration5 and provide

the mandate or NFPs. Tey include the United Nations Programme o Action

(UNPOA)6, the Nairobi Declaration, the Nairobi Protocol7 and the Bamako


8/26

SAFERWORLD · WORKING PAPER 3

8 Bamako Declaration on an African Common Position on the Illicit Proliferation, Circulation and Trafficking of SALW of1 December 2000.

Declaration8. Te Nairobi Declaration in turn urges member states to support sub-

regional co-operation among police, intelligence, customs and border control officials

in combating the illicit circulation and trafficking in SALW and suppressing criminal

activities related to the use o weapons.

Bound by the Nairobi Declaration, the signatories agreed in to the Coordinated

Agenda or Action and an Implementation Plan. NFPs are mandated to monitor the

ratification, implementation, execution and evaluation o the Nairobi Protocol at the

national level in liaison with law enorcement agencies. Tey are also to ensure

adherence to the standards set out in the document and inorm the RECSA Secretariat

on a regular basis o progress made. Tis mandate was reaffirmed during the nd

RECSA Ministerial Review Conerence o and continues to guide action on

SALW by NFPs at national level.

Under the UNPOA every country has committed itsel to establish or designate

national co-ordination agencies or bodies and institutional inrastructure responsible

or policy guidance, research and monitoring o efforts to prevent, combat and eradi-

cate the illicit trade in SALW in all its aspects. States are also committed to establish or

designate a point o contact within sub-regional and regional organisations to liaise on

matters relating to the implementation o the Programme o Action. Article (d) o the

Nairobi Protocol requires member states to establish or enhance inter-agency groups,

involving police, military, customs, home affairs and other relevant bodies, to improve

policy co-ordination, inormation sharing and analysis at national level. Tis provision

is reiterated in the Bamako Declaration, which was largely influenced by the Nairobi

Protocol.


9/26

9 Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda.

10 RECSA, Nairobi Secretariat Information Tool Kit 2002–2004.

11 Member states signed this agreement during the Third Ministerial Review Conference held in Nairobi on 20–21 June, 2005.

12 RECSA, Annual Review Report , July 2007–June 2008.

3 The Regional Centre onSmall Arms

THE REGIONAL CENTRE ON SMALL ARMS (RECSA ) started as the Nairobi

Secretariat on SALW ollowing the Nairobi Declaration in . Member states9

designated the Government o Kenya to co-ordinate ollow-up to the Declaration,

the result o which was the setting up o the Nairobi Secretariat in , located within

Kenya’s Ministry o Foreign Affairs.10

Te Nairobi Secretariat was moved rom the ministry to an independent office in .

In June , member states established RECSA under Article o the Agreement

Establishing the Regional Centre on Small Arms in the Great Lakes Region, the Horn

o Arica and Bordering States.11

On October , RECSA and the Governmento Kenya signed a Host Agreement. Te new-ound independence o RECSA was

significant in several ways. First, the secretariat achieved autonomy by being reed

rom the government bureaucracy o any one host country – or instance, the office

could operate its own accounts separate rom the national treasury. Second, the

secretariat gained a truly regional outlook by ceasing to exist as a unit within a (host)

member state’s ministry and by adopting a name reflecting its status: the Regional

Centre on Small Arms. RECSA also now enjoys diplomatic status and obtained

observer status at the UN General Assembly in December .12

RECSA has three organs, namely: the Council o Ministers, the echnical Advisory

Committee and the Secretariat. Te Secretariat derives its mandate rom Article

o the Nairobi Protocol. It is responsible or developing and issuing implementationguidelines and instructions, monitoring implementation and evaluating the Nairobi

Protocol in liaison with law enorcement agencies. Te Secretariat is also responsible

or co-ordinating the joint effort by NFPs in member states to prevent, combat and

eradicate illicit trafficking and build-up o uncontrolled SALW, ammunition and

related material in the Great Lakes and Horn o Arica.

able below shows some areas o co-operation between RECSA and key regional

and international partner organisations.


10/26


13 Wairagu F, ‘Progress in the Implementation of the Nairobi Protocol’, paper presented during RECSA’s Implementing PartnersForum, Nairobi, 16 February 2009.

14 Nairobi Protocol, Article 2(c); the Nairobi Declaration recognises the same.

15 RECSA, Regional Implementation Strategy, 2009–2014, Nairobi, 2009.

Table 1: RECSA’s collaboration with partners

Partner Area of co-operation

African Union Establishment of a Continental SALW Steering Committee

European Union Continental SALW control programme in Africa

East African Community Arms marking, public awareness, research and capacity-

building.

International Conference on the RECSA mandated to implement the SALW project, adding

Great Lakes Region four other states that are not members of RECSA, namely:

Angola, Zambia, Central African Republic and Republic of

Congo

Inter-Governmental Authority on Co-operating in disarmament projects

Development

Common Market for Eastern and Adopted the Nairobi Protocol to guide issues of SALW

Southern Africa

United Nations Centre for Peace Brokers and dealers electronic software

and Disarmament in Africa

United Nations Development National action plan development, capacity-building and

Programme – Bureau for Crisis public awareness.

Prevention and Recovery

Saferworld Research on harmonisation of firearms laws, capacity-

building

Institute of Security Studies Research, capacity-building

Small Arms Survey Research, capacity-building

Mines Advisory Group Stockpile management

East Africa Action Network on SALW Civil society mobilisation

Source: RECSA 200913

RECSA’s broad base o partnership is based on the spirit and letter o both the Nairobi

Declaration and Nairobi Protocol, which underscore the necessity o inormation

sharing and cooperation between governments, inter-governmental organisations and

civil society.14

Te Coordinated Agenda or Action and its Implementation Plan, established under

the Nairobi Declaration, are the broader rameworks that guide implementation o

SALW action by RECSA. In practice though, RECSA has implemented its activities

based on periodic strategic plans and implementation strategies. Te current imple-mentation strategy runs rom – and sets the various milestones that NFPs

should achieve during this period. Te milestones highlighted in this strategy lie in

three main thematic areas, namely: strengthening o institutions, effective inormation

provision and promotion and acilitation o SALW management.15

RECSA’sstrategy


11/26

6 CONTROLLING SMALL ARMS AND LIGHT WEAPONS IN KENYA AND UGANDA: PROGRESS SO FAR

16 See www.recsasec.org/ratification.htm, 30 January 2011.

17 For more information on harmonisation of legislation, see Saferworld, Harmonising Small Arms Legislation: Selected CaseStudies, (London: Saferworld, 2011).

18 Ibid .

19 RECSA, Small Arms and Human Security Research: A Manual for Researchers in the Great Lakes and Horn of Africa Regionand Bordering States, (2010).

RECSA’s progress in implementing is best considered along the three thematic areas

listed above. As we shall see, while some have criticised RECSA or the narrow ocus

o its strategy, this does have the merit o clear ocus and attainability, certainly in

comparison to some NFPs whose plans can be quite wide-ranging and costly.

Institutional and legislative measures

n RECSA has overseen the ratification and deposit o instruments o ratification at its

Secretariat by member states, namely: Te Federal Democratic Republic o Ethiopia,

Republic o Uganda, Te State o Eritrea, Republic o Rwanda, Democratic Republic

o Congo, Republic o Kenya, Republic o Djibouti, Republic o Burundi, and the

Republic o Sudan, rom –.16

n RECSA has also organised regular Ministerial Review Conerences and Governmental

Expert Meetings. Tis has ensured that SALW discussions maintain relevance at the

top levels o government in the member states. (However, considering the challenges

related to lack o political will among member states to honour their commitments,

the utility o these meetings is requently questioned by sceptics.)

n Facilitating and co-ordinating establishment o NFPs by member states is perhaps

RECSA’s most significant achievement under this theme. Te challenge is however,

that the structures in most countries are not unctioning as effectively as hoped due to

a myriad o institutional and political problems (see below). Te organisation has also

provided technical support to states on the review o SALW legislation in a number

o countries linked to the development o Best Practice Guidelines. However, even

where progress has been made to review legislation, the application o the best practice

guidelines has been minimal. Apparently most countries have not proactively sought

assistance rom RECSA to assist in the process.17 Further, despite the progress

highlighted above, the pace o harmonisation o laws and policies across the region

(considered by many to be an ‘easy win’) has been slow. Tere seems to be consensus

that this is one area where RECSA needs to redouble its efforts.18

Research and information

In the area o research and inormation, various best practice guidelines and action

plans have been developed by RECSA, as ollows:

n Best Practice Guidelines on Arms Control and Management adopted by the Group

o Government Experts in May and endorsed during the rd Ministerial Review

Conerence in June

n Best Practice Guidelines on Practical Disarmament (/)

n Guidelines or Regional Harmonisation o Legislation on firearms and ammunition()

n Researchers’ Manual on SALW (June ) 19

n In addition, RECSA has co-ordinated the development o National Action Plans on

Small Arms in member states, most notably Kenya, Uganda, anzania, Burundi,

Eritrea, Djibouti and Ethiopia.

Overall, this appears to be one o the areas where good progress has been made.

For example, the Best Practice Guidelines have been developed through wide

consultations with various actors and they embrace international best practice.

Progresstowardsstrategy

implementation


12/26


20 For information on these milestones, see RECSA,Regional Implementation Strategy, 2009–2014, (Nairobi: Regional Centreon SALW, 2009).

Although in many cases states do not ully adhere to them, it could be argued that this

is the prerogative o national governments and not RECSA.

Small arms and light weapons control and management

During the period in question, RECSA has also:

n overseen the destruction o , SALW; , landmines and , tons o

ammunition and unexploded ordinance in the region

n acilitated the supply o marking machines to member states, many o which are

now reported to be in use

n together with partners, developed sofware to track arms brokers and dealers and

provided a number o computers

n initiated an Arican continental SALW control programme in collaboration with

the European Union.20

Considering the context in which it operates – a region in which a number o states

have struggled with armed conflict (Burundi, the Democratic Republic o Congo,

Ethiopia, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan and Uganda) – RECSA’s achievements are note-

worthy. In this light, more efforts need to be put in areas o technical and capacity

weaknesses o RECSA member states:

n Regional harmonisation of SALW control legislation: RECSA has used diplomatic

channels to secure members’ commitments to harmonisation o their laws on SALW

(e.g. through the Nairobi Declaration, Nairobi Protocol and the Best Practice

Guidelines). As noted above however, progress on harmonisation has been slow.

It is doubtul that RECSA’s engagement with the legislatures in the region has beeneffective. As such, the pace o harmonisation o these laws has been slow.

n Improved border management: RECSA is yet to effectively mobilise regional support

or tangible inter-state efforts aimed at securing borders and combating cross-border

arms trafficking. Border control mechanisms are ofen resource-intensive and RECSA

itsel under-resourced. For instance, there is a need to improve human and technical

capacity at border points, improve arms detection gear and techniques, invest in

surveillance systems and scanners and enhance policing and patrols at key border

points. RECSA should now begin to prioritise this area, supporting and encouraging

member states in their own efforts.

Progress todate


13/26

21 See RECSA, Implementation of the UNPoA: Status Report on the Implementation of the Nairobi Protocol ,(Nairobi: RECSA, 2010).

4 National Focal PointsTHE NFPS WITHIN THE RECSA REGION can be categorised into three distinct

groups:21

n independent commissions mandated to oversee the implementation o SALW

agreements within their respective countries, e.g. in Burundi and DRC

n autonomous NFPs with ull-time staff and specific mandates on SALW control

e.g. in Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda

n semi-autonomous NFPs located within national police services, mandated to address

SALW issues alongside their routine police duties e.g. Djibouti, anzania, Ethiopia,

the Seychelles and Eritrea.

Te ocal points were established under the Nairobi Protocol with unctions and

responsibilities that include:n co-ordinating with the Nairobi Secretariat in the implementation o the Agenda or

Action

n co-ordinating and interacting with other NFPs

n co-ordinating and interacting with civil society

n acilitating exchange and dissemination o inormation

n conducting and acilitating research

n identiying and applying lessons learned

n building capacity or a sustainable approach to the problem o SALW.

Te Kenya National Focal Point (KNFP) was established in January . It is an

inter-agency body bringing together ministries and departments o government as

well as civil society. Tese institutions include the State Law Office (Attorney General’s

Office), National Crime Research Centre, Central Firearms Bureau, National Security

and Intelligence Service, Kenya Police, Administration Police, Ministry o rade,

Kenya Wildlie Service, Department o Deence, Department o Mines and Geology,

ballistics and orensic experts rom the Criminal Investigation Department and civil

society organisations. Te KNFP has two main organs, namely the Secretariat and the

echnical Steering Committee.

The KenyaNational Focal

Point


14/26


22 Nairobi Declaration of 15 March 2000 and its Agenda for Action of November 2000.

23 Government of Kenya, Kenya National Action Plan for Arms Control and Management , (Nairobi: Oakland Media, 2006).

Mandate of the Kenya National Focal Point

Te KNFP Secretariat is charged with co-ordinating action on SALW at the national

level.22 Its roles and unctions include:

n co-ordinating national policy and action to address the problem o the prolieration

o illicit small arms and light weapons

n co-ordinating the development and implementation o the National Action Plan orArms Control and Management

n together with regional and international bodies and other NFPs, co-ordinating the

implementation o the international and regional declarations and protocols

n co-ordinating and interacting with civil society

n co-ordinating research on the problem o illicit SALW

n monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness o measures to address the problem o

illicit SALW prolieration

n acilitating the exchange and dissemination o inormation with regard to the SALW

problem.

Kenya National Focal Point strategy

Te work o the KNFP is guided by the Kenya National Action Plan or Arms Control

and Management (NAP), which was approved in June .23 Te Kenya NAP

provides an activity ramework designed to comprehensively address the SALW

problem in Kenya. It was initially designed to cover a period o five years, starting on

July , afer which it was envisaged that a urther assessment would take place to

gauge the status o implementation and inorm the development o a ollow-on plan.24

Te NAP has ten key pillars that are supposed to be implemented by the KNFP.

Tese pillars are:

1. Institutional framework related to building the capacity o KNFP and ormation o

provincial and district task orces to operationalise action on SALW at the grassroots

level.

2. Policy and legislation outlining the process to be undertaken to develop Kenya’s

SALW policy and to review Kenya’s SALW legislation.

3. Stockpile management related to record keeping, stock-taking and collection and

destruction o illicit SALW.

4. Public education and awareness seeking to promote awareness o key aspects o the

NAP and its implementation, e.g. on new firearms policy and legislation and the

introduction o educational programmes in schools to promote a culture o peace.

5. International and regional co-operation and information exchange outlining specificprovisions to improve Kenya’s ability to co-operate and share inormation with

neighbouring states and to conduct joint planning and operations.

6. Border control and refugees with provision or establishment o a Movement Control

Working Group to examine how to establish better controlled commercial ports o

entry. Other provisions include creation o targeted developmental arms reduction

programmes around Kenya’s main reugee communities and enhancing co-ordination

o government responses to reugee management and arms control.

7. Human development planning ocusing on issues uelling the demand or SALW in

Kenya as well as seeking to link the NAP to some o the broader causes o insecurity

and violence that relate to SALW control and linking these with wider government

development plans and strategies.


15/26


24 At the end of the NAP’s implementation period no new national plan was developed but the KNFP Secretariat formulated afive-year institutional strategic plan. KNFP, with support from SAS, also carried out a national mapping exercise of SALW inKenya, the findings of which are expected to inform further action on SALW in Kenya.

25 Op cit Government of Kenya (2006).

26 Ibid , pp 57–58.

27 Government of Kenya, Draft National Policy on Small Arms and Light Weapons, (Nairobi: Office of President, Ministry ofState for Provincial Administration and Internal Security, June 2009); Interview with Isiolo DTF member on 20 March 2011 inIsiolo.

28 There may be need to create 47 County Task Forces to align KNFP structures with the new administrative structures under thenew constitution.

29

There are over 200 districts in the country. 30 Interview with DTF members in Upper Eastern Region on 13 March 2011.

31 An interview with a key security official in Garissa, on 23 April 2011 underscored their lack of knowledge of the roles ofRECSA and KNFP and how they can help the police to computerise databases on arms registers. Another informal interviewon the same day revealed that even where computers have been distributed, in some cases provincial administration officeshave benefited at the expense of police stations.

32 For more information on civilian disarmament in Kenya and Uganda, see Saferworld, Lessons from the Frontiers: CivilianDisarmament in Kenya and Uganda. (London: Saferworld, 2011).

8. Training and capacity building on technical issues related to arms control and

management targeting KNFP, senior officials, law enorcement agents and civil society.

9. Research setting out a number o issues that need urther investigation including

dynamics o the illicit SALW trade and law enorcement agents and prolieration o

SALW in selected areas representing urban, rural and pastoralist contexts.

10. Critical areas support to enhance the ability o law enorcement agents to carry out

their duties in critical areas o perormance. Tis would include ormation o a

National Firearms Unit and enhancing the capacity o the Crime Intelligence Unit

and the National Crime Research Centre.

Progress to date

An analysis o the above-mentioned aspects o NAP shows that most progress has

been made in the areas o research, stockpile management and inormation exchange.

Comparatively little has been achieved in most other areas. Below we ocus on the

most notable areas o intervention.

Research: Te KNFP conducted its national mapping o SALW between March and

April , inorming the development o the NAP immediately aferwards.25 Kenya’s

first NAP was approved in June and was set to run or five years. Te KNFP with

the support o the Small Arms Survey (SAS) is conducting an update survey in /

to help renew its strategy on SALW in Kenya.

Policy and legislation: Te development o a national policy on SALW and the review

o SALW control legislation were identified as priorities and eature as objectives o

Kenya’s NAP.26 Te development o the national policy began in . Te process o

developing the policy was well conducted and involved a wide variety o stakeholders.

A final draf national policy was submitted to the minister in charge o Provincial

Administration and Internal Security in December , and is now awaiting

submission to cabinet and official sign-off.27 Te process has taken six years however

and there is no agreed timerame within which to complete the task.

Institutional framework: Te KNFP has successully established and trained

Provincial ask Forces (PFs)28 and District ask Forces (DFs)29 on SALW.

However, lack o ollow-up and resources to implement the DFs’ work plans meant

that most have not been able to carry out planned activities. A second key problem is

that requent transers o district and provincial officials have lef most o them

without the technical skills to implement SALW programmes at community level.30

In some districts it would appear that provincial administrators and security officers

are not ully aware o the existence o the KNFP.31

Stockpile management: By March , Kenya had destroyed over , illegal

SALW and thousands o rounds o ammunition and explosives (see table below).In addition, by May the country had marked , arms using two marking

machines supported by RECSA. But arms destruction exercises should be measured

against the benchmarks set or civilian disarmament exercises over time.32


16/26


33 KNFP, ‘Disarmament in Kenya’, presentation delivered during RECSA Practical Disarmament Validation Workshop inMombasa Kenya, 30–31 August 2010.

34 www.unvuganda.org/saahw.html, 5 February 2011.

Unortunately these operations have never yielded anything near their target levels o

SALW. For example, in Kenya’s Operation Dumisha Amani (Sustain Peace), a disarma-

ment initiative o /, the government had a target o , arms to recover,

but only netted , arms.33 Tereore a comparison o total arms destroyed against

disarmament targets actually suggests modest progress.

Table 2: Number of SALW and ammunition/explosives destroyed in Kenya

Number Ammunition/

Year of SALW explosives

2003 8,289

2005 3839

2007 8,008 50,000

2009 2,498

2010 2,545

Total 25,179 50,000

Source – KNFP, Nairobi

In addition, to improve record-keeping, the Central Firearms Bureau received a

standardised electronic register or managing arms brokers and dealers rom RECSA

and United Nations Centre or Peace and Disarmament in Arica. Te sofware will

manage inormation on arms brokers and keep records o brokering licences in

accordance with the RECSA Best Practice Guidelines.

International and regional co-operation and information exchange: Te Kenyan

government and civil society actively participated in the global Control Arms

campaign, dubbed the ‘Million Faces Petition’ (ronted by Amnesty International,

Oxam and the International Action Network on Small Arms), in ollowing

agreement on the UNPOA. Kenya, through KNFP co-ordination and the support o

Oxam GB collected and presented about , aces to the UN Secretary-General

at the UNPOA Review Conerence to lobby or tough global controls on the arms

trade. In addition, Kenya and six other like-minded states (i.e. Argentina, Australia,

Costa Rica, Finland, Japan and the United Kingdom) co-sponsored and lobbied or the

adoption o a draf resolution to establish an Arms rade reaty. Te Resolution was

adopted by the UN General Assembly on December . Te KNFP co-ordinated

preparation o a submission on this by the Kenyan Government. Tis was a very

significant diplomatic contribution to an international process that has potential to

improve controls over the global trade in SALW.

Te Uganda National Focal Point on SALW (UNFP) was established by the Govern-

ment o Uganda in to co-ordinate activities to prevent, combat and eradicate

the problem o the prolieration o illicit SALW.34 Tis action was in line with the

provisions o the Coordinated Agenda or Action o the Nairobi Declaration.

Mandate of the Uganda National Focal Point on Small Arms and Light Weapons

Te UNFP is an inter-agency body comprising government ministries and agencies,

as well as civil society organisations that have some role in addressing the small arms

issue. Te UNFP unctions as the link between regional and national level institutions.Te Secretariat o the UNFP is located within the Ministry o Internal Affairs.

UgandaNational FocalPoint on Small

Arms and LightWeapons


17/26


35 www.mia.go.ug/page.php?1=nfp_functions&&2=National%20Focal%20Point%20Functions, 5 February 2011.

36 The RTFs were originally mandated to take forward the NAP at the sub-national level, but it was subsequently recognisedthat DTFs are much better suited to Uganda’s administrative structures. The only administrative structures that functionregionally are the police administrative regions, while all other local government structures operate at the district level. Theexistence of DTFs is therefore recognised in the national small arms policy.

Te NFP is administered by a co-ordinator, under the supervision o the Permanent

Secretary and the political direction o the minister. It has the ollowing roles:35

n implement the Nairobi Declaration, Nairobi Protocol and other Protocols,

Programmes o Action and Declarations pertaining to SALW

n develop, implement, resource and monitor the NAP

n co-ordinate implementation and operational activities with the Regional ask Forceson SALW

n co-ordinate activities related to SALW with all stakeholders to ensure compatibility

with the national objectives

n co-ordinate and interact with civil society

n conduct and acilitate research on issues pertaining to SALW in all its aspects

n acilitate exchange and dissemination o inormation

n identiy and apply lessons learnt aimed at developing best practices

n build and maintain the capacity o all stakeholders to ensure effective and sustainable

action to deal with the SALW problem in all its aspects.

Uganda National Focal Point on Small Arms and Light Weapons strategy

Like the KNFP, the UNFP’s strategy is guided by the Uganda NAP. Because the

development o both NAPs happened concurrently and was supported by the same

partners using the same methodology, the two documents have much in common.

Indeed, the commencement dates o both Kenya and Uganda NAPs were the same,

i.e. July . Te Uganda NAP ocuses on our main themes:

n Control and management of existing stock of SALW. Tis addresses the capacity

building o law enorcement agencies, stockpile and surplus management, develop-

ment o a national policy on SALW, regulating civilian ownership and controlling

and managing brokers n Reduction of the volume of SALW already in circulation, ocusing on collection and

destruction

n Prevention of future proliferation of SALW ocusing on licensing controls and

procedures, end-user certification and monitoring, reporting (or transparency and

accountability), marking and tracing

n Institutional framework development and capacity building o the main institutions,

namely the National Security Committee, the Uganda NFP and Regional ask

Forces (RFs).36

Uganda’s NAP consists o ten components that were to be undertaken jointly by

government and civil society, implemented in phases over a period o five years.Te ten components fit within the above-mentioned themes and are as ollows:

1. Establish and/or operationalise the required inter-agency institutional framework to

implement the various international, regional and sub-regional action programmes

and protocols as well as the NAP in a comprehensive and sustainable manner. In this

case, Uganda’s National Security Committee, the UNFP and Regional (or District)

ask Forces are the relevant institutions.

2. Develop an integrated and comprehensive National Policy on SALW, review national

legislation, administrative procedures and regulations ollowed by implementation o

the new provisions and harmonisation within the sub-regional ramework.


18/26


37 Based on the analysis of the KIDDP and the progress with the national SALW policy.

38 Government of Uganda, Uganda National Action Plan for Arms Control and Management , (Kampala, 2004).

39 The government, in compliance with Section 3 (a) of the Ratification of Treaties Act and the Constitution of the Republic ofUganda authorised the Minister of Foreign Affairs to sign the instrument of ratification, dated 15 February 2005, depositedwith the Secretariat on 10 May 2005. www.recsasec.org/ratification.htm, 20 February 2011.

40 Interview with Richard Nabudere, former UNFP Coordinator.

41 Saferworld, Lessons from the Frontiers: Civilian Disarmament in Kenya and Uganda. (London: Saferworld, 2011).

3. Undertake stockpile management, record keeping, collection and destruction

activities.

4. Develop and implement a national awareness and education programme to curb

prolieration, reduce demand and promote responsible management o SALW.

5. Develop international and regional co-operation, acilitate co-ordination, o regional

and sub-regional activities across borders and inormation exchange.

6. Facilitate the control o cross-border movement of people and goods at all entry

points.

7. Mainstream and integrate the NAP activities into the Human Development Plan or

the country, poverty reduction programmes and the existing peacebuilding structures.

8. Train and build capacity o all agencies and civil society actors interacting with the

NAP or any o its activities.

9. Carry out action-oriented research to promote co-operation and interaction with civil

society in order to build support or the NAP and secure civil society involvement in

its implementation.

10. Identiy and acilitate action on critical areas of control such as cross-border entry

points, joint and cross-border operations, capacitating the Crime Intelligence Unitand ormation o a multi-disciplinary National Firearms Unit.

Progress to date

Compared to Kenya, Uganda seems to have made better progress, especially in the area

o policy and legislation and integration o its SALW programmes into the broader

development policies o the government.37

Research: Uganda carried out a national mapping o SALW in – leading to

development o an NAP.38 Different components o this plan have been implemented

as outlined below.

Policy and legislation: Uganda has ratified the Nairobi Protocol39 and developed

and adopted a national policy on SALW – in October , the cabinet approved the

policy, making Uganda the first country to finalise an official government policy on

SALW within the RECSA region. In addition, the UNFP Secretariat constituted the

Legal Drafing Committee in late and started undertaking the national legislative

review process.

Importantly, in , Uganda developed the Karamoja Integrated Disarmament and

Development Programme (KIDDP) aimed at creating conditions or promoting

human security and recovery in Karamoja. Te UNFP played a leading role during the

KIDDP’s development, by chairing the technical team that developed the programme

document and co-ordinating the consultations with key stakeholders, although thislevel o involvement has not been maintained by the UNFP during the implementation

phase.40 However, implementing the KIDDP has been challenging, with criticisms

being levelled at the pace with which development assistance has been brought to the

area as disarmament efforts were implemented. In addition, orceul disarmament

operations have occurred repeatedly over the last years, undermining the intentions

o the KIDDP to address the actors that encourage people to acquire and use

weapons and to conduct disarmament in a way that ensures community buy-in and

participation.41


19/26


42 RECSA, Implementation of the UNPoA: Status Report on the Implementation of the Nairobi Protocol , (Nairobi: RECSA,2010), pp 20–21.

43 Uganda Country Report, ‘Reporting on The Implementation of the United Nations Program of Action (UNPOA) to Prevent,Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in SALW in All Its Aspects’, at the 4th Biennial Meeting of States, 14–18 June 2010,New York, p 4.

44 See ‘Uganda Human Rights Commission Press Release’, New Vision, 23 May 2010, www.newvisionuganda.info/D/526/532/720586, 2 May 2011; Amnesty International, ‘Uganda: Failure to investigate alleged human rights violationsin Karamoja region guarantees impunity’, public statement, 1 November 2010, www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ AFR59/013/2010/en/ea3be8fc-07a3-4010-8d80-7faad5229e2e/afr590132010en.html, 23 May 2011.

45 Statement by UNFP Coordinator Mr A Wafuba on ‘The Implementation of the United Nations Program of Action (UNPOA)to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in SALW in All Its Aspects’, at the 4th Biennial Meeting of States,14–18 June 2010, New York, p 3.

46 Op cit , Uganda Country Report, p 5.

47 These were: Kampala Extra Region; Central Region; South Eastern Region; Eastern Region; Mid East Region; North EastRegion; Northern Region; North West Region; Western Region; Mid Western Region; Southern Region; South West Region.

48 Republic of Uganda, Karamoja Integrated Disarmament and Development Programme: Creating Conditions for PromotingHuman Security and Recovery in Karamoja, 2007 / 2008–2009 / 2010, (Kampala: Office of the Prime Minister, 2007).

49 Ibid , p viii.

Stockpile management: By May , Uganda had destroyed , SALW, ,

landmines and tons o ammunition42 and had marked over , arms. In the

Karamoja region, the Uganda People’s Deence Force (UPDF) led a disarmament

exercise that has seen the collection o over , illicit SALW to date.43 In one

respect the figures are impressive, and to some degree this has contributed to security

in Karamoja. Yet security problems persist in Karamoja and more work is needed to

address the reasons why people want to retain their weapons. Moreover, accountso excessive use o orce and human rights violations by the UPDF definitely mar

these achievements.44 However, Uganda’s new initiative to develop an approach that

integrates disarmament and development (as discussed below under human develop-

ment) does have potential to address deeper problems i applied countrywide.

Progress however in the area o record-keeping has been slow. So ar the NFP has

acquired an assortment of equipment to facilitate the setting up of the Central Firearms

Registry within the Uganda Police Force. A Firearm Inormation Management System

has also been developed and is now ready for deployment to make the Central Firearms

Registry operational.45 Te NFP is also planning to organise a series o trainings or

officers responsible or managing the Central Firearms Registry.46

Institutional framework: Tis component o the NAP aims to ensure that the national

agencies that are responsible or implementing the NAP are set up and have the

necessary resources, authority and skills to ensure that the NAP is effectively

implemented. In a Functional Analysis commissioned by RECSA or both KNFP

and UNFP highlighted the challenges aced by the NFP in implementation o the

NAPs and recommended measures to strengthen organisational capacity, rationalise

organisational structure and staffing o the NFP Secretariats. In the case o Uganda,

these have not yet been implemented.

On the basis o the NAP, RFs on arms management were initially created, based on

the country’s twelve police administrative regions.47 However, since the establishment

o the institutional ramework, the police regions have increased in number. And as in

Kenya, it appears that ollow-up on these structures by UNFP has been minimal and

little is being done at this level.

Human development: Uganda provides a good example o an integrated programme

or arms reduction. In accordance with the objectives o the Poverty Eradication

Action Plan, Uganda developed the KIDDP.48 Te Poverty Eradication Action Plan

was the principal guide to all Government o Uganda development activities, which

in Pillar on ‘Security, Conflict Resolution and Disaster Management’, highlights the

importance o a secure environment or the achievement o recovery and develop-

ment. It has since been transormed into the National Development Plan, which also

contains some commitments on small arms control, thereby making disarmament

an integral part o development planning. Te KIDDP has also been taken up as the

principal guiding ramework or Karamoja in the Peace, Recovery and Development

Plan or Northern Uganda.49 However, as noted above, the KIDDP’s implementation

has been slow and sometimes conflict-insensitive.


20/26

50 Interviews with, representatives of the Netherlands and UK Embassies in Kenya, January 2011.

5 ConclusionsTHIS PAPER STARTED BY HIGHLIGHTING THE SERIOUSNESS with which the

international community, regional and national governments have attempted to

address the problem o SALW prolieration. Following the UN Agenda or Peace and

more recently the UNPOA a lot o work has been done to lay the oundation or co-

ordinated action. Te East Arican region has also witnessed development o a number

o political, legal and policy rameworks and guidelines in this area. Unortunately

practical action at the regional and national level has not always ollowed.

As has been noted, the mandates o the various SALW structures are well articulated

and the criteria or establishing them well developed. Te East Arican structures

analysed seem to have done well in the areas of stockpile management, as exemplified by

the thousands o SALW collected and destroyed, and the application o best practices

related to marking o state-owned firearms. However, most o the commitments

under the Kenyan and Ugandan NAPs were not implemented during the first years o

these plans. Some progress on national policy and legislative development, as well as

research can be demonstrated. However, success is less clear in other areas o the NAPs

in Kenya and Uganda such as institutional development, border management and

developing co-operative and practical approaches to arms control in the region.

Similarly, RECSA has made important progress in some areas, but also faced significant

challenges in others. In a climate where donors are under more pressure to prove value

or money to their domestic constituencies, there is currently a danger that donors

will reduce or withdraw unding rom those aspects o RECSA and the NFPs that they

don’t deem to be making enough progress.50

National level challenges

A number of challenges facing Kenya and Uganda at the national level can be identified:

n Limited resources: the NAPs developed by both Kenya and Uganda were quite

ambitious and the resources required to implement them have not been orthcoming.

Uganda’s NAP or instance required ,, to ully implement it within a period

o five years (–). With their governments committing little or nothing at all,

NFPs have not been able to ully implement all planned activities and have had to rely

on external support, including rom non-governmental organisations.

n Limited institutional and human capacity: NFPs ofen contend with staffing

limitations. For instance, NFP co-ordinators are mostly over-stretched and under-resourced as they struggle to execute their mandate locally, nationally, regionally and


21/26


51 Maze K, and Rhee H, International Assistance for Implementing the UN Programme of Action on Illicit Trade of Small Armsand Light Weapons in all its Aspects: Case Study of East Africa, p 12, www.unidir.org/pdf/activites/pdf4-act313.pdf,28 March 2011.

52 Interviews with a DTF member in Isiolo on 13 March 2011.

internationally.51 Te capacity o sub-national task orces (e.g. RFs, PFs and lower

level units) also tends to be limited. In many cases even where they have received

training these local structures are still not able to effectively bridge the local and

national level gap or to co-operate smoothly with their peers within peace (e.g. District

Peace Committees) or security structures (e.g. District Security Committees).52 NFPs

have mainly been managed by officials seconded rom the police or related security

agencies. Tey have moreover been supplied with a limited number o staff. Tese staffofen do not have the skills required or the ull range o tasks the NFPs are responsible

or, including conducting research, drafing policy recommendations, project

management and undraising. Frequent transers have also hindered continuity.

Among other things ollow-up and monitoring the work o devolved NFP structures

has not been possible in these circumstances.

n Bureaucratic challenges: Bureaucratic procedures ofen hamper SALW structures.

For instance, in the Kenyan case, the KNFP’s finances are channelled through the

national treasury, which means there could be delays in disbursement.

n Competing national priorities and limited political support: With many competing

national priorities, SALW control is mainly lef as a national security issue to be

managed by various security agencies with little reerence to NFPs. Unortunately

since in both Kenya and Uganda the NFPs have not been accorded a high profile or

status in government circles, this has impeded their efforts to secure unds and other

orms o support rom their own governments. In truth while NFPs have been

established, they are treated as peripheral departments and ofen seen by other parts

o government as a conduit or external resources.

n Superficial ownership by governments: Although the ormation and development o

NFPs was led by the governments o the region, the process was also externally driven

in some sense in the wake o many international initiatives or SALW control. Perhaps

as a result the Kenyan and Ugandan governments seem to rely more on external

support as opposed to directly committing resources and high-level political support

to national initiatives.

n Politicisation of SALW issues: Te KNFP and UNFP have to their credit developed

evidence-based NAPs which, i ully implemented, would yield significant benefits in

both national and human security terms. Unortunately, disarmament operations and

arms reduction initiatives are sometimes political, a act that is beyond NFPs given

their status in government. Political leaders sometimes approach SALW issues in a

subjective fashion, seeking to protect constituency interests (e.g. through disarmament

o political rivals). Te required balancing o regional and ethnic concerns in law

enorcement is simply beyond the NFPs’ mandates and capacities. Such cases can be

seen in both Kenya and Uganda. In the case of the disarmament processes in Karamoja,

the NFP was marginalised as the UPDF took over what was a high profile operation

politically, even though the KIDDP was a more ruitul way to conduct the process.

Regional level challenges

At the regional level RECSA aces its own challenges:

n Resource mobilisation: Until recently when it secured international support rom the

EU, resourcing was an ongoing problem.

n Keeping pace with regional developments: Nowadays there is the challenge o urther

developing RECSA and shifing its ocus as others’ capacity increases. RECSA’s

adaptation to changing demands on the secretariat in the ace o growth o NFPs’

capacity will be a major test. With increased regional co-operation and harmonisation


22/26


53 In the area of harmonising legislation, see for example Saferworld,Harmonising Small Arms Legislation: Selected CaseStudies, (London: Saferworld, 2011).

between relevant players, RECSA may also have to change its modus operandi in order

to maintain relevance in the ace o such regional interactions.

n Functionality of NFPs: Action on SALW by RECSA largely depends on how effective

and operational NFPs in member states are. Te NFPs in the RECSA region operate in

different political, economic and social settings. Unortunately due to other competing

priorities, providing support to NFPs has been seen as an ‘add on’ to primary govern-

ment unctions, ofen rendering them ineffective. Consequently RECSA sometimes

finds itsel going beyond the co-ordination role to catalyse action at the national level.

n Coordination:Evidently, whereas RECSA continues to issue general guidelines to NFPs,

the latter have apparently not proactively sought the assistance rom the regional body

to ensure that implementation o their work is in line with the best practice.53


23/26

54 The findings of this research are unpublished but are widely shared with the concerned NFPs in the region.

6 RecommendationsIN VIEW OF THE CHALLENGES that structures or SALW control in the region are

experiencing, it is important or the ollowing specific recommendations to be

implemented:

Recommendations to the governments of Kenya and Uganda

n Ownership: Respective governments should own their national SALW control

initiatives by committing significant resources to NFPs’ programmes. Only then can

other partners eel confident that there is sufficient goodwill rom governments.

n Institutional strengthening: Governments should employ enough staff with the

required skills and experience to run the NFPs’ secretariats on a permanent basis.

Te unctional analysis o NFPs carried out by RECSA54 identified key challenges to

effective perormance o NFPs. Te governments o Kenya and Uganda should address

those challenges at the national level so as to reinvigorate NFPs.

n Managing for results: Whereas many SALW interventions are process-based and may

sometimes take a long time to bear ruit, responsible ministries and institutions within

governments should show interest in these processes and speed up their completion.

Recommendations to RECSA

n Closer monitoring and reporting on NFPs’ work: Although RECSA’s role is mainly to

co-ordinate regional action, close monitoring o NFPs’ work will be useul in ensuring

that implementation is happening in accordance with the established best practice

guidelines.

n Implementing the recommendations of the functional analysis of NFPs: Te unctional

analysis o NFPs carried out by RECSA identified key challenges to effective perorm-

ance o NFPs. RECSA should urge member states to address those challenges at the

national level so as to reinvigorate NFPs as early as possible.

Recommendations to civil society and other external actors

n Assessing the progress of NFPs: Organisations working or intending to work with

NFPs should careully assess the record o NFPs as well as the challenges they ace with

a view to identiying potential areas o support.


24/26


n Supporting action plans with clear commitments: donors should support NFPs which

have clear action plans contingent on delivering commitments made. Tis should be

done by identiying areas o support that have the potential to contribute to the

reduction o armed violence.

n Capacity-building:Te decentralisation o the NFP structures to regions and districts

comes with capacity challenges. Civil society actors can collaborate with the central

SALW structures in building the capacities o these local units.

n Monitoring the effectiveness of regional initiatives: Civil society actors can play a role

in tracking cross-border collaboration, their strengths, weaknesses and progress as

part o a co-operative venture to improve regionalisation o SALW initiatives.

n Research and advocacy: One o the most important roles that civil society can play

is that o conducting research that helps inorm the plans and actions o NFPs and

potentially inorm advocacy efforts designed to unlock additional support and

resources or them.

n Harmonisation of policies and legislation: In the ace o multiple, and sometimes

overlapping policy and legislative rameworks domestically and regionally, SALW

structures can collaborate amongst themselves and with civil society actors to

harmonise efforts.


25/26

References

Government o Kenya, “Country Report to the first UN Review Conerence on the status o

implementation o the UN Program o Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate Illicitrade in Small arms and Light weapons in all its Aspects,” June .

Government o Kenya, Kenya National Action Plan or Arms Control and Management ,

(Nairobi: Oakland Media, ).

Government o Kenya, Draf National Policy on Small Arms and Light Weapons,

(Nairobi: Office o President, Ministry o State or Provincial Administration and InternalSecurity, June ).

Government o Uganda, Uganda National Action Plan or Arms Control and Management ,(Kampala, ).

Republic o Uganda, Karamoja Integrated Disarmament and Development Programme: Creating

Conditions or Promoting Human Security and Recovery in Karamoja, /–/,(Kampala: Office o the Prime Minister, ).

Kytömäki, E and Yankey-Wayne, V,Five Years o Implementing the United Nations Programmeo Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons: Regional Analysis o National Reports,

(UNIDIR, Geneva, )

Maze K, and Rhee H, International Assistance or Implementing the UN Programme o Action onIllicit rade o Small Arms and Light Weapons in all its Aspects: Case Study o East Arica,

p , www.unidir.org/pd/activites/pd-act.pd, March .

RECSA, Implementation o the UNPoA: Status Report on the Implementation o the Nairobi

Protocol , (Nairobi: RECSA, ).

RECSA, Nairobi Secretariat Inormation ool Kit –.

RECSA, Regional Implementation Strategy, –, (Nairobi: Regional Centre on SALW,).

RECSA, ‘Te Nairobi Protocol or the Prevention, Control and Reduction o Small Arms AndLight Weapons in the Great Lakes Region, Horn o Arica and the Bordering States’, signed

in April and entered into orce, ollowing ratification by two-thirds o its signatories,in May .

RECSA, Small Arms and Human Security Research: A Manual or Researchers in the Great Lakesand Horn o Arica Region and Bordering States, (RECSA, Nairobi, ).

Saerworld, Lessons rom the Frontiers: Civilian Disarmament in Kenya and Uganda,(London: Saerworld, ).

Saerworld, () Harmonising Small Arms Legislation: Selected Case Studies, (London:Saerworld, ).

United Nations Programme o Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit rade inSmall Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects o July .

UNDP, How to Guide Te Establishment and Functioning o National Small Arms and LightWeapons Commissions, (Geneva: Bureau or Crisis Prevention and Recovery, ).

Wairagu F, ‘Progress in the Implementation o the Nairobi Protocol’, paper presented during theRECSA Implementing Partners Forum, Nairobi, February .


26/26

Saferworld is an independent non-governmental organisation that works

to prevent and reduce violent conflict and promote co-operative approaches

to security. Saferworld believes that everyone should be able to lead

peaceful, fulfilling lives that are free from insecurity and violent conflict.

We work with governments, international organisations and civil society to

encourage and support effective policies and practices through advocacy,

research and policy development and through supporting the actions of

others. Saferworld works in Africa, South Asia, Europe and Central Asia and

has offices in London, Brussels, Juba, Kampala, Kathmandu, Nairobi, and

Pristina, as well as staff based in Bangladesh and Vienna.

Saferworld’s regional conflict prevention work in Africa consists of the

Sudan and Great Lakes programme (including programmes in Uganda andSouthern Sudan) and the Kenya and Horn of Africa programme (including

programmes in Somalia and Kenya).

UK OFFICE

The Grayston Centre

28 Charles Square

London N1 6HT

UK

Phone: +44 (0)20 7324 4646

Email: [email protected]

Web: www.saferworld.org.ukRegistered charity no. 1043843

A company limited by guarantee

no 3015948

KENYA OFFICE

PO Box 21484-00505

Adams Arcade

Nairobi

Kenya

+254 (0)20 271 3603

+254 (0)20 273 3250/

6480/6484

UGANDA OFFICE

PO Box 8415

Kampala

Uganda

+256 (0)414 231130/

+256 (0)414 231150

Controlling SALW Kenya and Uganda May 2011

Documents

Transcript of Controlling SALW Kenya and Uganda May 2011