Download - 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
-
8/20/2019 Controlling SALW Kenya and Uganda May 2011
2/26
Controlling small arms and
light weapons in Kenya and Uganda
Progress so far
SAFERWORLD
MAY 2011
-
8/20/2019 Controlling SALW Kenya and Uganda 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.
-
8/20/2019 Controlling SALW Kenya and Uganda May 2011
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
-
8/20/2019 Controlling SALW Kenya and Uganda May 2011
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
-
8/20/2019 Controlling SALW Kenya and Uganda May 2011
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.
-
8/20/2019 Controlling SALW Kenya and Uganda May 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
-
8/20/2019 Controlling SALW Kenya and Uganda May 2011
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.
-
8/20/2019 Controlling SALW Kenya and Uganda May 2011
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.
-
8/20/2019 Controlling SALW Kenya and Uganda May 2011
10/26
SAFERWORLD · WORKING PAPER 5
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
-
8/20/2019 Controlling SALW Kenya and Uganda May 2011
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
-
8/20/2019 Controlling SALW Kenya and Uganda May 2011
12/26
SAFERWORLD · WORKING PAPER 7
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
-
8/20/2019 Controlling SALW Kenya and Uganda May 2011
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
-
8/20/2019 Controlling SALW Kenya and Uganda May 2011
14/26
SAFERWORLD · WORKING PAPER 9
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.
-
8/20/2019 Controlling SALW Kenya and Uganda May 2011
15/26
10 CONTROLLING SMALL ARMS AND LIGHT WEAPONS IN KENYA AND UGANDA: PROGRESS SO FAR
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
-
8/20/2019 Controlling SALW Kenya and Uganda May 2011
16/26
SAFERWORLD · WORKING PAPER 11
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
-
8/20/2019 Controlling SALW Kenya and Uganda May 2011
17/26
12 CONTROLLING SMALL ARMS AND LIGHT WEAPONS IN KENYA AND UGANDA: PROGRESS SO FAR
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.
-
8/20/2019 Controlling SALW Kenya and Uganda May 2011
18/26
SAFERWORLD · WORKING PAPER 13
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
-
8/20/2019 Controlling SALW Kenya and Uganda May 2011
19/26
14 CONTROLLING SMALL ARMS AND LIGHT WEAPONS IN KENYA AND UGANDA: PROGRESS SO FAR
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.
-
8/20/2019 Controlling SALW Kenya and Uganda May 2011
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
-
8/20/2019 Controlling SALW Kenya and Uganda May 2011
21/26
16 CONTROLLING SMALL ARMS AND LIGHT WEAPONS IN KENYA AND UGANDA: PROGRESS SO FAR
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
-
8/20/2019 Controlling SALW Kenya and Uganda May 2011
22/26
SAFERWORLD · WORKING PAPER 17
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
-
8/20/2019 Controlling SALW Kenya and Uganda May 2011
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.
-
8/20/2019 Controlling SALW Kenya and Uganda May 2011
24/26
SAFERWORLD · WORKING PAPER 19
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.
-
8/20/2019 Controlling SALW Kenya and Uganda May 2011
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 .
-
8/20/2019 Controlling SALW Kenya and Uganda May 2011
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