Development and the ATT

Round Table Discussion

Final Report
25 February 2011 – New York
 Development and the ATT
Round Table Discussion
25 February 2011 – New York

Meeting Summary
Experts and representatives from UN agencies, Member States, and Civil Society met
recently to explore how and why the inclusion of strong developmental criteria could be
applied to an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).

The day began with a brief review of the rationale behind the objective to link
development concerns with the outcomes of the ATT. It was stressed right from the start
that states must ensure that the rights conferred to them under the UN Charter (to self
defence and producing, selling and/or purchasing arms) are understood to exist in
conjunction with a number of responsibilities articulated by the same charter. These
include the responsibility to ensure that expenditure on arms does not harm a
government’s ability to promote higher standards of living and processes of socio-
economic development.

Furthermore, governments have also agreed and taken on a number of international

obligations, most prominently the Millennium Development Goals. Gains achieved in the
pursuit of these agendas are frequently hampered, or can even be reversed, when
armed conflict or armed violence is prevalent. This recognition is not restricted to civil
society, as many governments have identified development parameters to be of key
significance to the ATT process. The review concluded with an analysis of the key
issues that development-related parameters need to address in the ATT – namely (i)
armed violence; (ii) peacebuilding; (iii) corruption and accountability; and (iv) poverty
reduction.

Session 1
Session 1 of the Round Table began with four presentations focusing on the implications
of arms proliferation on women, children, poverty reduction, and armed violence.

The first presentation illustrated the gendered impacts of SALW, which inter alia
included the direct and indirect impacts (i.e. not just as victims of physical injury);
assessed the knock-on burdens of post-conflict recovery, the brunt of which is often
borne by women; and noted that armed violence, conflict, and the proliferation of SALW
created a disproportionately larger number of female-headed households in the contexts
under consideration. Given these impacts, there was need for the ATT process to
ensure that relevant issues were linked effectively to the treaty-making process. In
particular, these included issues like protection of civilians, participation of women, and
international respect and recognition of women’s rights.

To clarify the points further, the presentation considered the recommendations of

SCR1325 and 1889, and explored the architecture that these two resolutions have
created. It was concluded that the ATT must consider all existing standards, and ensure
that gender issues are embedded into the framework of the text. This will ensure that
the treaty is capably able to address issues like the gender-based impacts of all
weapons; the experience of affected survivors – who are predominantly women; and a
more general issue of the participation of women.

The second presentation, which focused on the impact on children of the proliferation
of arms, started off with the international context on conflict as defined by SCR 1612 and
1882, and the ultimate goal of achieving the MDGs with equity in all countries. In
particular, the presentation explored how children are affected disproportionately by
arms, as it restricts access to health and education. Additionally, the cost of care for
victims remains disproportionately high. Furthermore, evidence also suggested that
achievements under the “Convention on the Rights of Children” and the Millennium
Development Goals – in particular, education and health – could be hindered by the
proliferation and misuse of arms, which can block access to basic services for children.

The presentation also asked questions on strategy and rationale behind international
action on children. Statistics show that in certain regions, maternal mortality is less than
the number of women killed by small arms and light weapons. The same dilemma exists
again when considering that, in one country, although child mortality rates have dropped
significantly, almost an equal number of young people between 14-19 were killed by
armed violence as the number of additional infants that lived to the age of five. If gun
violence can erase the very important advances made by national and international
investments in young child survival and development and in maternal health, it should be
considered in the discussion of an ATT.

The third presentation focused on the direct developmental impacts of armed violence.
It was noted that armed violence in non-conflict settings impedes development and
strains delivery of services to the most needy. In conditions of conflict, development is
comprehensively impeded, and often, decades of gains achieved through development
programming are reversed. The presenter identified that the World Bank has already
found that not a single fragile/conflict-affected country has yet achieved a single MDG,
and will find it increasingly difficult to do so before 2015.

Focusing on DRC, it was pointed out that despite an arms embargo in force since 2003,
the country is awash with SALW. A recent Security Council study found that there was a
demonstrable link between the plundering of resources and the transfer of arms through
porous borders to groups operating in the countries of the Great Lakes region. Surveys
conducted by the UN system have also found that significant percentages of the DRC
population declared they did not have access to markets, health services, and schools
because of the threat of armed insecurity. As a result, the future ATT must ensure that
both the supply and demand side of the problem are adequately addressed through the
provisions. Furthermore, non-state actors remain a crucial source of illicit proliferation,
and sufficient checks and balances must be embedded into the ATT to ensure that licit
sales are not diverted to illicit markets.

The final presentation focused on the developing international norm that seeks to link
development and armed violence through the framework of the Geneva Declaration
(GD). 108 countries have endorsed the Geneva Declaration, which seeks to make clear
that development interventions cannot succeed if the frequency and lethality of armed
violence is not taken strongly into account. The presenter identified that the impact of
armed violence is felt equally in conflict-affected and ‘stable’ societies – and statistics
show that the majority of the annual 740,000 deaths as a result of armed violence
happen in non-conflict settings.

The presentation outlined a framework to address armed violence reduction through a

comprehensive approach which includes identifying who the agents and victims of
violence are; what are the tools of violence used in a given situation; and what is the role
of formal and informal institutions that are dealing with the governance of, for example,
the security sector. In this context, parliaments have a prominent role in providing an
overall coherent frame through national legislation. However, experience shows that the
governance capacity of the state to implement its international and national
commitments towards armed violence reduction has to be strengthened. In view of the
GD, living free of the threat of armed violence is a basic human need, and the state is
first responsible for providing human security to its citizens. The presentation identified
a number of linkages between the Geneva Declaration commitments and a possible
ATT. Some strong armed-violence-related recommendations for the ATT were outlined
by the presentation, including exploring the merits of distinct criteria for armed violence
indicators and measurement.

In the discussions that followed the presentations, a number of issues were identified,
including:
• The need to ensure that all these various issues are brought together into an
effective narrative for ATT negotiators to consider;
• The need to ensure that data gathered on the developmental impacts of arms
proliferation are mobilized to impact and inform policy formulation at the highest
levels;
• The need to ensure that the opportunity costs of armed violence are effectively
measured – the cost of treating gun-shot victims in most developing countries
diverts large sums of money away from other potentially pressing public-health
concerns;
• The need to ensure that ambiguity or opposition to specific/contested terms do
not prevent discussion and effective policy and programmatic responses during
ATT negotiations – e.g. Armed violence.
• The need to ensure that arms control colleagues in governments – and in
particular, the ATT delegations – are engaging effectively and closely with
development colleagues within their countries

Session 2
Session 2 of the Round Table broke off into four small groups, each looking closely at
specific developmental challenges that the ATT could effectively engage with. The four
groups were coalesced around (i) armed violence; (ii) peacebuilding; (iii) corruption and
accountability; and (iv) poverty reduction.

A brief summary of the group-level discussions included the following:

Armed Violence Reduction:

An ATT should be legally binding, and be linked to other international treaties (on
Human Rights, regional conventions, etc.) that would provide obligatory norms where
incidences of armed violence could be construed as an abrogation of other treaty
obligations. In particular, there is a need for concrete indicators for accountability that
should build on what states are already providing to other reporting processes. The ATT
should develop a reporting mechanism that should be practical, and international
systems should improve state capacity where possible, but should not demand new
reporting criteria. In addition, the ATT should focus on the impact of armed violence,
rather than attempting to define the act itself. Finally, the ATT should link to UNSC
resolutions on violence against women and children, and ensure that the ATT embeds
gender-based analysis of armed violence into its risk-assessment processes.

Peacebuilding:
There was a strong sense that arms transfers should not undermine peacebuilding
efforts, which also recognizing a state’s legitimate right to improve its security through
expenditure on arms. This tension should be managed by state authorities by
undertaking a comprehensive review of security needs versus appropriate levels of
expenditure. At a minimum, arms exports to post-conflict contexts should be controlled,
with a strong recognition of peacebuilding in the preambular text of the treaty. The
existence of draft papers which recognize armament criteria, excessive accumulation
and stockpiles, limited state capacity in post conflict settings, diversion, and embargoes
to post-conflict situations are positive, and should eventually be included into draft treaty
text.

Corruption and Accountability:

In an ideal setting, corruption measures should have their own standalone criteria –
however the issue remains controversial. One approach is to focus on transparency,
and to break corruption down to its component parts: brokering, diversion, procurement,
export/import. This would ensure that provisions on these areas would, if taken
together, provide a comprehensive platform to deal with the problem. There was
discussion around referencing international instruments like the Convention Against
Transnational Organised Crime and/or the Convention Against Corruption. This would
allow the mobilization of language that insists that states link issues of transparency and
reporting to other areas, like taxes and budgets; and making clear when transfers are
happening, where they are happening, where they are going, and where the money
comes from. Furthermore, there needs to be a focus on procurement – there is little
transparency currently, so it is important to highlight that and make it an area that the
treaty can address.

Poverty Reduction:
To begin with, the ATT must include strong “shall not” language with regard to the
poverty-reduction impacts of arms transfers – transfers should not be authorized if they
negatively effect development. The burden of proof must be on the transfer itself, such
that it, or the financial terms and conditions, will not negatively impact on development
processes – and not the other way around (i.e. development may be affected by an arms
transfer). In addition, the importing country should also be able to illustrate that
proposed transfers will not negatively effect poverty reduction programmes. There is a
need to ensure harmonization with regional initiatives like ECOWAS, who have
developed their own arms-control mechanisms to address the developmental impacts of
transfers. Relatedly, the option of compelling states to report directly to their obligations
under article 26 as part of the overall reporting mechanism would also ensure that
developmental considerations are couched at the heart of the ATT. There is a need to
ensure that denials and reasons for denials of transfers are also reported on, as that will
increase accountability.
In the discussions that followed, one of the main points to emerge was that the
legitimate right of states to self-defense does not necessarily equate to the right to
import arms if those arms are likely to undermine development/poverty reduction. States
have to balance their rights under the charter with other responsibilities enshrined under
international law, and cannot be selective as to which rights and obligations are invoked
to rationalize arms transfers. In addition, states must seize the opportunity to embed a
number of parallel international norms that they are already party to – be it global
developmental norms or regional arms control norms that are sensitive to the
developmental impacts of arms transfers. States have to be creative – they need to look
at what already exists rather than trying to create new international norms.

The closing remarks emphasized the fact that everyone assembled was there because
of a commonality of purpose—recognizing the need for development to be a core part of
the Arms Trade Treaty. There remains a strong need to ensure that the evidence that
was shared and discussed at the Round Table is made available to all delegations in the
most constructive way during the ATT negotiations. There also remains a need to
strengthen networks of agencies and individuals that have been working on disparate
agendas – so that the common purpose of ensuring that the Arms Trade Treaty delivers
a framework that safeguards development gains all around the world.

List of participating institutions:

Mission of Australia Geneva Declaration Secretariat APP

Mission of Bangladesh UN Human Security Unit Arias Foundation
Mission of Germany UNICEF FORuM
Mission of Ghana UNODA GAPW
Mission of Jamaica UNODC IANSA
Mission of Japan UNDP IPPNW
Mission of the Netherlands UN Women Oxfam
Mission of Norway PGA
Mission of Philippines Project Ploughshares
Mission of the UK WRTEP