Stop a bullet, stop a war

1. Stop a bullet, stop a war Why Ammunition must be included in the Arms Trade Treaty

2. Overview • Scope of equipment/arms to be covered in the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) still subject to debate • Whilst inclusion of ammunition is supported by a large number of states, still remains controversial for some • Why? Arguments against have ranged from military sensitivities, to logistical challenges, to problems monitoring and tracking movements of ammunition

3. Why is this important? • An ATT without ammunition will not achieve its purposes • Guns are useless without bullets • The ammunition trade is big business – worth more than the estimated trade in small arms and light weapons themselves • Most of these arguments against inclusion of ammunition are unfounded.

4. How could an ATT help? 1. Establish baseline national control systems • While some argue that including ammunition in the ATT would be too difficult to manage, those that do have national arms export control systems already control ammunition • Most countries assess license applications for arms and ammunition in the same way • Good examples in USA, EU, Wassenaar Arrangement, ECOWAS Convention

5. An ATT will require states to set up a national system, legislation and administrative capacity to control arms transfers. Most current national systems demonstrate that once these systems are in place, it is not more difficult to control ammunition transfers. • ATT should strengthen and widen existing best practice rather than weaken or further undermine it.

6. How could an ATT help? 2. Strong risk assessment criteria for both arms and ammunition • Assessing risk doesn’t mean tracing every bullet • More systematic methodology looking at past trends or patterns based on credible info about misuse or diversion • Even when exact point of diversion can’t be identified, investigations often show undeniable risk of misuse or diversion which should prevent future transfers.

8. How could an ATT help? 3. Address the Lack of transparency • Currently big transparency and accountability gaps in the arms trade general – but even bigger gaps in the ammo trade • Even more important as ammo is more easily transferable and more easily diverted to illegal users. • Diversion risks have proven extremely high in high-intensity conflict zones where there is even more limited documentation of ammunition transfers – such as Afghanistan and Somalia

9. PK machine gun ammunition captured from Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, identical to ammunition that the USA had provided to the Afghan government forces.

10. Public reporting on ammunition transfers has not been show to pose undue challenges: • Of the 34 states that have publicly reported on arms transfers since 2006, 28 have also reported on ammunition (82%) • Only report on lots or bulk quantities, not individual bullets • Most of the information is recorded as part of processing transfers anyway • Military sensitivities: -Not required to divulge stockpile sizes or levels of domestic production -Reports often not published until months or years after a transfer is authorised, so not likely to compromise ‘element of surprise’ needed for military operations.

11. Call to action and Recommendations to negotiators • ATT should explicitlycover ammunition and make clear that ammunition transfers are subject to the same risk assessment criteria as transfers of arms, prior to authorisation.

12. 2. Clear definitions to ensure all types and calibres of ammunition and munitions are included. Ensure there are no gaps or exceptions • Current arrangements such as Wasenaar and EU provide a useful basis

13. 3. Clear and practical reporting requirements for ammunition transfers Consistent with national and regional best practice, including at a minimum: -Country of destination -Financial value -Indication of the quantity -Whether for commercial use or state use market