the development of national and regional reports on arms exports in the eu and south eastern europe...

8/2/2019 The Development of National and Regional Reports on Arms Exports in the Eu and South Eastern Europe Seesac

1/50


2/50

HE DEVELOPMEN OF NAIONAL

AND REGIONAL REPORSON ARMS EXPORS IN HE EUAND SOUH EASERN EUROPE

1


3/50

Te South Eastern and Eastern Europe Clearinghouse for the Control of Small Arms

and Light Weapons (SEESAC) has a mandate from the United Nations Development

Programme and the Regional Cooperation Council to support all international and

national stakeholders by strengthening national and regional capacity to control and

reduce the proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons, and thus con-

tribute to enhanced stability, security and development in South Eastern and Eastern

Europe.

For further information contact:

eam Leader, SEESAC

Hadi Melentijeva 30

11000 Belgrade

Serbia

el: (+381) (11) 344 6353; 383 6972; 383 6974Fax: (+381) (11) 344 6356

www.seesac.org

Te Development of National and Regional Reports on Arms Exports

in the EU and South Eastern Europe

SEESAC 2011 All rights reserved

ISBN: 978-86-7728-157-1

Te views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessar-

ily represent those of the Regional Cooperation Council or the United Nations

Development Programme. Te designations employed and the presentation of ma-

terial in this publication do not imply the expression of the Regional Cooperation

Council or the United Nations Development Programme concerning 1) the legal sta-

tus of any country, territory or area, or of its authorities or armed groups; or 2) the

delineation of its frontiers or boundaries.

Acknowledgements: Tis report was researched and written by Mark Bromley, Senior

Researcher in the SIPRI Arms ransers Programme, between September and November2010. Te author wishes to thank the ollowing or their valuable assistance: SneanaMili o the Serbia Ministry o Economic and Regional Development; Elton Hodja o theAlbania State Export Control Authority; Duko Ivanov, o the ormer Yugoslav Republico Macedonia Ministry o Interior; and arko Marjanovi o the Montenegro Ministry oEconomy. Te author would also like to thank Henning Weber or his invaluable assistanceduring his internship at SIPRI and the support o SEESAC. Te project was overseen byDiman Dimov, eam Leader, SEESAC, with the assistance o Ivan Zverhanovski, Deputyeam Leader, SEESAC and Iva Savi, Communications Ocer.


4/50

3

Contents

1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2. National reports on arms exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 National reports on arms exports in the European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 National reports on arms exports in South Eastern Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Albania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Bosnia and Herzegovina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Croatia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Te ormer Yugoslav Republic o Macedonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Montenegro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Serbia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Te SEESAC arms export control reports templates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 National reports on arms exports in the rest o the world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3. Regional reports on arms exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Te EU annual report on arms exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Te regional report on arms exports in South Eastern Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

4. Existing practices in national reporting on arms exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Descriptions o arms licensed or export and exported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 ype o end-user or arms licensed or export and exported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Export licence denials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Brokering licences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 imeliness o national reports on arms exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425. Findings and recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Regional reports on arms exports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 National reports on arms exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46


5/50


6/50

5

1. Introduction

his study analyses the production o national and regional reports on arms exports by theEuropean Union (EU) member states and states in South Eastern Europe. It discusses theinitial rationale or producing these reports beore making a comparative analysis o the inor-mation they contain on arms export licences, arms exports and brokering licences. In particular,the study discusses the dierent ormats used in these reports, the levels o transparency achie-ved and makes recommendations or possible uture improvements.

Tis study ocuses on mechanisms o public transparency as opposed to intergovernmentaltransparency.1 Public transparency reers to the publishing o inormation that is reely availableamong the public at large. Intergovernmental transparency reers to the condential exchangeo inormation between governments. Te exchange o inormation is not viewed as a goal initsel, but as a means to build condence and enhance co-operation between states that regardparticipation as being in line with their national and international security interests. Exchangeo export licence denials are examples o intergovernmental transparency in the sphere o armsexports.

Te main purpose o publishing national and regional reports on arms exports is to contributeto an understanding o how export criteria are being interpreted at the national level. Tis isintended to allow parliamentarians, the media, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), in-

terested citizens and other states to monitor a governments compliance with its national andinternational obligations in this area.2 o allow or an assessment o whether the government isupholding national, regional and international commitments relating to controls on the exporto military goods and related items.

1 See Bernard I. Finel; Kristin M. Lord (eds.), Power and Conict in the Age o ransparency, (New York: Palgrave, 2000).

2 Greene, O. and Batchelor, P., Inormation Exchange and ransparency: Key Elements o an International Action Programme on

Small Arms, Biting the Bullet Brieng 9, London: BASIC, International Alert and Saerworld, 2001; and Small Arms Survey, Small

Arms Survey 2007: Guns and the City (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 7381.


7/50


8/50

7

2. National reports on arms exports

Since the early 1990s an increasing number o governments, particularly in Europe, have cho-sen to publish national reports on their arms exports (See able 2.1).3 Te initial push topublish national reports on arms exports came rom parliament and NGO demands or greateroversight o their governments implementation o its arms export policies. Such demands gai-ned particular traction ollowing a spate o arms export related scandals in the 1970s, 1980s and1990s.4

Hence, the primary aim o these mechanisms was to allow parliaments and civil society to assessthe extent to which governments are upholding commitments made in their arms export poli-cies. In many cases, the publication o national reports has provided an invaluable level o pub-lic oversight on arms exports decision-making. In several cases, the publication o the reportsis coupled with parliamentary hearings o NGO reports which seek to raise questions aboutpotential transers and generally seek to orce governments to tighten their export controls.

3 Tese reports are available at URL .

4 Marriano B. and Urquart, A., ransparency and accountability in European arms export controls: owards common standards

and best practices, Saerworld, Dec. 2000, p. 3.


9/50

8

Table2.1-Productiono

fannualreportsonarmsexportsbyEUmemberstatesandstatesinSouthEasternEuropea

State

1984

1990

1991

1993

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009b

Albania

x

x

x

Austria

x

x

x

x

x

x

Belgiumc

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Bel.-Brussels

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Bel.-Flanders

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Bel.-Wallonia

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Bosniaand

Herzegovina

x

x

x

x

x

x

Bulgaria

x

x

x

x

x

x

Croatia

x

CzechRepublic

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Denmark

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Estonia

x

x

x

x

x

x

Finland

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

France

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Germany

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Hungary

x

Irelandd

x

Italyc

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

FYROM

x

x

Montenegro

x

x

x

x

Netherlands

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Poland

x

Portugal

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Romania

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Serbia

x

x

x

x

x

Slovakia

x

x

x

x

x

x

Slovenia

x

x

x

x

x

Spainc

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Swedenc

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

UK

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Total

1

2

3

4

5

7

10

11

12

12

12

16

21

24

25

25

25

27

a Te table reers to the year covered by the national report on arms exports. Hence, i a country has published a report in 2009on its arms exports during 2008, an entry has been made in the table or 2008.

b 2009 inormation is correct as o 25 August 2011.c Belgium Italy, Spain and Sweden have published a national report on arms exports or every year since the publication o their

rst report.d Irelands report only covers January 1998.

Source: National reports on arms exports. Available at


10/50

9


National reports on arms exports in the European Union

Within Europe, Sweden was the rst state to publish a national report on arms exports. Terst report was published in 1985 as a result o increased public pressure ollowing a numbero arms export related scandals in the 1970s and 1980s.5 Ater an investigation by the AdvisoryBoard on Export o Military Equipment in 1984, the Swedish government pledged to broadenpublic debate on the issue by producing an annual report on Swedens exports o military mate-rial.6 Te rst Italian national report was published in 1990 and the rst Belgian national reportwas published in 1994.7

In recent years, Europe has seen the most signicant advances in both the number and detailo national reports on arms exports. A key actor driving this process has been the adoption othe EU Code o Conduct on Arms Exports (EU Code) in 1998 and its successor the EU CommonPosition dening common rules governing the control o exports o military technology andequipment (EU Common Position) in 2008 (see below).

As o August 2011, 21 o the 27 EU member states have published the report on at least oneoccasion, compared with 7 o the 15 EU member states in January 1998, the year the EU Codewas introduced. Te EU Code and the EU Common Position oblige states to collect and reportdetailed inormation on arms exports according to a standardized ormat, something many hadnot done beore. Tey also help to strengthen the norm o publishing detailed inormation onarms exports and help make states more aware o transparency levels in other member states.

Under the EU Common Position, states that export arms are now obliged to produce a national

report on arms exports. Te EU Common Position states that each Member State which ex-ports technology or equipment on the EU Common Military List shall publish a national reporton its exports o military technology.8 Six EU member states are yet to publish a national reporton arms exports.9

An active parliamentary and NGO lobby has also played an important role in pushing or more,and more detailed, national reports among EU member states. In particular, national groupshave sought to draw their governments attention to advances made in other member statesand pushed or their adoption domestically.10


and best practices, Saerworld, Dec. 2000, p. 25.

6 Utrikesutskettets betnkade 1988/85:5 om insyn och samrd rrande krigsmaterielexport (prop. 1984/85:82), Stockholm, 1984.


and best practices, Saerworld, Dec. 2000, p. 16, p. 5

8 Council o the European Union, Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP o 8 December 2008 dening common rules gov-

erning control o exports o military technology and equipment, Ofcial Journal o the European Union , L335, 13 Dec. 2008.

Since 2004, the Users Guide to the European Union Code o Conduct, has stated that each member state is required to pub-

lish a national report on its deence exports, the contents o which will be in accordance with national legislation. (Council o

the European Union, Users guide to the European Union Code o Conduct on Exports o Military Equipment, Brussels, 23

Dec. 2004, p. 22.)

9 Tese states are Cyprus, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Malta.

10 For example, see Amensta Internacional, Greenpeace, and Intermn-Oxam, Comercio de armas en Espaa: una ley con aguje-

ros: Recomendaciones al proyecto de ley sobre el comercio exterior de material de deensa y doble uso [Arms trade in Spain: a law

with holes: Recommendations to the drat law on oreign trade o military and dual use], Feb. 2007.


11/50

10

Although EU member states national reports have increased in size and detail, NGO demands

or ever more timely and comprehensive inormation show no sign o abating. As more inor-mation has become available it oten raised questions which can, themselves, only be answeredwith more detailed reporting. Common improvements in national reporting currently de-manded by NGOs include: better inormation on SALW exports; more detailed descriptionso goods licensed and exported; inormation on the type o end-user; and details o new andongoing licensed production agreements with suppliers in other countries.11

National reports on arms exports in South Eastern Europe

Te EU has been actively encouraging states in its immediate neighbourhood to publish na-

tional reports on arms exports, an eort which has had particular success in the South EasternEurope. Since 2005 national reports have been published or the rst time by Bosnia and Herze-govina (February 2005), the ormer Yugoslav Republic o Macedonia (June 2006), Montenegro(July 2007), Serbia (November 2007), Albania (December 2009) and Croatia (August 2010). Inmany cases, these reports contain a level o detail that equals or surpasses that contained inmany o the reports produced by EU member states, particularly with regard to descriptions othe goods licensed or exported, the type o end-user and export licence denials.

Albania

Albania published its rst national report on arms exports in December 2009. Te report cov-ers Albanias arms exports during 2007 and 2008. Since then, Albania has published a nationalreport on its arms exports in 2009. Te reports contain inormation on arms export licensesissued as well as arms exports broken down by destination and control list category (See able2.2).12 Additional inormation is also provided on arms imports; the transer control system;the control list; national legislation; and membership o multilateral transer control regimes.Te production and publication o a national report on arms exports is mandatory accordingto the Decision o the Council o Ministers no. 43 rom January 2008.13 Te decision to publisha national report on arms exports was motivated by the desire to create a tool to help inormindustry, parliament and dierent government ministries within Albania o the procedures orcontrolling international transers o military and dual use goods.14 Putting the report togeth-er takes two weeks.15

11 For example, UK House o Commons Business, Innovation and Skills, Deence, Foreign Aairs, and International Development

Committees, Scrutiny o Arms Export Controls (2010): UK Strategic Export Controls Annual Report 2008, Quarterly Reports or

2009, licensing policy and review o export control legislation, House o Commons, 30 March 2010, Ev 13.

12 Albanian State Export Control Authority,Annual Report on Export Control or 2007 and 2008 (Albanian Ministry o Deence:

irana, 2009).

13 Decision o the Council o Ministers no. 43, dated 16.01.2008, On Organizing, Functioning and Status o the State ExportControl Authority.

14 Elton Hodja, Albania State Export Control Authority. Communication with the author, 12 Nov. 2010.

15 Elton Hodja, Albania State Export Control Authority. Communication with the author, 12 Nov. 2010.


12/50

11


Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bosnia and Herzegovina published its rst report on arms exports in February 2005. Te reportcovers Bosnia and Herzegovinas arms exports during 2004. Since then, Bosnia and Herzegovinahas published national reports on their arms exports during 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. Tereports contain inormation on arms export licenses issued disaggregated by destination andcontrol list category (See able 2.2). Te reports also contain detailed inormation on arms ex-port licence denials. Tis includes the number o export licence denials, the nancial value othe licences and a description o the goods, sorted by destination and control list category. Ad-ditional background inormation is also provided on transers o dual-use goods, arms imports,the entities registered to undertake arms transers, the national transer control system, the na-tional control list, export licence criteria, national legislation, and membership o multilateral

transer control regimes.

Croatia

Croatia published its rst national report on arms exports in August 2010. Te report coversCroatias arms exports during 2009. Te reports contain inormation on arms export licensesissued, sorted by destination and control list category (See able 2.2). 16 Inormation was notprovided on arms exports due to problems with the data supplied by the customs authorities.However, as o 1 January, 2010, the customs authorities have been integrated into the systemused by the licensing authority or processing export licences - the US-designed RACKER Pro-

gram. It is anticipated that this will improve the quality o data collected on arms exports. 17Additional inormation is also provided on arms imports; entities registered to undertake armstransers, the transer control system, the control list, export licence criteria, national legislationand membership o multilateral transer control regimes. Te production and publication othe national report on arms exports is mandatory according to the Law on the Export and Im-port o Military and Non-Military Lethal Goods o July 2008.

16 Albanian State Export Control Authority,Annual Report on Export Control or 2007 and 2008 (Albanian Ministry o Deence:irana, 2009).

17 Republic o Croatia, Ministry o Economy, Labor and Entrepreneurship, Annual Report on Export and Import o Military

Goods and Non-Lethal Goods or 2009, Aug. 2010, Chapter 6: Licences issued in 2009.


13/50

12

Te former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Te ormer Yugoslav Republic o Macedonia published its rst national report on arms exportsin June 2006, which covers national arms exports during 2005. Since then, the ormer YugoslavRepublic o Macedonia has published a national report on their arms exports during 2006. In2007, the ormer Yugoslav Republic o Macedonia issued only two export licences while noexport licences were issued in 2008.18 Te reports contain inormation on arms export licensesissued and arms exports classied by destination and individual licence. Additional backgroundinormation is also provided on transers o dual-use goods, SALW exports, national legislation,and membership in multilateral transer control regimes. Te decision to publish the nationalreport on arms exports was motivated by international obligations and good cooperationwith SEESAC.19 Putting the report together takes only a ew days, although the inormation it

contains is collected throughout the year.

Montenegro

Montenegro published its rst annual report on arms exports in July 2007.20 Te report cov-ers Montenegros arms exports during 2006. Since then, Montenegro has published nationalreports on the countrys arms exports during 2007, 2008 and 2009. Te reports contain inor-mation on arms export licenses issued and arms exports, classied by destination and controllist category. Te reports also contain detailed inormation on arms export licence denials.Tis includes the number o export licence denials sorted by both destination and control list

category. Additional background inormation is also provided on transers o dual-use goods,arms imports, the entities registered to undertake arms transers, the national transer controlsystem, the national control list, export licence criteria, national legislation, and membershipo multilateral transer control regimes. Te decision to publish the national report on armsexports was taken in the spirit o transparency and good will and in accordance with the bestpractice o the European Union and the EU Code o Conduct.21 Putting the report togethertakes three months.22 Montenegro has received positive eedback on the report rom both na-tional industry representatives and colleagues and partners abroad.23

18 SEESAC, Regional Report on Arms Exports in 2007 (SEESAC: Belgrade, 2009); and SEESAC, Regional Report on Arms Exports in

2008 (SEESAC: Belgrade, 2010).

19 Dusko Ivanov, the ormer Yugoslav Republic o Macedonia Ministry o Interior. Communication with the author, 3 Nov. 2010.

20 Annual Report on Import and Export o Controlled Goods in 2006 , Te Republic o Montenegro Ministry or Economic

Development, July 2007.

21 Annual Report on Import and Export o Controlled Goods in 2006 , Te Republic o Montenegro Ministry or EconomicDevelopment, Jul. 2007.

22 Zarko Marjanovic, Montenegro Ministry o Economy, Correspondence with the author, 2 Nov. 2010.

23 Zarko Marjanovic, Montenegro Ministry o Economy, Correspondence with the author, 2 Nov. 2010.


14/50

13


Serbia

Serbiapublished its rst annual report on arms exports in November 2007.24 Te report coversSerbias arms exports during 2005 and 2006. Since then, Serbia has published national reports onits arms exports during 2007, 2008 and 2009. Te reports contain inormation on arms exportlicenses issued and arms exports, broken down by destination and control list category. Tereports also contain detailed inormation on arms export licence denials including the numbero export licence denials, the nancial value o the goods, descriptions o the goods, the num-ber o items, inormation on the end-user and the reasons the denials were issued, all sorted bydestination and control list category. Additional background inormation is also provided ontransers o dual-use goods, arms imports, the entities registered to undertake arms transers,the national transer control system, the national control list, export licence criteria, national

legislation, and membership in multilateral transer control regimes (See able 2.2) Article 28,Paragraph 3 o Serbias Law on Foreign rade in Weapons, Military Equipment and Dual-UseGoods orms the legal basis or the production o the national report. Te decision to publishthe national report on arms exports was made in accordance with international recommenda-tions.25 Among the challenges ocials aced when compiling the report was the lack o stronglyestablished cooperation with the customs authorities in the eld o data collection. 26 Puttingthe report together takes a minimum o 30 days but the data collection work is a year-roundprocess.27 Producing the report has increased the transparency o Serbias arms exports whilealso improving the governments ability to monitor arms imports and exports.28

24 Annual Report on the Realization o Foreign rade ransers o Controlled Goods or 2005 and 2006 , Te Republic o Serbia

Ministry o Economic and Regional Development, Nov. 2007.

25 Annual Report on the Realization o Foreign rade ransers o Controlled Goods or 2005 and 2006 , Te Republic o Serbia

Ministry o Economic and Regional Development, Nov. 2007, p. 2.

26 Snezana Milic, Republic o Serbia Ministry o Economy and Regional Development, Correspondence with the author, 5 Nov.

2010.

27 Snezana Milic, Republic o Serbia Ministry o Economy and Regional Development, Correspondence with the author, 5 Nov.2010.

28 Snezana Milic, Republic o Serbia Ministry o Economy and Regional Development, Correspondence with the author, 5 Nov.

2010.


15/50

14

Table

2.2-Comparisonofnationalrep

ortsonarmsexportsproducedb

ystatesinSouthEasternEurope

Albania

Bosnia&Her

zegovina

Croatia

FYROM

Montenegro

Serbia

Typeofinformation

2007-

-2008

2009

2004

2009

2009

2005

2006

2006

2009

2005-

-2006

2009

Exportlicencesissued

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Numberolicences

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Financialv

alue

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Descriptionogoods

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Numberoitems

x

x

x

x

x

x

Inormatio

nontypeoend-user

x

x

x

x

Disaggregatedbydestination

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Disaggregatedbycontrollistcategory

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Disaggregatedbyindividuallicence

x

Exportlicencedenials

x

x

x

x

x

x

Numberolicences

x

x

x

x

x

x

Financialv

alue

x

x

x

Descriptionogoods

x

x

x

Numberoitems

x

x

Inormatio

nontypeoend-user

x

x

Reasonso

rdenial

x

x


x

x

x

x


x


x


16/50

15


Albania

Bosnia&Herzegovina

Croatia

FYROM

Montenegro

Serbia

Typeofinformation

2007-

-2008

2009

2004

2009

2009

2005

2006

2006

2009

2005-

-2006

20

09

Armsexports

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Financialvalue

x

x

x

x

x

x

Descriptio

nogoods

x

x

x

x

x

x

Numberoitems

x

x

x

x

Inormatio

nontypeoend-user

x

x

x

x


x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x


x

x

x

x

x


x

ranserso

dual-usegoods

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Armsimportlicencesissued

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Armsimports

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

SeparatesectiononSALWexports

x

x

Inormatio

nonentitiesregisteredtoundertakearms

transers

x

x

x

x

x

x

Listoentities

x

x

x

x

Inormatio

nonthetransercontrolsystem

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Inormatio

nonthecontrollist

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Inormatio

nontheexportlicencecriteria

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Inormatio

nonthe

legislation

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Inormatio

noncontrolregimemembership

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

ReportorsummaryothereportinEnglish

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Source:Natio

nalreportsonarmsexports.Availableat.


17/50

16

Te SEESAC arms export control reports templates

In producing their national reports on arms exports, a number o states in South Eastern Eu-rope have utilized a set o templates created by SEESAC (See box 2.1). Tese templates allow na-tional authorities to create national reports on arms exports using a list o possible sections anda pre-determined set o ormats or each section. For example, in the section on export licencesissued, national authorities can choose rom three options. Option A ollows the ormat used inthe EU annual report. Inormation is provided on the nancial value o export licences issued,listed by destination and EU Military List category. Option B gives a range o dierent categorieso inormation or possible inclusion in the report. National authorities can choose to includeinormation on nancial values, descriptions o goods, number o items, control list categoriesand type o end-user. National authorities can then decide whether to sort the inormation by

destination, control list category, destination and control list category, or by individual licence.Option C allows the national authority to provide separate, detailed inormation on each ex-port licence issued.

For example, or the Serbian National Report on Arms Exports the national authority has uti-lized option B and has chosen to provide inormation on nancial values, description o goods,number o items, type o end-user and control list category, sorted by destination (See box 2.2).In a urther boost to transparency, the Serbian National Report on Arms Exports includes inor-mation on both the export destination and the end-user country.


18/50

17


Box 2.1 - Screenshot from SEESAC arms export control reports templates

Available at:

Box 2.2 - Information on arms licensed for export in Serbias national report

on arms exports in 2007

No.

Export

destination

Number

of issued

licenses

Number

from

NCL

(AME)

Value of

issued

licenses

(in USD)1Description

of goods

Quantity (in

measurement

units)2End-user

country

ype

of

end-

user

1. Algeria 1 3 1,201,700 Ammunition 50,000 pcs Algeria M

2. Australia 5 3 1,264,164.72 Ammunition 4,470,000 pcs Australia C

3. Austria 8 3, 17 266,953.25 Ammunition,

huntingcarbinemechanisms,rife modelwith cross-section o abullet

9670 pcs Austria C, M

4. Bulgaria 21 1, 3, 8 11,620,304.52 Powder,propellant orair launchedmissiles,celluloid,ammunition,

machine guns,rifes, carbines,mixture withdelayed eect

8847903 kg;124,640 kg

Bulgaria C

5. Belgium 8 3 16,415,371.63 Ammunition 58,935,000 pcs Belgium C

6. Bosnia andHerzegovina

18 1, 3 1,865,079.83 Pistols,carbines, partsor pistols,Revolvers,carbines,ammunition,

3,781,805 pcs Bosnia andHerzegovina,urkey, SaudiArabia,

C, M

1 Te value in USD is equivalent to the amount calculated according to the medium exchange rate o NBS on 31 December 2007.2 Data on AME exports has been obtained rom the exporter.


19/50

18

National reports on arms exports in the rest of the world

Te rst country to publish a national report was the United States and US-reporting on armsexports remains among the most detailed in the world. According to Section 655 o the 1961Foreign Assistance Act the US government is required by Congress to prepare an annual reporton military assistance, military exports and military imports.29 Te Section 655 Report con-tains separate sections prepared by the State Department and the Department o Deence, thetwo agencies with primary responsibility or the US arms exports policy. 30 Te US Departmento Deence also produces the annual Foreign Military Sales, Foreign Military Construction Salesand Military Assistance Facts containing inormation on Foreign Military Sales (FMS) agree-ments and deliveries.31

Te United States has led the way in the eld o arms export policy transparency, however, theUS system is not without its limitations. In particular, certain sections o the national reportsare not made public automatically and only become available via Freedom o Inormation Actrequests.32

Beyond Europe and North America, there continues to be little appetite or the publication onational reports on arms exports. Outside the EU and South Eastern Europe, the only countriesto have published national reports on arms exports in the last 10 years are Australia, Canada,Norway, South Arica, Switzerland, the Ukraine and the United States.33Worldwide, interest inproducing national reports on arms exports is uneven. Te majority o states remain contentto submit data to the UN Register or make general statements regarding the overall nancialvalue o their arms exports, occasionally coupled with lists o the most important recipients.

Factors limiting the urther spread o national reports are similar to those halting transparencyincreases in other areas. Tese include lack o resources, the absence o an active NGO and par-liamentary lobby, and the concerns o vested economic and political interests.34

29 Te 1961 Foreign Assistance Act (PL87-195) is available on the Internet site o the Federation o American Scientists at URL

.

30 For more inormation on the mechanisms o US transer controls, see Schroeder, M. and Stohl, R., Appendix 17A. US export

controls, SIPRI Yearbook 2005: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security (Oxord University Press: Oxord, 2005), pp.

720-740; Lumpe, L. and Donarski, J., Te arms rade Revealed: A Guide or Investigators and Activists (Federation o American

Scientists Arms Sales Monitoring Project: Washington, DC, 1998).

31 .

32 For example, the Department o Deences contribution to the Section 655 report is only available via this route. Schroeder, M.,

FAS Obtains a Copy o U.S. Arms Sales Report, Strategic Security Blog - A project o the Federation o American Scientists, 19Sep. 2006, URL .

33 Tese reports are available at .

34 Bernard I. Finel; Kristin M. Lord (eds.), Power and Conict in the Age o ransparency, (New York: Palgrave, 2000).


20/50


21/50


22/50

21

3. Regional reports on arms exports

Te EU annual report on arms exports

During 199192, the European Council adopted eight criteria which EU member states agreedto apply when assessing their arms exports. Tese criteria were aimed at helping to harmonizenational assessments o export licence applications and limiting arms transers to countries inconfict or regions o tension, as well as preventing negative impacts on human rights and eco-nomic development.35 Tese eight criteria were incorporated into:

Te European Union Code o Conduct on Arms Exports (the EU Code), which was adoptedas a politically binding instrument by the Council o the EU in June 1998; and

Te EU Common Position dening common rules governing control o exports o militarytechnology and equipment (EU Common Position), which is a legal instrument that wasadopted in December 2008 and replaced the EU Code o Conduct.

Under the EU Code, member states committed themselves to set high common standardswhich should be regarded as the minimum or the management o, and restraint in, conven-

tional arms transers and to reinorce cooperation and to promote convergence in the eld oconventional arms exports within the ramework o the Common Foreign and Security Policy(CFSP).36

States also agreed to exchange condential inormation on their denials o arms export licencesalong with aggregated data on their export licence approvals and their actual exports. More-over, member states agreed to consult other member states when considering granting an ex-port licence which is essentially identical to a licence that another member state had deniedwithin the last three years. Te data on licences and exports are compiled in the publicly avail-ableAnnual report according to operative provision 8 of the European Union Code of Conduct on

35 For more inormation, see Bromley, M. Te Impact on Domestic Policy o the EU Code o Conduct on Arms Exports: TeCzech Republic, the Netherlands and Spain, SIPRI Policy Paper No. 21 (Stockholm: SIPRI, 2008).

36 Council o the European Union, European Union Code o Conduct on Arms Exports , Document 8675/2/98 Rev 2, Brussels, 5

June 1998.


23/50

22

Arms Exports (EU annual report). Originally intended to be a condential exchange o inorma-

tion, the EU annual report has been publicly accessible since 1999 ollowing pressure rom theEuropean parliament, NGOs, and the 1999 Finnish EU Presidency.37

Te EU annual report is released in November or December o each year. Given that each reportcovers a 12 month time period, the inormation it contains can be up to two years old at thetime o its release.

Since the creation o the EU Code there have been ongoing eorts to improve its workingsand increase its ability to harmonise member states arms export policies. A signicant part othis process has involved increasing the amount o inormation submitted to the EU annualreport.38 For the First EU annual report, published in 1999, states were asked to submit only thetotal nancial value o arms exports licences granted and actual arms exports. Since the Sixth

EU annual report, published in 2004, states have been asked to submit data on the nancialvalue o both arms export licences and actual arms exports, broken down by both destinationand the 22 categories o the EU Common Military List (EU Military List). 39 Tis inormation isreproduced in the EU annual report which includes separate tables or dierent destinationsand geographic regions. Inormation is also provided on export licence denials. Te number olicences denied per destination is provided, along with the reason the licence was denied, bro-ken down by the 22 categories o the EU Military List. Te member state that denied a licence isnot identied in the EU annual report, but this inormation can be ound in some o the statesown national reports on arms exports (see below).40

All 27 EU member states supplied inormation to the 12 th annual report and 17 provided data

or all requested categories. Tis is a slight all since the 11th

annual report, which reached 19ull submissions (see able 3.1). Te three largest arms exporters in the EUFrance, Germanyand the United Kingdomall ailed to make ull submissions to the 12th annual report, therebyundermining its overall value as a transparency instrument. Germany and the UK have long hadtechnical diculties with collecting and submitting data on the actual arms exports disaggre-gated by EU Military List categories.

In general, states that have joined the EU since 2004 have been more successul in making ullsubmissions to the EU annual report than the states that already were members in 2004. For the12th annual report, 6 o the 15 states that were members o the EU beore 2004 made ull sub-missions to the EU annual report, compared with 11 o the 12 that became EU members ater2004. In particular, many o the pre-2004 member states continue to have problems with thesubmission o disaggregated data on actual exports because they lack eective mechanisms atthe national level or gathering this inormation. In practice, the most eective way o collectingthis inormation is to require companies that receive arms export licences to submit reports on

37 Bauer, S. and Bromley, M., Te European Union Code o Conduct on Arms Exports : Improving the Annual Report, Policy

Paper No. 8 (Stockholm: SIPRI, 2004), p. 5. EU annual reports are available at .

38 In successive EU annual reports, improving the quality and consistency o data submitted is consistently listed as the rst prior-

ity or the coming year.

39 For the latest version, see Council o the European Union, Common Military List o the European Union, adopted by theCouncil on 15 Feb. 2010, Ofcial Journal o the European Union, C69, 18 Mar. 2010.

40 Holtom, P. and Bromley, M., Te limitations o European Union reports on arms exports: the case o central Asia, SIPRI Insights

on Peace and Security, Sep. 2010.


24/50

23


how and when they have used the licences.41However, several states do not have such obliga-

tions in place and are unwilling or unable to create them.

Te EU annual report has developed into an important reporting mechanism and a tool otransparency in the eld o arms exports. Indeed, or several EU member states, the inormationavailable in the EU annual report is the most detailed available on their arms exports. However,questions remain about the useulness o the inormation it provides. Te EU annual reportis intended to allow EU member states and the public at large to understand how nationalgovernments are interpreting the criteria o the EU Common Position. However, data on thenancial value o export licences granted and actual exports, classied by destination countriesand the 22 categories o the EU Military List, is oten o little use when attempting to make suchassessments. In particular, many o the EU Military List categories are broadly dened, makingit dicult to identiy specic items or weapon systems. For example, category our o the EUMilitary List includes bombs, torpedoes and smoke canisters.42

In 2004, EU member states came close to agreeing on the creation o a post-embargo toolbox.Under this proposal EU member states would exchange inormation every three months on ex-port licences granted or destinations that had previously been subject to EU arms embargoes.Te inormation would speciy the quantity and type o military equipment, the end-use, andthe end-user.43 In part, the discussion represented a tacit acknowledgement o the act that theamount o inormation states were currently sharing on their arms exports was insucient or aull assessment o how the criteria o the EU Code were being interpreted at the national levels.Te mechanism was never ormally created and the discussions on the issue appear to havestalled.

41 See Bauer, S. and Bromley, M., Te European Union Code o Conduct on Arms Exports : Improving the Annual Report, Policy

Paper No. 8 (Stockholm: SIPRI, 2004), p. 28.

42 Council o the European Union, Common Military List o the European Union, adopted by the Council on 15 Feb. 2010,Ofcial Journal o the European Union, C69, 18 Mar. 2010.

43 See Anthony, I. and Bauer, S., ranser controls, SIPRI Yearbook 2005: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security

(Oxord University Press: Oxord, 2005), pp. 715-718.


25/50

24

able 3.1 - Numbers of EU member states submitting a complete data set to

the EU annual report, 20042009a

Annual

report

Year

covered

No. of states making

submissions

No. of states making full

submissions

Proportion of states

making report full

submissions (%)

12th 2009 27 17 68

11th 2008 27 19 70

10th 2007 27 16 59

9th 2006 25 16 64

8th 2005 25 17 68

7th 2004 25 13 52

6th 2003 22b 6 27

a A complete data set is taken to be data on the nancial value o both arms export licences issued and actual exports, broken

down by both destination and EU Common Military List category.

b Because the 6th annual report covers export licences issued and actual exports in 2003, the 10 member states that joined the

EU in May 2004 were not obliged to submit data. Instead, they were invited to submit gures or 2003 i they were available,

which 7 o them did.

Source: Council o the European Union, EU annual reports, .

Te regional report on arms exports in South Eastern Europe

In 2009, ve states in South Eastern Europe Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the ormer Yu-goslav Republic o Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia produced a regional report on armsexports. Te possibility o producing a regional version o the EU annual report or South East-ern Europe was discussed during an EU-sponsored outreach event in Slovenia in May 2008.44 Aormal agreement to produce a regional report on arms exports was reached at the a SEESAC-led meeting in Montenegro in June 2009.45 Te rst regional report on arms exports in SouthEastern Europe was published by SEESAC in December 2009 and it contained inormation onarms export licences granted during 2007.46

Both the structure and the ormat o the SEESAC report are modelled ater the EU annual re-

port. Data is presented on the number and nancial value o export licences granted classiedby destination and EU Military List categories. As in the EU annual report, a separate table pres-ents inormation on transers to the UN and other multilateral peace operations in states whichare subject to the EU or UN arms embargoes. For the rst regional report, it was agreed thatstates would not be asked to submit data on actual exports. However, this data was included inthe second edition o the report, which was published in 2010 and covers exports during 2008.47

44 Council o the European Union, enth Annual Report according to Operative Provision 8 o the European Code o Conduct on

Arms Exports, Ofcial Journal o the European Union, C300, 22 Nov. 2008, p. 2.45 SEESAC, Regional Report on Arms Exports in 2007 (SEESAC: Belgrade, 2009), p. 1.

46 SEESAC, Regional Report on Arms Exports in 2007 (SEESAC: Belgrade, 2009).

47 SEESAC, Regional Report on Arms Exports in 2008 (SEESAC: Belgrade, 2009).


26/50

25


All o the participating states have already published national arms export reports, many o

which contain more detailed inormation than the regional report. However, the publicationo the regional report presents the rst instance o the EU model o regional reporting beingused by non-EU member states. As the reports introduction states, its publication representsevidence o the existing administrative capacity in the region and the desire to urther comply withEU policies in the eld o export controls.48

In a urther boost to transparency, the regional report on arms exports in South Eastern Europeis now available in a searchable online database. Te database is searchable by supplier, recipi-ent state, recipient region and EU Military List category.49

48 SEESAC, Regional Report on Arms Exports in 2007 (SEESAC: Belgrade, 2009), p. 1.

49 Te database is available at .


27/50


28/50

27

4. Existing practices

in national reporting on arms exports

his section o the study is based on a detailed analysis o all o the national reports on armsexports produced by EU member states and states in South Eastern Europe.50 Reports onarms exports during 2009 were used as the basis or the study.51 In this section a reader will ndthe analysis o the inormation on descriptions o arms licensed or export and exported, thetype o end-user or arms licensed or export and exported, export licence denials and broke-ring licences. In addition, a comparison o national reports is made based on their timeliness.

Certain states produce both an annual report on arms exports and a monthly or quarterly re-port.52 Te monthly or quarterly report oten contains more detailed inormation on arms ex-ports than the annual report. In all situations, the more detailed report has been used or theassessment o the transparency level in a particular states arms exports reporting.

In September 2003, the government o Belgium transerred the power to grant export licencesor military equipment rom the ederal to regional level namely to three regional govern-ments (Wallonia, Flanders and Brussels).53 Simultaneously, the responsibility or reporting onarms exports was also transerred to these bodies. As a result, there are now three separate Bel-gian reports on arms exports. For the purpose o this study, the three regional reports produced

by Wallonia, Flanders and Brussels - and the report produced by the Belgian government - areeach treated as separate national reports on arms exports.

50 Te national reports covered by this study are those produced by Albania, Austria, Belgium, Belgium (Brussels), Belgium

(Flanders), Belgium (Wallonia), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany,

Italy, the ormer Yugoslav Republic o Macedonia, Montenegro, the Netherland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia,

Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. All o the reports covered by this study are available at .

51 In the case o the ormer Yugoslav Republic o Macedonia, the report on exports during 2006 was used as the basis or the

analysis, since this is the last report produced. In the case o Portugal, the report on arms exports during 2008 was used as this

was the last report produced.

52 Te Netherlands produces a monthly report on arms exports and Romania and the United Kingdom produce quarterly re-ports on arms exports.

53 Anthony, I. and Bauer, S., ranser controls and destruction programmes, SIPRI Yearbook 2004: Armaments, Disarmament and

International Security (Oxord University Press: Oxord, 2004), p. 750.


29/50

28

Descriptions of arms licensed for export and exported

A description o arms licensed or export and exported helps to develop an understanding othe way in which national export criteria are being interpreted at the national level. As alreadynoted, data on the nancial value o arms exports broken down by the categories o the na-tional control list can oten be o limited value when making these assessments.

en national reports on arms exports (Belgium (Flanders), Croatia, Germany, Italy, the ormerYugoslav Republic o Macedonia, Montenegro, Te Netherlands, Romania, Serbia and the Unit-ed Kingdom) provide descriptions o the arms licensed or export (See able 4.1). In all cases,the inormation on export licences is sorted by destination and, in nine cases, by control listcategory. In our cases (Belgium (Flanders), Italy, the ormer Yugoslav Republic o Macedoniaand the Netherlands) the inormation is also broken down by individual licences. Eight nationalreports on arms exports (Czech Republic, Finland, Italy, the ormer Yugoslav Republic o Mace-donia, Montenegro, Portugal, Romania and Serbia) provide descriptions o the arms exported(See able 4.2). In all cases, the inormation on exported arms is classied by destination. In vecases (Czech Republic, Finland, Montenegro, Romania and Serbia) the inormation is also classi-ed by control list category. In two cases (Italy and the ormer Yugoslav Republic o Macedonia)the inormation is also sorted by individual export licence.

Te descriptions provided in these reports can be extremely detailed. For example, Montene-gros and Romanias national reports name the type o weapon system licensed or export andexported. Tis provides a level o detail that goes signicantly urther than the main categorieso the EU Military List and allows or a more inormed assessment o how the state is imple-

menting its export control policies (See Box 4.1 and Box 4.2).


30/50

29

4. Existing practices in national reporting on arms exports

able 4.1 - Descriptions of the arms licensed for export

State

Description of

goods

Information

on arms

export licences

disaggregated by

destination

Information on

arms exports

licences

disaggregated

by control list

category

Information on

arms export licences

disaggregated by

individual licence

Bel.-Flanders x x x x

Croatia x x x

Germany x x x

Italy x x x x

Te ormer YugoslavRepublic o Macedonia x x x

Montenegro x x x

Netherlands x x x x

Romania x x x

Serbia x x x

UK x x x

otal 10 10 9 4

Source: National reports on arms exports in 2008. Available at

able 4.2 - Descriptions of the arms exported

State

Description of

goods

Information

on arms

export licences

disaggregated by

destination

Information on

arms exports

licences

disaggregated

by control list

category

Information

on arms

export licences

disaggregated by

individual licence

Czech Republic x x x

Finland x x x

Italy x x x

Te ormer YugoslavRepublic o Macedonia

x x x

Montenegro x x x

Portugal x x

Romania x x x

Serbia x x x

otal 8 8 5 2



31/50

30

Box4

.1-Descriptionsofthearmslicen

sedforexportandexportedinM

ontenegrosnationalreportonarmsexportsin2008

Export

destinatio

n

Number

ofissued

licenses

Category

innational

controllist

(AME)

Valueof

issu

ed

licen

ses

Valueof

realised

licences

Descriptionofgood

s

Quantity(in

measuremen

t

units)

Countryof

origin

Enduser

country

Type

of

end-user

Israel

2

4.1.

4005

.05

2451.46

60mmgrenades,

81mmgrenades

24,000pc

s

21,216pc

s

Serbia

TePhilippines

m

Cyprus

20

1.1;1.4;10.7;

3; 4.1;2.1;

11831

.43

11831.43

Automaticrifes;machineguns,

Sparepartsormachineguns;spareboltsor

sniperrifes;machine

gunstands;

Explosivecartridgesorejectorseats

PK-16ML,R-4;PK-21-M2;PK-3M-1;UDP2-1;PPL-;

PP-3;PDO-1;PPI-26-2

-1;PPI-26-1;PPL-;PK-21-FL;

PP-9;VVPR;VMP-2M

;PZ-AL;PK-16ML;PV-35;

PPL;

Mortarwithsparepa

rts;

12.7mmcartridgebelts

82mmgrenades,120mmgrenades,

22,048pc

s

19,760pc

s

506pc

s

1,050pc

s

51,270pc

s

Serbia,

Montenegro,

BiH

Aghanistan,

Iraq,

Ukraine,

urkmenistan

Eq.Guinea,

Belarus

m

Germany

2

1.1

20

.02

13.83

5.56mmassaultrife

636KV3withaccessories,

deactivatedautomaticpistolscorpion

300pc

s

Germany,

Czech

Republic

Germany

m

USA

1

3. 1.1.

709

.34

709.34

7.62mmx54Rammunition

PistolM57

9,400,000pc

s

4,096pc

s

Montenegro

USA

m


32/50

31


Box 4.2 Descriptions of the arms licensed for export and exported

in Romanias national report on arms exports in 2008

Finland

ML1 ML10 otal per destination

a 1 2 3

b 25.000 38.714 63.714

c 18.640 34.286 52.926

d 0 0 0

e - - -

Licenses issued for:hunting rifescopecomponents or military transport helicopter

Military goods exported:

hunting rifescopecomponents or military transport helicopter


33/50

32

ype of end-user for arms licensed for export and exported

Simply knowing the geographical destination o the arms licensed or export and exported isnot enough to gain a ull understanding o how a state is interpreting its export control criteria.For example, there is a signicant dierence between how a state would treat the export o apiece o military equipment that is being delivered to the military or police orce o a particularstate or one that is being delivered to a private company based in that state.

Five national reports on arms exports (Belgium (Brussels), Belgium (Flanders), Denmark, theormer Yugoslav Republic o Macedonia and Serbia) contain inormation on the type o end-user or arms licensed or export (See able 4.3). In all cases, the inormation on export licencesis disaggregated by destination. In one case (Denmark), the inormation is sorted by control listcategory. In one case (Te ormer Yugoslav Republic o Macedonia) the inormation is sortedby destination and individual licence. In two cases (Belgium (Flanders) and Te ormer Yugo-slav Republic o Macedonia) the inormation is classied by individual licence.

Tree national reports (Te ormer Yugoslav Republic o Macedonia, Serbia and Spain) containinormation on the type o end-user or arms exported (See able 4.4). In all cases, the inorma-tion on exported arms is disaggregated by destination. In one case (Spain) the inormation isbroken down by destination and control list category. In one case (Te ormer Yugoslav Repub-lic o Macedonia) the inormation is disaggregated by individual licence.

Te level o detail provided on the type o end-user varies considerably. For example the ormerYugoslav Republic o Macedonias national report on arms exports reproduces the inormation

contained in the End User Certicate (EUC) issued by the recipient state (See Box 4.3). As aresult it is possible to identiy not just the type o recipient but the actual recipient itsel. In con-trast, Denmark, along with several other states, provides a key to indicate whether the end-useris an industry (industri) or a military (orsvar) (See Box 4.4).


34/50

33


able 4.3 - ype of end-user for arms licensed for export by state

State ype of end-user

ype of end-user

disaggregated by

destination

ype of end-user

disaggregated by

control list category

ype of end-user

disaggregated by

individual licence

Bel.-Brussels x x

Bel.-Flanders x x x

Denmark x x x

Te ormerYugoslav Republic oMacedonia

x x x

Serbia x x

otal 5 5 1 2


able 4.4 - ype of end-user for arms exported by state

State ype of end-user

ype of end-user

disaggregated by

destination

ype of end-user

disaggregated by

control list category

ype of end-user

disaggregated by

individual licence

Te ormer Yugoslav

Republic oMacedonia

x x x

Serbia x x

Spain x x x

otal 3 3 1 1


Box 4.3 ype of end-user for arms licensed for export in Former Yugoslav Republic

of Macedonias national report on arms exports in 2006

EXPOR 2006

Decision Nr. 17.9.4 10/06 from 08.02.2006

Automatic rifes 5

Optic device 1

Silencer 1

Receiving party: ISRAEL MILIARY INDUSRIES LD

Export o weapons during 2006 ater a presentation on behal o the Ministry o Interior and theMinistry o Deense.


35/50

34

Box4.4-Typeofend-userforarmslice

nsedforexportinDenmarksnationalreportonarmsexportsin2008

Region/

land

Typeaf

modtager

Vrdiaftilladelserford

eltptyperafmateriel(positionpEUsF

llesListe)i1000DKK

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

13

17

18

21

Ialt

Nordamerika

Ialt

2

60.752

16.724

20.879

2.451

56.423

297.352

150

15.346

470.079

Canada

Industri

Forsvar

3.292 11

242

3.534 11

USA

Industri

Forsvar

2

60.752

3.619

9.802

20.879

2.209

40.115

16.308

296.968384

150

15.346

419.161

47.373

Sydamerika

Ialt

33

33

Chile

Forsvar

33

33

Asien

Ialt

2.168

42.366

245

71

44.850

Japan

Industri

1.168

1.168

Malaysia

Forsvar

245

245


36/50

35


Export licence denials

Inormation on export licence denials provides important insights into how states are interpret-ing the criteria o their national arms export policies. Inormation on export licence denials canalso serve to promote the norms and standards contained in the states transer control criteria.

wenty-one national reports on arms exports (Albania, Belgium (Brussels), Belgium (Flanders),Belgium (Wallonia), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,France, Germany, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia,Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom) include inormation on export licence denials (seeable 4.5). In all cases, inormation is provided on the total number o export licence denials.Other inormation that dierent states provide includes the nancial value o licence denials,description o the goods, number o items, type o end-user and reasons or issuing the licencedenial (i.e. the criteria o the states export control regulations which were cited when issuingthe denial). In six national reports (Belgium (Flanders), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Denmark, theNetherlands, Slovakia and Spain) the inormation is broken down by each individual licencedenial.

Te UK national report includes more detailed inormation on certain licence denials. For ex-ample, the UKs 2008 national report included ve case studies detailing recent decision makingwith regards to certain destinations. One case study on Sri Lanka gave details o a number oexport licences or lethal weapons or operational use by the police and the navy, and someelectric saety detonating uses that were denied by the British authorities.54

Te ormat used to present this inormation varies signicantly rom state to state. Some states,including Slovakia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, provide the inormation in the orm charts ortables (See Box 4.5 and Box 4.6). Several other states include the inormation in the backgroundtext o the report. Te lack o standardisation in both the depth o inormation published onexport licence denials and the ormats used in dierent national reports makes it dicult toanalyse and compare dierent states implementation o their export control policies.

54 British Department or Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reorm, Foreign and Commonwealth Ofce, Ministry o Deence,

and Department or International Development, United Kingdom Strategic Export Controls: Annual Report 2007, Cm 7451

(Stationery Ofce: London, 2008), p. 15.


37/50

36

Table

4.5-Informationonexportlicen

cedenials

Typeof

information

Numberof

licences

Financialvalue

ofgoods

Descriptionof

goods

Numberof

items

In

formationon

ty

peofend-user

Reasonsfor

denials

Broken

downby

destina

tion

Brokendown

bycontrollist

category

Brokendown

byindividua

l

licence

Albania

x

x

Bel.-Brusse

ls

x

Bel.-Flanders

x

x

x

x

x

x

Bel.-Wallonia

x

x

x

x

Bosniaand

Herzegovina

x

x

x

x

x

x

Bulgaria

x

x

CzechRep

ublic

x

x

Denmark

x

x

x

x

x

x

Estonia

x

France

x

x

Germany

x

x

x

x

Monteneg

ro

x

Netherlands

x

x

x

x

x

x

Poland

x

Portugal

x

Romania

x

x

x

x

Serbia

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Slovakia

x

x

x

x

x

x

Spain

x

x

x

x

x

x

Sweden

x

x

UK

x

x

x

x

Total

21

6

7

3

3

10

12

6

6

Source:Natio

nalreportsonarmsexportsin2008.Availableat


38/50

37


Box 4.5 - Export licence denials in Slovakias national report on arms exports

in 2008

Zamietnut iadosti o vvoz/dovoz vojenskho materilu zo/do Slovenskej republiky za rok 2008

dovoz / vvoz

Finann objem

zamietnutch

iadosti (Sk)

Finann objem

zamietnutch

iadosti (EUR) Mnostvo

Krajina pvodu/

urenia

Kategrie

vojenskho

materialu

dovoz 152.500.000 5.062.073 13 Nemecko 7

dovoz 28.435.827 943.897 412.569 esk republika 6

dovoz 694.400 23.050 2.000 esk republika 3

vvoz 961.482 31.915 2.000 Bielorusko 3

vvoz 10.900.000 361.814 13.591.298 Aganistan 3

Box 4.6 Export licence denials in Bosnia and Herzegovinas national report

on arms exports in 2008

END-USER

COUNRY

NUMBER OF

LICENCES EU ML CAEGORY DESCRIPION

VALUE

(EUR)

CAUSE FOR

REFUSAL

Georgia2 ML2 60 and 120 mm

Mortars480,000 EU Code o Conduct

on Arms Export

2 ML3 40mm ammunition 1,714,000EU Code o Conducton Arms Export

1 ML4 Mortar bombs 1,386,000EU Code o Conducton Arms Export


39/50

38

Brokering licences

Governments and arms manuacturers oten rely on arms brokers to arrange sales. However,arms brokers have also been implicated in acilitating the supply o arms to states subject to theUN or regional arms embargoes along with terrorist, insurgent and organized crime groups andother undesirable end-users. Eective control over arms brokering is thereore widely seen asnecessary or limiting illicit arms transers. Inormation on the activities o arms brokers, and onstates implementation o their brokering controls, remains largely outside the public domain.However, in recent years a number o states have started to provide some inormation on theindividuals and companies that have been licensed to act as brokers or on approvals and denialso particular licences or brokering activities.

Eight national reports on arms exports (Czech Republic, France, Germany, Montenegro, Poland,Romania, Sweden and the United Kingdom) contain inormation on brokering licences (seeable 4.6). Interestingly, all o the reports contain dierent amounts o inormation and no tworeports are the same. Tree national reports (Germany, Romania and the United Kingdom) alsoinclude more limited inormation on denials o brokering licences.

Te ormat used or presenting this inormation varies considerably. While some states includethe inormation in the orm o charts or tables, several states include it in the background texto the report. Te lack o standardization in both the depth o inormation published on bro-kering licences and the ormat used in the reports makes this inormation dicult to analyseand compare.

Since 2004, Estonia has published online inormation on companies or individuals that are reg-istered to act as arms brokers, including the names o the individuals registered to act as bro-kers, the countries between which they can arrange transactions and the date o entry intothe register (See Box 4.7).55 Estonias national report on arms exports includes inormation onbrokering authorizations issued or denied.56

In June 2003 the Council o the European Union adopted Common Position 2003/468/CFSP,aimed at setting agreed minimum standards or the control o arms brokering across all EUmember states. Te common position requires member states to establish a system or ex-changing inormation on brokering activities, including denials o brokering licence applica-tions.57 In April 2008 member states agreed to share inormation on approvals o brokeringlicences and to publish inormation on approvals and denials o brokering licences in the EUannual report.58 Te 11th EU annual report contained a table providing inormation on broker-ing licences granted and denied by the EU member states during 2008.59 Te table presents in-ormation broken down by either destination or individual licencedepending on the report-ing stateand includes details o the destination o the goods, the origin o the goods, theirnancial value, their EU Military List category and the quantity o items involved. Although in

55 Estonian Ministry o Foreign Aairs, Registered brokers o military goods, .

56 Te activity reports o the Estonian Strategic Goods Commission are available at .

57 Council o the European Union, Council Common Position 2003/468/CFSP o 23 June 2003 on the control o arms brokering,

Ofcial Journal o the European Union, L159, 25 June 2003, Article 5.

58 Council o the European Union, enth Annual Report according to Operative Provision 8 o the European Code o Conduct on

Arms Exports, Ofcial Journal o the European Union, C300, 22 Nov. 2008, p. 3.

59 Council o the European Union, Eleventh annual report according to Article 8(2) o Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP

dening common rules governing control o exports o military technology and equipment, Ofcial Journal o the European

Union, C265, 6 Nov. 2009.


40/50

39


several cases not all categories o inormation have been provided, the table is a notable boost

to transparency in this area. It provides detailed inormation on brokering licences issued by 11EU member states, many o which have not previously published such detailed inormation.

Export licensing authorities in South Eastern Europe states regularly engage with arms brokersbased in EU member states. Given this reality, EU member states should give serious thought tohow they can provide inormation on brokering licences in their national reports that can assistlicensing ocials in South Eastern Europe with their licensing decisions. Perhaps the most use-ul inormation that can be provided is a clear statement on the coverage and scope o nationalbrokering controls, including detailed inormation regarding when companies and individualsare required to apply or a brokering licence. However, a public list o the companies and indi-viduals that are licensed to act as brokers - such as that produced by Estonia - could also helplicensing ocials make initial assessment o whether a company or individual that is seeking toexport weapons has received the appropriate authorisation rom its licensing authority.

In a related development, states in South Eastern Europe, in cooperation with SEESAC, are de-veloping a regional database on registered brokers so as to improve inormation sharing anddecision-making in this area.


41/50

40

Table4.6

Brokeringlicensesissued

State

N

umberof

licences

Financial

valueof

goods

Description

ofgoods

Numberof

items

Information

ontypeof

end-user

Reasonsfor

denials

Broken

downby

destination

Broken

downby

controllist

category

Broken

downby

individual

licence

Czech

Republic

x

x

France

x

Germany

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Montenegro

x

x

x

x

x

x

Poland

x

x

x

x

x

Romania

x

x

x

x

x

x

Sweden

x

UK

x

x

x

x

otal

8

5

5

4

1

1

5

4

1

Source:Nationalrep

ortsonarmsexportsin2008.Availableat


42/50

41


Box 4.7 - Companies or individuals that are registered to act as arms brokers in

Estonias national report on arms exports in 2008

3. FORESAR Ltd. (Reg. No. 11119715)

Brokers: Mr. Andrus Mrtson and Mr. Riho Huntsaar.

Countries of Destination: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland.

Except countries (incl. their citizens and permanent residents) under UN, EU, OSCE or otherinternational sanctions, which are binding or Estonia, and that are under sanctions imposed byEstonian Republic under International Sanctions Act (RI 2002, 105, 612).

Registry entry EE/07/MLREG0001 has been made in accordance with Commissions decision no:

20-2/2007 on November 15 2007.


43/50

42

imeliness of national reports on arms exports

In addition to the type o inormation states make available, the level o transparency achievedby a particular state can also be measured in other ways. In particular, national and regionalreports should be produced in a timely manner so that the inormation they contain is up todate. Certain national reports are produced more than 12 months ater the period they cover,limiting their value as a means o holding governments accountable or particular licensing de-cisions and engaging in meaningul debates on policy issues. In contrast, other states are able toproduce reports within three months o the time period covered (See able 4.7).

able 4.7 - Te timeliness of national annual reports on arms exports for 2009

State < 3 months > 3 months > 6 months > 9 months > 12 months

Albania x

Austria x

Bel.-Flanders x

Bosnia andHerzegovina

x

Croatia x

Czech Republic x

Denmark x

Finland xFrance x

Germany x

Hungary x

Italy x

FYROM x

Montenegro x

Netherlands x

Poland x

Portugal x

Romania xSerbia x

Sweden x

UK x


44/50


45/50


46/50

45

5. Findings and recommendations

Regional reports on arms exports

Both the EU annual report and the regional report on arms exports in South Eastern Europerepresent important instruments o transparency. Te reports have served to drive and con-solidate improvements in reporting at the national level and have provided an important levelo insight into the arms export policies o the states involved. However, within the EU, levels oreporting remain insucient while the timerames within which the reports are issued leavemuch to be desired. More substantively, it is not clear whether the type o inormation that isincluded in these reports is adequate or providing a truly inormed insight into how states areimplementing their export control policies.

In order to allow or a uller evaluation o how states are implementing their export control pol-icies, additional types o inormation are needed. In particular, in order to allow or a more in-ormed and accurate assessment o states interpretations o the EU Common Position criteria,states need to include a description o the weapons licensed or export and exported, numbero items involved, type o end-user, and nal destination o goods which are to be re-exportedby the recipient country.

Recommendations:

EU member states need to improve their eorts to compile and submit ull and completereports to the EU annual report. Discussions regarding good practices in the collection andsubmission o data or dierent required categories should be re-started. EU member statesshould move towards the use o industry data or collecting inormation on actual armsexports. States should consider holding a seminar involving industry, governments andNGOs to discuss the mechanisms or improving the collection and compatibility o industrydata on arms exports and to discuss dierent methodologies and good practices.

Serious thought should be given to the question o whether the existing ormats used by

the EU annual report and the regional report on arms exports in South Eastern Europe areappropriate or the purpose which they intend to serve. In particular, states should explorethe option o providing the description o the goods licensed or export and exported, the


47/50

46

number o items, and the type o end-user, sorted out by EU Military List category and nal

destination.

I such a level o detail is thought to be excessive or a printed report, EU states should explo-re the option o publishing the inormation in an online searchable database, as their SouthEastern European colleagues have done.

National reports on arms exports

States in South Eastern Europe have demonstrated a willingness and an ability to produce na-tional reports on arms exports that are as or more transparent than many o those produced by

EU member states. Several aspects o the South Eastern European reports particularly thosepertaining to descriptions o arms licensed or export and exported and export licence denials -are as transparent as anything published in the world today.

Tere are signicant variations in both the ormatting and level o detail available in the nation-al reports o EU member states and states in South Eastern Europe. Within South Eastern Eu-rope, several states have utilised the national report templates developed by SEESAC. However,there has been no equivalent eort among EU member states. At the same time, even amongthe states that have utilised the templates developed by SEESAC, there are great dierenceswith regards to the actual inormation that states choose to include in their national reports.

o a great extent, variety in the content o national reports on arms exports is unavoidable andeven desirable. Any attempt to ully harmonize practices in this area would likely lead to anoverall reduction in transparency. In particular, there is a strong risk that states would agree tocommon standards that would be lower than those currently practiced by many states. Nev-ertheless, greater eorts could be made to standardise the content and ormat o the nationalreports. Tis would greatly assist eorts to compare how dierent states are implementing theirexport control policies while making it easier to evaluate levels o transparency at the nationallevel. In addition, greater eort could be made to improve the timeliness o the reports.

Recommendations:

EU member states that have not already produced a national report on arms exports shoulddo so as soon as possible, as this is currently required by the E

the development of national and regional reports on arms exports in the eu and south eastern europe...

Documents