Global Facilitation Network for Security Sector Reform (GFN-SSR)

Arms control in a rough neighbourhood: The case of the Great Lakes Region and the Horn of Africa

 Printable version

What progress have the Great Lakes Region and the Horn of Africa made in implementing the Nairobi Protocol on small arms and light weapons (SALW)? What challenges do states in the region face in controlling the flow of SALW? This paper from the Institute for Security Studies examines the control of SALW in the Great Lakes Region and the Horn of Africa. It finds that states in the region have made significant efforts towards cooperating to combat the proliferation of SALW. However, measurable concrete implementation of the Nairobi Protocol has yet to take place at the national level.

The Nairobi Protocol requires states to address SALW proliferation by, amongst other things, establishing effective legislation, law enforcement capacity, marking, tracing and record-keeping. To coordinate and oversee the implementation of the protocol, the Regional Centre for SALW (RECSA) was established. States in the Great Lakes Region and the Horn of Africa have consistently reiterated their commitment towards implementing the provisions of the Nairobi Protocol. Furthermore, five states – Tanzania, Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda and Kenya – have made notable progress in implementing the provisions of the protocol. However, progress has been slow at the national level and it is evident that full implementation of the protocol will take some time yet.

Implementation of the Nairobi Protocol faces a number of challenges:

• The lack of human and financial resources in many states, in addition to conflicting priorities, continues to hinder any significant progress. This is problematic, since it is at the national level that change must take place.
• Amending and developing legislation is a major challenge, since many states have outdated firearms laws. Lack of capacity, technical knowledge and political will have prevented measurable progress in amending or adopting legislation.
• In many cases, a single person is responsible for coordinating all of the activities of a National Focal Point (NFP). Given the various government departments that comprise many NFPs, it can be difficult for coordinators to bring about significant progress.
• A number of states in the region are in conflict situations, which creates demand for SALW. These conflicts complicate arms control efforts, particularly since many of them spill across state borders, making it difficult to regulate the flow of weapons.

Despite the existence of a fairly active regional support and facilitation structure, national implementation of the Nairobi Protocol has been protracted. States must now be held to task on their commitments under the protocol. Recommendations include the following:

• Streamlining NFP structures and mandating a few key individuals to undertake the day-to-day running of NFPs will ensure that they function more efficiently.
• NFPs should be encouraged to undertake initiatives to increase political will to address legislative and administrative procedures relating to the control of SALW.
• Donors might consider directing some funding straight to the national level to build the capacity of NFPs to implement the protocol.
• RECSA might consider developing a standardised template to guide national reporting, in order to ensure that relevant information is provided.
• Interpol and the East African Police Chiefs Cooperation Organisation, amongst others, can provide support and training on issues such as marking, tracing and identifying SALW.

Access full text