You are on page 1of 16

Practical Disarmament Initiative

Developing good practice for


measuring the success, effectiveness
and impact of PSSM

Contents

Introduction...................................................... 3
Setting the scene: PSSM drivers and the
need to measure success, impact and
effectiveness..................................................... 5

Outputs and outcomes: framing and
measuring PSSMs contribution................. 8

Identifying and overcoming barriers to
11
success...............................................................

Two potential approaches for measuring
the effectiveness and impact of PSSM.... 12
Conclusions and recommendations......... 14

Written by: Chris Loughran, Director of Policy, MAG


Edited and designed by: Mike Fryer, Gayle Gabe, Jessica Riordan and Portia Stratton
Published by: MAG, Manchester (United Kingdom). May 2016
Contact: info@maginternational.org
Photographs: MAG/Sean Sutton

This document summarises key themes of a workshop undertaken as part of an initiative supported by the UN Trust Facility
Supporting Cooperation on Arms Regulation (UNSCAR). Every effort has been made to capture and fairly represent input;
however, comments and views have not been attributed to participants. Comments and views expressed in the report are the
sole responsibility of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of MAG or UNSCAR. If this report or
extracts from it are used, the date of the event, as well as MAG and support from UNSCAR, should be credited.

Introduction

MAG convened a two-day expert meeting in


London (United Kingdom) in March 2016, as
part of the Practical Disarmament Initiative
project. The meeting considered approaches
to measuring the success, effectiveness and
impact of international assistance in Physical
Security and Stockpile Management (PSSM).
This report summarises the key topics and
themes identified, along with recommendations
for policy and practice.

To identify potential good practice


for considering and measuring success,
effectiveness and impact in international
cooperation and assistance in PSSM, including
potential indicators.

The meeting was the main component of a


project supported by the UN Trust Facility
Supporting Cooperation on Arms Regulation
(UNSCAR).

The meeting was divided into three main


working sections. The first aimed to set the
scene, looking at the rationale behind PSSM
and need to establish good practice around
measurement of its impact and sustainability.
It covered the growing prominence, scale and
maturity of PSSM, the increasing levels of
scrutiny over the impact of donor funding and
opportunities provided by the recent adoption of
the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Forty-five experts and stakeholders participated


in the meeting, representing states providing
and receiving international cooperation and
assistance, regional organisations, nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), policy and
research institutes, academia and different parts
of the United Nations system.
The meeting considered PSSM relating to both
weapons and munitions. It had two principal
objectives:

To promote and support dialogue and


cooperation between PSSM stakeholders,
as well as between regions and sub-regions
engaged in PSSM.

The second section considered the utility of


typical outputs used for PSSM assistance
projects in the context of stakeholder needs at
the national, regional and international level.
It identified a set of common output indicators

for PSSM projects, but also highlighted their


shortcomings as indicators of sustainability
and measurable contribution to broader efforts
to address the illicit trade in arms. Discussions
drew on and benefited from Life Cycle
Management approaches.
The third session aimed to translate discussions
into tangible actions to enhance good practice
in PSSM assistance and cooperation. It was
based around working themes identified by
participants from earlier sessions. Themes
included nation ownership and planning, links
to broader security and development agendas,
partnerships and sustainability of change
achieved through by PSSM assistance.
This report follows the structure and working
sessions of the meeting. It then outlines
two complementary approaches that could
be used to measure PSSMs impact and
enhance effectiveness. It concludes with
recommendations for potential approaches and
actions that would improve the collective ability
to frame and measure their impact, and also
enhance the effectiveness of assistance.
Conclusions and recommendations have been
compiled by MAG, based on the discussions and
priority areas raised during the meeting.
The meeting was informal in nature. It was held
in French and English and under the Chatham
House Rule. This report therefore does not
attribute any specific comment to individual
participants.
WORKSHOP COMPOSITION
Fifteen representatives
from nine states involved
in giving or receiving
international cooperation
and assistance in PSSM.
States represented three
regions.

Twenty-two members
of non-governmental
organisations, policy
and research focused
organisations, and
academia.

Six representatives
from UN entities involved
in PSSM.

Two representatives of
regional organisations
actively engaged in PSSM
activities and broader
efforts to address illicit,
surplus and insecure
weapons and munitions.

The meeting aimed to promote the participation of women in all aspects of its design and delivery. Overall, 37%
of participants were women, with women being underrepresented among delegates from states and regional
organisations. Fifty five percent of working sessions were chaired and facilitated by women. Twenty seven percent of
speakers were women.

Setting the scene: PSSM drivers and the need to


measure success, impact and effectiveness
Growth of PSSM
The last decade has seen a steady increase in
the profile and priority of PSSM as an area of
international cooperation and assistance. This
has covered PSSM relating to munitions, as
well as small arms and light weapons (SALW).
Assistance projects and programmes have
increased in scale, particularly in West Africa,
the Sahel, the CARICOM region and Latin
America.
There has been a corresponding increase in
the frequency of requests for international
assistance with the security and management
of national stockpiles. This has been reflected
in national reporting under the Programme
of Action (PoA). The increase in willingness
by many states to seek external support with
PSSM is a marked change from the 1990s and
early 2000s, when stockpile management was
normally considered highly sensitive.
A community of practice has become
established and continues to develop. Assistance
projects supporting national militaries and
security authorities are now undertaken
by a range of actors, including NGOs and

departments within the United Nations system.


This activity sits alongside a long-standing
programme of bilateral and multilateral
military assistance, and also reflects the
growing openness around PSSM needs and
potential benefits.
Rationale behind PSSM assistance
Participants agreed that PSSM cooperation and
assistance is driven typically by the following
aims:
To prevent the diversion of weapons and
munitions from state stocks or custody to the
illicit arms trade, given its role in fueling armed
violence and conflict and its detrimental impact
on security, stability and prospects for economic
growth.
To reduce the likelihood and/or impact of
unplanned explosions at munitions sites, and
the resulting death and injury, destruction of
infrastructure and socio-economic cost which
they frequently cause.
In many instances, international cooperation
and assistance in PSSM also aims to strengthen
5

implementation of international and regional


political and convention commitments,
particularly relating to the PoA and related subregional instruments.
For several donors, PSSM assistance projects
are linked to national security and foreign policy
priorities, particularly relating to stemming
illicit arms flows in and across regions and
access to arms by non-state armed groups. Many
stakeholders providing assistance, particularly
NGOs, are driven by the desire to have positive
impact on people affected by conflict, insecurity
and armed violence.

face a requirement to justify national political,


human and financial investment in PSSM. In the
context of finite and frequently limited national
resources, PSSM competes with other police and
military activities, as well as a broad spectrum
of national priorities. Success in the engagement
of national stakeholders and budgetary resource
depends on the need to demonstrate results and
added value.

This combined set of aims is frequently shared


by national authorities seeking assistance, but
overlaps in priorities and aims are not always
exact.

Providers of international assistance including


parts of the United Nations system and
international NGOs are also under increasing
pressure from donors, governance and oversight
bodies to justify PSSM assistance as a priority
area. For NGOs in particular, results and impact
need to be articulated in terms of a positive
effect on people, their human security and
prospects for opportunity and development.

Accountability and the need to demonstrate


results

Demonstrating success against measurable


aims and objectives

All PSSM actors are under increasing pressure


to demonstrate relevance and results to
stakeholders. For many donors, political
and financial commitments to international
cooperation and assistance are viewed
increasingly as investments. Continued donor
funding depends on proof of success and impact
to parliamentarians, the legislature, taxpayers
and the wider public.

Understanding the impact of activities and


testing the assumptions which underpin
projects and partnerships is an established part
of international cooperation and assistance.
It is a vital component of accountability
to stakeholders, and also a foundation of
monitoring and evaluation activities. Evaluation
fundings can be used to identify and promote
good practice, but also identify areas where
approaches can be improved to enhance the
effectiveness of partnerships.

Demonstrating the return on investment can


lead to continued or increasing funds, while the
failure to do so can prevent further allocation
of resources. Cooperation and coordination
between donors and other stakeholders is
seen as multiplying the impact and return on
investment of individual efforts.
The commitment to cooperation partnerships
by states receiving assistance is increasingly
gauged by donors in terms of the commitment of
national budgets to complement international
donor funding. This is also linked to assessments
of the likelihood of change being sustainable
after the inevitable end of donor funding.
National authorities seeking assistance similarly
6

PSSM is a comparatively new area of structured


international cooperation and assistance,
with some partnerships being only months or
a few years old. Projects are often driven by
assumptions relating to PSSMs contribution
to diversion prevention, supported by success
metrics articulated in terms of tangible project
outputs.
Assumptions around diversion prevention and
reduction in unplanned explosions have been
well-founded, and there is general consensus
that output-based success measurement has
been commensurate with the scale and maturity
of PSSM work to date. There is nevertheless

a general view that the further growth and


development of international cooperation
and assistance in PSSM requires an increased
ability to demonstrate results in terms of impact
against measurable aims and objectives.
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
The Agenda for Sustainable Development was
agreed by UN member states in 2015, replacing
the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
The Agenda established 17 new goals the
Sustainable Development Goals, or SDGs
along with a range of associated targets and
indicators for each goal. The scope of SDGs
is broader than that of their predecessors. Of
central relevance to PSSM and broader efforts to
address the impact of the illicit arms trade, the
SDGs make clear links between development,
peace, security and arms control.
For many stakeholders, the absence of the clear
and stated interlinkage between arms control
and development was a significant weakness
in the MDGs. SDG 16 is to Promote just,
peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable
development and build effective, accountable
and inclusive institutions at all levels. Target
16.4, associated with this goal, requires
measurable and time bound results: By 2030,
[to] significantly reduce illicit financial and arms
flows, strengthen the recovery and return of
stolen assets and combat all forms of organised
crime.

PSSM as part of a wider arms control effort


PSSM is part of a broad set of activities which
aim to address the illicit arms trade and its
effects. These are wide-ranging in nature, from
the development of national legislation to
border control and community participation.
This is reflected in the PoA and also a range of
regional and sub-regional instruments, many of
which also cover ammunition.
There are a number of current initiatives to
avoid duplication of PSSM assistance and
improve the complementarity of different
assistance modalities and projects. This
has been welcomed by many stakeholders,
particularly given the increase in scale of
assistance. There has not yet been, however, a
significant focus and effort to increase PSSMs
interlinkage to other areas of arms control
assistance and strategy. One notable exception
has been increased coordination between
technical assistance in SALW marking and
stockpile management and record-keeping on
which markings success depends.
While PSSM activities can have short-term
tangible outcomes particularly around
preventing unplanned explosions or creating an
entry point for institutional change its longerterm success depends on strong links to other
areas of arms control and institutional reform.

Target 16.4 reflects the main driver behind PSSM


activities to reduce the diversion of weapons
and munitions to the illicit market. This offers
a practical link between PSSM activity and
measureable impact on illicit arms flows, based
on the principle that illicit arms are detrimental
to development, peace and security. Despite
the 2030 Agenda being global in nature, the
framework is based on national implementation,
including the development of national baselines
against which progress can be measured. Its
implementation is potentially compatible
with the principle of national ownership that
underpins all PSSM activity.

Outputs and outcomes: framing and measuring


PSSMs contribution
Duration of assistance projects and stakeholder
needs
PSSM partnerships have mainly taken the form
of short-term project interventions, typically
with timeframes between six months to two
years. In many cases, the timeframe has been a
reflection of pilot projects, or initial partnerships
which need to prove the benefit of further
investment. Donor budget cycles based on
allocations of funding by individual fiscal year
have also been a key factor in determining the
length of assistance projects.

outputs have been used to demonstrate that


tangible action is being taken to promote citizen
confidence.
Developing standard output indicators
Outputs for PSSM cooperation and assistance
projects are typically quantitative and reflect
the operational and capacity building activities
that have been undertaken. For example, the
number of weapons or munitions destroyed, or
the number of explosive store houses that have
been assessed or rehabilitated.

Short-term project duration is linked closely


to the focus on outputs as the principal
metric of success in PSSM assistance. While
acknowledging that PSSM projects fit into
longer-term strategies, donors, national
authorities and organisations implementing
assistance need to demonstrate tangible results
and return on investment of individual projects.
Outputs have been vaulable justifying the
past and planned expenditure and to feed into
strategic planning.

There is a significant degree of commonality


between the output indicators that are used
by expert organisations providing PSSM
cooperation and assistance. Meeting participants
considered the extent to which the outputs
listed on page 10 could act as a general set of
indicators for assistance providers. There was
general agreement that this set of indicators
represented most of the practical activities
undertaken as part of operational PSSM
projects.

In contexts where there are high levels of gun


violence and homicide involving small arms,

Several participants suggested that additional


outputs could add value in terms of representing

the reduction in risk of unplanned explosions


at a munitions site. Suggestions included
the number/tons of unserviceable munitions
segregated from serviceable munitions, and the
number/tons of munitions segregated according
to compatibility groups.

assessments as a funded component within


assistance projects, with their results informing
subsequent operational and capacity building
activities. Good practice also involves
assessments being undertaken under a principle
of national ownership.

Benefits and limitations of outputs as a measure


of success, effectiveness and impact

A number of tools have been developed by


expert organisations to set technical baselines
during assessments of individual armouries or
munitions sites. These have typically sought to
measure the risk and likelihood or diversion
or unplanned explosion, drawing on the
International Small Arms Control Standards
(ISCAS) and the International Ammunition
Technical Guidelines (IATG). This has enabled
the outcomes to be measured at individual
facilities.

There was broad agreement that the outputs on


page 10 add value and meet some stakeholder
needs, particularly in providing quantifiable
metrics to justify short-term expense or
investment. They also provide data that is useful
for work plans and for inclusion in national
reports. In some cases, they can contribute to
public confidence building and the perception
that action is being taken to address illicit
weapons, insecurity and armed violence.
There was, however, also agreement that
activity-based outputs are insufficient to
measure the impact and effectiveness of PSSM
initiatives.
Major shortcomings and issues include the
following:
Outputs are typically framed in terms
of activity and do not reflect effects-based
language.
PSSM success depends on a fully functioning
system for management which is not reflected in
activity outputs.
Outputs do not consider the quality of
activities, whether these relate to operational
activity or capacity building.
Technical and practical outputs do not
identify risks to the sustainability of knowledge,
skills, practice and systems achieved through
PSSM assistance.
The impact on communities, their security
and their perception of security is not reflected.
Baselines and assessments
The introduction of armoury and stockpile
assessments has been a significant development
in the design of assistance projects. Good
practice now involves the inclusion of

Drawing on Life Cycle Management


approaches
PSSM is increasingly considered as part of wider
Life Cycle Management of arms. This considers
sustainable management of all aspects of
weapons and munitions, from needs and
procurement to management and ultimately use
or disposal.
A Life Cycle Management approach is based on
seven interrelated conditions being in place
to achieve sustainable change in systems and
approach:
1. National normative frameworks
2. Organisational structures and procedures
3. Training and doctrine development
4. Equipment and maintenance
5. Personnel management
6. Finances
7. Infrastructure to implement
These seven conditions have been used
to set a capacity or performance baseline
against which progress can be measured in
different areas. Lower levels of capacity or
performance in some areas does not prevent
cooperation and initiatives from taking place.
Instead, information is used to identify areas
of complementary programming which will
overcome risks to sustainability. Effectiveness
9

can be measured through sustained change


in the seven conditions, based on follow-up
evaluation assessments.
Applying good practice in monitoring and
evaluation
Many programmes and partnerships are
in their infancy, and there has not been
significant opportunity to date to apply broader
good practice approaches in monitoring and
evaluation. A notable exception, highlighted
by participants, is the Democratic Republic of
Congo (DRC), where PSSM cooperation and
assistance partnerships have been in place for
a number of years and a series of evaluations
have taken place. Evaluations have benefited
from covering a number of shorter and related
projects.

Evaluations of projects and programmes in


DRC have identified various lessons, including
the need for closer synergy between marking
projects, national record keeping and PSSM.
They have also highlighted the negative effects
on the confidence of military stakeholders if
national and international resources are not
identified to follow-up on the outcomes of
technical assessments.
Several donors are now incorporating
evaluations into more complex assistance
programmes. This is a welcomed trend and
reflects good practice in broader overseas
development assistance programming.
Evaluation findings, lessons learned and
recommendations for good practice are likely
to be useful in a number of regions and subregions.

Proposed PSSM project output indicators


Number of armoury assessments conducted
Number of explosive store house siting plans conducted
Armouries refurbished
Armouries constructed
Munitions stores refurbished
Munitions stores constructed
Small Arms Ammunition Destroyed (<20cm)
Small Arms destroyed during AMD activities
Light Weapons destroyed during AMD activities
Explosives destroyed (metric tons)
Ammunition destroyed (metric tons)
MANPADS complete
MANPADS components
Number of SALW training courses
Number of students trained on SALW courses
Number of ammunition training courses
Number of students trained on ammunition courses

10

Identifying and overcoming barriers to success


A range of cross-cutting themes emerged during
the course of the meeting that were relevant to
identifying and overcoming barriers to shortand longer-term success in PSSM cooperation
and assistance.
Avoiding a PSSM silo
The scale of PSSM assistance has grown, but
PSSM is frequently viewed as a primarily
technical activity that is implemented
independently. Ensuring the quality of PSSM
activities will remain vital. However, the longterm success and impact of PSSM activities will
depend on closer synergies with other areas of
assistance planning.
Scope of stakeholder engagement
Despite increased partnership, coordination and
joint planning, dialogue at the national level is
still primarily between organisations directly
involved in PSSM initiatives. There is scope for
engagement of a wider range of stakeholders
who are not directly involved in PSSM, but
whose support and involvement could be critical
to success or failure. National finance ministries
and departments or organisations involved in
institutional and security sector reform were
highlighted as frequent omissions.
National ownership
National ownership was identified as the
principle under which PSSM assistance should

take place. An absence or perceived absence


of national ownership would increasingly be
a disincentive or barrier to allocation of donor
funding. The allocation of national budgets and
senior level political support for investment
in PSSM are viewed as indicators of national
ownership and ultimately sustainability.
Comprehensive national plans
National plans to address weapons and
munitions should be developed under a
principle of national ownership. Plans are likely
to have the greatest utility and buy-in when
they are developed through consultation with
stakeholders, including donors and providers of
cooperation and assistance. The development
of national plans could identify synergies
between PSSM and other areas of assistance,
while identifying gaps that would undermine
sustainability. National plans could also inform
relevant national reporting.
End-states for international cooperation and
assistance
If developed through consultation with donors
and other stakeholders, national plans could
be used more in the design of international
cooperation and assistance projects. This
could also support the identification of endstates for donor support in PSSM, along with
complementary resources and actions that
would be required to ensure the sustainability
of knowledge, skills and systems.

11

Two potential approaches for measuring the


effectiveness and impact of PSSM
The meeting identified two potential
approaches that could consider and measure
the impact of PSSM, as well as its effectiveness
and sustainability. These draw on the SDG
framework, particularly relating to Target
16.4, and the incorporation of the Life Cycle
Management approaches into the design,
implementation and evaluation of international
cooperation and assistance.
Both approaches are summarised below,
with potential obstacles highlighted for
further consideration. They are presented
as complementary, and have a foundation in
demonstrable national ownership. Further, their
implementation would be enabled by longerterm national plans which have been developed
through consultation, and which involve
increased cooperation with stakeholders in the
wider arms control and development sectors.
Approach 1: Linking PSSM to SDG Target 16.4 at
the national level
Rationale
SDG 16 aims to promote just, peaceful and
inclusive societies with accountable institutions.
12

Its associated Target 16.4 seeks to achieve a


measureable reduction in illicit arms flows by
2030. The primary aim of PSSM is to contribute
to the reduction in illicit weapons and munitions
primarily through the prevention of diversion
to the illicit market based on their negative
impact on peace, human security and peoples
opportunities for development.
There is a very close overlap between the aims
and rationale of SDG 16 and Target 16.4, and
the theory of change and assumptions which
underpin PSSM.
The SDG framework and PSSM are also both
based on the principle of national ownership
and implementation, including through the
development of baselines and measurement
of progress. The implementation of SDG 16
therefore provides a clear framework to consider
the impact of PSSM assistance.
PSSM activities involving state stockpiles do not
aim to address illicit weapons and munitions
in isolation; they are part of a wider body of
complementary and related activities and
approaches whose collective success and impact
will be represented in a measurable reduction

in arms flows. PSSMs impact should therefore


reflect its contribution.
Potential implementation
Existing PSSM assessment tools enable the
measureable reduction in risk of diversion
as a result of PSSM activities at specific
sites. Progress at the national level could be
represented in terms of progress against a
national register of armouries and munitions
storage sites that comprise the national
stockpile.
Potential obstacles to overcome
Absent or incomplete national databases of
state armouries and munitions storage sites.
Potential inconsistency in armoury and
explosive store assessments undertaken by
different entities.
Lack of coordination/cooperation
between PSSM assistance and other areas
of arms control, development assistance and
institutional reform.

assessment of need, principally relating to risk


of diversion. Projects draw on assessments,
with operational and capacity building activities
developed on the basis of their results and in
partnership with national authorities.
Potential implementation
There is scope to broaden existing assessments
and partnerships with national authorities
to include an assessment of capacity and
performance across the seven criteria within
Life Cycle Management approaches. This could
be used to identify risks to sustainability at the
design phase, as well as potential mitigation
approaches. It could also be used to identify
synergies with other areas of effort in arms
control and institutional reform, as well as wider
cooperation and assistance needs.
Assessments against the seven conditions for
Life Cycle Management would provide a baseline
against which progress could be measured
and success evaluated through subsequent
assessments.
Potential obstacles to overcome

Need for improved dialogue and coordination


between multiple authorities with responsibility
for different elements of state stockpiles.

Follow-up evaluation assessments would


typically fall outside of the timeframe of
individual assistance projects.

Need for improved cooperation and dialogue


between national arms control authorities and
stakeholders involved in implementation of SDG
16 at the national level.

Assessment of the seven criteria may


involve successful engagement across multiple
departments or stakeholders.

Approach 2: Applying Life Cycle Management


methodologies to the design, implementation
and evaluation of international cooperation and
assistance in PSSM

Projects may already have been designed and


prioritised by donors or national authorities.

As summarised on page 9, Life Cycle


Management approaches are based around
the presence of seven conditions for effective
and sustainable management of weapons and
munitions.
At present, many PSSM initiatives assistance
projects are implemented based on an
13

Conclusions and recommendations

1. There is a common rationale and theory of


change behind international cooperation and
assistance in PSSM. PSSM aims to contribute
to the reduction in illicit arms flows in support
of peace, stability and human security, and to
create an environment that is conducive for
socio-economic development. It achieves this
primarily through reducing the risk of diversion
to the illicit market. PSSM involving munitions
also aims to reduce risk of unplanned explosions
at munitions sites and their negative human and
socio-economic impact.
2. PSSM must establish ways to measure
impact and return on investment of donor and
national funds in order to develop further.
Donor support to states in PSSM has grown in
scale over the last decade, as have requests for
assistance in this previously highly sensitive
area. PSSM is nevertheless still based heavily
on assumptions of its impact that need to be
demonstrated.
3. The PSSM community has developed outputs
to gauge immediate success of assistance. There
is general agreement around the type of output
indicators that represent PSSMs activities to
date. Outputs have typically been short-term
14

and activity-based, partly a result of project


durations and annual donor funding cycles.
There is also broad agreement that activitybased outputs need to be complemented by
other indicators of success that consider impact,
effectiveness, sustainability and links to other
areas of effort and assistance.
4. There is scope to draw on good monitoring
and evaluation practice in broader international
development assistance. This is vital for
the continued development of PSSM and
in identifying and sharing learning. Where
evaluations of PSSM assistance have taken
place, they have identified lessons learned and
potential synergies. Evaluations are increasingly
included in longer-term assistance projects.
Where programmes comprise a number of
shorter projects, evaluations could cover
multiple related initiatives within the same
scope of work.
5. Good practice and lessons learned that are
identified through evaluation should be shared
as widely as possible. Every national context
is specific, with unique opportunities and
challenges. There are nevertheless similarities
within and between regions.

6. Expert organisations involved in PSSM


(munitions) have developed a range of tools
to measure the reduction in risk of unplanned
explosions. Tools draw on the IATG, and can be
used to quantify the damage and death or injury
that PSSM has helped to avoid. Maintaining
reduced levels of risk will depend on continued
and effective management of munition
stockpiles.
7. The national implementation of SDG
Goal 16 and Target 16.4 gives a tangible and
practical opportunity to demonstrate PSSMs
impact in terms of its measurable contribution
to reducing illicit arms flows. SDG 16 and
its associated Target 16.4 aim to achieve a
measurable reduction in illicit arms flows, which
is consistent with the rationale underpinning
PSSM partnerships.
8. The proportion of armouries and munitions
sites where diversion prevention measures
have been effectively undertaken could be a
broad indicator of PSSMs contribution to Target
16.4 at the national level. This would depend
on increased effort to maintain data on state
stockpiles and PSSM initiatives. It should also
be linked to efforts to ensure quality assurance
of PSSM and the sustainability of changes in
knowledge, practice and systems. A tangible
next step could be to pilot the approach and
share findings and lessons.

to sustainability and mitigation actions,


and provide a framework for evaluation.
Consideration of practical approaches to followup assessments and evaluation would be a
valuable area for further exploration between
PSSM stakeholders.
11. National ownership will remain central to
achieving PSSMs aims and ensuring continued
donor support. National budget allocation and
visible political support for PSSM are a clear
demonstration of national ownership, and will
be vital to retain and sustain donor confidence.
12. Longer-term national plans could be
developed in many locations, involving a
broader range of stakeholders. This could
increase sustainability and impact at the
national and international level.
13. National plans will be most effective when
they are developed in consultation with donors
and other stakeholders. Consultative planning
should consider end-states to donor assistance,
incorporating measures that will enable
sustainability when donor funding ceases.
This will strengthen partnerships and enhance
the design of international cooperation and
assistance initiatives.

9. There is scope for increased cooperation


between actors directly involved in PSSM
and stakeholders in broader arms control and
development sectors. Broadening partnership
and cooperation will be essential to measuring
PSSMs contribution to diversion prevention,
institutional reform and peace, security and
development. PSSM stakeholders should draw
on current initiatives to develop cooperation and
coordination platforms.
10. There is a growing awareness of the
need to systematically identify broader risks
to sustainability. PSSM approaches could
draw on Life Cycle Management methodology,
particularly the seven conditions for success
and sustainability. These identify risks
15

Practical Disarmament Initiative


Developing good practice for measuring the
success, effectiveness and impact of PSSM

You might also like