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

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.

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

Introduction......................................................

Setting the scene: PSSM drivers and the need to measure success, impact and effectiveness..................................................... Outputs and outcomes: framing and measuring PSSM’s contribution................. Identifying and overcoming barriers to success............................................................... Two potential approaches for measuring the effectiveness and impact of PSSM....

Conclusions and recommendations.........

Contents

3

5

8

11

12

14

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.

The meeting was the main component of a project supported by the UN Trust Facility Supporting Cooperation on Arms Regulation (UNSCAR).

Forty-five experts and stakeholders participated in the meeting, representing states providing and receiving international cooperation and assistance, regional organisations, non-governmental 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 identify potential good practice for considering and measuring success, effectiveness and impact in international cooperation and assistance in PSSM, including potential indicators.

• To promote and support dialogue and cooperation between PSSM stakeholders, as well as between regions and sub-regions engaged in PSSM.

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.

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

Introduction

3

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 PSSM’s 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.

4

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.

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

• Fifteen representatives from nine states involved in giving or receiving international cooperation and assistance in PSSM. States represented three regions.

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

• Six representatives from UN entities involved in PSSM.

WORKSHOP COMPOSITION

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

Setting the scene: PSSM drivers and the need to measure success, impact and effectiveness

5

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.

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.

Demonstrating success against measurable aims and objectives

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.

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 PSSM’s 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

implementation of international and regional political and convention commitments, particularly relating to the PoA and related sub-regional 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.

This combined set of aims is frequently shared by national authorities seeking assistance, but overlaps in priorities and aims are not always exact.

Accountability and the need to demonstrate results

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.

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 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 PSSM’s 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 marking’s 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 longer-term success depends on strong links to other areas of arms control and institutional reform.

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.’

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.

7

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.

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.

Several participants suggested that additional outputs could add value in terms of representing

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.

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.

In contexts where there are high levels of gun violence and homicide involving small arms,

Outputs and outcomes: framing and measuring PSSM’s contribution

8

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.

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.

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

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’.

Benefits and limitations of outputs as a measure of success, effectiveness and impact

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

9

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 sub-regions.

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.

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

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 end-states for donor support in PSSM, along with complementary resources and actions that would be required to ensure the sustainability of knowledge, skills and systems.

A range of cross-cutting themes emerged during the course of the meeting that were relevant to identifying and overcoming barriers to short- and 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 long-term 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

Identifying and overcoming barriers to success

11

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 people’s 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

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 longer-term 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.

Two potential approaches for measuring the effectiveness and impact of PSSM

12

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

• Follow-up evaluation assessments would typically fall outside of the timeframe of individual assistance projects.

• Assessment of the seven criteria may involve successful engagement across multiple departments or stakeholders.

• Projects may already have been designed and prioritised by donors or national authorities.

in arms flows. PSSM’s 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.

• Need for improved dialogue and coordination between multiple authorities with responsibility for different elements of state stockpiles.

• Need for improved cooperation and dialogue between national arms control authorities and stakeholders involved in implementation of SDG 16 at the national level.

Approach 2: Applying Life Cycle Management methodologies to the design, implementation and evaluation of international cooperation and assistance in PSSM

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

and activity-based, partly a result of project durations and annual donor funding cycles. There is also broad agreement that activity-based 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.

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 PSSM’s activities to date. Outputs have typically been short-term

Conclusions and recommendations

14

to sustainability and mitigation actions, and provide a framework for evaluation. Consideration of practical approaches to follow-up assessments and evaluation would be a valuable area for further exploration between PSSM stakeholders.

11. National ownership will remain central to achieving PSSM’s 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.

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 PSSM’s 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 PSSM’s 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.

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 PSSM’s 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