captioning performed by vitac >> thank you for arranging this event and managing to secure some excellent panelists and putting me under pressure as the first person to speak. as chantal noted, the arms program is one of the largest

established projects at sipry and today we have three core pillars are work the first is monitoring international arms transfers, the second is to promote transparency in international arms transfers. in today's presentation, i'll newly released data, which you can find in the sipri arms data transfer online.

>> my plans today is to appeal to those who like dragnets and just go with the facts. i guess the general headline is that we see an upwards trend in international arms transfer. so our data for the period 2007 to 201 12011 indicates a 24% e increase. but i think it is worth flagging at this stage and i'd be happy later to discuss subregion increases, in particular with regard to east africa, northeast africa, south asia.

first i'm going to switch to talk about the situation with regards to the suppliers. the headline here is really that it seems that not much has changed. the same five major suppliers continue to dominate, that is the u.s. followed by russia, germany, france and the uk. although they remain the same, their share of the international trade is declining. i guess there are some caveats there. we think that israel is probably underestimated in our rankings and accountings. outside the top ten there's a number of noneuropean suppliers that are merging as major competitors on the international arms trade. they're competing not just against each other but more established players, for example, south korea, south africa and brazil. but i think those of you who have hopefully seen the data,

china is not one of them. to the volume of chinese imports has been declining but the volume of exports has increased by about 95% between the two periods we're paccing about. it's risen to be the sixth largest exporter from 2007 to 2011 and is within touching distance of the uk. one of the main reasons for the increase is the volume of import by pac stan. china accounts for around two-thirds -- i'm sorry, pakistan accounts for around 2,000 -- in particular delivery of jf-17 combat air krachlt, naval vessels and tanks. i think it's worth stressing according to our data, china has yet to make a major breakthrough in another major recipient state. there are small volumes that a

significant impact. i thinks also worth flagging that russia is taking concerns with regards to china emerging as a potential rival into some of its markets. we've seen since 2010 efforts on the russian side to focus more as a competitor in the medium term. with regard to the picture of the recipients, the headline this year was the top five recipients are all based in asia. it's worth noting in 2011 we say major deals being concluded with states in the middle east. but when it comes to the top five, we have india there as number one accounting for around 10% of the volume of international arms imports and we believe it's likely to remain a major importer in the coming years. this delivering of aircraft, armored vehicles and artillery expected to continue. the drivers with regard to the

regional situation, pakistan, its internal conflicts and as also a desire to project power at a later distance. the promises always seem to go back a year each time we try and cover it and also of various submarines. we've seen kpe competition from european suppliers, israel emerging and of course the u.s. seeking a greater share of the ind nan market. i think one of the send at thises we note is a tendency for arms arrangements. this would account for a significant number of delivery we would record in regards to

china. the license to build up and develop an indigenous arms registry is a mixed record. china to some degree i would argue has been more successful in recent years and we've seen south korea and singapore also develop initiales. i think it's worth noting in many of these cases, the not not, of exsales, as i mengsed earlier, though many of these products will reline foreign input. while the attention with regards to delivery as been -- our data in the case, the volume of delivery during 2010 to 2011 has declined by 8%. but i think it's worth stressing this is not necessarily a result of arab.

it's mostly lick a klein of page and there's been a zeep decline in these cases. andoutside the top ten importers and is one expected to set in this feelia, too, perhaps with regard to a number of 150 new and rebuilt from the u.s. among other systems. before moving on to complete my remarks, i think i'll also wonder of rise of iraq, which has just entered the top 20 as it seeks to yore it's own forces. we've also noted in a similar regard afghan stan increasingly significant pli, too.

>> my concluding mark, there's a lot more data that is probably nor interesting than i discussed today. i think what you can find is transfers perhaps not between the largest suppliers and recipients but which may be of concern for a variety of reasons. reactive arms acquisition, in southeast asia and particularly of concern for me because elia. >> one could also identify tr trad -- whether they're appropriate. there are others one could mention in this, too. >> there are also of course arms

used conflict. kenya's use of weapons in somalia. weep identified the ply of those and determined when the order was made and in some cases the value of thos deals. i'll leave it there. thank you. >> thank you very much, paul. ma ttle you on the small arms. >> okay. i'd like to begin by thanking sipri for their invaluable contributions to the field. i can't think of a project that i've worked on in the last two years in which i haven't used the arms transfer database and, frankly, i think i would be lost without it. so keep up the good work. my presentation is based on insights we've gleend over the

course of a four-year study in authorized trading in small arms and weapons. the purpose of the study is two-fold. the first is to derive an annual estimated global dollar value for the trade in small arms, light weapons, parts accessories and ammunition bus debatably as important, if not more important, is to do a comprehensive assessment of all major sources of data on small arms and light weapons and tie ses those. this is important because it is very hard to have a meaningful discussion about policy issues concerning small arms and light weapons if you don't have good data on what's being exported, where and to whom. and what we've discovered is that this data is partial at be

best. i think i'm going to skip this slide actually in the interest of time. just list some of the sources that we assessed. obviously i don't have time to go through all of our findings today but diwant to highlight a couple of key characteristics of our understanding of the small arms trade. the first being the huge difference in our knowledge small arms transfers regionally, to, within from south mark and the pacific region is much better. it's much better documented, it much more detailed than data to most parts of the rest of the world. there are exception, there are country specific exception such sass south carolina but generally speaking the data is much smaller on these regions and in others. the same applies to the categories of weapons we

studied. for example, the data on firearms is much more robust than data on weapons ammunition. disag gated detail data is almost impossible to find for more countries. we approached dozens of governments and scoured sources and found what we believe to be fairly comprehensive data or ten or 11. so huge disparities in the data on that. and similarly for accessories, weapon sites, fire control systems, laser rang -- range devices, all very important information but anemic to say the least. there's also big differences in terms of completeness and specificity of national reporting on their transfers, even to the same mechanism. so u.n. register of conventional arms, for example. some of the reporting is very,

very good, very detail and other is very inconsistent and comparatively weak. and then finally our research allowed to us identify some trends, some improvements in transparency and to identify sit transparency could be increased. so one of the ways in which transparency is improving is more a byproduct of the change in the way we communicate and communications technology than any deliberate effort to improve state reporting on arms transfers. the proliferation of smart phones, digital cameras, video cameras when coupled with the increasing usage of online file sharing sites such as youtube has yielded some remarkably sef information, information we may not have acquired otherwise or certainly wouldn't have acquired as quickly. here's an example.

this is a screen shot from a video that appeared on youtube in january 2009. it's of a military force in venezuela. he's discussing the country's recent acquisition russia's latest system of air systems. we heard rumors for months but we couldn't confirm it and all of a sudden, voila, and there was it was on youtube. all we had to do was type in igla on the search engine. then in regards to improving

transparency, youtube alone is not going to fill in the gaps for us, regardless of what we -- how wonderful we think it is. but there are several other ways to improve transparency, many of which are fairly simple and not all that complicated. the first is more consistent and more details reporting by states to the u.n. register of conventional arms. that mechanism is quickly becoming one of the best sources of data on small arms and light weapons. the weapons not covered by sipri's arms data transfer base, which is king. while it would be great to have more of the big producers and exporters to report, the other states -- it's equally that other states report. combined the data from minor importers when analyzed togethe

nonreporting by the states that actually export their weapons. and then secondly, this is to the journalist notice audience, when appropriate and when safe, takeons you find, take pictures of the markings, take pictures of the markings that you find on crates of weapons and copy and upload shipping documents. a few clicks of the camera and an upload and you can reveal the model the date of manufacture and the conditions, which informs serviceability and like itly threat of the weapon, the country of manufacture, all incredibly important for assessing threats and arms buildups and all it takes is just probably a greater awareness amongst journalists of the need and the value of doing it. they're not sexy shots.

you're not going to win a pulitzer. the right shot could probably revolution niez is probably too strong a word but significantly improve our understanding of the arms trade. finally, for the researchers, our experience through this project and other projects is that there is vast, untapped potential sitting on government computers that some -- possibly many governments are willing to share, if prompted. and through -- oh, sorry. not leaked. all above board, redacted, properly released. i should make that clear. anyway, through the freedom of information act and picking up the phone and calling, we've gotten hundreds of record that wouldn't otherwise be available and tens of thousands on the

illicit arms trade on weapons seed in arms caches. here are some photos of weapons acquired in the process. those are iranian designations. what we confirm through the numbers is they were recently manufacture fd. and the model from the u.s. government and the british government. one of my personal favorites i threw in there because i think it's amusing is the head mounted c 5 k rocket launcher that they recovered in iraq. i think i'll conclude there but i'll be happy to take any questions that you may have. >> okay. thank you very much, matt. researchers, be careful there and don't do any kind of illicit activity. >> not advocating that. >> rachel, please.

>> i, too, want to thank sipri, not only for this panel kbu as matt said, as those of us who toil in the arms trade world know if you didn't have the sipri database, you wouldn't be able to do a lot of the work that is necessary. so, again, i look forward to devilli delving into this year's database a little more deeply. >> as we're talking about trends and where things are in terms of major exporters and importers, i think it gets people thinking about this is a multi-billion dollar trade, it's occurring all over the world. and as paul was saying, some of the countries that are the major exporters, importers raised concerns for various reasons. it's only natural to think about

the types of controls that must be in place to govern this trade. what many doesn't realize is like unlike many other major weapons categories, there really are very few global controls on the arms trade and no common standard governing the supply and transfer of conventional arms. so there are many national agreements. we could have a whole panel on different national or regional agreements. on the international arms trade, because there are no common global standards, for about the last 30 years there have been a variety of piecemeal attempts to try and establish some controls over this global trade. in particular to close the dangerous loopholes that have allowed arms to flow to human rights abusers, to terrorists, perpetuate conflicts and undermine development virtually with impugnity. so this idea of a global

standards or global treaty is actually now, put to the test really for the first time. this july states will meet in new york to negotiate a legally binding arms trade treaty, with the intend of developing the highest possible common international standard for the transfer of arms. i do want to give a little background because i have found as we get closer to july, people's interesting in the arms trade treaty is increasing but their knowledge bates is very, very low. there's a lot of misinformation of what the arms treaty is and isn't. if you could indulge me to give a little bit of explains of what this movement is about.

>> it was years in the making but the big launch was in 1995. that treaty proposed global presents concerning the export of conventional arms. and over the next decade or so these ideas were further developed by ngos and supportive governments, taking into account a lot of regional initiatives that were developing at the same time. so years of discussion outside the u.n. led to the passage of a u.n. general assembly resolution in 2006 that was entitled towards an international arms trade treaty, establishing common nt national standard for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms. the u.n. is the first toe in the water, so to speak, on this, u. and the rest rugs called for them to seek views and if if

this idea was even in august of 2008 and recommended that maybe the u.n. should dabble a little bit more. over 100 member states actually presented their views to the secretary general, which unheard of to have that high of a level of participation. the u.n. moved to the next phase, which was to develop an open ended working group that met in 2009. that open ended working group looked at the scope parameters and again the feasible of this idea. and after one year the johnson assembly again voted to begin actual negotiations on an arms trade treaty that will cull men eight in this conference in july of this year. but since 2010 the u.n. has engaged in preparatory committee meetings and these meetings held in 2010, 2011 and most recently

in february really looked at the potential elements of a treaty, the scope of a treaty, what should be included in it, the criteria that states could use to determine whether to transfer arms, the national measures that would be necessary to implement a treaty, the types of assistance that states might need to fulfill their obligations of the treaty, among many other topics. so just to give you kind of a flavor of what was discussed to consolidate all these meetings into a few stenss, tentences, i include small arms weapons, ammunition, and the parts and components necessary to make all of those weapons. the scope doesn't just include the types of weathers toin action but transfer could mean a lot of things. it could be brokering,

transshipment, you name it. any process of gaegt weapons system from a to b might be included in the scope. it it could include the pro hab igs such as genocide or crimes again hume teen. owe or here is a list things state should take into account, whether determining whether to authorize a transfer of arms. the at. it will be implemented by states at a national level. there's no super national body that's coming in and saying to states you can transfer this or you can't transfer that.

national sovereignty will remain paramount. the treaty will likely predescribe the what of should be in there but not how. that will be left up to national governments. the international arms trade we've heard is quite complicated and and twieing. >> as part of the prep come work, martio garcon -- he produced a chairman's draft paper, which some of you might have seen that will be a reference document for the treaty nogss but i want to stress this is not a treaty next, nor is it the basis for

negotiations and that's an important distinction. it includes many of the ideas that had been proposed by member states and as a result has a lot of contradictory,in clear, underdeveloped ideas, as well as things that are completely impractical or what i would say would be unnecessary. i think that's been frustrating for member states and for civil society. i believe the paper served a useful purpose. it gave us an idea of the structure of the treaty, which saves us a lot of time in july. it allows states to present all their views on an arms trade treaty and it's an important confidence building measure. when you're working in the nt national system, particularly in the u.n., it's good for states to understand that no one's prejudges the outcome, that the t tmt and -- treaty.

so where does that leave us? between now and the end of up -- okay. maybe we won't be meeting in july. i don't know what that means. >> i wouldn't interpret that as a sign. random occurrence. >> states are developing their national positions. the end goal of course is to end up in july with an arms trade treaty that's actually developing these standard and curbs the irresponsible and illegal trade. with those comments about the att, i wa about what has been raised already. paul tacked about looking at potentially troubling trends of new exports to conflict areas or to