2010.12.22_Attachment_A_-_CWD_STRATEGIC_PLAN_2009-2013.doc

Attachment A

CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS DESTRUCTION STRATEGIC PLAN

2009-2013

Bureau of Political Military Affairs

Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement July 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

Executive Summary

SECTION 1: Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement

Mission and Vision Statements

SECTION 2: Definitions

SECTION 3: Situational Assessment and Key Assumptions

SECTION 4: Purpose, Goals and Objectives

SECTION 5: Execution

SECTION 6: Implementation Policies

TAB A: Country Plan Format

INTRODUCTION

This document defines terms and establishes the parameters for the allocation, prioritization, management, and accountability of conventional weapons destruction resources. Being strategic in nature, this document is not intended to be a programmatic blueprint, but rather a guide for future decision-making. This plan will achieve its purpose if the United States Government’s Conventional Weapons Destruction program is consistently effective in promoting regional stability by alleviating significant hazards to civil life in conflict- and explosive hazard-affected areas, in the process advancing humanitarian values consistent with America’s character and interests.

Advance freedom for the benefit of the American people and the international community by helping to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world composed of well-governed states that respond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread poverty, and act responsibly within the international community.

Mission Statement, U.S. Department of State

To integrate diplomacy and military power to foster a stable and secure international environment hospitable to American Values and Interests

Mission State, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs

Executive Summary Conventional Weapons Destruction is defined as a set of programs that includes humanitarian mine action, battle area clearance, clearance of explosive remnants of war, small arms and light weapons destruction (to include at-risk munitions and MANPADS), stockpile and cache reduction, and physical security and stockpile management. CWD supports the advancement of peace and security throughout the world through the Department’s first Strategic Goal, achieving peace and security, by providing a tool for humanitarian response and a means to promote regional stability by reducing the likelihood of illicit trafficking of weapons and ammunition.

The Bureau of Political Military Affairs’ Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement (PM/WRA) administers the State Department’s Conventional Weapons Destruction Program utilizing the resources of the annual Congressionally funded Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining, and Related Programs (NADR) allocation assigned to Humanitarian Demining (NADR-HD) and Small Arms/Light Weapons Destruction (SA/LW). The mission of PM/WRA is to develop policy options, implement destruction and mitigation programs and engage civil society in order to reduce the harmful worldwide effects generated by indiscriminately used, illicit and abandoned conventional weapons of war.

The United States has consistently been the world’s most generous supporter of humanitarian mine action. As of 2009 it has provided nearly $1.4 billion to this cause. Mine Action, as an “industry” has stabilized and further growth is not expected. However, humanitarian impacts will exist and continue to affect emerging democracies across the globe, especially those from unstable or unsecure weapons and munitions. Accordingly, it is now imperative that available resources are used as efficiently as possible. The United States will champion those efforts and organizations that exhibit the greatest effectiveness, financial transparency, managerial competence and demonstrated performance.

Through an extensive planning process, the program will define country-specific end-states for USG support. These end-states will reflect one or more of the below performance goals, with each goal in turn encompassing a number of country-specific objectives. These objectives will measure the program’s progress and serve as a ready scale of accountability to program evaluation:

· Protect victims of conflict.

· Protect innocent civilians from the effects of illicitly procured weapons and ammunition.

· Restore access to land and infrastructure.

· Promote conflict resolution and peace-building efforts.

· Develop host nation capacity.

· Demonstrate support for friends, allies and partners.

· Expand the funding base for conventional weapons destruction.

· Facilitate Small Arms/Light Weapons and MANPADS Destruction Efforts.

· Improve conventional munitions stockpile security and management practices.

· Prevent excess, loosely secured, or otherwise at-risk weapons and munitions from falling into the hands of terrorists, insurgents, criminals, and non-state actors.

To achieve these goals and align the program with the broader Bureau and Department objectives, the following priorities will be used. Resources will be apportioned based on these priorities:

· Countries of Greatest Humanitarian Concern.

· Humanitarian Emergency Response Capability.

· MANPADS Threat Reduction.

· Capacity Development and Operational Support.

· Expand Regional Security, strengthen friends and allies.

· Establish New Programs.

· Sustainment Support.

Implementation of this strategy requires strong, capable and committed host-nation management. Accordingly, the USG’s financial support for any activity will be conditioned on the recipient’s ability to account fully for all financial resources and to provide a clear linkage between inputs and specified, measurable outputs.

SECTION 1: Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement

Mission and Vision Statements MISSION: Develop policy options, implement destruction and mitigation programs and engage civil society in order to reduce the harmful world wide effects generated by indiscriminately used, illicit and abandoned conventional weapons of war.

VISION: A world where the use or probable use of illicit, abandoned, unsecured or indiscriminately used conventional weapons of war no longer threaten civilians.

SECTION 2: Definitions Abandoned Ordnance (AO): Ordnance that has not been used during an armed conflict, that has been left behind or dumped by a party to an armed conflict, and which is no longer under control of that party. AO may or may not have been primed, fused, armed or otherwise prepared for use.

Antipersonnel Mine: A mine primarily designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity, or contact of a person and that will incapacitate, injure, or kill one or more persons.

Antivehicle Mine: A mine primarily designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity, or contact of a vehicle.

Battle Area Clearance (BAC): The systematic and controlled clearance of dangerous areas where the explosive hazards are known not to include landmines.

Cache: A reserve supply of weapons and ammunition, usually not under the control and security of a host nation, and stored in a non-secure, expeditionary manner.

Cluster Munition: A conventional munition that is designed to disperse or release explosive submunitions from a container delivered or fired from the ground or air in a single act. Submunitions are designed to pierce armor, kill personnel, or both.

Conventional Weapons Destruction (CWD): A set of programs that includes humanitarian mine action, battle area clearance, clearance of explosive remnants of war, small arms and light weapons destruction (to include at-risk munitions and MANPADS), stockpile and cache reduction, and physical security and stockpile management.

Explosive Remnants of War (ERW): Mines, unexploded ordnance, and abandoned ordnance.

Humanitarian Demining: The set of activities that lead to the removal of mine and ERW hazards, including survey, mapping, clearance, marking, and handover of cleared land.

Humanitarian Mine Action (HMA): The set of actions or programs that include Humanitarian Demining, Mine Risk Education, and Mine Victims Assistance.

Man-Portable Air Defense System: Man-portable, normally shoulder launched, surface-to-air missiles.

Mine: A munition placed under, on, or near the ground or other surface area and designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity, or contact of a person or vehicle.

Physical Security and Stockpile Management (PSSM): Effective systems for insuring proper infrastructure and physical security practices are in place as well as proper management tools to insure inventory and accountability of weapons and ammunition.

Risk Education: Also known as Mine Risk Education (MRE). Activities designed to reduce the risk of injury from mines and ERW by raising awareness and promoting behavioral change, including public information dissemination, education and training, and community mine action liaison.

Small Arms and Light Weapons (SA/LW): There is no internationally agreed definition of SA/LW. They are man-portable weapons made or modified to military specifications for use as lethal instruments of war. Broadly speaking, small arms are designed for personal use, and light weapons are designed for use by several persons (a crew). Small arms include revolvers pistols, rifles, sub-machine guns, assault rifles, and light machine guns. Light weapons include heavy machine guns, hand-held under-barrel and mounted grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft guns, portable anti-tank guns, recoilless rifles, portable launchers of anti-tank missile and rocket systems, portable launchers of anti-aircraft missile systems, and mortars less than 100 mm. SA/LW also include the ammunition used in these weapons.

Stockpile: A reserve supply of weapons and ammunition, usually under the control and security of a host nation.

Unexploded Ordnance (UXO): Explosive ordnance that has been primed, fused, armed, or otherwise prepared for use and used (fired, dropped, launched, or projected) in an armed conflict, and should have exploded but failed to do so.

Victims Assistance: Also known as Mine Victims Assistance. Includes, but is not limited to, casualty data collection, emergency and continuing medical care, physical and psychological rehabilitation, social and economic reintegration, and laws and public policies to ensure the full and equal integration and participation of survivors, their families, and communities in society.

SECTION 3: Situational Assessment and Key Assumptions The United States’ CWD Program does not exist in isolation. Collectively, affected countries, donor nations, non governmental organizations (NGO), contractors and international organizations make up a consortium for CWD. In this regard, while mine action is a mature industry with limited opportunities for further growth, SA/LW destruction and efforts to minimize or eliminate the humanitarian impact of at-risk munitions is a burgeoning effort, with a large potential humanitarian impact that will often require quick emergency responses. This same level of emergency response will be required for battle area clearance in post conflict humanitarian operations. Due to this newer effort, the international donor community and humanitarian assistance organizations (specifically mine action organizations) will need to re-evaluate their focus and develop new strategies to address these new humanitarian threats

Donor fatigue has begun in many of the currently supported mine-affected countries. Due to their greater potential for reducing negative consequences for the international community at large, SA/LW destruction efforts are becoming a higher priority for national security and humanitarian assistance than mine action. Due to its lead market position in support for both mine action and SA/LW, the U.S. can influence future developments. Decisions that the U.S. makes regarding the location, amount and manner of financial support to the full spectrum of CWD can serve as a point of reference for other international actors, set the standard for program management and drive ever higher levels of efficiency. These decisions will have an even more pronounced impact when they are coupled with committed diplomacy and sound public engagement.

Key Assumptions and Factors that Shape the Plan:

· Mine action programs will continue, but at reduced levels of funding. Most HMA programs will be completed by 2015 with only a few countries with significant levels of contamination remaining, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Angola, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Colombia. No new countries with a serious landmine problem will emerge, and support for well-run programs will direct resources towards those mined areas that have the greatest negative impact.

· The requirements to support victim’s assistance activities will increase over time as land is cleared or other explosive threats are eliminated but a large community of survivors remains.

· Although the United States will remain the leading donor, providing as much as 25-30% of total global funding, donor fatigue will continue to affect contributions worldwide, particular in 2012 and beyond.

· SA/LW, MANPADS and Abandoned Ordnance (AO) issues will increase in importance and emphasis relative to mine action.

· The need for proper physical security, stockpile management, and/or destruction of excess, unsecure, and unstable weapons and ammunition, especially in former Soviet states and emerging democracies, will constitute a major humanitarian concern for the foreseeable future.

· The need for quick response to post conflict and catastrophic explosive events will increase without the proper emphasis on collaborative preventative measures to combat unsafe ammunition and weapons management and security practices.

· Impact analysis, economic development, and program effectiveness will play an increasingly important role in donor engagement strategies worldwide.

· Key institutions all have an important role to play including, but not limited to, NGO’s and for-profit entities. Market place behavior may at times be similar among the various actors and cross-sector consortiums will become more common.

· Critical to the success of this plan will be the existence of a sound public engagement strategy that reinforces U.S. leadership and promotes systemic reform.

SECTION 4: Purpose, Goals and Objectives

Purpose: CWD responds to the humanitarian, social, and economic effects generated by SA/LW and ERW. In doing so, it supports the Department’s Mission Statement by contributing to Strategic Goal 1 of the Department’s seven Strategic Goals, Achieving Peace and Security. Indirectly, CWD also addresses Strategic Goal 3, Investing in People; and Strategic Goal 5, Providing Humanitarian Assistance. Within the Departments Strategic Framework, CWD is part of the program area for Stabilization Operations and Security Sector Reform (1.3), specifically Destruction and Security of Conventional Weapons (Program Element 1.3.3) and Explosive Remnants of War (Program Element 1.3.4).

This activity works to minimize the human costs of conflict by both protecting conflict victims and improving the capacity of affected countries to meet their long-term requirements. CWD also promotes regional stability by providing a concrete demonstration of our nation’s commitment to advance peace and to ensure regional conflicts are contained or resolved. It is a potent tool of international engagement that can promote close, strong and effective ties with U.S. allies, friends, partners and regional organizations.

To reflect progress PM/WRA has developed performance goals. PM/WRA program managers and in-country embassy personnel will select one or more of these goals for inclusion in the USG’s CWD plan for each country. Country-specific objectives will be developed for each selected goal. These objectives will be specific and measurable, providing a meaningful way to track program accomplishments.

Performance Goals:

· Protect victims of conflict and develop favorable conditions to allow refugees and displaced persons to return to their homes and to live and work there in safety.

· Protect innocent civilians from the effects of illicitly procured weapons and ammunition through identification and destruction of such weapons and ammunition.

· Restore access to land and infrastructure so that economies may recover and people may support themselves.

· Promote conflict resolution and peace-building efforts by providing immediate, tangible benefits to parties engaged in negotiations.

· Develop host nation capacity to manage and execute conventional weapons destruction activities in a safe, effective and transparent manner.

· Demonstrate support for friends, allies and partners by working with them to develop local or regional solutions for destruction or physical security and management requirements for weapons.

· Expand the funding base for conventional weapons destruction through increased engagement with civil society, the private sector and the broader relief and development community in the U.S. Government but also internationally.

· Facilitate Small Arms/Light Weapons and MANPADS Destruction Efforts through coordinated programs and expanded access in countries of concern.

· Improve conventional munitions stockpile security and management practices through effective interagency engagement with nations possessing at risk facilities and practices.

· Prevent excess, loosely secured, or otherwise at-risk weapons and munitions from falling into the hands of terrorists, insurgents, criminals, and non-state actors through active engagement with affected nations and effective PSSM and/or destruction activities.

Country-Specific Objectives: Each of these performance goals will, in turn, have one or more country-specific objectives developed to track and measure progress towards goal accomplishment. These objectives will be developed at the country level and will be specific, measurable, achievable with program resources, results-focused and conditions-based.

Examples of country-specific objectives to track progress are as follows:

· Restore access to land and infrastructure:

Clear at least 250 kilometers of primary roads per year, ensuring safe overland transportation between all population centers of 20,000 or more.

· Facilitate Small Arms/Light Weapons and MANPADS Destruction Efforts:

Destroy excess/obsolete conventional weapons and ammunition. Demilitarize 25,000 SA/LW and 15,000 tons of 82mm rounds, the first wave of an eventual 100,000 tons to be identified for destruction.

Measuring Progress: Progress within each country program will be measured annually against the country-specific objectives. Targets set and performance relative to those targets will be reported out through the Department’s Performance Plan And Report process by the Director of Foreign Assistance. These objectives will generally reflect one or more of the following measures:

· Overall area cleared out of highly impacted areas to be cleared and/or of total land area affected;

· Number of weapons or amount (normally in tons) of ammunition destroyed;

· Number of casualties (total and reductions over time);

· Return of refugees and internally displaced persons;

· Social infrastructure returned to use(schools, hospitals, etc.);

· Number of landmine survivors assisted;

· Progress in returning economic infrastructure (roads, factories, ports, power grids, etc.) to use;

· Effective and transparent management structure built up through middle and upper management training programs;

· Ability to safely operate capabilities, including Mine-Detecting Dogs (MDD), weapons cutting machines, and other mechanical equipment where appropriate;

· Presence of capacities deemed essential to the long-term viability of a program such as training facilities, maintenance systems, etc.;

· Facilitation of regional or bilateral cooperation;

· Serves as a confidence and security building measure;

· Track the number of MANPADS, by type and serial number.

· Track the number of weapons by type destroyed.

· Track ammunition destroyed by type and ton.

· Track the performance of the QRF.

· Track the number of ammunition explosion incidents and the number of incidents and amount of funding expended.

· Track funding expended in reducing MANPADS.

SECTION 5: Execution

General: PM/WRA’s CWD Strategy represents a national response to humanitarian concerns configured so as to advance a wide range of foreign policy interests. This strategy emphasizes sound program management, with all input being tracked against established performance goals through measurable and defined country-specific objectives. This in turn provides a measure of overall program progress and supports program evaluation.

Phases of Program Execution: While allowing for some flexibility, the office will, as much as possible, follow a standardized approach to program design and execution. This approach will generally include four phases:

1. Initial Response, where the USG makes either a deliberative decision as part of the Policy Coordinating Committee (PCC) process or undertakes an emergency response to emerging conditions.

2. Capacity Building, to create and expand indigenous CWD capacity, including national-level program direction where appropriate.

3. Operational Support until such time as the conditions for a defined end-state, e.g. achievement of mine-safe status, destruction of all at risk weapons or ammunition, or having in place the indigenous capacity to reach these or other conditions-based end-states, are reached. Most countries will not receive support beyond this stage.

4. Continued Funding may be provided on an exceptional basis to countries or areas either lacking the capacity to mount a comprehensive response or where continued engagement is deemed essential by the in-country team.

Rapidity of response is the most important element in meeting emergent requirements, especially in immediate post-conflict timeframes, to minimize the human cost of conflict and to protect conflict victims. Accordingly, once an effected nation formally requests U.S. CWD assistance, the U.S. Government will strive to respond quickly to any emerging new crisis or to geopolitical developments that allow access to contaminated areas. After an initial response, either emergency or deliberative, the U.S. Department of State (often following or in conjunction with U.S. Department of Defense efforts) will work to build the capacity of affected states. Capacity development will focus on creating an indigenous capability to manage and execute a national program for either mine action, weapons destruction, or a consolidated approach to both. Such programs will enjoy U.S. operational support until such time as a conditions-based end-state is achieved, either by eliminating the most pressing humanitarian, social and economic impacts, or when that country has in place the capacity to continue operations using non-USG resources. In some exceptional cases, programs will receive continued funding even if capacity can't be built or sustained using local resources. Consideration will be given to supporting limited efforts after a defined end-state has been reached if such efforts support broader engagement strategies for the country in question.

Factors Influencing Country Selection and Support:

1. Humanitarian Need: Humanitarian concerns are the single most important factor in determining the degree of assistance that the USG will provide. USG support will flow to those programs where the greatest gains can be made with a given level of investment. Causality rates, socio-economic impacts and lost economic opportunity will figure prominently in assessing humanitarian need. Special consideration will be given to countries where US employed or US manufactured ordnance are present and poses a threat to civilians.

2. Pending or emergent threat: If the affected country possesses weapons or munitions that are improperly stored, unstable, unsecure, or otherwise at-risk, PM/WRA will act in concert with Post to bring these to the country’s attention, enumerate the pending or emergent threats, actively negotiate an agreement and quickly commence a program to either secure or destroy these at-risk items.

3. National Foreign Policy Interests: CWD is an important tool for international engagement that can augment and support other, broader USG foreign policy objectives related to regional stability, peace-building and support for allies, friends and partners. While humanitarian returns must be achieved, consideration will be given to designing and supporting programs that facilitate access and expand options in these other, worthwhile areas.

4. Program Structure, Management, Accountability and Transparency: USG resources will flow to those programs that are the most efficient in translating inputs into defined, meaningful and measurable outputs. Poorly run programs, even programs in countries with pressing humanitarian or emergent needs, will not receive strong USG support. Funds will be provided to those programs that can use them effectively to achieve clear results. The USG will minimize its association with corrupt, mismanaged or unproductive programs.

5. Demonstrated Host Nation Commitment: Affected countries have a central role in crafting solutions to the harmful effects of landmines, UXO and AO found on their territory, as well as at-risk weapons and munitions stored in their facilities. Indigenous leadership, support and cooperation will be essential if a program wishes reliable, long-term access to USG resources. Affected countries must articulate their needs and priorities, make contributions to meeting those needs, and commit themselves to management practices that are both transparent and accountable.

Program Management: Responsible authorities in affected countries will be expected to exhibit a level of commitment and progress that will insure continued USG financial support. This commitment will also demonstrate to the international community and regional partners the level of seriousness that these countries take in addressing their CWD issues.

For HMA, mine-affected countries are expected to produce a National Strategic Plan that clearly articulates a long-term vision. This document should include a description of an end-state for mine action activities, a list of prioritized activities and clear measures of both progress and performance. At a minimum, this plan should a) reflect the existence of a solid in-country management team, b) be based upon critical development documents such as a National Development Plan or similar tools used by the World Bank or the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and c) include reporting and feedback mechanisms to monitor progress and adjust the program accordingly. National work-plans of one, two or five year periods will be based upon this National Strategic Plan.

For SA/LW, due to the sensitive nature of achieving a negotiated agreement, as well as the relative short-term nature of the security or destruction tasks involved, it is unlikely that an affected country will be required to produce a full-scale National Strategic Plan along the lines of that required for a HMA program, unless there is a overabundance of at-risk weapons and munitions. At a minimum, however, the country must be genuine in its desire to destroy these at-risk items, and show concrete efforts to do so. This can be published in the negotiated agreement, or in the form of a short-range work plan agreed to by both the country and the USG. The items listed in the previous paragraph as required “at a minimum” should also be within these published documents.

PM/WRA Program Managers in consultation with the U.S. Embassy team and host nation officials are responsible for producing Country Plans. These plans will reflect both USG interests and the key points from national plans and/or negotiated agreements. Country plans will present a clear end-state for USG assistance. Country plans will include one or more of the performance goals as outlined in Section 4 above. Each goal will, in turn, contain one or more objectives that specifically measure and track performance. Programs will be evaluated based upon reported and observed progress towards achieving the stated objectives. Progress reports will be provided as dictated in contract or grant agreements (normally at a minimum quarterly) and verified by either in-country assessments or externally contracted quality assurance. Overall country performance will be evaluated annually as part of the country planning and budget formulation process. Evaluations and performance progress will be presented to the PM/WRA country plan review board. Approaches that are consistently unable to meet stated objectives will be eliminated or modified and continuous improvement will be expected. Tab A shows the format for a country plan.

Priorities and Resource Allocations:

Resources will be allocated based on the priorities set below. Activities of a higher priority are deemed to make a greater contribution to mission of the PM/WRA, PM and the Department as a whole. These priorities will serve to guide general resource allocation and to make trade-offs, when required, between different allocation options.

1. Countries of Greatest Humanitarian Concern: The USG will provide significant and sustained resources to those countries that suffer the greatest humanitarian harm or potential harm from mines, UXO, AO, and at-risk weapons and munitions. Special consideration will be given to countries where this harm has been caused by US employed or manufactured ordnance.

2. Humanitarian Emergency Response Capability: The USG will continue to supports the world’s only emergency CWD response capability in order to rapidly respond in times of crisis. Activities include:

· Deployments of the Quick Reaction Force to at-risk countries

· Active contingency response planning

3. MANPADS Threat Reduction: Through active engagement and an interagency approach, the USG will provide resources to reduce the threat posed by at-risk MANPADS in countries of interest that pose a potential national security risk.

4. Capacity Development and Operational Support: Support will be provided to moderately impacted countries with established programs, to allow them to achieve, or develop the capacity to achieve, desired end-states. Emphasis will be given to “graduating” countries from the program.

5. Expand Regional Security, strengthen friends and allies: By supporting CWD efforts through international organizations the USG strengthens its influence in those organizations/regions and works to promote regional stability. Organizations include:

· International Trust Fund (ITF) for HMA in countries in South Eastern Europe

· The Organization of American States (OAS) for HMA in Central and South America

· Regional Center on Small Arms (RECSA) for SA/LW in the Horn of Africa and Great Lakes Region of Africa

· NATO Maintenance and Supply Agency (NAMSA) and NATO Partnership for Peace (NATO PfP) for SA/LW in conjunction with NATO.

6. Establish New Programs: Dedicated support will be provided to new countries when conditions warrant in order to rapidly develop their internal capacities and demonstrate USG commitment to broader peace building and regional security efforts.

7. Sustainment Support: Consideration will be given to supporting countries that reach end-state with limited funding for possible follow-on activities in order to build upon the goodwill and rapport previously developed and allow for continued engagement.

This plan will be used to complete budget planning and country evaluation cycles. Country plans, host-country commitments, and program management practices will be reviewed against the criteria reflected in this plan. In some cases countries may not meet established criteria to remain in the program.

SECTION 6: Implementation Policies

In order to fully implement the strategy put forth in this document, a number of general management practices and funding policies are required.

1. In countries of greatest humanitarian concern, U.S. funding should remain consistent from year-to-year with no (or minimal) fluctuations.

2. Achieving USG end-state is a quality-driven, conditions based event, not necessarily a time-driven, and must reflect county-specific conditions. Program managers, in full consultation with Embassy personnel, will be expected to design country plans that achieve this end-state at the earliest possible time and with the most efficient expenditure of resources.

3. The USG will limit or eliminate support to any nation program that does not have a National Mine Action Strategic Plan or fails to show commitment to a negotiated agreement to destroy SA/LW and/or at-risk munitions.

4. The USG will limit or eliminate support to any national program that does not provide clear financial transparency to include cash flow and balance sheet reports for ALL resources and assets within the program.

5. The USG HMA program will reduce and/or eliminate support for executing organizations and NGO’s whose activities are not integrated into a National Strategic plan or work plan and which do not provide annual reports that include comprehensive financial documents reflecting ALL resources and assets available to that organization.

6. When a viable or accountable host-nation program does not exist, but the humanitarian need is great, USG funds may be provided directly to implementing agencies to achieve localized humanitarian objectives. This will occur only under exceptionally stringent conditions and agencies receiving support will have to replicate, as appropriate, the goal/objective structure found in country plans.

7. PM/WRA will have the option of using either the dedicated DoS contractor; a U.S., international or local NGO; an international agency; a host-nation government entity, or a consortium involved one or more of the above. Selection between these options will be based upon ability to execute specific program objectives and to achieve broader USG foreign policy objectives.

8. In general, but not exclusively so, the DoS contractor will be relied upon to carry out critical functions associated with building local capacity and carrying out specific tasks as required in the country plans. The intent is to ensure and enhance appropriate institution-building and technology/material transfer. U.S. based, international and/or local NGO’s will be relied upon when they offer significant comparative advantages such as access to established local networks, serve to diversify USG investments and risks, or when other capabilities are limited and/or unreliable.

9. When selecting an organization or method for program implementation, resource allocation decisions will be based upon documented local requirements, recognized organizational capabilities and a demonstrated ability to achieve the stated objectives set forth in the country plans.

10. USG funds will be provided through international organizations only:

a) when a competent host-country national authority does not exist, or

b) to mobilize broader international donations, or

c) to ensure higher levels of accountability, or

d) to work toward common improvements in coordination and efficiency, and

e) when the deliverable purchased is a broad, public good (such as a ‘safer world’)

11. Any international tender process supported in whole or in part with USG funds and conducted either by host governments or international institutions should allow free and fair access to U.S. based private firms and/or NGO’s.

12. PM/WRA will examine ways in which CWD can be more responsive and/or facilitative to mainstream economic development activities. The results of these efforts will be reflected in the development of objectives for each affected country.

Date Appvd

Conventional Weapons Destruction Country Plan

FY-XX

COUNTRY

Situation Historical Background. Only the pertinent facts that build the Conventional Weapons Destruction situation in the country.

US Interests and Equities. Foreign Policy interests and equities that the US has in the country. How Conventional Weapons Destruction relates and supports those interests and equities. Accompanying chart with what weapons treaties/international agreements the country is a party to/signed/etc.

P = Party

R = Ratified S = Signed Effectiveness of CWD Program(s) to date.

PMWRA Programs. An assessment of the Mine Action programs known in the country and their effectiveness to date, with the total dollar value if known.

Last Fiscal Year’s Implementing Mechanisms. Recap of the last FY’s Grants or Contracts, with dollar value and actions funded.

National Programs. An assessment of the Mine Action programs known in the country and their effectiveness to date, with the total dollar value if known.

End State. Concise 2-3 sentences with conditions/ events required to achieve end state.

Program Execution Intent/Impact. Impact the program will have on the country in this fiscal year with any clarification/detail of end state not included in the end state paragraph.

Goals and Objectives

Goal A. One of the Performance Goals Objective 1 (Met/Open – Choose one). Description of the Objective. If met, how it was met. If open, progress to date and remaining work/issues.

Objective 2 (Met/Open – Choose one). Description of the Objective. If met, how it was met. If open, progress to date and remaining work/issues.

Goal B. One of the Performance Goals Objective 1 (Met/Open – Choose one). Description of the Objective. If met, how it was met. If open, progress to date and remaining work/issues.

Objective 2 (Met/Open). Description of the Objective. If met, how it was met. If open, progress to date and remaining work/issues.

*OTHER GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AS NEEDED

Other Agency/Organization Actions

US Government. Either a list or description of the US Government agencies that have funded any CWD in the country, with $ value and actions funded.

Foreign Governments. Either a list or description of the foreign governments or agencies that have funded any CWD in the country, with $ value and actions funded.

Resources Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ) Language used as the narrative justification for the CBJ. Include total $ value the FY. Also include total $ value of any unfunded requirements.

Implementing Mechanisms

Contractor or Grant Name. Contract or Grant number, total $ amount, activities, end results for this year's plan, and Goal supported.

Contractor or Grant Name. Contract or Grant number, total $ amount, activities, end results for this year's plan, and Goal supported.

*OTHER IMPLEMENTING MECHANISMS AS NEEDED

Unfunded Requirements. List of resource requirements that are outside the CBJ total $ value.

Contractor or Grant Name. Contract or Grant number, total $ amount, activities, end results for this year's plan, and Goal supported.

Contractor or Grant Name. Contract or Grant number, total $ amount, activities, end results for this year's plan, and Goal supported.

*OTHER UNFUNDED REQUIREMENTS AS NEEDED

Points of Contact. Program Manager contact information and contact information for office as a whole.