MISSING PIECES - Inter-Parliamentary Union

ANNEX 6
ANNEX 6 FOOD FOR THOUGHT? HUMAN
SECURITY INDICATORS
The need for a robust set of human security indicators for use by governments,
donor agencies, NGOs, regional and international organisations
and others, both to evaluate and fine-tune programming, has long been
noted. The raw material for a typology of indicators has existed for some
time, particularly as the body of quantitative and qualitative information
on gun violence has steadily grown and deepened in recent years.
The HD Centre offers below a model typology of human security indicators
that draws on existing research and expertise as well as input from
many of the contributors to this volume. 1 It is not intended to be definitive
or comprehensive; indicators are flexible and should be adapted and
tailored for use in a variety of specific settings. Moreover, single indicators
rarely measure an effect well. Creating a basket of measures, each with
different limitations, provides greater confidence in the results. If used
routinely and systematically, customised indicators will greatly increase our
understanding of gun violence and its multiple impacts while improving
our understanding of “what works—and what does not”—in combating
these problems.
One particularly important usage of such a typology of indicators would
be to launch an ongoing monitoring effort of global progress in ending
gun violence, inspired by initiatives such as the Landmine Monitor. Such
scrutiny of states’ performance has already been initiated by IANSA and
the NGO collaborative Biting the Bullet, which produced reports for the
UN process on small arms, Implementing the Programme of Action: Action
by States and Civil Society. These reports, referred to as the “Red Book”,
included tables for each region and state on whether or not (Y/N) states
had implemented measures such as developing laws and procedures on
production, export, import and transit, improving stockpile management,
destroying surplus weapons, etc. The authors used responses from surveys
distributed to NGOs as well as archival information. This effort was a
useful first step, but does not provide a systematic assessment of the mag-
175