To assist States with the implementation of Article 9 and Part 3 of the Technical Annex, in 2009 the then Coordinator on Generic Preventive Measures, Colonel Jean-Christophe Le Roux of France, developed a questionnaire which serves as a checklist for States to consider when they are developing procedures, guidelines or regulations on the implementation of generic preventive measures. The checklist has been reproduced in full below. It can also be found in Protocol V document CCW/P.V/CONF/2010/6/Add.1, 11 November 2010. Essentially the checklist is a tool to facilitate the implementation of generic preventive measures. While it does not have any legal status, it is hoped that the checklist will clarify various issues, establish best practises and serve to monitor and improve the implementation of generic preventive measures at the national level.
(a) Has each stage (storage, transport, handling, training, use, …) of the life cycle of munitions been defined, in terms of
(i) Normal conditions, abnormal conditions and accidental conditions of use
(b) Are quantitative reliability and safety requirements included in the specification for the entire life cycle?
(c) Is there a maximum allowable UXO rate?
(d) Have the types of targets to be engaged and scenarios of use by munitions been considered and characterized?
(e) Are the impact conditions of the munitions considered i.e. angle of impact of munitions/ type of impact surface?
(f) Has fuse sensitivity been defined in specification?
(g) Are any materials, which are forbidden by international standards or regulations, used?
(h) Which design standards shall be applied during development and production? Are they internationally recognized? If not, is there a comparison matrix between standards?
Reducing UXO sensitivity
Reducing potential civilian casualties from ERW
5. Utilisation - 5.1 Storage
5.2 Transportation and handling
6. Support - 6.1 maintenance of weapon system, munitions and packaging
6.2 In service surveillance
7. Disposal Identification
Information to other parties
8. COTS and MOTS
(a) Is the initial specification and qualification report or matrix known to the new customer and is it compliant with his own requirements?
(b) Are there some initial deviations from the initial specification?
(c) Are there some user’s documentations which define recommendation for storage, transport, handling, use, training, monitoring…?
(d) Are these recommendations applied?
(e) In case of modification, is there an analysis with justifications to determine which analysis and trials are necessary for munitions to perform again?
(f) If munitions are already in military storage for a few years, are there some guarantees, justifications (by analysis or trials) about reliability and safety?
9. Others questions for storage related to safety
List of abbreviations
(ii) Type of environmental conditions and the level to which munitions may be exposed (direct or indirect exposure i.e when integrated in weapon system),
(iii) Duration of exposure to different environmental conditions,
(iv) Configuration/ state of munitions during periods of exposure to different environmental conditions,
(v) Maximum allowable degradation during its operational lifecycle i.e. during storage, transport, handling, use with particular weapons systems …?
(vi) Is there a requirement for a specified life time?
ALARP: As Low As is Reasonably Practicable
AXO: Abandoned explosive Ordnance
BIT: Built In Test
CCW: Certain Conventional Weapons
COTS: Commercial Off The Shelf
EOD: Explosive Ordnance Disposal
ERW: Explosive Remnants of War (see definition in convention on CCW)
HCP: High Contracting Party
MOTS: Modified Off The Shelf
RFID: Radio Frequency Identification Device
UXO: Unexploded Ordnance (see definition in convention on CCW)