Skip to sidebar Skip to main

Q24.

How effective are controls over the disposal of assets, and is information on these disposals, and the proceeds of their sale, transparent?

24a. Controls

Score

SCORE: 50/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

24b. Transparency of disposal process

Score

SCORE: 25/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

24c. Transparency of financial results of disposals

Score

SCORE: 0/100

Assessor Explanation

Compare scores by country

Please view this page on a larger screen for the full stats.

Relevant comparisons

Given the legacy of communism, when all means of production and immovable properties were state-owned, the process of ownership on immovable properties has been one of the most challenging ones for Albania during the entire transition period [1].
Following the restitution of the right to private ownership on land, on dwellings and businesses [2, 3, 4], a law was adopted in 2001 that defined the concept of state property in the new context of property rights [5]. Under this law in 2003, a list of immovable properties under the administrative responsibility of the Ministry of Defence (1117 physical properties) was adopted by the government [6].
Pursuant to the Law on the Powers and Commanding Authorities of the Armed Forces, the president approves the Armed Forces Deployment Plan [7]. The immovable properties that according to the approved deployment plan are deemed redundant for the armed forces are handed over to the Ministry of Finances and Economy which decides on whether these properties will remain under government administration or will enter the privatisation procedure [8].
In the MoD, the Directorate of Management of Property and Materials (DMPM) under the General Directorate of Resource and Modernization is responsible for drafting and implementing the policies on the property management, for administering the inventory of properties, interacting with the Ministry of Finances and Economy on the privatization procedures, etc. [9]. The DMPM is also responsible for planning, classifying, managing and auctioning the surplus armament and material following the Action Plan on the Elimination of Excessive Ammunition and the Action Plan on the Main Directions for the Handling of Equipment and Materiel [9].

The MoD publishes some information on the planned disposal of the immovable properties that are removed from the MoD administration [1] and on material that is being sold through auctions [2].
However, there is little to no information about the disposal of assets and immovable properties of the Albanian Armed Forces. The information which is publically available on the websites of the MoD is largely outdated, and only focuses on tenders for selling of scrap material and information on the distribution of immovable properties is as old as 2003 and 2005, reflecting units which do not even exist to date in the Albanian Armed Forces (such as the Combined Forces Command) [3].
According to a report by the Supreme State Audit Institution, information on the distribution of assets is not updated, no unified registrar is deliberating on asset inventories, there is an overlapping of ownership of various immovable properties (property registered to different units) [4]. A 2018 SSAI report indicated that the current operational status of many assets is not reflected in official documents; for example, the air force has yet to update the availability of helicopters at its disposal (the number of available helicopters does not match what they possess on record) [5].

The incomes generated from the disposal of movable military assets are reflected in the budget statements produced by the MoD for the Ministry of Finance and Economy (MoF) [1]. However, this information is not available on the MoD or MoF website.
The latest aggregated data on financial statements available on the MoF website are from the year 2014 [2], hence information about the management of other assets and immovable properties of the MoD, in years other than 2014, is not publically available. Practically for the past five years, the public has not been able to access any information about the transferring of public assets from the MoD, to the MoI and ultimately to other subjects which might have acquisition them [3]. This points towards very little transparency about the financial management of assets and disposals of the MoD.

No information could be found (1) on whether the Ministry of Defence has formalized an internal process of overseeing and advising on asset disposals. There are some regulations in place as presented in the following that might also apply to the Defence Ministry.

A law on privatization generally allows the government to undertake privatization. Here, the respective ministers are in charge (Art. 8). According to Art. 18, the details of the privatization, the call for tenders and the closing date have to be published twice in at least two newspapers. Under Title VI, modes of controls are codified. According to Art. 38, there is a control commission, which should supervise the privatization process. Its members are mostly composed by members of the Cabinet, i.e. the Minister of Finance and Minister of Justice (2).

Moreover, Executive Decree No. 12-427 of December 16, 2012 (an amendment to Law No. 90-30) sets the terms and conditions of administration and management of public domain and private domain of the state and also regulates disposals of state property assets. Under Title II, Chapter I, Section 2, it states that sales by public auction are carried out by an ad hoc committee whose composition is fixed by an order of the respective governorate (wali). The decree might also apply to the defence sector since it only states that it does not apply to affairs regarding natural resources (Art. 2) (3), (4). In light of the powerful position of the armed forces, as outlined under previous questions, it seems unlikely that civilian authorities have the final say over assets managed under the Defence Ministry.

No information on asset disposals with regards to the defence sector could be found. There has likely been no asset disposal from the Defence Ministry in the last years (see answer 24C), which is why no information was found (1).

Generally, Executive Decree No. 12-427 of December 16, 2012, says that tenders are prepared by a Domain Department. Tenders are announced through posters and press releases at least twenty days before the date of the auction. The decree gives some indications with regards to transparency in the defence sector and suggests that asset disposals are not transparent. Art. 89 states that orders on the assignment and disuse of real estate of the private domain of the state should be issued by the Minister of Finance and published in the Official Gazette unless their provision concerns the national defence (2).

No reports could be found on the website (1) or in the media indicating that the Ministry of Defence has disposed of any assets in the last years. Thus, no information on financial results could be found either.

In recent months, newspapers reported that the Algerian government would sell state companies. No details on the companies could be found, and whether companies owned by the armed forces were included. According to newspaper reports, all important sectors, such as oil, gas, telecommunications, would not be included (2), (3). Since the Ministry of Defence has recently stated that the military industry should contribute to national economic development (4), it seems likely that the military industry is not included in the privatization considerations of the government.

There is a formalized process for public asset disposals, but it is not clear and has exemptions for defence and security assets. The inventory and disposal of public assets are regulated by the 2010 Law on Public Assets (Law 18/10 of August 6) (1). Asset disposals supposedly fall under the same legal procedures as their acquisition – the public procurement law (2). However, while military naval vessels, combat vehicles and other equipment of similar durability are considered public assets (Law 18/10, Art. 12) (1), other assets of military defence and intelligence services are excluded from the inventory of public assets “for national security reasons” and are subject to a specific inventory set up by the armed forces and intelligence services (Law 18/10, Art. 84) (1).

There is no information publicly available about the process of asset disposal.

There is little to no knowledge about the financial results of asset disposals.

The sale of assets in the private domain of the State is allowed under Art. 235 of the Civil and Commercial Code. [1] Although this was originally under the jurisdiction of Congress, it has since been delegated to the EP. The state property administration agency (AABE), a decentralised agency is charged with managing relevant authorisation of the national executive branch to dispose of various properties under the domain of the State. [2] [3] In 2018, the National Inventory of Personal Property of the State (under the AABE) was created and is aimed at establishing a unified registry for control over State assets. [4] Additionally, control is also under the jurisdiction of national agencies SIGEN and AGN during their annual audit plans. There appears to be no specific body which is responsible for asset disposal within the MoD. [5]

The disposals of state assets are known in the first instance from the presidential decree published in the official bulletin, in which the reason must be disclosed in compliance with the regulations; that is, if it is due to lack of specific affectation, improper use, underutilisation, or a state of unnecessary real estate. From there, the process is directed by the AABE, which on its website and according to Art. 87 of the Regulation [1] [2] [3] [4] indicates that the procedure must occur through a public auction in order to achieve broad participation of bidders. The current and finished auctions are observed on the reference website, which include price details, footage, photography, specifications, and conditions. However, in the finalised report there is no information about the buyer. For greater detail it is necessary to resort to the COMPR.AR platform (mandatory for national administration, with exceptions), where it is possible to access the processes of sales of state assets. There, it is possible to access more details regarding operations, such as the evaluation of offers, the awarding act, and the contractual document. Argentina also developed in 2018 a digital tool called SUBAST.AR, which is the current platform that channels the participation of those who wish to participate in the public auction processes of assets belonging to the assets of the National State. [5] However, in relation to the assets of the defence area it should be noted that in the PL there is for example a project to create a regime that regulates the sale of goods from the defence jurisdiction and that this is authorised by the National Congress. [6] [7] [8]

The financial results of the disposals are available on the COMPR.AR website, however, and in accordance with exceptions to the regulations, not all of these results are published, nor is the destination of the funds resulting from these disposals. The Armed Forces dispose of real estate throughout Argentina, but the property belongs to the National State coordinated by the AABE. The sale of these assets is authorised by decree of the EP. While this part of the process is known, all the financial results of the transfers are not easily accessible to the public. [1] In accordance with current regulations (Art. 15 Decree 1382/12), [2] the income from the sale of the State’s real estate will be affected by 70% in favor of the budgetary jurisdiction or entity in which it is registered and the remaining 30% enters the National Treasury. [3] The amount of the proceeds of the disposals, for example, in 2018, is published under the item “Sale of Goods and Services of Public Administrations,” in which the defence jurisdiction has a 30.65% stake. [4] [5] However, when looking at the sources of the budget executed in 2018 by that Ministry, it is not easy to distinguish where that source of income is used. Even in the internal audits of that year there is no evaluation in this regard. What is known is the fate of some of those lands that have been converted or are in the process of becoming natural reserves. [6] On the other hand, the State organises a public auction, for example, for the sale of disused military assets through the COMPR.AR platform. [7] [8]

Assets disposal issues are regulated by Government Decree N 882-N. It approves decisions on the disposal of assets upon the presentation of the authorized public administration agency and the conclusion of the State Property Management Department. The asset disposal is conducted through the auction, tender or direct sales. In the case of direct sales, the asset disposal decision must include information about the buyer and the price of assets disposal, payment method etc. [1]. The Law on Audit Chamber states that as the independent Audit Chamber conducts audits in the field of public finance as well as state- and community-owned property [2]. The State Property Management Law (Article 4) does not apply to the state property classified under secret works and transferred under the possession and use of state-authorized agency in the field of defence, border and civil defence, as well as national security [3]. Moreover, the Government adopted a program on State Property Management for 2018-2020, which confirms that Article 4 is not applicable for the state properties classified as secret [4]. In 2018, the State Property Management Law was amended with minor modifications not related to the issues above [5]. The newly adopted Law on Audit Chamber allows to conduct the audit in regards to state and community property, nevertheless, it does not have the clause related to assets disposal control or audit regulations.
MoD claims, that the disposals are carried out through auctions, following the relevant decisions of the Government, and as for vehicles following the Order N 1393 of 19 December 2016 of the MoD. [6]

The Audit Chamber’s annual reports and current conclusions are published on the official website of the Audit Chamber and www.azdarar.am website. Audit Chamber reports are publicly available except for the information that is classified as secret [1]. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) posts public announcements about the auction specifically of vehicles or their parts on the MoD’s website. Announcements on the disposal of the significant assets are not available [2]. On the other hand, the vice versa process of asset disposal is publicly available, to some extent. The information about asset disposal from the MoD may be available on the websites of administrative or regional districts if the corresponding asset is under the regulation of the administrative unit [3].
To regulate the disposal process, a division was set up in the Logistics Department of MoD to dispose materials that are written-off and not operational for the use by the RA Armed Forces through a relevant state-registered stock exchange, through which a free evaluation is carried out. As for the transparency of the disposal process, there is a clear policy on non-secret disposals. For example, the auction notice for sale of cars (model, year of release, technical characteristics, residual value) written-off and withdrawn from the RA Armed Forces, is posted on the RA MoD’s official website about a month before the auction and published in the Hay Zinvor (Armenian Soldier) Weekly. At the same time, the list and the residual prices of all movable property subject to disposal are published.[4].

Information about the tender, auction or direct sale and the details about the relevant conditions can be found on State Property Management Department official website; however, there is no information about the signed contracts and financial results of asset disposals [1].

There is a formal process and regulations around asset disposal, and there is an internal Directorate of Military Disposals dealing with “major” disposals, while the Department of Finance deals with property sales and other disposals [1]. The Directorate publicly reports its mandate as: being “responsible for the disposal of major Defence equipment and capability platforms”, by “plan[ning] and facilitat[ing] disposals of major items, provid[ing] a centre of expertise in the disposals domain, [and] maintain[ing] a register of interest from public organisations for the disposal of Defence major items” [2]. However, these disposal processes and regulations were criticised by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) as being “not clear or fully developed for [specialist military equipment (SME)] disposals, notwithstanding the proliferation of internal sources of guidance within Defence. In particular, Defence lacks a set of operational procedures to guide SME disposals and clearly identify roles and responsibilities across the large number of Defence stakeholders” [3]. A follow-up audit by the ANAO indicated that Defence was making “significant progress” towards implementing the recommendations of the earlier audit [4]. It is still unclear if either the Department of Finance, the Directorate of Military Disposals, or a third organisation takes responsibility for aggregating disposal database reports; and if so, these are not made publicly available [5].

While potential buyers can register their interest and receive information about military equipment disposals from the Australian Military Sales department [1], this information is not published publicly on the Department of Defence website or elsewhere [2]. A very limited amount of information is made publicly available on selected major equipment disposals for foreign governments in the biannual Australian Military Sales Catalogue [3].

The aggregated value, sale price, and cost of Defence disposals are reported annually in the Defence Annual Report and Defence Portfolio Budget Statements. This information is disaggregated by category (land, buildings, specialist military equipment, infrastructure plant and equipment, and others), but not by specific disposal [1, 2]. Except for some isolated cases where information is revealed as part of talking points by senior Defence officials and politicians [3], the financial results of individual disposals are not publicly available [4].

Within the various laws that regulate the activities of the Azerbaijani Armed Forces and other military units, privatization of military property is forbidden (1).
However, it was reported at various times that the leadership of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) privatized land and buildings illegally. While the law prohibits it, it has been attempted to carry out privatization in different ways. In 2014, the press published articles on property disputes between the MoD and the State Committee on Property Issues. The MoD has filed a lawsuit against the state committee. Thus, earlier the land and the buildings owned by the MoD was later transferred to the State Property Committee. Later, the MoD demanded that the land be withdrawn and appealed to the committee. The MoD’s appeal was not granted. Therefore, the ministry was forced to apply to the court (2); there is no information on the court’s decision.
According to media reports, during former Minister Safar Abiyev reign, most of the land plots and buildings controlled by the MoD were sold to individuals. With the consent of the MoD, this real estate was privatized by the State Property Committee. The new minister, Zakir Hasanov, considers it illegal and is trying to get them back for the MoD, taking into consideration the need of the MoD for that real estate (3).
The head of the Armed Forces Veterans NGO Dashdemir Aliyev noted in 2012 that the housing fund of the former Transcaucasian military unit in Baku and Sumqayit was four times more than the number of Azerbaijani servicemen. However, the fund was “crushed”. Therefore, the head of the Baku garrison and the head of the housing service of the MoD should be punished (4).

Information on maintenance and the disposal of property, weapons and munitions is not available (1). Planning and implementation for this is regulated by internal orders of the MoD.

The public and the parliament are not informed about the financial details and results of disposals. These results are discussed within the MoD (1).

According to interviewees, there is little disposal of assets, and therefore there is no legal and formal process of asset disposal within the Bahraini defence sector [1]. There is, however, an internal document (The Disposal Guidelines and Procedures) that departments follow when assets are internally disposed of. The document contains guidelines on how to dispose of assets, such as procedures (how to advertise, who will be responsible for signatory, where the assets will go, etc.), getting approval from higher ranks, and place of disposal-taking items out or service. In other words, asset disposal is not frequent, and when it happens, assets usually remain within the units but are not used in most cases [1, 2]. An online search did not find any information or evidence on asset disposal within the Bahraini Ministry of Defence (MoD).

There is some evidence of a process in place for asset disposals, [1, 2] however no publicly available information on the subject could be found. An online search did not find any information or evidence on asset disposal within the Bahraini Ministry of Defence (MoD).

As there is no public information or transparency of asset disposals, this indicator has been marked ‘Not Applicable’ [1, 2].

Disposals of military assets are carried out through the respective administrative wings, which aggregate and maintain a disposal database. In the Ministry of Defence, Section D-17 is responsible for creating lists of items disposed of and for floating tenders in newspapers for the disposal of items. Any audit objections relating to disposals of assets are coordinated by Wing 9 Section D-20 of the Ministry of Defence [1]. However, no official information could be obtained to confirm the existence of a coordinating body within the Ministry of Defence that aggregates disposal database reports.

Disposals of items are only known when tender notices are published [1]. There is also limited public information about the quality of tender information; in addition, the frequency of tender publications could not be ascertained.

Financial results of asset disposals are kept strictly within the respective offices and are not disclosed to the public. However, the Defence Audit Directorate conducts an annual test review of assets written off or disposed of as per Section 47(V) of the Audit Code of 1999 [1].

All disposal of assets by the Belgian Defence are performed or supervised by the sales department of the procurement devision of Belgian Defence (MRMP-SDV; Material Resources, Servide des Ventes), which is also reponsible for aggregating disposal database reports. If necessary, it is supported by the legal department (DG Jur).

Minor sales are performed by MRMP-SDV and the procedures are described on their website [1]. For major sales, the decision-making authority lies with the Minister of Defence. The Ministerial Decree of 25 June 2013 stipulates who has the decision-making authority of the sale [2].The Ministerial Decree of 31 July 2018 describes the process, its players and their responsibilities [3].

The disclosure of planned disposals depends on the type of asset. Major sales, such as weapon systems, are published on the publication websites for public procurement and are incorporated in the ‘Sales Catalogue of Defence’ (‘Verkoopscatalogus Defensie’), which is then distributed to NATO allies, EU member states and possible third countries [1, 2].

Minor sales are performed through public auctions which are advertised on the Belgian Defence website, on the publication websites for public procurement, and even on Facebook [3, 4]. Lastly, sales to local authorities or to foreign governments are not advertised [1, 5]. In all cases, specific details on sales are provided, but in the last case this information is not publicly disclosed.

The financial results of sales are included in the yearly federal budget of revenues (‘Middelenbegroting voor het begrotingsjaar xxxx; Budget des Voies et Moyends de l’Année Budgétaire xxxx), which is publicly available [1]. The revenues are publicly available, but only semi-aggregated per category.

The disposal of assets is regulated by the Rulebook on Financial and Material Management in the Ministry of Defence and Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina [1]. According to Article 14, paragraph 1, of the Rulebook prescribes that principals are obliged to organise an internal audit and execute monitoring of all their activities. In accordance with Article 216 paragraph 1, there is an obligation to produce the appropriate documentation and registering disposal of assets, in compliance with the bookkeeping regulations [1]. In the Ministry of Defence (MoD), surplus assets, weapons, ammunition and explosive ordnance are disposed of, upon the MoD’s proposal and following the approval of the BiH Presidency, through the sale (assets declared as properly functioning following control-technical tests), donation, or destruction (assets that cannot be used for maintenance and repair of other assets, and whose use would pose a danger to the health and safety of people and property) [2, 3, 4]. The MoD organised the 16th session of the Strategic Committee for Weapons, Ammunition and Explosive Ordnance, which was held on June 11, 2018, in the House of Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina (AFBiH). The session presented the results of the implementation of activities related to the process of disposing of surplus mines and explosive ordnance owned by the MoD in the period 2017-2018, the level of implementation of the projects EU STAR and SAFE-UP which are implemented in cooperation with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the OSCE Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina, EUFOR support in the implementation of the aforementioned activities, and challenges and future activities related to the aforementioned process [5]. Those actions are the responsibility of the Procurement and Logistics Sector and the Joint Staff of the AFBiH. There is the 2008 Agreement on Final Disposal of all Rights and Obligations over Movable Property that Will Continue to Serve Defence Purposes (also known as the Doboj Agreement), concluded between Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina (CoM) and governments [6]. The procedures implemented so far include demilitarisation and donation of weapons, ammunition and explosive ordnance, while sales procedure has not been implemented, which was not caused by the attitudes and actions of the entities [5].
The MoD and AFBiH disposes and controls all perspective military facilities; however, there is a problem of some of the facilities being still registered to the name of the entity of Republika Srpska. The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina decided that one facility is to be registered to the state [7]. However, this has not happened yet [8].

The disposal of assets is made only following the approval of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The information is made public [1, 2, 3].

Public calls for offers to buy assets that are being sold including details of the assets, as well as the draft contract have been published on the MoD’s website [4, 5, 6].

There may be instances of incomplete or missing information. There is no information on the effectivness of the scrutiny and independence of the process and the audit report does not look into it.

Article 107 the Rulebook on Financial and Material Management in the Ministry of Defence and Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina gives strict rules defining the preconditions for solving military assets, allowing the competent authorities to plan in advance their activities in this regard. The requirements that have to be met by the military competent authorities to sell the assets are:
1) Property that has been declared outdated or redundant by a decision;
2) Property that has been cleared and designated for sale by a decision of the competent MOF;
3) Property that expires on use or threatens to fail if it could not to be used or replaced prior to the occurrence of a fault, as well as to the property that expires the deadline and is not could be renewed;
4) Disabled animals, the inability of which is determined by professional bodies;
5) Books, maps, publications, photographs, films and the like, issued by the authorities of the Ministry or
Armed forces;
6) Wasted, secondary products obtained in repair and processing of military property, grass and
etc.; and
7) Other assets of the Ministry and OS BiH not covered by paragraph 1) to 6) of this Article, which can be sold without damages to the combat readiness of the AFBiH [7].

Article 121 of the Rulebook on Financial and Material Management in the Ministry of Defence and Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina prescribes that the selling the assets shall be performed through a public tendering procedure and that the terms and conditions of the sale are defined in the announcement/call for the sale of property through public bidding which is published in advance [8] in three daily newspapers in the territory of BiH and on the website of the MoD. Article 122 stipulates that the call for bidding, contains the following information:
a) The name of the sales organ,
b) The subject of the sale (with specifications),
c) The right to participate in a public bidding process, or information on the restriction of participation of certain natural or legal persons,
d) The amount of the deposit and the method of payment/deposit thereof,
e) Manner, time and place of bid submission, as well as time and place of a public opening offer,
f) The content of the bid,
g) The selling procedure (how the sale will take place),
h) Obligations of the buyer to whom the property was sold,
i) The manner and time of the conclusion of the contract, and,
j) other information necessary for the sale, depending on the subject of the sale [7].
The MoD has defined the surpluses of movable and immovable property that will no longer serve defence purposes and as such will be subject to handover to the competent civilian authorities. Handover of those assets has been thoroughly planned, but the handover timeframe is largely outside the MoD’s influence and depends on civilian authorities’ willingness to go through with the handover [9, 10].
Contrary to the described procedures, the practice suggests that at the 16th Session of the Strategic Committee on Weapons, Ammunition and Explosives it is only stated that the EUFOR project “Improving Arms Control Measures in Bosnia and Herzegovina” is currently preparing the implementation of the MiMES surplus and arms sales plan [11].

The public calls for offers to buy assets that are being sold state that the record of the opening of offers and the decision on the best offer will be published on the website of the MoD [1, 2, 3]. There are some records published, but it is not possible to find these records on the website of the MoD for some public calls [4].

Article 117 of the Rulebook on Financial and Material Management in the Ministry of Defence and Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina states that upon the sale of the assets, the seller must produce a record on the transfer of the property containing the following information:
a) The name of the property to be surrendered;
b) Quantity;
c) Takeover date;
d) The number of sales contracts;
e) The number of authorizations and the number of the personal ID of the person who takes over the property;
f) A statement by the buyer or his authorized person that the asset is taken in accordance with the agreement contract provisions; and
g) other necessary data [5].

The complete reports on assets disposal are available to the public based on its request and with the consent of the minister. Reports on the disposal of surplus weapons, ammunition and explosive ordnance are meant for internal use by the MoD and AFBiH, and are submitted to the BiH institutions and international organisations involved in surplus disposal projects (UNDP BiH). Information on surplus disposal actions taken is regularly published on the MoD’s website [6, 7, 8]. The reports are published after the process, with information on the received offers and the selected buyer.

All national assets in Botswana, including that of the Defence, are disposed of in terms of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Board [Cap 42:08] [1]. There is also the Defence Internal Audit Department that assists in the disposal of assets working together with the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Board [2]. The effectiveness of the controls is not tested in isolation to the security services sector. This is because when disposing of the assets the PPADB combines assets from other state institutions together with those of the security services for mass disposal [2]. The mandate to produce the asset disposal reports is vested to the PPADB in terms of the law. However, this does not prohibit the internal audit department to produce its own asset disposal reports.

The disposal of assets is regulated by the PPADB and the Regulations. The PPADB Act is founded upon transparency, accountability and fairness. The PPADB Act provides inter alia that:
(1) All activities relating to disposal of public assets shall be carried out following the rules set out in the Act, these Regulations and the guidelines [1].
(2) The provisions of these Regulations, in respect of procurement, shall apply to activities relating to the disposal of public assets, where appropriate [1].
(3) These Regulations shall not apply to public assets, which are subject to the provisions of the Public Enterprises Evaluation and Privatisation Agency [2].

For example, when disposing assets, the nature of the assets, year of manufacturer, place and time of disposal and in some cases the minimum bid amount is stated. This information depends on what is being disposed. It is important to note that the information on the sale is provided for on the PPADB website.

In the spirit of transparency, Section 99 of the PPADB Act provides inter alia that:
(1) A procuring and disposing entity shall maintain records on its disposal proceedings of contracts management for seven years from the date of a decision to terminate the disposal action, or the date of contract completion, whichever is the later, except where a contract is onging or is challenged [1]. In this case, the records shall be kept for an additional year after the completion of the contract or the settlement of the dispute, whichever is the earlier [1].
(2) The following records of a procuring and disposing entity shall be open to inspection by the competent authority during working hours-
(a) all records relating to the disposal process;
(b) all records relating to contracts management;
(c) all records of the Board or any of its committees; and
(d) any records of the Accounting Officer which relate to disposal, contracts management, disagreements with the Board or its competent committee, investigations of complaints or any other matter related to the Act or these Regulations [1].
The 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 have been consistently published with a clear demonstration on the level of transparency that the PPADB exhibits. In the last three years as demonstrated in the mentioned reports (2015-2018), the above information is available in the said reports.

The general rule in Brazilian administrative law is that public assets are not disposable, due to the predominance of public interest over any private interests. However, the Acquisitions Law 8.666/93 establishes in Article 17, the rules and guidelines for disposal, such as the need for legislative approval, or public bidding. The cases exempted from these processes are mainly related to the exchange of assets or selling between public entities [1]. The internal unit responsible for auditing these disposals is every single force’s internal control – bodies that are centralized in the Ministry of defence’s CISET (Secretary of Internal Control). However, no easily available evidence can show audits specifically in asset disposals biddings. As for the Army, it follows the established law in Law 5.651/1970, which establishes that all the funds of the disposed of assets should be incorporated to the Army Financial Fund and should be categorized separately [2].

There is no use in evaluating the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD) asset disposals, since the MoD itself has a lean structure, and the administration of single forces is almost completely separate from the MoD. When searching for the transparency of the disposal of assets in the Army, public biddings could be found on several unit’s websites [1]. The asset disposal is also compulsorily published in the Army’s Official Bulletin, in the section ‘Administrative Acts’ [2]. However, the lack of a centralized analysis of asset disposals by the MoD makes it extremely difficult for citizens to have a general and sufficiently complete idea of their level of correctness in Brazils defence.

The law establishes protocols of high complexity, generating many documents and checkpoints. Somehow effective control gets lost on the way. So the results of these actions will be available online, but not always complete, and they are not always available in a timely fashion [1, 2].

Every year the Parliament adopts the national budget including that of the defence sector. As per the provision of Article 84 of the Constitution, the Parliament passes laws, approves taxes and monitors government activity, including asset disposal (1). However, according to the UNODC (2015), and the United States Department of State (2017), access to government information is difficult (2), (3). Thus, the independence of the Parliament’s Defence and Security Committee in performing scrutiny over asset disposal is not evident, even if a member of the Defence and Security Committee (anonymous source) claims that the “government never influences the work of the committee” (4). Although the law gives power to the Parliament to control asset disposal, there is no evidence that it does it practically, as there is no report available on the scrutiny of asset disposal in the defence sector.

There is no information on asset disposal within the defence and security sector available (1), (2), (3).

The financial results of asset disposals of the defence and security sectors are not made available (1), (2).

The Ministry of State Property and Land Tenure is in charge of managing State property in Cameroon [1] [2]. But no evidence suggests controls over defence asset disposals [2] [3].

Although the Cameroon military has recently received logistics support and assistance from the Russian, Chinese and US governments in the form of “sophisticated military equipment, the latest version of heavy artillery, including missiles, aerial protection equipment, anti-aircraft missile systems, cannons, armoured vehicles, and several other types of military equipment and armaments” [1] [2] to combat Boko Haram, no evidence suggests that asset disposals, plans for asset disposals, nor their financial results, are ever published.

There is some internal knowledge within the Ministry about the disposal of assets, but there is no knowledge about the financial results of such disposals [1]. There is no information on the official website of the military or of the Ministry of State Property and Land Tenure indicating such disposals and purchases [2] [3].

The Surplus Crown Assets Act specifies the circumstances under which assets deemed surplus to requirements may be disposed of, by sale through a Crown Asset Disposal (CAD) corporation, with proceeds (minus acceptable administrative costs) going to the Treasury Board, not the Ministry disposing of the assets. [1] The internal body responsible for overseeing this is the Chief Review Service; however their last comprehensive audit of inventory management, surpluses & disposal, was in 2009. [2] Disposal of assets is, however, clearly accounted for in less comprehensive, more specific audit processes, such as the May 2018 Audit of Ammunition and Explosives Management (see Section 2.2). [3] In that audit, the Assistant Deputy Minister (Information Management) was tasked by the ADM (Review Services) to develop accurate and reconciled A&E databases, in conjunction with Strategic Joint Staff (SJS) and ADM (Materiel). Such audits are quite direct and transparent in their conclusions and recommendations, noting that “the Department’s planning efforts are currently fragmented and incomplete, which can potentially lead to procuring too much or too little inventory. Even if departmental policy were updated to require setting target inventory levels, this would not be possible without establishing substantiated A&E requirements. Inventory levels below set targets present a risk of supply shortfalls for operational requirements that could negatively impact operational readiness. Conversely, inventory levels in excess of requirements create an unnecessary redundancy in stock quantities”. [3] As Canada finishes a deployment abroad, it has a policy of applying the same conditions for disposal and environmental remediation as would apply within Canada. [4]

The process for reuse and disposal of surplus military material is laid out on the Government of Canada’s website in a specific section dedicated to surplus military material. [1] Further elaboration of this process is available through DAOD 3013-0 “Disposal of Material” which was last modified on March 27, 2018. [2] Surplus disposals are sold through the GCSurplus auction-style website. [3] However, militarised/controlled assets can only be purchased or viewed by pre-authorised buyers, which include approved foreign governments, approved collectors, and other similar entities. [4] Demilitarised assets (e.g.furniture) that is not controlled is sold to the public on the same site, but not identified as being from the DND. It is therefore impossible for a member of the public to know what DND assets, controlled or not, are for sale, much less the price they fetch. However, the highest bid for each item sold through this process is revealed after the sale has been completed, and is available to the public. [5] DND considerations and consultations have broadened for the retention, sale, or transfer of property to Indigenous groups, various levels of government, local communities, and the private sector. [6] Government planned disposals of property can miss key information, as was the case for the planned sale of Kapyong Barracks, which was ruled invalid [7] and led to a government settlement with the Manitoba Metis Federation. [8]

As proceeds of surplus assets go to the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS), the TBS tracks the financial results of disposals. [1] Because the DND is permitted by statute to retain proceeds sufficient for administrative or related costs, there is likely internal tracking of financial results, but this is not publicly available. [2] The Treasury Board requires departments to record the assessed market value of surplus goods disposed of, but not of the revenue generated. [1] According to the 2017 audit of the Financial Management Controls and Practices of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Financial Administration Act is the primary legal framework for financial management within the federal government. [3] Under this Act (section 65), Ministers are responsible for submitting records, accounts, and statements to the Receiver General when notice is received requesting them – these reports are then required, by law, to be made public within 60 days. [4] From this, it appears that, while there is a protocol for the disclosure of information, it is not an automatic process and must be triggered by a request from the TBS or the Receiver General. DND considerations and consultations have broadened for the retention, sale, or transfer of property to Indigenous groups, various levels of government, local communities, and the private sector. [5] DND financial results of disposals of real property in some cases may not be regularly publicly available, if in instances where settlements are made, [6] and if planning of environmental remediation is underway. [7]

The disposal of assets in the armed forces is regulated through the Law on Acquisitions and Disposals of Tangible and Intangible Assets and Services [1]. The law authorises the director of logistics of the army, the general director of the services of the navy, and the commander of the logistic command of the air force to dispose of movable tangible and intangible assets and enter into lease agreements (Art. 1). The disposal of assets can follow different procedures: public proposal, private proposal or bidding, and direct sale. Dismissed tangible goods must be registered in the “Inventory,” and each disposal must be registered to identify the asset, its partial and total value, the respective buyer, and other background information. In the Ministry of National Defence (MDN), the sub-secretary for the armed forces and the Division of Audit oversee the financial states, budget execution and investment. The sub-secretary presents reports in the Financial Statement [2], including active and passive assets in the institution. However, information about specific tasks undertaken to scrutinise assets is not available.

Disposals of assets through the “public proposals” mechanism are published on the army website. For each proposal, the institution designs bidding rules with detailed information on the bidding process, possible incompatibilities, dates and places, values, description of the items offered, the evaluation criteria for the acquisition, among others. Once the bidding process is completed, the resolutions are published [1, 2]. However, this process only describes the disposal of assets through public proposals. Information on disposals of assets through “private proposals” and “direct sales” is not published by any of the branches of the armed forces. This raises concerns about the transparency of the process.

Resolutions of public bindings are published on the websites of the branches of the armed forces. Resolutions specify the bidding process and the assets being sold, their value, and the buyers (if any). Resolutions are official documents signed by the director of logistics [1]. However, equivalent information for the disposal of assets through “private process” or “direct sales” is not available. The financial results of disposals are published in aggregate amounts, which does not facilitate its scrutiny [2].

There are different regulations that govern the asset disposal process which are publicly available (Law of the PRC on Protecting Military Facilities 1990, Law of the People’s Republic of China on National Defence 1997, Implementation Measures for the Law of the PRC on Protecting Military Facilities 2001, Provisions on the Management of the State-Owned Assets of the PLA 2003). In addition, the latest White Paper on Defence sets out the centralisation of asset management as one of the key areas of logistical improvements for the PLA. Asset disposal is the responsibility of the logistics structure under the CMC Logistics Support Department. [1]

There is no publicly available information on the process of planned or actual asset disposal.

There is no publicly available information on the financial results of actual asset disposal.

The disposal of assets corresponds to a procedure used by the central government to obtain income through the sale of the shares it has in various companies, in order to keep investment flows active. [1] The process of disposing of assets of the nation is regulated through Law No. 226 of 1995, [2] which develops Article 60 of the Political Constitution regarding the sale of state property and Decree No. 1082 of 2015, [3] that identifies the types of sale regulated by the Colombian state, the first is direct sale and the second through the transfer of assets to the Investment Centre (Central de Inversiones (CISA) S.A.). [4] The defence sector is regulated through a process detailed in the “Manual of administrative and accounting procedures for the management of assets of the defence ministry.” [5] It stipulates that the Ministry of Defence may use “auction instruments” or any related mechanism in regulations and in private law, which guarantees “transparency, efficiency and objective selection.” The goods can be disposed of through (i) direct sale in a sealed envelope, or (ii) in a public auction; in both cases, must be published on the Colombia Compra Eficiente – SECOP portal, together with the final specifications. [6] The list of goods and prices for sale must also be made public, and this process can be done directly or through a suitable intermediary. The Finance Directorate of the Ministry of Defence is the internal unit responsible for providing advice, supervising, and following up on the processes of sale and income from the sale of assets. It is also in charge of the administration of the physical, economic, and financial resources of the defence sector, which implies leading financial, accounting and fiscal activities, in addition to the administrative management of real estate and assets of the defence sector, consolidating the collection information for the sale of assets. [7] It is also responsible for accounting for the income from the resources resulting from the sale of these assets, which are incorporated into the National Defence Fund in a specific account called “MDN-Sale of Assets Donations.” [5] This information is published on the Ministry’s website through the financial statements, bulletins, and financial and statistical reports. With respect to asset databases, the Ministry of Defence has the Logistics-SILOG information system, which registers all operations of the sector and is integrated into the Financial Information System (IFS) of the Ministry of Treasury and Public Credit. [8]

Decree 1082 of 2015 outlines the the disposal processes of assets, either directly in closed envelope or through public auction. [1] The process includes the publication of the call, previous studies, the draft tender specifications, including the list of goods subject to the disposal process, the issuing of an administrative act opening the process, and the final specifications of sale, all of which must be published on the website of Colombia Buys Efficiently (Colombia Compra Eficiente), through the SECOP. Decree 1510 of 2013 stipulates that the specifications of assets to be sold must include a) the technical data sheet of the service good, which includes the classification of the good or service, additional identification required, unit of measure, minimum quality, minimum performance patterns; b) the price of the good or service; c) the content of each of the parts or lots. It also defines the procedure for the conduct of the auction, in which SECOP is responsible for verification of information. [2] On the website of Colombia Buys Efficiently, the publication of the assets for sale by the State are clearly listed, including the name of the entity, the code of the process, the date of upload for the documentation, the general description of the property to be disposed of, its category, and the document that supports the disposal process. [3] Therefore, SECOP I is the administrative mechanism that allows the public disclosure of such information, as it is a publicly accessible platform. Likewise, the “Manual of administrative and accounting procedures for the management of goods of the Ministry of National Defence” states that this sector will publish the list of its goods to be sold and the minimum selling price of each through the SECOP, the website of the entity, or in a journal of wide national circulation. However, there is no evidence of the publication of the assets to be disposed of on the Ministry’s website. In cases of sale, the Manual of Administrative and Accounting Procedures for the Management of Goods of the Ministry of National Defence requires publication in advance of the tender to sell an asset to be disposed. [4] This publication is not, however, on the website.

The Ministry of Defence’s website shows the publication of the Financial Statements on a monthly basis, which are available to the general public. The December 2018 report describes all accounts, profit and loss statements, and balance sheet with corresponding financial statement notes at year-end. [1] The same situation is presented with the financial statements of the different entities of the Ministry: Police, [2] Army, [3] Air Force, [4] and National Navy. [5, 6] On the website of the Ministry of Defence there is also the quarterly publication of Financial Bulletins in which the consolidated defence sector and National Police are presented. [7] It is worth noting that according to the administrative provisions in the manual of financial policies and procedures, published by the Ministry of Defence, it is recommended that entities, units, and areas coordinate in order to integrate procedures regarding budget finances, treasury and accounting, between planning offices of the different bodies of the Ministry of Defence. [8]

There is no formalized procedure for disposing of state-controlled stockpiles of arms in Côte d’Ivoire, although the country has signed and ratified the ECOWAS Convention on Small Arms (Convention de la CEDEAO sur les armes légeres et de petit calibre, leurs munitions et autres matériels connexes).

According to Article 17 of the ECOWAS Convention (Collection and Destruction):
Member States undertake to collect and/or destroy (1):
(a) weapons which constitute a surplus of national requirements or become obsolete;
(b) weapons seized;
(c) unmarked weapons;
(d) illegally held weapons;
(e) weapons collected as part of the implementation of a peace program or a voluntary weapons surrender program (1).

The Commission Nationale de Lutte contre la Prolifération et la Circulation Illicite des Armes Légeres et de Petit Calibre (ComNat-ALPC), a coordinating body that is part of the Ministry of the Interior, is tasked with the disposal of arms and ammunition (cession d’armes et de munition).

Decree No. 99-183 (February 24, 1999), which regulates the circulation of arms and ammunition in Côte d’Ivoire, explicitly excludes assets from the police and other government armed forces from its scope of application:

Art. 3 – Weapons ammunition, arms components and ammunition elements for use by the Army, the Police or any other public force, are not subject to the provisions of this decree (2).

The decommissioning, collecting and destruction of state-controlled stockpiles are in the hands of the ComNat-ALPC, which is financed by the government of Japan and works together with the ECOWAS Small Arms Project since 2015-2016. ComNat-ALPC is allocated resources from the Budget Law on an annual basis.
[The ComNat-ALPC website is hacked as of October 2018 and no information can be sourced directly from the Commission.] The goal of the ComNat-ALPC is to collect and dispose of light arms through institutional capacity building and the setting up of committees tasked with asset disposals throughout Côte d’Ivoire. The cooperation with ECOWAS is serving to harmonize legislation among the 15 Member States and to implement joint action plans given the sub-regional dimension of the arms problem. ComNat-ALPC holds regular events in which it publicly disposes of state-controlled arms, as it did with obsolete rifles in the district of Yopougon (Abidjan) on 28 January 2015. It is mainly involved in the disposal of diverted arms and ammunition by former rebel groups (3).

According to a June 2014 report by the Small Arms Survey (SAS), the government of Côte d’Ivoire needs to improve its monitoring of state-controlled arms and ammunition because the amount of illicit arms caches suggests that old and newly purchased stocks are easily diverted through loss, theft or corruption. And the scale of the diversion goes largely undetected (4).

For example, there have been several cases of the discovery of arms caches dating to the post-electoral crisis of 2010-2011 that have escaped ComNat-ALPC controls. On October 18, 2017, Jeune Afrique reported on a hidden cache of arms and ammunition found on September 27, 2017, in a district of Abidjan called Attécoubé. The Armed Forces retrieved AK-47 assault rifles, machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers, shells, false license plates, explosives and a military vehicle. The cache was traced to a guerrilla movement known as the Mouvement Guerrier pour la Dignité et la Justice en Côte d’Ivoire, a group led by Traoree Zanga and allied with the (pro-Outtara) Forces Nouvelles (FN) during the 2010-2011 civil conflict (5).

Another case widely reported by Ivorian media is the May 15, 2017, discovery of 15 tons of factory-packaged AK-47s and rocket launchers, along with ammunition in the basement of a villa owned by the Director of Protocol of NA President Guillaume Soro, a man named Soul to Soul. The incident proved some stocks are unaccounted for, thus casting doubt on the effectiveness of the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) process that expired on June 30, 2015. At that point, the Autorité de Démobilisation, de Désarmement et de Réinsertion (ADDR) had announced it had collected a total of 42,000 arms. The real number of decommissioned arms due to the DDR process is now estimated at below 20,000 arms (5).

The decommissioning and destruction of state-controlled stockpiles is nominally the task of the Commission Nationale de Lutte contre la Prolifération et la Circulation Illicite des Armes Légeres et de Petit Calibre (ComNat-ALPC). The activities of ComNat-ALPC, particularly the capacity-building workshops and the cooperation with the ECOWAS Small Arms Project, are widely publicized in Côte d’Ivoire. However, the details of the disposal of arms and ammunition are available only in highly abbreviated form. The agency, part of the Ministry of the Interior, also reports regularly about the seizure or destruction of arms and ammunition caches to the ECOWAS Small Arms Project, an EU-financed project which is being implemented by UNDP since 2015-2016 (1). ComNat-ALPC holds public events in which it disposes of state-controlled arms, as it did with obsolete rifles in the district of Yopougon (Abidjan) on January 28, 2015 (2).

There is no evidence that the disposal of arms and ammunition by ComNat-ALPC includes the disclosure of financial results. There is no evidence that either the Ministry of Defence or the Ministry of the Interior provides this type of information.

The Sales Division (Salgsafdelingen) within the Danish Ministry of Defence Acquisition and Logistics Organisation (DALO) (Forsvarsministeriets Materiel- og Indkøbsstyrelse) is the authority dealing with asset disposal. Research found that the disposal of assets is first and foremost governed by European Union legal and governance principles [1] as well as Danish national competition law [2] and state regulations concerning the management of the government accounts. The latter states that authorities should strive to make the largest possible revenue and it should be in accordance with market value [3]. Further, the DALO Sales Division have clear policies, stipulations and regulatory processes governing asset disposal [4]. As the DALO Sales Division is the authority in charge of asset disposals throughout the combine of the Ministry of Defence, the Sales Division maintains comprehensive internal cross-ministerial database reports on asset disposals (5). As mentioned below, disaggregated as well as aggregated financial information on disposals is regularly published in two public sources: in the annual reports of the Defence Command and in the defence budget as in the Finance Act [6, 7]. Controlling the Sales Division’s actions is the responsibility of a controlling section within the DALO Legal Department, and occasionally the responsibility of the Defence Internal Audit Office and Danish National Audit Office. When smaller, limited internal audits do not create cause for concern, larger audits and investigations are not initiated. Only larger reports or investigations are made public [8, 9].The Defence Internal Audit Office can itself decide to audit any area, but normally the office is asked by the Ministry of Defence, or by the Commander of DALO to audit an area within DALO, e.g. the Sales Division. The last such internal audit took place in 2018 and was followed by a legal-critical audit by the Danish National Audit Office. The Danish National Audit Office made no critical remarks [10, 11].

Minor/civilian items such as cars are auctioned to the public in open competition. This is done online through a private company and sales are thus announced online [1]. There is no publicly available information on the planned disposals of the so-called “larger and complicated” materials [2]. Such sales are made directly between DALO and the customer, while properties for sale and lease are announced on the Ministry of Defence Estate Agency website [3]. Research indicates that disposals of assets are planned carefully within DALO, and are thus known in advance within the ministry and DALO [4]. However, planned disposals of larger assets are not published on the ministry’s website in a pro-active and comprehensive manner (as is for instance is the case with planned procurements) [5], which is why information on such sales can be found in news stories [6].

The financial results of disposals are regularly published in two sources: the annual reports of the Defence Command and the defence budget as it appears in the Finance Act. Information on the allocation of this income is included (amount and account number) [1, 2], but not in an entirely disaggregated manner. The annual report of DALO does not contain details on the disposal of assets [3].

According to our sources, there are no formal policies or procedures for asset disposal. Indeed, each branch of the armed forces manages the disposal of their assets alone, which in most cases results in corruption cases for issues like the disposal of assets for personal use (1), (2), (3). Moreover, all laws related to the defence sector were surveyed, and no evidence was found for the existence of provisions regulating asset disposal (4), (5), (6).

Law no. 14 (1967) prohibits the publishing or broadcasting of any information or news about the armed forces: its formations, movements, armaments and personnel, and everything related to the military and strategic aspects unless written approval from the director of the military intelligence department has been attained (1). Therefore, even if a process of asset disposal exists, the law prohibits the publishing of any related information except that which is approved by the director of military intelligence.

No information is published about asset disposal. It is not required by the law (1), (2), (3). The publishing of any information or news pertaining to formations, movements, armaments and personnel as well as anything else that is related to the military and strategic issues is prohibited except after obtaining written approval from the director of military intelligence (4). Therefore, there is almost no knowledge in the public domain about the financial results of asset disposals. This is further exacerbated by the fact that the military budget is only available as a topline figure, so this information can be found nowhere in the national budget either (5).

There are regulations concerning the asset disposal process in the Ministry of Defence and its area of governance. The procedure is regulated in detail by the State Assets Act. [1] Assets disposal and supervision is exercised by the Centre for Defence Investment. More precisely, the Infrastructure Department of the Centre, as stipulated by the Statutes of the National Defence Investment Centre. [2] The internal audit, in turn, scrutinises the functioning of the Centre. [3]

However, the State Asset Department at the Ministry of Finance is responsible for aggregating state assets’ data.

Once a year the Ministry of Finance submits a consolidated report that covers all managers. [4] In these reports, the Ministry includes details about state assets disposal. The reports are publicly available on the Ministry’s website. [5]

Besides reporting and managing state assets, the department under the Ministry of Finance manages State Real Property Registry. [6]

The Ministry is not responsible for the accuracy and for updating the data. The provider of the data itself is responsible and the Ministry of Defence has not been actively updating their data. [7] Since 2016 there is only one item submitted in the list of asset disposal contracts. Data in the registry are considered for information and statistical purposes only. [8]

There have been specific measures taken by the Ministry of Finance to prevent corruption in the state companies and the employees of state companies have been given training and additional tasks to prevent corruption. [9]

Since the coordinating body is not part of the Ministry of Defence, score 3 was awarded.

The objects are not published on the ministry’s website, but instead, on a publicly available platform, where anyone can see the auctioned objects by the Ministry of Defence. [1] In accordance with the State Assets Act, disposal of assets is carried out by public auction, selective tender or discretionary procedure. [2] The information is published not less than two weeks before the time-limit for submission of written bids for the auction in the publication Ametlikud Teadaanded. The notice includes essential information concerning the assets, including information concerning the draft of the corresponding agreement and the accessibility of the terms of the auction.

In Ametlikud Teadaanded the results of the public auctions are made public, including the financial data. [1] More precisely, within ten days after the disposal, a notice is published. The notice includes the name of the person who acquired the assets, the price and the additional conditions. In the case of a public sale of securities to several buyers, the notice includes the names of those persons who acquired 10 percent or more of the securities sold. [2]

Act on State Budget, chpt 3, section 24:
A state agency or institution may sell, unless otherwise indicated in law or budget, chattel under its control, if it is perceived justifiable financially or purposeful. The selling will require a permission from the Government, if the value of the chattel is significant or if the selling itself is considered significant as defined in a separate Government Decree. The chattel shall not be sold with a price below its value or handed out for free, unless otherwise stated in a Government Decree.

Chpt 3, section 24 b: A state agency or institution must make sure that internal audit is purposefully organised when it comes to the actions of the agency or institution or actions that it is responsible for. These arrangements are the responsibility of the head of the agency or institution. [1]

Decree on the State Budget, chpt 10, section 72: The value of machinery, equipment, accessories and other chattel, as well as immaterial property, owned by the state and managed by a state agency or instition is significant when its current value (or bookkeeping value if the current value cannot be established) is over 1 000 000 euros. Selling of state chattel should be also considered significant when important, principled economic, cultural or comparable reasons relate to it. [2]

This also applies to the disposal of assets e.g. by detonating them (outdated ammunition). In practice, chattel sales are generally decided upon in service HQs. When it comes to the selling of used equipment to other countries the respective regulation controls this: Act on the Export of Military Equipment, and Act on the Export Controls of Dual-Use Products. [3, 4]

Such exports require evaluations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Arms Control Unit, excluding a number of countries such as the EU countries) and permissions from the Ministry of Defence or the Government. Disposals and sales of assets are recorded by e.g. bookkeeping practices and other reporting procedures within the defence administration. From the Defence Forces, the information goes to the Ministry of Defence, which administration policy section (hallintopoliittinen osasto) is responsible for the planning and development of the functions and finances of the defence administration. [5] Under this section operates, for example, the financial unit, which is responsible for preparing the plans of public financing with regard to defence, preparing of the defence budget and its execution, and supervision and reporting within the branch of administration. [6]

According to the Ministry of Defence Instruction on Defence Procurement and Conveying of Property:
The Ministry of Defence guides and supervises procurement, extraction of chattel of the Defence Forces and other significant commercial issues. HQ of the Defence Forces shall further guide and oversee procurement, extraction of chattel and other commercial matters of its sub-organisations, provide necessary instructions and ensure that relative training has been given to the personnel. [7]

Information on asset disposals is available here and there. The Ministry of Defence publishes on its website e.g. framework agreements like the one on the disposal of SER-material (electrotechnics) and scrap metal with Kuusakoski Oy. [1] SA-store (a distribution channel for outdated and damaged military clothing and equipment that is part of the Millog consortium but monetises profits directly to the Defence Forces) sells some of the equipment and also distributes information about the next auction carried out in particular places at particular times. [2, 3] Notices of auctions include details on the sale items including photos, the dates and location of sale, how to register as an auctioneer.

The Defence Forces publishes press releases about detonations on its website, for example, in August 2019 in Kittilä. [4] This information usually finds its way also to mass media. [5, 6] Therefore, planned disposals are known in advance and are published publicly, but not on a dedicated website or service. In sales, in which ‘anyone’ can be a buyer, the buyer is not pre-identified. In some cases where someone may find a use for the old equipment (e.g. for old Navy ships), potential buyers can make their interests known, and the sale is completed to the highest bidder (who may need to fulfill other requirements). [7]

The financial results of asset disposals are available here and there. SA-store sales and auction revenue is stated in the final state accounts under “Miscallaneous revenues” > “Administrative branch of the Ministry of Defence” > “Revenue from chattel sales and immaterial property royalties”. No further information is bracketed out. [1] Information on defence material exports is available on the website of the Ministry of Defence, but on a highly aggregated format. [2]

Disposal of real estate assets or property assets (equipments), and the proceeds of their sale, are supposedly overseen by several entities within the Ministry of the Armed Forces.
The Army Audit Centre (C2A)’s mandate says it is in charge of certifying the budget and expenditures of the armed forces, though it hasn’t published any open-access recommendations since its creation in 2011. [1] [2] According to an interviewee with the General Comptroller of the Armies (CGA), [4] the C2A is not involved in any financial scrutiny of the Ministry’s activities.

The General Control of the Armies (CGA) also has formal provisions by law to exert some control. According to the Defence Code, [3] it “assists the minister in charge of the armies for the direction of its ministry by checking, in all the organisms subjected to its authority or its supervision, the observance of laws, regulations and ministerial instructions as well as the timeliness of decisions and the effectiveness of results in view of the objectives set and the good use of public funds. In all these organisations, it safeguards the rights of individuals and the interests of the state”. The CGA controls the regularity and the conformity of the administrative acts of the ministry, and operates missions on a regular basis which can directly lead to the discovery of fraud (44 compliance missions were thus carried out in 8 years). As part of the monitoring of good practices, the CGA monitors anti-fraud practices. [4]

The “Mission de réalisation des actifs immobiliers de la défense” (MRAI) has 2 options: firstly to look only for the higher price because there is no public usefulness issue, and in this case there is an invitation to tender; secondly, if there is a public usefulness issue, to negotiate directly with the concerned local administration to elaborate a local development project together. In this second case, the price is sometimes just a symbolic euro because of the social quality of the project (for instance low price appartments). And in each case an authorisation of the prefect is necessary. [1]

However, the disposal of real estate assets of the Ministry of the Armed Forces enjoys a derogatory regime. Real estate asset disposals data concerning all other ministries is made available online on the Directorate of the State Real Estate (DIE) page, hosted on the Ministry of the Economy’s website. But the Ministry of the Armed Forces isn’t compelled to publish: “The real estate policy of the defence is thus based on specific legal bases inscribed in the Defence Code conferring on the Ministry of the Armed Forces autonomy of decision. Real estate projects concerning it are, for example, excluded from the labelling process provided for in the Prime Minister’s circular of 27 April 2016 on the governance of the State’s real estate policy.” [2]

In the “Certification of the State Accounts 2017” report, published in May 2018, the Cour des comptes states four reservations about the reliability and exhaustiveness of the accounts. Among these four points, reservation number 2 concerns the difficulty to assess the assets – namely tangible assets, and military stockpile – of the armies. [3]

According to general « rapporteur » of the Military Ethics Committee, [1] all of the proceeds from real estate asset transactions finance real estate expenditures for the maintenance and upgrading of the real estate assets of the Ministry of the Armed Forces. These revenues are reintegrated in the budget documents. Transactions are all traced in the records of Land Publicity, only after being processed and effective. However, it is notable that the Land Publicity Service is an administrative authority to which citizens, CSOs and the media have to make a formal request for access to information.

The Senate presented a report in 2019 that details this procedure, and presents the current assignments and the amounts expected and realised in recent years for the real estate properties that were assigned to the Ministry and from which it will collect benefits for the maintenance of its real estate stock. [2] The Ministry of the Armed Forces thus benefits from a return rate of 100% of the proceeds of sale throughout the LPM 2014-2019 period, i.e. until December 31, 2019.

There is a clear policy or regulatory process, and there is an internal unit responsible for advising or overseeing procedures, e.g., internal audits. There is a coordinating body within the ministry that is responsible for compiling disposal database reports. Information on the disposal of assets and the proceeds of their sales can be found in the annual ‘Beteiligungsbericht’ (Equity Holdings Report) [1], and more specifically in the budget of the Ministry of Defence (Einzelplan 14) [2,3]. The report of the Federal Audit Office also includes information on the disposal of assets [4]. Oversight over disposal, as well as other financial aspects within the Ministry of Defence, is provided either by the respective parliamentary committees or by the Federal Audit Office.

In terms of budget, the acquisition and sale of assets take place in accordance with the provisions of Section 63 of the Federal Budget Code (BHO) in particular [5]. According to Paragraph 2 of this provision, assets may only be sold if they are not needed for the foreseeable future to fulfill the tasks of the Federal Government. Section 63(3), Sentence 1 of the BHO also stipulates that assets may only be sold at their full value. Exceptions, such as those mentioned in the introductory budget notes under ‘Income’ in Chapter 1407 of Einzelplan 14, may be permitted in the budget on the basis of Section 63(3), Sentence 2 of the BHO or of the subordinate Administrative Regulations of the Federal Ministry of Finance (BMF) for low-value assets or for an urgent Federal interest (Section 63, Paragraph 3, Sentence 2 of the BHO) [5]. According to Section 3 of the Administrative Regulations (VV) and Section 63 of the BHO, the BMF has generally permitted exceptions, provided that the full value of the assets does not exceed EUR 25,000 in individual cases.

The legal basis for asset disposal, i.e. Section 63, Paragraph 2 of the BHO, divides Federal assets, which are assigned to the BMVg, its business area and the Bundeswehr, into immovable assets (e.g. property, real estate and possibly essential components) and movable assets (e.g. material and defence material).

The Budget Committee is involved in free-of-charge deliveries that fall within its area of ​​responsibility, pursuant to the introductory budget notes provided for Chapter 1407 of Einzelplan 14, as part of the budgetary inspection/signing by the Equipment and Strategy and Operations departments. During the budget preparation procedure and budget implementation, the Budget Committee operates with Titles 119 99 (‘Mixed income’) and 132 01 (‘Income from the sale of movable property’), which are located under ‘Administrative income’ in the same chapter. In such situations, it checks the existence of budgets and budgetary requirements. Bundeswehr assets are divided into property and real estate, material and defence material. The sale of property and real estate is subject to the regulations of the Federal Real Estate Office (BImA). This is assigned to the Federal Ministry of Finance. The designation of the properties and real estate to be sold is based on military, military-political and political criteria.

Defence material is sold in different ways. Commercial material and other armaments are sold in trust for the Bundeswehr by the federally owned company VEBEG. Since VEBEG is a trading company in the legal form of a GmbH, it has a legal accounting obligation. The corporate bodies regularly report on developments in their divestments. VEBEG also publishes hammer prices on its website following online auctions, which ensures that sales are transparent [6]. The sale of weapons of war is subject to approval by the Federal Ministry of Defence and the decisions in this regard are documented as part of the administrative processes. The sales of weapons of war and armaments are contractually processed by the BAAINBw and are recorded there. State provision of material requiring export authorisation is also shown in the arms export report of the Federal Government. The use of Bundeswehr material is regularly the subject of audits by the Federal Audit Office. As part of income generation, quarterly reports on disposals are prepared by the Federal Office for Equipment, Information Technology and Use of the Bundeswehr (BAAINBw). The ‘Budget and Controlling Division’ is informed of income/earnings on a monthly basis by the responsible department for the management of funds.

The separation and recycling of material from the Bundeswehr is governed by the Central Service Regulation A-1540/5 ‘Separation and recycling of material’, while property material (furnishing and operating equipment) is governed by the Central Service Regulation A1-1800-0/6002 ‘Property material and works of art’. Commercial operating equipment (workshop machines, landscaping equipment, tractors, etc.) is sold in trust by the federally owned company VEBEG for the Bundeswehr. The corporate bodies regularly report on developments in their divestments (responsibility lies with A III 2 and BMF as shareholders). Commercial furniture is usually sold on site by the Bundeswehr Service Centers (BwDLZ). Announcements are published or posted in the local press.

The sales revenue generated is reported to the Federal Office for Infrastructure, Environmental Protection and Services of the Bundeswehr (BAIUDBw). The BAIUDBw creates a target price list from the reported individual prices and makes this available to the BwDLZ. The income generated is recorded in Chapter 1410, Title 119 99 [3].

The free-of-charge delivery of property material takes place on request for humanitarian purposes under the leadership of the Bundeswehr Operations Command. In terms of foreign policy, these charges must be met in advance by the Federal Foreign Office. The value of the delivered material is recorded.

Real estate material that cannot be sold and is waste in the sense of the Circular Economy Act is disposed of. In accordance with the introductory budget notes provided for Chapter 1407 of Einzelplan 14, which can be found under ‘Income’, free-of-charge supplies in particular are recorded by the Budget Committee as part of the final draft budget and for the purpose of reporting to the BMF. If the coordination with or approval of the BMF is required in connection with a chargeable or unpaid levy, this takes over the lead processing of these processes if the responsibility of the budget notes or title of Chapter 1407 in Einzelplan 14 is concerned.

There are Central Official Regulations in place for the separation and recycling of material from the Bundeswehr and for the delivery of material from the Bundeswehr to locations outside the Bundeswehr (‘ZDv A-1540/4: Delivery of Material from the Bundeswehr’ and ‘ZDv A-1540/5: Disposal and Recycling’). This defines the responsibilities and procedures as well as clearances and decision-making powers.

The various forms of sale of material from the Bundeswehr are determined by the relevant authorities. They are responsible for the technical supervision of the sales that are responsible for their area. Free supplies of defence material are recorded in the ‘Budget and Controlling Division’. Paid sales are recorded in the BAAINBw and communicated to the responsible department for funds management. The technical supervision of the operational utilisation of defence material is executed in a unit within the BMVg. The BMVg’s contribution to the arms export report (state levies) is created centrally in the BMVg. In addition, material from the simplified separation and material in the material responsibility of the Infrastructure, Environment and Services department is sold by the corresponding organisational area [7].

Planned disposals are known in advance and are published publicly on the website of the Federal Real Estate Office (Bundesanstalt für Immobilienaufgaben) before a buyer has been identified [1]. Comprehensive information is published, including specific details of the items that are being sold (location, timing, type of item, etc.). In terms of upcoming conversion projects (of the German or other militaries) as well as in terms of the announcement of individual opportunities, there is a special coordination entity in the Ministry of Defence (Unit IUD I 3) that works jointly with the Federal Real Estate Office (Bundesanstalt für Immobilienaufgaben) [2] and the relevant local and state authorities to plan conversion projects but also to conduct market analyses, etc. The annual report of the Federal Real Estate Office lists these conversion projects, including detailed information on whom the asset went to and at what price. The so-called ‘Stationierungskonzept’ of 2011 specifies that, after decommissioning from military use, there must be a planning process by the local authorities to determine final civilian use by third parties [3].

Weapons of war are generally to be destroyed in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy. Exceptions for the sale of weapons of war include when selling to other countries, manufacturers or repair companies who have demonstrated a required level of reliability and experience with the relevant type of war weapon. Due to the restrictive arms export policy laid down by the Federal Government, armaments are not actively offered for sale to other countries. In the event of possible sales to industry, the companies entitled to purchase material will be contacted by the BAAINBw or the companies will express their interest to the BMVg or BAAINBw. Over-the-counter military equipment is sold by VEBEG in the form of online auctions. The location and details of items are published on the VEBEG homepage [4].

The financial results of disposals are regularly publicly available and are disaggregated. The income from sales is listed in the Federal Budget [1], in particular in Einzelplan 14 (see ‘Administrative income’, p. 69) [2]. For instance, the ‘Gesellschaft für Entwicklung, Beschaffung und Betrieb mbh (g.e.b.b.)’ is a military-owned business whose purpose is to reorganise some of the civilian functions of the Bundeswehr and the BMVg and to make them more cost-effective. This also includes asset disposals [3].

Results of disposals are reported in information that is publicly available in the Federal Law Gazette on Chapter 1407, Title 119 99 (‘Mixed income’) and Chapter 1407, Title 132 01 (‘Proceeds from the sale of moveable property’) and in the budget notes made under ‘Income’ in Chapter 1407 [2].

VEBEG also publishes hammer prices for online auctions on its website. Disposals of armaments to industry are not actively communicated. The arms export report includes the values ​​of the export permits issued by the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy [4].

The policies and procedures for the disposal of assets are outlined in section 6 of the Guidelines for Disposal of Goods and Equipment governed by the Public Procurement Act (2003). Tenders are opened by the Tender Evaluation Committee and advertised in the national dailies and other newspapers and publications. Proceeds from the assets are dealt with per the Financial Administration Act (2003), Internal Audit Agency Act (2003) and other relevant regulatory requirements. A committee consisting of three people: The head of the entity, a representative of the user-department and a senior public servant from outside the entity shall be responsible for the procedure from tender to the recording of results. According to the PPA, the authority to dispose of assets lies with the head of procurement entity (clearly defined in the act), who shall convene a Board of Survey (also defined in the act).

According to the Guidelines for Disposal of Goods and Equipment (GDGE) governed by Public Procurement Act (2003), the planned disposal of assets are advertised in the national dailies and other newspapers and publications (1), but they are not regularly published on the Ministry of Defence website. The Ghanaian government has explicitly laid out the tender process for asset disposal which is found in the GDGE, but no mention is made of specifically publishing it on the website of the said ministry. Rather, the level and importance of the asset being disposed of determines the level of publishing online or in print, which is judged by the disposal chief (1), (2).

According to the Guidelines for Disposal of Goods and Equipment (GDGE), the proceeds from sales shall be handled per the Financial Administration Act (2003), and the Internal Audit Agency Act (2003). The revenue from disposals are comprehensively recorded within the ministry, but they are not regularly released to the public (1), (2).

There is a clear policy on the disposal of assets. There is legislation describing the process and conditions of the disposal of assets to foreign countries: Articles 15-18 of the Approval of the issuance of the General Regulation for the Utilisation of Movable Assets of the Ministry of National Defence [1]. For example, In 2017, the Ministry of National Defence came to an agreement with Saudi Arabia to sell 300,000 pieces of ammunition. However, the then minister Panos Kammenos allegedly reached a deal with a Greek businessman claiming to represent Saudi Arabia. The use of middlemen is prohibited by Greek anti-corruption law [2, 3].
The Internal Affairs Agency is authorised to investigate or audit disposal procedures, if the relevant contracts are considered as of major importance. [4]

Planned disposals are published publicly on the ministry’s website, however not regularly [1, 2, 3]. When the MoD does publish planned disposals, there is relevant information for those who express interest.
Moreover, MoD website contains portfolio of available real estates [4].
However, the country’s armed forces only rarely dispose assets to generate cash.

There is little knowledge of the financial results of asset disposals [1]. However, Law 4994/2017 states that any financial gains from the disposal of assets must be returned to the respective armed service of the MoD [2].

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has a database on the assets and distribution of military surplus, managed by a department that is responsible for the assessment management [1]. The process of disposal is set in Ministerial Order 24/2017 [2]. The surplus is registered in the so-called IK32 database. Selling of the surplus is only possible through the process defined in the order. Before selling, an independent evaluator or a commission has to decide on the price of the surplus. In most cases selling is outsourced to the Ministry of Defence Electronics, Logistics and Property Management Private Company [3] (short: HM EI Zrt, owned in 100% by the ministry) due to the decision of an internal coordinating body.

Information on planned disposals is not always published on the ministry’s website. Navigation on the website is extremely difficult, it does not follow logically and important calls not always published under the same subpage. However, we could find aggregated information on the sale of disposals [1] The document suggests in most cases companies owned by the ministry are the buyers; however, their purchases could not be linked by their further sales and disposals that should be published on their website as well (Hm EI, CURRUS). Furthermore, HM EI Zrt also not publishing every call and result on its website as both the number and numbering of documents suggest [2]. Another major company (CURRUS) of the ministry claims to sell disposals, but the relevant page is not functioning, although list published by the government suggest that they sell disposals [3].

Financial results of the public procurement notices are publicly available on the website of the HM EI Zrt, that is responsible for selling assets as of July 2012. As of 2000, the Hungarian Army has no right to execute business activities. Despite this announcement disposal contracts suggest a different reality [1]. There is limited income from property lease contracts and disposals, but the use of these incomes is legally binding [2]. All income from asset disposal has to be spent on procuring new assets. The overall records of HM EI Zrt are public, as well as the results of the procurement notices, with very limited information, that mainly contains information on the buyer, but no information on the price [3].The transparency of the surplus distribution is limited [4], and the quality of scanning potential buyers was questioned recently due to a scandal [5].

The Army and Air Force (Disposal of Private Property) Act,1950, outlines measures for controls over the disposal of assets of those personnel who are subject to the Army Act, 1950 or the Air Force Act, 1950 [1].

In 2000, both Houses passed the Army & Air Force Disposal of Private Property Amendment Bill, 2000 and the Amendment Act was brought into force [2][3]. Indian Air Force asset disposal is carried out by a government agency, MSTC Ltd. The disposals take place through auctions for which tenders are called for [4].

There have been reports in the past of disposed assets such as assault rifles having components re-assembled and illicitly sold [5].

There is little information publicly available about the process of asset disposal. A case of Army officers selling illegal Non-Service Pattern (NSP) weapons to Arms Dealers was reported in 2014. An Army Court of Inquiry carried out a detailed investigation regarding the role of 140 persons, including retired officers, lady wives and civilians. After investigation, the Court of Inquiry found 72 officers and 01 Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) blameworthy. A revised Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on sale/disposal of Non Standard Pattern (NSP) weapons was issued to prevent recurrence of such activity [1].

As alluded to above, Indian Air Force asset disposal is carried out by a government agency, MSTC Ltd. The disposals take place through auctions for which tenders are called for. The accounts on sales are open to internal and external scrutiny [2].

There is limited information available publicly on the proceeds of all disposals. There is some information found in CAG audit reports on asset disposals but not much else otherwise [1][2]. An illustration of this is: in the Navy and Coast Guard Report No.20 of 2017, information on disposal of inventory was given. The data provided was the year, Material Organisation (MO) location, number of items disposed and the value realised. The date range was from 2010 to 2016 [3].

The disposal of assets is regulated in Minister of Defence Regulation No. 18/2017 [1], which was issued in compliance with Minister of Finance Regulation No.83/PMK.06/2016 concerning Procedures for the Disposal and Removal of State Property [2]. This Minister of Defence Regulation stipulates the procedures for the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the removal of goods, including weapons systems, by users in accordance with the hierarchy of organisation, from the level of the Ministry of Defence, TNI Headquarters and Forces Headquarters down to the lowest level of work units. Different officials are assigned to different levels: officials appointed by the commander and chiefs of staff are referred to as PPB-EI, heads of the General Bureau of the Secretariat General of the Ministry of Defence are referred to as PPB-W and commandants/heads of work units are referred to as PPB. The procedure for the removal of goods begins with the user submitting an application for disposal of state property (Barang Milik Negara/BMN) to the manager of the goods, namely the Minister of Finance. PPB-EI have the authority to regulate, approve or reject the proposed disposal/removal of BMN, to carry out disposal/removal and to supervise and control. PPB-W carry out the submission of proposals, as well as the implementation, supervision and control of the BMN under its management. PPB are authorised to prepare complete documents for requests for disposal/removal, submit applications and carry out disposal/removal. Although it is not governed under the same regulation, the Ministry of Defence Worthiness Centre (Pusat Kelaikan/Puslaik) has the authority to submit a feasibility statement as an assessment in the removal of defence material and equipment [3]. Article 15 of Minister of Defence Regulation No. 18/2017 explains that the disposal of goods can be conducted in seven ways, including transfer [1]. Article 22 further explains that the transfer can be carried out in the form of sale by auction, without auction or grant. Property users carry out the disposal following approval from the Ministry of Finance and submit a report no later than one month after the decision on the disposal. Changes to the list of state property as a result of transfer must be included in the semesterly and annual BMN reports. Monitoring and evaluation functions are carried out by each official user of goods and can be done in coordination and cooperation with three institutions: the State Wealth Service and Auction Office, the regional office and the headquarters of the Directorate General of State Assets Management of the Ministry of Finance. This monitoring can be carried out regularly or at any time deemed necessary.

The disposal of state property other than land and/or buildings in the Ministry of Defence and Indonesian National Defence Forces can be completed in seven ways, including by resale through auction [1]. The auction is conducted by the Ministry of Finance’s Office of State Assets and Auction Services (Kantor Pelayanan Kekayaan Negara dan Lelang/KPKNL) [2]. The auction announcement is published on the website auction.go.id [3]. In these instances, details including location, time and type of item are published [3]. One interviewee said there had been an auction for items in the defence equipment category [2] but declined to provide further information. A quick search on the internet failed to find information to support this.

Property users that conduct disposal of assets must submit a report to the manager of the goods, i.e. the Ministry of Finance, no later than one month after the decision on disposal [1]. Changes to the list of state property as a result of the transfer must be included in the semesterly and annual BMN reports. Financial reports on the disposal of state property in the Ministry of Defence/TNI are not made publicly accessible. The final information regarding changes in state assets caused by depreciation or removal can be found in aggregate in the central government financial statements [2], which are publicly accessible.

There is a formal process for asset disposal. It’s set down in the Law Establishing the Organisation of the Collection and Selling Property to the Islamic Consultative Assembly [1]. No evidence was found of an internal unit responsible for advising or overseeing the procedures [1]. The management and disposal of assets is quite a controversial issue in Iran because confiscation of assets is outside the control of the government and in the direct control of the supreme leader [2].

Planned disposals are published on the Organisation for Collection and Sale of State-owned Properties of Iran (OCSSPI) website [1]. Information published, including specific details on the items that are being sold [2].

It seems the results are not made available to the public, but the price of each item sold is advertised in advance on the Organisation for Collection and Sale of State-Owned Properties of Iran website [1]. It is not clear whether these are recorded within the ministry [1].

As Article 27 of Iraq’s Constitution (1) affirms, state assets that are deemed public property are defined as ‘sacrosanct’, notwithstanding military assets are ineffectively managed as the existence of numerous weapons caches that litter the country evidence (2). Article 27 states that the management/disposal of military assets must satisfy existing Iraqi laws. One of these is ‘The Public Procurement, Sale and Lease Law of 1981 (N. 32) which specifies an important requirement for the disposal of assets; public auction, allowing the materials and equipment being disposed of to be sold to the highest bidder. Each ministry studies the assets in its custody to determine what to dispose of. While principles and proposals exist, no strong evidence points to the existence of a formalised or centralised regulatory framework. Instead, each ministry handles its own specific procurement needs, through the establishment of internal committees, to evaluate prospective deals involving arms or the public auction of surplus materials, which a special committee must first approve. As one article identifies (3), Baghdad appears to have its own ‘Parliamentary Audit Committee’, but their efforts have fallen short on clamping down on dubious defence deals. Given that powers of purchase and powers to authorise the disposal of surplus weapons are decentralised, formal checks and balances are unlikely to exist. If anything, many of the U.S. assets supplied to Iraq’s army and tribal fighters, as analysts note, have found their way onto the black market or in the hands of terrorists and non-state actors (4).

The MoD website has an entire section dedicated to ‘Contracts and Tenders’, but the page is void of information concerning asset disposal (1). While the power to dispose of surplus equipment lies with the Ministry’s Directorate of Contracts & Tenders jurisdiction, the GoI’s defence platforms fail to make the disposal process transparent. The enduring weakness is defined by the absence of a centralised procurement management entity, as the Guide (2) evidences in its discussion of extant Iraqi laws. This figure is not indicative of transparency of disposal processes in Iraq. Given that opacity better defines disposal procedures in Iraq, and the absence of coverage or officially issued statements, the latter weighed heavily in the score selection for the presented sub-indicator.

In absence of local coverage of the auction of disused defence goods and fixed assets, the financial proceeds are not readily available online. The Legal Guide (1) drawn upon, provides a rounded figure of the proceeds from the year 2015 of 83.05 bn Iraqi Dinars. These figures, though not cited, are obtainable from the MoF, charged with the responsibility of reporting “proceeds from fixed assets disposal in the monthly and annual, financial statements”, which it, in turn, hands over to the CoR (1).

The MOD is legally bound to handle procurement in accordance with the Mandatory Tender Law – 5752-1992 (1) and the Mandatory Tender Regulations (Defence Establishment Contracts) 5753-1993 (2), as well as several additional regulations relating to various aspects of the defense procurement process. In accordance with these laws and regulations, there are two possible procedures for the disposal of IDF assets: (A) A public tender, publicized by several channels of communication and run according to the Mandatory Tender Regulations (Defense Establishment Contracts) 5753-1993. Exemption from these tenders, with regard to surplus sales, is usually granted in cases of classified equipment (see regulation 3(29) to the Mandatory Tender Regulations (Defence Establishment Contracts) 5753-1993); (B) Negotiations (this procedure for asset disposal is used only for the disposal fighting equipment). Negotiations are held according to certain pre-determined conditions, in accordance with the regulations and instructions of the MOD. Furthermore, there are several units responsible for advising or overseeing the said procedures: an internal accountant who reports directly to the Ministry of Finance; an internal legal counsel who is professionally subordinate to the Ministry of Justice; an internal comptroller who reports directly to the Minister of Defense. The ministry as a whole is subject to the supervision of State Comptroller, who reports directly to the Knesset (the Israeli parliament). The Ministry of Defence also provides simplified information on the process on its website. (3) (4)

Unless an exemption from tender has been granted, equipment sales are published to the public, and their publication includes specifications on the items that are being sold (location, timing, type of items etc.), with these tenders publishe don the Ministry of Defence’s e-commerce site (1). The department of defence export in the MOD (SIBAT) is in charge of publicizing said information on different communication channels, in Israel and abroad, and in parallel for making that information known also to potential buyers. For equipment sales that have been exempt from tender due to national security reasons, no details are released the disposal process (2).

The financial results of disposals are generally accessible to oversight institutions but not to the public (1). The MOD is legally bound to handle procurement in accordance with several laws and regulations, according to those regulations, the publication of financial results of disposals including specifications on items that are being sold (location, timing, type of items etc.) is only possible when the procurement and/or disposal financial results are not classified. Also information regarding the income of the MOD (which is partly derived of the income from asset disposal) is reported on in the annual report regarding implementation of the MOD’s budget, which is signed by the head accountant of the MOD and issued to the State Comptroller and to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee (2). However, there is no centralised and disaggregated publication of the financial results of asset disposals.

The dismissal of assets owned by the State and its administrations is updated in the annual budgetary law. In particular, law 145/2018, that is the 2019 budgetary law, defined a three-year national plan for the dismissal of public assets (art. 1.422) [1]. Art. 1.423.b of the same law specifically refers to the dismissal of the assets of the Ministry of Defence that are not used by the Ministry, to be identified in agreement with the national agency for public assets (Agenzia del demanio). The three-year plan has been further delineated by Decree of the President of Ministers of 10 July 2019 [2]. All aspects related to assets of the Ministry of Defence are managed by the Ministry’s Directorate for works and assets (Direzione dei lavori e del demanio, GENIODIFE) that is also responsible for the management of assets inventory and disposal reports [3]. The list of all assets owned by the Ministry of Defence are published on the website of the Ministry of Economy and Finance [4]. The list of assets that can be dismissed are published on the Official Gazette and recalled on the website of the Ministry of Defence, and are divided between valuable properties [5] and residential properties [6].

The procedure that GENIODIFE has to follow for the sale of valuable assets is available on the website of the Ministry of Defence [1]. Specific information on the asset to be sold is published before a buyer is identified. The procedure foresees the publication of open auctions on the website on the Notary, where, for each asset, one can find detailed information on the asset to be sold, like type of assets, description, location, minimum price and timing [2]. The dismissal of non-residential properties is sped-up by the activity of an ad hoc Task Force created in 2014 [3]. On its webpage it is possible to access all available information on dismissed assets [4].

Financial results of auctions for both open auction and pre-emption auctions for residential [1] and valuable properties [2] are published every year in disaggregated terms. Moreover, on the same webpages, it is also possible to access data on gains of the administration deriving from auctions, aggregated per armed forces.

The evidence indicates that there is a clear regulatory process for the disposal of assets, as well as an internal audit. However, the regulatory process is not fully transparent. A University Professor familiar with Japanese accounting rules, who has published many academic articles about defence procurement in Japan, said at interview that old weapons that are out of use have probably been registered as assets and their disposal is probably registered according to proper procedure, but that this process has not been made public. [1] The Board of Audit discussed an example of the disposal of assets by the Ministry of Defence in its audit of the government accounts for 2015. [2] According to this audit report, the core rules for the administration of the assets of the Ministry are found under “Regulation for the Handling of Government Assets under the Jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence”. [3] The Director of the Facilities Construction and Procurement Division of the Bureau of Defence Buildup Planning has the overall responsibility for the administration of government assets under the jurisdiction of the Ministry. [4] Eleven institutions, including the staff led by the chief of staff of each service branch, have the authority to administer government assets (according to the appendix to the regulation). All government assets, including movable property such as defence equipment as well as fixed property, are to be registered in the ledger of national assets. [5] Disposal is to be registered in this ledger. [3] Article 22 of the Regulation contains criteria for ending the classification of an asset as an administrative asset. Non-administrative property can be transferred or sold to persons not representing the state (articles 23 and 24), and if sold, the income from its sale will enter the national treasury under administration of the Ministry of Finance. [5] The Minister of Defence may request audits of the management of government assets. [3] There is to be an internal audit in the Ministry of Defence each year, and its results are to be reported to the Minister of Defence. [6] More information on the internal audit was not found in a search of the website of the Ministry of Defence, [7] nor in a search of the mainstream newspapers Asahi Shimbun [8] and Yomiuri Shimbun. [9]

A search of the websites of the mainstream newspapers Asahi [1] and Yomiuri, [2] of the Ministry of Defence, [3] and of several regional SDF procurement centers, [4] did not locate any announcement of planned disposals.

The process of disposal follows rules that are found on the Ministry of Defence homepage, but the financial results of each case of a disposal are not made public (see Q24A). The Government of Japan publishes a disaggregated settlement of accounts that shows income and expenditure. [1] The settlement of accounts for 2017 shows that the Ministry of Defence generated an income of about 49 billion yen, which is less than 1% of the expenditure of the same ministry. The list of incomes from the Ministry of Defence also includes the items sales of government assets and sales of equipment. [2]

In relation to defence assets disposal, there seems to be no clear formalised process in Jordan. In sectors other than defence, there seems to be little oversight and control by the legislative authority in the country, particularly in relation to assets in transport, communications, tourism, water, aviation, electricity, mining and phosphates [1]. However, the defence budget does not include anything related to the disposal of defence assets [2]. Research into parliamentary news and news of parliamentary committees, as well as other oversight entities, shows that there is no evidence of any information related to defence assets, whether in relation to acquisition or disposal [3, 4, 5]. There is no evidence of the existence of a formalised clear policy for defence assets disposal [6,7].

Information about assets disposal within the civil ministries as well as the military are published online on the websites and in newspapers. However, it is hard to get information about who assets were sold to and how much they were sold for. As explained in the previous sub-indicator, there is no clear process for the disposal of assets within the defence sector, and publicly available defence budgets do not include anything related to asset disposal [1]. There might be some information available through the media on the actual sale or disposal of some defence assets, yet this coverage does not include any information about the actual process itself or about how sale deals were concluded [2, 3, 4]. There is no formalised clear process for asset disposal and, moreover, there is also no information publicly available about the process itself [5,6].

There is very little information available about the financial results of defence asset disposals, other than those available through the media [1, 2, 3]. Media reporting sometimes provides details about the financial results of sales of old military equipment or lightweight military equipment sold to other governments. However, the annual financial report issued by the Ministry of Finance, includes nothing on governmental income achieved through the Ministry of Defence [4]. The 2017 final accounts, released in March 2018, do not include any mention of income through the defence sector. In fact, there is a line within the accounts that specifies general Government income through the sale of services and goods, but none of the breakdowns for this is related to defence. There is little knowledge about the disposal of assets within the defence sector in general, let alone information about financial results of asset disposals.

Like all ministries and state corporations, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the Kenya Defence Forces are governed by The Public Procurement and Assets Disposal Act (PPADA) of 2015 [1] and the PPADA Regulations of 2020. [2] Section XIV of PPADA Regulations outlines regulations for disposal of assets for all public entities, including disposal of classified items, which national institutions like the defence sector handles. The Act has been developed in line with requirements of Article 227 of the Constitution of Kenya provides for a procurement and asset disposal system that is fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective. [3] In addition, under The National Treasury there is the Directorate of Portfolio Management which is the custodian of an inventory of national government assests and liabilities. [4]

The Directorate is also responsible for developing policies, guidlines and regulations on asset management. The National Treasury is responsible for preparing and consolidating a register of Assets and Liabilities of all state corporations which in turn it reports to Parliament. [5] This followed recent approval of Guidelines on Assets and Liabilities Management in the public sector earlier in 2020. The guidelines intend to utilise existing legal and institutional frameworks such as PPADA Act as well institutions such as Public Procurement Regulatory Authority, the National Treasury, Cabinet Secretaries among other to enforce the regulations. In October 2020, National Treasury re-issued a circular that had required all ministries and state corporations including MOD and KDF to prepare and submit their Assets and Libailities registers using templates provided to National Treasury by May 30 2020. [6]

According to templates provided in the guidelines, submissions are required to have record assets and as well as disposal details. Although the MOD also has an independent Internal Audit Division that controls asset management including acquisiton and disposal, there is limited information to indicate whether MOD and KDF have complied with these reqests. [7]

The Public Procurement and Assets Disposal Act (PPADA), 2020, provides clear regulations on how public entities including Ministry of Defence (MOD) and Kenya Defence Forces (KDF) should dispose of assets. [1] The Act has put in place regulations that ensure there is transparency, competitiveness and accountability in asset disposal processes. For example, the Act has put in place measures that require accounting officers in public entities to establish disposal committees who develop annual disposal plans as well as quarterly reports of implementation that are approved by Cabinet Secretaries and National Treasury as required.

Moreover, Part VIII of the act has also put in provision for procurement and disposal of classified equipment within national security institutions such as MOD and KDF. The Act as well as guidelines provided by National Treasury also requires accounting officers to avail all relevant technical and pricing information and advertise publicly, assets that are meant to be disposed off through open tenders. [2]

The Act and Guidelines on Assets and Liabilities provided by the National Treasury, also requires public officers to maintain procurement inventories and asset disposal records which are submitted annually to Treasury. Any official who contravenes these regulations is also subject to disciplinary measures which have also been outlined by the ACT. Despite these guidelines, a report by Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) found public information on actual asset disposal in government to be minimal. [3] The public does not have access to all information on planned disposals by MOD, as such, there is limited or no such information that is published on its website or on other public channels such mainstream media.

In addition, functions of the KDF have for a long time been shrouded in a lot of secrecy and the Auditor-General is only allowed to see part of its activities. [4] This means that until recently most of asset disposal activities were not subject to supervision either by parliament or the Auditor-General. It would thus be difficult to know entirely all the information regarding asset disposal in the MOD. It was only in July 2020 that National Treasury published guidelines for ministries and state corporations to begin reporting and submitting the details of their assets registers. [5] This process will begin with the status of records for 2019/2020 financial year going forward. Therefore it will be sometime until the national treasury publishes the information for the public through parliament for them to scrutinise.

Despite the recent progress made in developing national policies that now require ministries and state corporations including national security institutions, to report to the National Treasury details of their asset registers, the impact of these policies is yet to be realised. [1] Already, National Treasury has had to re-issue a circular requesting for this information signalling response challenges from ministries. [2] Therefore there is still little knowledge and details of asset registers and records of asset disposal from ministries and state corporations particularly national security institutions like ministry of defence, intelligence and Kenya Defence Forces. The operations of these institutions including MOD and KDF have long been conducted in secrecy, which only allows for very limited information to be divulged to the public. [3] Considering that information on asset disposal is hardly made available, consequently, financial results of disposals are also not available.

There is an Internal Audit body within the Ministry of Defence which is responsible for monitoring and advising the Ministry of Defence on asset disposals [1]. However, there is no information suggesting that there are aggregating disposal database reports by the Ministry of Defence (2)

According to information received by the Ministry of Defence, prior to the identification of a buyer, planned disposals are known in advance and are published on the Ministry of Defence’s website [1]. Ministry officials have stated that specific data is published to specify location, timing, type of item, etc. [1]. However, the actual process of disposal is not transparent and no information on this is provided by the Ministry of Defence [2, 3].

The financial results of asset disposals are not published on the Ministry of Defence’s website [1]. According to the government reviewer, MoD/KSF destroys and sells only assets that are out of use (which are assessed by the evaluation commission), while MPA makes the management and sale of vehicles according to the regulation.This process is ongoing.

The financial departments inside security agencies are in charge of asset disposals and these activities are internally and externally audited, but there is reason to think that these audits are insufficient, and they are not properly publicised, officials said (1, 2 and 3). The policy is not clear or publicised.

Moreover, the financial departments in the security agencies follow the instructions of the ministers, who are given complete control over their organisations’ funds, and this undermines their independence, according to article 24 of the police law (4) and 27 of the military law (5) Auditors from both the SAB and the ACA said they do not trust or take their reports seriously (1 and 2).

That being said, these reports are sent to the Finance Ministry monthly, which then publishes an aggregate figure for asset disposal for each month (and a total figure at the end of each year). This figure is never broken down, so it is virtually impossible for the public, civil society or the media to track an asset disposal deal without informal help from inside these ministries.

The security agencies, Finance Ministry and auditing agencies do not publish any information about individual asset disposal deals. The Finance Ministry is the only body that speaks about the matter and it does so by publishing an aggregate figure for the asset disposals once a month, and it provides a yearly total as well, but without any elaboration.(1)

These deals are never made public before they go into effect.

This is a problem that plagues other sectors of the Kuwaiti Government as well.

The ministries in question do not release any information about these deals. The Finance Ministry does publish an aggregate figure for the deals done in each ministry, but it does not provide further information and state agencies do not respond to citizen, journalist or civil society requests for more details (1 and 2).

There is a law on Property Disposal of a Public Body, which defines the disposal of assets. It requires the Cabinet of Ministers to approve the final decision on all actions on state property. There is no evidence that these laws are not followed in any available sources. [1] There are several normative acts issued by different ministries controlling the process. Within the MOD, the Department of Logistics and Defence Investment Planning is responsible for the disposal of assests. [2]

All decisions related to the disposal of assets are published and made public by the MOD. [1] They are available on the home page of the MOD, [2] including all details regarding the process. Some information is not available on-line but is available upon request, which is described in MOD regulations. [3]

Reports on financial results information of disposals is publicly available although detailed information about beneficiaries is not available [1,2]. Information on disposals is publicly available on the webpage of the Treasury of the Republic of Latvia in the section “budžeta iestāžu gada pārskati” [2].

No formalized regulatory process responsible for overseeing asset disposal, issuing internal audits, and responsible for aggregating disposal database reports was found (1). For example, in February 2019, Switzerland halted a weapons transfer to Lebanon because it could not identify arms purchased by former Minister Hussein Zeaiter in 2016 under the government of Lebanon’s name (2). Initially, the Swiss government halted the weapons transfer to Lebanon and the Lebanese Army after the government failed to commit to its obligations with regards to identify the transferred arms it has purchased. However, the minister of defence denied the purchase of the arms to the military (3). Zeaiter was identified hours after the news broke out (2). Although there is an absence of a clear policy for controls over assets disposal (1), it is important to note the existence of practical actions and safeguards to track weapons and systems in LAF holdings (2). LAF Logistics Brigade and the Logistics Directorate (J4) are among the most sensitive to the improper allocation, use, or accounting of these systems (2).

The asset disposal process is not formalised and there is little information publically available. (1), (2).

Lebanon lacks a formalized asset disposal process thus knowledge about their financial results is not achievable (1),(2).

The Law on the Management, Use and Disposal of State and Municipal Assets (Article 25) states that the controlled disposal of state assets shall be exercised by the internal audit service (internal auditors) of state institutions, state enterprises, establishment or organisations and the National Audit Office of the Republic of Lithuania [1]. Regulatory process is in place, with the internal audit controlling the procedures as this unit covers both in the Ministry of Defence and the military.

All disposals are coordinated by the state property fund and the Property Bank [1,2]. Planned auctions are known publicly before a buyer has been identified and the prices of every property on sale are also made public [3]. However, the final results of the sales are not provided. There is no information about recycling, redistribution, donations, abandonment or destruction of equipment. The National Anti-Corruption Strategy identified asset management and disposal as one of the most corruption-prone areas. While the following statement applies to all state and municipal assets and not specifically to the defence sector, it reads: ”there is not enough transparency and openness in relation to the management, use and disposal of assets of state and municipal bodies. The public does not receive, in a satisfactory manner, information on the revenue and expenditure of state or municipal bodies. Politicians or civil servants take advantage of their official position and enable business representatives to sell immovable property to the state or a municipality at a high price or purchase immovable property from the state or a municipality at a price lower than the market price” [4]. Media coverage shows that the Ministry of Defence was selling apartments in 2017 [5].

Although the prices of every property on sale are public, the final results of the sales are not provided.

There are policies and directives issued by the Ministry of Finance on the procedures for asset disposals. Disposal of military hardware is technically covered in the procurement contract with the related Defence Contractor. The asset disposal procedures are available online and can be downloaded from the Finance Ministry’s website. [1] Asset disposals can be done through tenders (for the value of more than RM500,000), quotation, auction, goods and service exchange, other types of exchange, gifts, destruction, and/or handover. Tendering is published in local newspapers or on the Ministry’s website. According to a Ministry source, the procedures are strictly adhered to by the Asset management Unit of the Defence Ministry; failures to do so are subjected to the Financial Ministry’s reprimand or investigations. [2] But it is not clear how the tendering process is done for weapons disposal. There has been no clear example of it. However, compliance is the larger problem. [3] [4] There are reports that the disposal of military weapons and equipment has not been transparent. It is not apparent whether Malaysia follows the ITAR regulations for disposal. [5] There have been allegations of sales of obsolete equipment to third party countries. [6]

Public Asset disposals at the Ministry are related only to non-sensitive defence items like trucks, cars, outdated computers etc. There is no information on how strategic assets such as weapons are disposed of. In 2005, Malaysia disposed of 32 trucks used during the UNMIT mission to the government of Timor Leste. [1] But asset disposals through tenders or quotations may be subject to abuses. The practice of “Insider info” has been the major problem for any asset disposal in Malaysia. Companies or individuals wanting to make a bid for certain government assets pay a small sum of money called ‘duit kopi’ (Coffee money) for inside information on the bid. [2] The information helps the bidders to offer the best price for the asset.

It is not a practice of any ministries in Malaysia to disclose the amount of money received from disposal exercises. But the money is well documented in the financial statement of the Defence Ministry, which the Finance Ministry would be informed of through the annual financial report. [1] [2]

The assessor did not find evidence of any formal procedures for disposing of assets with regard to the defence and security sector in any of the sources listed or beyond. The Malian defence sector has for many years suffered from an acute lack of assets: vehicles, communications devices, weapons, etc.[2] The government is much more focused on acquiring assets rather than disposing of older ones, which are more likely to be used until they stop functioning.
The World Bank’s 2012 report on financial management in Mali’s defence and police forces found that these forces were significantly underequipped, but noted that they were undergoing a massive programme of re-equipment.[4] In 2012 alone, the Malian armed forces acquired approximately 160 troop-carrying vehicles, five tank carriers, two reservoirs for the air force, five power generators, communications equipment, light and heavy weapons, and some T-55 tanks.[4,5] In total, the Ministry of Defence’s budget request estimated that, based on assessed requirements, 300 billion CFA francs (CFAF) was needed to rebuild the army alone.[4,5]
The current government’s major reform programme for the armed forces (LOPM), which was adopted by the National Assembly in May 2015, does not contain any mention of formal systems for asset disposals, underlining the lack of attention paid to the subject. [7] The LOPM provides for USD2.3 billion of investment for the armed forces and is set to recruit an additional 10,000 personnel between 2015 and 2019.[7]

A senior security governance professional working with the Malian authorities told the assessor that they were not aware of there being any system for disposing of assets. “It’s much more likely old equipment is used until it is run into the ground”.[8] Meanwhile, “obtaining an inventory of spare parts is difficult and often impossible. Record-keeping, accountability – none of that is done”.[8]

A French military trainer noted that the Malian army ordered 800 pick-ups in 2006, but that by 2013 there were almost none left.[1] This is unlikely to indicate disposals, it is more likely that they were stolen or destroyed in the course of the 2012-2013 conflict in which armed anti-state actors targeted military vehicles. Hundreds of soldiers also deserted their posts leaving their equipment behind them.[3]

A defence attaché working in Bamako recounted a more recent example highlighting the lack of controls in place.[9] The source noted that in 2012, France sold the Malian government a number of mine detectors. But within months, this equipment ended up in the hands of armed groups in the north that were fighting against the FAMa.[6]

The assessor did not find any evidence about the process of asset disposals with regard to the defence and security sector. Recent reports by the IMF and by the World Bank make no mention of asset disposals in the context of the Malian military.3,4,5,11,12 Similarly, previous analyses of the Malian defence sector by Transparency International, RAND and SIPRI do not contain any information concerning the disposal of defence assets.6,7,10 The websites of the Malian armed forces, the Malian government and the BVG do not contain any information about asset disposal in the defence sector.1,8,9
A senior security governance professional working with the Malian authorities told the assessor that they were not aware of there being any system for disposing of assets. “It’s much more likely old equipment is used until it is run into the ground”.²¹ Meanwhile, “obtaining an inventory of spare parts is difficult and often impossible. Record-keeping, accountability – none of that is done”.14 “There is, however, leakage of small arms, petrol and uniforms from the armed forces into the black market”.14
A defence attaché working at a foreign embassy in Bamako highlighted that, in 2015, the Malian government was unofficially supplying arms to GATIA, a pro-government militia operating in the north of the country.15 The government never provided any details about the arms transfers, indicating the absence of transparency. The transfers subsequently diminished following international pressure.
A French military trainer noted that the Malian army ordered 800 pick-ups in 2006, but that by 2013 there were almost none left. This is unlikely to indicate disposals, it is more likely that they were stolen or destroyed in the course of the 2012-2013 conflict in which armed anti-state actors targeted military vehicles. Hundreds of soldiers also deserted their posts leaving their equipment behind them.2
The loss of equipment continues today. In 2016, two senior military commanders were suspended and six soldiers arrested following the loss of 26 sub-machine guns from an unspecified base in Bamako.13,14 A Kalashnikov sub-machine gun can fetch between 300,000 and 350,000 CFA on the black market.14

The assessor did not find any evidence about the financial results of asset disposals with regard to the defence and security sector. Recent reports by the IMF and by the World Bank make no mention of asset disposals in the context of the Malian military.3,4,5,10,12 Similarly, previous analyses of the Malian defence sector by Transparency International, RAND and SIPRI no do contain any information concerning the disposal of defence assets.6,7 The websites of the Malian armed forces, the Malian government and the BVG do not contain any information about asset disposal in the defence sector.8,9
Moreover, the current government’s major reform programme for the armed forces (LOPM), which was adopted by the National Assembly in May 2015, does not contain any mention of formal systems for asset disposals, underlining the lack of attention paid to the subject.11
A senior security governance professional working with the Malian authorities told the assessor that they were not aware of there being any system for disposing of assets. “It’s much more likely old equipment is used until it is run into the ground”.²¹ Meanwhile, “obtaining an inventory of spare parts is difficult and often impossible. Record-keeping, accountability – none of that is done”.13 “There is, however, leakage of small arms, petrol and uniforms from the armed forces into the black market”.13
A French military trainer noted that the Malian army ordered 800 pick-ups in 2006, but that by 2013 there were almost none left.¹ This is unlikely to indicate disposals, it is more likely that they were stolen or destroyed in the course of the 2012-2013 conflict in which armed anti-state actors targeted military vehicles. Hundreds of soldiers also deserted their posts leaving their equipment behind them.2

Within SEDENA, the General Directorate of Administration is responsible for supervising the processes and managing the income from the disposal of assets, as well as gathering databases of the disposals. [1]

These processes are regulated by the General Law of National Assets. [2] The Law empowers the dependencies to dispose of the goods they consider necessary. [3]

SEDENA does not always publish information on planned disposals. There are few documents available and journalistic reports that allow the public to know the content of these calls. Among the information published is the description of the object, the minimum sale value and location, as well as the requirements that buyers must meet, such as, form of payment, delivery of goods, etc. [1] [2]

In SEDENA’s work reports, there are no records on the assets disposed of and the profits thereon. [3] [4] [5] [6]

Very little is known about the results of disposals within SEDENA. The General Balance of the National Bank of the Army, Air Force, and Navy, in its financial statement, indicates the amount (net) of awards per year, without being exhaustive, but there is no information on the income from the sale of goods. [1] [2]

There are some procedures regulating the disposal of assets. [1][2] According to the MoD, all property used by the MNE MOD is state property and all procedures are done in compliance wih the Law on State property, Rulebook on disposal of property, Regulation on tracking record of movable and immovable assets, Regulation on inventory of state property, as well as Guidance on making inventory of movable and immovable assets in state property. Therefore any disposal must be approved by the Government.

The State Audit Institution identified various shortcomings of the Ministry of Defence in managing assets and stated that the government had not adopted regulation related to the management and use of assets (2). Some of those shortcomings were addressed in 2017, but there is no track record for 2018. [3][4] The Ministry has an internal audit division, but it lacks some procedures, and proper implementation. [5] The Directorate for material resources is responsible for asset management.

Also according to the MOD, the Long-Term Development Plan clearly indicates which property/assests, currently used by the MOD and AF, will not be needed for the future use of MOD and will be disposed in accordance with the Government procedure.The Ministry of Defence uses the relevant software for recording the list of movable assets. The Ministry of Defence adressed all shortcomings identified by the State Audit institution and informed the State Audit Institution and the Parliament on the measures it had undertaken. The Directorate for material resources is responsible for coordination of assets management.

Information on planned disposals is not proactively published by the Ministry. [1] Only limited and very general information is available in its annual reports [2][3][4][5] and on its website. [6] According to the MOD, all information on disposal of assets are published on the ministry’s website.

The Ministry of Defence publishes an aggregate income from the sale of surplus arms and outdated equipment and material, and an aggregate income from property rental. [1][2][3][4] The Ministry claims that they inform the government about planned sales of surplus arms, but more concrete information is secret. [5][6]

According to the MOD, the information on the income generated from sales of surplus ammunition and equipment is published in the Law on final account of the budget of Montenegro, which is publicly available. The information on the amount of armament/ammuniton which is sold, is available in the MOD’s annual report. However, the MoD report stipulates that in 2018 there was no sales of armament or ammunition but gives the amount for sold items that are related to boat equipment.

There is no formalised, clear process for asset disposal.

No evidence was found supporting the existence of procedures of asset disposals or the controls that might be in place (1). This lack of evidence indicates a lack of transparency. It must also be noted that the King is the Head of the Moroccan armed forces and that top military and intelligence positions are filled directly by him by close and loyal members of his first circle.

Interviewees noted that corruption in asset disposals exist within some units of the Moroccan armed forces, although they were unable to disclose full details (2)(3). There is a lack of information regarding formal procedures of control and assets disposal, even though there is a clear statement by Morocco’s anti-corruption legislation that requires the compulsory disclosure of assets.

There is little to no information publicly available about the process of asset disposal.

Recent official and press statements on anti-corruption fail to mention the process of asset disposal within the Moroccan armed forces, or the armed forces in general (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6).

This process was also left unaddressed by official public bodies that might be in charge of asset disposal processes, such as the Ministry of Finance, the National Audit Office or the Royal Treasury (7)(8).

Interviewees argue that this lack of evidence indicates a lack of transparency, which in turn could imply risks of corruption (9)(10).

Almost no information is available about the clear process of asset disposal. In Morocco’s anti-corruption legislation or other related articles, there is no clear statement on how to dispose of assets within the Moroccan army. The absence of independent scrutiny could also be explained by the fact that the King is the head of the military, and that the defence administration (lead by a Minister in charge of defence, but not a dedicated Defence Minister) remains strongly controlled by the Palace.

There is little to no information publicly available about the process of asset disposal.

Recent official and press statements on anti-corruption fail to mention the process of asset disposal within the Moroccan armed forces, or the armed forces in general (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6).

This process was also left unaddressed by official public bodies that might be in charge of asset disposal processes, such as the Ministry of Finance, the National Audit Office or the Royal Treasury (7)(8).

Interviewees argue that this lack of evidence indicates a lack of transparency, which in turn could imply risks of corruption (9)(10).

Almost no information is available about the clear process of asset disposal. In Morocco’s anti-corruption legislation or other related articles, there is no clear statement on how to dispose of assets within the Moroccan army. The absence of independent scrutiny could also be explained by the fact that the King is the head of the military, and that the defence administration (lead by a Minister in charge of defence, but not a dedicated Defence Minister) remains strongly controlled by the Palace.

Myanmar’s military government has quietly begun the largest sell-off of state assets in the country’s history, including more than 100 government buildings before transition [1]. Myanmar does not have a public procurement law that includes provisions for public asset disposal [2]. The bill was queued for debate in Parliament [3]. On April 10, 2017, the President’s Office issued Directive No. 1/2017, which prescribed certain rules for government agencies with respect to public procurement, including tender processes and the sale and lease of government assets valued above a certain threshold [4]. Although there is a directive relating to public procurement, the military can administer its own affairs [5]. So the military can ignore the directive.

Although there is a directive on public procurement, ministries rarely comply with it [1]. In the Assessment of Country Public Procurement System, conducted by the Asian Development Bank, significant weaknesses were found in Myanmar due to 22 risks, including a lack of an effective procurement law, a lack of standard bidding documents and guidelines, a lack of transparency, integrity and consistency in the tendering process, a lack of access to tender information and so on [2].

There is no published information on the military’s process of asset disposal; as such, this indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’. There is no public procurement law [1].

The disposal of defence assets is overseen by different units – both internal and external to the Ministry of Defence – depending on their type. The Central Government Real Estate Agency (the Ministry of Interior and Kingdom Relations) is responsible for the sale of real estate, whilst the State Property Service Movable Goods (DRZ) of the Ministry of Finance is responsible for the disposal of movable property, such as official cars and furniture [1,2]. The Ministry of Defence itself is only responsible for the sale of strategic equipment, such as tanks and fighter aircraft [2]. The annual defence budget shows income figures associated with ‘revenue from strategic infrastructure sales’, ‘sales proceeds from strategic equipment’ and ‘other revenue material’ [3]. This income is factored into the Ministry of Defence’s annual reports, including a designation for the funds [4]. Research could not identify any evidence suggesting that there is a coordinating body within ministry that is responsible for aggregating disposal database reports.

The MoD does not dispose of strategic equipment publicly, but through negotiations with other governments [1]. Buyers must meet the criteria of the Arms Export Policy [2]. For non-strategic assets sold through the State Property Service Movable Goods, goods are sold publicly and online through a bidding process [3].

The annual defence budget shows income figures associated with ‘revenue from strategic infrastructure sales’, ‘sales proceeds from strategic equipment’ and ‘other revenue material’ [1]. Additionally, the government publishes annual reports on the export of strategic military equipment, which list all the export transactions conducted in the year in question [2]. When Parliament is notified of arms exports prior to these reports, it is called ‘accelerated parliamentary notification’, which only happens when new licences are granted for the permanent export of complete systems worth over 2 million euros to countries other than Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Switzerland and EU or NATO member states [2]. Parliament is notified within two weeks of the decision to issue these licences [2]. Importantly, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (BZ) publishes an overview of the licences issued for military goods, which is updated on a monthly basis [3]. These overviews state which goods are involved, what the end use is, what the goods are worth and what the country of origin and destination is.

The MoD does not oversee asset disposal. That activity is conducted by the NZDF. The NZDF National Disposals Office, located within the Directorate Supply Chain Management, oversees the disposal of major items. Revenue generated is returned to the Crown and presented in the Annual Report [1, 2, 3].
Procurement functional leadership is provided by the Chief Executive of the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment 4, 5]. No National Disposals Office disposal database reports were found, however a 2016 Internal Audit of Weapons and Ammunition Management shows that disposal lists do exist, and at that time suffered from poor record keeping, but problems have now been remedied [6].

The disposal process is generally managed as a tender process through the GETS and SmartProcure, apart from sensitive items, such as weapons which are not generally disposed of into the public domain.
Disposal of large items is known well in advance, and usually signposted in annual reviews with progress of their sale provided in media updates, although not always proactively or in full detail [1, 2, 3]. Further details are provided in written responses to FADTC questions as part of evidence submitted for the Annual Review process [4]. On the occasions that details are not provided in the responses to written questions (normally because of timing), location of sale is generally easy to identify owing to the small number of NZDF bases and known location of the major capabilities to be disposed. Timing depends on a number of factors, not least of which is the introduction of the replacement capability, if there is one. Specification of items is also easily identifiable as the number and type of major capabilities that the NZDF has are in the public domain. Prospective buyers could contact the NZDF directly for enquiries. In the past, surplus items have been sold in conjunction with auction houses [5]. Disposals requiring more in-depth processes are listed on the GETS website and managed through SmartProcure, as was the recent tender for the disposal of Sig Sauer P226 Pistols [6]. Munition disposals are not usually publicised however it is possible that such information could be obtained through OIA requests. The destruction of expensive anti-tank missiles by the Army due to their approaching out-of-service-date was not readily known outside the services [7]. There is an argument that disclosing of the disposal of munitions and equipment may sometimes incur operational security considerations, which is why information is limited.

Revenue from disposals are shown within the Annual Reports but in aggregated form (sums for categories: land, buildings, specialist military equipment, plant and equipment, office and computer equipment) [1, 2, 3].

The assessor found no public evidence to suggest that Niger has a policy for the disposal of defence and security assets. The ECOWAS Commission on illegal arms is tasked at a sub-regional level with the decommission, collection and destruction of small arms and light weapons in Niger. The country continues to face an increasing threat of insurgency from non-state armed groups. Given the growing insecurity, Niger’s defence and security budget increased by 17.56 % in 2018. Bilateral and multilateral cooperation in the field of defence and security have also been expanded in the last five years. Besides, the country is serving as a transit route for weapons circulating principally from Libya, Mali, and Nigeria. Thus, control and circulation of weapons is one of the main challenges for the government.
The Small Arms Survey report by Savannah de Tessieres (2) clarifies that defence assets are seized (weapons and ammunition) mainly by the Nigerien Armed Forces (FAN), the Gendarmerie, National Guard, local police and customs. Records are kept, but a “national database of seizure-related information is crucially lacking”. Records of different security services include information on the type of arms, the serial number or parts of the serial number, and the date of the seizure; but, there is no national register of seized weapons and no centralisation of either the weapons or the data about such weapons (2). Moreover, weapons are often stored without any details regarding their seizure and are frequently misidentified (2). Weapons are neither destroyed nor stored according to accepted stockpile management standards. Due to their lack of equipment, many Nigerien security services take seized weapons for their own arsenals. This is in breach of Article 17 of the Economic Community of West African States Convention on Small Arms and Light Weapons of which Niger is a signatory. Some services record these transfers, while others do not. Moreover, seized weapons may change custody several times, resulting in the duplication of records (2).
In addition, Decree No 2014-737/PRN of 3 December 3, 2014 (1), set up the National Commission for the Collection and Control of Illicit Weapons (Commission nationale pour la collecte et le contrôle des armes illicites, CNCCAI), a unit that acts as an advisory body to the president (Article 2) that supports them in the identification, creation and implementation of strategies to fight against the proliferation and circulation of illicit weapons. Part of its mandate is to advise and strategise over the flow of illegal small arms. The CNCCAI can collect defence assets (arms, ammunition) that are voluntarily handed over by owners. It can also set up programs with the State and local authorities to collect and destroy such assets. As per Articles 11–13, a technical committee composed of officials from different ministries (Comité technique ministeriel) assists the CNCCAI in strategy implementation. However, evidence shows that CNCCAI deals with voluntary handovers, not decommissioning.

There is little to no information publicly available about the process of asset disposal. According to the Small Arms Survey by Savannah de Tessieres (1), there is an absence of comprehensive data on arms seizures in Niger: “…weapons are often stored without any details regarding the seizure and are frequently misidentified. And while these various bodies record seizures and voluntary submissions, there is no national register of seized weapons and no centralisation of either the weapons or the data about such weapons.” Thus, there is no transparency about the issue due to the lack of publicly available information.
It should also be noted that Niger currently has limited capacity and resources to assist with international tracing requests. Nigerien authorities have not sent out any tracing requests to other national authorities. The lack of a central registry of lost or stolen weapons makes domestic tracing difficult (1) and may increase the risk of diversions.

There is little to no information publicly available about the process of asset disposal. According to the Small Arms Survey by Savannah de Tessieres (1), there is an absence of comprehensive data on arms seizures in Niger: “…weapons are often stored without any details regarding the seizure and are frequently misidentified. And while these various bodies record seizures and voluntary submissions, there is no national register of seized weapons and no centralization of either the weapons or the data about such weapons.” Thus, there is no transparency about the issue due to the lack of publicly available information.

There is a formal procedure for the disposal of public assets. According to the Public Procurement Act of 2007 (PPA), every procuring entity in Nigeria is also a disposing entity (Section 55.2 of PPA 2007) (1), (2). However, section 15 (2) of the act explicitly excludes national defence or national security acquisitions from its provisions of this act unless the president approved of such procurement (1).

The provisions of the PPA (2007), are generally applicable to civil disposal of public assets but the PPA does not include procurement of special goods and services involving national defence or national security, except when the president’s approval is obtained (1). Although there is a Freedom of Information Act available through which the public can seek information; government agencies, including the MOD, rarely comply with such requests. Moreover, revenue generated from the defence procurement is not reported in the public account (2).

Disposal of assets involving defence and security are excluded from the provisions of the PPA; therefore, the information is not available to the public (1), (2).

The disposal of assets is explicitly regulated by the Law on Use and Management of Assets of Public Bodies [1]. This Law also applies to the defence and military sectors. In accordance with Article 2 of the Law, the Ministry of Defence established a Commission for Management of Immovable and Movable Assets [2]. It acts as a coordinating body within the Ministry of Defence and manages the whole process and organisation of asset disposal. It also works in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence’s Department for Real Estate which is namely responsible for managing all property belonging to the Ministry of Defence and of recuperating from the Ministry of non-essential property [3]. In terms of control, the Internal Audit Department (IAD) reviews and oversees the legality of these processes [4]. Unfortunately, there is no available public information regarding where and when the IAD reviews the asset disposal process.

Planned disposals are known and their details are published in advance. As noted by the DiFi report in 2015, the Ministry of Defence has followed two plans relating to asset disposal: the Plan for Divestment of Non-Core Assets up to 2020, and the Equipment Divestiture Program Strategy [1]. The plans are not publicly available but they are referred to in the media. With regards to concrete disposals, these are publicly announced and public auctions (including online) or direct agreements (if the value of the asset is below 500 euro) take place [2].

Financial information relating to the procedure of assets disposal is limited. The Ministry of Defence has no separate reporting and accounting system for this. Revenues from disposals go to the Treasury and, depending on the decision by the Government, are reallocated back to the Ministry of Defence [1]. Information on the final price and the proceeds of the contract can be obtained through FOI Request to the MoD. [2]

Disposal of assets from the Armed Forces is regulated by the Instruction on Disposal of Real Estates; Act on Export Control of Strategic Goods, Services and Technology; and accompanying regulations [1, 2, 3]. The Norwegian Armed Forces also have an environmental policy for the disposal of assets [4]. The Norwegian Defence Materiel Agency (NDMA) is tasked with phasing out, demilitarisation, dismantling and the disposal of material no longer in use in the defence sector. The special coordinating body (Forsvarets avhendingsprosjekt) within the NDMA is responsible for choosing one of the following options: sale from government to government, public sale, direct sale to a privet or private organisations nationally or internationally, donation, or destruction. In principle, any disposal of material by the state should be preceded by a public announcement. Exceptions may apply to materials of a sensitive nature. The Ministry of Defence must individually approve all exceptions [5]. The NDMA is responsible for publishing annual reports on disposals. They are disaggregated and the latest results are for 2019 [6]. The Internal Auditor Unit may scrutinise disposal of assets, but there has been no such audit in recent years.

Planned disposals are usually announced 1-2 weeks in advance [1]. Comprehensive information on the items is published on the online auction marketplace Norsk Megling & Auksjon, including location, timing, and type of item [2]. In addition, the Norwegian Defence Estates Agency publishes detailed information on disposal of real estate from the Armed Forces [3].

The financial results of non-real asset disposals are published annually by the Norwegian Defence Material Agency [1]. They are disaggregated and the latest results are for 2019 [2]. The Norwegian Defence Estates Agency publishes detailed financial results for real estate on its website [3].

There are internal regulations and policies concerning asset disposal, but these policies and regulations are not published. The financial and procurement unit is responsible for asset disposal (1). The Ministry of Defence Office of the Secretary-General has its own Secretariat Tender; however, no information is published beyond the title on the website (2). The State Tender Board has detailed procedures on tender compliance in Royal Decree 29/2010; however, there are no details concerning asset disposal within any sector, let alone the defence (3).

No information is publicly available on asset disposals or the processes in place. Neither the Ministry of Defence general website nor does the secretary-general website contain a reference to the process of asset disposal (1), (2), (3). No references were found in media outlets (4), (5). Neither was any reference found in Omani law or accountancy firms discussing the state’s attempts to legislate against corruption (6).

The lack of transparency on asset disposal in the ministry across the board means no knowledge can be ascertained about the financial consequences of asset disposals. According to our sources, there are rare cases when asset disposal is conducted, but the financial resources go to the MoD (1). Like the above indicator, neither the website of the Ministry of Defence or the MoD’s secretary-general refer to the financial results of asset disposal (2), (3). As determined in sub-indicator 4A-C, 15C and the above sub-indicator, the lack of publicly available information paired with the restraints on civil society leave little accountability vis-à-vis transparency of financial results of asset disposal in the MoD.

This indicator has not been assigned a score due to insufficient information or evidence.

There is a unit that advises and oversees the process of asset disposal. This unit is linked to “The Military Financial department”. However, it is not completely separate from the MoF (1). The main unit supervising the process is part of the MoF, the General Supplies Department. The department must advertise the assets to the public, and follow a clear process in the whole process managed by the law of the MOF (2), (3). The usual process is an advertisement in local newspapers and bids. Afterwards, both units select the winner of the contract. The money goes directly to the MoF. However, in numerous cases, the assets went to people linked to the security personnel. So although the procedures and units are there, personal connections continue to be part of the operational landscape (1).

Planned disposals are known in advance and are published on the ministry’s website, and in newspapers (1), (2) before a buyer has been identified (bidding). However, some information may be incomplete in the advertisements. Information like the state of the assets, how old they are, the requirements and conditions of the intended buyers are not published for the public (1), (2).

Although asset disposal is publicly advertised, the financial results and buyers’ names are not advertised (2). Moreover, in the majority of cases, the buyer is known, and the advertisement is just a bureaucratic process to formalize it. In the advertisements, there is a written paragraph saying that the MOF is not obliged to publish the price (1).

The disposal of assets of the Defence Department is provided for in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Revised Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Modernisation Act [1]. This document does not clearly state an internal unit responsible for the process however it does state that the sole responsibility for the disposal of assets falls on the head of the department, who shall constitute the appropriate committee to undertake the process of disposing [2]. Likewise, a secretariat and technical staff from the within the Defence Department take charge of the technical and administrative matters as well as the safekeeping and filing of documents and records [3]. Further, the AFP would have to ask for congressional approval before it could dispose of its assets [1]. As provided by the Bases Conversion Law or Republic Act No. 7227, Congress has the mandate to reject or approve the sale of military real estate [4].

The Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA) was created by the Philippine Congress and tasked to sell, lease and negotiate the development of military reservations that were designated by the government for commercial use [1]. Likewise, Executive Order 86 of 2019 also included the BCDA in the infrastructure cluster of the President’s Cabinet clusters systems to ensure transparent management of resources [2]. The disposal of military real estate is conducted through public bidding and direct negotiation [3]. However the BCDA Guidelines do not provide comprehensive information on the disposal process, especially cinformation concerning disposals conducted through diret negotiation, where the announcement is published after an agreement has been reached [3]. In recent years, graft complaints have been filed against the BCDA for anomalous transactions [4, 5].

The BCDA’s annual report features the financial results of disposals but in aggregated form, summarising the disposal activities conducted and the distribution of proceeds [1].

There is a formal process of acquiring military equipment and the disposal of assets from the identification stage and/or generation of needs, up to the implementation of the process. The stage of needs identification is described in Decision No. 25/MON of 2014 [1]. The analytical-conceptual and implementation phase (including disposal of assets) is described in Decision No. 141/MON of 2017 [2, 3, 4].
The disposal of surplus and redundant defence assets, namely of real estate, movables and military equipment, has been entrusted to the Military Property Agency. The relevant legal acts are the Act on Military Property Agency [5] and several ordinances from the defence minister [6]. There is an auditor post, an inspection department and a supervisory board in the structure of the agency.
The agency is in charge of maintaining a database of managed assets and relevant reports. The defence ministry is the recipient, not the producer of reports. Supervision of the disposal of the assets is indirect, through the supervisory board, the deputy minister and two MoD departments. The financial aspects of asset disposal are subject to annual audits by the Supreme Audit Office through the annual defence budget execution audit. The results of the 2017 audit were positive for the Military Property Agency [7].

All of the above documents regulating the indicated processes are publicly available. In most cases, the documents produced based on these procedures in the identification phase have a secrecy clause. Documents from the analytical-conceptual phase (Feasibility Study, Preliminary Tactical and Technical Assumptions) are either public or the secrecy clause is imposed on all or part of it [1].
In the implementation phase, the documentation of the procurement procedure is in principle public (only certain documents concerning, in particular, technical descriptions or other statutory protected secrets may be secret – e.g. business secrets). Detailed issues regarding implementation are included in the contract. The implementation documents of the implementation phase are, in principle, explicit in nature, except for documents concerning technical solutions (detailed technical results of tests/tests). In sum, this process is formal and described in a relatively detailed way [2].

Information regarding the financial results of the disposal of assets is publicly available in annually published performance reports [1, 2]. However, it is highly aggregated. There is no information regarding the results of specific tenders on the agency website.

Asset disposal is regulated under the law [1, 2], and there is evidence of its observation in practice [3]. The Directorate-General of Defence Resources (DGDR) is charged with monitoring and oversight of asset disposals [4], and there is evidence of its participation in disposal procedures [5]. No unit is legally mandated to compile statistical reports on asset disposal, and there is no evidence of such a database on the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD) website.

Planned disposals are not known prior to publication in the Official Gazette [Diário da República], but there is extensive evidence of procedures being made known before a buyer is identified [1, 2, 3]. The MoD’s website does not publish disposal procedures as reported in the Official Gazette.

The single transparent source for financial results of disposals is the ongoing Supreme Audit Institution (SAI) audit of the Military Programming Act [1]. The latest audit report suggests severe shortcomings in proper accounting of disposal revenue and uptake [2], which is stated by the Military Programming Act as particularly important in military equipment reform. There is no detailed description or disaggregated information on asset disposal in these sources.

Qatar is a major arms importer. There are no controls over the disposal of defence assets, and there is no information on these disposals. In fact, asset disposals are rare in the armed forces, which means there is not a formalised process for disposals. [1,2]

There is no formal process of asset disposal within the defence sector. The Ministry of Defence does not have a website, and the Ministry of Finance’s official website does not include any information about asset disposal processes. Qatar’s budget, available on the Ministry of Finance website, does not include any information about the MoD’s budget, expenditures or assets. [1] There is no information around disposal processes within governmental departments [2]. The Qatari government maintains that information related to defence is highly confidential. Our sources confirm that there is a lack of transparency (3,4).

The Qatari government does not release any information about defence budget, revenues, and/or assets to the public. Even ministries are denied access to information about defence (1). It has become clear that the government does not share the budget with the Advisory Council. The Emir’s announcement contains very little information about defence budgets. There is a lack of transparency in relation to all matter related to defence, including asset disposal [2,3]. If asset disposal takes place, the public are unaware of it, and of the subsequent financial results.

The major laws that regulate asset disposal in the defence sector are the 1999 Government Decree No. 1165 ‘On the Disposal of Movable Military Assets’ [1] and the 2008 Government Decree No. 1053 ‘On Some Measures to Manage Federal Assets’ [2]. The former, especially with the considerable amendments of 2016, describes the procedures for asset disposal and appoints control agencies. Within the MoD, there is the Property Relations Department that registers, stores, manages and disposes of MoD assets [3]. It provides aggregate reports on disposal annually [4].

First, there are secret and non-secret assets. Disposal of the former is classified. Among non-secret assets, it is neccessary to note the difference between the disposal of movable and immovables. Since his entry into service as Minster of Defence in November 2012, Shoigu has announced a moratorium on immovables disposal by means of the MoD in order to solve the problems left behind by the preceding minister and whitewash the Minstry’s corruption scandals.

Instead, the disposal of immovables has been outsourced to the agents [1]. Since then, the official MoD webpage, which was supposed to announce all planned immovable disposals in advance and provide details, stopped providing any information – the most recent entry is from October 26, 2012 [2]. Consequently, it has become quite hard to find comprehensive information about immovable asset sales because it is not clear which agent conducts sales for which asset. Journalists report about a number of buildings sold in Saint Petersburg and Moscow regions [3,4].

As for movable assets, there is a constantly updated page on the official MoD website [5]. Nonetheless, there are questionable cases that have attracted the attention of the public, the media, investigation committees and the federal anti-monopoly agency [6]. There is also a Federal Agency for State Property Management called RosProperty (RosImushestvo) [7]. It does publish information about the asset sales, but it is impossible to separate military property from property of other federal structures [8]. Within the structure of RosProperty, there is a federal state company ‘State enterprise on military property sales’ [8]. It neither has a webpage, nor provides any information about the sales it conducts.
Detailed information is only provided for one of three indicative types of assets (secret/non-secret movable, non-secret immovable).

The MoD Property Relations Department publishes all information about every realised sale of a movable non-secret asset [1]. In addition, the department reports annually about its income, budget plans, etc. [2]. RosProperty also publishes description of assets and their initial prices on its official sales webpage [3].

The information is provided in part, in different sources, and for a group of assets only.

According to our resources, the MoD has a formalized process of asset disposal; hower, this process lack clarity, and consistency (1), (2). There is no internal auditing unit that oversees and advises on asset disposal (3). Currently, Saudi Arabia does not have an established weapons manufacturing or export industry. Therefore it is unlikely that asset disposal generates any significant income for the defence industry, which is funded by the central government.

There is no transparency in the asset disposal process in Saudi Arabia as the government does not publish any relevant information on this process. It is unclear what is done with decommissioned weapons or how these are disposed of (1), (2).

According to our sources, the financial outcomes of the disposal process are not made public, but certain sections of the financial unit are aware of the figures. The researcher found no information on the financial results of any asset disposals if and when they occur in Saudi Arabia.

The assets the MoD and SAF have at disposal are property of the Republic of Serbia. The overall regulatory framework is set by the Law on Public Property [1]. Moveable and immoveable property for ʻspecial purposesʼ (i.e. military purposes) is defined in the Law on Defence [2]. Asset management is further regulated in several MoD rulebooks. Master Plan for disposal of surplus moveable property was adopted by Serbian Government in 2006 and it envisages three possibilities for property conversion: sale by tenders, exchange with other government institutions, or cooperation in building residential buildings (with MoD giving away land and investor earmarking several flats for members of SAF) [3]. In case the property is sold by tenders, all revenues are allocated to the national account of Serbia and further assigned to the MoD for military housing, equipment and infrastructure amelioration. However, by May 1, 2018, only 105 objects, which is less than a quarter of the items listed in the Master Plan, had undergone conversion [4]. The rest of the items incurred significant maintenance costs to the MoD [5]. As a consequence, the MoD stated it had set up a working group which would revise the Master Plan and propose transferring control of some property to the Public Property Authority (RDI) [5].
Planning and overseeing asset disposal and bookkeeping is conducted in the Material Resources Sector of the MoD. Its work could be subject to scrutiny by the internal audit unit and Defence Inspectorate. The internal audit unit did not review asset disposal between 2016 and 2018. On the other side, revenues generated through asset disposal have been taken account of by State Audit Institution (SAI), but only at the general level, in the framework of its annual audits of national budget execution.

All real estate earmarked for disposal is displayed in a database available on the MoD’s website [1]. Tenders are regularly advertised by the MoD containing conditions of disposal and specific details on the items that are being sold, including conditions of information if this property may be contaminated by unexploded ordinances [2]. However, information about the sales of surplus arms and military equipment is not publicly available. According to the MoD, in accordance with the regulations governing the sale of surplus arms and military equipment, if they are sold for foreign markets, the Ministry informs all entities holding a license for foreign trade in arms and military equipment that they can apply for participation in the procedure of sale of surplus weapons and military equipment in question.

When it comes to real estate disposal, neither the MoD nor the RDI tends to publish information about successful bids, i.e. to whom particular items were sold and what the value of the contract was. Information about revenues generated through asset disposal and issues in regards to the reallocation of such revenues could be found in the SAI’s annual audit reports on the execution of the national budget [1]. Additionally, the MoD submits information on total revenues generated through the implementation of the Master Plan as well as total revenues generated through sales of surplus arms in its quarterly reports to parliamentary Defence and Internal Affairs Committee (DIAC). However, reports submitted to DIAC are published neither by National Assembly nor by the MoD. Sessions at which these reports were deliberated used to be broadcast on the National Assembly’s website. However, the session held in October 2018, when four quarterly reports were on the agenda at once (from the period July-Sept 2017 to the period April-June 2018) was closed for public for the reason of secret data protection [2].

The Defence Science and Technology Agency (DSTA) is the primary agency responsible for managing the disposal of excess defence equipment for the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) and the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) DSTA declares, that there is the structured process involving segregation of duties, designated approval authorities and proper documentation for accountability and audit trail. The default approach for sales is open tendering, with direct sourcing permitted only under exceptional circumstances. [1, 2], However, there is no publicly available information regarding the exact disposal process and reporting.
DSTA activities are audited by internal audit unit and MINDEF Internal Audit Department [3, 4],

The default approach for sales is open tendering. Tenders are performed through central government quotation/tender system GeBIZ. Details on the sale of assets includes e.g. description of items, bidders, price quoted and winners. For example, the last sale tender at GeBIZ concerned sale of used floating dock, fuel barge and rigid hull inflatable boat (issued on 22 Dec 2020, closed on 4 Feb 2021). [1]
Information on direct disposals are not published.

The MINDEF’s annual budget report does not make such information available to Parliament or the public [1].
When open tender applied, detailed information on financial results and buyers are published in GeBIZ database. However, the database contains information from last 6 months, only. [2]

The National Conventional Arms Control (NCACC) and Armscor’s Defence Disposal Solutions (DDS) remain the primary regulatory bodies for asset disposals. Aside from open, public asset auctions for non-sensitive material such as 4×4 vehicles [1].

Armscor’s tender bulletin does list several asset disposal-related items but appeared fairly dated. Media reports have indicated delays by South African National Defence Forces (SANDF) leadership in authorising asset disposal, possibly explaining the lack of new notices for this in the bulletin [2]. There may well be an asset disposal policy, but it is not publicly available nor within the remit of interviewee 3’s knowledge [3].

Armscor’s tender bulletin theoretically provides up to date notifications of auctions, disposals, and sale of old or obsolete assets [1]. However individual notifications have very little information disclosed publicly and are often classified at a restricted level prohibiting their disclosure to the general public [2].

The NCACC should be responsible for accounting for asset disposal amounts, along with Armscor’s DDS, but no information on these disposals is readily available in the NCACC’s annual report. Armscor’s Annual Report, however, does provide a monetary value and breakdown of asset disposals for each reporting year [1].

The disposal of assets should be reported to the Minister of Economy and Finance (MOEF), based on the State Property Act. Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act states that central government agencies, including the Ministry of National Defence (MND), should provide the status of the unused administrative property to the MOEF in charge of overseeing the procedures. [1] [2] At the ministry level, the MOEF is responsible for inspecting the asset management and can conduct an audit when required. There is a specific office managing disposal of state property within the MOEF, according to Article 68 of the Enforcement Decree. In addition, the Report on the Administration and Management of State Property should be published by each central governmental institution, which includes the status of the increase and decrease of state property (Article 70). [2] [3]

Planned disposals are published in advance via the Defence Installations Agency’s website or media platforms so that potential buyers can participate in bidding. The notification contains information on location, price and size of the land being sold, as well as photos of the items. [1]

The Financial results of disposals are published annually, and they are available publicly. The MND publishes the Annual Defence Statistic Report, including the financial results of the asset disposal, and the public can access the report via the MND’s website. However, both annual reports published in 2017,2018 and 2019 show that they only contain overall financial results of disposals, rather than providing details of individual disposals. [1] [2] [3]

The Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Act was passed in 2018 and outlines clear policies for government ministries on the process of procuring and disposing of assets. First, the Act establishes the South Sudan Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Authority, [1] which is yet to be operational. Nevertheless, the Act obliges ministries, including defence, to have an accounting officer, a procurement committee, a verification and acceptance committee, procurement unit and an evaluation committee. [2] The Ministry of Defence is supposed to comply with these stipulations, with a clear mandate to also differentiate between classified and unclassified procurements. [3] Some of the internal mechanisms mentioned in the Act already exist and predate the Act, for example Internal Audit unit. Nevertheless, there is no indication on whether the Internal Audit unit oversees disposals and producing reports. The wording of the Act seems to indicate that it is superior to any internal mechanisms such as the Internal Audit unit. The fact that the Authority is yet to be established is reflective of the fact that in South Sudan, although laws exist on paper, their implementation is often a problem.

There is little to no information about the process of disposing of assets. The Act governing the process is new and there is little information on the extent of the operationalisation of its stipulations. The Act is itself very clear and adequate, and has the potential to curb malfeasance if followed to the letter. [1] Generally, however, government business is opaque, a fact identified by the IMF in its 2019 Article IV consultations with government officials. The IMF noted a plethora of issues: “Non-transparent oil advances, oil-backed loans, and off-budget transactions are undermining fiscal discipline and budgetary integrity, which have led to high corruption vulnerabilities.” [2]

There is little to no information about the process of disposing of assets. The Act governing the process is new and there is little information on the extent of the operationalisation of its stipulations. The Act is itself is very clear and adequate, and has the potential to curb malfeasance if followed to the letter. [1] Generally, however, government business is opaque, a fact identified by the IMF in its 2019 Article IV consultations with government officials. The IMF noted a plethora of issues: “Non-transparent oil advances, oil-backed loans, and off-budget transactions are undermining fiscal discipline and budgetary integrity, which have led to high corruption vulnerabilities.” [2]

There is an internal unit in charge of asset disposal that has among its responsibilities aggregating disposal database reports. The Institute of Housing, Infrastructure, and Equipment for Defence (Instituto de Vivienda, Infraestructura y Equipamiento de la Defensa (INVIED)) created via Law 26/2009, is defined as an autonomous body that depends on the Ministry of Defence and is under the secretary of state on defence [1]. Its activities are determined in Art. 8 of Royal Decree 1080/2017 [2], which furthermore establishes that its contracts regime is the Law of Public Sector Contracts from Royal Decree 3/2011 [3] and Law 24/2011 [4].

INVIED’s website gathers detailed information about defence asset disposal, which includes comprehensive and specific details on the items that are being sold, including the location, time frame, and type of item, among other pieces of information. The usual sale procedure is through a public auction, following the provisions contained in Royal Decree 1080/2017 [1] and Law 33/2003 [2]. They may also be sold directly in the cases described by the aforementioned law. Additionally, INVIED has a commercial office through which the sale of real estate is promoted and managed with detailed information about auctions, direct sales, and related information [3].

INVIED publishes financial information on its website and annual accounting reports; they are available online [1, 2, 3, 4]. It publishes its financial results in its annual reports, but information about sales is not disaggregated or detailed; only the main operations are highlighted. Furthermore, direct disposals are common, and information about the process is not always available on its website, although it used to be in the local press [5, 6].

Sudan’s Legislative Work, Procurement, Contracting and Surplus Disposal Act (often referred to as ‘The Procurement Act’) references the need to protect asset disposition from fraudulent processes, requires the establishment of a directorate to oversee it and provides detailed descriptions of the processes that the procurement committees assigned to each ‘major’ government unit should ensure are used to execute procurement in a given unit. It tasks the procurement units of state agencies with the planning and execution of asset disposal, which should be executed through open competition among bidders. It makes no reference to exceptions for national security or defence procurement and disposal processes [1]. No further ministry-level or state-level specifications about asset disposal processes could be found. Although the Ministry of Finance website contains a link entitled ‘Disposal of Surplus Management’, the linked page is blank and no information is provided about any sector’s asset disposal, let alone the defence sector’s [2]. Therefore, it can be concluded the Government of Sudan lacks a formalised and clear process for asset disposal.

Although the Ministry of Finance website [1] contains a link entitled ‘Disposal of Surplus Management’, the linked page is blank and no information is provided about any sector’s asset disposal, let alone the defence sector’s. Pursuant to the Procurement Act’s delegation of asset disposal procedure development to state-level offices [2], it is likely that formal processes (when they exist) and execution vary widely across the country and across ministries or other major government units to which the Procurement Act applies.

Since there is no transparency with regard to the disposal process of security sector assets, there is no way to know the financial results of such disposals. Therefore this indicator is scored Not Applicable.

The policy and regulatory process for the disposal of assets is somewhat clear. In cooperation with the Defence Material Administration Agency (FMV), the Armed Forces (SAF) identifies materiel that is no longer needed and disposes of it ‘with consideration to laws, regulations, the environment, the economy, security, and public good’ [1]. FMV also investigates if the materiel could be used by and transferred to any other defence related organsation, agency, or international humanitarian organisation. The procedures are however not strictly overseen, regulated, or reviewed by an internal audit unit within the SAF or MoD, as the disposal of assets is treated more as a logistical issue to be handled by the SAF Logistical Department (FMLOG) [2]. The process is regulated by the law on gifts and transfers of SAF surplus materiel [3].

Planned disposals are known in advance and are published publicly, before a buyer has been identified, in the SAF document ‘Planned materiel supply 2014 – 2021’ [1]. While information on planned acquisitons and dispolsals is generally comprehensive, there are instances in this document where information on the items that are being sold (e.g. location, timing, type of item) is brief or incomplete.

The financial results of disposals are made available in the SAF annual reports [1] [2] [3] [4], but are presented in aggregate form.

Article 109 of the Federal Law on the Army and the Military Administration (Militärgesetz, MG) regulates the liquidation of assets. It assigns the Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport (DDPS) to liquidate army material. The liquidation of bigger weapons systems have to be submitted by the Federal Council to the Federal Assembly [1]. The Ordinance on the Procurement, the Use and the Liquidation of Materiel (Materialverordnung VBS, MatV) regulates in section 5 the liquidation of materiel. The liquidation has to follow “economic priniciples” (Article 14). The decision for liquidations that have not to be submitted to the Federal Assembly is taken by the head of the ministry (Article 15.1). If an end-use agreement was signed, armasuisse has to issue permission (Article 15.3). Armasuisse is charged with the actual liquidation of the assets (Article 16) [2]. Except for real estate, the accounting for liquidations is done by RUAG’s Competence Centre Liquidation [3] There is no evidence of a coordination body aggregating disposal data reports, however, it is likely that such reports are systematically compiled by the Competence Center or a similar body. The Federal Audit Office has previously published audits of liquidation processes (but outside of the time frame of this study) [3]. A search on the DDPS website did not yield an internal audit report for a liquidation process. However, there is no indication that the liquidation process is not covered by that office.

Materiel that is not restricted for civilian use is sold by Armasuisse [1]. No general information is available about these sales. They are subject to audits [2]. Materiel that cannot be sold is recycled. Sales and recycling are done in collaboration with private partners. General material is sold to the public through the ArmyLiqshop and ArmyTechShop by RUAG (MRO). They function like regular walk-in retail shops have additional official “sales days” when materiel is auctioned off and offer vehicles through online auction [3]. Real estate is advertised and sold on a dedicated public third party website [4]. Important weapons systems have to be liquidated going through the Federal Assembly (article 109a MG) [5]. There is evidence for Armasuisse selling important assets without announcements [6].

Income has to be channelled back into the general federal budget according to the law [1]. A motion in Parliament in 2012 suggested changing that for the DDPS, it was rejected in the National Council [2]. The incomes are published online and explained in some detail in the yearly State Financial Statement [3]. However, it is not fully disaggregated in the numbers provided online.

The MND categorises the assets into 3 types: movable property, real estate, and military materials. In general, MND’s disposals of assets are regulated by the “National Property Act” and several policies and regulations as “Management Manual of the State-owned Property”, “Operation Regulations for Military Property Management”, “Doctrine of Military Real Estate Management”, “Operating Procedures of Military Real Estate Management”, “Regulations Governing Disposal and Sales through Open Tender of the Old Quarters for Military”, “Operation Regulations for Military Waste and Unusable Material Processing” [1,2,3,4,5,6,7].

The Inspection General’s Office and Comptroller Bureau are the internal units to scrutinize procedures and finance of the assets disposal.

For movable property, the Department of Resource Planning of the MND is responsible for policy making and supervising of the movable property management. In accordance with the article 10 of the “Operation Regulations for Military Property Management” Department of Resource Planning reviews all property reports and aggregates them for National Audit Office and National Property Administration [3,8].

For real estate, the Armaments Bureau is responsible for policy making and supervising of the military real estate management. Cases shall be sent to the Ministry of Finance and National Property Administration for approval. [8].

For military materials, the Office of Deputy Chief of the General Staff for Logistics takes charge of the disposal. Every month administration authorities submit statistics of the disposal of waste or unusable materials to the Office of Deputy Chief of the General Staff for Logistics. The discipline inspection officers are responsible for supervising the process of disposal. [8].

Military assets acquired from the US are subject to US approvals for further transferring, reallocating, or disposing [9].

In addition, three special funds, “Regulations of Managing and Using the Fund of Production and Services for Military Personnel”, “Regulations for Managing and Using the Fund of Rebuilding Old Quarters for Military Dependents”, and “Regulations for Managing and Using the Fund of Rebuilding Old Barracks and Military Installations” are devised for MND’s asset managements and are implemented, regulated ,and overseen by MND’s Comptroller Bureau [10,11,12].

The bids of unusable materials disposal are revealed on the Government e-Procurement System in advance. The bidding information includes name of the unit, location, type of item, timing, bidding qualification, and deposit. The relevant information can be found by using the “Assets Selling” function of the Government e-Procurement System.[1,6]

For sales through open tender of the national land, the MND may commission the National Property Bureau of Ministry of Finance to proceed with the tender by the “Regulations Governing Disposal and Sales through Open Tender of the Old Quarters for Military Dependents and National Land Not Fitting the Used of Military Camps”. Both the Political Warfare Bureau of the Ministry of National Defense and the Property Bureau of the Ministry of Finance publishes bids for real estate on the websites. The bidding information includes names of the cases, date of announcement, tender open schedule, location, area, land classification, basic price, picture, and remarks. The results of the open bid are also published in public. The public can access the assets disposal information. [2,3,4,5,6]

However, several cases of corruption are under investigation or prosecution.

Valuation is the centre-of-gravity for potential corruption, even though planned disposals are required to be made public in advance of the sales. Planned disposals organised by the Construction and Planning Agency are required to be released to the public in advance [7,8]. Manipulations of land which are to be divested by the MND through non-MND agencies are beyond the MND’s controls and tend to be problematic. Executive authorities tend to be mis-applied in corruptions [9]. A lack of transparency and comprehensiveness in details of disposal items or disposal processes leads to a higher risk of corruption [10].

The financial results of MND’s funds are well illustrated in disaggregated forms and clarified in the public domains of the “Archive of the Annual Financial Reports for the Fund of Production and Services for Military Personnel” and the “Archive of the Annual Financial Reports for the Fund of Rebuilding Old Barracks and Military Installations” on an annual basis [1, 2].

Moreover, the financial results of unusable material disposals are publicly available in the Annual Financial Statement. The MND puts the revenue information from the regional financial units in the Annual Financial Statement. Taking the “Annual Financial Statement of 2018” for example, the financial results of disposal were listed on page 118, 230, 240, and 247. [3].

In addition, the MND puts the financial results of asset disposal in the Accounting Monthly Report and publishes it publicly. Taking the “Accounting Monthly Report of January 2019” for example, the budget of assets disposal annual revenue is NT$169.7 million, and the realized accumulation is NT$ 10.3 million. The payment to the Treasury is NT$10.2 million and awaiting payment to the Treasury is NT$0.1 million. All the financial information is published in public.[4].

The financial results of the real estate are published by the National Property Administration. Basic price and winning bid value are released on the website in public.[5].

Procedures for disposal of public assets within the public sector are legislated for under the Public Procurement Act. [1] The Procurement Unit is the responsible body in any entity for asset disposal. There are clearly laid out processes for disposal. [2] However, the Public Procurement Act 2011 exempts ‘defence and security organs’ from mainstream procedures by allowing them to use ‘restricted’ procedures for both procurement and disposal of items. So while the legislation allows for the establishment of a responsible office, the Procurement Unit, within any entity, there is considerable flexibility allowed in this sector. No reports were identified on actual disposals in reports of the regulatory authority, the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority. [3]

There are planned disposals of assets, as there are regulations cited as the Public Procurement (Goods, Works, Non-consultant Services and Disposal of Public Assets by Tender) Regulations 2005 which “shall be deemed to have come into operation on the date of commencement of the Public Procurement Act, 2004 No.21 of 2004 Cap 11, 1 (1). Procuring entities and tender boards shall maintain adequate written records of all procurement or disposal proceedings in which they are involved, including any procurement conducted other than by competitive tendering. Such records shall show which suppliers, contractors, service providers or buyers responded to advertisements or were approached to tender, who was chosen, and the reasons. 2. A procuring entity shall ensure that payments due to suppliers, contractors, service providers or due to the procuring entity by the buyer of a public asset are made properly and promptly in accordance with the terms of each procurement or disposal contract entered into, so as to maintain the credibility and credit worthiness of a public authority and the procuring entity shall ensure that commitments are recorded against voted funds before any contract is signed”. [1] [2] But sometimes these reguations may not be known in advance by the public due to the mode of advertising the disposed assets to the public as per regulations. Some of the magazines or newspapers used don’t reach the whole public on time due to uncertainities such as the remoteness of some areas of the coutry and sometimes information on disposed assets is not regularly published publicly on the ministry’s website. Security concerns are cited as the main reason behind lack of transparency in this matter. [3]

The annual Controller and Auditor General (CAG) report on Central Government for the year ended June 30, 2020 listed the Tanzania People’s Defence Force as one of a number of entities with Asset Registers “yet to be updated or lacking relevant assets’ information including asset acquisition date, description of the assets, estimated residual value, original cost, transfer and disposal.” Asset registers are not open to the public, so parliamentarians and the public rely on highly aggregrated information from CAG reports. [1]

Section 4 of the Public Procurement and Supplies Administration Act 2017 defines ‘supplies administration’ as the retention, recording, disbursement, borrowing, inspection, maintenance and disposal of supplies. Moreover, according to Section 113, the pursuit of activities under Section 112, including the retention, recording, disbursement, loans, inspection, maintenance and disposal of supplies, must be in accordance with the rules prescribed by the minister of each ministry, including the Minister of Defence [1]. Furthermore, according to the Regulations of the Ministry of Finance on Public Procurement and Supplies Administration 2017, Section 4, Article 215, the disposal of assets may be carried out in the following forms: sale, exchange, transfer and transformation/destruction, and each item must be registered on the asset registration record throughout its lifetime [2]. In terms of asset disposal within the Ministry of Defence, the Financial Unit, Office of Internal Audit under the Royal Thai Armed Forces Headquarters and the Office of Army Comptroller have full and direct authority to scrutinise and prepare reports on asset disposal [3,4]. However, there is no specific legislation on the disposal of military equipment and/or weapons.

According to the Regulations of the Office of the Prime Minister on Procurement 1992, the 6th revision (2002), public procurement must be conducted in a transparent manner [1]. Accordingly, each governmental agency or department is required to audit and report its procurement of each item to the head of the agency or procurement unit on an annual basis. The report should include the description of the current status of the item, i.e. whether it has been received, registered, deteriorated, damaged, lost or no longer needed by the agency. A copy of each report is also submitted to the Comptroller-General’s Department for further scrutiny. However, there is no requirement for this information to be made publicly available [2]. As such, no announcements of planned disposals are publicly available nor could be found via open source research.

According to the Public Procurement and Supplies Administration Act 2017, Section 113, the administration of asset disposal must be in accordance with the rules prescribed by the minister of each ministry, including the Minister of Defence [1]. As stated in the Guidelines for Public Procurement and Supplies Administration, Section 4, Article 216, money received from selling assets shall be managed according to the financial regulations of the ministry or governmental agency. Assets must be financially audited and reported to the financial division and to the Comptroller-General’s Department every year. However, the financial results of disposals are not publicly available [2]. According to Interviewee 1, a political scientist, these financial results are difficult to obtain except just sometimes by members of parliament [3].

According to our sources, there is a legal mechanism that clearly defines the mechanism of asset disposal of the MoD. However, there is no internal unit that monitors and reports the asset disposal as this is the responsibility of a joint committee with the Ministry of State’s Properties and Land Affairs (1,2). The disposal of state assets is the remit of the Ministry of State’s Properties and Land Affairs (Article 1 of decree n°999-1990, dated 11 June 1990, on Prerogatives of the Ministry of State’s Properties) (3). In addition to the concerned department at the Ministry of Defence, specialised departments of the Ministry of State’s Properties and Land Affairs are responsible for the asset disposal in terms of monitoring, following-up and keeping statistics of these properties, as well as selling them when they become unusable. The Public Services General Control (under the authority of the President of the Government) and the Court of Audit can also intervene in the scrutiny of such matters, but an oversight by these bodies is limited (decree no 88-36) (4). There are no available sources detailing the disposal of assets within the Ministry of Defence.

The destination of obsolete and unusable defence items like weapons systems and armored vehicles depends on the authorisation from the origin country (according to the stipulations of the end-user certificate) (5).

According to our sources, there is no mechanism to make asset disposal publicly available through any kind of channel. However, occasionally the Ministry of State’s properties and Lands Affairs open competitions of assets’ disposal (1,2,3).

According to our sources, there is no public information, or any information in the budget of the MoD, concerning the asset disposal. The revenue of the assets goes to the general budget as income(1,2).

All asset disposal within the defence/security sector is carried out in accordance with Law No. 4046 on Implementation of Privatisation, which regulates the principles for the privatisation of all military and non-military state-owned establishments, State Economic Enterprises (SEEs), their enterprises, associated corporations, operations, operational units and assets, as well as public share holders in their participations [1]. This law sets forth the rules and principles applicable to privatisation and establishes the Privatization Administration of Turkey, which is attached to the Ministry of Treasury and Finance in the presidential system. The High Commission of Privatization is composed of four ministers appointed by the President and acts as the decision-making authority, determining the scope and extent of the privatisation programme and regulating the financial aspects of transactions. The Privatization Administration of Turkey has an official website, where all asset disposal/privatisation tenders are shared except for those relating to defence/security [2].

So, neither the Ministry of Defence nor the General Staff has an internal unit that manages all asset disposal/privatisation, because this task is fufilled by the civilian institutions of the Ministry of Treasury and Finance.

In terms of asset disposal/privatisation in the defence/security sector, there is Law No. 3212 Military Asset Disposal Regulations as Foreign Aids, which provides a very rough and broad legislative framework that gives the Government maximum control and flexibility to conduct all military asset disposal, particularly for those assets that are to be delivered as foreign aid or in support of academic, military technology-related or cultural/historical purposes [3]. It should also be noted that there has been an ongoing debate between the Government and the opposition since summer 2018. This is demonstrated by the case of the privatisation (sale) of the Arifiye/Kocaeli tank factory to BMC, a firm owned by a pro-Erdogan businessman (see below), for USD 50 million in December 2018. This privatisation was conducted through Presidential Decree No. 1105 only, which was issued as a ‘secret’ document and not made publicly available. While the opposition argues that privatisation/asset disposal in the field of defence/security should only be authorised through bills (legislative process), the Government asserts that a presidential decree is enough to realise this asset disposal/privatisation [4]. The decree that received the most attention in discussions was the contradiction to the scope and purpose of the privatisation law (Law No: 4046), which relies on the fact that the factory was a military unit and not a state enterprise. In addition, many of the factory workers (reportedly approx. 1,000) fear that privatisation may lead to job losses or changes to their working conditions even though Minister of Defense Hulusi Akar has noted that they will not harm the personal rights of the workers [5].

Interviewee 6 suggested that conducting the sale of the Arifiye tank factory (government leasehold) and the sale of some military housing sites to private-sector firms through presidential decrees only and outside legislative oversight creates ‘black holes’ in the system that cannot be transparently monitored. He said that even the Asset Disposal Department in the Ministry has had no say in these high-profile cases of asset disposal/privatisation conducted by the presidency in the past two years and that they were all arranged at the presidential palace [6]. Interviewee 3 confirmed these suggestions [7].

4046 Implementation Of Privatization Law does not make any specific references as to how to conduct defence/security disposals. Currently, the Ministry of Treasury and Finance, led by President Erdogan’s son-in-law Berat Albayrak, is in charge of all disposal and sale processes in the field of defence/security.

The state-owned Arifiye tank factory was sold to BMC, a firm owned by Ethem Sancak, President Erdogan’s close friend and the AKP’s central committe member, for just USD 50 million (for a government leasehold of 49 years). However, Interviewee 3 suggested that the factory land alone is worth around USD 200 million [1], making this a prominent example of how state-owned defence industry entities are disposed of (or privatised for the Government) in a corrupt and non-transparent fashion [2]. Interviewee 2 also suggested that there are some rumors in Ankara that the Government has been in contact with the governments of Qatar, Pakistan and Malaysia regarding the sale of some shares of MKEK, Aselsan and Roketsan [3].

Please also note that the sale of land properties of military compounds in the city centres, such as military housing sites, units and HQs, has been a good source of income for the Government. For example, an area of 97 thousand square metres with military lodgings in Zeytinburnu, a luxury neighborhood in Istanbul, was tendered in late 2017 by the Government [4]. The winner of the tender was the partnership of Southern Real Estate, Baş Yapı Construction, Esta Construction and Elit Vision Yapı, construction firms very close to the AKP. The partners offered 1 billion 730 million TL (around 250 million USD) for the value of the sale [4]. There are currently more than 40 tenders for the sale of lands of military compounds, the land deeds belonging to the Ministry of Defence, all around Turkey. As seen in the case of the disposal of the Arifiye tank factory and its transfer to the pro-Erdogan and Qatar-owned defence industry firm BMC at a price clearly far below its actual value, the disposal of state-owned defence entities is not transparent. Since the beginning of 2019, opposition party MPs have delivered parliamentary inquiries and called for parliamentary investigations into about the sale (or lease) of the Arifiye tank factory several times [5,6], but neither the presidential palace nor the Ministry of Defence has responded to these requests so far [7].

Open-source research shows that defence/security disposal is neither published on the official website of the Privatization Administration nor on the website of the Ministry of Treasury and Finance.

Insights from Interviewees 1, 2, 3 and 6, as well as open-source research, show that the financial results of asset disposal in the field of defence/security have not been shared transparently with parliament or on the Privatization Administration’s official website due to secrecy [1,2,3,4]. Currently, the presidential palace has full administrative and financial control of all those multi-billion-dollar TSKGV firms (Aselsan, Roketsan, Havelsan, Asfat, Aspilsan, Isfat), MKEK and the land properties of the Ministry of Defence, the combined worth of whose assets amounts to billions of US dollars. As seen in the case of the Arifiye tank factory, the presidency does not bother to inform either parliament or the public about asset disposals or sales to Turkish or foreign investors. Many factories that are strategic for the Turkish economy, such as state-run tobacco and alcoholic beverage company TEKEL, state-owned petroleum refinery TÜPRAŞ and state-owned telecommunications company Türk Telekom, have been sold to national and international capitalists under the AKP government, which has had negative impacts on the rights of working people. On Janurary 19, 2019, workers who feared they would be fired planned to hold a mass protest in Sakarya. The Turk Harb-Is union decided to resist the privatisation decision. But given the current conditions in Turkey, it seems likely that such protests would be quickly dispersed by security forces and that such actions would not be widely reported by the media, which mostly supports the government [5].

By law, all government entities are supposed to follow the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (PPDA) Act 2003 when disposing of their assets. Section 42(2) of the PPDA Act 2003 [1] empowers the Ministry of Defence and Veterans Affairs (MoDVA) to manage their procurement and disposal based on a dual list, covering items subject to open and restricted procurement or disposal methods, respectively. Section 252 (2) of the UPDF Act (2005) states that without prejudice to the general effect of subsection (1), the minister may make regulations under the subsection in respect of (b) the disposal of any property for the defence forces and the application of the proceeds, if any, of the disposal. Again by law, all government ministries and institutions have internal audits, and their main function is to advise and approve on internal spending by that ministry or institution. Procurement departments are also in place to ensure compliance of procuring and disposal of public assets as provided by the law. The procurement department is responsible for aggregating disposal data base reports.

According to one MP [1], the MoDVA has the habit of “blackmailing everybody that this and that is classified”. In his opinion, only smaller things like tires and chairs are made public. The rest are sold to insiders under the guise of being classified items. The MoDVA is on the government’s procurement portal [2], but the items there are only for open bidding. The portal is online and open to any interested party. There are other avenues like newspapers where the calls for bids are advertised. The information published about the planned disposals follows the PPDA Act guidelines.

Some defence matters are above scrutiny and are considered very confidential [1]. Another source observed that defence officials feel they are above Parliament [2], making it very hard to follow up on some of these things. Given these circumstances, the proceeds from such sales are confined to the MoDVA and are not disclosed to the public.

The MoD Main Directorate of Property and Resources is responsible for the state policy in the field of alienation of military property of the AFU [1] as well as the accounting of the surplus assets [2]. The MoD Department of Internal Audit is the one to evaluate the management of the state (military) property, prevention of inefficient and illegal use of resources and implementation of internal audit activities [3]. There is also a clear regulatory process in place that provides a procedure for alienation and the sale of military property of the AFU and which is adopted by the CMU [4].

The decisions on the disposal of military property, which is suitable for future use, but cannot be applied in the daily activities of the AFU as well as military goods are approved by the CMU following the proposal of the MoD [1]. The decision on the alienation of the decommissioned military property is taken by the MoD alone [2]. Both the CMU [3] and the MoD [4] publish information on the units of military property (quantity, year of production, quality, initial cost, location, etc.) online. The MoD announces both the competitive selection of business entities for the evaluation of military property subjected for alienation [5] and the corresponding results [6]. The sales of military property should be conducted by business entities that are authorized by the CMU to sell military property on the domestic and/or foreign market [7]. The list of these business entities (state-owned enterprises only) is published online by the MoD [8]. However, there is no information provided regarding which business entity sold what item(s). The business entities publish on their websites corresponding announcements [9, 10] on particular sales (sales that are conducted by using tender procedures). Moreover, not all these business entities have websites so it is impossible to check them for corresponding announcements (“Tekhvoienservis”); some of these business entities have; however, they did not publish any corresponding announcements and the reasons are not clear (whether it is because they did not get anything to sell or because they did not make the information publicly available (“Spetstechnoexport”).

Funds received from the disposal of the assets are to be transferred to the state budget within a five day period [1]. The MoD keeps records of contracts as well as funds from the sale of military property and quarterly reports to the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Economy on the volume of alienated military property [1]. Each year the MoD aggregates information on alienated military property and sends it to the CMU and the Ministry of Economy [1]. None of this is made publicly available either by the MoD, the Ministry of Economy, the Ministry of Finance or corresponding business entities who sold the military property. At the same time, the MoD Budget request contains general and aggregated information on the revenues from the asset disposals for the previous year [2].

There are clear regulations and processes within the armed forces that administer the disposal of assets. Federal Decree No. 12 of 1986 regulating Tenders & Auctions in the Armed Forces (amended by Resolution No. 32 of 1995), as part of business law in the UAE (1), is supposed to in part regulate asset disposals within the Armed Forces. There is a unit that oversees these processes. The assets can be sent as gifts to other armies(e. g Libya and Yemen) or sold in case they can be used by civilians (2,3).

The information available to the public about defence expenditure and budgets generally does not include any information related to asset disposal. Media reports, sometimes reveal information on actual sales and/or disposal of some defence assets; however, there are no official communications around asset disposal on behalf of the government. In general, information about asset disposal is scarce and not available outside the Ministry of Defence and the army in case the assets are military equipment; however, the MoF can be involved when the assets include equipment or vehicles that can be used by civilians (1), (2).

The UAE government does not reveal any information about its defence budget, revenues, and or assets to the public. As cases of asset disposal with revenues are rare, there is no information available on this matter (1), (2).

The Defence Equipment Sales Authority (DESA) (previously the Disposal Services Authority) is the organisation within the Ministry of Defence (MoD) that has sole authority to dispose of all MoD surplus equipment within the UK and overseas, for example: aircraft, aircraft spares, ships, boats, river craft and other marine vessels, spares, military and domestic vehicles, with the exception of nuclear, domestic waste and infrastructure. DESA is unique in government, specialising in disposal of surplus equipment [1].

Planned disposals are known in advance, published on DESA’s website [1]. However, at the time of research, the website only displayed the notices of potential sales, without the possibility to access more details about each sale.

The National Audit Office (NAO) audits the MoD’s accounts, which discusses the disposal of assets and estates. The NAO can also conduct independent ‘examinations into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness’ of defence bodies, and this includes the MoD and its Arms Length Bodies (ALBs). The NAO has a right to access the records of the organisation it audits [2]. The Defence Select Committee also has powers to scrutinise the expenditure, administration and policy of the MoD and its ALBs. The committee can demand documents, summon witnesses and appoint advisers to assist its investigations. Both organisations publish reports in a timely manner and their websites provide regular updates on the stages and progress of inquiries.

Only general/aggregated information about the financial results of asset disposals is regularly made publicly available in the MoD Annual Report and Accounts, whereas detailed information on the financial results of each sale appears to not be publicly available [1].

The disposal and sale of military assets is governed by Title 10, Chapter 153 of the US code [1]. The DoD disposal process is managed by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and there is a clearly outlined overview of the disposal process provided by the GAO [2]. The disposal process has four stages: Reutilisation; Transfer; Donation; Sale. In the Reutilisation stage, the DLA Disposition Services posts information about the property on its website (RTD Web), where registered users can view and request property [3]. The users must be agencies that are part of the DoD, and some special programmes, e.g. Law Enforcement Agencies, can also request property at this time as part of the Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO) [4,5]. The LESO programme has been criticised on the basis of concerns about militarised equipment being transferred to domestic law enforcement agencies [2,4,6].

If property has not been reutilised, it moves to the Transfer stage, where both federal and non-federal agencies may view the property. At the Donation stage (the third stage), if excess property is still available, it must be declared as surplus and it may be donated to state and municipal governments through the Federal Surplus Personal Property Donation Program. Eligible recipients also include nonprofit organisations. The last stage is sale, which occurs after 43 days of the property being advertised by the DLA. Public sales are managed by two external contractors; one for rolling stock and one for non-rolling stock. Their websites are available through the DLA website [7].

The DLA has its own Inspector General and Office of Inspector General. Within this office, there is an Audit Division which undertakes independent internal audits in accordance with the DoD OIG requirements. The DoD OIG undertook a system review of the DLA OIG’s audit organisation between 2016 and 2019 and, while the DLA OIG passed this review, the DoD OIG found that the DLA OIG did not monitor the quality of its audits [8], suggesting that the internal audit of disposals might not be adequate. It should be noted that the DLA is regularly criticised for poor management. For example, in 2019, it was found that the DLA did not undertake the correct formalities in processing thousands of Humvees, which were then scrapped rather than donated or sold, potentially forfeiting $156 million over a six year period [9]. The 2017 external audit also found that the DLA failed to properly document more than $800 million in construction projects and $100 million in other assets [10,11].

With regard to aggregate disposal database reports, no such reports could be found. This doesn’t necessarily negate their existence, however, given the complexity and poor signposting of the DLA website.

The disposal process includes 42 days, which are known as the ‘screening cycle’ and broken down into the four stages mentioned in 24A. During this process, potential government recipients may screen, request and obtain excess property. After this, the remaining property is sold via two external contractors. A 7-day accumulation period precedes the 42-day disposal screening cycle to allow additional time for organisations to view the items being disposed of [1,2]. The level of information provided is not clear as the screening process is not accessible to the public.

The relevant DLA Financial Report (Working Capital Fund) from FY 2020 includes principal financial statements and there is a single line relating to dispositions. No other information could be found with regard to financial results [1]. On the DLA website, there is a page for Historical Sales Information, however, the information provided is not comprehensive and seems selective in what is made public [2]. The most recently updated information is from February 2016, so it is not clear that this information was updated during the Trump administration. Members of the public can create an account for the DLA Disposition Services ESales website, which allows users to view some sales reports [3]. There is not a clear system for this website, however, and the reports are not searchable, nor does there appear to be a comprehensive database of all sales. In short, it is not easy for the public to navigate. A 2017 Ernst & Young (EY) audit report found that the ‘DLA continues to have unresolved accounting issues and material weaknesses in internal controls that cause DLA to be unable to provide sufficient evidential support for complete and accurate financial statements on a timely basis’ [4]. Openthebooks.com, a civil society organisation, used freedom of information requests to publish a report on all disclosed transfers of military equipment to domestic law enforcement agencies [5].

The process for the disposal of public assets is regulated by the 2014 Organic Law of Public Goods (LOBP). This law regulates the operation of the Superintendency of Public Goods (SUDEBIP) and different directorates and commissions. Specifically, the disposal process is established in Administrative Ruling no. 053 of 2018 [1]. The disposal of a public asset must be requested by the public authority managing it before the SUDEBIP Disposal Commission [2]. Once this is approved, requirements for the method of disposal established by the Commission are followed. This may be a sale, exchange, contribution in lieu of payment, donation, contribution to the stock of state-owned companies, or other type of transaction. This procedure is not exclusive or unique to the defence sector, but applies more generally to the entire public sector.

The processes and controls established in the LOBP include supplemental regulations for exceptional goods, including those “directly used for the security and defence of goods and persons”, which are permitted their own laws [2]. In the case of the defence sector, the responsibilities of the Comptroller General of the Bolivarian National Armed Forces (CONGEFANB) include the “supervision and oversight of revenue, expenditure, and public goods attached to the MPPD [Ministry of the People’s Power for Defence]” [3]. However, no public documents specify disposal processes for assets particular to this sector, nor have any CONGEFANB audits been made public indicating whether defence sector assets have recently been sold or otherwise disposed of, and whether specific procedures have been followed.

Analyses by civil society organisations reiterate recommendations to establish specific processes for the disposal of public assets, as the process described in laws is generalised and does not address the specificities of different sectors and levels within public administration [4]. While these recommendations are not specific to the defence sector, the defence sector demonstrably lacks defined procedures. The Decentralised Service of Goods and Services of the Bolivarian National Armed Forces (FANB) could in theory deal with disposals as part of the management of FANB assets [5], but does not offer any documentation establishing specific guidelines for the disposal of goods. In fact, according to publications by the director, the current actions of the Decentralised Service do not exemplify up-to-date disposal processes [6], nor are there any documents from CONGEFANB indicating that assets disposals in the sector are monitored.

A review of the applicable legislation indicates that there is no transparency whatsoever on planned or unplanned asset disposal, as there is no legal requirement for these types of actions to be registered in the General Register of Public Assets [1,2].

Financial information on disposals of public assets is not available to the public. Only SUDEBIP management reports are made public, which set out total numbers of assets disposed of during a given period [1]. Similarly, CONGEFANB has not released recent audit documents or financial statements for defence. The most recent document from the Comptroller that offered some information on financial performance does not address disposals [2]. Given the lack of accountability in Venezuela, which has become more pronounced since 2015 when the executive was last accountable to the National Assembly (AN), it has not been possible to obtain information about the disposal of public goods since 2016. In a Ministry of the People’s Power for Economy and Finance (MPPEF) report, the SUDEBIP submitted total amounts for disposals made, without any financial detail [3]. The draft bill for accountability in the exercise of the public functions of the state, introduced in the AN, proposes to increase oversight of the management of public goods. However, it makes no explicit reference to oversight of asset disposal [4].

There is an officer in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) (i.e. the principal officer being the director of procurement research & administration) with the specific responsibility to coordinate asset disposal of all public assets which the defence forces may deem unnecessary or surplus to requirements [1]. Furthermore, the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act requires an officer for each procuring entity who is in charge of the disposal of all assets that may be obsolete, unserviceable, or surplus [2]. The officer must declare every stage to the Disposal Committee of that particular entity. The committee recommends a prefered method of disposal which include transferring the asset to another procuring entity, selling the asset by public tender or by public auction; destroying, dumping or burying the asset; trading in the asset for another one and any other suitable method that may be prescribed or that the authority may direct or recommend.

The administration of the Zimbabwe military is murky in practice, therefore, it is difficult to find information on disposal of obsolete, unserviceable or equipment that has become excess to requirements. There are allegations that KM Auctions, which usually conduct auctions to dispose of army equipment and assets, are usually contracted to do so because the owner Kenny Mubaiwa’s daughter was married to the retired commander of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces [1]. The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act provides a complaints mechanism for members of the public if they are not satisfied with the way disposal would have been conducted [2]. A citizen who complains is treated as someone who would have expressed interest to buy the disposals. The disposal of assets and equipment is usually done through public auctions, which are advertised in the public media. Comprehensive information is published, including specific details on the items that are being sold (location, timing, type of item); however, this is usually disposal of non-military equipment and assets [3]. There is no publicly available information on how military assets are disposed of.

The financial results of asset disposals are not made publicly available. However, the Office of the Auditor General Zimbabwe (OAG), in the 2017 report, reported that the Ministry of Defence failed to submit returns of all the revenues generated in that calendar year [1]. This is a failure to meet the obligation outlined in the Public Finance Management Act, which requires that the funds be declared to the treasury. This shows the opaqueness financials at the Ministry of Defence. The OAG, in 2018, also found a failure to properly record and manage asset registers in the Ministry of Defence, although an acknowledgement was made that the registers were later updated after the recommendations [2].

Country Sort by Country 24a. Controls Sort By Subindicator 24b. Transparency of disposal process Sort By Subindicator 24c. Transparency of financial results of disposals Sort By Subindicator
Albania 100 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Algeria 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Angola 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Argentina 50 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100
Armenia 25 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100
Australia 75 / 100 25 / 100 50 / 100
Azerbaijan 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Bahrain 25 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Bangladesh 75 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100
Belgium 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Bosnia and Herzegovina 100 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100
Botswana 100 / 100 75 / 100 75 / 100
Brazil 75 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100
Burkina Faso 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Cameroon 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Canada 75 / 100 50 / 100 25 / 100
Chile 100 / 100 25 / 100 50 / 100
China 50 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Colombia 100 / 100 50 / 100 100 / 100
Cote d'Ivoire 50 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100
Denmark 100 / 100 75 / 100 75 / 100
Egypt 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Estonia 75 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Finland 100 / 100 75 / 100 25 / 100
France 50 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
Germany 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Ghana 100 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100
Greece 75 / 100 75 / 100 0 / 100
Hungary 100 / 100 25 / 100 75 / 100
India 50 / 100 0 / 100 25 / 100
Indonesia 100 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100
Iran 50 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100
Iraq 0 / 100 0 / 100 25 / 100
Israel 100 / 100 50 / 100 25 / 100
Italy 100 / 100 100 / 100 75 / 100
Japan 75 / 100 0 / 100 50 / 100
Jordan 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Kenya 75 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100
Kosovo 50 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100
Kuwait 0 / 100 0 / 100 25 / 100
Latvia 100 / 100 75 / 100 25 / 100
Lebanon 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Lithuania 100 / 100 75 / 100 0 / 100
Malaysia 50 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Mali 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Mexico 50 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Montenegro 75 / 100 25 / 100 50 / 100
Morocco 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Myanmar 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Netherlands 75 / 100 50 / 100 100 / 100
New Zealand 100 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100
Niger 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Nigeria 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
North Macedonia 100 / 100 75 / 100 25 / 100
Norway 75 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Oman 75 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Palestine NEI 75 / 100 0 / 100
Philippines 50 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
Poland 100 / 100 75 / 100 25 / 100
Portugal 50 / 100 25 / 100 25 / 100
Qatar 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Russia 100 / 100 25 / 100 25 / 100
Saudi Arabia 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Serbia 100 / 100 25 / 100 25 / 100
Singapore 75 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100
South Africa 25 / 100 25 / 100 75 / 100
South Korea 100 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
South Sudan 100 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Spain 100 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
Sudan 25 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Sweden 50 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100
Switzerland 100 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
Taiwan 75 / 100 75 / 100 75 / 100
Tanzania 75 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100
Thailand 100 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Tunisia 50 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Turkey 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Uganda 100 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100
Ukraine 100 / 100 25 / 100 25 / 100
United Arab Emirates 75 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
United Kingdom 100 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100
United States 75 / 100 0 / 100 25 / 100
Venezuela 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Zimbabwe 100 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100

With thanks for support from the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs who have contributed to the Government Defence Integrity Index.

Transparency International Defence & Security is a global programme of Transparency International based within Transparency International UK.

Privacy Policy

UK Charity Number 1112842

All rights reserved Transparency International Defence & Security 2023