2. To receive a copy of Landmine Monitor
Report 2006, please contact:
International Campaign to Ban Landmines Human Rights Watch
Email: lm@icbl.org 1630 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 500
www.icbl.org/lm Washington, DC 20009, USA
Tel: +1 (202) 612-4321, Fax: +1 (202) 612-4333
Mines Action Canada Email: landmine@hrw.org
1502 - 1 Nicholas Street www.hrw.org
Ottawa, Ontario K1N 7B7, CANADA
Tel: +1 (613) 241-3777, Fax: +1 (613) 244-3410 Norwegian People’s Aid
Email: info@minesactioncanada.org PO Box 8844, Youngstorget NO-0028
www.minesactioncanada.org Oslo, NORWAY
Tel: +47 (22) 03-77-00, Fax: +47 (22) 20-08-70
Handicap International Email: lm@npaid.org
rue de Spa 67 www.npaid.org
B-1000 Brussels, BELGIUM
Tel: +32 (2) 286-50-59, Fax: +32 (2) 230-60-30
Email: minepolicy@handicap.be
www.handicap-international.be
3. Landmine Monitor
Toward a Mine-Free World
Executive Summary
2006
Landmine Monitor
Editorial Board
Mines Action Canada
Handicap International
Human Rights Watch
Norwegian People’s Aid
5. Contents
About Landmine Monitor 1 Landmine Casualties 45
and Survivor Assistance
Major Findings 3 New Casualties in 2005-2006 45
Capacities and Challenges in Collecting Data 48
Introduction 7 Addressing the Needs of Survivors 49
Capacities and Challenges in 51
Banning Antipersonnel Mines 9 Providing Assistance
Universalization 9 Victim Assistance and Mine Ban Treaty 52
Sixth Meeting of States Parties 12 Implementation
Implementation and Intersessional 13 Coordination and Integration for Sustainable 53
Work Program Victim Assistance
Convention on Conventional Weapons 13 Progress in Survivor Assistance 55
Use of Antipersonnel Mines 14 Disability Policy and Practice 58
Production of Antipersonnel Mines 16 Other International Developments 59
Global Trade in Antipersonnel Mines 18
Antipersonnel Mine Stockpiles and 19 Mine Action Funding 61
their Destruction Donor Contributions in 2005 61
Mines Retained for Research and 21 Funding, Cooperation and the Mine Ban Treaty 63
Training (Article 3) Donor Funding Policy and the Mine Ban Treaty 63
Transparency Reporting (Article 7) 22 Funding Channels 64
National Implementation Measures (Article 9) 23 Mine Action Donors 64
Special Issues of Concern 23 States and Victim Assistance 72
Major Mine Action Recipients 75
Mine Action 29
Major Achievements of Mine Action Programs 29 Status of the Convention 79
Major Challenges for Mine Action Programs 32
Responding Effectively to Community Needs 32 Key Developments 81
Fulfilling the Requirements of Article 5 34 States Parties 81
National Ownership and Good Governance 37 Signatories 89
Mine Risk Education 40 Non-Signatories 89
MRE Programs 40 Other 92
Key Actors 41
At-Risk Groups 42 Convention on the Prohibition 94
MRE in Areas of Conflict 42 of the Use, Stockpiling, Production
Integration of MRE with Other Mine Action 42 and Transfer of Anti-Personnel
Activities Mines and on Their Destruction
Community-Based MRE 43
Evaluations and Learning 43 Notes 103
6. 1997 Convention on the Prohibition Table Key
of the Use, Stockpiling, Production States Parties: ratified or acceded
as of 1 July 2006.
and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines Signatories: signed but not yet
ratified.
and on Their Destruction Non-Signatories: not yet acceded.
The Americas Europe, the Caucasus & Central Asia
Antigua & Barbuda Argentina Albania Andorra Austria
Bahamas Barbados Belarus Belgium Bosnia&Herzegovina
Belize Bolivia Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus
Brazil Canada Czech Republic Denmark Estonia
Chile Colombia France Germany Greece
Costa Rica Dominica Holy See Hungary Iceland
Dominican Rep. Ecuador Ireland Italy Latvia
El Salvador Grenada Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg
Guatemala Guyana Macedonia, FYR Malta Moldova
Haiti Honduras Monaco Netherlands Norway
Jamaica Mexico Portugal Romania San Marino
Nicaragua Panama Serbia & Montenegro Slovakia Slovenia
Paraguay Peru Spain Sweden Switzerland
St. Kitts & Nevis St. Vincent and Tajikistan Turkey Turkmenistan
Saint Lucia the Grenadines Ukraine United Kingdom Poland
Suriname Trinidad & Tobago Armenia Azerbaijan Finland
Uruguay Venezuela Georgia Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan
Cuba United States Russia Uzbekistan
Middle East & North Africa
Algeria Jordan Qatar
Tunisia Yemen Bahrain
Egypt Iran Iraq
Israel Kuwait Lebanon East & South Asia & the Pacific
Libya Morocco Oman Afghanistan Australia
Saudi Arabia Syria United Arab Emirates Bangladesh Bhutan
Brunei Cambodia
Sub-Saharan Africa Cook Islands Fiji
Angola Benin Botswana Japan Kiribati
Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Malaysia Maldives
Cape Verde Central African Rep. Chad Nauru New Zealand
Comoros Congo, Dem. Rep. Congo, Rep. Niue Papua New Guinea
Côte d'Ivoire Djibouti Equatorial Guinea Philippines Samoa
Eritrea Ethiopia Gabon Solomon Islands Thailand
Gambia Ghana Guinea Timor-Leste Vanuatu
Guinea-Bissau Kenya Lesotho Indonesia Marshall Islands
Liberia Madagascar Malawi Burma/Myanmar China
Mali Mauritania Mauritius India Korea, North
Mozambique Namibia Niger Korea, South Laos
Nigeria Rwanda São Tomé & Principe Micronesia Mongolia
Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone Nepal Pakistan
South Africa Sudan Swaziland Palau Singapore
Tanzania Togo Uganda Sri Lanka Tonga
Zambia Zimbabwe Somalia Tuvalu Vietnam
9. Major Findings
L
andmine Monitor Report 2006 reveals that and the lowest number of abstentions since 1997
the Mine Ban Treaty and the mine ban when it was first introduced. Twenty-four states not
movement continue to make good progress party to the treaty voted in favor, including Azerbaijan
toward eradicating antipersonnel landmines and China for the first time.
and saving lives and limbs in every region of the
world. Significant challenges remain, however. Non-State Armed Groups committing
This edition of the Landmine Monitor reports in to a ban on antipersonnel mines
detail on progress and challenges remaining in over The Polisario Front in Western Sahara signed the
120 countries, including mine-affected countries and Geneva Call Deed of Commitment banning antiper-
those with substantial stockpiles of antipersonnel sonnel mines in November 2005 and the Kurdistan
mines, and the dwindling minority of states which Workers Party (PKK) signed in July 2006.
have not yet joined the Mine Ban Treaty. Landmine
Monitor Report 2006 provides an annual update to Universalization challenges
Landmine Monitor Report 2005. None of the 40 non-signatories to the Mine Ban
The reporting period for Landmine Monitor Report Treaty acceded in the past year. Some major stock-
2006 is May 2005 to May 2006. Editors have where pilers, producers and users remain outside the treaty,
possible added important information that arrived including Burma, China, India, Pakistan, Russia and
later. Statistics for mine action and landmine casual- the United States. Some countries that were reported
ties are usually given for calendar year 2005, with to be making progress toward the treaty in Landmine
comparisons to 2004. Monitor Report 2005 did not report any further
progress, such as Bahrain, Oman, Kyrgyzstan, Libya
Increased international rejection of
and the United Arab Emirates.
antipersonnel mines
As of 1 July 2006, 151 countries were States Parties to
No use of antipersonnel mines by
the Mine Ban Treaty, and another three had signed
States Parties or signatories
but not yet ratified, constituting well over three-quar-
There is no evidence—or even serious allegation—of
ters of the world’s nations. Four signatory states rati-
use of antipersonnel mines by Mine Ban Treaty States
fied the treaty since the publication of Landmine
Parties or signatories. This is notable because many
Monitor Report 2005: Ukraine, Haiti, the Cook Islands
were users in the recent past before becoming States
and Brunei. Ukraine possesses 6.7 million antiper-
Parties or signatories.
sonnel mines, the world’s fourth largest stockpile.
Several states indicated they would accede in the near
future, including Indonesia, Kuwait, Palau and Three governments using antipersonnel mines
Poland. Many states that are not party took steps In this reporting period, at least three governments
consistent with the treaty. continued using antipersonnel mines—Myanmar
(Burma), Nepal and Russia—with the most extensive
Increased support for the goal of eliminating use in Myanmar. However, in May 2006, the govern-
antipersonnel mines ment of Nepal and Maoist rebels agreed to a cease-
UN General Assembly Resolution 60/80, calling for fire and a Code of Conduct that includes non-use of
universalization of the Mine Ban Treaty, was adopted landmines. These three governments and Georgia
on 8 December 2005, with 158 in favor, none were identified as users in Landmine Monitor Report
opposed, and 17 abstentions; this was the highest 2005 and previous reports, establishing themselves as
number of votes in favor of this annual resolution the only ongoing state-users of antipersonnel mines.
L A N D M I N E M O N I TO R R E P O RT 2 0 0 6 : E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY / 3
10. Non-State Armed Groups using Seventy-four States Parties have completed destruc-
antipersonnel mines tion, and another 64 never possessed mines, leaving
Non-state armed groups are using antipersonnel mines 13 States Parties with stocks to destroy. Some 700,000
in more countries than government forces, but NSAG stockpiled antipersonnel mines were destroyed by
use is also on the decline. In this reporting period, States Parties since the last Landmine Monitor report.
NSAGs used antipersonnel mines or antipersonnel States Parties collectively have destroyed more than
mine-like improvised explosive devices in at least 10 39.5 million antipersonnel mines.
countries, including in three States Parties (Burundi,
Colombia and Guinea-Bissau) and in seven non-States Millions of mines stockpiled by non-States Parties
Parties (Burma, India, Iraq, Nepal, Pakistan, Landmine Monitor estimates that non-States Parties
Russia/Chechnya and Somalia). Landmine Monitor stockpile over 160 million antipersonnel mines, with
Report 2005 cited NSAG use of antipersonnel mines in the vast majority held by just five states: China (est.
at least 13 countries. Guinea-Bissau, where Senegalese 110 million), Russia (26.5 million), US (10.4 million),
rebels used mines against the Guinea-Bissau Army was, Pakistan (est. 6 million) and India (est. 4-5 million).
added to the list, while Georgia, the Philippines, Turkey South Korea for the first time reported a stockpile
and Uganda were removed this year. total (407,800); officials previously indicated a stock
of some two million antipersonnel mines. Signatory
Production of antipersonnel mines by 13 countries Poland holds nearly one million antipersonnel mines.
Landmine Monitor identifies 13 countries as
producers of antipersonnel mines, the same as last Too many mines retained for training,
year: Burma, China, Cuba, India, Iran, North Korea, too few explanations why
South Korea, Nepal, Pakistan, Russia, Singapore, Over 227,000 antipersonnel mines are retained by 69
United States and Vietnam. Some of these countries States Parties under the exception granted by Article 3
are not actively producing, but reserve the right to do of the treaty. Five States Parties account for nearly
so. The United States, which has not produced since one-third of all retained mines: Brazil, Turkey, Algeria,
1997, has been developing new landmine systems Bangladesh and Sweden. Too few States Parties have
that may be incompatible with the Mine Ban Treaty. reported in any detail on why they are retaining mines,
Vietnamese officials told a Canadian delegation in and in many cases it does not appear the mines are
November 2005 that Vietnam no longer produces being utilized at all. Only 11 States Parties made use of
antipersonnel mines, a statement Landmine Monitor the new format to report on the intended purposes
is attempting to confirm and clarify. At least 38 coun- and actual uses of retained mines that was agreed at
tries have ceased production of antipersonnel mines, the Sixth Meeting of States Parties in December 2005.
including five states not party to the Mine Ban Treaty.
Decreased numbers of mines retained
De facto global ban on trade in for training and development
antipersonnel mines The number of retained mines decreased by about
For the past decade, global trade in antipersonnel 21,000 in this reporting period. An additional five
mines has consisted solely of a low-level of illicit and states chose not to retain any mines and/or
unacknowledged transfers. In this reporting period, destroyed existing retained stocks: DR Congo,
there were only a small number of reports of such Eritrea, Hungary, the Former Yugoslav Republic of
trafficking in antipersonnel mines. Macedonia, and Moldova. At least 71 States Parties
have chosen not to retain any antipersonnel mines.
UN panel allegation of transfer of
antipersonnel mines Continued high-rate of initial
A UN panel leveled the most serious and specific alle- transparency reporting
gation ever of a transfer of antipersonnel mines by a States Parties’ compliance with the treaty require-
Mine Ban Treaty State Party. In May 2006, a UN arms ment to submit an initial transparency report held
embargo monitoring group reported that the govern- steady at 96 percent in 2005, with Cameroon and
ment of Eritrea had delivered 1,000 antipersonnel Latvia providing reports.
mines to militant fundamentalists in Somalia in
March 2006. Eritrea denied the claims as “baseless Late transparency reporting
and unfounded” and labeled the report as “outra- As of 1 July 2006, six States Parties had not submitted
geous and regrettable.” overdue initial Article 7 reports: Equatorial Guinea,
Cape Verde, Gambia, Sao Tome e Principe, Guyana
Millions of stockpiled antipersonnel and Ethiopia. For the second year in a row, there was
mines destroyed a decrease in compliance with the requirement to
In this reporting period, four States Parties completed submit an annual update Article 7 report. As of 1 July
destruction of their stockpiles: Guinea-Bissau, Nigeria, 2006, 90 states had submitted updated reports due
Algeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo. 30 April 2006, or 62 percent.
4 / L A N D M I N E M O N I TO R R E P O RT 2 0 0 6 : E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY
11. An increasing number of States Parties are Increased casualties in 2005-2006
making their views known on key matters of Reported casualties increased to 7,328 in 2005—11
treaty interpretation and implementation percent more than in 2004. In 2005-2006, there were
Albania, Chad, Cyprus, Estonia, FYR Macedonia, new casualties from landmines and explosive
Moldova, Slovenia and Yemen provided their national remnants of war recorded in 58 countries (the same as
understandings of the Article 1 prohibition on assisting last year) and seven areas (one less). (However, Land-
banned acts, particularly with respect to joint military mine Monitor continues to estimate there are 15,000-
operations with non-States Parties; all were in basic 20,000 new casualties each year – see below). In 2005,
agreement with the views of the ICBL. Albania, Croatia, casualties were reported in seven countries that did
Germany, Estonia, Guatemala, Kenya, FYR Macedonia, not report casualties in 2004: Chile, Honduras, Kenya,
Moldova, Slovenia and Yemen expressed the view, Moldova, Morocco, Namibia and Peru. In 2005-2006,
shared by the ICBL, that any mine (even if labeled an intensified conflict resulted in both more civilian and
antivehicle mine) capable of being detonated by the more military (national and foreign) mine and ERW
unintentional act of a person is prohibited, and/or casualties in several countries including: Chad,
expressed the view, also shared by the ICBL, that any Colombia, Pakistan, Burma/Myanmar and Sri Lanka.
mine with a tripwire, break wire, or tilt rod is prohibited.
ERW casualties in more countries
A reduction in the number of Landmine Monitor has identified another 16 coun-
mine-affected countries tries (up from 12) and one area (none in 2004) with
Landmine Monitor research identified at least 78 no new landmine casualties in 2005-2006 but with
nations as being affected to some degree by land- casualties caused exclusively by explosive remnants
mines in mid-2006, of which 51 are party to the Mine of war: Bangladesh, Belarus, Bolivia, Cote d’Ivoire,
Ban Treaty, as well as eight areas not internationally Guatemala, Hungary, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liberia,
recognized as independent states or over which juris- Macedonia, Mongolia, Poland, Republic of Congo,
diction is contested. Two States Parties to the Mine Tunisia, Ukraine and Zambia, as well as Kosovo. In 11
Ban Treaty—Guatemala and Suriname—reported of these countries Landmine Monitor did not record
completing clearance of all mined areas in 2005. ERW casualties in 2004.
Increased demining productivity Increasing number of mine survivors
In 2005, a total of more than 740 square kilometers was and mine victims
demined, the highest annual productivity since modern Progress in data collection indicates there are approxi-
demining started in the late 1980s. Three major mine mately 350,000 to 400,000 mine survivors in the
action programs alone—in Bosnia and Herzegovina, world today; there may well be as many as 500,000.
Cambodia and Yemen—reduced the extent of With only 10 of the 58 countries and seven areas that
suspected contamination by almost 340 square kilome- had casualties in 2005-2006 able to provide complete
ters. Over 470,000 landmines—the great majority full-year data, and with significant under-reporting,
(450,000) were antipersonnel mines—and more than Landmine Monitor continues to estimate there are
3.75 million explosive devices were destroyed. between 15,000 and 20,000 new landmine/ERW casu-
alties each year. There are some preliminary indica-
Too many States Parties not on course to tions this estimate may be revised downward in future
meet Article 5 deadlines for completing mine years. More importantly, the number of survivors
continues to grow—and their needs are long-term.
clearance
Too many States Parties appear not to be on course to
meet their Article 5 deadlines, including at least 13 of the Increased attention to victim assistance
29 States Parties with 2009 or 2010 deadlines—Bosnia States Parties increased support to 24 countries with
and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Chad, Croatia, Denmark, significant numbers of survivors, leading to the devel-
Mozambique, Niger, Senegal, Tajikistan, Thailand, the opment of tools, objectives and action plans, better
United Kingdom (Falklands), Yemen and Zimbabwe. follow-up of progress, accountability, best practices for
increased survivor inclusion, better coordination, and
integration with development. However, in 2005
Expanded mine risk education
existing programs were far from meeting the needs of
Mine risk education programs expanded in many coun-
landmine survivors; in 49 of 58 countries with casual-
tries with new projects and activities in 28 countries, a
ties in 2005-2006 one or more aspect of assistance
notable development from 2004 (15 countries). For the
remains inadequate. Providers continue to face many of
first time, MRE activities were recorded in China. The
the same problems as in previous years including inad-
number of community volunteers and of national
equate access to care, variety and effectiveness of assis-
NGOs implementing community-based MRE
tance, capacity, rights implementation and funding.
increased. Landmine Monitor recorded MRE in 60
countries and eight areas in 2005-2006; 39 of the coun-
tries are States Parties, and 21 are non-States Parties.
L A N D M I N E M O N I TO R R E P O RT 2 0 0 6 : E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY / 5
12. Significant international mine action Decreased funding to many
funding in 2005 mine-affected countries
International funding of mine action totaled US$376 Drastic reductions in mine action funding occurred in
million in 2005, the second highest funding to date and Iraq (down $30.9 million, 53 percent), Afghanistan ($25
$37 million more than two years ago. The top four million, 27 percent) and Cambodia ($17.7 million, 43
donors were: United States ($81.9 million), European percent). Other countries with substantial decreases in
Commission ($51.5 million), Japan ($39.3 million) and 2005 included Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia,
Norway ($36.5 million). Of the top 20 donors, half Jordan, Mozambique, Sri Lanka and Tajikistan.
provided more mine action funding in 2005: Australia,
France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Some major mine action programs
Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. hit by funding shortfalls
Mine action programs in at least five mine-affected
Decrease in international funding of mine action countries were limited by major funding shortfalls:
The 2005 total of $376 million was down $23 million, Afghanistan, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Mauritania, and
almost six percent, from 2004. This is the first time Tajikistan; in Croatia, parliamentarians called for
that global mine action funding has decreased mean- increased government funding for mine action.
ingfully since 1992, when states first began to devote
significant resources to mine action. Of the top 20 Inadequate funding of mine victim assistance
donors, half provided less mine action funding in Several survivor assistance programs had serious
2005: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, funding shortfalls in 2005, preventing the delivery of
Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, United States and the essential services to mine survivors, their families and
European Commission. The global decrease largely communities—despite an increase of about 29 percent
reflects big reductions from the two most significant in funding identified for victim assistance, to $37
donors: the European Commission (down $14.9 million. Much of this gain may be attributed to changes
million) and the United States (down $14.6 million). in reporting. Much greater levels of sustained funding
are needed for mine survivor assistance programs.
Recipients of mine action funding
Countries receiving the most mine action funding in More national funding by mine-affected countries
2005 were: Afghanistan ($66.8 million), Sudan ($48.4 Some mine-affected countries invested more
million), Angola ($35.8 million), Iraq ($27.8 million) national resources in mine action in 2005, notably
and Cambodia ($23.9 million). The largest increase in Croatia ($32.4 million, or 57 percent of mine action
funding was received by Sudan (up $33.4 million, over expenditure) and Bosnia and Herzegovina ($11.3
three times the 2004 total). Other recipients with million, or 44 percent of expenditure). Larger contri-
increases of at least $1 million included: Abkhazia, butions were also made by Azerbaijan and Chile. In
Albania, Burundi, Guinea-Bissau and Uganda. 2005, some mine-affected countries reported
decreases in national contributions to mine action,
including: Colombia, Mozambique and Thailand.
6 / L A N D M I N E M O N I TO R R E P O RT 2 0 0 6 : E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY
