Landmine MonitorToward a Mine-Free World                           Executive Summary                           2009       ...
© October 2009 by Mines Action Canada     All rights reserved     Printed and bound in Canada     ISBN: 978-0-9738955-5-1 ...
Preface                        Landmines and Explosive                                                                    ...
Preface                                                         mines immediately. They must destroy all stockpiled       ...
PrefaceMine Ban Treaty became a reality.    Part of the ICBL’s success is its ability to evolve withchanging circumstances...
Preface                                                           concept of civil society-based verification.            ...
Prefacemanages Landmine Monitor’s production and editing,          report. Rafael Jiménez provided design. Sébastien Grole...
Global Maps1. 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling,   Production and Transfer of Antipersonnel Mines...
1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Productionand Transfer of Antipersonnel Mines and on Their Des...
Global Contamination from Mines and Cluster Munition Remnants                                                             ...
Deadlines for States Parties with Article 5 Obligations                                                                   ...
Mines and Explosive Remnants of War (ERW) Casualties in 2008                                                              ...
ContentsMajor Findings                                          1   Risk Education                               45       ...
1997 Convention on the Prohibition of                            Table Key                                                ...
Major Findings                                                                                                            ...
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Landmine Monitor 2009
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Landmine Monitor 2009

3,984

Published on

Published in: News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
3,984
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Landmine Monitor 2009"

  1. 1. Landmine MonitorToward a Mine-Free World Executive Summary 2009 Landmine Monitor Editorial Board Mines Action Canada Handicap International Human Rights Watch Landmine Action Norwegian People’s Aid
  2. 2. © October 2009 by Mines Action Canada All rights reserved Printed and bound in Canada ISBN: 978-0-9738955-5-1 Cover photograph © Nasret Rezayee, 23 March 2009 Cover design by Rafael Jiménez Landmine Monitor provides research and monitoring for the Interna- tional Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) and the Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC). For more information visit www.lm.icbl.org or email lm@icbl.org. This report is available online at www.lm.icbl.org/lm/2009.ii
  3. 3. Preface Landmines and Explosive © Tamar Gabelnick, 21 November 2008 Remnants of War eace agreements may be signed, and hos- P tilities may cease, but landmines and explo- sive remnants of war (ERW) are an enduring legacy of conflict. Antipersonnel mines are munitions designed to explode from the presence, after conflicts and pose dangers similar to landmines. Landmine Monitor proximity, or contact of a person. Antive- Abandoned explosive ordnance (AXO) is explosive ord- report release hicle mines are munitions designed to explode from the nance that has not been used during armed conflict in Geneva, presence, proximity, or contact of a vehicle as opposed but has been left behind and is no longer effectively Switzerland. to a person. Landmines are victim-activated and indis- controlled. ERW can include artillery shells, grenades, criminate; whoever triggers the mine, whether a child or mortars, rockets, air-dropped bombs, and cluster muni- a soldier, becomes its victim. Mines emplaced during a tion remnants. Under the international legal definition, conflict against enemy forces can still kill or injure civil- ERW consist of UXO and AXO, but not mines. ians decades later. Both landmines and ERW pose a serious and ongoing Cluster munitions consist of containers and submu- threat to civilians. These weapons can be found on roads, nitions. Launched from the ground or the air, the con- footpaths, farmers’ fields, forests, deserts, along borders, tainers open and disperse submunitions over a wide in and surrounding houses and schools, and in other area, putting civilians at risk both during attacks due to places where people are carrying out their daily activities. their wide area effect and after attacks due to unexploded They deny access to food, water, and other basic needs, ordnance. and inhibit freedom of movement. They prevent the repa- triation of refugees and internally displaced people, and ICBL at a press hamper the delivery of humanitarian aid. conference in These weapons instill fear in communities, whose Nicaragua. citizens often know they are walking in mined areas, but have no possibility to farm other land, or take another route to school. When land cannot be cultivated, when medical systems are drained by the cost of attending to landmine/ERW casualties, and when countries must spend money clearing mines rather than paying for© ICBL, February 2009 education, it is clear that these weapons not only cause appalling human suffering, they are also a lethal barrier to development and post-conflict reconstruction. There are solutions to the global landmine and ERW problem. The 1997 Mine Ban Treaty provides the best ERW refer to ordnance left behind after a conflict. framework for governments to alleviate the suffering of Explosive weapons that for some reason fail to detonate civilians living in areas affected by antipersonnel mines. as intended become unexploded ordnance (UXO). These Governments who join this treaty must stop the use, unstable explosive devices are left behind during and stockpiling, production, and transfer of antipersonnel iii
  4. 4. Preface mines immediately. They must destroy all stockpiled humanitarian problems that these weapons may cause. antipersonnel mines within four years, and clear all These legal instruments provide a framework for antipersonnel landmines in all mined areas under their taking action, but it is up to governments to implement jurisdiction or control within 10 years. In addition, States treaty obligations, and it is the task of NGOs to work Parties in a position to do so must provide assistance together with governments to ensure they uphold their for the care and treatment of landmine survivors, their treaty obligations. families and communities, and support for mine/ERW The ultimate goal of the ICBL and the CMC is a world risk education programs to help prevent mine incidents. free of landmines, cluster munitions and ERW, where The Convention on Cluster Munitions was opened for civilians can walk freely without the fear of stepping on a signature on 3 December 2008 and is a legally-binding mine, and where children can play without mistaking an agreement prohibiting cluster munitions because of their unexploded submunition for a toy. indiscriminate area effects and risk of unexploded ord- nance. The treaty also provides a framework for tackling International Campaign to Ban the problems that cluster munitions have caused. For an overview of government policies and practices on Landmines cluster munitions see www.lm.icbl.org/cm/2009. The The ICBL is a coalition of more than 1,000 organizations treaty obliges states to stop the use, production, and in over 70 countries, working locally, nationally, and inter- transfer of cluster munitions immediately. States must nationally to eradicate antipersonnel mines. It received destroy all stockpiled cluster munitions within eight the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize, jointly with its founding years of becoming party to the treaty, and clear all unex- coordinator Jody Williams, in recognition of its efforts to ploded cluster munition remnants in areas under their bring about the Mine Ban Treaty. jurisdiction or control within 10 years. Building on the The campaign is a loose, flexible network, whose Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, members share the common goal of working to elimi- the Convention on Cluster Munitions includes ground- nate antipersonnel landmines and cluster munitions. breaking provisions for victim assistance, and includes The ICBL was launched in October 1992 by a group those killed or injured by cluster munitions, their families of six NGOs: Handicap International, Human Rights and communities in the definition of a cluster munition Watch, Medico International, Mines Advisory Group, victim. In addition, States Parties in a position to do Physicians for Human Rights, and Vietnam Veterans of so must provide assistance for the clearance of cluster America Foundation. These founding organizations wit- ICBL at a regional munition remnant, risk education programs to help nessed the horrendous effects of mines on the commu- meeting in prevent cluster munition casualties, and for the assis- nities they were working with in Africa, Asia, the Middle Tajikistan. tance of victims. East, and Latin America, and saw how mines hampered and even prevented their development efforts in these countries. They realized that a comprehensive solution was needed to address the crisis caused by landmines, and that the solution was a complete ban on antiper- sonnel landmines. The founding organizations brought to the interna- tional campaign practical experience of the impact of landmines. They also brought the perspective of the dif- ferent sectors they represented: human rights, children’s rights, development issues, refugee issues, and medical and humanitarian relief. ICBL member campaigns con-© Harmony of the World, July 2009 tacted other NGOs, who spread the word through their networks; news of this new coalition and the need for a treaty banning antipersonnel landmines soon stretched throughout the world. The ICBL organized conferences and campaigning events in many countries to raise awareness of the landmine problem and the need for a ban, and to provide training to new campaigners to The only international legislation explicitly covering enable them to be effective advocates in their respective ERW in general is Protocol V of the Convention on Con- countries. ventional Weapons (CCW). While its provisions have Campaign members worked at the local, national, been recognized as insufficient to address the problems regional and global level to encourage their governments caused by cluster munitions, Protocol V does establish to support the mine ban. The ICBL’s membership grew general responsibilities for ERW clearance, information rapidly, and today there are campaigns in more than 70 sharing to facilitate clearance and risk education, victim countries. assistance, and for support to mine action. Protocol The Mine Ban Treaty was opened for signature on 3 V establishes a special responsibility on the users of December 1997 in Ottawa, Canada. It is in part due to explosive weapons to work to address the post-conflict sustained and coordinated action by the ICBL that the iv
  5. 5. PrefaceMine Ban Treaty became a reality. Part of the ICBL’s success is its ability to evolve withchanging circumstances. The early days of the campaignwere focused on developing a comprehensive treatybanning antipersonnel landmines. Once this goal wasachieved, attention shifted to ensuring that all countriesjoin the treaty, and that all States Parties fully implementtheir treaty obligations. The ICBL works to promote the global norm againstmine use, and advocates for countries who have notjoined the treaty to take steps to join the treaty. The cam-paign also urges non-state armed groups to abide by thespirit of the treaty. © Mike Kendellen, February 2009 Much of the ICBL’s work is focused on promotingimplementation of the Mine Ban Treaty, which providesthe most effective framework for eliminating antiper-sonnel landmines. This includes working in partnershipwith governments and international organizations on allaspects of treaty implementation, from stockpile destruc-tion to mine clearance to victim assistance. 2006 the CMC called for negotiations towards new inter- Landmine Monitor In 2007, the ICBL began actively campaigning in national law to address the cluster munition problem.support of the Oslo Process to negotiate a treaty pro- Throughout 2007 and 2008 the CMC actively partici- Nicaragua.hibiting cluster munitions. This marked the first time pated in the diplomatic Oslo Process facilitating andthat the ICBL engaged substantively on an issue other leading the global civil society action in favor of a banthan antipersonnel mines. The ICBL began working with on cluster munitions. This effort resulted in the adoptionother CMC member organizations to address the cluster and signature of the Convention on Cluster Munitionsmunition threat at the beginning of the Convention on in 2008 and has been recognized as a largely preventiveCluster Munitions negotiation process. The goal was to effort, given that only a tiny fraction of the cluster muni-help prevent another humanitarian crisis similar to the tions in global stockpiles have ever been used.global mine problem, because cluster munitions leave In 2009, the CMC’s priority was to conclude an inten-behind unexploded submunitions with effects similar to sive global ratification campaign to ensure that 30 coun-antipersonnel mines. The ICBL is dedicated to working tries ratify the convention without delay in order to bringtoward the full universalization and implementation of the convention into force and begin the formal process ofthe Convention on Cluster Munitions, and many ICBL implementation. The CMC will also continue to campaignmember organizations are also actively campaigning in countries that have not yet signed the convention toagainst cluster munitions. encourage them to sign the treaty as soon as possible at The ICBL is committed to pushing for the complete the UN in New York. Beyond this the CMC is preparingeradication of antipersonnel mines and cluster muni- for the First Meeting of States Parties to the conventiontions. The campaign has been successful in part because and working with states to ensure their early and effectiveit has a clear campaign message and goal; a non-bureau- implementation of the convention’s obligations.cratic campaign structure and flexible strategy; and aneffective partnership with other NGOs, international Landmine Monitororganizations, and governments. Landmine Monitor Report 2009 is the eleventh annual Landmine Monitor report. Since 1999, each of the tenCluster Munition Coalition previous reports has been presented to the respectiveThe CMC is an international coalition working to protect annual meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty.civilians from the effects of cluster munitions by pro- Landmine Monitor is the ICBL’s research and monitoringmoting universal adherence to and full implementation program program and it provides research and mon-of the Convention on Cluster Munitions. The CMC has itoring for the CMC. It is the de facto monitoring regimea membership of around 300 civil society organizations for the Mine Ban Treaty, a role it plans to undertake forfrom more than 80 countries, and includes organizations the Convention on Cluster Munitions. It monitors andworking on disarmament, peace and security, human reports on States Parties’ implementation of, and com-rights, victim assistance, clearance, women’s rights, and pliance with, the Mine Ban Treaty, and more generally, itfaith issues. The CMC facilitates the efforts of NGOs assesses the international community’s response to theworldwide to educate governments, the public and the humanitarian problem caused by landmines and ERW.media about the global cluster munition problem and its Landmine Monitor represents the first time that NGOssolutions. have come together in a coordinated, systematic, and Like the ICBL, the CMC was established by a group sustained way to monitor a humanitarian law or disar-of NGOs in response to a global problem, in this case mament treaty, and to regularly document progress andthe suffering caused by cluster munitions. From 2003 to problems, thereby successfully putting into practice the v
  6. 6. Preface concept of civil society-based verification. other elements of civil society, including journalists, aca- In June 1998, the ICBL formally agreed to create Land- demics, and research institutions. mine Monitor as an ICBL initiative. In 2008, Landmine Landmine Monitor Report 2009 presents information Monitor also functionally became the research and moni- on activities in 2008 and key developments in January– toring arm of the CMC. A five-member Editorial Board May 2009. A special ten-year review assesses progress coordinates the Landmine Monitor system: Mines Action in implementing and universalizing the Mine Ban Treaty Canada, Handicap International, Human Rights Watch, since its entry into force on 1 March 2009. Reports cover Landmine Monitor Landmine Action, and Norwegian People’s Aid. Mines every country in the world and eight other areas not inter- report release in Geneva, Action Canada serves as the lead agency. The Editorial nationally recognized as states, and include information Switzerland. Board assumes overall responsibility for, and decision- on ban policy (policy, use, production, trade, stockpiling), mine action, casualties, risk education, victim assistance, and support for mine action. All report contents are avail- able online at www.lm.icbl.org/lm/2009. Unless otherwise specified all translations were done by Landmine Monitor. As was the case in previous years, Landmine Monitor acknowledges that this ambitious report is limited by the time, resources, and information sources available. Landmine Monitor is a system that is continuously updated, corrected, and improved. Comments, clarifi- cations, and corrections from governments and others© Tamar Gabelnick, 24 November 2008 are sought, in the spirit of dialogue, and in the common search for accurate and reliable information on an impor- tant subject. Acknowledgements A broad-based network of individuals, campaigns, and organizations produced this eleventh annual Landmine making on, the Landmine Monitor system. Monitor report. It was assembled by a dedicated team of Landmine Monitor is not a technical verification research coordinators and editors, with the support of a system or a formal inspection regime. It is an attempt by significant number of donors. civil society to hold governments accountable to the obli- This report contains country and area updates gations they have taken on with respect to antipersonnel researched by 60 Landmine Monitor researchers from mines and cluster munitions. This is done through 45 countries and other areas, selected by the Landmine extensive collection, analysis, and distribution of publicly Monitor Editorial Board with input from the Editorial available information. Although in some cases it does Team. The researchers are cited separately in the List of entail investigative missions, Landmine Monitor is not Contributors. Landmine Monitor is grateful to everyone designed to send researchers into harm’s way and does who contributed research to this report. We wish to thank not include hot war-zone reporting. the scores of individuals, campaigns, NGOs, interna- The Landmine Monitor report is designed to comple- tional organizations, mine action practitioners, and gov- ment the States Parties’ transparency reporting required ernments who provided us with essential information. under Article 7 of the Mine Ban Treaty. It reflects the shared view that transparency, trust and mutual collabo- Cluster munition ration are crucial elements for the successful eradication survivors at the of antipersonnel mines. Landmine Monitor was also Convention on Cluster Munitions established in recognition of the need for independent signing conference reporting and evaluation. © Tamar Gabelnick, 4 December 2008 in Oslo, Norway. Landmine Monitor aims to promote and advance discussion on mine and ERW-related issues, and to seek clarifications, to help reach the goal of a world free of mines, cluster munitions, and other ERW. Landmine Monitor works in good faith to provide factual informa- tion about issues it is monitoring, in order to benefit the international community as a whole. The Landmine Monitor system features a global We are grateful to ICBL staff for their continued and reporting network and an annual report. A network of crucial assistance in the release, distribution, and pro- 60 Landmine Monitor researchers from 45 countries motion of Landmine Monitor reports. and other areas, and a 20-person Editorial Team gath- Responsibility for the coordination of Landmine Mon- ered information to prepare this report. The researchers itor’s reporting network lies with the five Editorial Board come from the ICBL’s campaigning coalition and from organizations: Mines Action Canada (Paul Hannon) vi
  7. 7. Prefacemanages Landmine Monitor’s production and editing, report. Rafael Jiménez provided design. Sébastien Groletand coordinates research on support for mine action provided cartography services.and non-state armed groups; Handicap International We extend our gratitude to Landmine Monitor con-(Stan Brabant) coordinates research on mine/ERW risk tributors. Landmine Monitor’s supporters are in no wayeducation, casualty data, and victim assistance; Human responsible for, and do not necessarily endorse, theRights Watch (Stephen Goose) is responsible for ban material contained in this report. It was only possible topolicy; Landmine Action (Richard Moyes) specializes in carry out this work with the aid of grants from:research on cluster munitions; and Norwegian People’sAid (Stuart Casey-Maslen and Atle Karlsen) coordinates Government of Australiaresearch on mine action. Jacqueline Hansen manages Government of AustriaLandmine Monitor. Government of Belgium The Editorial Team undertook research and initial Government of Canadacountry report edits for Landmine Monitor Report 2009 Government of Cyprusfrom March to August 2009. The Editorial Team was led Government of Franceby five principal editors: Stephen Goose (ban policy), Government of GermanyStuart Casey-Maslen (mine action), Katleen Maes (casu- Government of Irelandalties and victim assistance), Jenny Najar (risk educa- Government of Luxembourgtion), and Anthony Forrest (support for mine action). Government of the Netherlands Stuart Casey-Maslen, Nick Cumming-Bruce, and Government of New ZealandMark Hiznay provided final editing from July to August Government of Norway2009 with assistance from Jacqueline Hansen (Program Government of SpainManager); Jack Glattbach (Copy Editor); Maureen Hol- Government of Swedenlingworth (Editing Consultant); Katie Pitts and Tatiana Government of SwitzerlandStephens (Project Officers); Kerri West and Katherine European CommissionHarrison (Ban policy team); and Carly Ackerman, Zain Holy SeeEsseghaier, Zachary Fellman, and Marc Gagnier (Mines UNICEFAction Canada Interns). Report formatting and the online version of the We also thank the donors who have contributed toreport at www.lm.icbl.org/lm/2009 were undertaken by the individual members of the Landmine Monitor Edito-Lixar I.T. Inc. and St. Joseph Communications printed the rial Board and other participating organizations. vi i
  8. 8. Global Maps1. 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Antipersonnel Mines and on their Destruction2. Global Contamination from Mines and Cluster Munition Remnants3. Deadlines for States Parties with Article 5 Obligations4. Mines and Explosive Remnants of War (ERW) Casualties in 2008
  9. 9. 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Productionand Transfer of Antipersonnel Mines and on Their Destruction DENMARK CZECH REPUBLIC SLOVAKIA ICELAND AUSTRIA NORWAY GERMANY SWEDEN ESTONIA UNITED KINGDOM FINLAND NETHERLANDS LATVIA RUSSIA BELGIUM LITHUANIA CANADA IRELAND BELARUS LUXEMBOURG UKRAINE LIECHTENSTEIN POLAND HUNGARY SWITZERLAND FRANCE KAZAKHSTAN MOLDOVA SLOVENIA ARMENIA MONGOLIA CROATIA ROMANIA GEORGIA UZBEKISTAN MONACO SERBIA KYRGYZSTAN SAN MARINO BULGARIA ANDORRA NORTH BIH TURKMENISTAN ITALY SPAINMONTENEGRO TURKEY TAJIKISTAN KOREA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HOLY SEE JAPAN PORTUGAL GREECE SYRIA AZERBAIJAN CHINA ALBANIA MALTA FYR MACEDONIA CYPRUS AFGHANISTAN TUNISIA LEBANON IRAQ IRAN Atlantic Ocean MOROCCO SOUTH JORDAN BHUTAN ALGERIA PAKISTAN KOREA LIBYA ISRAEL KUWAIT EGYPT BAHAMAS BAHRAIN QATAR NEPAL Tropic of Cancer MEXICO HAITI SAUDI UNITED DOMINICAN REPUBLIC MAURITANIA ARAB CUBA ARABIA INDIA CAPE VERDE EMIRATES LAO ST. KITTS & NEVIS ANTIGUA & BARBUDA MALI NIGER PDR Pacific Ocean BELIZE JAMAICA OMAN BANGLADESH GUATEMALA HONDURAS DOMINICA SENEGAL 9.2778 CHAD YEMEN ERITREA ST. LUCIA SUDAN MYANMAR EL SALVADOR GRENADA GAMBIA BURKINA PHILIPPINES NICARAGUA BARBADOS GUINEA-BISSAU DJIBOUTI ST. VINCENT & FASO COSTA RICA GUINEA THAILAND MARSHALL GRENADINES SIERRA LEONE NIGERIA VIETNAM VENEZUELA CÔTE DIVOIRE ETHIOPIA CAMBODIA ISLANDS TRINIDAD & TOBAGO CENTRAL AFRICAN PALAU Pacific Ocean PANAMA LIBERIA BRUNEI MICRONESIA GUYANA REPUBLIC SRI LANKA MALAYSIA GHANA BENIN COLOMBIA SURINAME TOGO CAMEROON SOMALIA MALDIVES KIRIBATI EQUATORIAL GUINEA UGANDA SINGAPORE KENYA NAURU ECUADOR SAO TOME & PRINCIPE Equator GABON RWANDA CONGO, REPUBLIC OF DRC BURUNDI PAPUA SEYCHELLES INDONESIA NEW GUINEA PERU TANZANIA SOLOMON COMOROS ISLANDS BRAZIL Indian Ocean TUVALU ANGOLA TIMOR-LESTE SAMOA MALAWI ZAMBIA MOZAMBIQUE VANUATU FIJITONGA BOLIVIA MADAGASCAR NIUE NAMIBIA ZIMBABWE COOK ISLANDS MAURITIUS PARAGUAY BOTSWANA Tropic of Capricorn AUSTRALIA SWAZILAND SOUTH States Parties AFRICA CHILE States not Party ARGENTINA LESOTHO URUGUAY NEW ZEALAND FALKLAND ISLANDS/MALVINAS (UK) v2 © ICBL 2009
  10. 10. Global Contamination from Mines and Cluster Munition Remnants DENMARK SERBIA UNITED KINGDOM RUSSIA RUSSIA CROATIA BIH MOLDOVA GEORGIA UZBEKISTAN MONTENEGRO ABKHAZIA KOSOVO KYRGYZSTAN ARMENIA NORTH ALBANIA TURKEY AZERBAIJAN TAJIKISTAN KOREA GREECE CHINA SYRIA NAGORNO- SOUTH CYPRUS KARABAKH AFGHANISTAN KOREA LEBANON PALESTINE IRAQ IRAN MOROCCO Atlantic Ocean ISRAEL KUWAIT PAKISTAN ALGERIA LIBYA JORDAN WESTERN NEPALTropic of Cancer EGYPT MYANMAR SAHARA TAIWAN CUBA INDIA MAURITANIA OMAN LAO MALI NIGER PDR Pacific Ocean CHAD YEMEN SENEGAL SUDAN ERITREA NICARAGUA GUINEA-BISSAU PHILIPPINES VENEZUELA THAILAND SOMALILAND VIETNAM ETHIOPIA CAMBODIA Pacific Ocean COLOMBIA SOMALIA UGANDA SRI LANKA Equator ECUADOR CONGO, RWANDA REPUBLIC OF THE BURUNDI CONGO, DR PERU ANGOLA Indian Ocean ZAMBIA MOZAMBIQUE ZIMBABWE NAMIBIATropic of Capricorn CHILE ARGENTINA * No contamination Mines FALKLAND ISLANDS/MALVINAS Cluster munition remnants Mines and cluster munition remnants * Argentina has declared that it is mine-affected by virtue of its claim of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands/Malvinas. © ICBL 2009vb2
  11. 11. Deadlines for States Parties with Article 5 Obligations DENMARK 2011 UNITED KINGDOM CROATIA 2019 2019 SERBIA 2014 MOLDOVA 2011 BIH MONTENEGRO 2019 2014 ALBANIA TURKEY TAJIKISTAN ** 2010 2014 TUNISIA 2010 2010 GREECE AFGHANISTAN 2014 CYPRUS 2013 2013 Atlantic Ocean ALGERIA 2012 JORDANTropic of Cancer 2012 MAURITANIA YEMEN 2011 2015 NIGER CHAD Pacific Ocean 2009 2011 SENEGAL SUDAN ERITREA 2016 2014 2012 NICARAGUA GUINEA-BISSAU DJIBOUTI 2010 2011 2009 THAILAND VENEZUELA 2014 2018 ETHIOPIA CAMBODIA ** Pacific Ocean COLOMBIA 2015 2010 2011 UGANDA ** 2009 Equator ECUADOR CONGO, RWANDA 2017 REPUBLIC OF THE BURUNDI 2010 2011 CONGO, DR 2014 2012 PERU ANGOLA 2017 2013 Indian Ocean MOZAMBIQUE ZAMBIA 2014 2011 ZIMBABWE 2011Tropic of Capricorn CHILE 2012 ARGENTINA * ** 2010 Article 5 deadlines for mine-affected States Parties FALKLAND ISLANDS/MALVINAS 2009 Article 5 deadlines for mine-affected States Parties granted an extension in 2008 Other Countries * Argentina has declared that it is mine-affected by virtue of its claim of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands/Malvinas.vb4 ** This State Party requested an extension to its Article 5 deadline in 2009. © ICBL 2009
  12. 12. Mines and Explosive Remnants of War (ERW) Casualties in 2008 RUSSIA POLAND SERBIA RUSSIA BELARUS ABKHAZIA UKRAINE MOLDOVA GEORGIA CROATIA MONGOLIA KYRGYZSTAN BIH MONTENEGRO AZERBAIJAN KOSOVO TURKEY GREECE TAJIKISTAN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CYPRUS NAGORNO- SOUTH LEBANON SYRIA KARABAKH MOROCCO AFGHANISTAN CHINA KOREA PALESTINE IRAQ IRAN Atlantic Ocean NEPAL ALGERIA JORDAN PAKISTAN LIBYA WESTERN EGYPT ISRAELTropic of Cancer KUWAIT SAHARA INDIA BANGLADESH MALI Pacific Ocean NIGER YEMEN LAO CHAD MYANMAR SENEGAL SUDAN PDR EL SALVADOR NICARAGUA ERITREA PHILIPPINES GUINEA-BISSAU SOMALILAND THAILAND VIETNAM ETHIOPIA SOMALIA CAMBODIA Pacific Ocean COLOMBIA SRI LANKA MALAYSIA CÔTE DIVOIRE UGANDA KENYAEquator RWANDA DRC BURUNDI INDONESIA PERU ANGOLA Indian Ocean ZAMBIA MOZAMBIQUETropic of Capricorn Mine/ERW Casualties Mine Casualties ZIMBABWE ERW Casualties No Casualties V4 © ICBL 2009
  13. 13. ContentsMajor Findings 1 Risk Education 45 1999–2009 Overview 45Ban Policy 3 Risk Education in 2008 461999–2009 Overview 3 Risk Education from 1999 to 2008 502008–2009 Key Developments 3 The Future of Risk Education 51Universalization 4Use of Antipersonnel Mines 7 Victim Assistance 53Production of Antipersonnel Mines 10 Survivor Inclusion 54Global Trade in Antipersonnel Mines 12 Victim Assistance Implementation 55Antipersonnel Mine Stockpiles and Their Destruction 12 Victim Assistance Strategic Framework 59Mines Retained for Research and Training (Article 3) 15 National Commitment and Capacity 62Transparency Reporting (Article 7) 17 Conclusion: Victim Assistance to 2014 63National Implementation Measures (Article 9) 18Special Issues of Concern 18 Support for Mine Action 65Treaty-Related Meetings 22The Oslo Process and the Convention 23 Introduction 65 on Cluster Munitions National Contributions to Mine Action 66Convention on Conventional Weapons 24 International Contributions to Mine Action 66 Funding by Donor States 67Mine Action 27 Major Recipients 73 Trust Funds 741999–2009 Overview 27 Research and Development 75Scope of the Problem 28 Funding Article 5 Deadline Extentions 75Mine Clearance 28Battle Area Clearance 32 Status of the Convention 77Land Release 33Information Management 35 Convention on the Prohibition 79Mine Action by Non-State Armed groups 35Deminer Security 36 of the Use, Stockpiling, ProductionThe Future of Mine Action 36 and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their DestructionCasualties and Data Collection 371999–2009 Overview 37 Appendix 87Casualties from 1999–2008 37 Abbreviations and Acronyms 87Casualties in 2008 38 Glossary 88Data Collection 42Conclusion 43 ix
  14. 14. 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of Table Key States Parties: Ratified or acceded as of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and August 2009 Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and Signatories: Signed, but not yet ratified States not Party: Not yet acceded on their Destruction 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 Montenegro Netherlands Jamaica México Norway Portugal Romania Nicaragua Panamá San Marino Serbia Slovakia Paraguay Peru Slovenia Spain Sweden St. Kitts & Nevis St. Vincent & the Switzerland Tajikistan Turkey Saint Lucia Grenadines Turkmenistan Ukraine United Kingdom Suriname Trinidad & Tobago Poland Armenia Azerbaijan Uruguay Venezuala Finland Georgia Kazakhstan Cuba United States Kyrgyzstan Russia Uzbekistan East & South Asia & the Pacific Middle East & North Africa Afghanistan Australia Algeria Iraq Jordan Bangladesh Bhutan Kuwait Qatar Tunisia Brunei Cambodia Yemen Bahrain Egypt Cook Islands Fiji Iran Israel Lebanon Indonesia Japan Libya Morocco Oman Kiribati Malaysia Saudi Arabia Syria United Arab Emirates Maldives Nauru New Zealand Niue Sub-Saharan Africa Palau Papua New Guinea Angola Benin Botswana Philippines Samoa Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Solomon Islands Thailand Cape Verde Central African Rep. Chad Timor-Leste Vanuatu Comoros Congo, Dem. Rep. Congo, Rep. Marshall Islands China Côte d’Ivoire Djibouti Equatorial Guinea India Korea, North Eritrea Ethiopia Gabon Korea, South Laos Gambia Ghana Guinea Micronesia Mongolia Guinea-Bissau Kenya Lesotho Myanmar Nepal Liberia Madagascar Malawi Pakistan Singapore Mali Mauritania Mauritius Sri Lanka Tonga Mozambique Namibia Niger Tuvalu Vietnam Nigeria Rwanda São Tomé & Principe Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone South Africa Sudan Swaziland Tanzania Togo Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe Somaliax
  15. 15. Major Findings © Rune Bech Persson/DCA, May 2008 Mine clearance in Albania.Major Findings: 1999–2009 Since 1999, at least 1,100km2 of mined areas and a further 2,100km2 of battle areas, an area twice the Government use of antipersonnel mines has size of London, have been cleared in more than 90 greatly decreased over the last decade. In 1999, states and other areas. Operations have resulted in Landmine Monitor recorded probable use of the destruction of more than 2.2 million emplaced antipersonnel mines by 15 states, compared to just antipersonnel mines, 250,000 antivehicle mines, two since 2007: Myanmar and Russia. and 17 million explosive remnants of war (ERW). Use by non-state armed groups (NSAGs) has also As of August 2009, more than 70 states were decreased; at least 59 NSAGs across 13 countries believed to be mine-affected. have committed to halt use of antipersonnel mines Mine and ERW risk education (RE) has evolved in the last 10 years. significantly in the last decade. Many programs One hundred and fifty-six states—more than have shifted from a purely message-based three-quarters of the world’s states—are party approach to more engaged efforts to bring about to the Mine Ban Treaty. A total of 39 countries, broader behavior change and risk reduction. including China, India, Pakistan, Russia, and the Clearance, supported by RE, has resulted in a United States, have still to join. Two of these are significant reduction in casualties. Casualties signatories: the Marshall Islands and Poland. © Giacomo Pirozzi/UNICEF, 2008 are at a level far below earlier estimates of more At least 38 former producers of antipersonnel than 20,000 casualties per year, with recorded mines have stopped, leaving only 13 states as casualties down to under 5,200 in 2008. actual or potential producers. Despite data collection challenges, Landmine For the past decade, global trade in antipersonnel Monitor has identified at least 73,576 casualties of mines has consisted solely of a low-level of illicit landmines, ERW, and victim-activated improvised and unacknowledged transfers. explosive devices in 119 states and areas in the Young mine survivor The only confirmed serious violations of the treaty past 10 years. in Senegal. have been in stockpile destruction. Belarus, Greece, Total international support for mine action for and Turkey missed their stockpile destruction 1992–2008 was US$4.27 billion. deadlines of 1 March 2008, and all three remained in Despite this high level of overall funding, over the serious violation of the treaty as of September 2009. past decade victim assistance has made the least Eighty-six States Parties have completed the progress of all the major sectors of mine action, destruction of their stockpiles, and four more are with funding and action falling far short of what in the process. Together, they have destroyed about was needed. Most efforts remained focused on 44 million antipersonnel mines. medical care and physical rehabilitation, often only Eleven states have cleared all known mined when supported by international organizations areas from their territory: Bulgaria, Costa Rica, and funding, rather than on promoting economic El Salvador, France, Guatemala, Honduras, FYR self-reliance for survivors, their families, and Macedonia, Malawi, Suriname, Swaziland, and communities. Tunisia. L A N D M I N E M O N I TO R R E PO RT 2 0 09 : E X E CU T I V E S U M M A R Y / 1

×