Landmine Monitor 2006

2,221 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,221
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
19
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Landmine Monitor 2006

  1. 1. Landmine Monitor ReportToward a Mine-Free World 2006Executive Summary
  2. 2. To receive a copy of Landmine MonitorReport 2006, please contact:International Campaign to Ban Landmines Human Rights WatchEmail: lm@icbl.org 1630 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 500www.icbl.org/lm Washington, DC 20009, USA Tel: +1 (202) 612-4321, Fax: +1 (202) 612-4333Mines Action Canada Email: landmine@hrw.org1502 - 1 Nicholas Street www.hrw.orgOttawa, Ontario K1N 7B7, CANADATel: +1 (613) 241-3777, Fax: +1 (613) 244-3410 Norwegian People’s AidEmail: info@minesactioncanada.org PO Box 8844, Youngstorget NO-0028www.minesactioncanada.org Oslo, NORWAY Tel: +47 (22) 03-77-00, Fax: +47 (22) 20-08-70Handicap International Email: lm@npaid.orgrue de Spa 67 www.npaid.orgB-1000 Brussels, BELGIUMTel: +32 (2) 286-50-59, Fax: +32 (2) 230-60-30Email: minepolicy@handicap.bewww.handicap-international.be
  3. 3. Landmine MonitorToward a Mine-Free World Executive Summary 2006 Landmine Monitor Editorial Board Mines Action Canada Handicap International Human Rights Watch Norwegian People’s Aid
  4. 4. Copyright © July 2006 by Mines Action CanadaAll rights reserved.Printed and bound in Canada.This report was printed on recycled paper using vegetable based ink.ISBN: 0-9738955-1-9Cover photographs © C. Rebotton, Handicap International, March 2006Cover design by Rafael JiménezReport design by Visual Communications, www.vizcom.orgInternational Campaign to Ban LandminesEmail: lm@icbl.orgwww.icbl.org/lm
  5. 5. ContentsAbout Landmine Monitor 1 Landmine Casualties 45 and Survivor AssistanceMajor Findings 3 New Casualties in 2005-2006 45 Capacities and Challenges in Collecting Data 48Introduction 7 Addressing the Needs of Survivors 49 Capacities and Challenges in 51Banning Antipersonnel Mines 9 Providing AssistanceUniversalization 9 Victim Assistance and Mine Ban Treaty 52Sixth Meeting of States Parties 12 ImplementationImplementation and Intersessional 13 Coordination and Integration for Sustainable 53 Work Program Victim AssistanceConvention on Conventional Weapons 13 Progress in Survivor Assistance 55Use of Antipersonnel Mines 14 Disability Policy and Practice 58Production of Antipersonnel Mines 16 Other International Developments 59Global Trade in Antipersonnel Mines 18Antipersonnel Mine Stockpiles and 19 Mine Action Funding 61 their Destruction Donor Contributions in 2005 61Mines Retained for Research and 21 Funding, Cooperation and the Mine Ban Treaty 63 Training (Article 3) Donor Funding Policy and the Mine Ban Treaty 63Transparency Reporting (Article 7) 22 Funding Channels 64National Implementation Measures (Article 9) 23 Mine Action Donors 64Special Issues of Concern 23 States and Victim Assistance 72 Major Mine Action Recipients 75Mine Action 29Major Achievements of Mine Action Programs 29 Status of the Convention 79Major 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 89Mine 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. 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 AsiaAntigua & Barbuda Argentina Albania Andorra AustriaBahamas Barbados Belarus Belgium Bosnia&HerzegovinaBelize Bolivia Bulgaria Croatia CyprusBrazil Canada Czech Republic Denmark EstoniaChile Colombia France Germany GreeceCosta Rica Dominica Holy See Hungary IcelandDominican Rep. Ecuador Ireland Italy LatviaEl Salvador Grenada Liechtenstein Lithuania LuxembourgGuatemala Guyana Macedonia, FYR Malta MoldovaHaiti Honduras Monaco Netherlands NorwayJamaica Mexico Portugal Romania San MarinoNicaragua Panama Serbia & Montenegro Slovakia SloveniaParaguay Peru Spain Sweden SwitzerlandSt. Kitts & Nevis St. Vincent and Tajikistan Turkey TurkmenistanSaint Lucia the Grenadines Ukraine United Kingdom PolandSuriname Trinidad & Tobago Armenia Azerbaijan FinlandUruguay Venezuela Georgia Kazakhstan KyrgyzstanCuba United States Russia UzbekistanMiddle East & North AfricaAlgeria Jordan QatarTunisia Yemen BahrainEgypt Iran IraqIsrael Kuwait Lebanon East & South Asia & the PacificLibya Morocco Oman Afghanistan AustraliaSaudi Arabia Syria United Arab Emirates Bangladesh Bhutan Brunei CambodiaSub-Saharan Africa Cook Islands FijiAngola Benin Botswana Japan KiribatiBurkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Malaysia MaldivesCape Verde Central African Rep. Chad Nauru New ZealandComoros Congo, Dem. Rep. Congo, Rep. Niue Papua New GuineaCôte dIvoire Djibouti Equatorial Guinea Philippines SamoaEritrea Ethiopia Gabon Solomon Islands ThailandGambia Ghana Guinea Timor-Leste VanuatuGuinea-Bissau Kenya Lesotho Indonesia Marshall IslandsLiberia Madagascar Malawi Burma/Myanmar ChinaMali Mauritania Mauritius India Korea, NorthMozambique Namibia Niger Korea, South LaosNigeria Rwanda São Tomé & Principe Micronesia MongoliaSenegal Seychelles Sierra Leone Nepal PakistanSouth Africa Sudan Swaziland Palau SingaporeTanzania Togo Uganda Sri Lanka TongaZambia Zimbabwe Somalia Tuvalu Vietnam
  7. 7. About Landmine MonitorT his is the eighth Landmine Monitor report, view that transparency, trust and mutual collaboration the annual product of an unprecedented are crucial elements for successful eradication of initiative by the International Campaign to antipersonnel mines. Landmine Monitor was also Ban Landmines (ICBL) to monitor and established in recognition of the need for independentreport on implementation of and compliance with the reporting and evaluation.1997 Mine Ban Treaty, and more generally, to assess Landmine Monitor and its annual reports aim tothe international community’s response to the promote and advance discussion on mine-relatedhumanitarian crisis caused by landmines. For the first issues, and to seek clarifications, in order to helptime in history, non-governmental organizations have reach the goal of a mine-free world. Landminecome together in a coordinated, systematic and Monitor works in good faith to provide factual infor-sustained way to monitor a humanitarian law or disar- mation about issues it is monitoring, in order tomament treaty, and to regularly document progress benefit the internationaland problems, thereby successfully putting into prac- community as a whole. Landmine Monitor is an attempt by civiltice the concept of civil society-based verification. Landmine Monitor Report society to hold governments accountable to Seven previous annual reports have been released 2006 contains information onsince 1999, each presented to the annual meetings of 126 countries and areas with the obligations they have taken on withStates Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty: in May 1999 in respect to landmine ban respect to antipersonnel mines.Maputo, Mozambique; in September 2000 in policy, use, production,Geneva, Switzerland; in September 2001 in Managua, transfer, stockpiling, mine action funding, mine clear-Nicaragua; in September 2002 in Geneva; in ance, mine risk education, landmine casualties, andSeptember 2003 in Bangkok, Thailand; in November- survivor assistance. Landmine Monitor Report 2006December 2004 at the First Review Conference in focuses on mine-affected countries, States Parties withNairobi, Kenya; and in November-December 2005 in major outstanding treaty implementation obligations, Landmine Monitor ThematicZagreb, Croatia. and non-States Parties. Information on mine action Research Coordinators at The Landmine Monitor system features a global donor countries is included in a funding overview. the intersessional Standingreporting network and an annual report. A network of As was the case in previous years, Landmine Committee meetings in71 Landmine Monitor researchers from 62 countries Monitor acknowledges that this ambitious report has Geneva, Switzerland.gathered information to prepare this report. Theresearchers come from the ICBL’s campaigning coali-tion and from other elements of civil society, includingjournalists, academics and research institutions. Landmine Monitor is not a technical verificationsystem or a formal inspection regime. It is anattempt by civil society to hold governmentsaccountable to the obligations they have taken onwith respect to antipersonnel mines. This is done © Mary Wareham/Next Step Productions, May 2006through extensive collection, analysis and distribu-tion of publicly available information. Although insome cases it does entail investigative missions,Landmine Monitor is not designed to sendresearchers into harm’s way and does not includehot war-zone reporting. Landmine Monitor is designed to complement theStates Parties’ transparency reporting required underArticle 7 of the Mine Ban Treaty. It reflects the shared 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 / 1
  8. 8. ICBL Executive Director provided the only face-to-face opportunity forSylvie Brigot meets with researchers to discuss their research findings withcampaigner and researcher Thematic Research Coordinators.Moaffak Tawfek Hashim to In May 2006, Thematic Research Coordinatorsdiscuss campaign activities. and a small group of researchers participated in the intersessional Standing Committee meetings in © Jackie Hansen, 3 April 2006 Geneva, Switzerland, to conduct interviews and discuss final reports and major findings. From April to July, Landmine Monitor’s team of Thematic Research Coordinators verified sources and edited country reports, with a team at Mines Action Canada taking responsibility for final fact-checking, editing, and assembly of the entire report. This report was printed its shortcomings. The Landmine Monitor is a system during August and presented to the Seventh Meeting that is continuously updated, corrected and of States Parties to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty in improved. Comments, clarifications, and corrections Geneva, Switzerland from 18 to 22 September 2006. from governments and others are sought, in the Landmine Monitor Report 2006 is available online spirit of dialogue and in the common search for accu- at www.icbl.org/lm. rate and reliable information on a difficult subject. Last, but never least, we extend our gratitude to Landmine Monitor donors and supporters. Land- Landmine Monitor 2006 Process mine Monitor’s contributors are in no way respon- In June 1998, the ICBL formally agreed to create Land- sible for, and do not necessarily endorse, the material mine Monitor as an ICBL initiative. A four-member contained in this report. It was only possible to carry Editorial Board coordinates the Landmine Monitor out this work with the aid of grants from: system: Mines Action Canada, Handicap International, Human Rights Watch, and Norwegian People’s Aid. • Government of Australia Mines Action Canada serves as the lead agency. The • Government of Austria Editorial Board assumes overall responsibility for, and • Government of Belgium decision-making on, the Landmine Monitor system. • Government of Canada Research grants for Landmine Monitor Report • Government of Cyprus 2006 were awarded in December 2005, following a • Government of Denmark meeting of the Editorial Board in Zagreb, Croatia • Government of France from 3-4 December 2005. Thematic Research Coordi- • Government of Germany nators met in Ottawa, Canada from 9-10 February • Government of Ireland 2006 to exchange information, assess what research • Government of Luxembourg and data gathering had already taken place, identify • Government of the Netherlands gaps, and ensure common research methods and • Government of New Zealand reporting mechanisms for Landmine Monitor. In • Government of Norway March and April 2006, draft research reports were • Government of Sweden submitted to Thematic Research Coordinators for • Government of Switzerland review and comment. • Government of the United Kingdom From 2-4 April 2006 in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, • European Commission over sixty researchers and Thematic Research Coor- • UN Development Programme dinators met for the 2006 Landmine Monitor Global • UNICEF Research Meeting to discuss research findings, We also thank the donors who have contributed to further build capacity in research and mine ban advo- the individual members of the Landmine Monitor cacy, and participate in exposure visits to Cambodian Editorial Board and other participating organizations. mine action field projects. The meeting was an inte- gral part of the Landmine Monitor process and2 / 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
  9. 9. Major FindingsL 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 theworld. Significant challenges remain, however. Non-State Armed Groups committing This edition of the Landmine Monitor reports in to a ban on antipersonnel minesdetail on progress and challenges remaining in over The Polisario Front in Western Sahara signed the120 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 Kurdistanmines, and the dwindling minority of states which Workers Party (PKK) signed in July 2006.have not yet joined the Mine Ban Treaty. LandmineMonitor Report 2006 provides an annual update to Universalization challengesLandmine 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 andlater. Statistics for mine action and landmine casual- the United States. Some countries that were reportedties are usually given for calendar year 2005, with to be making progress toward the treaty in Landminecomparisons 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 minesAs of 1 July 2006, 151 countries were States Parties to No use of antipersonnel mines bythe Mine Ban Treaty, and another three had signed States Parties or signatoriesbut not yet ratified, constituting well over three-quar- There is no evidence—or even serious allegation—ofters of the world’s nations. Four signatory states rati- use of antipersonnel mines by Mine Ban Treaty Statesfied the treaty since the publication of Landmine Parties or signatories. This is notable because manyMonitor Report 2005: Ukraine, Haiti, the Cook Islands were users in the recent past before becoming Statesand 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 nearfuture, including Indonesia, Kuwait, Palau and Three governments using antipersonnel minesPoland. Many states that are not party took steps In this reporting period, at least three governmentsconsistent 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 ofuniversalization of the Mine Ban Treaty, was adopted landmines. These three governments and Georgiaon 8 December 2005, with 158 in favor, none were identified as users in Landmine Monitor Reportopposed, and 17 abstentions; this was the highest 2005 and previous reports, establishing themselves asnumber 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. 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. 11. An increasing number of States Parties are Increased casualties in 2005-2006making their views known on key matters of Reported casualties increased to 7,328 in 2005—11treaty interpretation and implementation percent more than in 2004. In 2005-2006, there wereAlbania, Chad, Cyprus, Estonia, FYR Macedonia, new casualties from landmines and explosiveMoldova, Slovenia and Yemen provided their national remnants of war recorded in 58 countries (the same asunderstandings 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 didGermany, 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 andantivehicle mine) capable of being detonated by the more military (national and foreign) mine and ERWunintentional 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) withLandmine Monitor research identified at least 78 no new landmine casualties in 2005-2006 but withnations as being affected to some degree by land- casualties caused exclusively by explosive remnantsmines 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 11Ban Treaty—Guatemala and Suriname—reported of these countries Landmine Monitor did not recordcompleting clearance of all mined areas in 2005. ERW casualties in 2004. Increased demining productivity Increasing number of mine survivorsIn 2005, a total of more than 740 square kilometers was and mine victimsdemined, 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 theaction 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 thatsuspected contamination by almost 340 square kilome- had casualties in 2005-2006 able to provide completeters. 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 are3.75 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 futuremeet Article 5 deadlines for completing mine years. More importantly, the number of survivors continues to grow—and their needs are long-term.clearanceToo many States Parties appear not to be on course tomeet their Article 5 deadlines, including at least 13 of the Increased attention to victim assistance29 States Parties with 2009 or 2010 deadlines—Bosnia States Parties increased support to 24 countries withand 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, betterUnited 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 ofMine 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 assistancenotable development from 2004 (15 countries). For the remains inadequate. Providers continue to face many offirst 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 60countries 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. 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
  13. 13. IntroductionT he Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti- Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (“Mine Ban Treaty”) entered into force on 1March 1999. Signed by 122 governments in Ottawa,Canada in December 1997, the Mine Ban Treaty had151 States Parties as of 1 July 2006.1 An additionalthree states have signed but not yet ratified. A total of © Cameron Macauley /Landmine Survivors Network, April 200640 states remain outside the treaty. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines(ICBL) considers the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty the onlyviable comprehensive framework for achieving a mine-free world.2 The treaty and the global effort to eradicateantipersonnel mines have yielded impressive results. Anew international norm is emerging, as many govern-ments not party to the Mine Ban Treaty are taking stepsconsistent with the treaty, and an increasing number ofnon-state armed groups are also embracing a ban.New use of antipersonnel mines continues to decline.There was compelling evidence of new use by justthree governments in this Landmine Monitor clearance of all antipersonnel mines in mined areas. The Salvadoran Associationreporting period (since May 2005), as well as use by Some 15 other States Parties reported good progress of Football Amputees isnon-state armed groups in 10 countries. There were no towards achieving clearance before their Article 5 dead- comprised of 37 players,confirmed instances of antipersonnel mine transfers. lines; however, there were indications that some dozen 34 of whom are landmineHowever, in May 2006, the UN arms embargo moni- others are not on track to do so. Several major mine survivors.toring group on Somalia reported that the government action programs were threatened by lack of funding inof Eritrea had delivered 1,000 antipersonnel mines to 2005. Mine risk education tookmilitant fundamentalists in Somalia; Eritrea strongly place in 60 countries, reachingdenied the charge. Four more States Parties completed some 6.4 million people Over 740 square kilometers of land wasdestruction of their stockpiled antipersonnel mines, directly, in addition to mass demined by mine action programs in 2005bringing the total to 74; only 13 States Parties still have media. MRE became increas- ingly integrated with other — more than in any other year since thestocks to destroy. Over 740 square kilometers of land was demined by mine action activities, and start of modern demining in the late 1980s.mine action programs in 2005— more than in any other there were more community-year since the start of modern demining in the late based programs.1980s. This was due largely to efforts in some major Landmine Monitor identified at least 7,328 new casu-mine-affected countries to better identify which mine- alties in 2005, an increase of 11 percent from 2004. Minesuspected land is not in fact mined, and to improve casualties occurred in every region of the world—targeting of resources and increase efficiency of clear- there were new casualties in 58 countries and sevenance operations. Over 470,000 landmines (450,000 non-state territories in 2005. Efforts to improve thewere antipersonnel mines) and 3.75 million explosive assistance given to mine survivors made progress indevices were removed and destroyed. Two more mine- six of the 24 States Parties identified as having theaffected countries, Guatemala and Suriname, declared most survivors and the greatest need to improvefulfillment of their Article 5 obligations by completing survivor assistance. However, in 2005 existing 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 / 7
  14. 14. Participants at an event Progress has been made, therefore, yet dauntingheld in conjunction with challenges remain to universalize the Mine Ban Treatythe release of Landmine and strengthen the norm of banning antipersonnelMonitor Report 2005, in mines, to fully implement the treaty, to clear minesZagreb, Croatia. from the ground, to destroy stockpiled antipersonnel © Stuart Maslen, 22 November 2005 mines, and to assist mine survivors. The ICBL believes that the only real measure of the Mine Ban Treaty’s success will be the concrete impact that it has on the global antipersonnel mine problem. As with the seven previous annual reports, Landmine Monitor Report 2006 provides a means of measuring that impact. This introductory chapter provides a global overview programs were far from meeting the needs of mine of the current Landmine Monitor reporting period since survivors and faced the same problems as in May 2005. It contains sections on banning antiper- previous years. sonnel mines (universalization, treaty implementation, The trend for year-on-year increases in mine use, production, trade and stockpiling), on mine action action funding halted in 2005; this was the first (including mine risk education), and on landmine casu- significant decrease since 1992, due mainly to cuts by alties and survivor assistance. the two biggest donors.8 / 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
  15. 15. Banning Antipersonnel MinesT he Mine Ban Treaty was opened for signa- ture on 3 December 1997. After achieving the required 40 ratifications in September 1998, the Mine Ban Treaty entered intoforce on 1 March 1999, becoming binding interna-tional law. This is believed to be the fastest entry-into-force of any major multilateral treaty ever. Since 1March 1999, states must accede and cannot simplysign the treaty with intent to ratify later. For a state © J. Falgon/Handicap International, September 2005that ratifies (having become a signatory prior to 1March) or accedes now, the treaty enters into forcefor it on the first day of the sixth month after the dateon which that state deposited its instrument of ratifi-cation. That state is then required to submit its initialtransparency report to the UN Secretary-Generalwithin 180 days (with annual updates each year there-after), destroy stockpiled antipersonnel mines withinfour years, and destroy antipersonnel mines in theground within 10 years. It is also required to take The Cook Islands and Brunei provide positive exam- A young girl throws aappropriate domestic implementation measures, ples for the Asia-Pacific states that are not yet party to pair of shoes on top ofincluding imposition of penal sanctions. the treaty. a shoe pyramid, part of There are three states remaining that have signed, an awareness-raising Universalization but not yet ratified the treaty: Indonesia, Marshall campaign in Lyon, France. Sustained and extensive outreach efforts by Islands, and Poland. There are positive indicationsStates Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty have helped to from Indonesia and Poland that they will ratify theexpand the ban on antipersonnel mines to countries treaty in the near-term. The President of Indonesiathat at one time expressed difficulties with joining. Of issued his consent to start thethe 151 States Parties, a total of 84 states ratified or process for ratification of the Sustained and extensive outreach effortsacceded to the treaty after its entry into force on 1 treaty in October 2005, and in by States have helped to expand the ban onMarch 1999.3 The numbers of states that ratified or March 2006 a draft law was antipersonnel mines to countries that atacceded to the treaty each year since it opened for submitted to the Ministry ofsignature are as follows: 1997 (December only)—3; Legal and Human Rights one time expressed difficulties with joining.1998—55; 1999—32 (23 after 1 March); 2000—19; Affairs for final revision.2001—13; 2002—8; 2003—11; 2004—3; 2005—4; Poland continues to work on the national ratificationand 2006 (as of July)—3. process following elections and a change in govern- Four signatory states have ratified the treaty since ment. In addition, in December 2005, the Marshallthe publication of Landmine Monitor Report 2005: Islands voted in favor of the annual UN GeneralUkraine (December 2005), Haiti (February 2006), the Assembly (UNGA) resolution calling for universaliza-Cook Islands (March 2006) and Brunei (April 2006). tion and full implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty,Ukraine possesses a very large stockpile of 6.6 after it abstained on similar resolutions in past years.million antipersonnel mines, including 5.9 million There have also been encouraging developments indifficult-to-destroy PFM-type mines. With Haiti’s rati- many of the non-signatory nations around the world.fication, only two countries in the Americas, Cuba In sub-Saharan Africa: Somalia is the only country inand the United States, remain outside of the treaty. the region that is not party to the treaty. In June 2005, 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 / 9
  16. 16. sonnel mines, but not stockpiling and use, and Stockpile of antipersonnel© Mahfoud Brahim Omar/Sahawari Campaign to Ban Landmines, 27 requires clearance of mined areas within seven years. mines prepared for a destruction event conducted In the Commonwealth of Independent States: For the by the Polisario Front in first time, Azerbaijan in December 2005 voted in favor Tifariti, Western Sahara. of the annual pro-ban UNGA resolution. Armenia has reportedly decided to submit to the UN Secretary- General, on a voluntary basis, the annual transparency reports required by the Mine Ban Treaty and CCW Amended Protocol II. Georgia attended the interses- sional meetings in May 2006, where it said that its posi-February 2006 tion on non-accession to the Mine Ban Treaty was being re-considered, and it re-stated its commitment not to use, produce, import or export antipersonnel mines. the Deputy Prime Minister of Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government (TFG) reaffirmed the TFG’s In the European Union: Finland is the only EU resolve to accede to the treaty and called for assis- country that has not signed, ratified or acceded to the tance, including for stockpile destruction. Mine Ban Treaty. At the Sixth Meeting of States Parties, Finland reiterated its commitment to accede In the Asia-Pacific region: At the intersessional by 2012 and destroy all stockpiled antipersonnel Standing Committee meetings in May 2006, Palau mines by 2016. expressed its hope to accede to the Mine Ban Treaty by the Seventh Meeting of States Parties in In the Middle East-North Africa region: In Kuwait, a September 2006. The Federated States of Micronesia draft accession law was submitted to the National attended the Sixth Meeting of States Parties to the Assembly; Kuwait voted in favor of the annual pro- Mine Ban Treaty in November-December 2005—its ban UNGA resolution for the first time since 1998. first participation in a Mine Ban Treaty-related Senior Iraqi Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials said in meeting—and told the ICBL that accession legisla- March 2006 that Iraq would join the treaty and that tion was being drafted. In May 2006, Mongolia indi- preparations were underway. In Lebanon, an internal cated it has initiated a step-by-step approach to review process that could lead to accession began. In accede to the Mine Ban Treaty in 2008; a first step in June 2006, Lebanon’s Prime Minister and the Army the plan is to reveal information on its landmine Chief told the ICBL that they were not averse to acces- stockpiles. In October 2005, at the UN, Mongolia’s sion, and the Foreign Minister said that Lebanon was representative declared, “Mongolia denounces the giving serious consideration to accession. For the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of all types first time, Lebanon voted in favor of the annual pro- of anti-personnel landmines and supports the efforts ban UNGA resolution in the First Committee; it was undertaken by the international community to ban absent from the final vote. Morocco continued to this dangerous and indiscriminate weapon.” express strong support for the Mine Ban Treaty and In July 2005, Laos confirmed its intention to stressed its de facto compliance; it voted in favor of accede to the Mine Ban Treaty in the future. In the pro-ban UNGA resolution for the second consec- December 2005, China voted for the first time in utive year, and announced at the Sixth Meeting of favor of the annual pro-ban UNGA resolution; it States Parties its intention to submit a voluntary continued to make statements supporting the Mine Article 7 transparency report. Ban Treaty’s purposes and objectives. India has shown an increasing openness toward the Mine Ban UN General Assembly Resolution 60/80 Treaty, and has regularly attended meetings related to One opportunity for states to indicate their support the treaty since December 2004; at the Sixth Meeting for a ban on antipersonnel mines has been annual of State Parties the Indian delegate stated that its voting for UN General Assembly resolutions calling participation in these meetings “is a reflection of our for universalization and full implementation of the commitment to the common vision of a world free of Mine Ban Treaty. UNGA Reso- the threat of landmines and unexploded ordnance.” lution 60/80 was adopted on The government of Nepal and the During the visit of a Canadian government dele- 8 December 2005 by a vote of Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) gation in November 2005 to promote the Mine Ban 158 in favor, none opposed, agreed to a bilateral cease-fire and a Treaty, Vietnamese officials indicated that Vietnam and 17 abstentions.4 This is will join the treaty at some point and stressed that it the highest number of votes Code of Conduct that includes non-use already respects the spirit of the treaty by not in favor of this annual resolu- of landmines. producing, selling or using antipersonnel mines. On tion, and the lowest number 26 May 2006, the government of Nepal and the of abstentions, since 1997 when it was first intro- Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) agreed to a bilat- duced.5 Twenty-four states not party to the treaty voted eral cease-fire and a Code of Conduct that includes in favor. This included three countries that subse- non-use of landmines. In June 2006, Taiwan enacted quently became States Parties (Ukraine, Haiti and legislation that bans production and trade of antiper- Brunei), three signatory countries (Indonesia, Poland 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 / 1 1
  17. 17. Landmine Monitor signed a cease-fire with the government that includedresearchers for India and © Mary Wareham/Next Step Productions, November-December 2005 an agreement to clear mines.Pakistan discuss research Geneva Call has received signatures from 29findings at the Sixth NSAGs, many of them in Somalia, since 2001. TheMeeting of States Parties. signatories are in Burma, Burundi, India, Iraq, the Philippines, Somalia, Sudan, Turkey and Western Sahara. The Polisario Front in Western Sahara signed the Deed of Commitment in November 2005 and the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), also known as the Kurdistan People’s Congress (Kongra-Gel), signed in July 2006. Sixth Meeting of States Parties States Parties, observer states and other participants and Marshall Islands), and 18 non-signatories met for the Sixth Meeting of States Parties in Zagreb, (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, China, Finland, Croatia from 28 November to 2 December 2005. It Georgia, Iraq, Kuwait, Micronesia, Morocco, Nepal, differed from previous annual meetings in that it was Oman, Singapore, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Tonga, Tuvalu, conducted in the framework of formally assessing and the United Arab Emirates). Most notable among progress in fulfilling the Nairobi Action Plan 2005- this latter group are Azerbaijan and China, who voted 2009 that had been adopted at a high political level in favor of the annual resolution for the first time, as at the First Review Conference (Nairobi Summit on a well as Kuwait (first time since 1998) and the Marshall Mine-Free World) in November-December 2004. Islands (first time since 2002). Lebanon voted in favor Thus, the meeting produced the Zagreb Progress for the first time in the First Committee, but was Report, which in addition to reviewing progress made absent for the final vote. It is noteworthy that of the 40 in the past year, highlighted priority areas of work for existing non-States Parties, more voted for the resolu- the coming year. The Zagreb Progress Report took tion (18) than abstained (17); five non-States Parties the place of the President’s Action Programme that were absent from the vote.6 emerged from previous annual meetings. Despite the growing list of states committed to Notable announcements at the meeting included: banning antipersonnel mines, there were also discour- Guatemala and Suriname completing their mine clear- aging actions among some of the 40 states not party to ance obligations; Algeria and Guinea-Bissau the treaty. Government forces in completing their stockpile destruction obligations;A significant number of non-state Burma (Myanmar), Nepal and Nigeria destroying mines previously retained forarmed groups have indicated their Russia continued to use antiper- training; and, Australia pledging 75 million Australian sonnel mines. The United States has dollars for mine action over five years. In the onlywillingness to observe a ban on been developing new landmine substantive agreement of the meeting, States Partiesantipersonnel mines. systems that may be incompatible agreed to a proposal from Argentina and Chile for a new with the Mine Ban Treaty. Some format for expanded reporting on antipersonnel mines states that were reported to be making progress toward retained for training or development purposes under the treaty in Landmine Monitor Report 2005 did not the Article 3 exception. The ICBL was pleased with the report any further progress, such as Bahrain, focus of States Parties on Article 5 mine clearance dead- Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. lines, and especially Norway’s offer to initiate a process to facilitate fulfillment of these obligations. Non-State Armed Groups Participation in the meeting was high—over 600 There is ever-increasing awareness of the need to people—with a total of 115 country delegations involve non-state armed groups (NSAGs) in the attending, including 94 States Parties. More than 180 global efforts to ban antipersonnel mines. NSAGs representatives of NGOs from 63 countries attended. were a prominent topic at the June 2005 and May The range of participants—diplomats, campaigners, 2006 Standing Committee meetings, as well as the UN personnel, and, most notably, significant numbers Sixth Meeting of States Parties. of mine action practitioners, people from the field, and A significant number of non-state armed groups landmine survivors—again demonstrated that the Mine have indicated their willingness to observe a ban on Ban Treaty has become the framework for addressing all antipersonnel mines. They have done this through aspects of the antipersonnel mine problem. unilateral statements, bilateral agreements, and by A total of 21 non-States Parties participated, indi- signing the Geneva Call Deed of Commitment.7 cating the continuing spread of the international norm NSAGs in three States Parties (Philippines, Senegal rejecting antipersonnel mines. Some of the more and Sudan) have agreed to abide by a ban on antiper- notable holdouts attended, including Azerbaijan, sonnel mines through bilateral agreements with China, Egypt and India. India made its first formal governments. In addition, in August 2005, the Move- statement at a Mine Ban Treaty meeting. Notably, ment for Democracy and Justice in Chad (MDJT) seven non-States Parties from the Middle East/North1 2 / 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
  18. 18. Africa region took part, an encouraging development chairs and Algeria and Estonia as co-rapporteurs; and in a region with low adherence to the Mine Ban Treaty. Victim Assistance and Socio-Economic Reintegra- These included Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Morocco, tion: Afghanistan and Switzerland as co-chairs and Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Austria and Sudan as co-rapporteurs. States Parties made a number of practical deci- Details of Standing Committee discussions and sions at the Sixth Meeting. They decided to hold the interventions can be found in the thematic sections Seventh Meeting of States Parties in Geneva from 18 which follow. to 22 September 2006, with Australia as the Presi- dent-designate. Jordan offered to host the Eighth Convention on Conventional Meeting of States Parties in 2007. In addition, new Weapons (CCW) co-chairs and co-rapporteurs were selected for the A total of 86 states were party to Amended Protocol Standing Committees. II of CCW, as of 1 July 2006.8 Amended Protocol II The ICBL identified several disappointing aspects regulates the production, transfer and use of land- of the meeting, including that Australia was the only mines, booby-traps and other explosive devices. It State Party to announce a specific new financial entered into force on 3 December 1998. Since the commitment for mine action, responses to the victim publication of Landmine Monitor Report 2005, only assistance questionnaire were of varying quality with Tunisia joined Amended Protocol II. Just 10 of the 86 objectives too vague in many cases, and there was States Parties to Amended Protocol II have not joined little meaningful discussion on the inconsistent inter- the Mine Ban Treaty: China, Finland, India, Israel, pretation and implementation of Articles 1 and 2, Morocco, Pakistan, Russia, South Korea, Sri Lanka regarding acts permitted under the treaty’s prohibi- and the United States. tion on “assistance,” and mines with sensitive anti- China, Latvia, Pakistan and Russia deferred compli- handling devices or sensitive fuzes. ance with the requirements on detectability of antiper- Implementation and sonnel mines, as provided for in the Technical Annex.9 China and Pakistan are obli- Intersessional Work Program gated to be compliant by 3 States Parties agreed to a proposal from A notable feature of the Mine Ban Treaty is the atten- December 2007; neither has Argentina and Chile for a new format tion which States Parties have paid to ensuring provided detailed information for expanded reporting on antipersonnel implementation of the treaty’s provisions. Structures on the steps taken thus far to created to monitor progress toward implementation meet the detectability require- mines retained for training or development and to allow discussion among States Parties include ment. Russia must come into purposes. the annual Meetings of States Parties, the interses- compliance by 2014. Latvia’s sional work program, a coordinating committee, deferral is now presumably irrelevant due to its acces- contact groups on universalization, resource mobi- sion to the Mine Ban Treaty, which prohibits the use of lization and Articles 7 and 9, the sponsorship such mines and requires their destruction. program, and an implementation support unit. Belarus, China, Pakistan, Russia and Ukraine The intersessional Standing Committees met for deferred compliance with the self-destruction and one week in June 2005 and another week in May self-deactivation requirements for remotely-delivered 2006. At the Sixth Meeting of States Parties, the new antipersonnel mines provided in the Technical co-chairs and co-rapporteurs were selected for the Annex.10 Their respective nine-year deadlines for this period until the next annual meeting, as follows: action are 3 December 2007 for China and Pakistan, General Status and Operation: Belgium and and 2014 for Russia. Ukraine is obliged by the Mine Guatemala as co-chairs and Argentina and Italy as co- Ban Treaty to destroy its stockpile of nearly six million rapporteurs; Mine Clearance, Mine Risk Education PFM-type remotely-delivered antipersonnel mines by and Mine Action Technologies: Jordan and Slovenia 1 June 2010. Belarus is obligated by the Mine Ban as co-chairs and Chile and Norway as co-rapporteurs; Treaty to complete the destruction of its stocks of Stockpile Destruction: Japan and Tanzania as co- PFM and KPOM remotely-delivered antipersonnel mines by 1 March 2008. Treaty Implementation In November 2003, 91 CCW States Parties agreed Officer Tamar Gabelnick at to adopt Protocol V, a legally binding instrument on the intersessional Standing generic, post-conflict remedial measures for explo- Committee meetings in© Mary Wareham/Next Step Productions, May 2006 sive remnants of war (ERW). On 12 May 2006, the Geneva, Switzerland. 20th State Party ratified the protocol, triggering an entry-into-force date of 12 November 2006. As of 1 July 2006, 23 states had ratified Protocol V. 11 In the CCW, work on mines other than antiper- sonnel mines (MOTAPM) and on measures to prevent specific weapons, including cluster muni- tions, from becoming explosive remnants of war continued in 2005 and 2006. 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 / 1 3

×