Country & Territory Reports - Landmine Action

General introduction
Background to this report
Explosive Remnants of War (ERW) and Mines Other Than Anti-
Personnel Mines (MOTAPM) present some level of hazardous
contamination in almost all post-conflict environments. As
distinct from anti-personnel mines (APMs), these forms of
contamination are not covered by the Ottawa Anti-Personnel
Mine Ban Treaty 1 and although reported on they are not a
specific focus of the ‘Landmine Monitor’ 2 reports published
annually by the International Campaign to Ban Landmines.
This global survey assesses the impact of ERW and MOTAPM
contamination on civilian populations and on processes of
post-conflict recovery world-wide.
This report is part of an ongoing effort by nongovernmental
organisations and international
organisations to support discussions on the post-conflict
impact of mines and ordnance within international
humanitarian law in general and within the UN Convention
on Conventional Weapons (CCW) 3 in particular. The Second
Review Conference to the CCW in December 2001
established an open-ended Group of Governmental Experts
(GGE) with separate coordinators to address the issues of
ERW and MOTAPM. In 2003, an additional Protocol
(Protocol V) was agreed within the CCW that contains
obligations regarding record-keeping, retention and
transmission of information regarding ordnance use as
well as obligations on the post-conflict clearance, removal
and destruction of ERW.
This report serves as a contribution towards further understanding
of the problems post-conflict contamination by
conventional weapons cause and of the mechanisms
available for mitigating these problems. Such mechanisms
generally take two forms:
■ Preventative measures that aim to address predictable
post-conflict threats through controls on the use of certain
weapons, through the establishment of certain technical
requirements for particular weapons or through
obligations regarding record keeping about the use of
weapons.
■ Remedial measures that work to address problems of
post-conflict contamination after they have been incurred.
These generally include clearance operations (to find and
destroy explosive hazards), risk education (to warn
populations of the danger) and survivor assistance (in the
form of medical care and social and economic rehabilitation
for people who have suffered accidents.) As noted
above, Protocol V to the CCW contains obligations for
State Parties to undertake such remedial measures as
marking, clearance and destruction of ordnance as soon
as feasible after the cessation of hostilities.
erw and motapm – global survey 2003–2004
Practical operations in affected countries to address the
post-conflict impact of ERW and MOTAPM are generally
seen as falling into the sector of ‘mine action’. This sector
developed rapidly in the 1990s in response to growing
awareness of the post-conflict problems caused by antipersonnel
mines. Although anti-personnel mines have
had the highest profile, ERW and MOTAPM have been
addressed within mine action programmes from the
inception of the sector. This report also provides material
for better understanding the mine action sector and
suggests key issues for the development of that sector
with respect to ERW and MOTAPM.
Structure, methodology and limitations
of the data
General findings and conclusions with respect to ERW and
MOTAPM are presented in two separate sections at the
beginning of the report. The bulk of the document is then
made up of 88 country and ‘disputed territory’ reports. In
some sections, countries and disputed territories are
covered together for ease of representation.
Researchers
The project employed 31 researchers, mostly from affected
regions, to gather information on regional blocks of affected
countries or disputed territories. The researchers were each
supported and managed by one of three coordinators who
worked on the project for Landmine Action, Actiongroup
Landmine.de and Mines Action Canada.
Timeframe
The research was conducted with a focus on data available
for a 12-month period from July 2003 to June 2004.
However, efforts have been made to put this data into a
broader context and the focus varies slightly between
different countries depending on the available data.
Limitations of the data
This project focussed on the collection and collation of
existing data. Key data sources were government bodies,
non-governmental organisations and media sources. The
project is based on desk research and interviews rather
than first hand analysis in the fields. As a result, reports
on different countries reflect the quality and availability of
data in those areas.
There are significant deficiencies in current casualty datagathering
mechanisms in many countries. The most
effective systems seem to be in those countries which