Jump to a specific section of the chapter:

Assessing the Impact: Contamination | Casualties

Coordination: Clearance | Risk Education | Victim Assistance

Addressing the Impact: Clearance | Risk Education | Victim Assistance

This chapter highlights developments and challenges in assessing and addressing the impact of antipersonnel mines. The first part of this overview covers contamination and casualties, while the second part focuses on addressing the impact through clearance, risk education, and victim assistance. These make up three of the five core components or “pillars” of mine action.

This overview documents progress under the Oslo Action Plan—the five-year action plan of the Mine Ban Treaty, adopted in November 2019. The plan is consistent with the fulfillment of the objectives of the treaty, whereby States Parties declare that they are:

“Determined to put an end to the suffering and casualties caused by anti-personnel mines, that kill or maim hundreds of people every week, mostly innocent and defenseless civilians and especially children, obstruct economic development and reconstruction, inhibit the repatriation of refugees and internally displaced persons, and have other severe consequences for years after emplacement.”

As of October 2021, there were 33 States Parties that had declared obligations under Article 5 of the Mine Ban Treaty to clear contaminated land. In 2020, despite the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, most States Parties reported undertaking clearance in areas under their jurisdiction and control. A total of 146km² of contaminated land was cleared, while approximately 135,583 antipersonnel mines were cleared and destroyed. In 2020, Chile and the United Kingdom (UK) both declared completion of their Article 5 clearance obligations.

However, States Parties Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, and Nigeria were added back on to the list of States Parties with clearance obligations due to having either newly discovered or, in the case of Nigeria, new mine contamination. Progress towards the aspirational goal “to clear all mined areas as soon as possible, to the fullest extent by 2025,” as agreed by States Parties at the Third Review Conference of the Mine Ban Treaty in Maputo in June 2014 and reaffirmed at the Fourth Review Conference in Oslo in 2019, has stalled, with few States Parties on target to meet their deadlines.

Exceptionally high numbers of casualties resulting from landmines and explosive remnants of war (ERW) continued to be recorded during 2020, following a sharp rise in casualties caused by increased conflict and contamination since 2015. The total of 7,073 mine/ERW casualties in 2020 represents more than double the number of casualties in 2013, which saw the fewest annual casualties on record. Casualties were recorded in 51 countries and three other areas in 2020. For the first time, Syria recorded the highest number of annual causalities, followed by Afghanistan. The majority of casualties in 2020 were reported in countries experiencing armed conflict and which suffered contamination with mines of an improvised nature.

Mine/ERW risk education was conducted in at least 26 States Parties during 2020, albeit under unprecedented and challenging conditions. Delivery was adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic as physical distancing, movement restrictions, and school closures prevented many of the usual risk education activities from being conducted. However, in line with Action #31 of the Oslo Action Plan, States Parties and operators responded and adapted to these changing circumstances by devising new ways to deliver the life-saving messages through mass media, mobile phone apps, social media platforms, and local networks of community volunteers.

At least 34 States Parties have responsibility for significant numbers of mine victims—these states have “the greatest responsibility to act, but also the greatest needs and expectations for assistance.”[1] The Oslo Action Plan includes commitments to enhance the core victim assistance components of emergency medical response, ongoing healthcare, rehabilitation, psychosocial support, and socio-economic inclusion. It also includes a commitment on protection of victims in situations of risk, including armed conflict, humanitarian emergencies, and natural disasters. This action has become particularly important in the context of states meeting victim assistance objectives during the COVID-19 pandemic, while at the same time addressing the changes and challenges brought about by pandemic-related restrictions.

Assessing The Impact

Antipersonnel mine contamination

Antipersonnel mine contamination in States Parties

States Parties with Article 5 obligations

As of October 2021, a total of 33 States Parties had declared an identified threat of antipersonnel mine contamination on territory under their jurisdiction or control, and therefore have obligations under Article 5 of the Mine Ban Treaty.

States Parties that have declared Article 5 obligations as of October 2021

*Argentina was mine-affected by virtue of its assertion of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas. The United Kingdom (UK) also claims sovereignty and exercises control over the territory, and completed mine clearance of the Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas in 2020. Argentina has not yet acknowledged completion.

**Cyprus states that no areas contaminated by antipersonnel mines remain under Cypriot control.

States Parties that have completed clearance

Under Article 5 of the Mine Ban Treaty, States Parties are required to clear all antipersonnel mines as soon as possible, but not later than 10 years after becoming party to the treaty.

At the Eighteenth Meeting of States Parties in November 2020, Chile formally announced having completed clearance of all known mined areas within its territory on 27 February 2020.[2] The United Kingdom (UK) also announced completion of its Article 5 obligations in November 2020, following the clearance of the Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas ahead of its deadline of 1 March 2024.[3]

Since the Mine Ban Treaty came into force in 1999, 33 States Parties have reported clearance of all antipersonnel mines from their territory. State Party El Salvador completed clearance in 1994, before the treaty came into force.

States Parties that have declared fulfilment of clearance obligations since 1999

*Algeria, Nicaragua, and Mozambique have reported, or are suspected to have, residual contamination.

**Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, and Nigeria have reported finding new contamination.

***Tunisia and Venezuela are suspected to have improvised mine contamination.

Several States Parties to have declared themselves free of antipersonnel mines later discovered previously unknown mine contamination, or were required to verify that areas had been cleared to humanitarian standards.[4] Burundi, Germany, Greece, Hungary, and Jordan each declared the fulfilment of their Article 5 obligations several years after their initial declarations.

States Parties that have reported new contamination

If a State Party discovers a mined area under its jurisdiction or control after its original or extended Article 5 deadline has expired, it has an obligation to inform all States Parties of the discovery and to undertake to clear and destroy all antipersonnel mines in the area as soon as possible, and before the next Meeting of States Parties or Review Conference.[5]

Three States Parties that previously declared themselves free of antipersonnel mines have since reported further contamination, and submitted extension requests in 2020 and 2021.

Guinea-Bissau declared fulfilment of its clearance obligations under Article 5 of the Mine Ban Treaty on 5 December 2012. Yet in June 2021, Guinea-Bissau reported residual contamination from mines/ERW and submitted an extension request until 31 December 2022.[6]

Mauritania, which declared itself free of mines in 2018, reported finding new contamination in 2019 and was granted a one-year extension in 2020 to conduct survey to gain a more accurate estimate of contamination.[7] Following this initial one-year extension, Mauritania submitted a fourth request to extend its clearance deadline in June 2021.[8]

Nigeria announced that it had fulfilled its Article 5 obligations in 2011, but indicated newly-mined areas in 2019.[9] Nigeria submitted an extension request in November 2020, and received an interim extension until 31 December 2021 “to present [a] detailed report on contamination, progress made and work plan for implementation.”[10] Nigeria submitted a second request in May 2021, to be considered at the Nineteenth Meeting of States Parties in November 2021.[11]

States Parties with residual contamination

Four States Parties were known or suspected to have residual contamination in 2020.

Algeria declared fulfilment of its Article 5 obligations in 2017, but continues to find and destroy antipersonnel mines on its southwestern borders. In 2020, Algeria reported that 8,813 antipersonnel mines were found and destroyed, an increase from the 4,499 found in 2019.[12] Algeria reported that the mined areas are under its jurisdiction and control, and that the mines are immediately reported and destroyed, in accordance with the treaty.[13]

There have been several mine/ERW casualties reported in Kuwait since 1990. In 2018, there were reports of torrential rain having unearthed landmines, presumed to be remnants of the 1991 Gulf War.[14] The mines are believed to be present mainly on its borders with Iraq and Saudi Arabia; in areas used by shepherds for grazing animals. Kuwait has not made a formal declaration of contamination in line with its Article 5 obligations.

In Mozambique, four small suspected mined areas totaling 1,881m² were reported to be submerged underwater in Inhambane province.[15] At the Mine Ban Treaty intersessional meetings in June 2018, Mozambique reiterated its commitment to address these areas once the water level had receded and access could be gained, and said the National Demining Institute conducted regular monitoring. Mozambique noted that it believed there was little probability that mines would be detected in the submerged areas.[16] Mozambique has provided no further updates since 2018 on the status of these mined areas.

Nicaragua declared completion of clearance under Article 5 in April 2010, but has since found residual mine/ERW contamination. In 2018, Nicaragua reported that its contingency operations answered 13 reports made by the public, resulting in the clearance of 2,849m² and removal and destruction of 29 items of ERW. Nicaragua confirmed these operations would continue through 2019.[17] In May 2020, two mines exploded in El Bayuncun, San Fernando, near the border with Honduras. The first mine injured one person and the second injured four people from a rescue party.[18]

Extent of contamination in States Parties

States Parties Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), Cambodia, Croatia, Ethiopia, Iraq, Turkey, Ukraine, and Yemen have all reported massive antipersonnel landmine contamination (more than 100km²). However, the extent of contamination in at least two of these countries— Ethiopia and Ukraine—is likely to be considerably less once survey is conducted.

Large contamination by antipersonnel landmines (20–99km²) is reported in five States Parties: Angola, Chad, Eritrea, Thailand, and Zimbabwe.

Medium contamination (5–19km²) is reported in seven States Parties: Colombia, Mauritania, Somalia, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, and Tajikistan.

Ten States Parties reported less than 5km² of contamination: Cyprus, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Ecuador, Guinea-Bissau, Niger, Oman, Palestine, Peru, Senegal, and Serbia.

Nigeria, which submitted a Mine Ban Treaty Article 5 extension request in 2021, reported that due to insecurity, the extent of contamination had not been determined. Nigeria is impacted by improvised mines, other improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and ERW, mainly in the states of Adamawa, Borno, and Yobe in the northeast.[19]

Estimated antipersonnel mine contamination in States Parties[20]

*Both Ethiopia and Ukraine have reported massive contamination, although this cannot be reliably verified until survey has been conducted. It is expected that the estimates will be significantly reduced after survey. In Ukraine the estimate includes all contamination, including antipersonnel mines, antivehicle mines, and other ERW.

**Cyprus has stated that no areas contaminated by antipersonnel mines remain under its control.

• Americas

In December 2020, Colombia reported a total of 260 municipalities suspected or known to be contaminated, including 138 municipalities that were inaccessible or only partly accessible.[21] Contamination in accessible areas comprised 7.73km², with 1.85km² classified as confirmed hazardous areas (CHA) and 5.88km² as suspected hazardous areas (SHA).[22] Colombia also reported in December 2020 that 253 municipalities were free of contamination.[23]

Ecuador and Peru each have a very small amount of remaining contaminated area, of 0.04km² and 0.37km² respectively.[24]

• East and South Asia and the Pacific

As of the end of December 2020, Cambodia reported contamination of 801.64km², following the completion of a national baseline survey in 73 districts.[25] Thailand has a total of 62.95km² of contamination, of which 23.27km² are CHA (183 areas), and 39.68km² are SHA (43 areas). Much of the remaining contamination in Cambodia and Thailand is along their shared border, where access has been problematic due to a lack of border demarcation.[26]

Afghanistan reported contamination of 187.31km² as of the end of 2020, of which 148.46km² is classified as CHA, and 38.85km² is classified as SHA.[27] Prior to the Taliban taking control of Afghanistan in August 2021, new contamination resulting from fighting between the government and non-state armed groups (NSAGs) continued to add to the extent of contamination in the country.[28]

Mine contamination in Sri Lanka is mainly in Northern province, the scene of intense fighting during the civil war; and to a lesser extent in Eastern and North Central provinces. As of March 2021, Sri Lanka reported a total of 12.79km² contamination, with 304 CHA (11.44km²) and nine SHA (1.35km²).[29]

• Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia

BiH reported extensive contamination of 956.36km² as of the end of 2020.[30] The majority of hazardous areas in BiH are suspected rather than confirmed (95km² CHA and 861.36km² SHA), meaning actual contamination may be less than reported.

As of March 2021, Croatia reported contamination of 279.55km² (196.89km² CHA, including 30.14km² under military control, and 82.66km² SHA) across eight of its 21 counties.[31] The majority of contaminated land in Croatia is reported to be in forested areas.[32] Newly discovered contamination was identified in four counties in 2020–2021.[33]

Turkey reported contamination of 145km² across 3,834 areas. The majority of contaminated areas are found along its borders with Armenia, Iran, Iraq, and Syria, while 920 areas are not in border regions.[34] Turkey plans to conduct non-technical survey during 2021–2023 of all of the contaminated areas, to provide a more accurate picture of contamination.[35]

Ukraine reported 7,000km² of contamination (undifferentiated, including antipersonnel mines) in government-controlled areas in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, as of the end of 2020.[36] Ukraine has provided the same estimate of contamination since 2018, and survey to provide a more accurate baseline has not yet been conducted.[37] In addition, an estimated 14,000km² of undifferentiated contamination was reported in areas not controlled by the government.[38]

Cyprus, Serbia, and Tajikistan all have much smaller amounts of contamination.

Cyprus is believed to have 1.24km² of antipersonnel and antivehicle landmine contamination. However, the contamination is reported to be only in Turkish-controlled Northern Cyprus and in the buffer zone, and not in territory under the effective control of Cyprus.[39] Serbia reported 1.15km² of contamination across five areas, in Bujanovac municipality.[40] Tajikistan reported a total of 8.55km² of antipersonnel mine contamination (7.02km² CHA and 1.53km² SHA).[41]

• Middle East and North Africa

Iraq is dealing with contamination by improvised landmines in areas liberated from the Islamic State. As of the end of 2020, Iraq reported 1,199.95km² of antipersonnel mine contamination, and an additional 596.27km² of IED contamination, including improvised mines. The majority of contamination was in Federal Iraq.[42]

Yemen does not currently have a clear understanding of the level of contamination, as ongoing armed conflict continues to add to the extent and complexity of contamination, which includes improvised mines.[43] The scale of the conflict and its extensive impact has continued to prevent implementation of effective nationwide survey.[44] The most recent estimate of contamination, from March 2017, was 323km².[45]

Oman reported that all of its hazardous areas had been cleared before the signature of the Mine Ban Treaty, but were in the process of being “re-inspected” to deal with residual risk.[46]

Palestine reported 0.18km² of landmine contamination, of which 85,000m² was antipersonnel mines and 99,000m² was antivehicle mines.[47]

• Sub-Saharan Africa

Ethiopia reported in April 2020 that remaining contamination totaled 726.06km², across 152 areas in six provinces.[48] Of this, 29 areas (3.52km²) were CHA, while 123 areas (722.54km²) were SHA.[49] Most SHAs are located in the Somali region. It believed that the baseline figure is an overestimate and that only 2% of these areas are actually likely to contain mines.[50]

As of December 2020, Angola reported total landmine contamination of 85.42km² across 17 provinces, of which 84.41km² was antipersonnel mines and 1.01km² was antivehicle mines. Of the antipersonnel mine contamination, 81.58km² was classified as CHA and 2.83km² as SHA.[51]

Chad has identified 147 hazardous areas across three provinces,[52] covering an estimated total of 80.33km² of mixed contamination (57.59km² CHAand 22.74km² SHA).[53] Over half of the mine contamination is located in Tibesti.[54] Lake province is contaminated with improvised mines.[55]

Eritrea has not reported on the extent of its contamination since 2014, when it was estimated at 33.5km².[56]

As of 31 December 2020, remaining mine contamination in Zimbabwe was 34.12km². All of this contamination is classified as CHA, and is located in five provinces along the border with Mozambique and an inland minefield in Matabeleland North province.[57]

Mauritania declared clearance of all known contamination in 2018, but later identified further contamination.[58] A survey conducted in February and March 2021 identified 19 mined areas, covering 16.18km².[59] Local authorities have reported an additional mined area in Ouadane, in the Adrar region, the size of which is still to be determined.[60]

Somalia reported 6.1km² of antipersonnel mine contamination, out of a total of 161.8km² of mixed contamination which includes antivehicle mines.[61] Somalia also reported an increase in the use of improvised mines.[62] Since 2017, the Somali Explosives Management Authority (SEMA) reported it was in the process of synchronizing and verifying data in the national database, which may lead to adjustments to the figures.[63] This process was ongoing in 2021.

South Sudan reported 7.28km² of contamination as of 31 December 2020, with 63 areas classified as CHA (2.83km²) and 55 as SHA (4.45km²).[64] The largest SHA, in Jonglei, totaled 1.98km², but it is thought its size would be reduced through survey.

As of the end of 2020, Sudan reported 13.09km² of antipersonnel mine contamination, with 56 CHA (up from 43 in 2019) and 41 SHA (down from 52 in 2019) across the states of Blue Nile, South Kordofan, and West Kordofan.[65] New contamination totaling 6.22km² was found in Blue Nile and South Kordofan in 2020, with 11 new hazardous areas registered.[66]

Contamination in the DRC totals 0.13km², but is partly located in the provinces of Ituri and North-Kivu, which are difficult to access due to the presence of NSAGs and the Ebola epidemic.[67]

In 2021, Guinea-Bissau reported that residual contamination covers 1.09km² and is classified as CHA, with antipersonnel mines accounting for 0.49km² and antivehicle mines accounting for 0.6km². In addition, 43 areas were suspected to contain both mines and ERW.[68]

Niger and Senegal both have small amounts of contamination. Senegal reported that following non-technical survey in 2020, 37 hazardous areas had been identified, covering 0.49km².[69] In 2020, Niger reported 0.18km² of CHA, adjacent to a military post in Madama, in the Agadez region.[70]

Suspected improvised antipersonnel mine contamination in States Parties with reported improvised mine hazards and casualties

Improvised devices designed to detonate—or which due to their design, can be detonated—by the presence, proximity, or contact of a person are prohibited under the Mine Ban Treaty.[71] Available information indicates that the fusing of most improvised landmines allows them to be activated by a person, but there may be exceptions.

Improvised mines are noted as a concern in the Oslo Action Plan, which says “the States Parties are also facing new challenges including increased use of anti-personnel mines of an improvised nature and rising number of victims.”

Action #21 of the Oslo Action Plan lays out the commitments of States Parties affected by improvised mines whereby all provisions and obligations of the treaty apply to such contamination. This includes the obligations to clear these devices in accordance with Article 5 and to provide regular information on the extent of contamination, disaggregated by type of mines, in their annual transparency reporting under Article 7.

Several States Parties suspected to be contaminated with improvised mines, which may be antipersonnel mines by their nature, have not declared clearance obligations under Article 5 or have not provided regular Article 7 transparency reports.

Improvised landmines causing casualties in Burkina Faso and Cameroon were believed to have primarily acted as de facto “antivehicle mines.” According to Monitor data for 2019, only vehicles were involved in mine incidents in both countries, and no casualties occurred while individuals were on foot. However, in 2020, a few incidents in Burkina Faso and Cameroon appear to have involved people walking.

In the following States Parties, casualties from improvised mines have been documented. These States Parties must clarify their status with regards to their Article 5 obligations and may need to request new clearance deadlines.

In Burkina Faso, IED use by NSAGs has been recorded since 2016. Pressure-plate improvised antivehicle mines have been increasingly used since 2018, due to the introduction of measures which block signals to command-detonated IEDs. In 2020, 107 casualties of improvised mines were recorded—although most incidents involved vehicles, including cars, carts, and bicycles. Yet in August 2020, eight children were killed by an improvised mine in Bembela. One report said the children were watching over animal herds when they stepped on an IED, while another said that the device exploded as some of the children were walking and some were on a cart.[72]

Cameroon originally declared that there were no mined areas under its jurisdiction and control, and its Article 5 deadline expired in 2013. However, since 2014, improvised mines have caused casualties, particularly in the north on the border with Nigeria, as Boko Haram’s activities have escalated.[73] The extent of contamination is unknown but is thought to be small. Most casualties in past years were traveling by vehicle; yet in 2020, of 12 improvised mine casualties, two were incidents that were reported to have occurred while the casualty was walking.[74]

Mali has confirmed antivehicle mine contamination, and since 2017 has experienced a significant increase in incidents caused by IEDs, including improvised mines, in the center of the country.[75] All casualties to date were traveling by vehicle. The Monitor recorded 242 improvised mine casualties in Mali in 2020. UNMAS reported to the Monitor that improvised mines in Mali are victim-activated by pressure tray or wire trap.[76]

Tunisia declared completion of clearance in 2009, but there have been reports of both civilian and military casualties from mines—including improvised mines—in the last five years.[77] The improvised mines causing casualties—particularly shepherds walking with their herds—often result in lower limb amputation, consistent with antipersonnel mine explosions.

Venezuela reported clearing all of its remaining mined areas under Article 5 in 2013.[78] Yet in August 2018, media reports said that Venezuelan military personnel suffered an antipersonnel mine incident in Catatumbo municipality, Zulia state, along the border with Colombia,[79] where Colombian NSAGs were believed to be using improvised mines to protect strategic positions.[80] In March 2021, the Venezuelan military engaged the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, FARC) in Victoria, in Apure state,[81] and a Venezuelan non-governmental organization (NGO) stated that mines “similar to those used in Colombia” were found in the area.[82] This indicates they were improvised antipersonnel mines. Contamination was later confirmed by a member of parliament and the Ministry of Defense.[83] Venezuela requested UN support to clear mines from the border in April 2021, and announced that the military would be using a mine sweeper prototype to clear the area.[84]

Antipersonnel mine contamination in states not party and other areas

Twenty-two states not party to the Mine Ban Treaty and five other areas have, or are believed to have, land contaminated by antipersonnel mines on their territories.

States not party and other areas with antipersonnel mine contamination

Note: other areas are indicated in italics.

State not party Nepal and other area Taiwan have completed clearance of known mined areas since 1999.

States not party

The extent of contamination is unknown in most states not party: Armenia, China, Cuba, Egypt, India, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Lao PDR, Libya, Morocco, Mynamar, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, South Korea, Syria, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.

Landmines are known or suspected to be located along the borders of several states not party, including Armenia, China, Kyrgyzstan, Morocco, North Korea, South Korea, and Uzebkistan.

Ongoing conflict, insecurity, and the impact of improvised mines affect states not party Egypt, India, Libya, Myanmar, Pakistan, and Syria.

The level of contamination is known to some extent in Azerbaijan, Georgia, Israel, and Lebanon.

In Azerbaijan, contamination comprised 5km² of antipersonnel mine contamination (1.5km² CHA and 3.5km² SHA) and 8.71km² of antivehicle mine contamination (1.79km² CHA and 6.92km² SHA). Survey is needed to assess the extent of contamination, due to changes in control of parts of Nagorno-Karabakh after the conflict in 2020.[85]

In Georgia, contamination totaled 2.79km² across four mined areas, including 0.05km² contaminated with antipersonnel mines, and 2.74km² contaminated with antipersonnel mines and antivehicle mines. The size of two additional areas contaminated with antipersonnel mines, in the villages of Osiauri and Khojali, was unknown.[86]

Just over 90km² of contamination was reported in Israel in 2017, comprising 41.58km² CHA and 48.51km² SHA (including areas in the West Bank).[87] This did not include mined areas “deemed essential to Israel’s security.” No updates on contamination have been provided since 2017, although Israel reported progress in re-surveying mine affected areas and the clearance of 0.18km² in 2020.[88]

At the end of 2020, Lebanon reported 18.23km² of landmine contamination, all CHA. There was also 0.41km² of IED contamination, which included improvised mines.[89]

Other areas

Five other areas unable to accede to the Mine Ban Treaty due to their political status are known to have mine contamination: Abkhazia, Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh, Somaliland, and Western Sahara.

The extent of contamination in Abkhazia and Kosovo is small, at 0.01km² in Abkhazia and 1.2km² in Kosovo.[90]

Nagorno-Karabakh was reported to have 6.75km² of contaminated land including 5.62km² of antipersonnel mine contamination, 0.23km² of antivehicle mine contamination, and 0.9km² of mixed antipersonnel and antivehicle mine contamination.[91] The total extent of contamination may be subject to adjustment, due to changes in territorial control during the 2020 conflict and the possibility that new mines may have been laid.

Somaliland was reported to have 3.86km² of contaminated land in total, including 0.52km² of antipersonnel mine contamination, 2km² of antivehicle mine contamination, 0.17km² of ERW contamination, and 1.17km² of mixed contamination.[92]

Western Sahara has minefields east of the Berm,[93] covering an area of 215.96km² (90km² CHA and 125.96km² SHA).[94] According to the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS), the minefields are contaminated with antivehicle mines, although small numbers of antipersonnel mines have been found in these areas.[95]

Mine/ERW casualties

Landmines of all types—including antipersonnel mines, antivehicle mines, and improvised mines—as well as cluster munition remnants[96] and ERW remain a significant threat and continue to cause indiscriminate harm globally.

Following a sharp rise in casualties amid increased conflict and contamination since 2015, high numbers of casualties continued to be recorded in 2020, when at least 7,073 people were killed or injured by mines/ERW. Of that total, at least 2,492 were killed while 4,561 were injured. In the case of 20 casualties, it was not known if the person survived.[97]

Mine/ERW casualties were recorded in 51 countries and three other areas in 2020. The annual total represents an increase from 5,853 casualties in 2019, and an upward turn from three years of declining casualties (2017–2019) since the annual total reached a peak of 9,440 in 2016, due to increased conflict and the resulting contamination.[98]

States/areas with mine/ERW casualties in 2020

Note: States Parties are indicated in bold. Other areas are indicated in italics.

The casualty total for 2020 represents more than twice the number of casualties in 2013 (3,456), the year with the fewest mine/ERW casualties on record. The significant rise in casualties since that time is primarily due to intensive armed conflicts involving the use of improvised mines.

Mine/ERW casualties: 2001–2020[99]

Between 1999 and 2019, Afghanistan and Colombia alternated in having the highest number of annual recorded casualties. In 2020, Syria, a state not party to the Mine Ban Treaty, recorded the most casualties (2,729), followed by State Party Afghanistan (1,474). This marked the first year that Syria had the highest recorded number of annual casualties since Monitor reporting began in 1999. Afghanistan had recorded the most annual casualties each year from 2008–2019, while casualty rates in Colombia spiked from 2005–2007.

Mine/ERW casualties over 20 years in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Syria

The Monitor notes that since the Syrian Civil War began in 2011, casualty totals for Syria have fluctuated, due to inconsistent availability of data and sources and a lack of access to affected areas. Annual totals of recorded mine/ERW casualties in Syria are thought to be a considerable undercount, while ambiguity in the way that casualties and explosive incidents are reported in the media often leaves it unclear if mines involved in incidents were of an improvised nature. Casualty data for Syria is routinely adjusted in light of new surveys and historical data.

It is certain that many casualties go unrecorded each year globally, meaning not all casualties are captured in the Monitor’s data. Some countries do not have functional casualty surveillance systems in place, while other forms of reporting are often inadequate. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic posed an additional challenge to data collection efforts in mine/ERW affected countries.

InAfghanistan, data collection was limited amid ongoing conflict. The existing system records only civilian casualties. Reporting on military casualties is rare, with no data available for 2019 or 2020. Since May 2017, the Afghan military has stopped releasing conflict casualty figures.

The number of casualties in Azerbaijan in 2020 has not yet been adequately determined, in part due to the complexity of data collection following the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, but also due to changes in territorial control of affected areas. This risks duplication or under-reporting.[100]

Yemen reported that there was no nationwide casualty surveillance system, and that casualties were recorded in an ad hoc manner by local authorities, medical institutions, and the Yemen Executive Mine Action Center (YEMAC). The issue is compounded by the scale of the ongoing armed conflict in Yemen and the COVID-19 pandemic.[101] The Monitor recorded 350 casualties for Yemen in 2020. In its Article 7 report for 2020, Yemen reported 532 victims surveyed in 2020.[102] The UN Humanitarian Needs Overview for Yemen reported 1,300 civilians “affected in landmine or ERW related incidents” in 2020, with no reference to persons killed or injured.[103]

Casualty demographics[104]

Civilians accounted for the vast majority of mine/ERW casualties in 2020 compared to military and security forces.[105] In 2020, 80% of casualties were civilians, where their status was known, evidencing the long-recognized trend of civilian harm that motivated the adoption of the Mine Ban Treaty. The Monitor identified 27 casualties among deminers in nine countries during 2020 while the remaining 20% of casualties were military or combatants. The country with the most military casualties was Syria (390), followed by Mali (165), Ukraine (120), and Nigeria (113).

Civilian status of casualties in 2020

There were at least 1,872 child casualties in 2020. Children made up half of civilian casualties where the age group was known (3,733), and accounted for 30% of all casualties for whom the age group was known (6,272).[106] Children were killed (645) or injured (1,218) by mines/ERW in 34 states and one other area in 2020.[107]

In 2020, as in previous years, the vast majority of child casualties—where the sex was known—were boys (81%).[108] ERW was the device type that caused most child casualties (870, or 46%), followed by improvised mines (434, or 23%).

In 2020, as in past years, men and boys made up the majority of casualties, accounting for 85% of all casualties where the sex was known (4,583 of 5,388). Women and girls made up 15% of all casualties where the sex was known (807).

Casualties by device type

Countries with high and increasing numbers of casualties are mostly those with improvised mine casualties. In 2020, improvised mines accounted for the highest number of casualties (2,119) for the fifth year in a row. Although the number of casualties attributed to improvised mines declined from 2019, this is attributable to variants in casualty recording terminology. Most casualties attributed to unspecified mine types in 2020 were reported in countries with improvised mine casualties (1,550 of 1,632 unspecified mine casualties in 2020, or 95%).[109]

Casualties by type of mine/ERW in 2020

In 2020, landmines caused at least 4,352 casualties, including those reported as factory-made antipersonnel mines, improvised mines, antivehicle mines, and unspecified mines.[110]

Cluster munition remnants caused 218 casualties,[111] while other ERW caused 1,760 casualties.[112]

A total of 743 casualties were the result of mine/ERW items that were not disaggregated in data or reporting.[113]

Casualties and Mine Ban Treaty status in 2020

Mine/ERW casualties occurred in 38 States Parties in 2020.[114] States Parties accounted for half (52%, or 3,642) of annual casualties. Eight States Parties recorded more than 100 casualties in 2020: Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Colombia, Iraq, Mali, Nigeria, Ukraine, and Yemen.

States Parties with over 100 casualties in 2020

There is a clear trend of declining annual casualties in most States Parties since the Mine Ban Treaty came into existence more than 20 years ago, with the exception of those experiencing conflict and substantial improvised mine use.

In 2020, the Monitor identified 3,391 mine/ERW casualties in 12 states not party to the Mine Ban Treaty.[115] More than 80% of those casualties were recorded in Syria (2,729).[116] Myanmar accounted for the next highest total among countries yet to join the treaty, with 280 casualties.

In three other areas—Nagorno-Karabakh, Somaliland, and Western Sahara—a combined total of 37 casualties were reported in 2020.[117]

Coordination

The Oslo Action Plan, agreed in November 2019 at the Fourth Review Conference of the Mine Ban Treaty, highlights best practices that contribute to the effective implementation of mine action programs. These include high levels of national ownership; developing evidence-based, costed, and time-bound national strategies and workplans; and keeping national mine action standards up to date with the latest International Mine Action Standards (IMAS).

Click here to see a summary table of mine action management and coordination

Clearance coordination

In 2020, clearance in most States Parties with contamination was managed and coordinated through national mine action centers. This was the case in Afghanistan, Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), Cambodia, Chad, Chile, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Ecuador, Iraq, Mauritania, Niger, Palestine, Peru, Senegal, Serbia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.

Guinea-Bissau’s National Mine Action Coordination Center (Centro Nacional de Coordenação da Acção Anti-Minas, CAAMI), formed in 2001, and under the responsibility of the Ministry of Defense since 2009, had been inactive since 2012.[118] Having submitted a Mine Ban Treaty Article 5 deadline extension request in 2021, CAAMI reported that a new director had been appointed and that it had resumed activities.[119]

Nigeria formed an Inter-Ministerial Committee in 2019 to develop a mine action strategy and a workplan for survey and clearance.[120] In its 2021 Article 5 deadline extension request, Nigeria reported that it hoped to establish a national mine action center during the extension period.[121]

In Ukraine, a new structure comprising a National Mine Action Authority (NMAA) chaired by the Minister of Defense, and two mine action centers—one under the Ministry of Defense and one under the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ State Emergency Service of Ukraine (SESU)—were approved in September 2020 via an amendment to the 2018 Mine Action law.[122] The two mine action centers were established and undergoing accreditation and staffing as of August 2021.[123]

National mine action strategies

National mine action strategies and workplans are crucial for strengthening national ownership of mine action programs, and to enable greater transparency and accountability via monitoring and reporting of progress on clearance under Article 5. Developing a national strategy and workplans can also help states align their mine action activities with broader humanitarian and development aims, and boost their ability to secure international funding.

In 2020, 23 States Parties reported having national mine action strategies and/or workplans in place. Afghanistan, Croatia, Iraq, Sudan, and Tajikistan were in the process of updating their national strategies in 2020, with the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) supporting the process in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Sudan.[124]

Sri Lanka planned to update its national strategy in 2021, based on the results of ongoing re-survey in Northern, Eastern, and North Central provinces.[125] The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) planned to assist Yemen in updating its outdated national strategy in 2021, to better reflect mine action needs and priorities amid the ongoing conflict.[126]

In 2020, States Parties Cyprus, the DRC, Eritrea, Guinea-Bissau, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Serbia, and Ukraine did not have national mine action strategies in place. The DRC’s strategy expired in 2019, though it reported in August 2020 and again in February 2021 that it was in the process of developing a new strategy.[127] The GICHD planned to work with Ukraine to develop a national mine action strategy, with a workshop due to be held in 2022.[128]

Information management

States Parties that did not use the Information Management System for Mine Action (IMSMA) in 2020 included BiH, Croatia, Eritrea, Niger, Oman, Thailand, and Serbia. Serbia was in contact with GICHD to discuss the possibility of installing IMSMA.[129]

As part of the UNDP Mine Action Governance and Management Project, which began in 2017 and is funded by the European Union (EU), the BiH Mine Action Centre (BHMAC) planned to create a new online database to increase the availability and transparency of its mine action data.[130] Colombia also enhanced its reporting and monitoring via interactive digital dashboards on demining, risk education, and victim assistance. These dashboards and mine action datasets have been made publicly accessible through the Comprehensive Action against Antipersonnel Mines (Acción Integral Contra Minas Antipersonales, AICMA) online “geoportal”.[131]

Ukraine had two functioning IMSMA databases in 2020, one managed by SESU and the other by the Ministry of Defense. Consolidation of both databases into a central national IMSMA database is planned once the NMAA has been established.[132]

Transparency reporting

As of 1 October 2021, seven States Parties with clearance obligations had not yet submitted Article 7 transparency reports for calendar year 2020: the DRC, Eritrea, Guinea-Bissau, Niger, Nigeria, Palestine, and Somalia.

Four of them have not submitted their report for many years: Niger since 2018, Eritrea since 2014, Nigeria since 2012, and Guinea-Bissau since 2011.[133] In line with Action #49 of the Oslo Action Plan, States Parties that have provided no update on implementation of their clearance obligations under Article 5 for two consecutive years should be assisted by the president of the Mine Ban Treaty, in close cooperation with the Article 5 Committee.

National mine action standards

Several States Parties reported updating national mine action standards in 2020:

• Afghanistan updated standards on improvised mines, planning and prioritization, and quality management;[134]
• Angola updated standards on land release, accreditation, training, technical and non-technical survey, post-clearance documentation, and quality and information management;[135]
• Cambodia updated standards on land release, accreditation, and quality and information management;[136] and
• Colombia updated standards on land release and information management.[137]

In 2020, Iraq, Thailand, Yemen, and Zimbabwe all reported that their national standards were in the process of being reviewed and updated.[138] A national standards workshop in Yemen, set to take place in April 2020, was postponed amid the COVID-19 pandemic, but work began in September 2020 to update survey standards. Yemen reported that the Arabic version was 95% complete as of the end of 2020.[139]

Ukraine’s national mine action standards, first published in April 2019, were being revised in 2021 and will become binding after the establishment of the NMAA.[140]

Some States Parties need to update their national standards, or are still waiting for standards to be approved. Mauritania is required to update its national mine action standards, which date to 2007, and is planning to review them during its fourth extension period.[141] Somalia completed revision of its national standards in 2019, and prepared them for approval by the Ministry of Internal Security in 2020 after receiving feedback from stakeholders.[142] As of September 2021, the National Technical Standards and Guidelines in Somalia were still pending approval.[143]

In 2020, the Mine Action Programme of Afghanistan (MAPA) and the Directorate of Mine Action (DMA) in Iraq reported developing guidelines for the conduct of mine action operations in the context of COVID-19 prevention measures.[144]

Risk education coordination

In 2020, 15 States Parties had mechanisms for coordinating risk education, either through specific risk education technical working group meetings, or through inclusion in meetings of the United Nations (UN) Mine Action Sub-Cluster. Seventeen States Parties reported no specific mechanisms for risk education coordination.

In Croatia, risk education is coordinated at the regional level, through five large area offices and 15 smaller branch offices of the National Education Center for Civil Protection.[145] The Somali Explosives Management Authority (SEMA) coordinates risk education in Somalia via consortiums of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in each state.[146]

In Sri Lanka, there is no official coordination mechanism, but the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) works with the national mine action center to support risk education activities conducted in schools through the Ministry of Education, and at community level through local NGOs.[147]

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic limited risk education coordination meetings in some States Parties. In Cambodia, the Risk Education Technical Reference Group, which usually meets on a quarterly basis, met once in 2020.[148] In Iraq, the risk education working group held only one face-to-face meeting.[149] In South Sudan, risk education meetings were conducted online, but due to limited internet connection some agencies were unable to attend.[150]

Risk education delivery amid COVID-19 restrictions was a key topic of meetings in 2020.

Strategies and national standards

In 2020, risk education was included within the national mine action strategies of States Parties Afghanistan, Angola, BiH, Cambodia, Chad, Colombia, Croatia, Iraq, Senegal, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Thailand. In addition, Ethiopia and Turkey reported including risk education in their national mine action workplans.

Cambodia and Somalia updated their national standards on risk education in line with IMAS 12.10 on Explosive Ordnance Risk Education (EORE), revised in November 2020.[151] Risk education standards in Somalia were still pending approval as of September 2021. Colombia updated Standard Operating Procedures for risk education to align with the updated IMAS.[152]

Iraq and Thailand were also in the process of updating national risk education standards in line with the revised IMAS 12.10.[153]

Several States Parties had no risk education standards, or had standards that required updating. Angola had no risk education standards, but Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA) planned to support the National Intersectoral Commission for Demining and Humanitarian Assistance (Comissão Nacional Intersectorial de Desminagem e Assistência Humanitária, CNIDAH) to develop these as part of its capacity development support.[154] Chad had reported that it would review its risk education standards at the end of 2020,[155] but in 2021 said this would take place in 2022.[156] In Yemen, national standards were reported to be in the early stages of development.[157]

Transparency reporting

Action #29 of the Oslo Action Plan requires States Parties to report on risk education and other risk reduction programs in their Article 7 reports, including on methodologies used, challenges faced, and the results achieved; with information disaggregated by gender, age, and disability.

As of 1 October 2021, 20 of the 26 mine-affected States Parties that had submitted their Article 7 reports for calendar year 2020 reported on risk education. However, the level of detail varied. Afghanistan, Cambodia, Colombia, Iraq, South Sudan, Sudan, and Thailand all provided risk education beneficiary data disaggregated by age and sex, and also provided details of their risk education programs, including on activities, methodologies, and challenges amid COVID-19.

Eleven States Parties provided a description of risk education activities but no beneficiary data: BiH, Croatia, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Mauritania, Peru, Senegal, Serbia, Sri Lanka, Turkey, and Zimbabwe. In some cases—such as Peru, Senegal, and Turkey—no activities were conducted, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

States parties Angola and Yemen provided only beneficiary data, although it was disaggregated by age and sex. States Parties Chad, Cyprus, Oman, Tajikistan, and Ukraine did not report on risk education activities in their Article 7 reports.

No States Parties reported reaching persons with disabilities through risk education in 2020.

Risk education in Article 5 deadline extension requests

Action #24 of the Oslo Action Plan states that extension requests under Article 5 should include detailed, costed, and multiyear plans for context-specific mine risk education and reduction in affected communities. This will help ensure that risk education programs are planned, budgeted, and integrated within the overall obligations of States Parties.

In 2020, BiH, Colombia, the DRC, Mauritania, and Senegal described risk education activities within their Article 5 extension requests, though did not provide costed and detailed multiyear plans. Only South Sudan provided a clear explanation of risk education plans and a budget in its extension request. Niger and Ukraine did not include risk education in their requests.

In 2021, the DRC, Mauritania, Nigeria, Somalia, and Turkey all included some mention of risk education within their extension requests, though none provided costed and detailed multiyear plans. Cyprus, Guinea-Bissau, and Nigeria did not include risk education in their requests.

Victim assistance coordination

States Parties with significant numbers of victims and needs[158]

States Parties which have a responsibility for victims

The Oslo Action Plan reaffirms the commitment of States Parties to “ensuring the full, equal and effective participation of mine victims in society, based on respect for human rights, gender equality and non-discrimination.”

At the First Review Conference of the Mine Ban Treaty, held in Nairobi in 2004, States Parties “indicated there likely are hundreds, thousands or tens-of-thousands of landmine survivors,” and that states with victims had the greatest responsibility to act, but also the greatest need and expectations for assistance. The Monitor’s reporting on victim assistance focuses primarily on the States Parties in which there are significant numbers of victims and needs for assistance.

A definition of “landmine victim” was agreed by States Parties at the First Review Conference, as “those who either individually or collectively have suffered physical or psychological injury, economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights through acts or omissions related to mine utilization.”[159] Landmine victim, according to this widely accepted understanding of the term, includes survivors, as well as affected families and communities. [160]

Participation of victims and their representative organizations

Participation of victims is an overarching principle in the Oslo Action Plan.[161] In 2020, victims were reported to be represented in coordination in Afghanistan, Angola, BiH, Cambodia, Chad, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Iraq, Jordan, Mozambique, Peru, South Sudan, Sudan, Tajikistan, and Thailand. Victim participation in coordination activities was lower than in past years, partly due to COVID-19 restrictions.

There were few indications that input from victims was acted upon in 2020. Reporting by states lacked detail on processes for including inputs from victims in decision-making. However, in February 2021, Colombia hosted a three-day meeting in Bogota, aimed at ensuring inclusion of victims from different backgrounds and regions.[162]

Victim assistance standards

The process to adopt a first specific IMAS on victim assistance began in 2018. Following a review of an initial draft that was made available in 2020, the new standard was fully adopted in October 2021.[163] According to the IMAS 13.10 on Victim Assistance, national mine action authorities and centers can, and should, play a role in monitoring and facilitating the ongoing, multi-sector efforts to address the needs of survivors, and help in ensuring the inclusion of survivors and indirect victims, and their views in the development of relevant national legislation and policy decisions. The standard notes that national mine action authorities are well placed to gather data on victims and needs, provide information on services, and refer victims for support.[164]

Afghanistan and Cambodia reported on their participation in the development of the IMAS on victim assistance. In 2020, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and Humanity & Inclusion (HI) held meetings with DMA in Iraq, on preparing a national standard for victim assistance and developing a mechanism for the collection of standardized victim data.[165]

A relevant government agency to coordinate victim assistance[166]

Twenty-one States Parties were reported to have victim assistance coordination linked to disability coordination mechanisms that considered issues related to the needs of mine/ERW victims.

Due to COVID-19 restrictions, no victim assistance coordination meetings were held in BiH, Chad, or the DRC in 2020.

Multi-sectoral efforts in line with the CRPD[167]

Adopting, and implementing, a comprehensive plan of action that identifies gaps and aims to fulfill the rights and needs of victims—and, or among, persons with disabilities—is a key step toward ensuring a coordinated response to the needs of mine victims in each State Party.

The Oslo Action plan confirms that States Parties “recognize the need to integrate assistance to victims and survivors into broader national policies, plans and legal frameworks relating to the rights of persons with disabilities, health, education, employment, development and poverty reduction.”[168]

In Afghanistan, the National Disability Strategy 2030 had been deposited with the president in 2020 for adoption, and some 15 action plans for its implementation were developed. The draft strategy was last discussed at the Ministry of Martyrs and Disabled in June 2021.[169]

Centralized database with needs and challenges[170]

The Oslo Action Plan calls for States Parties to use a centralized database including information on persons killed and injured, and the needs and challenges of mine survivors—disaggregated by gender, age, and disability to ensure a comprehensive response. Progress in the development of centralized databases since the adoption of the Oslo Action Plan in 2019 has been unsteady.

Afghanistan’s National Disability Database was under development in 2020, in which 370,000 martyrs and persons with disabilities will be registered through a biometric system.[171] People with a disability acquired due to conflict are prioritized and will make up most beneficiaries.[172] Initial registration took place in Kabul and four other provinces in 2019.[173] In September 2021, concerns were raised that biometric data collected by the deposed Afghan government, and inherited by the Taliban, could be used to identify people linked to previous regimes or international forces, or members of persecuted groups who have received aid.[174]

In Iraq, DMA worked with the Ministry of Health and Environment and the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs in 2020, to develop a database for persons with disabilities and mine/ERW victims.[175] Discussions were held between DMA, ICRC, and HI regarding the mechanism for collecting victim data.[176]

Data collection on the needs of mine/ERW victims in Cambodia, Colombia, and Thailand was ongoing in 2020.

Croatia’s development of a unified database on mine/ERW victim needs has stalled since 2017. In 2020, data on mine victims and their family members was collected for inclusion in a central mine/ERW victim database, as part of a mine action project funded by Switzerland.[177]

Somalia, Ukraine, and Yemen needed to significantly improve the collection of victim data and each establish a unified and coordinated system.

National referral mechanisms[178]

States Parties can improve accessibility for victims by ensuring that service providers have the capacity to make referrals to appropriate health and rehabilitation facilities. Some victims may need to be referred to specialized services,from one health facility to another, or for travel and treatment abroad. Referral mechanisms can involve national systems as well as local networks, including referral via community-based rehabilitation systems.

National mine action centers that reported referring survivors to access services included those in BiH, Cambodia, Chad, Colombia, Iraq, Tajikistan, Thailand, and Yemen.

National government ministries and bodies provided referrals as victim assistance focal points in Algeria, Angola, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, and Peru.

Many NGOs provided referrals at the national or local level in the States Parties with victims. These groups included survivor networks, disabled persons’ organizations (DPOs, also referred to as organizations of persons with disabilities, OPDs), national NGOs, and international NGOs such as HI, ICRC, and national Red Cross and Red Crescent movements.

The list of States Parties with significant numbers of victims and needs does not encompass all States Parties with responsibility for mine survivors. The actions contained in the Oslo Action Plan are specifically aimed at States Parties with a significant number of victims, yet the victim assistance section also notes more broadly that “States Parties with victims in areas under their jurisdiction or control will endeavour to do their utmost to provide appropriate, affordable and accessible services to mine victims, on an equal basis with others.”

States Parties where the number of survivors reported or estimated is more than 100 (including those recognized as having a significant number of victims) can be found in the table below.

States Parties with more than 100 mine/ERW survivors

Addressing The Impact

Antipersonnel mine clearance

Mine clearance in 2020

The Mine Ban Treaty obligates each State Party to destroy or ensure the destruction of all anti-personnel landmines in mined areas under their jurisdiction or control, as soon as possible, but not later than 10 years after the entry into force of the treaty for that State Party.

Among States Parties, total reported clearance in 2020 was at least 146km².[179] This represents a decrease from the reported 156km² cleared in 2019. At least 135,583 landmines were cleared and destroyed in 2020.

Monitor data on mine clearance in States Parties is based on analysis of information provided by multiple sources, including reporting by national mine action programs, Article 7 reports, and Article 5 extension requests. In cases where varying annual figures are reported by States Parties, details are provided in footnotes and more information can be found in country profiles on the Monitor website.

Antipersonnel mine clearance in 2019–2020[180]

Note: N/R=not reported; APM=antipersonnel mines.

*Argentina and the UK both claim sovereignty over the Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas.

**Cyprus states that no areas contaminated by antipersonnel mines remain under Cypriot control.

***Clearance of mixed, undifferentiated contamination that included antipersonnel mines.

Several States Parties reported that the COVID-19 pandemic presented challenges to demining operations in 2020. Angola, Chad, Senegal, Serbia, South Sudan, and Zimbabwe all suspended demining operations for a period to comply with national measures to counter the pandemic.[181] Angola reported that movement restrictions impacted the supply chain, and Tajikistan reported that border closures delayed the delivery of demining equipment and supplies.[182] In other states, including Afghanistan, Cambodia, Sudan, and Thailand, clearance operations continued, albeit with precautionary measures in place.[183] However, in States Parties Ecuador, Ethiopia, Peru, and Senegal, demining operations were largely suspended during 2020.

Despite the restrictions and challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic, some States Parties maintained a steady clearance output in 2020. Based on reported data, Croatia cleared the most land during 2020 (49.66km²), closely followed by Cambodia (46.42km²). Cambodia cleared and destroyed 10,085 antipersonnel mines, compared to 4,953 in Croatia. Sri Lanka cleared and destroyed the most landmines in 2020, reporting 43,157 mines cleared from 4.59km².

Afghanistan cleared 24.24km², down from 28.01km² cleared in 2019. The Directorate of Mine Action Coordination (DMAC) in Afghanistan told the Monitor that while it had met its original baseline land release target—set in its 2013 extension request—annual land release targets had increased each year, due to both legacy and new contamination being added to the database. In 2020, Afghanistan reported that it had reached only about 34% of the annual target.[184]

Mine action in Yemen continued to operate under emergency response conditions in 2020, with a fire brigade approach to clearance focused on small, high-threat areas, with significant impact for communities.[185] In 2020, non-technical survey was being planned and is expected to start in 2021. It aims to establish a baseline to enable the planning of future clearance.[186]

Afghanistan, BiH, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Iraq, and Yemen reported clearing improvised mines as well as antipersonnel mines in 2020. In its Article 7 transparency report, Iraq provided better disaggregated data for land cleared of improvised mines as opposed to all improvised explosive devices (IED), hence reducing the amount of land reported cleared in 2020 compared to 2019. The United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS) reported the clearance of improvised mines in Mali.[187]

Chile and the United Kingdom (UK) met their Article 5 clearance obligations in 2020. Chile completed clearance on 27 February 2020 after releasing 2.69km² in the first two months of the year, of which 0.6km² was cleared. Chile reported that 12,526 antipersonnel mines and 10,170 antivehicle mines were cleared during this two-month period.[188] The UK reported completing clearance of antipersonnel landmines in the Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas in November 2020, having cleared four remaining contaminated areas in the Yorke Bay area, totaling 0.23km².[189] The UK reported clearing and destroying 432 mines in 2020.[190]

Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), Chad, the DRC, Niger, Oman, Palestine, Serbia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tajikistan, Thailand, and Turkey all cleared under 1km² in 2020.[191] Five of these States Parties—the DRC, Niger, Oman, Palestine, and Serbia—have small amounts of contamination while four—Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Tajikistan—have contamination classified as medium, and therefore should be able to complete clearance within the next few years if clearance and land release outputs are increased. Niger also reported no clearance since the beginning of March 2020. Oman reported “re-clearance” of 0.23km² in 2020 and 0.13km² in 2019, but no landmines were found and destroyed.[192] Serbia cleared no antipersonnel mines during 2020, but reported clearing one antivehicle mine and 1,586 ERW.[193]

Ukraine did not report mine clearance in its Article 7 report for 2020. The State Emergency Service of Ukraine (SESU) reported clearing 49.39km² and destroying 73,375 ERW, although it did not specify clearance of antipersonnel mines.[194] International operators cleared just over 2km² of undifferentiated contaminated land in Ukraine, destroying five antipersonnel mines.[195]

Five States Parties reported no clearance during 2020: Cyprus, Ecuador, Mauritania, Peru, and Senegal. Cyprus did not undertake clearance, as no areas contaminated by antipersonnel mines remained under its control.[196] Ecuador and Peru both reported that clearance operations were suspended amid the COVID-19 pandemic.[197] Mauritania reported conducting survey to confirm newly identified contaminated areas.[198] Senegal reported that an action plan for resource mobilization had been developed and that non-technical survey had begun, but no suspicious areas had been identified. Implementation in Senegal was suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic.[199] Senegal has not reported any clearance since 2017.

Ethiopia reported in its Article 7 report for 2020 that it had cleared 1.75km² of land, and cleared and destroyed 128 mines.[200] These were the same figures provided in its Article 7 report for 2019 which covered the period January 2019–April 2020.[201] It is likely that Ethiopia did not conduct further clearance after April 2020.

Article 5 deadlines and extension requests

If a State Party believes that it will be unable to clear and destroy all antipersonnel landmines contaminating its territory within 10 years after entry into force of the Mine Ban Treaty for the country, it is able to request an extension for a period of up to 10 years.

Progress to 2025

At the Third Review Conference of the Mine Ban Treaty in Maputo, in June 2014, States Parties agreed to “intensify their efforts to complete their respective time-bound obligations with the urgency that the completion work requires.” This included a commitment “to clear all mined areas as soon as possible, to the fullest extent by 2025.”

As of 30 September 2021, 24 States Parties had deadlines to meet their Article 5 obligations before and no later than 2025.

Seven States Parties have Article 5 deadlines later than 2025: BiH (2027), Croatia (2026), Iraq (2028), Palestine (2028), Senegal (2026), South Sudan (2026), and Sri Lanka (2028).

Of the seven Article 5 extension requests submitted in 2021, five States Parties have requested extensions up to 2025, while two States Parties have requested extensions beyond 2025.

Despite the majority of States Parties having deadlines in 2025 or earlier, it appears that few of these States Parties will meet their deadlines.

In several States Parties, land release projections are behind target, which they reported was due to a lack of funding and demining capacity.

In 2019 and 2020, Angola failed to meet its projection for land release of 17km² per year, and has not provided an updated workplan or adjusted milestones.[202] Cambodia reported requiring additional financial support and demining capacity to meet its 2025 deadline.[203] Tajikistan also reported that its current capacity would need to be increased to meet its extension deadline.[204] Chad indicated to the Monitor that it is uncertain whether it will meet its deadline, due to funding uncertainties beyond September 2021.[205] Serbia also reported a lack of funding for field operations, which prevented survey of suspected contaminated areas in 2020.[206] Serbia’s annual clearance figure of 0.27km² was just below its projected clearance target of 0.3km².

Several States Parties reported that the COVID-19 pandemic had compromised progress.

Demining operations in Ecuador were suspended in 2020. The pandemic was reported to have delayed planning and affected Ecuador’s ability to complete clearance by 2022.[207] Ecuador has cleared 0.55km² of antipersonnel mine contaminated land since demining operations began in 2000.[208] Ethiopia reported that most field activities in 2020 were suspended amid the pandemic, affecting land release in the Somali region. Ethiopia did not meet its annual clearance target.[209] Peru’s land release output had increased significantly in 2019. However, in 2020, the pandemic prevented clearance operations.[210] Sudan reported that it was not on target to meet its deadline of April 2023, claiming that two years of progress were lost due to political instability and the pandemic.[211]

Thailand—which was on target in terms of its survey and clearance plan—reported that it was uncertain whether its deadline would be met, as COVID-19 restrictions had prevented face-to-face meetings with Cambodia to negotiate border clearance. The Thailand Mine Action Center (TMAC) was concerned that the national mine clearance budget may also be reduced as a result of the pandemic.[212] Zimbabwe, also on target to meet its deadline, noted that the pandemic and the national economic situation could impact its ability to meet its 2025 deadline.[213]

Afghanistan, Ukraine, and Yemen are each unlikely to meet their deadlines before 2025 due to insecurity, conflict, and the extent of contamination.

Afghanistan reported that it will not meet its 2023 deadline due to decreased funding, the need for survey of legacy contamination, and new contamination by improvised mines. Afghanistan anticipated submitting an extension request for at least five additional years until 2028.[214] The Taliban takeover in August 2021 has created uncertainty about the continued progress of mine clearance in Afghanistan.

In Ukraine, ongoing conflict means it is unlikely to meet its Article 5 deadline.[215] In June 2020, Ukraine stated that it did not have control over territories in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, impeding its ability to clear contaminated areas in these territories, and that the hostilities were causing further contamination along the contact line.[216]

Yemen also faced challenges due to continued fighting in parts of the country, restricting access to locations near the frontline, including newly contaminated areas.[217] The pandemic slowed deployment of international staff and created access restrictions, while the declining economic situation in Yemen resulted in rising fuel prices and exchange rates.[218] Yemen will submit a further Article 5 extension request in March 2022.

Summary of Article 5 deadline extension requests (as of October 2021)

Note: N/A=not applicable.

*Argentina and the UK both claim sovereignty over the Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas. The UK completed mine clearance of the Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas in 2020, but Argentina has not yet acknowledged completion.

Extension requests in 2020 and 2021

In 2020, nine countries submitted extension requests: BiH (until March 2027); Colombia (until December 2025); DRC (until July 2022); Mauritania (until January 2022); Niger (until 31 December 2024); Nigeria (until December 2021); Senegal (until March 2026); South Sudan (until July 2026); and Ukraine (until December 2023).[219] These requests were approved at the Eighteenth Meeting of States Parties in November 2020.

As of 1 October 2021, seven countries had submitted requests during 2021 to extend their Article 5 deadlines: Cyprus, DRC, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, Nigeria, Somalia, and Turkey. The decision on approval of these extension requests will take place at the Nineteenth Meeting of States Parties in November 2021.

Cyprus has been granted three extensions to its Article 5 deadline, each for a period of three years. Cyprus submitted a fourth request in 2021, for another three years, until 1 July 2025.[220] Cyprus has cited antipersonnel mines remaining in territory occupied by Turkish forces, which it has been unable to clear, as the reason for its multiple extension requests.[221]

In 2020, the DRC submitted a third extension request, which was approved, setting a new deadline of 1 July 2022.[222] In 2021, the DRC requested a fourth extension, for a period of three years and six months, until 31 December 2025, to clear 33 remaining contaminated areas totaling 0.12km².[223] The extension request indicates that little progress has been made.

Guinea-Bissau completed clearance of all known mined areas in December 2012.[224] However, at the Mine Ban Treaty Fourth Review Conference, in November 2019, it reported residual mine/ERW contamination and submitted an extension request until 31 December 2022.[225]

Mauritania declared fulfilment of its Article 5 obligations in 2018, but in June 2020 submitted an extension request—which was approved—to extend its clearance deadline by one year, in order to survey previously unknown mined areas.[226] Following this initial one-year extension, Mauritania submitted a fourth request in June 2021 to extend its deadline to 31 December 2026.[227]

Nigeria reported having improvised mine contamination at the Fourth Review Conference, in November 2019, and submitted a request in November 2020 for an interim extension until 31 December 2021, to enable it to present a detailed report on contamination, progress made, and a workplan for implementation.[228] In 2021, Nigeria submitted a request for four years, until 31 December 2025, but did not include a plan for survey or clearance for this extension period.[229]

Somalia submitted an extension request in April 2021 for five years, until 1 October 2027. A revised request was submitted in September 2021, which included a workplan.[230] However, the plan fails to provide detailed annual projections for survey and clearance, which will make any progress towards the achievement of Somalia’s Article 5 obligations difficult to assess.

Turkey submitted an extension request in March 2021, for three years and nine months, until 31 December 2025. Turkey noted that the extension period would allow for the collection of relevant information, with a view to submitting a second request.[231] The request did not include planning or resources for the clearance of mines in Turkish-controlled Northern Cyprus.

In addition, Eritrea was expected to submit an extension request in 2021, but as of 1 October, had yet to do so. Eritrea, which in 2019 was granted a new Article 5 deadline of 31 December 2020, has failed to report on progress or submit another extension request, and has been in a state of non-compliance with the Mine Ban Treaty since its deadline expired.[232]

Risk education

The Mine Ban Treaty requires States Parties to “provide an immediate and effective warning to the population” in all areas under their jurisdiction or control in which antipersonnel mines are known or suspected to be emplaced.

The Oslo Action Plan further recognizes the importance of risk education in helping to prevent mine incidents and save lives, providing five actions for States Parties related to risk education. These are to integrate risk education within wider humanitarian, development, protection, and education efforts, and with other mine action activities; provide context-specific risk education to all affected populations and at-risk groups; prioritize people most at risk through analysis of available casualty and contamination data, and through an understanding of people’s behavior and movements; build national capacity to deliver risk education, which can adapt to changing needs and contexts; and report on risk education in annual Article 7 transparency reports.[233]

Provision of risk education in 2020

Action #29 of the Oslo Action Plan requires States Parties to provide context-specific mine risk education to all affected populations and at-risk groups. In 2020, 26 States Parties were known to have provided risk education to populations at risk due to antipersonnel mine contamination: Afghanistan, Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), Cambodia, Chad, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iraq, Niger, Nigeria, Palestine, Senegal, Serbia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Ukraine, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.

Risk education activities were disrupted due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. For example, the BiH Mine Action Center (BHMAC) reached 7,722 people through risk education in 2020, marking a massive decrease from 36,295 reached in 2019.[234] Afghanistan, Croatia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Ukraine, Yemen, and Zimbabwe, among other States Parties, also saw a reduction in risk education beneficiaries in 2020.[235] Beneficiary data collected by the Monitor in 2019 and 2020 indicates that in many states, the number of risk education recipients dropped, particularly where the majority of beneficiaries were reached through interpersonal delivery methods.

In Ecuador and Peru, no mine risk education beneficiaries were reached in 2020, as the Seventh Binational Mine Risk Education Campaign—carried out jointly by both states in contaminated border areas—was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.[236] Risk education activities in Turkey were suspended, and in Sri Lanka cancelled, due to the pandemic in 2020.[237]

Chad, Cyprus, Tajikistan, and Ukraine did not report on risk education in their Article 7 reports, though it is known that risk education took place in these states. In Chad, risk education was undertaken by Humanity & Inclusion (HI), Mines Advisory Group (MAG), and the National High Commission for Demining (Haut Commissariat National de Déminage, HCND).[238] In Cyprus, the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS) provided online risk education to United Nations (UN) peacekeepers during the pandemic.[239] In Tajikistan, risk education was carried out by the Tajikistan National Mine Action Center (TNMAC) and the national Red Crescent Society.[240] In Ukraine, risk education was carried out by international organizations, Ukrainian security and emergency sector actors, and the Ukrainian Red Cross.[241]

As of 1 October 2021, the DRC, Eritrea, Niger, and Nigeria had not submitted Article 7 reports for 2020, though risk education was conducted in each of these states. In the DRC, risk education was carried out by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and community volunteers, while in Eritrea the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) provided risk education to 30,000 children.[242] The European Union Capacity Building Mission (EUCAP) in the Sahel conducted risk education sessions in Niger in 2020.[243] Niger has not provided any updates on risk education since 2012. In Nigeria, risk education was conducted by a national NGO, the Youth Awakens Foundation, as well as by international and UN operators.[244]

Argentina, Chile, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, and the United Kingdom (UK) are not known to have conducted any risk education in 2020.

Risk education prioritization

Action #30 of the Oslo Action Plan requires States Parties to prioritize people most at risk by linking the provision of risk education to available casualty and contamination data. In 2020, as in 2019, it was reported that national level Information Management System for Mine Action (IMSMA) victim data was used to inform the prioritization and planning of risk education in all States Parties where IMSMA data was available.

Afghanistan, Cambodia, Colombia, Croatia, Sudan, and Turkey reported that a prioritization mechanism was in place for targeting people most at risk.

Afghanistan maintained a priority scoring matrix to prioritize affected populations by their proximity to hazards, recent casualties, and incidences of armed conflict.[245] In Cambodia, the Cambodian Mine Victim Information System (CMVIS)—operated by the Cambodian Mine Action and Victim Assistance Authority (CMAA)—was used by operators to plan and target activities.[246] Croatia reported prioritizing risk education according to casualty and contamination data, with the system reported to be age-sensitive and tailored according to population movements, jobs, coping mechanisms, and risk behaviors.[247] Sudan ranked contaminated communities as either high, medium, or low impact areas to prioritize risk education, while Turkey reported risk education prioritization was based on analysis of impacted villages in its database.[248]

In 2020, studies in Cambodia, Colombia, and Ukraine aimed to enhance understanding of at-risk populations, and of prioritization and monitoring processes. In Cambodia, a review of risk education in 2013–2019 was conducted by CMAA. Its recommendations included developing a theory of change to inform the design and monitoring of risk education.[249] In Colombia, the Swiss Foundation for Mine Action (Fondation Suisse de Déminage, FSD) published a study that analyzed risk education and victim assistance IMSMA data from 2012–2019. It concluded that while data was being used to prioritize risk education, the development of a baseline and standardized indicators would help identify trends and changes in community vulnerability.[250] In eastern Ukraine, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) conducted a Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (KAP) survey of risk education in government-controlled areas of Donetsk and Luhansk, to provide a project baseline.[251]

In several States Parties, there was a need to improve the availability of data and the processes for targeting risk education. In BiH and Iraq, victim databases were incomplete or not publicly available.[252] In Ukraine, there was no standardized approach to data collection and analysis to inform risk education, and operators used different datasets, including open-source data, media reports, and reports by the International NGO Safety Organization (INSO) to inform targeting and prioritization.[253] In Yemen, the lack of a functioning IMSMA database made it difficult to identify risk groups, highly contaminated areas, and risk taking behaviors.[254]

Target areas and risk groups

Action #29 of the Oslo Action Plan requires States Parties to provide context-specific risk education, tailored to the threat encountered by the population. It must be sensitive to gender, age, and disability, and take the diverse needs and experiences of people living in affected communities into account. Consideration of target areas, high-risk groups, and the activities and behaviors that put people at risk, is crucial to the design and implementation of effective risk education programs.

Target areas

In 2020, many of the target areas for risk education remained the same as in 2019. States Parties Afghanistan, Angola, BiH, Colombia, Croatia, the DRC, Iraq, Palestine, Somalia, South Sudan, and Ukraine conducted risk education in both rural and urban areas. In States Parties Cambodia, Chad, Senegal, Thailand, and Zimbabwe, risk education was conducted only in rural areas.

In Afghanistan, Angola, the DRC, Iraq, Palestine, Somalia, South Sudan, Yemen and along the Thailand-Myanmar border, risk education was conducted in camps for refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs). In Afghanistan, returnees and IDPs were targeted for risk education via a collaboration between United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and International Organization for Migration (IOM) zero points, transit centers, and encashment centers, using a blend of video and direct presentation approaches.[255]

In 2020, risk education in Iraq was prioritized in areas liberated from Islamic State, to ensure that returnees had an awareness of the risk and knowledge of how to stay safe.[256] As a result of this prioritization, central and southern Iraq saw fewer risk education activities.[257]

Risk education targeted at border areas was conducted in Thailand and Zimbabwe in 2020. In Thailand, the Thailand Mine Action Center (TMAC) provided risk education in areas bordering Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Myanmar.[258] Humanity & Inclusion (HI) delivered risk education for refugees and IDPs from Myanmar in nine refugee camps in Thailand.[259] In Zimbabwe, risk education was conducted on the border with Mozambique.[260]

In Colombia, risk education was provided in indigenous reserves in mountainous areas in 2020. Indigenous communities were affected by ongoing conflict and extreme poverty, and were often hard to reach due to frequent displacement from their communities.[261]

In Yemen, UNDP reported that risk education will need to focus on hard-to-reach areas and locations near frontlines when they become accessible.[262]

Risk groups

Children, often growing up in contaminated areas but lacking knowledge of the risks, continued to be seen as a key risk group in many States Parties in 2020. Children are also prone to picking up and playing with explosive remnants of war (ERW). Afghanistan, Angola, BiH, Cambodia, Colombia, Croatia, the DRC, Iraq, Thailand, Ukraine, Yemen, and Zimbabwe reported children as key target groups for risk education. However, Angola, Palestine, Somalia, South Sudan, and Ukraine all reported that children were more affected by ERW than landmines, while boys and adolescent males were considered to be particularly prone to picking up and playing with items.

Adult men were also cited by the majority of States Parties and operators to be a primary risk group in relation to antipersonnel mines. Afghanistan, BiH, Cambodia, Croatia, the DRC, Iraq, South Sudan, Sudan, Ukraine, and Zimbabwe all targeted men for risk education. Men were often seen to be at high risk due to their work in rural areas, including cultivation, collection of forest products, hunting, fishing, foraging, and tending animals. Men were also reported to be more likely than other groups to take intentional risks due to economic necessity.

Poverty and a lack of viable livelihood alternatives continued to be cited as the primary reasons for intentional risk-taking by populations in both rural and urban areas.

Fewer reported mine incidents involved women and girls in 2020, and risk education operators noted that they were less likely to engage in unsafe behaviors, or to travel as far from home as men. However, in the DRC, women were reported to travel to contaminated areas for food and household materials.[263] Women and girls remain an important group to target in risk education as they can help promote safer behavior among men, and among children and peers.[264] In Sri Lanka, women and schoolgirls worked with national risk education organizations to reach out to families and act as peer group influencers.[265] In states such as Somalia, where female social and economic roles are limited, women and girls are often harder to reach for risk education.[266]

In 2020, risk education in some states was conducted for specific at-risk groups.

In Afghanistan, drivers were targeted for risk education at bus stations, to sensitize them to the dangers of overtaking and using shortcut roads.[267]

In Cambodia, risk education was provided to laborers and construction workers at their place of work, and to agricultural workers in the fields.[268] In Iraq, municipality workers and street cleaners were targeted in cities such as Mosul. Cash-for-work employees hired by UNDP and the IOM were also provided risk education.[269] In Ukraine, railway workers, power company staff, and other employees received risk education if their work took them to contaminated areas.[270] In Yemen, frontline workers involved in construction or rubble removal were provided with safety messages.[271]

In Somalia, pastoralists and nomadic groups were considered at risk due to frequently moving to new pastures and areas. They were also reported to be a challenging group to reach for risk education operators because of this mobility.[272]

In Sri Lanka, risk education was provided to forest officers in Northern Province, who were at risk while working in forested and potentially mined areas. Sri Lanka reported that several new hazardous areas were identified during risk education sessions with forest officers in 2020.[273]

In response to accidents in border areas of Thailand, TMAC revised its risk education approach to better reach those most at risk, including labor migrants crossing Thailand’s borders.[274]

In Zimbabwe, risk education was provided to men and women working in tea and timber estates along the border with Mozambique, who traversed hazardous areas to get to work.[275] Border traders were also targeted for risk education due to their use of unofficial border crossing points to evade the payment of taxes.[276]

In Ukraine, elderly people were targeted for risk education as insufficient pensions forced them to cultivate plots of land, pick mushrooms, and collect firewood in contaminated areas.[277] Many people had to regularly cross the line of contact to collect pensions or access other public goods and services.[278]

Refugees and IDPs remained an important target group for risk education during 2020 in States Parties Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, South Sudan, Thailand, and Yemen. The Yemen Executive Mine Action Center (YEMAC) reported that 7,474 IDPs were reached in 2020.[279]

No new projects to reach persons with disabilities were reported in 2020, though HI continued to integrate victim assistance and risk education across their programs. For example, a program run by HI in Colombia combined physical rehabilitation and exercise with the promotion of safe behaviors.[280] A number of international mine action organizations provided training to community focal points and risk education teams in inclusion awareness training and referral.

In Colombia, risk education was delivered to indigenous populations living in remote areas. In 2020, the Office of the High Commissioner for Peace (Oficina del Alto Comisionado para la Paz, OACP) reported that 40 different types of risk education materials had been developed in six different indigenous languages, following a project implemented by HI.[281]

Risk education delivery methods

Action #28 of the Oslo Action Plan recommends integrating risk education activities with wider humanitarian, development, and protection efforts; and as part of survey, clearance, and victim assistance activities within the mine action sector. Action #31 refers to a need to build national capacity to deliver risk education, in order to respond to changing needs and contexts.

Adapting interpersonal risk education

The vast majority of risk education reported in States Parties is delivered through face-to-face sessions, often with specialized risk education and community liaison staff and the distribution of printed materials, such as leaflets and posters. Many risk education operators reported using mixed gender teams to ensure that all age and gender groups in the population were adequately reached. Often risk education is carried out as an integrated part of survey and clearance, such as in States Parties Afghanistan, Angola, BiH, Cambodia, Chad, Colombia, the DRC, Ethiopia, Iraq, Serbia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.

However, in 2020, risk education activities, particularly interpersonal means of delivery, were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Both national and international operators responded by adapting their approaches and developing new and innovative delivery methods.

Several States Parties developed specific guidelines to safely implement risk education during the pandemic. In Cambodia, protocols ensured that small numbers of people attended sessions and respected physical distancing.[282] In Iraq, the guidelines in Federal Iraq and in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq were different, with the Iraqi Kurdistan Mine Action Agency (IKMAA) allowing restricted face-to-face sessions, while the Directorate of Mine Action (DMA) allowed only the use of digital media.[283] In line with DMA protocols, operators adopted remote delivery methods including the use of radio, video, loudspeakers, phone calls, mobile apps, and social media.[284]

Colombia implemented a public information campaign via community radio, social media, and video and audio messages, to reach populations despite movement restrictions.[285]

Amid COVID-19 movement restrictions in Somalia, UNMAS distributed 1,000 solar-powered Risk Education Talking Devices, with pre-recorded risk education and COVID-19 hygiene messages in Somali languages. UNMAS estimated that a total of 5,000 households—with an estimated 40,000 beneficiaries—were reached via the devices. UNMAS planned to distribute an additional 4,000 units across Somalia by April 2021.[286]

In 2020, the Sudan National Mine Action Center (NMAC) created a Facebook page for risk education and mine awareness-raising, and reported distributing materials containing a hotline number for the public to report suspected contamination.[287]

In Zimbabwe, operators conducted door-to-door risk education sessions instead of community sessions, and distributed fliers with risk education and COVID-19 prevention messages.[288]

Reaching IDPs and returnees was also complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic. In Iraq, MAG developed a short script that could be delivered by phone to families in Sinjar district, Ninewa governate, in response to a significant increase in returnee movement from May–September, which coincided with COVID-19 restrictions and a lack of humanitarian actors on the ground.[289]

Risk education in schools

Delivery of risk education to children in school settings is an important part of risk education programs in many States Parties. In 2020, five States Parties had risk education integrated into the school curriculum: Afghanistan, Cambodia, Colombia, Sri Lanka, and Sudan; while it was reported that risk education was also being incorporated into the primary school curriculum in Nigeria and Iraq.[290] Risk education was also provided in schools, outside of the curriculum, in many States Parties.

However, risk education in schools was disrupted in 2020 due to school closures or inadequate COVID-19 protection measures within schools. In BiH, the Red Cross Society conducted risk education in schools in previous years through annual competitions, under the “Think Mines” project.[291] Unable to organize these competitions in 2020 due to school closures, the Red Cross Society set up a risk education project online through “Viber,” an instant messaging app, which enabled risk messages to continue to reach primary school children during the pandemic.[292]

Ukraine closed all schools and education facilities on both sides of the line of contact to contain the spread of COVID-19 from mid-March 2020, and schools were only gradually opened again from September.[293] UNICEF reached over 100,000 children in both government-controlled and non-government-controlled areas via its online education course, “Super Team against Mines,” and worked with the HALO Trust to provide online and offline sessions in remote schools and small education facilities.[294]

Risk education through focal points and police

In some States Parties, community focal points were able to continue to deliver risk education messages in their communities when risk education teams were unable to visit.

In Colombia, in response to restricted access to remote communities amid the pandemic, OACP sub-contracted six indigenous peoples’ organizations, four afro-descendent organizations, and six survivors’ organizations to implement community risk education.[295] HI also implemented a training of trainers program for 110 beneficiaries in rural and indigenous communities, and supported community educators to acquire risk education certification from the OACP.[296]

In Thailand, TMAC has long supported local risk education networks to disseminate messages in their communities, and to inform local authorities if mines or unexploded ordnance (UXO) are found. In 2020, TMAC utilized social media platforms such as local group chats on “Line,” an instant messaging app, to coordinate with local networks and officials to continue delivering risk education, and to enable local level reporting on mines/ERW found in the area.[297]

Some States Parties worked with local police or security services to deliver risk education and enable the reporting of mines/ERW in 2020. The Cambodian Mine Action Center (CMAC) worked with commune police posts to implement risk education sessions in line with the village and commune safety policy.[298] In Sri Lanka, following a number of accidents resulting from the illegal harvesting of explosives for sand mining, the Regional Mine Action Office (RMAO) cooperated with the police and security forces to regulate the activity as a complement to risk education programs.[299] In Somalia, Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA) provided risk education training to the Puntland State Police in stations situated close to contaminated land.[300]

Victim assistance

The Mine Ban Treaty is the first disarmament or humanitarian law treaty through which States Parties have committed to provide assistance to people harmed by a specific type of weapon.[301] The preamble recognizes the desire of States Parties “to do their utmost in providing assistance for the care and rehabilitation, including the social and economic reintegration of mine victims.”

Article 6 of the treaty requires that each State Party “in a position to do so” should provide such assistance. It also affirms the right of States Parties to seek and receive assistance to the extent required for victims. Since the entry into force of the Mine Ban Treaty, this has been understood to imply a responsibility of the international community to support victim assistance in mine-affected countries with limited resources.

At the Mine Ban Treaty Third Review Conference in Maputo in 2014, States Parties recognized their “enduring obligations to mine victims” even after completion of mine clearance, which was then seen to be “within reach.”[302] Victim assistance is an ongoing responsibility in all states with victims, including countries that are mine-affected and those that have been declared mine-free.

In 2019, at the Fourth Review Conference, in Oslo, States Parties also recognized that victim assistance should be integrated into broader national policies, plans, and legal frameworks on the rights of persons with disabilities, and support the realization of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development intends to address the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainable development, with an emphasis on poverty reduction, equality, rule of law, and inclusion. Therefore, the SDGs are complementary to the aims of the Mine Ban Treaty, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), and the Convention on Cluster Munitions, and offer opportunities to bridge relevant frameworks.

The CRPD is legally binding, providing an overarching mechanism for amending national laws and policies related to persons with disabilities. It also pertains to the victims of indiscriminate weapons.Although not all injuries result in the victim suffering long-term physical impairment, survivors of landmines and other explosive remnants of war (ERW) often become persons with disabilities, and therefore are protected by the CRPD.

Over time, it has become more widely recognized that just as efforts to respond to the needs of mine/ERW victims should benefit all persons with similar needs—including other persons with disabilities, without discrimination—the rights of mine/ERW victims should be considered by disability rights actors more broadly.Interconnectivity allows for solution-oriented approaches to implementing the international legal commitments and obligations that arise from the CRPD, the Mine Ban Treaty, and the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Victim assistance and the Oslo Action Plan

Actions to address the impact of mines and ERW through to victim assistance in the Oslo Action Plan include the implementation of:

• Effective and efficient emergency medical response, and ongoing medical care;[303]
• Comprehensive healthcare, rehabilitation, and psychological and psychosocial support services;[304]
• Social and economic inclusion;[305] and
• Protection in situations of risk, including armed conflict, humanitarian emergencies, and natural disasters.[306]

Emergency medical response and ongoing medical care[307]

A timely initial medical response to mine/ERW casualties should include first-aid, field trauma response, emergency evacuation, transport, and immediate medical care. The provision of such services, involving assessment and the communication of critical information ahead of transfer of a patient to hospital, can considerably affect survival outcomes and the speed of recovery of victims, as well as mitigate consequences of injuries and reduce the severity of impairments.

In Afghanistan, several health facilities were forced to close in 2020 due to insecurity. In early 2021, services at six health centers in Arghandab, Kandahar, were suspended due to improvised explosive device (IED) contamination blocking access routes for staff and patients.[308] Overall, healthcare in Afghanistan is supported through two tiers of services, with the support of donors through the Sehatmandi project, while the Ministry of Public Health contracts international and national non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to deliver health services.[309] The Sehatmandi project supports primary health centers where services are utilized by marginalized populations in rural areas, with high poverty rates. From August 2021, a pause in funding to the Sehatmandi project left 90% (more than 2,000) of the supported health facilities at risk of closure.[310]

In Ethiopia, humanitarian and rehabilitation needs increased as access to essential services was limited amid the crisis in the Tigray region. As of December 2020, 90% of hospital staff in the regional capital, Mekelle, had returned to work, but most healthcare centers outside of Mekelle were closed due to damage or the effects of the conflict.[311]

The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) lacks healthcare infrastructure and basic social services.[312] In South Sudan, mine/ERW incidents often occurred in remote areas far from health facilities. However, in eastern Ukraine, primary healthcare centers and satellite services along the line of contact received equipment and medicines in 2020, while Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières, MSF) transferred patients to the Ministry of Health for treatment. As of the end of 2019, all patients were provided with care through the public health system.[313]

International NGOs continued to provide much-needed assistance in conflict-affected areas in 2020. In Iraq, healthcare services for all persons with disabilities have decreased over time, in part due to the recent security situation. In Yemen, many medical facilities were damaged, and ongoing conflict has further undermined its weak health system.[314] In 2021, Yemen’s health system was reported to have “collapsed” amid the impacts of armed conflict and the added challenge of the COVID-19 pandemic.[315]

Healthcare, rehabilitation, and psychological and psychosocial support services[316]

Rehabilitation, including physiotherapy and the supply of assistive devices such as prostheses, orthoses, mobility aids, and wheelchairs, aims to help victims regain or improve mobility, and to engage in everyday activities. Rehabilitation requires a comprehensive and multidisciplinary approach, involving doctors, physiotherapists, prosthetists, social workers, and other specialists as needed. Such comprehensive services remain scarce in countries with mine/ERW survivors. Psychosocial support, an integral aspect of rehabilitation, can be standalone or combined with other activities, for example through peer-to-peer support carried out by survivors’ networks.

States Parties can make rehabilitation services more sustainable by allocating a specific budget for the physical and functional rehabilitation needs of persons with disabilities, including mine and ERW victims. Once the most operative and supported sector of victim assistance, health and rehabilitation services faced increasing and numerous challenges in many countries in 2020, including over coordination, supply of materials, and access issues.

A World Health Assembly resolution, on the highest attainable standard of health for persons with disabilities, has called for their equitable treatment and access to health services, including rehabilitation, without discrimination. The resolution followed the World Health Organization (WHO) Global Disability Action Plan 2014–2021.[317] The plan was developed and revised with broad input, including a joint contribution from ICBL-CMC members and survivors’ networks. It reflected many concerns raised by survivors, such as ensuring access to rehabilitation in rural and remote areas, as well as participation and inclusion. Its outcomes had not been reported as of the end of September 2021.

Access to rehabilitation centers remained extremely limited in Mozambique, South Sudan, and Uganda in 2020.

In Afghanistan, authorities acknowledged that the government was not capable of ensuring the required rehabilitation services. New physical rehabilitation centers were established in three provinces, yet at least seven more are needed. Afghanistan reported that 90% of its population lives more than 100km from such centers, while 20 of its 34 provinces have no prostheses provider.[318]

After the Afghan government was deposed by the Taliban in 2021, Humanity & Inclusion (HI) began steadily resuming activities in four provinces: Herat, Kandahar, Kunduz, and Nimroz.[319] An orthopedic program run by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) continued to operate seven centers. The largest, in Kabul, remained open but operated at reduced capacity, with fewer patients admitted and reduced staffing. Around 25% of patients in the center in 2020 were amputees, with most being survivors of mines/ERW.[320]

In Burundi, mine/ERW survivors are eligible for free healthcare via social programs targeting vulnerable groups, yet knowledge of this scheme and access to its benefits was limited.[321] The three physical rehabilitation centers in Burundi were nearly nonfunctional and users had to pay for services, while just one center received government support in 2020.[322]

In El Salvador, persons with disabilities—including mine/ERW survivors—protested delays in the procurement of materials to manufacture prostheses, which affected the quality of services for 20,000 beneficiaries, including ex-combatants and civilians. This was reported to be due to a lag in decision-making as new management staff lacked experience in disability services.[323]

Nicaragua reported that in 2020, the “Everyone with a Voice” program assisted survivors and other persons with disabilities, providing medical care, food packages, and mobility devices.[324]

Survivors in northern Uganda have to travel long distances to access prosthetic services at the only functioning rehabilitation center, in Gulu. In 2020, a study found that it was not feasible for the Ministry of Health to open more centers. It was reported that the Ministry of Health had to take over responsibility for managing the only functioning center in the mine-affected region due to “the warnings development partners are giving their clients to keep their limbs well if funding stops.”[325]

Senegal has not provided support for victim assistance since 2015. Since then, Senegalese mine survivors have obtained prosthetic devices and repairs from an ICRC-supported rehabilitation center in Guinea-Bissau.[326] Survivors’ networks reported that the ICRC’s support to the center was scheduled to end in December 2022.

Rehabilitation services are not widely available at community and primary healthcare levels. Services that do exist lack qualified personnel, while procedures for obtaining assistive technology are often lengthy and complicated.[327] A project funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), called Strengthening Rehabilitation Services within Health Systems (SRSHS), was launched in 2019 in Tajikistan and Ukraine. It aimed to improve rehabilitation services, and increase access in the two countries.[328] A new international project, Rehabilitation Health Systems Integration Coordinator for Learning, Acting and Building for Rehabilitation Systems (ReLAB-HS) was launched in Ukraine in September 2021 with support from USAID.[329]

In 2020, ICRC and the Yemen Executive Mine Action Center (YEMAC) held discussions on opportunities to collaborate, including on the provision of medical equipment and training.[330] The Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour was unable to oversee a social development fund previously administered by the World Bank, which had provided limited basic services and supported more than 60 NGOs assisting persons with disabilities in Yemen.[331]

Psychological and psychosocial support activities include professional counselling, individual peer-to-peer counselling, community-based support groups, survivor networks, associations of persons with disabilities, and sports and recreational activities.

In Afghanistan, peer-to-peer support activities lacked funding in 2020. The Afghan Landmine Survivors’ Organization (ALSO) provided psychosocial support through a limited peer-to-peer support program, which reached 20–30 people.[332]

In the DRC, psychological support for mine/ERW victims was lacking. Psychological support and socio-economic inclusion activities were only available in North-Kivu province.[333]

In El Salvador, a mental health program included psychological support and empowerment in all aspects of life, including support in maintaining family and social roles.[334]

In Iraq, a psychological support unit is reported to exist in every rehabilitation center, to support people with psychological trauma as a result of their injuries. A mental health advisor also sits at the Ministry of Health headquarters.[335]

Sri Lanka reported that mental health services, provided by a consultant psychiatrist, a mental health officer, and a community support officer, were available across Northern Province.[336] A National Mental Health Strategy, which drew on the experiences of mine survivors, was in the process of being finalized by the Ministry of Health in 2020.[337]

Sudan’s National Mine Action Center (NMAC) reported an increase in the provision of social and psychological support to mine/ERW survivors and their families in 2020, including peer-to-peer support, both within and outside of hospitals. However, NMAC also recognized that provision of such support to victims in remote and unsafe areas was scarce, and highlighted a need to train staff to provide appropriate psychological support to victims in those areas.[338]

Social and economic inclusion

Ensuring the socio-economic inclusion of mine/ERW victims through education, sports, leisure and cultural activities, vocational training, micro-credit schemes, income-generation activities, and employment programs, was a reported priority need in all affected states.

There is a recognized need to increase economic opportunities for survivors and other persons with disabilities, and to develop appropriate education, training, and livelihood support. Little reporting on programs that specifically involved mine survivors was available in 2020. Several states reported on employment quota systems or social security benefits, without indicating if these reached mine/ERW survivors.

In Cambodia, some patients undergoing rehabilitation received gender training, small business management training, job placements, and small grants to establish businesses.[339]

A project led by HI in Chad trained persons with disabilities and supported mine/ERW victims to restart income-generating activities and to undertake technical and vocational training.[340]

In the DRC, the Polus Center and its partners established a private-public partnership providing vocational training for mine/ERW survivors within the coffee industry, while also supporting rehabilitation and a local mine survivors’ association. In 2020, a coffee tasting lab and training center was under construction in partnership with the University of Buffalo in the US.[341]

Due to COVID-19 restrictions, planned accessible sports events and recreational activities were cancelled or postponed in many countries during 2020.

Protection of mine victims and persons with disabilities in situations of risk[342]

During times of armed conflict or occupation, humanitarian emergencies, and natural disasters, mine/ERW victims and other persons with disabilities can face extreme challenges and barriers to having their rights respected and fulfilled, as well as to accessing services. States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty have committed to providing assistance to victims, families of those killed or injured, and affected communities in accordance with relevant human rights laws.

A Victim Assistance Experts Meeting, organized by the Committee on Victim Assistance and the Mine Ban Treaty Implementation Support Unit in November 2020, focused on Action #40 of the Oslo Action Plan on the protection of mine victims in situations of risk and emergencies.

In the Oslo Action Plan, States Parties with a significant number of victims commit to ensuring that “relevant national humanitarian response and preparedness plans provide for the safety and protection of mine survivors in situations of risk, including situations of armed conflict, humanitarian emergencies and natural disasters, in line with relevant international humanitarian and human rights law and international guidelines.”[343]

The Charter on Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities in Humanitarian Action was adopted at the World Humanitarian Summit in Turkey in May 2016. In November 2019, the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) released guidelines on the inclusion of persons with disabilities in humanitarian action, consistent with the charter. They indicate how humanitarian actors can identify and respond to the needs and rights of persons with disabilities, and were pilot tested with national organizations of persons with disabilities, including mine survivors’ networks.[344]

The Reference Group on Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities in Humanitarian Action—co-chaired by the International Disability Alliance (IDA), CBM Global, and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)—is a cooperation platform between the United Nations (UN), international agencies, NGOs, and organizations of persons with disabilities. It aims to support the implementation of key guidance materials, including the IASC guidelines.[345]

UN Security Council Resolution 2475, adopted in June 2019, on the Protection of Persons with Disabilities in Conflict, marked the first resolution on such protections.[346] The resolution recognized the important contributions of persons with disabilities to conflict prevention, and called for their meaningful participation and representation in peacebuilding.

However, further efforts are required to increase the participation of survivors and persons with disabilities in peace processes, conflict resolution, and armed violence reduction programs.

A survey, released in April 2021, indicated that persons with disabilities had little presence in the peace process in Afghanistan and stressed the need for their active role in peace talks.[347]

In Iraq, a report by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) found that persons with disabilities were disproportionately impacted by armed conflict, and that little consultation with persons with disabilities or their representative groups had been undertaken by the government, or by humanitarian and development agencies.[348]

A disability rights group in Yemen informed the UN Security Council in 2020 that the majority of people who had acquired impairments due to conflict were injured by airstrikes, landmines, and ERW. The speaker stated that “Any peace negotiations must include participation of people with disabilities…but none of us have been engaged in any of those processes.”[349]

In 2020, numerous States Parties with new mine/ERW casualties and victims were in situations of armed conflict, including Afghanistan, Colombia, the DRC, Iraq, Mali, Nigeria, Palestine, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, and Yemen.[350]

The displacement crisis due to the conflict in Syria has also impacted services in refugee host countries, including in Mine Ban Treaty States Parties Iraq, Jordan, and Turkey.

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, HI, along with other NGOs, provided hygiene kits and information on physical distancing to beneficiaries of victim assistance programs.

In Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), many activities related to healthcare, physical rehabilitation, and economic inclusion were suspended in early 2020 amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Most local communities were not sufficiently prepared to provide an adequate response for persons with disabilities.[351] In 2020, the pandemic impacted the provision of physical rehabilitation in Cambodia. The rehabilitation center in Siem Reap was relocated to enable health services to prepare for COVID-19, and only provided minor repairs to assistive devices. The rehabilitation center in Kratie also halted services, as extra hospital space was needed. People were referred to bicycle repair shops for minor repairs. Rehabilitation centers provided advice by phone, and staff coached parents and others to give physical therapy.[352] In Chad, digital rehabilitation was introduced to maintain a link between patients and rehabilitation centers amid the pandemic.[353]

In Colombia, operators reported that the COVID-19 pandemic limited direct victim assistance activities, and that efforts were partly redirected toward capacity-building and advocacy using digital platforms.[354] ICRC supported mine/ERW survivors in Colombia during the pandemic, in some cases providing cash to cover expenses for rent, food, medicine, and utilities.[355]

Crisis response measures often result in the consideration of cash and voucher approaches. This may indicate a change from the long-standing distinction between rights-based support and social forms of disability support, shifting away from medical and charity models of assistance.

In Thailand, volunteers of the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security collected data from persons with disabilities affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.[356] Registered persons with disabilities each received a cash transfer as initial financial assistance, while the state Fund for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities offered a one-year debt moratorium for persons with disabilities or caregivers, in light of the impact of COVID-19 restrictions.[357]

In the DRC, the five ICRC-supported physical rehabilitation centers suspended services due to COVID-19 response measures.[358]

In Ukraine, limited access to trauma care and emergency health services was exacerbated amid the COVID-19 pandemic due to lockdowns, movement restrictions, and the closure of crossing points.[359]

States Parties to the CRPD also have an obligation, under Article 11, to ensure the protection and safety of persons with disabilities in situations of risk, including situations of armed conflict and humanitarian emergencies, aligning with Action #40 of the Oslo Action Plan.