Policy

The Republic of Uganda signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions on 3 December 2008.

In February 2014, a Ugandan diplomat said the ratification process is underway and requires Cabinet approval before it can be referred to parliament for adoption.[1] Previously, in May 2013, Uganda stated that draft ratification legislation was being considered by the Solicitor General’s office and would then be submitted to the Cabinet.[2] Ugandan officials have provided regular updates on the status of ratification since 2010.[3]

Uganda has stated that national implementation legislation for the Convention on Cluster Munitions will be prepared after ratification.[4]

Uganda participated extensively in the Oslo Process that produced the Convention on Cluster Munitions and hosted a regional meeting on cluster munitions in Kampala in September 2008.

Uganda has continued to actively engage in the work of the convention, despite not ratifying. It has participated in all of the convention’s Meeting of States Parties, including the Fourth Meeting of States Parties in Lusaka in September 2013. Uganda has attended every intersessional meeting of the convention in Geneva, except in April 2014. Uganda participated in regional meetings on the convention held in Ghana in 2012 and Togo in 2013.

Uganda was absent from intersessional meetings held in April 2014 where its possible involvement in recent use of cluster munitions in South Sudan was discussed. (See Use section.)

Uganda is a State Party to the Mine Ban Treaty. It is also party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons.

Use, production, transfer, and stockpiling

Uganda has stated on several occasions that it does not stockpile cluster munitions and has never used, produced, or transferred the weapons.[5]

Until Uganda becomes a State Party and provides an Article 7 transparency report formally declaring the status of its stockpile, the Monitor will continue to list Uganda as a stockpiler of cluster munitions. This is due to recent use allegations (see Use in South Sudan below) and statements by government officials and operators confirming the clearance of cluster munition remnants.[6]

Photographs and information provided to Human Rights Watch (HRW) by the UN Development Programme (UNDP) of remnants cleared by mine action teams in northern Uganda near the then-Sudan border indicate that RBK-250-275 AO-1SCh cluster bombs were apparently used in the past during the years-long fighting between the rebel Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) and the Ugandan military. It is not clear who used the cluster munitions or precisely when or how many munitions were used. On several occasions, Uganda has denied that its armed forces ever used cluster munitions and said the LRA was responsible.[7] The Uganda Mine Action Centre (UMAC) has informed the Monitor that no unexploded submunitions remain.[8]

Use in South Sudan

In early 2014, evidence emerged showing that cluster munitions had been used recently during conflict between the opposition forces loyal to South Sudan’s former Vice President Riek Machar and Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) government forces, with air support for the SPLA provided by Uganda.

During the week of 7 February 2014, UN mine action experts found the remnants of at least eight RBK-250-275 cluster bombs and an unknown quantity of intact AO-1SCh submunitions by a stretch of road 16 kilometers south of Bor, in an area not known to be contaminated by remnants prior to mid-December 2013.[9] On 12 February 2014, the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon noted the discovery of the cluster munition remnants near Bor and condemned the use of cluster bombs in the South Sudan conflict, but did not indicate if an investigation would be undertaken or who the UN believed was responsible.[10]

Both South Sudanese and Ugandan forces are believed to possess the air power to deliver air-dropped cluster munitions, such as the RBK-250-275 AO-1SCh cluster bomb, while the opposition forces are not believed to possess these means of delivery.

The commander of the Ugandan forces in South Sudan, Brig. Muhanga Kayanja, acknowledged in February 2014 that his forces used helicopters to provide close aerial support to ground troops, but did not use cluster bombs, or any bombs, during the South Sudan conflict.[11] A spokesman for the Uganda People’s Defence Force told media on 19 February that the Ugandan army would not take part in any investigation into the incident as responsibility rests with the South Sudanese government and international experts.[12] In May 2014, Uganda’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Okello Oryem denied reports of Uganda’s use of cluster munitions in Bor as “rubbish and unfounded” and stated, “There is no way Uganda can be involved in using cluster bombs because she is a signatory” to the Convention on Cluster Munitions.[13]

South Sudan has denied using cluster munitions in the conflict and also denied Ugandan use of the weapons.[14] On 27 May 2014, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2155, which noted “with serious concern reports of the indiscriminate use of cluster munitions” in Jonglei State in February 2014 and urged “all parties to refrain from similar such use in the future.”[15]

 

Contamination and Impact

Mine and explosive remnants of war (ERW) contamination in the Republic of Uganda, located in the north, northeast, West Nile, and the Rwenzori subregions in western Uganda, was the result of armed conflict and civil strife, especially over the past two decades with regards to the Lord’s Resistance Army, a non-state armed group.[1]

Mines

Mined areas were identified in the border areas with South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), the Luwero Triangle in the center of the country, the West Nile region, and the Rwenzori Mountains.[2] In 2008–2010, Uganda confirmed 12 minefields in Agoro and Ngomoromo (in the Kitgum and Lamwo districts, respectively) in northern Uganda bordering South Sudan. During non-technical survey in 2011, an additional 34 mined areas were identified in the districts of Kasese, Bundibugyo, and Maracha (in western Uganda) and the Lamwo and Amuru districts (in the north of the country) for a total of 46 mined areas covering 1.6km2.[3] Uganda completed mine clearance operations in November 2012 and, at the Twelfth Meeting of States Parties in December 2012, declared it had met its Article 5 Mine Ban Treaty obligations.[4]

Cluster munition remnants

All known cluster munition remnants are reported to have been cleared in Uganda.[5]

Other explosive remnants of war

Uganda has ERW and unexploded ordnance (UXO) contamination. Uganda anticipated that explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) capacity is needed at least until the end of 2015 and planned to seek international funding to support the EOD teams.[6]

The remaining ERW problem in Uganda is said to exist in areas where internal conflicts were fought over the past 20 years, including the West Nile region in the north of the country and the Rwenzori subregion (the Kasese and Bundibugyo districts) in western Uganda near the border with DRC.[7]

In January 2012, two men were injured by a grenade while digging a pit latrine at a family health clinic next to the Uganda Red Cross office in Bundibugyo district in Kasese. The grenade was found three feet underground. According to the district police commander, the accident occurred in the same area where the Allied Democratic Forces, a rebel group, had constructed a base camp in the late 1990s.[8]

Since 2006, EOD teams have destroyed over 50,000 items of UXO and ERW.[9]

Mine Action Program

Key institutions and operators

Uganda’s mine action program has been nationally owned from its inception in 2006. The national authority is its National Mine Action Steering Committee (NMASC), located within the Office of the Prime Minister in Kampala.[10] Mine action is integrated in the government of Uganda’s Peace, Recovery, and Development Plan, one of the aims of which is to facilitate the return and resettlement of internally displaced persons.[11]

The Office of the Prime Minister, through UMAC, is responsible for the management and coordination of mine action in the country, with the exception of victim assistance, which falls under the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development and the Ministry of Health. UMAC, established in Kampala in 2006, is responsible for quality management of demining operations, risk education, and accreditation of mine action operators. A regional mine action office was established in Gulu in 2008.[12] The Uganda People’s Defense Force (UPDF) and the Uganda Police Force (UPF) provided all demining personnel to UMAC.

Danish Demining Group (DDG) provided technical assistance to UMAC from 2008 until November 2012, when Uganda completed clearance operations in all 46 known mined areas.[13]

Land Release

Mine clearance in 2012

Although Uganda took seven years to clear 46 mined areas, 70% of the work was accomplished over 11 months in 2012. Non-technical and technical surveys completed in late 2011 added 34 mined areas and 834,000m2 to be cleared, increasing the number of mined areas from 12 to 46. By 1 August 2012, Uganda’s Article 5 deadline, Uganda had cleared or discredited 40 of 46 minefields covering 1,666,160m2 and still had 103,655m2 in six mined areas in Agoro to clear.[14] Left with no other choice than to request an extension to the end of November, Uganda cited the additional mined areas identified in the surveys as the primary reason they were unable to finish on time and required an extension of the deadline. The four-fold increase in the workload so late in the program presented a major challenge for UMAC; however, DDG, which acts as the technical advisor to UMAC, cited UMAC’s low rate of clearance productivity until early 2012 (in addition to a demining accident involving a UPDF deminer in November 2011 that required re-clearance of two previously-cleared mined areas) as a major reason why Uganda was unable to complete clearance by August. Clearance operations were also slowed by delays in releasing personnel from the UPDF and from the UPF to attend manual demining training courses.[15]

With higher productivity of the demining teams, UMAC moved the two EOD teams to clear mines to ensure another request after November would not be needed. By the end of November, Uganda had completed clearing all 46 mined areas.[16]

Mine clearance in 2006–2012

Overall, Uganda released 46 mined areas covering 1.6km2 through technical and non-technical survey and clearance. During clearance operations 4,314 antipersonnel mines, 42 air bombs and 15 UXO were found and destroyed. EOD teams in separate operations found and destroyed 9,273 UXO and 20 antivehicle mines.[17]

Two teams from Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA) South Sudan with two MineWolf machines seconded to DDG mechanically cleared approximately 70% of all contaminated area at a cost of US$400,000. Mechanical breakdowns delayed completion, even though the average daily output of the MineWolf machines exceeded the planned output by 1,000m2 per day.[18]

Mine clearance in 2006–2012[19]

Kasese district proved challenging to UMAC. Much time was wasted looking for UXO sites that had been identified in a non-technical survey in 2008 but did not exist.[20] Similarly, in Kasese district, operators found 19 of the 22 confirmed hazardous areas (CHA) did not contain either landmines or UXO and cleared only 8,571m2 containing five antipersonnel landmines.[21]

Final statistics by district on mine clearance 2006-2012[22]

Compliance with Article 5 of the Mine Ban Treaty

Under Article 5 of the Mine Ban Treaty, and in accordance with the three-year extension to its deadline granted by the Second Review Conference in 2009,[23] Uganda was required to destroy all antipersonnel mines in mined areas under its jurisdiction or control as soon as possible, but not later than 1 August 2012.

Uganda became a State Party to the Mine Ban Treaty in 1999, but it was not until 2008, with UNDP support, that mine clearance and survey commenced (although little was accomplished). In the middle of August 2009, Uganda applied for a three-year extension of its deadline noting it had vastly underestimated the time needed to clear the known mined areas. The extension request was approved at the Second Review Conference, four months after Uganda’s Article 5 deadline had already expired.

From 2009, under the technical supervision of DDG, Uganda began to make progress in clearing mines while facing numerous challenges over the next three years. One challenge was inadequate survey information on the locations of mined areas, necessitating a new survey. Thick vegetation and difficult terrain in mined areas, especially in the Agoro Mountains, as well as lengthy and bureaucratic procurement procedures also delayed clearance operations. The lack of national mechanical capacity delayed operations until funding could be obtained to secure the equipment, which ultimately came from NPA’s mine action program in South Sudan. In May 2012, clearance was not finished; at the Intersessional Standing Committee Meeting on Mine Clearance, Uganda said it “remained committed” to meeting its 1 August 2012 deadline.[24] However, as described above, it missed the August deadline and did not complete its commitment until November 2012.[25] At the Twelfth Meeting of States Parties in December, Uganda declared it had met its Article 5 Mine Ban Treaty obligations.[26]

At a weapons contamination conference sponsored by the ICRC and the African Union in Addis Ababa in March 2013, Uganda reflected on its experience clearing landmines and shared a number of lessons learned with other African mine-affected states.[27] They include:

·         National surveys are essential to determining the extent of mine contamination;

·         Assess the need for mechanical assets;

·         If engaged with partners, ensure roles are clearly understood through written agreements;

·         Community liaison and the handover of cleared land are critical to earning community confidence; and

·         A solid mine action structure that includes national management, training, and access to international technical assistance should be developed.

Explosive ordnance disposal

Since 2006, EOD teams have found almost 50,000 UXO and ERW. UMAC also reported that 97 antipersonnel mines and 20 antivehicle mines were found during EOD operations, indicating that not all landmines were found in defined minefields.[28] Uganda acknowledges that even though EOD teams have cleared thousands of UXO since 2006, UXO will continue to be found in the north, northeastern, northwestern and Rwenzori subregions of the country. UMAC plans to employ four EOD teams with 60 personnel from 2013 to 2015 to conduct EOD operations as needed.[29]

Quality management

National Mine Action Standards were passed and approved in December 2008.[30] A five-person quality assessment (QA) team within UMAC conducts internal quality control (QC) as well as QA.[31] DDG conducted external QA/QC.[32]

 

Action points based on findings

·         Support the capacity of survivor organizations that have been shown to have a critical role in assisting survivors to access mainstream services and programs despite the limited capacity of these groups.

·         Commit the necessary resources for the implementation of the recently passed Uganda Building Control Law to eliminate barriers to access for survivors and other persons with disabilities.

·         Sustain existing physical rehabilitation centers by dedicating sufficient national resources or by mobilizing international assistance to continue activities previously supported by international organizations.

Victim assistance commitments

The Republic of Uganda is responsible for a significant number of landmine survivors, cluster munition victims, and survivors of other explosive remnants of war (ERW) who are in need. Uganda has made commitments to provide victim assistance through the Mine Ban Treaty and as a signatory to the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Casualties Overview

In 2013, the Monitor identified seven casualties in Uganda, all from ERW.[1] Five of the casualties occurred in a single incident in northeastern Uganda; a boy was killed and four others were injured when a grenade exploded. All casualties were male and all were civilians.[2]

The seven casualties identified in 2013 represented an increase from the four reported in 2012.[3] Following a peak of about 150 casualties recorded per year during 1996–1997, the number of annual casualties has decreased significantly; since 2003, casualties have been 21 or fewer per year.[4] The most recent antipersonnel mine casualty reported occurred in November 2012; Uganda declared itself mine-free in December 2012.[5]

The total number of mine/ERW casualties in Uganda is not known. At least 2,770 casualties (531 killed, 2,239 injured) had been identified by December 2013.[6] Of the people injured, 1,818 occurred in northern Uganda and the remaining 420 were in the west.[7] All casualties in the west were recorded as injured; if any were killed, they were not recorded. This was due to the fact that data collection has been mainly carried out by local survivors’ organizations whose primary interest is identifying survivors. As such, it is certain that people have been killed by mines/ERW in western Uganda who have not been recorded.[8]

Cluster munition casualties

A 2006 survey of mine and unexploded ordnance (UXO) casualties in Gulu district determined that 3% of recorded casualties (1,387 at the time) were caused by cluster munition remnants. Five other suspected submunition casualties were reported in 2006.[9] As of the end of 2013, no additional casualties caused by cluster munition remnants had been identified since 2006.

Victim Assistance

There are at least 2,239 mine/ERW survivors in Uganda.[10]

Victim assistance since 1999[11]

When monitoring of victim assistance began in 1999, most victim assistance services were provided by international organizations responding to the needs of thousands of internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees based in northern Uganda. Services were mainly limited to emergency medical care, trauma response, and physical rehabilitation services. Most services were free for mine/ERW survivors. However, long distances and a lack of affordable transportation prevented some 50% of survivors from accessing needed care in that year.

The formation of the Uganda Landmine Survivor Association (ULSA) in 2004 increased opportunities for peer support and survivor-led advocacy, though ULSA’s activities were limited due to its dependence on scarce external funding. However, by the end of 2011 ULSA had supported the development of dozens of local survivor associations in western and northern Uganda.

With the significant reduction in violence in northern Uganda in 2006 and progress towards peace in neighboring countries, several international organizations closed or reduced their programs in Uganda between 2008 and 2010, transferring the responsibility to provide victim assistance services to relevant government ministries. At the same time, mine survivors who were IDPs returned home to other parts of the country, increasing the need for updated surveys and victim assistance services in those areas.

Through the end of 2013, the impact of the departure of several international organizations from northern Uganda, including the ICRC’s physical rehabilitation program, continued to be felt and there were gaps in physical rehabilitation, economic inclusion, and psychological support as well as the means to access all services. As a result, there were more survivors in need of services than there had been some 10 years before.

Throughout the period, victim assistance coordination was very limited. Uganda developed a national victim assistance plan in 2008 which was revised in 2010 and extended by two years to 2014. In 2011, the National Intersectoral Committee on Disability was formed and included a mandate to coordinate victim assistance.

Victim assistance in 2013

In 2013, survivors faced increasing challenges to access services. The withdrawal of international support for victim assistance in Uganda continued with the closing of the victim assistance program by Handicap International (HI) that had begun in 2010 and was focused on facilitating access to existing programs and services in the area of health, rehabilitation, psycho-social support, and livelihood in western and northern Uganda. The capacity of local and national organizations was also weakened in 2013 as several groups lost funding or other support from international organizations. The government assumed greater responsibility for some services, particularly physical rehabilitation, but was unable to fill the gaps left by the program closures.

The Intersectoral Committee on Disability, convened by the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development (MGLSD), and the National Disability Council both met infrequently in 2013 due to a lack of funding for coordination. On 31 December 2013, the Uganda Building Control Law was passed, making obligatory the accessibility standards that were launched in 2010.

Assessing victim assistance needs

In 2013, the MGLSD worked with the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) to prepare for the inclusion of disability-related questions for the national census to be carried out in August 2014.[12] This was an outcome of efforts in 2012 to design a standard data collection tool on disability with specific sections asking for information on mine/ERW victims. MGLSD, with technical support from HI, coordinated contributions from the Ministry of Health Disability Desk, National Disability Council, UBOS, the National Union of Disabled Persons Uganda (NUDIPU), ULSA, and Community Based Rehabilitation Association (COMBRA) in the design of the data collection tool.[13] In 2013, a focal point to manage the data collected was identified for training.[14] Uganda’s Comprehensive Plan on Mine Victim Assistance 2010–2014 sought to establish a database on disability by 2011.[15]

In 2013, ULSA collected information on survivors and their needs in several counties within the districts of Amurru, Nwoya, Pader, and Agago, all in northern Uganda. All data collected was shared with other stakeholders.[16] The Kasese Survivors’ Group collected and shared data about survivors on an ongoing basis.[17]

In 2009, Uganda collected baseline data to identify the needs of survivors and the gaps in services in four districts in northern Uganda.[18] Through the same survey, all disability-related services and providers in mine-affected districts were mapped.[19]

Victim assistance coordination[20]

In 2013, MGLSD convened two meetings of the Intersectoral Committee on Disability to develop and test a monitoring tool to be used to evaluate the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan of Action on Victim Assistance 2010–2014.[21] Representatives of the Ministry of Health, National Council for Disability, NUDIPU, ULSA, and several disabled persons’ organizations (DPOs) took part in exercises to validate the monitoring tool.[22] The Intersectoral Committee on Disability met less frequently than in previous years, as did the National Disability Council, due to a lack of funding. No coordination meetings were convened from the third quarter of 2013, through August 2014.[23]

As of April 2014, the evaluation of national victim assistance plan had not begun; it was to begin once funding was mobilized.[24] Little progress was seen in the plan’s implementation by survivors in western and in northern Uganda.[25] ULSA reported that government efforts to implement the plan seemed to be “lacking” and mainly attributed progress to the activities of civil society groups, such as ULSA, HI, and Association of Volunteers in International Services (ASVI).[26] A representative of the MGSLD cited a lack of funding, lack of knowledge of survivors’ rights, and the limited capacity of survivor organizations as challenges to the plan’s implementation.[27]

Monthly meetings of leaders of DPOs, including ULSA, were convened by NUDIPU to share information about ongoing activities and look for opportunities for collaboration. As one outcome of these meetings, DPOs and the National Council for Disability proposed a strategy to support ULSA in urging the government to ratify the Convention on Cluster Munitions in 2014.[28]

Uganda provided updates on progress in and challenges to victim assistance at the Thirteenth Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty in Geneva on 4 December 2013.[29] Uganda did not report on victim assistance at meetings of the Convention on Cluster Munitions during the reporting period. Uganda did not submit a Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 report for 2013; its last Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 report (for 2011) did not provide information on victim assistance.[30]

Inclusion and participation in victim assistance

ULSA was included in meetings of the Intersectoral Committee on Disability.[31] However, with the decreased frequency of meetings, there were fewer opportunities for survivors to participate in the coordination and planning of victim assistance.[32] Survivor leaders took part in developing the monitoring tool for the victim assistance plan.[33] Survivors met with members of parliament through breakfast lobbying meetings organized by ULSA.[34]

Representatives of ULSA participated in monthly meetings of NUDIPU and, at the regional level, representatives of local survivor associations participated in district-level meetings of NUDIPU.[35]

Survivors and persons with disabilities were involved in the identification and assessment of survivor needs and in supporting other survivors in accessing medical, rehabilitation, and economic inclusion services.[36] Survivors were involved in training sessions on various legal instruments designed to protect and promote their rights.[37]

Service accessibility and effectiveness

Victim assistance activities[38]

Medical care

In 2013, the Ministry of Health trained village health teams in emergency first aid. Additional improvements to healthcare were planned through the Health Sector Strategic Investment Plan III 2012–2015 but a lack of funding for the implementation this plan impacted the availability of services for landmine survivors and other persons with disabilities.[39]

ULSA, Watoto Church, and some local survivor groups assisted survivors in accessing medical care, including corrective surgeries.[40]

Physical rehabilitation

In 2013, the accessibility and availability of physical rehabilitation decreased. Following the closure of international programs, including the end of ICRC support in 2012, there was little assistance available to pay for transportation and lodging costs, as well as the fees for services. The least expensive prosthetic device was estimated to cost $125, well beyond the means of the average person living in rural Uganda. These costs presented unsurmountable obstacles to care for most survivors.[41] In western Uganda, survivors were forced to travel to northern and eastern Uganda for prosthetics when the breakdown of the orthopedic casting oven at the Buhinga Orthopedic Workshop made the production of prosthetics impossible.[42]

In 2012, the Ministry of Health assumed responsibility from international organizations for supplying materials and components at several rehabilitation centers. However, government-purchased materials were of a lower quality, affecting the quality of prosthetic devices,[43] and the Ministry of Health indicated that it was “struggling to sustain services.”[44]

ULSA assisted a limited number of survivors to access physical rehabilitation in 2013; beneficiaries included a nearly equal number of males and females.[45]

Psychological support

Professional mental health care was available in major hospitals for those patients who were seen to be in need of this assistance.[46] Most survivors who received some psychological support received this through survivor groups. ULSA and local survivor groups continued to provide this assistance in both northern and western Uganda with new survivor groups organized by ULSA in the Acholi subregion of northern Uganda.[47]

MGLSD produced a guide for trainers in psychosocial support and 64 community development and rehabilitation officers received training.[48]

By 2013, inclusive sports were more widely available with many groups of persons with disabilities participating.[49]

Social and economic inclusion

In 2013, MGLSD revised the guidelines for its special grants for persons with disabilities to improve the ability of survivor groups to access these grants.[50] Previously, it had been found that survivor groups either did not apply or did not qualify for grants. As a result of the revised guidelines and outreach, 24 survivor groups in western and northern Uganda were successful in applying for income-generating grants.[51]

ULSA provided business-training workshops to survivors in northern Uganda; both HI and ULSA provided grants to survivors for income-generating activities in western and northern Uganda. However, these efforts were seen to be very limited compared to the need for such assistance.[52]

In 2013, teachers received training in inclusive education and a government budget line was dedicated to the purchase of needed equipment for students with disabilities.[53] However, during the year most schools in the country were not prepared to meet the needs of students with disabilities.[54]

Laws and policies

The law prohibited discrimination against persons with disabilities, but it was not enforced and discrimination was common.[55] The Uganda Human Rights Center received complaints of discrimination in employment, access to transportation and other public services.[56] The review of the Disability Act 2006 to ensure harmonization with the CRPD was completed by the end of 2013 with the 2006 Act found to be aligned.[57] However, DPOs organized to cite various shortcomings in the current law.[58]

On 31 December 2013, the Uganda Building Control Law was passed, making obligatory the accessibility standards that were launched in 2010.[59] In western and northern Uganda, as well as in Kampala, some visible changes were noted in 2013 to make the physical environment accessible, such as to schools and post offices.[60] However, a study conducted by architects in Kampala in August 2013 found that 95% of the buildings in the city were inaccessible to persons with special needs, most lacking ramps or elevators.[61]

At a policy level, physical rehabilitation was to be adapted to the specific needs of men, women, and children but such adaptations were not visible within rehabilitation centers.[62]

Uganda ratified the CRPD on 25 September 2008.

 

The Republic of Uganda completed mine clearance operations in November 2012. At the Twelfth Meeting of States Parties in December 2012, Uganda declared that it had met its Article 5 Mine Ban Treaty obligations.[1] Contributions made in 2011 were used to complete clearance operations.

In 2012, Germany and Norway contributed a combined US$144,492 for victim assistance.[2]

International contributions: 2012[3]

Summary of contributions: 2008–2012[4]