Commitment to the Convention on Cluster Munitions

Policy

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions in Oslo on 3 December 2008. The UK deposited its instrument of ratification with the UN on 4 May 2010. It will become a State Party on 1 November 2010.

On 25 March 2010, the Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Bill received Royal Assent and entered into force in UK law as the Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Act 2010.[1] The Act creates criminal offenses to enforce the prohibitions set out in Article 1 of the convention.[2]

A Foreign Office Minister welcomed the convention’s coming into effect on 1 August 2010, stating that the “Convention is one of the most significant disarmament treaties of recent years….  It sets new standards for disarmament and advances international humanitarian law. The Convention is an excellent example of what can be achieved by the international community working together effectively. With entry into force we are a step closer to a worldwide ban and ending the unacceptable suffering to civilians caused by these weapons.” The Minister pledged that the UK would continue its efforts “to promote the globalization of the Convention, working towards the goal of universal adherence,” and that the UK would continue to play a “leading role in this area at the first meeting of States Parties in November” in Lao PDR.[3]

In June 2010, the UK stated that its newly elected government was fully committed to an international ban on cluster munitions and reaffirmed its commitment to the universalization of the convention, saying it would work with civil society and seek partnerships with other countries to promote universalization.[4] In May 2010, the newly elected coalition government’s   Programme for Government singled out support for a universal ban on cluster munitions under its chapter on defense.[5]

During the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Trinidad and Tobago in November 2009, the UK launched a political initiative to encourage more Commonwealth countries to sign the convention, co-sponsoring with Australia a declaration that invited non-signatories to commit to signing the convention.[6] The UK government also undertook targeted lobbying work on the convention at the 14^th African Union Summit in January 2010. It has instructed its embassies and consulates to lobby their host governments to support the convention.[7] In addition, the UK has mobilized its defense attachés to promote adherence to the convention in some of the more reluctant countries.[8]

The UK attended the Berlin Conference on the Destruction of Cluster Munitions in June 2009, where it noted that it possessed the largest stockpile of any signatory.[9] It also participated in the International Conference on the Convention on Cluster Munitions in Santiago, Chile, in June 2010, where it reaffirmed its existing funding commitment of £10 million (US$15.7 million) per year over 2010–2013 to affected states.[10] The UK also affirmed the importance of victim assistance, and stated that the new government was committed to provide funding to build the capacity of national health services in affected countries.[11]

In March 2010, the UK stated that it had “already destroyed nearly 13 million sub-munitions and will have destroyed the vast majority of stocks by 2013, well ahead of the eight-year deadline allowed under the Convention.”[12]

The UK participated actively throughout the Oslo Process, which led to the development of the convention, although it frequently expressed reservations about the process and did not support the notion of an immediate or comprehensive ban on cluster munitions. However, just two days prior to the conclusion of the negotiations in Dublin in May 2008, the UK Prime Minister issued a statement saying, “In order to secure as strong a Convention as possible in the last hours of negotiations we have issued instructions that we should support a ban on all cluster bombs, including those currently in service by the UK.”[13] This change in the UK position was pivotal in influencing others’ support for the convention text. The UK’s position on cluster munitions evolved remarkably from 2006 to its adoption and signature of the convention in December 2008.[14]

National implementation legislation

The Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Bill was introduced into Parliament in the Queen’s Speech on 18 November 2009.[15] In the debates that followed, the Bill received support from across all the main political parties, including for the first time strong voices in support of the prohibition of cluster munitions from the benches of the Conservative Party[16] and from former military personnel in the House of Commons.[17] The Bill was introduced into the House of Lords for its first reading immediately after the debate on the Queen’s Speech, demonstrating the priority attached to it by the Labour government.

The Bill entered into force on 25 March 2010, as the Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Act 2010. The Act prohibits the use, production, acquisition, stockpiling, and transfer of cluster munitions,[18] and applies the prohibitions to both cluster munitions and to explosive bomblets.[19] The Act establishes extra-territorial jurisdiction to apply its provisions to UK nationals, Scottish partnerships, and companies incorporated under UK law, regardless of whether violations occur on the territory of the UK or outside.[20]

Interpretive issues

The UK expressed its views on the interpretation and implementation of a number of key provisions in the convention during the process of preparing its national legislation, including the prohibition on foreign stockpiling, the prohibition on transit, the prohibition on investment in cluster munitions producers, and the prohibition on assistance with prohibited acts in joint military operations. A number of Ministerial Statements are on record clarifying the meaning of the UK’s national legislation on these issues and recognizing the positive obligations under the convention.

Foreign stockpiling

In June 2008, immediately after the adoption of the convention, the then-Minister of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Lord Malloch-Brown, stated that although the UK did not read the prohibition on foreign stockpiling as a legal requirement under the treaty, it would seek the removal of foreign stockpiles of cluster munitions from UK territories within the eight year period allowed for stockpile destruction in the convention.[21] The government later told parliamentarians that the United States had identified the cluster munitions on UK territory as “exceeding operational planning requirements” and that they would be “gone from the UK itself by the end of [2010]” and “gone from other UK territories, including Diego Garcia, by the end of 2013.”[22]

Transit

In March 2010, in debates on the Bill in the House of Commons, parliamentarians questioned whether the “transit” of cluster munitions through UK territory was prohibited under the UK’s legislation. A Minister stated that transit “would not in itself be prohibited, but a direct application would have to be made to the Secretary of State who would have to grant permission before it could happen. We would be reluctant to grant such permission.”[23]

Investment

The UK’s legislation does not explicitly include a prohibition on investment in, or the provision of financial services to, companies involved in the production of cluster munitions. However, in response to parliamentary questions, the government issued a Ministerial Statement on 7 December 2009 confirming that “under the current provisions of the Bill, which have been modelled upon the definitions and requirements of the convention, the direct financing of cluster munitions would be prohibited. The provision of funds directly contributing to the manufacture of these weapons would therefore become illegal.”[24]

While the legislation does not prohibit the indirect financing of cluster munitions, the government stated that it would work to develop a code of conduct for business on investment: “The convention does not prohibit so-called indirect financing of cluster munitions. Indirect financing is therefore not within the scope of the Bill’s provisions. As such, it would not become illegal to provide funds generally to companies that manufacture a range of goods, including cluster munitions. However, aware of the humanitarian suffering caused by cluster munitions and the threat they pose to development in post-conflict areas, the Government are keen to see a complete end to cluster munitions. Due to the complex nature of indirect financing, there is a need for thorough consultation to consider the impact of any measures, and to ensure that we develop the most appropriate and effective measures to end direct financing. The Government intends to work with the financial sector, non-governmental organisations and other interested parties, to promote a voluntary code of conduct to prevent indirect financing, and if necessary would use their right to initiate legislation. We shall also review public investment guidelines to the same end.”[25]

Interoperability

A lengthy debate took place on the issue of joint military operations, dealt with in Clause 9 of the UK’s national legislation,[26] in both Houses of Parliament during the legislative process. Many concerns were raised by parliamentarians that this clause would provide a loophole which would undermine the purpose of the convention and the UK’s legislation: the elimination of cluster munitions.[27] When pushed by members of parliament to clarify just exactly what activities this clause would permit UK troops engaged in joint military operations to carry out, the government responded that UK troops “would not be allowed to request use of [cluster] munitions where the choice of munitions was within their exclusive control,” but that “they could facilitate operations where [cluster munitions] might be used by a partner.”[28]

Parliamentarians argued that there would likely be situations that, while not illegal under the Bill, would clearly be against the spirit and intention of the legislation and pressed the government on the need to develop proper guidelines and briefings for the UK military.[29] The government responded that “States Parties have to make sure that any other state with which they are working understands the basis on which their personnel will be engaged…. We have to make sure there is clear guidance for personnel, so they know exactly what they can and cannot do. That is already in hand.”[30]

A significant result of the parliamentary debates on interoperability and Clause 9 was the recognition by the government of the need to promote universal adherence to the convention. The government stated, “[I]f we can achieve a situation in which all our allies are operating without cluster munitions, we will be in a better world,”[31] and, “We certainly take seriously our obligations to try to persuade all other countries to move towards ratification. Key amongst those countries are those with which we work most closely in military operations—not least the United States of America, but also European Union countries such as Poland. I would refer to two other countries as key: Turkey and Brazil.”[32]

Convention on Conventional Weapons

The UK is party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW), but has not yet ratified Protocol V on explosive remnants of war. The UK participated in the CCW deliberations on cluster munitions in 2009 and the first half of 2010, but has not made a statement on its position on the process or the draft text under consideration. 

NGO activities

In 2009 and 2010, UK NGOs continued to work actively alongside parliamentarians from across the political spectrum to ensure the strongest possible national legislation to implement the convention and to encourage the government to take further measures to ensure the aims of the convention are achieved. UK NGOs have been particularly active on the issue of disinvestment, following the launch of the CMC Stop Explosive Investments campaign in London on 28 October 2009.[33] As of March 2010, two major banks, HSBC and Royal Bank of Scotland, had strengthened their policies on this issue.[34]

Use, production, transfer, and stockpiling

The UK used cluster munitions extensively in the past. It also produced, exported, and imported the weapon and had a sizable stockpile.

The UK used cluster munitions in the Falkland Islands in 1982, in Iraq and Kuwait in 1991, in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (including Kosovo) in 1999, and in Iraq in 2003.[35]

The UK has produced several variants the BL-755 with 147 submunitions, and has also produced the L20A1 artillery projectile with 49 M85 dual purpose improved conventional munition (DPICM) submunitions. 

BL-755 cluster bombs have been exported to, or otherwise ended up being possessed by, the following countries: Belgium, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Iran, Italy, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, and the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.^[36]

In 2009–2010, Amnesty International documented instances of UK registered ships transporting components of cluster munitions between Pakistan and South Korea.^[37] This would appear to be a violation of UK legislation of October 2008 which prohibits UK individuals or corporations, including UK-registered companies, from doing “any act calculated to promote the supply or delivery” of a range of prohibited weapons, including cluster munitions and their components, “where that person knows or has reason to believe that such action or actions will, or may, result in the removal of those goods from one third country to another third country.”^[38]

The UK purchased 59,364 L20A1 projectiles between 1996 and 2004. The L20A1 projectiles, 2,100 of which were used in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, were assembled by BAE Systems Royal Ordnance under license from Israel Military Industries.[39]

The UK also imported cluster munitions from the US: M483 155mm artillery projectiles; M26 rockets for Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS); M261 Multi-Purpose Submunition rockets used in the CRV-7 air-to-surface launchers; and CBU-87 cluster bombs.[40]

All UK stockpiles of cluster munitions have been removed from service and are now either in the process of being destroyed or contracts have been agreed for their destruction. The UK stockpiled 190,549 cluster munitions of five types that contained 38,757,267 submunitions. 

Even prior to the entry into force of the convention, the UK had made substantial progress on the destruction of its stockpiles. As of March 2010, 14 million submunitions—more than one-third—of its original total of nearly 39 million stockpiled submunitions had been destroyed and contracts had been placed for the destruction of all remaining submunitions.[41] According to a government official, “We are very confident that we will beat by a considerable margin the target period of eight years and that we will have destroyed all our stocks by 2013.”[42] 

Types and quantities of cluster munitions stockpiled by the UK as of 2008

* In the original source, this was cited as 7,282 M26 rocket pods, each pod contains six rockets; the number of individual rockets is reflected in this table.

N/A = not applicable

UK stockpile by type and quantity, as reported in 2008[43]

The following table provides a breakdown of the timeframe for destruction and associated costs for four of the five cluster munitions stockpiled by the UK. Costs for the ERBS L20A1 are not provided as the contract for its destruction had yet to be agreed upon and officially announced.^[44]

UK stockpile destruction costs[45]

In June 2010, the company NAMMO announced that it had recently signed a contract with the UK Ministry of Defence for the destruction of its remaining stockpiles of the L20A1 projectiles. The destruction is scheduled to begin in September 2010 at the NAMMO facility outside Berlin and that the contract is scheduled to be completed by 2013.[46]

The “Starstreak” missile

In relation to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, and the UK’s Cluster Munition (Prohibitions) Act, further clarification may be required regarding the “Starstreak” missile manufactured by Thales Air Defence Limited. 

The “Starstreak High Velocity Missile” employs three submunitions, each with a “high density penetrating explosive warhead.”[47] Although generally considered an air defense weapon, the manufacturer’s sales literature advertises the weapon’s utility against ground-based targets.  Brochures for the Starstreak state that “a variety of threats can be defeated including aerial targets such as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and helicopters and also surface targets such as Armoured Personnel Carriers (APCs), static installations or terrorist platforms.”[48]  With respect to “surface threats such as light armoured vehicles (LAVs) and fast inshore attack craft (FIAC)” brochures note that “Starstreak II has been designed to defeat these threats.”[49]

Both the Convention on Cluster Munitions and the UK Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Act provide an exclusion from their prohibitions for weapons “designed exclusively for an air defence role.” 

When the UK Ministry of Defence was asked, under the Freedom of Information Act, whether it had received any information suggesting that the Starstreak has “a capability” against ground-based targets it replied: “As far as we have been able to ascertain, we have received no information suggesting that the A5 missile, known by Thales Air Defence Ltd (TADL) as Starstreak II, has a capability against ground based targets.… We have, however, seen some articles in the trade press and on the internet reporting a ground based capability. Having discussed the matter with TADL, it is our understanding that confusion may have arisen from a briefing they gave, as it covered several different systems with differing capabilities.”[50]  

The Starstreak missile is manufactured in the UK and is in service with UK armed forces.

Cluster Munition Remnants

There are an unknown number of cluster munition remnants on the Falklands Islands/Malvinas as a result of use of BL-755 cluster bombs by the UK against Argentine positions during the 1982 armed conflict.

In February 2009, in a letter to Landmine Action, the Ministry of Defence stated the following: “According to historical records either 106 or 107 Cluster Bomb Units (CBU) were dropped by British Harriers and Sea Harriers during the conflict. Each CBU contains 147 BL755 submunitions and using the higher CBU figure (107), a total of 15,729 sub-munitions were dropped. Using a 6.4% failure rate assessed during in-service surveillance over 15 years, we would estimate that 1,006 would not explode. Given that 1,378 BL 755s were cleared in the first year after the conflict and that a further 120 have been found and disposed of since (totalling 1,498), clearly there was a slightly higher failure rate. Even if the rate had been closer to 10% and 1,573 had failed, we can only estimate that some 70 remain but that due to the very soft nature of the peat found on the islands, many of these will have been buried well below the surface. We believe that the majority of those remaining are now contained within existing minefields and these will be cleared in due course.”[51]

Clearance of cluster munition remnants

The UK’s deadline for clearance of all unexploded submunitions will be 1 November 2020.

One BL-755 unexploded submunition was found and destroyed in the first month of operations. A second submunition was found in 2010.[52] According to information provided by the Ministry of Defence in 2009, no unexploded submunitions were cleared in 2008, but a BL-755 submunition was destroyed in November 2007.[53] At the Second Review Conference of the Mine Ban Treaty, the UK said that the three areas it was clearing contained unexploded submunitions and other ERW.[54] None were, however, found at the Fox Bay site (no. FB-008W) where part of a submunition had been found in 1983.[55]

Contamination and Impact

Mines

The United Kingdom is affected by antipersonnel mines by virtue of its control and assertion of full sovereignty over the Falkland Islands/Malvinas,[1] which were contaminated during the armed conflict between the UK and Argentina in 1982. The conflict resulted in many thousands of antipersonnel and antivehicle mines being laid on the Falkland Islands/Malvinas, most by Argentina. The UK has reported that 117 mined areas remain, covering a total area of some 13km² and containing “just over” 20,000 mines.[2] Of these areas, 113 are minefields totaling 7.35km² and the other four (5.78km²) are only suspected of containing mines.[3]

No human casualties from mines or UXO have been reported in the Falkland Islands/Malvinas since 1984. The UK has reported that six military personnel were injured in 1982 and a further two injured in 1983. Most military accidents took place while clearing the minefields in the immediate aftermath of the 1982 conflict or in the process of trying to establish the extent of the minefield perimeters, particularly where no detailed records existed.

No civilian mine casualties have ever occurred on the islands.[4] Over the years, however, there have been numerous instances where civilians have deliberately or inadvertently entered a minefield. The Ministry of Defence has reported “infringement” of minefields by a total of six locals and 15 foreign fishermen or tourists between March 2000 and December 2008.[5] On 6 December 2008, three crew members of a Belgian yacht inadvertently entered a minefield at Kidney Cove on East Falklands but were not injured. In October 2002, a Falkland Islander was fined £1,000 (then US$1,503) for entering a minefield on Goose Green.[6] It is a criminal offense on the Falkland Islands/Malvinas to enter a minefield.

The socio-economic impact of contamination in the Falkland Islands/Malvinas is said to be minimal. All 117 areas are reported to have been “perimeter-marked and are regularly monitored and protected by quality stock proof fencing, to ensure the effective exclusion of civilians.”[7] According to the UK, the 13km² of suspected hazardous area represent “only 0.1% of land used for farming. The mined areas cover a wide range of terrain including sandy beaches and dunes, mountains, rock screes, dry peat, wet swampy peat, and pasture land.”[8] A number of instances of cattle, sheep, or horses entering the minefields have been recorded since 2000, some of which resulted in the animal’s deaths.[9]

Cluster munition remnants

There are an unknown number of cluster munition remnants on the Falklands Islands/Malvinas as a result of use of BL755 cluster bombs by the UK against Argentine positions during the 1982 armed conflict.

In February 2009, in a letter to Landmine Action, the Ministry of Defence stated the following: “According to historical records either 106 or 107 Cluster Bomb Units (CBU) were dropped by British Harriers and Sea Harriers during the conflict. Each CBU contains 147 BL755 submunitions and using the higher CBU figure (107), a total of 15,729 sub-munitions were dropped. Using a 6.4% failure rate assessed during in-service surveillance over 15 years, we would estimate that 1,006 would not explode. Given that 1,378 BL 755s were cleared in the first year after the conflict and that a further 120 have been found and disposed of since (totalling 1,498), clearly there was a slightly higher failure rate. Even if the rate had been closer to 10% and 1,573 had failed, we can only estimate that some 70 remain but that due to the very soft nature of the peat found on the islands, many of these will have been buried well below the surface. We believe that the majority of those remaining are now contained within existing minefields and these will be cleared in due course.”[10]

Other explosive remnants of war

The precise extent of other explosive remnants of war (ERW) contamination on the Falkland Islands/Malvinas is not known, though a number of UXO are believed to remain to be cleared. The UK has also noted the presence of booby-traps on the islands.[11]

Mine Action Program

Key institutions and operators

A National Mine Action Authority (NMAA) composed of both the UK and the Falkland Islands governments was established in 2009 to oversee clearance of mined areas on the Falkland Islands/Malvinas.[12] The Ninth Meeting of States Parties noted the UK’s undertaking to provide regular reports on the establishment of a NMAA “and other implementation bodies.”[13]

In May 2009, the UK issued a request to tender for the Falkland Islands Demining Programme Office (DPO). The role of the DPO is to execute the policies of the NMAA and to coordinate mine action activities on the Falkland Islands/Malvinas.[14] In August 2009, the contract to establish the DPO was awarded to Colin King Associates,[15] which subsequently set up the Office at Tenacres, south of Stanley.[16]

In mid-October 2009, it was announced that BACTEC International Limited had been awarded the contract to clear four sites at Fox Bay (East), Goose Green, Sapper Hill, and Surf Bay (near the airport).[17] Clearance was due to start in November and conclude by the end of May.[18] Operations were initiated at the beginning of December 2009.[19]

Land Release

The first formal clearance operations since the UK became a State Party to the Mine Ban Treaty in 1999 took place at the end of 2009. Four sites were chosen for the first phase of operations, with work starting on two of them during December 2009. On 4 December, clearance work started at Surf Bay (site no. SA-008). On 11 December, work started at Sapper Hill (site no. SA-025). On 11 December, work also started on a battle area clearance (BAC) task adjacent to the Sapper Hill demining area. Technical assessments of the two remaining sites at Goose Green and Fox Bay took place in early 2010.[20] The Sapper Hill site was cleared on 25 March 2010.[21]

BACTEC’s mine clearance operations were undertaken by 36 Zimbabwean personnel under the management of two ex-Royal Engineers: a project manager and an operations manager. Both had previously served on the Falkland Islands/Malvinas on bomb and mine clearance projects.[22] There were also 15 Lebanese BAC personnel used for clearance of former battle areas.[23]

In 2009, operations used wholly manual techniques with a combination of full excavation (against the P4B antipersonnel mines which are almost undetectable using metal detectors) and a layered search technique against the SB33 and SB81 mines. A mechanical unit was deployed to the Surf Bay site to accelerate clearance in sandy areas.[24]

Mine clearance in 2009

At Surf Bay (site no. SA-008) a total of 40 SB33 antipersonnel mines and 38 SB81 antivehicle mines were found and destroyed in 2009. At Sapper Hill (site no. SA-025) 12 antipersonnel mines (P4B) were found and destroyed.

Compliance with Article 5 of the Mine Ban Treaty

Under Article 5 of the Mine Ban Treaty (and in accordance with the 10-year extension request granted by the Ninth Meeting of States Parties in November 2008), the UK is required to destroy all antipersonnel mines in mined areas under its jurisdiction or control as soon as possible, but not later than 1 March 2019.

Following opposition from a number of States Parties, as well as the ICBL and ICRC, to the UK’s blanket 10-year extension request at its initial presentation, the UK had revised its request to make it explicit that Scenario 5 of the Field Survey (part of the Feasibility Study conducted by Cranfield University) was its clearance plan for fulfillment of its Article 5 obligations.[25] Scenario 5 proposed clearance of all mined areas on the Falkland Islands/Malvinas within a 10-year period, beginning with the establishment of a project office on the Falkland Islands/Malvinas and ending with the handover of all cleared land to a fully fledged mine action center.[26] The UK decided to disregard the Field Survey’s recommendation for trials of clearance methods and to proceed directly to full clearance.[27]

While “a number of substantive concerns were raised,” the Ninth Meeting of States Parties decided to grant the request for an extension until 1 March 2019. The meeting took note of the UK’s agreement to provide as soon as possible, but not later than 30 June 2010, a detailed explanation of how demining is proceeding and the implications for future demining in order to meet the UK’s obligations under Article 5.[28] The meeting also took note that the UK will keep under annual review the possibility of reducing the time necessary to fulfill its obligations. A number of States Parties expressed the wish that the UK proceed with the implementation of Article 5 much faster than suggested by the amount of time requested.[29]

At the June 2010 intersessional Standing Committee meetings, the UK stated that, “We are delighted to announce that the 4-site pilot project started on 4 December 2009, completed on 4 June. A total of 1,246 mines were located and destroyed, of which 568 were anti-vehicle mines and 678 were anti-personnel mines. In addition 2 sub-munitions and 9 unexploded ordnance were destroyed.”[30] The UK stated that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) “will now analyse the data gathered from this project and make recommendations for future work based on this analysis to the new Government. We intend to report the findings of our analysis and agreed next steps to States Parties at the Meeting of States Parties in November 2010.”[31]

The UK did not announce any further clearance plans. In a statement to the meeting, the ICBL regretted the failure of the UK to meet its undertaking to provide “as soon as possible, but not later than 30 June 2010 a detailed explanation of … the implications for future demining” in order to meet the UK’s obligations under Article 5 of the treaty.[32]

Battle area clearance in 2009

During 2009, one BL755 unexploded submunition was found and destroyed at the Sapper Hill BAC task.[33]

Compliance with Article 4 of the Convention on Cluster Munitions

The UK becomes a State Party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions on 1 November 2010. Its deadline for clearance of all unexploded submunitions will therefore be 1 November 2020.

As noted above, the Falkland Islands/Malvinas are believed to be still affected to a limited extent by unexploded submunitions, with one BL755 unexploded submunition found and destroyed in the first month of operations. A second submunition was found in 2010.[34] According to information provided by the Ministry of Defence in 2009, no unexploded submunitions were cleared in 2008, but a BL755 submunition was destroyed in November 2007.[35] At the Second Review Conference of the Mine Ban Treaty, the UK said that the three areas it was clearing contained unexploded submunitions and other ERW.[36] None were found at the Fox Bay site (no. FB-008W) where part of a submunition had been found in 1983.[37]

Quality management

The clearance program is said to be working to a set of National Mine Action Standards (NMAS), originally drafted by Cranfield University, and closely related to International Mine Action Standards. Following award of the contract for the DPO, a full review of NMAS was carried out and a number of amendments to points of detail were recommended for consideration by the NMAA based in London.[38]

The DPO is conducting quality control over BACTEC’s demining activities to ensure that they meet the required standards.[39]

Safety of demining personnel

No deminers were killed or injured during 2009.[40]

 

Casualties

In 2009, Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor identified 76 British military casualties (all killed) in Afghanistan from improvised explosive devices (IEDs); based on information available it was not possible to determine how many of the casualties were caused by victim-activated devices.[1] No casualties from landmines or explosive remnants of war (ERW) were identified.[2] This compares to 33 British military casualties (all killed) in Afghanistan from IEDs and landmines in 2008.[3] With the limited data available, it is not possible to determine incidents specifically caused by victim-activated landmines, ERW, or IEDs. Total figures on British mine, ERW, and victim-activated IED casualties abroad were not available, though given military casualty statistics, it is likely that they number in the hundreds.[4] In 2009, non-governmental sources tracking casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq criticized the Ministry of Defence for the lack of transparency and accuracy in reporting British casualties.[5]

Victim Assistance

The total number of mine/ERW survivors in the United Kingdom is unknown, but the vast majority are thought to be disabled veterans who were injured on foreign soil and who receive compensation through the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS). Other benefits to which military survivors claiming AFCS compensation may have been eligible (depending on the severity of their injuries) included income support, housing benefit, and free medical prescriptions, among others.[6]

In 2009 the United Kingdom contributed £11,440,275 (US$17,916,615)[1] to 12 countries, three other areas, and the UN, a 28% decrease from 2008.[2]

The UK did not report the amount it cost to clear mined areas in the Falkland Islands/Malvinas from December 2009 to June 2010.

In its 2010–2013 mine action strategy the Department for International Development (DfID) stated it does not support programs that specifically target mine survivors, and that victim assistance is best provided through health services available to all persons with disabilities.[3]

In 2008 the UK announced it had pledged £30 million ($46,983,000[4]) for mine action from 2010–2012. At the time then-Secretary of State for International Development, Douglas Alexander said, “Over the next three years, we will aim to reduce the impact of anti-personnel mines in developing countries through support to well established and effective de-mining organisations. And we will help mine affected countries develop the means to manage and deal with the remaining problems themselves.” Since 2001 DfID has contributed at least £10 million per year for mine action.[5] 

Contributions by recipient: 2009[6]

Summary of contributions: 2005-2009[7]

N/A = Not applicable