Casualties and Victim Assistance

© RAVIM-Mozambique, 2011 -- Luis Silvestre Wamusse, leader of the Mozambique national survivor network RAVIM, conducting a survivor survey with Salfina Elias Chauque.

Casualties

In 2013, the number of recorded casualties caused by mines, victim-activated improvised explosive devices (IEDs), cluster munition remnants,[1] and other explosive remnants of war (ERW)—henceforth: mine/ERW casualties—decreased to the lowest level since 1999. This was the year that the Mine Ban Treaty entered into force and the Monitor began tracking casualties. This continued a trend of fewer total annually recorded mine/ERW casualties that has been fairly steady, with some minor annual aberrations, since 1999. Over the period, annual casualty totals have decreased by nearly two-thirds (64%).

The vast majority of recorded mine/ERW casualties were civilians. They continued to be disproportionally victimized as compared to military and security forces.[2] The percentage of civilian casualties as compared with military casualties was 79% in 2013, similar to the 81% in 2012 and thus continuing the significant rise from the 70% of civilian casualties in 2011.[3] Child casualties represented 46% of all civilian casualties in 2013, the second highest percentage of total annual civilian casualties since the Monitor began disaggregating casualties by age in 2005.[4]

Casualties in 2013[5]

In 2013, a total of 3,308 mine/ERW casualties were recorded by the Monitor. At least 1,065 people were killed and another 2,218 people were injured; for 25 casualties it was not known if the person survived.[6] In many states and areas, numerous casualties go unrecorded; therefore, the true casualty figure is likely significantly higher. In addition, mine/ERW incidents impact not only the direct casualties—the women, men, boys, and girls who were killed, as well as the survivors[7] —but also their families struggling under new physical, psychological, and economic pressures. As in previous years, there was no data available on the total number of people impacted as a result of mine/ERW casualties, including families and those in affected communities.

The 2013 casualty figure of 3,308 is a 24% decrease compared with the 4,325 casualties recorded in 2012; the casualty total in 2012 was the second lowest annual casualty total recorded by the Monitor.[8] In 2013, there was an average of nine casualties per day, globally, as compared with approximately 12–13 casualties per day from 2010–2012.[9] The annual incidence rate for 2013 is just 36% of what was reported in 1999, when there were approximately 25 casualties each day.[10] Given significant improvements in data collection over this period, the decrease in casualties is likely even more significant with a higher percentage of casualties now being recorded.

Casualties were identified in a total of 55 states and other areas in 2013,[11] down from the 62 states and other areas in which casualties were identified in 2012[12] and significantly down from 72 states and other areas the Monitor first recorded for 1999. Of the total casualties in 2013, 2,131 occurred among the 31 States Parties[13] to the Mine Ban Treaty identified by the Monitor as having responsibility for significant numbers of survivors; a total of 2,252 occurred among all (34) States Parties in which casualties were identified.[14]

While annual totals of new casualties have gone down since 1999, the thousands of casualties that have occurred have meant that the total number of survivors increased. Collectively, the 31 States Parties with significant numbers of mine/ERW survivors had 226,000–358,000[15] survivors reported for all time through 2013, as recorded in Monitor country profiles.

Number of mine/ERW casualties per year (1999–2013)

Steady declines in annual casualty totals continued in the three States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty that have regularly recorded the highest number of annual casualties over the past 15 years: Afghanistan, Cambodia, and Colombia. Together, these three countries represent 39% of all global casualties since 1999, as recorded by the Monitor. Gradual decreases in the number of casualties in these countries each year have significantly reduced the global casualty figure.

Afghanistan, which has recorded more people killed or injured by mine and ERW incidents every year than any other country, had the most annual casualties again in 2013, with 1,050 people killed and injured. This number was down significantly from the 1,422 casualties identified in 2012 and was about 90% less than the estimated 9,000 casualties in Afghanistan per year prior to the Mine Ban Treaty.[16] At that time, Afghanistan alone was suffering nearly three times the total global casualty rate in 2013.

Colombia was the second most impacted country, with 368 casualties. The 2013 figure was a 26% decrease compared with the 497 recorded in 2012, and nearly 70% less than the mine/ERW casualty rate in Colombia when it peaked in 2005 and 2006 at around 1,200 casualties recorded annually.

Cambodia, with the sixth most casualties (and fourth among States Parties) in 2013, also continued to record fewer casualties than in most previous years; the 111 casualties recorded in 2013 were 40% fewer than the 186 mine/ERW casualties identified in 2012 and more than 95% less than the over 3,000 casualties identified in 1996.

Other significant decreases in casualty totals among States Parties in 2013 were due to changing dynamics in relation to armed conflicts or fluctuations related to inconsistent data collection. In Yemen, casualties rose to a peak of 263 in 2012 related to population movements following a reduction in armed conflict and to the 2011 new use of mines; in 2013, this annual casualty total decreased to 55, in line with casualty totals from other previous years. In Sudan, casualty figures decreased from 109 in 2012 to 30 in 2013, as security conditions improved.

The only significant increase in annual casualties occurred in Syria, a state not party, where the increased contamination by mines and ERW in 2013, coupled with increased population movements, caused casualties to increase from 63 in 2012 to 201 in 2013. Increases in casualties recorded in Angola (from 34 in 2012 to 71 in 2013) and in Iraq (from 84 to 124) can both be attributed to a lack of a reliable collection mechanism for casualty data in those countries that causes annual fluctuations in casualty totals but makes trends difficult to discern.

States with 100 or more recorded casualties in 2013

States	Number of casualties
Afghanistan	1050
Colombia	368
Pakistan	219
Syria	201
Iraq	124
Cambodia	111
Iran	107
Myanmar	101

Note: States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty are indicated in bold

Greatest annual change in total mine/ERW casualties 2012–2013

Methodology

The data collected by the Monitor is the most comprehensive and widely used annual dataset of casualties caused by mines and ERW. For the year 2013, the Monitor collected casualty data from 26 different national or UN mine action centers in 25 states and other areas with mine/ERW casualties during the year. Mine action centers recorded 42% of the casualties identified during the year.[17] For all other states and areas, the Monitor collected data on casualties from various mine clearance operators and victim assistance service providers, as well as from a range of national and international media sources.[18]

It must be stressed that, as in previous years, the 3,308 mine/ERW casualties identified in 2013 only include recorded casualties. Due to incomplete data collection at the national level, the true casualty total is higher. Based on the updated Monitor research methodology in place since 2009, it is estimated that there are approximately an additional 800–1,000 casualties each year that are not captured in its global mine/ERW casualty statistics, with most occurring in severely affected countries.

As in previous years, data collection in various countries such as Afghanistan, Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), India, Iraq, Myanmar, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen was believed to be incomplete due either to the lack of a functioning official data collection system and/or to the challenges posed by ongoing armed conflict. In addition, while data collection within Iran is thought to be quite complete, it has not been made available to the Monitor consistently. However, the level of underreporting has declined over time as many countries have initiated and improved casualty data-collection mechanisms and the sharing of this data.

The 2013 estimate is a significant drop from the estimated total from 1999. By way of comparison, the Monitor identified some 9,000 casualties in 1999, but estimated that another 7,000–13,000 annual casualties went unrecorded.

Casualty demographics[19]

Since ICBL monitoring began in 1999, every year there have been about 1,000 child casualties from mines/ERW, with significantly greater numbers of children killed and injured in 1999 and 2001.[20] There were 1,112 child casualties in 2013, a slight decrease from the 1,272 child casualties in 2012, despite a greater overall decrease in the global casualty total between the two years. Child casualties in 2013 accounted for 46% of all civilian casualties for whom the age was known.[21] This was an increase of seven percentage points from the 39% in 2012 and was also the second highest percentage of child casualties (after 49% in 2007) since 2005. The average annual rate of child casualties since 2005 is 43% of civilian casualties.[22]

In some of the states with the greatest numbers of casualties, the percentage was even higher in 2013. In Lao PDR and Lebanon, children made up all reported civilian casualties, with 27 and 16, respectively. In DRC, there were 19 child casualties, making up 90% of civilian casualties. Over the last few years, Yemen has consistently reported high numbers of child casualties, with 40 in 2013, 82% of its total recorded casualties.[23] South Sudan reported 33 child casualties, 75% of its total casualties.

Mine/ERW casualties by age in 2013[24]

As might be expected, the highest numbers of child casualties in absolute terms occurred in those countries with the highest number of casualties overall. There were 487 child casualties in Afghanistan in 2013, representing nearly half of all civilian casualties in that country and nearly half (44%) of all child casualties recorded globally in 2013. In Colombia, there were 57 child casualties, making up 35% of civilian casualties; this was the highest percentage of child casualties that Colombia has reported, a percentage that has risen steadily since 2010. With 50 child casualties, Syria had the third highest number of child casualties in 2013.

As in previous years, the vast majority of child casualties where the sex was known were boys (84%), while 16% were girls.[25] Among casualties of all ages, children were also disproportionately the victims of ERW; 72% of all civilian ERW casualties were children.

Nearly two-thirds of child casualties were caused by ERW, whereas ERW caused just 20% of adult civilian casualties.

Child casualties in significantly affected countries, as a percentage of civilian casualties in 2013[26]

Country	Child casualties	Total civilian casualties	Percent child casualties of total civilian casualties
Afghanistan	487	1,008	48%
Colombia	57	165	35%
Syria	50	133	38%
Pakistan	45	172	26%
Yemen	40	49	82%

Note: States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty indicated in bold

In 2013, the percentage of female casualties among all casualties for which the sex was known was 12%, 357 of 3,048. This was the same as 2012, when females also constituted 12% of all casualties for which the sex was known (459 of 3,849). It was an increase compared to the annual average of 10% since 1999, although within the percentage range across this period.[27] As in previous years, the vast majority of casualties where the sex was known were male (88%).

In 2013, the sex of 260 casualties was unknown, or 8% of all registered casualties, down from 12% in 2012 and 15% in 2011 and 2010. This significant improvement in the disaggregation of casualty data by sex is plausibly, in part, a result of calls for improvements in this area by the Mine Ban Treaty’s Cartagena Action Plan.

Mine/ERW casualties by sex in 2013[28]

Between 1999 and 2013, the Monitor identified more than 1,500 deminers who were killed or injured while undertaking clearance operations to ensure the safety of the civilian population.[29] There were 85 casualties identified among deminers (nine deminers were killed and 76 injured) in 11 states[30] in 2013, a significant decrease in the number of demining casualties (132) reported to the Monitor in 2012.[31] It was also lower than the average of 105 casualties among deminers per year since 1999.

In 2013, the highest numbers of casualties among deminers were in Iran (28), Afghanistan (18), and Cambodia (12). The 28 deminer casualties in Iran were less than half the 71 recorded there in 2012; 666 deminer casualties have been identified in Iran since 2006.[32] Demining casualties in Afghanistan increased by 13% (from 16 to 18) compared between 2012 and 2013. With just one deminer casualty in Cambodia in 2012, the 12 deminer casualties there represent a steep increase. Together, these three countries represented more than two-thirds of all deminer casualties globally in 2013.

Mine/ERW casualties by civilian/military status in 2013[33]

Civilian casualties represented 79% of casualties where the civilian/military status was known (2,543 of 3,213), compared to 81% in 2012. In absolute terms, civilian casualties decreased by 26% between 2012 and 2013 while military casualties decreased by 12%.

More than a third of all military casualties (203 of 585) occurred in Colombia in 2013. Syria, with 68 military casualties, had the second highest number in 2013. With just 11 military casualties in 2012, Syria saw a six-fold increase in 2013. The third highest number of military casualties in 2013 was in Algeria, with 59, approximately double the number recorded there in 2012. Both Afghanistan and Pakistan saw significant decreases in military casualties between 2012 and 2013. However, the availability of data on military casualties has been inconsistent in both of those countries, making it difficult to determine trends.

Victim-activated weapons and other explosive items causing casualties

In 2013, 49% of all casualties for which the specific type of victim-activated explosive item was known were caused by factory-made antipersonnel mines (27%) and victim-activated IEDs acting as antipersonnel mines (22%).[34] This was a decrease from the 56% of casualties from antipersonnel mines and victim-activated IEDs recorded in 2012. The percentage of casualties caused by factory-made antipersonnel mines increased slightly (by two percentage points) but this increase was more than offset by the decrease in the percentage of casualties caused by victim-activated IEDs (by nine percentage points). In 2012, 25% of casualties resulted from antipersonnel mines and 31% from victim-activated IEDs.

In 2013, casualties from victim-activated IEDs were identified in seven states, a decrease from the 12 states identified in 2012 and less than in any previous year since 2008.[35] Starting in 2008, the Monitor began identifying more casualties from these improvised antipersonnel mines, likely due in part to an increase in their use and also to better data collection that made the distinction more possible to discern both between factory-made antipersonnel mines and victim-activated IEDs and between command-detonated IEDs and victim-activated IEDs. Afghanistan saw the greatest fall in the number of annual victim-activated IED casualties, a drop of 43% from 987 in 2012 to 567 in 2013. This accounted for most of the decrease of victim-activated IED casualties from 2012 to 2013.[36]

Casualties by type of explosive device in 2013[37]

In 2013, antivehicle mines killed and injured 212 people in 13 states and other areas.[38] The states with the greatest numbers of casualties from antivehicle mines were Pakistan (118), Angola (25), and Cambodia (24). Between 2012 and 2013, the percentage of casualties caused by antivehicle mines, which are not prohibited or regulated under the Mine Ban Treaty,[39] declined slightly compared to the total of mine/ERW casualties, but both years represented a significant decline as compared with 2011. In 2013, 212 casualties, or 7% of casualties for which the device was known, were caused by antivehicle mines, compared with 320 or 8% of casualties in 2012. Antivehicle mines caused 16% of casualties for which the device was known in 2011.

In 2013, 34% of casualties were caused by ERW in 41 states and areas, an increase from 31% of casualties in 2012.[40] Some notable increases occurred in Afghanistan, where there were 399 casualties due to ERW in 2013, an increase of 19% as compared to 336 in 2012, although the total annual casualties decreased. In Iran, Iraq, Lao PDR, and Syria, the number of casualties caused by ERW more than doubled in each compared to those recorded in 2012.[41]

States/areas with mine/ERW casualties in 2013

Africa	Americas	Asia and Pacific	Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia	Middle East and North Africa
Angola Chad DRC Côte d’Ivoire Eritrea Guinea-Bissau Mali Mozambique Niger Senegal South Sudan Sudan Uganda Zimbabwe Somaliland	Chile Colombia Cuba Nicaragua	Afghanistan Cambodia India Lao PDR Myanmar Nepal Pakistan Sri Lanka Thailand Vietnam	Albania Armenia Azerbaijan BiH Croatia Georgia Poland Russia Serbia Tajikistan Turkey Nagorno-Karabakh	Algeria Egypt Iran Iraq Israel Kuwait Lebanon Libya Palestine Syria Tunisia Yemen Western Sahara

Note: Mine Ban Treaty States Parties indicated in bold; other areas in italics

Victim Assistance

The Mine Ban Treaty is the first disarmament or humanitarian law treaty in which states committed to provide “assistance for the care and rehabilitation, including the social and economic reintegration” of those people harmed.[42]

Since 1999, the Monitor has tracked the provision of assistance to landmine and explosive remnants of war (ERW) victims[43] under the Mine Ban Treaty and its subsequent five-year action plans. In practice, victim assistance addresses the overlapping and interconnected needs of persons with disabilities, including survivors[44] of landmines, cluster munitions, ERW, and other weapons, as well as people in their communities with similar requirements for assistance. In addition, some victim assistance efforts reach family members and other people in the communities of those who have been killed or have suffered trauma, loss, or other harm due to landmines and ERW.

The Cartagena Action Plan 2010–2014, agreed upon at the Mine Ban Treaty’s Second Review Conference in 2009, further developed the concept of victim assistance by combining its various elements into an integrated approach to addressing victims’ needs. This approach stressed the importance of cross-cutting themes, particularly the accessibility of services and information, inclusion and participation of victims, particularly survivors, in all aspects of the treaty and its implementation. It also emphasized the concept that there should be no discrimination against mine/ERW victims, among mine/ERW victims, nor between survivors with disabilities and other persons with disabilities in relation to the assistance provided.[45]

In June 2014 at the Third Review Conference of the Mine Ban Treaty in Maputo, all States Parties committed to the Maputo Action Plan, a set of actions that would advance the “full, equal and effective participation of mine victims in society” through 2019.[46] High-level representatives of at least 40 States Parties spoke out on the continued importance of assisting mine victims, as called for by the Mine Ban Treaty. States Parties also agreed to the formation of a Committee on Victim Assistance to “support States Parties in their national efforts to strengthen and advance victim assistance.”[47]

This victim assistance overview reports on the status of coordination and planning efforts designed to improve access to services and programs for mine/ERW victims in the 31 States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty with significant numbers of mine/ERW victims in need of assistance.[48] It also looks at the role of survivors in 2013 and into 2014 in mechanisms where decisions are made that affect their lives.[49] It is based on information available by the Third Review Conference of the Mine Ban Treaty. This information will provide a baseline from which to measure progress by States Parties in implementing the Maputo Action Plan over the next five years. Baseline data on availability and accessibility of comprehensive rehabilitation in these 31 States Parties is available through the separate Monitor report, “Equal Basis 2014: Access and Rights in 33 Countries.”[50]

States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty with significant numbers of mine/ERW victims

Afghanistan Albania Algeria Angola Bosnia and Herzegovina Burundi Cambodia Chad Colombia DRC Croatia

El Salvador Eritrea Ethiopia Guinea-Bissau Iraq Jordan Mozambique Nicaragua Peru Senegal Serbia

Somalia South Sudan Sudan Tajikistan Thailand Turkey Uganda Yemen Zimbabwe

Overview of the global situation of victim assistance

The Maputo Action Plan: a new roadmap for victim assistance through 2019

During 2013 and the first half of 2014, the ICBL and its members, including national campaigns and survivor networks, worked with States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty, partners, including the ICRC, and other stakeholders to analyze progress made under the Cartagena Action Plan to define the remaining challenges toward meeting the needs and upholding the rights of landmine survivors and affected families and communities.

Two influential informal strategic meetings held by the co-chairs of the Standing Committee on Victim Assistance in 2013 guaranteed the participation of representatives from States Parties, ICBL/civil society including survivors, and the ICRC in deciding the future direction of victim assistance. These discussions were focused on driving victim assistance forward and also on supporting of the work of President-designate of the Third Review Conference (Mozambique), who would ultimately draft the Maputo Action Plan.

The first of those meetings,[51] in May 2013, brought forth suggestions for ensuring that, following the Review Conference, States Parties’ victim assistance actions would be concrete, measurable, and time-bound. Furthermore, participants held that States Parties should promote services and programs that would be sustainable, accessible, and linked to a range of disability, rights, development, health, and labor frameworks. There was a distinct call to make the process of developing the future planning for victim assistance inclusive of survivors, of representatives of affected and donor states, and of service providers.

The second informal meeting,[52] in December 2013, identified the following proposals for incorporation into the Maputo Action Plan:

• Build on the comprehensive actions in the Cartagena Action Plan, retaining the fulfillment of that plan as an objective of the States Parties.
• Integrate actions into all government plans and policies that would address the needs and rights of mine victims.
• Balance immediate relief for the most vulnerable victims with longer-term actions that would enable victims to contribute to their communities and their country’s development.
• Ensure effective participation of mine victims in policy- and decision-making, including by building the capacity of survivor associations and networks.
• Address the particular rights and needs of children, as well as the requirement for victim assistance to be age- and gender-sensitive.
• Improve outcomes on economic inclusion and psychosocial support.[53]

Between these two events, the ICBL developed priorities for the future of victim assistance, identified through a civil society experts’ meeting hosted by Handicap International in Paris in October 2013 and validated and refined through input by campaign members.

The Maputo Action Plan, approved by States Parties in Maputo, reflects the recommendations from this informal consultation process. It highlights the continued relevance of the actions of the Cartagena Action Plan, issues a strong call for effective survivor participation, and underscores the importance of integrating victim assistance into other frameworks. The plan’s seven victim assistance-related action points set an agreed path for States Parties to continue working to address the needs of mine victims with targeted and mainstream actions across a range of ministries and stakeholders and to raise the issue of mine victims in “international, regional and national human rights, health care, labour and other fora, instruments and domains” while continuing to report “measurable achievements” in victim assistance at international meetings of the Mine Ban Treaty.[54] The relevant action points of the Maputo Action Plan may be summarized as follows:

• Assess the needs of mine victims. Assess the availability and gaps in services. Support efforts to refer victims to existing services.
• Communicate time-bound and measurable objectives (update annually).
• Enhance plans, policies, and legal frameworks.
• Strengthen local capacities, enhance coordination, and increase the availability of and accessibility to services, opportunities, and social protection measures.
• Enhance the capacity and ensure the inclusion and full and active participation of mine victims and their representative organizations in all matters that affect them.
• Raise awareness of the imperative to address the needs and to guarantee the rights of mine victims.
• Report on measurable improvements in advance of the next Review Conference.

Re-committing to assist landmine victims at the Third Review Conference

At the Third Review Conference of the Mine Ban Treaty, in addition to statements made during the session on victim assistance 40 states spoke up during the high-level segment to re-affirm the importance of the Mine Ban Treaty’s commitments on victim assistance. Fifteen States Parties affected by landmines and with the responsibility to respond to the needs of mine victims spoke on the importance of strengthening and accelerating those efforts.[55] Several high-level statements referred to national efforts to integrate victim assistance into other frameworks, focusing primarily on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), and into responses to address the needs of broader populations, including armed conflict victims and persons with disabilities. States responsible for mine victims reminded all conference participants of the importance of partnerships—among states and with international organizations and NGOs—to enable these states to respond as effectively as possible.

Fifteen States Parties and one regional group that are traditional donors to mine action joined in voicing their commitment to assist mine victims.[56] Many states acknowledged the value to mine victims of the significant progress that had been made to date. There was also widespread recognition that there was more work to be done to ensure that victims’ rights are upheld and their needs are met. For example, Canada pointed to the long-term effort that would still be needed on victim assistance while Austria spoke of its efforts to engage with survivors to better understand their remaining needs. Both donor and affected states pointed to progress that has been made in advancing the rights of persons with disabilities, often as a result of victim assistance efforts by the mine action community.

Six other States Parties, which are neither donors nor responsible to meet the needs of large numbers of victims, made strong statements on the importance of victim assistance commitments, some offering technical assistance and others calling for a long-term approach.[57] Argentina called for an “urgent commitment” from all members of the international community with greater emphasis on socio-economic inclusion.

Two states not party to the Mine Ban Treaty, China and India, added their views on victim assistance, with China recognizing progress made internationally and India stressing the importance of the issue.

The new Committee on Victim Assistance, replacing the Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and Socio-Economic Reintegration, has a fresh mandate to support “States Parties in their national efforts to strengthen and advance victim assistance” and stimulate ongoing discussions of victim assistance within the framework of the Mine Ban Treaty itself while, for the first time, specifically requiring the committee to take the discussion of the needs and rights of victims to other relevant forums.[58] This theme had been promoted and explored extensively in 2013.

Victim assistance, disarmament frameworks, and disability rights

During 2013 and the first half of 2014, the international community took concrete steps to advance assistance to mine/ERW victims in multiple disarmament and disability rights frameworks.

Mine action and disability stakeholders were brought together at the country level in a series of national meetings in Peru, Ethiopia, and Tajikistan, sponsored by the European Union and supported by the Mine Ban Treaty’s Implementation Support Unit. The meetings intentionally included representatives of both survivor networks and disabled persons’ organizations (DPOs). The purpose of the meeting in Lima was to ensure the explicit inclusion of mine survivors and their perspectives in Peru’s Plan for Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities.[59] The workshop in Addis Ababa increased the awareness of the implementing agencies of the national disability action plan and its connection to victim assistance.[60] Participants in the Dushanbe meeting outlined ways to make progress toward the full and effective participation of persons with disabilities including landmine/ERW survivors.[61]

“Bridges between Worlds,” a global conference held in Colombia in April 2014, discussed assistance to victims of landmines/ERW in broader contexts.[62] It revealed commonalities between mine victims and others with similar needs, and recognized contributions made by the mine ban community to promote disability rights as well as the contribution of the CRPD to strengthening legal frameworks to promote the rights of survivors. It identified seven practical steps to strengthen bridges between disarmament, human rights, and development efforts.[63] Subsequent “Bridges” meetings held in Geneva and Maputo reinforced these conclusions and forged additional relationships among individuals working primarily on disability, development, or assistance to victims from a humanitarian perspective.

These global conferences highlighted that action and commitments were still needed to assist victims through humanitarian disarmament instruments, while also carrying the concerns and experience of “victim assistance” to other arenas where decisions and policies are made that can impact the lives of victims. Another conclusion was that there is a need for investments in service delivery for immediate responses, while also pursuing policies and legal instruments to promote rights in the longer term.[64] These recommendations were very much in line with the ICBL-CMC victim assistance recommendations developed together with the Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor’s “Frameworks for Victim Assistance: Monitor key findings and observations,” published in December 2013.[65]

In March 2014, the ICRC and the African Union brought together in Ethiopia senior officials from 15 African states along with civil society experts to seek solutions to the challenges involved in providing assistance for people injured by landmines, cluster munitions, or other ERW, in line with disarmament treaty commitments and disability plans.[66] Recommendations of the workshop included: improve data collection on needs and relevant services; develop strong action plans and strategies; and ensure access to needed services to obtain maximum independence.[67]

During the reporting period, progress was made by civil society organizations forging links across sectors and regions to advance the rights of mine/ERW victims. In March 2014, Handicap International, in collaboration with the ICBL-CMC, convened a Latin American seminar in Colombia on psychosocial assistance for victims of armed conflict, including mine/ERW survivors and persons with disabilities. Bringing together representatives of networks of mine/ERW survivors, networks of armed conflict victims, DPOs, and service providers, the seminar considered different approaches and experiences to overcoming trauma and promoting social inclusion.

The ICBL-CMC’s Survivor Networks Project trained representatives of survivor networks and DPOs on monitoring theMine Ban Treaty, the Convention on Cluster Munitions, and the CRPD as a means to promote the rights of survivors and other persons with disabilities through one-on-one support throughout the year, culminating in a workshop in Maputo in June 2014. Workshop participants shared their experiences monitoring victim assistance aspects of the disarmament treaties and the implementation of the CRPD at the national level.[68] Handicap International also trained mine/ERW survivors (“Ban Advocates”) on the links between the three treaties in 2013 and 2014.

In addition to these global meetings, NGOs, survivor networks, and DPOs in several mine-affected countries made efforts to collaborate with each other and with development and rights actors to promote the inclusion of mine/ERW victims and persons with disabilities in mainstream programs and in policy-making bodies at national and local levels.[69]

In 2013, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement resolved to promote disability inclusion within the movement.[70] National societies operating in countries with large numbers of mine/ERW victims also emphasized their continued commitment to help victims and to take the CRPD into account in victim assistance activities and advocacy efforts. The movement found that the impact of the CRPD was “undoubtedly” the key development in terms of victim assistance since the adoption of the revised Movement Strategy in November 2009,[71] and that it “should shape how affected States meet their respective responsibilities” under disarmament conventions. The CRPD was “likely to increasingly influence the victim assistance activities of components of the Movement.”[72]

Status of victim assistance efforts at the national level

The Maputo Action Plan calls on States Parties to take seven actions “with the same precision and intensity as for other aims of the Convention” in order to address victim assistance.[73] Most States Parties had already made some progress under both the Nairobi Action Plan (2004–2009) and the Cartagena Action Plan (2009–2014), particularly in the objectives of improving coordination and planning and of promoting survivor participation.[74] What follows gives an overview, as of mid-2014, of the current status in each of these areas in the 31 States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty with significant numbers of mine/ERW victims in need of assistance. Taking into consideration progress made under previous action plans, this is the starting point from which the progress of the Maputo Action Plan can be measured through to its completion in 2019.[75]
Status of victim assistance efforts in 2013/2014 in 31 States Parties

State Party	Coordination (collaborative or combined with disability)	Plan for assistance	Survivor participation (in coordination)
Afghanistan	Yes (collaborative)	No (expired)	Yes
Albania	Yes (collaborative)	Yes	Yes
Algeria	Yes (collaborative)	Yes	Yes
Angola	Yes (collaborative)	Yes	Yes
BiH	Yes (limited collaboration)	Yes	Yes
Burundi	Yes (collaborative)	Yes (inactive)	Yes
Cambodia	Yes (combined)	Yes (Disability plan)	Yes
Chad	No	Yes (inactive)	N/A
Colombia	Yes (collaborative)	Yes	Yes
DRC	No	No (expired)	N/A
Croatia	Yes (collaborative)	Yes	Yes
El Salvador	Yes (collaborative)	Yes (Disability plan)	Yes
Eritrea	No	No	N/A
Ethiopia	Yes (combined)	Yes (Disability plan)	Yes
Guinea-Bissau	No	Yes	N/A
Iraq	No	No	N/A (ad hoc meetings)
Jordan	Yes (collaborative)	Yes	Yes
Mozambique	Yes (combined)	Yes (component of Disability Plan)	Yes
Nicaragua	No	No	N/A
Peru	Yes (collaborative)	Yes	Yes
Senegal	No	Yes	N/A (ad hoc meetings)
Serbia	No	No	N/A (ad hoc meetings)
Somalia	No	No	N/A
South Sudan	Yes (combined)	Yes (inactive)	Yes
Sudan	Yes (collaborative)	No (expired)	Yes
Tajikistan	Yes (combined)	Yes	Yes
Thailand	Yes (collaborative)	Yes	Yes
Turkey	No	No	N/A
Uganda	Yes (combined)	Yes	Yes
Yemen	Yes (no collaboration)	Yes (inactive)	No (ad hoc meetings)
Zimbabwe	No	No	Unknown

Note: N/A = There was no active coordination mechanism in which survivors could participate
Ad hoc meetings = While there was no active coordination mechanism, survivors and their representative organizations met with relevant government authorities

Coordination

The Maputo Action Plan, through Action 15 and in its validation of the continued relevance of victim assistance actions from the Cartagena Action Plan, compels States Parties to enhance coordination activities in order to increase the availability and accessibility of services that are relevant to mine victims. In 2013 and into 2014, 20 of the 31 States Parties had active victim assistance coordination mechanisms or disability coordination mechanisms that considered the issues of mine/ERW survivors.[76] Victim assistance coordination mechanisms were reactivated in 2013 in Algeria, Croatia, and Yemen after having been inactive in 2012 due to political transition or armed conflict. However, victim assistance was not included in mine action coordination mechanisms in DRC and Senegal, both of which had advanced victim assistance in previous years. In BiH, victim assistance was put on hold in early 2014. In Iraq, Senegal, and Serbia, victim assistance focal points held bilateral, ad hoc meetings with survivor networks but did not hold multi-sectorial coordination meetings. As in 2012, victim assistance coordination in Uganda continued at much reduced levels compared with some previous years.

Among the 20 States Parties with active victim assistance coordination in 2013, in all but two cases, this coordination mechanism either collaborated with or was combined with an active disability coordination mechanism.[77] In BiH, before victim assistance coordination was suspended in 2014, collaboration between the victim assistance and disability coordination mechanisms had been very limited. Among States Parties where both victim assistance and disability coordination mechanisms existed, only in Yemen was no collaboration identified. Coordination of victim assistance and disability issues were was combined in Cambodia, Ethiopia, Mozambique, South Sudan, Tajikistan, and Uganda. In Afghanistan, a separate victim assistance coordination mechanism was re-established in 2013 after having been previously combined with disability coordination. Afghanistan’s victim assistance coordination mechanism collaborated with the disability coordination mechanism.

During 2013, the victim assistance coordination mechanism in DRC was dissolved. The role of victim assistance planning and coordination shifted to the World Health Organization (WHO)-led cluster on disability; however, victim assistance issues were not specifically addressed by the cluster.

Planning

Actions 13 and 14 of the Maputo Action Plan call on States Parties to implement national policies and plans that contribute to “the full, equal and effective participation of mine victims in society.”

In 2013, 21 of the 31 States Parties with significant numbers of survivors had plans in place to address the needs and promote the rights of landmine victims.[78] However, in at least four of these states—Burundi, Chad, South Sudan, and Yemen—national victim assistance plans were inactive due to either a lack of resources to implement the plan, armed conflict, or a combination of both. Plans in Afghanistan, DRC, and Sudan had expired prior to 2013 and were not renewed.

Actions to respond to the needs of mine survivors had been incorporated into national disability plans in El Salvador, Ethiopia, and Mozambique, although these states did not have a distinct victim assistance plan. Several other countries had both a national victim assistance plan and had also considered the needs and rights of mine/ERW survivors in the development of disability plans and policies, as in Cambodia, Colombia, Peru, and Tajikistan. South Sudan, while unable to implement its plan, had combined victim assistance and disability issues in the same plan.

In Colombia and El Salvador, planning of mine/ERW victim assistance was also integrated into efforts to address the needs of all armed conflict victims. In Guinea-Bissau, assistance to mine/ERW victims was integrated into the national poverty reduction strategy.

Survivor participation

Through Action 16 of the Maputo Action Plan, States Parties have committed to “enhance the capacity and ensure the inclusion and full and active participation of mine victims and their representative organisations in all matters that affect them.”

Survivor participation increased significantly under the implementation of the Cartagena Action Plan. In 2009 at the start of the Cartagena Action Plan’s implementation, the Monitor found that “few Mine Ban Treaty States Parties have fulfilled their commitment to involve survivors in planning, implementation, and monitoring of VA [victim assistance] activities at local, national, regional or international levels.”[79] In 2013, among the 20 States Parties with active victim assistance coordination, all but one (Yemen) included survivors in these mechanisms. Survivor participation in coordination in Afghanistan was reported to be inadequate. Survivor participation in Colombia, which was noted to be ineffective in recent years, improved in 2013.

Four States Parties without active multilateral victim assistance coordination also had survivor participation in programs and policy-making. In DRC, survivors were included in coordination of the disability cluster; in Iraq and Senegal, survivors were represented by survivor networks or DPOs in bilateral meetings with the national mine action center; and in Serbia, survivors were represented in meetings with the Ministry of Social Welfare and in committees to reform laws to protect the rights of disabled veterans and to develop and enforce national accessibility regulations. In 26 of 31 States Parties, survivors were involved in implementing physical rehabilitation, peer support, income-generating projects, data collection, and/or referral programs.[80]

Conclusion

At the start of the Maputo Action Plan period, States Parties with significant numbers of survivors are not beginning with a blank page in organizing victim assistance efforts. Most have already benefited from their pursuit of commitments made in the two previous action plans to the Mine Ban Treaty. As seen above, approximately two-thirds of States Parties have active coordination mechanisms and relevant national plans in place. In nearly all States Parties, survivors participate in decisions that affect their lives and in the implementation of services—although in many countries their participation must be better supported, especially for survivors to be effectively included in coordination roles.

In most of these countries, victim assistance efforts have been integrated into other frameworks through collaborative coordination, combined planning, and/or survivor participation. Therefore, the Maputo Action Plan presents the opportunity for more states to rapidly accelerate the kinds of achievements that make a real impact on the lives of victims.

The Victim Assistance Team of the Monitor has produced a separate report[81] on the availability and accessibility of comprehensive rehabilitation in mine/ERW-affected states which updates the status of services and programs for mine/ERW survivors and other persons with disabilities in the relevant States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty and Convention on Cluster Munitions.[82] This report, “Equal Basis 2014: Access and Rights in 33 Countries,” presents progress in these states in the context of the WHO’s World Report on Disabilities[83] (2011) and the CRPD, as well as the disarmament conventions and their action plans. National-level details of progress and challenges in providing effective victim assistance are available in some 70 individual country profiles on the Monitor website for both States Parties and states not party to the relevant conventions.[84]
-------------------------------

[1] Casualties from cluster munition remnants are included in the Monitor global mine/ERW casualty data. Casualties from the use of cluster munitions in strikes during the deployment and dispersal of submunitions are not included in this data; however, they are reported in the overview on cluster munition casualties in the annual Cluster Munition Monitor report. For more information specifically on casualties caused by cluster munitions, including both cluster munition remnants casualties and casualties which occur during cluster munition strikes, see ICBL-CMC, Cluster Munition Monitor 2014, www.the-monitor.org/index.php/LM/Our-Research-Products/CMM14.

[2] Security personnel/forces include military personnel, police, and representatives of non-state armed groups.

[3] Since 2005, civilians have represented approximately 73% of casualties for which the civilian status was known, annually. In the first five years of Monitor reporting, the percentage of civilian casualties averaged 81% per year. See the Monitor Victim Assistance Overview from ICBL, Landmine Monitor Report 2008: Toward a Mine-Free World (Ottawa: Mines Action Canada, October 2008), www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?url=lm/2008/es/landmine_casualties_and_survivor_assistance.html.

[4] In 2007, children were 49% of civilian casualties for which the age was known. This is the highest percentage recorded by the Monitor.

[5] Figures include individuals killed or injured in incidents involving devices detonated by the presence, proximity, or contact of a person or a vehicle, such as all antipersonnel mines, antivehicle mines, abandoned explosive ordnance (AXO), unexploded ordnance (UXO), and victim-activated IEDs. AXO and UXO, including cluster munition remnants, are collectively referred to as ERW. Cluster munition casualties are also disaggregated and reported as distinct from ERW where possible. Not included in the totals are: estimates of casualties where exact numbers were not given, incidents caused or reasonably suspected to have been caused by remote-detonated mines or IEDs (those that were not victim-activated), and people killed or injured while manufacturing or emplacing devices. For more details on casualty figures or sources of casualty data by state or area, please see country profiles on the Monitor website, www.the-monitor.org/cp.

[6] The outcome of just 25 casualties, or less than 1% of all casualties, was unknown in 2013; this was among the lowest number of unknowns in terms of outcome since Monitor recording began in 1999 and is an indication of improved data collection over the 14-year period. By way of comparison, in 1999 the outcome was unknown of 974 casualties or 10% of all casualties recorded in that year.

[7] A survivor is a person who was injured by mines/ERW and lived.

[8] Every year, the Monitor revises and updates annual casualty totals when new data becomes available. For example, in 2013 the Monitor reported a total of 3,628 casualties for 2012; this figure has now been revised to 4,325. The increase in the 2012 casualty total was primarily due to newly available disaggregated data on 642 victim-activated IED casualties in Afghanistan. This is the number to which the 2013 casualty total is compared. Updated figures for previous years have been used to recalculate all casualty country totals and percentages throughout the overview.

[9] The Monitor identified 4,446 casualties in 2010, 4,590 in 2011, and 4,325 in 2012.

[10] In 1999, the Monitor identified 9,220 mine/ERW casualties.

[11] See also the table at the end of this chapter. The 52 states and three other areas where casualties were identified in 2013 were: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), Cambodia, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Georgia, Guinea-Bissau, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Pakistan, Palestine, Poland, Russian Federation, Senegal, Serbia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Vietnam, Yemen, and Zimbabwe; as well as other areas: Nagorno-Karabakh, Somaliland, and Western Sahara.

[12] States registering casualties in 2013 but not in 2012 were: Armenia, Cuba, Israel, and Tunisia. States and other areaswith casualties in 2012 but none in 2013 were: Belarus, Djibouti, Greece, Kenya, Mauritania, Montenegro, Peru, Philippines, South Korea, Ukraine, and Kosovo.

[13] The 31 States Parties with significant numbers of survivors are: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, BiH, Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, Colombia, DRC, Croatia, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Jordan, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Peru, Senegal, Serbia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, Yemen, and Zimbabwe. Casualties were identified in all but five of these in 2013. The five where casualties were not identified were: Burundi, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Jordan, and Peru.

[14] Casualties were identified in the following States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty in 2013: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, BiH, Cambodia, Chad, Chile, Colombia, DRC, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Eritrea, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kuwait, Mali, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Poland, Senegal, Serbia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Yemen, and Zimbabwe. The total number of casualties in these 31States Parties for 2013 differs slightly from the 2013 figures presented in the Monitor publication “Casualty trends 1999–2013” because additional information was subsequently available for some countries. These small changes did not affect the trends reported in the publication. “Casualty trends 1999–2013” is available on the Monitor website, www.the-monitor.org/index.php/LM/Our-Research-Products/Maputo-3rd-Review-Conference/Casualty-trends-1999-2013.

[15] A range is reported for the number of survivors in several States Parties.

[16] Some of the decrease in the annual casualty total in Afghanistan from 2012 to 2013 may have been due to the changing availability of some casualty data as well as fluctuating conflict conditions. For example, there was a significant decrease in civilian victim-activated IED casualties from 2012 to 2013. However, by mid-2014 the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) reported that the number of victim-activated IED casualties was again increasing. UNAMA Protection of Civilians Annual Report 2013, pp. 19–29; and email exchange with UNAMA, 17 February 2014.

[17] Of the 26 mine action centers which collected casualty data, 24 were national mine action centers. The other two were UN mine action centers or UN missions that also maintained mine/ERW data collection mechanisms. Mine action centers registered 1,385 of the 3,380 casualties identified in 2013.

[18] The Monitor identified 777 mine/ERW casualties (23% of all casualties identified in 2013) through the media that had not been collected via official data-collection mechanisms. The majority of these casualties occurred in countries without any data-collection mechanism, although a significant number also occurred in countries with a data-collection system in place and/or other sources such as mine action operators and victim assistance service providers. A similar number of casualties, 21% (702) were reported by various UN bodies.

[19] The Monitor tracks the age, sex, civilian status, and deminer status of mine/ERW casualties, to the extent that data is available and disaggregated.

[20] The Monitor identified more than 1,500 child casualties in 1999 and more than 1,600 in 2001.

[21] Child casualties are defined as all casualties where the victim is less than 18 years of age at the time of the incident.

[22] Between 2005 and 2013, there were 9,608 child casualties of a total of 22,434 civilian casualties for which the age and outcome was known. The Monitor began to be able to systematically collect age-disaggregated mine/ERW casualty data for all states and areas in 2005.

[23] It is possible that casualty data for children in Yemen is more complete than casualty data for the population as a whole and thus that children are overrepresented as a proportion of total casualty figure. Half of all Yemen mine/ERW casualty data identified by the Monitor for 2013 was provided by UNICEF, which has a mandate to protect and collect data on the protection of children.

[24] This includes only the civilian casualties for which the age was known.

[25] The sex of 65 child casualties was not recorded.

[26] This includes only the casualties for which the civilian/security status and the age were known.

[27] Between 1999 and 2013, female casualties have represented 10% of all casualties on average for which the sex was known, with the percentage ranging from 8% to 13% per year. In that period, the sex of 58,430 casualties was known and of these 6,082 were females.

[28] This includes only the casualties for which the sex was known.

[29] There have been 1,570 casualties among deminers between 1999 and 2013. Since 1999, the annual number of demining casualties identified has fluctuated widely from 29 to 231, making it difficult to discern trends. Most major fluctuations have been related to the exceptional availability or unavailability of deminer casualty data from a particular country in any given year and therefore cannot be correlated to substantive changes in operating procedures in international demining standards or demining equipment.

[30] Casualties among deminers occurred in Afghanistan, Angola, BiH, Cambodia, Croatia, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Mozambique, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.

[31] There were 132 demining casualties identified in 2012.

[32] No data on deminer casualties in Iran prior to 2006 was available to the Monitor for inclusion in this report. Even based on partial data, Iran exceeded all countries in the total number of demining casualties since 1999. Afghanistan, with the second highest number of deminer casualties, has recorded 475 since 1999.

[33] This includes only the casualties for which the civilian/military status was known.

[34] In 2013, there were casualties from factory-made antipersonnel mines in 27 states: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijan, BiH, Cambodia, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Eritrea, Georgia, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Libya, Mozambique, Myanmar, Pakistan, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Thailand, Yemen, and Zimbabwe; and in the following two other areas: Somaliland and Western Sahara.

[35] DRC, Sudan, and Tunisia had casualties from victim-activated IEDs in 2013 but not in 2012. India, Myanmar, Nepal, Peru, Philippines, Russian Federation, Thailand, and Yemen had casualties from victim-activated IEDs in 2012 but not in 2013. Casualties from victim-activated IEDs were identified in the following states in 2013: Afghanistan, Algeria, DRC, Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan, and Tunisia. In 2012, casualties from victim-activated IEDs were identified in: Afghanistan, Algeria, India, Iraq, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Russian Federation, Thailand, and Yemen.

[36] The decrease in the number of victim-activated IED casualties recorded in Afghanistan between 2012 and 2013 was 420, compared with a total decrease globally of 498.

[37] This includes only the casualties for which the device type was known. The number of cluster submunition casualties in 2013 was incomplete because casualties were not differentiated from other ERW casualties, as reported in Cluster Munition Monitor 2014. In addition to this general underreporting, in 2013 850 people were injured in Syria due to cluster munitions but have not been included in casualty totals because it is not possible to differentiate between those casualties from submunitions (which would be included in this report) and those from strikes (which would not be included here). According the Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR), “most of the injured were wounded by the cluster bombs when they passed near it, touched it…some of them were injured while trying to disarm it.” Email from Fadel Abdul Ghani, Director, SNHR, 25 July 2014.

[38] In 2013, casualties from antivehicle mines were identified in the following states: Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, Iran, Israel, Myanmar, Pakistan, Somalia, Sri Lanka, and Thailand; and the following other areas: Nagorno-Karabakh, Somaliland, and Western Sahara.

[39] Since the conclusion of the negotiations of the Mine Ban Treaty, many States Parties, the ICBL, and the ICRC have emphasized that, according to the treaty’s definitions, any mine (even if it is labeled as an antivehicle mine) equipped with a fuze or antihandling device that causes the mine to explode from an unintentional or innocent act of a person is considered to be an antipersonnel mine and is therefore prohibited. This means that antivehicle mines equipped with trip wires, break wires, tilt rods, or highly sensitive antihandling devices should be considered banned under the Mine Ban Treaty.

[40] In 2013, casualties from ERW, which includes cluster submunitions, were identified in the following states: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Azerbaijan, BiH, Cambodia, Colombia, DRC, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Eritrea, Guinea-Bissau, India, Iran, Iraq, Lao PDR, Libya, Mali, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Palestine, Poland, Russian Federation, Serbia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, Vietnam, Yemen, and Zimbabwe; and in the following other areas: Nagorno-Karabakh, Somaliland, and Western Sahara.

[41] In Iran, there were 11 recorded casualties from ERW in 2012 and 26 in 2013; in Iraq, 20 in 2012 and 73 in 2013; in Lao PDR, five in 2012 and 37 in 2013; and in Syria, one in 2012 and 27 in 2013.

[42] Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, (Mine Ban Treaty) Article 6.3, www.apminebanconvention.org/overview-and-convention-text/.

[43] The full definition of “victim” includes the survivors, the family members of those who are killed by mines/ERW, as well as the family members of survivors and affected communities, although victim assistance efforts have mainly been limited to survivors to date.

[44] As noted earlier, “survivor” is a person who was injured by mines/ERW and lived.

[45] “Cartagena Action Plan 2010–2014: Ending the Suffering Caused by Anti-Personnel Mines,” Cartagena, 11 December 2009 (hereafter referred to as the “Cartagena Action Plan”).

[46] “Maputo Action Plan,” Maputo, 27 June 2014. www.maputoreviewconference.org/fileadmin/APMBC-RC3/3RC-Maputo-action-plan-adopted-27Jun2014.pdf.

[47] “Decisions on the Convention’s Machinery and Meetings,” Maputo, 27 June 2014, p. 5, www.maputoreviewconference.org/fileadmin/APMBC-RC3/3RC-Decisions-Machinery-27Jun2014.pdf.

[48] This corresponds with Actions 13, 14, and 15 of the Maputo Action Plan. The Monitor reports on the following 31 Mine Ban Treaty States Parties in which significant numbers of survivors have been reported: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Croatia, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Jordan, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Peru, Senegal, Serbia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, Yemen, and Zimbabwe. This includes 28 States Parties that have indicated that they have significant numbers of survivors for which they must provide care, listed on the website of the Implementation Support Unit of the Mine Ban Treaty, www.apminebanconvention.org/background-status-of-the-convention/assisting-the-victims/. Since this list was compiled, Zimbabwe reported the same. Both Algeria and Turkey have reported hundreds or thousands of survivors in their official landmine clearance deadline extension request submissions. See ICBL-CMC, “Zimbabwe and the ‘victim assistance twenty something’ – what and who comes next?” Landmine and Cluster Munition blog, 15 April 2014, landmineandclustermunitionblog.wordpress.com/2014/04/15/zimbabwe-and-the-victim-assistance-twenty-something-what-and-who-comes-next/

[49] This corresponds with Action 16 of the Maputo Action Plan.

[50] The report also includes Lao PDR and Lebanon, State Parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions who report significant casualties due to those weapons. ICBL-CMC, “Equal Basis 2014: Access and Rights in 33 Countries,” December 2014.

[51] Organized by Austria and the ICBL.

[52] Organized by Austria, Costa Rica, and the ICBL, in collaboration with Mozambique. Held during the Thirteenth Meeting of States Parties in Geneva, 4 December 2013.

[53] Statement of Austria as Victim Assistance Co-Chair, First Preparatory Meeting for the Third Review Conference of the Mine Ban Treaty, Geneva, 6 December 2013.

[54] Actions 12 to 18 of the Maputo Action Plan.

[55] Algeria, Angola, BiH, Colombia, DRC, Jordan, Mozambique, Senegal, Serbia, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

[56] Australia, Austria, Canada, European Union, Finland, Germany, Holy See, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, and Spain. Sweden and the United Kingdom, while speaking on the importance of victim assistance, also each reiterated their positions that they chose to provide such assistance as part of their overall development assistance.

[57] Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, and Tanzania.

[58] Mine Ban Treaty Third Review Conference, “Decisions on the Convention’s Machinery and Meetings,” 27 June 2014, p. 5.

[59] Held in April 2013, co-hosted by Peru’s mine action center (CONTRAMINAS) and national disability council (CONADIS). See ICBL, “ICBL Participates in Peru Victim Assistance Meeting,” 25 April 2013, www.icbl.org/en-gb/news-and-events/news/2013/icbl-participates-in-peru-victim-assistance-meetin.aspx.

[60] The National Stakeholders Symposium on Implementing the National Plan of Action for Persons with Disabilities (2012–2021) was held in November 2013. Email from Damtew Alemu, Coordinator, Capacity Building Team, Ethiopian Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, 4 April 2014.

[61] The National Stakeholders Dialogue on Victim Assistance and Disability Rights was in March 2014. Mine Ban Treaty Implementation Support Unit, “Tajikistan takes stock of the wellbeing of landmine survivors in the context of broader disability efforts,” 17 March 2014, www.apminebanconvention.org/fileadmin/APMBC/press-releases/PressRelease-VA_workshop_in_Tajikistan-17March2014-en.pdf.

[62] Held in April 2014 in Medellin, Colombia. Mine Ban Treaty Implementation Support Unit, “Bridges between Worlds,” www.apminebanconvention.org/eu-council-decision/bridges-between-worlds/.

[63] Chairperson’s Summary, “Bridges between Worlds: Global Conference on Assisting Landmine and other Explosive Remnants of War Victims and Survivors in the Context of Disability Rights and other Domains,” Medellin, 3–4 March 2014, www.apminebanconvention.org/fileadmin/APMBC/bridges-between-worlds/Bridges-Worlds-Summary-Apr2014.pdf.

[64] Ibid.

[65] ICBL-CMC, “Frameworks for Victim Assistance: Monitor key findings and observations,” Geneva, December 2013, www.the-monitor.org/index.php/content/view/full/25067; and ICBL-CMC, “Frameworks for Victim Assistance: Recommendations for States,” victimassistance.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/recommendations.pdf.

[66] ICRC, “African Union: Experts discuss assistance for victims of mines and other explosive devices,” 4 March 2014, www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/news-release/2014/03-04-ethiopia-addis-ababa-wokshop-victims-landmines.htm.

[67] Statements of Mexico and ICRC, Fifth Meeting of States Parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, 4 September 2014.

[68] Survivor Networks, “Monitoring Treaties to Uphold Rights: Training Day,” 25 June 2014, survivornetworks.wordpress.com/2014/06/25/monitoring-rights-and-treaties/.

[69] Further information about such collaborations is available through the individual country profiles on victim assistance available on the Monitor website.

[70] Council of Delegates of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, “Promoting Disability Inclusion in the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (Resolution CD/13/R9),” Sydney, Australia 17–18 November 2013, www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/red-cross-crescent-movement/council-delegates-2013/cod13-r9--people-with-disabilities-adopted-eng.pdf.

[71] See ICRC, “Resolutions: Council of Delegates of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement Nairobi, 23–25 November 2009,” 31 December 2009, www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/article/review/review-876-p883.htm.

[72] Council of Delegates of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, “Report on implementation of the Movement Strategy on Landmines, Cluster Munitions and other Explosive Remnants of War: Reducing the Effects of Weapons on Civilians (Resolution 6 of the 2009 Council of Delegates) Reporting period: Nov. 2009–June 2013,” Sydney, Australia, 17–18 November 2013, www.standcom.ch/download/cod2013/fu2011/CD13_11_4_Landmine_report_EN.pdf.

[73] “Maputo Action Plan,” Maputo, 27 June 2014, p. 3.

[74] A review of progress made under the Cartagena Action Plan and remaining challenges is available through a series of regional reports on victim assistance published by the Monitor for the Maputo Review Conference, available on the Monitor website, the-monitor.org/index.php/LM/Our-Research-Products/Maputo-3rd-Review-Conference.

[75] Action 18 of the Maputo Action Plan commits States Parties to report on efforts that improve the lives of mine victims and promote their rights, as well to report on as on their remaining challenges, thereby providing the international community with the means by which to monitor this progress.

[76] Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, BiH (although suspended in early 2014), Burundi, Cambodia, Colombia, Croatia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Jordan, Mozambique, Peru, South Sudan, Sudan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Uganda, and Yemen. States with no known or active coordination mechanism for victim assistance: Chad, DRC, Eritrea, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Nicaragua, Senegal, Serbia, Somalia, Turkey, and Zimbabwe.

[77] Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Burundi, Cambodia, Colombia, Croatia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Jordan, Mozambique, Peru, South Sudan, Sudan, Tajikistan, Thailand, and Uganda.

[78] Albania, Algeria, Angola, BiH, Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, Colombia, Croatia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Jordan, Mozambique, Peru, Senegal, South Sudan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Uganda, and Yemen. States with no plan: Afghanistan, DRC, Eritrea, Iraq, Nicaragua, Serbia, Somalia, Sudan, Turkey, and Zimbabwe.

[79] ICBL, Landmine Monitor Report 2009: Toward a Mine-Free World (Ottawa: Mines Action Canada, November 2009), www.the-monitor.org/lm/2009/.

[80] Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, BiH, Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, Colombia, DRC, Croatia, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iraq, Jordan, Mozambique, Peru, Senegal, Serbia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Uganda, and Yemen. It was not known if survivors were involved in the implementation of services and programs for mine/ERW survivors in Zimbabwe.

[81] ICBL-CMC, “Equal Basis 2014: Access and Rights in 33 Countries,” December 2014.

[82] The 31 Mine Ban Treaty States Parties detailed here, plus Lao PDR and Lebanon (States Parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions), with significant numbers of cluster munition, landmine, and ERW victims.

[83] WHO, “World Report on Disabilities,” 2011, www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/en/.

[84] Country profiles are available on the Monitor website, www.the-monitor.org/cp. Findings specific to victim assistance in states and other areas with victims of cluster munitions are available through Landmine Monitor 2014’s companion publication, ICBL-CMC, Cluster Munition Monitor 2014, the-monitor.org/index.php/LM/Our-Research-Products/CMM14.