2. Landmine Monitor
Toward a Mine-Free World
Executive Summary
2009
Landmine Monitor
Editorial Board
Mines Action Canada
Handicap International
Human Rights Watch
Landmine Action
Norwegian People’s Aid

3. © October 2009 by Mines Action Canada
All rights reserved
Printed and bound in Canada
ISBN: 978-0-9738955-5-1
Cover photograph © Nasret Rezayee, 23 March 2009
Cover design by Rafael Jiménez
Landmine Monitor provides research and monitoring for the Interna-
tional Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) and the Cluster Munition
Coalition (CMC). For more information visit www.lm.icbl.org or email
lm@icbl.org.
This report is available online at www.lm.icbl.org/lm/2009.
ii

4. Preface
Landmines and Explosive
© Tamar Gabelnick, 21 November 2008
Remnants of War
eace agreements may be signed, and hos-
P
tilities may cease, but landmines and explo-
sive remnants of war (ERW) are an enduring
legacy of conflict.
Antipersonnel mines are munitions
designed to explode from the presence, after conflicts and pose dangers similar to landmines. Landmine Monitor
proximity, or contact of a person. Antive- Abandoned explosive ordnance (AXO) is explosive ord- report release
hicle mines are munitions designed to explode from the nance that has not been used during armed conflict in Geneva,
presence, proximity, or contact of a vehicle as opposed but has been left behind and is no longer effectively Switzerland.
to a person. Landmines are victim-activated and indis- controlled. ERW can include artillery shells, grenades,
criminate; whoever triggers the mine, whether a child or mortars, rockets, air-dropped bombs, and cluster muni-
a soldier, becomes its victim. Mines emplaced during a tion remnants. Under the international legal definition,
conflict against enemy forces can still kill or injure civil- ERW consist of UXO and AXO, but not mines.
ians decades later. Both landmines and ERW pose a serious and ongoing
Cluster munitions consist of containers and submu- threat to civilians. These weapons can be found on roads,
nitions. Launched from the ground or the air, the con- footpaths, farmers’ fields, forests, deserts, along borders,
tainers open and disperse submunitions over a wide in and surrounding houses and schools, and in other
area, putting civilians at risk both during attacks due to places where people are carrying out their daily activities.
their wide area effect and after attacks due to unexploded They deny access to food, water, and other basic needs,
ordnance. and inhibit freedom of movement. They prevent the repa-
triation of refugees and internally displaced people, and
ICBL at a press
hamper the delivery of humanitarian aid.
conference in
These weapons instill fear in communities, whose
Nicaragua.
citizens often know they are walking in mined areas, but
have no possibility to farm other land, or take another
route to school. When land cannot be cultivated, when
medical systems are drained by the cost of attending
to landmine/ERW casualties, and when countries must
spend money clearing mines rather than paying for
© ICBL, February 2009
education, it is clear that these weapons not only cause
appalling human suffering, they are also a lethal barrier
to development and post-conflict reconstruction.
There are solutions to the global landmine and ERW
problem. The 1997 Mine Ban Treaty provides the best
ERW refer to ordnance left behind after a conflict. framework for governments to alleviate the suffering of
Explosive weapons that for some reason fail to detonate civilians living in areas affected by antipersonnel mines.
as intended become unexploded ordnance (UXO). These Governments who join this treaty must stop the use,
unstable explosive devices are left behind during and stockpiling, production, and transfer of antipersonnel
iii

5. Preface
mines immediately. They must destroy all stockpiled humanitarian problems that these weapons may cause.
antipersonnel mines within four years, and clear all These legal instruments provide a framework for
antipersonnel landmines in all mined areas under their taking action, but it is up to governments to implement
jurisdiction or control within 10 years. In addition, States treaty obligations, and it is the task of NGOs to work
Parties in a position to do so must provide assistance together with governments to ensure they uphold their
for the care and treatment of landmine survivors, their treaty obligations.
families and communities, and support for mine/ERW The ultimate goal of the ICBL and the CMC is a world
risk education programs to help prevent mine incidents. free of landmines, cluster munitions and ERW, where
The Convention on Cluster Munitions was opened for civilians can walk freely without the fear of stepping on a
signature on 3 December 2008 and is a legally-binding mine, and where children can play without mistaking an
agreement prohibiting cluster munitions because of their unexploded submunition for a toy.
indiscriminate area effects and risk of unexploded ord-
nance. The treaty also provides a framework for tackling International Campaign to Ban
the problems that cluster munitions have caused. For
an overview of government policies and practices on
Landmines
cluster munitions see www.lm.icbl.org/cm/2009. The The ICBL is a coalition of more than 1,000 organizations
treaty obliges states to stop the use, production, and in over 70 countries, working locally, nationally, and inter-
transfer of cluster munitions immediately. States must nationally to eradicate antipersonnel mines. It received
destroy all stockpiled cluster munitions within eight the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize, jointly with its founding
years of becoming party to the treaty, and clear all unex- coordinator Jody Williams, in recognition of its efforts to
ploded cluster munition remnants in areas under their bring about the Mine Ban Treaty.
jurisdiction or control within 10 years. Building on the The campaign is a loose, flexible network, whose
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, members share the common goal of working to elimi-
the Convention on Cluster Munitions includes ground- nate antipersonnel landmines and cluster munitions.
breaking provisions for victim assistance, and includes The ICBL was launched in October 1992 by a group
those killed or injured by cluster munitions, their families of six NGOs: Handicap International, Human Rights
and communities in the definition of a cluster munition Watch, Medico International, Mines Advisory Group,
victim. In addition, States Parties in a position to do Physicians for Human Rights, and Vietnam Veterans of
so must provide assistance for the clearance of cluster America Foundation. These founding organizations wit-
ICBL at a regional munition remnant, risk education programs to help nessed the horrendous effects of mines on the commu-
meeting in prevent cluster munition casualties, and for the assis- nities they were working with in Africa, Asia, the Middle
Tajikistan. tance of victims. East, and Latin America, and saw how mines hampered
and even prevented their development efforts in these
countries. They realized that a comprehensive solution
was needed to address the crisis caused by landmines,
and that the solution was a complete ban on antiper-
sonnel landmines.
The founding organizations brought to the interna-
tional campaign practical experience of the impact of
landmines. They also brought the perspective of the dif-
ferent sectors they represented: human rights, children’s
rights, development issues, refugee issues, and medical
and humanitarian relief. ICBL member campaigns con-
© Harmony of the World, July 2009
tacted other NGOs, who spread the word through their
networks; news of this new coalition and the need for a
treaty banning antipersonnel landmines soon stretched
throughout the world. The ICBL organized conferences
and campaigning events in many countries to raise
awareness of the landmine problem and the need for
a ban, and to provide training to new campaigners to
The only international legislation explicitly covering enable them to be effective advocates in their respective
ERW in general is Protocol V of the Convention on Con- countries.
ventional Weapons (CCW). While its provisions have Campaign members worked at the local, national,
been recognized as insufficient to address the problems regional and global level to encourage their governments
caused by cluster munitions, Protocol V does establish to support the mine ban. The ICBL’s membership grew
general responsibilities for ERW clearance, information rapidly, and today there are campaigns in more than 70
sharing to facilitate clearance and risk education, victim countries.
assistance, and for support to mine action. Protocol The Mine Ban Treaty was opened for signature on 3
V establishes a special responsibility on the users of December 1997 in Ottawa, Canada. It is in part due to
explosive weapons to work to address the post-conflict sustained and coordinated action by the ICBL that the
iv

6. Preface
Mine Ban Treaty became a reality.
Part of the ICBL’s success is its ability to evolve with
changing circumstances. The early days of the campaign
were focused on developing a comprehensive treaty
banning antipersonnel landmines. Once this goal was
achieved, attention shifted to ensuring that all countries
join the treaty, and that all States Parties fully implement
their treaty obligations.
The ICBL works to promote the global norm against
mine use, and advocates for countries who have not
joined the treaty to take steps to join the treaty. The cam-
paign also urges non-state armed groups to abide by the
spirit of the treaty.
© Mike Kendellen, February 2009
Much of the ICBL’s work is focused on promoting
implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty, which provides
the most effective framework for eliminating antiper-
sonnel landmines. This includes working in partnership
with governments and international organizations on all
aspects of treaty implementation, from stockpile destruc-
tion to mine clearance to victim assistance. 2006 the CMC called for negotiations towards new inter-
Landmine Monitor
In 2007, the ICBL began actively campaigning in national law to address the cluster munition problem.
support of the Oslo Process to negotiate a treaty pro- Throughout 2007 and 2008 the CMC actively partici- Nicaragua.
hibiting cluster munitions. This marked the first time pated in the diplomatic Oslo Process facilitating and
that the ICBL engaged substantively on an issue other leading the global civil society action in favor of a ban
than antipersonnel mines. The ICBL began working with on cluster munitions. This effort resulted in the adoption
other CMC member organizations to address the cluster and signature of the Convention on Cluster Munitions
munition threat at the beginning of the Convention on in 2008 and has been recognized as a largely preventive
Cluster Munitions negotiation process. The goal was to effort, given that only a tiny fraction of the cluster muni-
help prevent another humanitarian crisis similar to the tions in global stockpiles have ever been used.
global mine problem, because cluster munitions leave In 2009, the CMC’s priority was to conclude an inten-
behind unexploded submunitions with effects similar to sive global ratification campaign to ensure that 30 coun-
antipersonnel mines. The ICBL is dedicated to working tries ratify the convention without delay in order to bring
toward the full universalization and implementation of the convention into force and begin the formal process of
the Convention on Cluster Munitions, and many ICBL implementation. The CMC will also continue to campaign
member organizations are also actively campaigning in countries that have not yet signed the convention to
against cluster munitions. encourage them to sign the treaty as soon as possible at
The ICBL is committed to pushing for the complete the UN in New York. Beyond this the CMC is preparing
eradication of antipersonnel mines and cluster muni- for the First Meeting of States Parties to the convention
tions. The campaign has been successful in part because and working with states to ensure their early and effective
it has a clear campaign message and goal; a non-bureau- implementation of the convention’s obligations.
cratic campaign structure and flexible strategy; and an
effective partnership with other NGOs, international Landmine Monitor
organizations, and governments. Landmine Monitor Report 2009 is the eleventh annual
Landmine Monitor report. Since 1999, each of the ten
Cluster Munition Coalition previous reports has been presented to the respective
The CMC is an international coalition working to protect annual meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty.
civilians from the effects of cluster munitions by pro- Landmine Monitor is the ICBL’s research and monitoring
moting universal adherence to and full implementation program program and it provides research and mon-
of the Convention on Cluster Munitions. The CMC has itoring for the CMC. It is the de facto monitoring regime
a membership of around 300 civil society organizations for the Mine Ban Treaty, a role it plans to undertake for
from more than 80 countries, and includes organizations the Convention on Cluster Munitions. It monitors and
working on disarmament, peace and security, human reports on States Parties’ implementation of, and com-
rights, victim assistance, clearance, women’s rights, and pliance with, the Mine Ban Treaty, and more generally, it
faith issues. The CMC facilitates the efforts of NGOs assesses the international community’s response to the
worldwide to educate governments, the public and the humanitarian problem caused by landmines and ERW.
media about the global cluster munition problem and its Landmine Monitor represents the first time that NGOs
solutions. have come together in a coordinated, systematic, and
Like the ICBL, the CMC was established by a group sustained way to monitor a humanitarian law or disar-
of NGOs in response to a global problem, in this case mament treaty, and to regularly document progress and
the suffering caused by cluster munitions. From 2003 to problems, thereby successfully putting into practice the
v

7. Preface
concept of civil society-based verification. other elements of civil society, including journalists, aca-
In June 1998, the ICBL formally agreed to create Land- demics, and research institutions.
mine Monitor as an ICBL initiative. In 2008, Landmine Landmine Monitor Report 2009 presents information
Monitor also functionally became the research and moni- on activities in 2008 and key developments in January–
toring arm of the CMC. A five-member Editorial Board May 2009. A special ten-year review assesses progress
coordinates the Landmine Monitor system: Mines Action in implementing and universalizing the Mine Ban Treaty
Canada, Handicap International, Human Rights Watch, since its entry into force on 1 March 2009. Reports cover
Landmine Monitor
Landmine Action, and Norwegian People’s Aid. Mines every country in the world and eight other areas not inter-
report release
in Geneva, Action Canada serves as the lead agency. The Editorial nationally recognized as states, and include information
Switzerland. Board assumes overall responsibility for, and decision- on ban policy (policy, use, production, trade, stockpiling),
mine action, casualties, risk education, victim assistance,
and support for mine action. All report contents are avail-
able online at www.lm.icbl.org/lm/2009.
Unless otherwise specified all translations were done
by Landmine Monitor.
As was the case in previous years, Landmine Monitor
acknowledges that this ambitious report is limited by
the time, resources, and information sources available.
Landmine Monitor is a system that is continuously
updated, corrected, and improved. Comments, clarifi-
cations, and corrections from governments and others
© Tamar Gabelnick, 24 November 2008
are sought, in the spirit of dialogue, and in the common
search for accurate and reliable information on an impor-
tant subject.
Acknowledgements
A broad-based network of individuals, campaigns, and
organizations produced this eleventh annual Landmine
making on, the Landmine Monitor system.
Monitor report. It was assembled by a dedicated team of
Landmine Monitor is not a technical verification
research coordinators and editors, with the support of a
system or a formal inspection regime. It is an attempt by
significant number of donors.
civil society to hold governments accountable to the obli-
This report contains country and area updates
gations they have taken on with respect to antipersonnel
researched by 60 Landmine Monitor researchers from
mines and cluster munitions. This is done through
45 countries and other areas, selected by the Landmine
extensive collection, analysis, and distribution of publicly
Monitor Editorial Board with input from the Editorial
available information. Although in some cases it does
Team. The researchers are cited separately in the List of
entail investigative missions, Landmine Monitor is not
Contributors. Landmine Monitor is grateful to everyone
designed to send researchers into harm’s way and does
who contributed research to this report. We wish to thank
not include hot war-zone reporting.
the scores of individuals, campaigns, NGOs, interna-
The Landmine Monitor report is designed to comple-
tional organizations, mine action practitioners, and gov-
ment the States Parties’ transparency reporting required
ernments who provided us with essential information.
under Article 7 of the Mine Ban Treaty. It reflects the
shared view that transparency, trust and mutual collabo-
Cluster munition
ration are crucial elements for the successful eradication
survivors at the
of antipersonnel mines. Landmine Monitor was also
Convention on
Cluster Munitions established in recognition of the need for independent
signing conference reporting and evaluation.
© Tamar Gabelnick, 4 December 2008
in Oslo, Norway. Landmine Monitor aims to promote and advance
discussion on mine and ERW-related issues, and to seek
clarifications, to help reach the goal of a world free of
mines, cluster munitions, and other ERW. Landmine
Monitor works in good faith to provide factual informa-
tion about issues it is monitoring, in order to benefit the
international community as a whole.
The Landmine Monitor system features a global
We are grateful to ICBL staff for their continued and
reporting network and an annual report. A network of
crucial assistance in the release, distribution, and pro-
60 Landmine Monitor researchers from 45 countries
motion of Landmine Monitor reports.
and other areas, and a 20-person Editorial Team gath-
Responsibility for the coordination of Landmine Mon-
ered information to prepare this report. The researchers
itor’s reporting network lies with the five Editorial Board
come from the ICBL’s campaigning coalition and from
organizations: Mines Action Canada (Paul Hannon)
vi

8. Preface
manages Landmine Monitor’s production and editing, report. Rafael Jiménez provided design. Sébastien Grolet
and coordinates research on support for mine action provided cartography services.
and non-state armed groups; Handicap International We extend our gratitude to Landmine Monitor con-
(Stan Brabant) coordinates research on mine/ERW risk tributors. Landmine Monitor’s supporters are in no way
education, casualty data, and victim assistance; Human responsible for, and do not necessarily endorse, the
Rights Watch (Stephen Goose) is responsible for ban material contained in this report. It was only possible to
policy; Landmine Action (Richard Moyes) specializes in carry out this work with the aid of grants from:
research on cluster munitions; and Norwegian People’s
Aid (Stuart Casey-Maslen and Atle Karlsen) coordinates Government of Australia
research on mine action. Jacqueline Hansen manages Government of Austria
Landmine Monitor. Government of Belgium
The Editorial Team undertook research and initial Government of Canada
country report edits for Landmine Monitor Report 2009 Government of Cyprus
from March to August 2009. The Editorial Team was led Government of France
by five principal editors: Stephen Goose (ban policy), Government of Germany
Stuart Casey-Maslen (mine action), Katleen Maes (casu- Government of Ireland
alties and victim assistance), Jenny Najar (risk educa- Government of Luxembourg
tion), and Anthony Forrest (support for mine action). Government of the Netherlands
Stuart Casey-Maslen, Nick Cumming-Bruce, and Government of New Zealand
Mark Hiznay provided final editing from July to August Government of Norway
2009 with assistance from Jacqueline Hansen (Program Government of Spain
Manager); Jack Glattbach (Copy Editor); Maureen Hol- Government of Sweden
lingworth (Editing Consultant); Katie Pitts and Tatiana Government of Switzerland
Stephens (Project Officers); Kerri West and Katherine European Commission
Harrison (Ban policy team); and Carly Ackerman, Zain Holy See
Esseghaier, Zachary Fellman, and Marc Gagnier (Mines UNICEF
Action Canada Interns).
Report formatting and the online version of the We also thank the donors who have contributed to
report at www.lm.icbl.org/lm/2009 were undertaken by the individual members of the Landmine Monitor Edito-
Lixar I.T. Inc. and St. Joseph Communications printed the rial Board and other participating organizations.
vi i

9. Global Maps
1. 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling,
Production and Transfer of Antipersonnel Mines and on
their Destruction
2. Global Contamination from Mines and Cluster Munition
Remnants
3. Deadlines for States Parties with Article 5 Obligations
4. Mines and Explosive Remnants of War (ERW) Casualties
in 2008

10. 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production
and Transfer of Antipersonnel Mines and on Their Destruction
DENMARK CZECH REPUBLIC SLOVAKIA
ICELAND AUSTRIA
NORWAY
GERMANY SWEDEN ESTONIA
UNITED KINGDOM FINLAND
NETHERLANDS LATVIA RUSSIA
BELGIUM LITHUANIA
CANADA IRELAND BELARUS
LUXEMBOURG UKRAINE
LIECHTENSTEIN POLAND
HUNGARY
SWITZERLAND FRANCE KAZAKHSTAN
MOLDOVA
SLOVENIA ARMENIA MONGOLIA
CROATIA ROMANIA GEORGIA
UZBEKISTAN
MONACO SERBIA KYRGYZSTAN
SAN MARINO BULGARIA
ANDORRA NORTH
BIH TURKMENISTAN
ITALY SPAINMONTENEGRO TURKEY TAJIKISTAN KOREA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HOLY SEE JAPAN
PORTUGAL GREECE SYRIA AZERBAIJAN CHINA
ALBANIA
MALTA FYR MACEDONIA CYPRUS AFGHANISTAN
TUNISIA LEBANON IRAQ
IRAN
Atlantic Ocean MOROCCO SOUTH
JORDAN BHUTAN
ALGERIA PAKISTAN KOREA
LIBYA ISRAEL KUWAIT
EGYPT
BAHAMAS BAHRAIN QATAR NEPAL
Tropic of Cancer MEXICO
HAITI SAUDI UNITED
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC MAURITANIA ARAB
CUBA ARABIA INDIA
CAPE VERDE EMIRATES LAO
ST. KITTS & NEVIS
ANTIGUA & BARBUDA MALI NIGER PDR Pacific Ocean
BELIZE JAMAICA OMAN BANGLADESH
GUATEMALA HONDURAS DOMINICA SENEGAL
9.2778 CHAD
YEMEN
ERITREA
ST. LUCIA SUDAN MYANMAR
EL SALVADOR GRENADA GAMBIA BURKINA PHILIPPINES
NICARAGUA BARBADOS GUINEA-BISSAU DJIBOUTI
ST. VINCENT & FASO
COSTA RICA GUINEA THAILAND MARSHALL
GRENADINES SIERRA LEONE NIGERIA VIETNAM
VENEZUELA CÔTE D'IVOIRE ETHIOPIA CAMBODIA ISLANDS
TRINIDAD & TOBAGO CENTRAL AFRICAN PALAU
Pacific Ocean PANAMA LIBERIA BRUNEI MICRONESIA
GUYANA REPUBLIC SRI LANKA MALAYSIA
GHANA BENIN
COLOMBIA SURINAME TOGO CAMEROON SOMALIA MALDIVES
KIRIBATI EQUATORIAL GUINEA UGANDA SINGAPORE
KENYA NAURU
ECUADOR SAO TOME & PRINCIPE
Equator GABON RWANDA
CONGO, REPUBLIC OF DRC BURUNDI PAPUA
SEYCHELLES INDONESIA NEW GUINEA
PERU TANZANIA
SOLOMON
COMOROS ISLANDS
BRAZIL Indian Ocean TUVALU
ANGOLA TIMOR-LESTE
SAMOA MALAWI
ZAMBIA
MOZAMBIQUE
VANUATU FIJI
TONGA BOLIVIA MADAGASCAR
NIUE NAMIBIA ZIMBABWE
COOK ISLANDS MAURITIUS
PARAGUAY BOTSWANA
Tropic of Capricorn AUSTRALIA
SWAZILAND
SOUTH
States Parties AFRICA
CHILE
States not Party ARGENTINA LESOTHO
URUGUAY
NEW ZEALAND
FALKLAND ISLANDS/MALVINAS (UK)
v2
© ICBL 2009

11. Global Contamination from Mines and Cluster Munition Remnants
DENMARK
SERBIA
UNITED KINGDOM RUSSIA RUSSIA
CROATIA
BIH
MOLDOVA GEORGIA UZBEKISTAN
MONTENEGRO ABKHAZIA
KOSOVO
KYRGYZSTAN
ARMENIA NORTH
ALBANIA TURKEY AZERBAIJAN TAJIKISTAN KOREA
GREECE CHINA
SYRIA NAGORNO- SOUTH
CYPRUS KARABAKH
AFGHANISTAN KOREA
LEBANON
PALESTINE IRAQ IRAN
MOROCCO
Atlantic Ocean ISRAEL KUWAIT PAKISTAN
ALGERIA LIBYA JORDAN
WESTERN NEPAL
Tropic of Cancer EGYPT MYANMAR
SAHARA TAIWAN
CUBA INDIA
MAURITANIA OMAN LAO
MALI NIGER PDR Pacific Ocean
CHAD YEMEN
SENEGAL SUDAN ERITREA
NICARAGUA GUINEA-BISSAU PHILIPPINES
VENEZUELA THAILAND
SOMALILAND VIETNAM
ETHIOPIA CAMBODIA
Pacific Ocean
COLOMBIA SOMALIA
UGANDA SRI LANKA
Equator ECUADOR CONGO, RWANDA
REPUBLIC OF THE BURUNDI
CONGO, DR
PERU
ANGOLA
Indian Ocean
ZAMBIA MOZAMBIQUE
ZIMBABWE
NAMIBIA
Tropic of Capricorn
CHILE
ARGENTINA *
No contamination
Mines
FALKLAND ISLANDS/MALVINAS
Cluster munition remnants
Mines and cluster munition remnants
* Argentina has declared that it is mine-affected by virtue of its claim of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands/Malvinas. © ICBL 2009
vb2

12. Deadlines for States Parties with Article 5 Obligations
DENMARK
2011
UNITED KINGDOM
CROATIA
2019
2019
SERBIA
2014
MOLDOVA
2011
BIH
MONTENEGRO 2019
2014 ALBANIA
TURKEY TAJIKISTAN **
2010 2014
TUNISIA 2010
2010 GREECE AFGHANISTAN
2014 CYPRUS
2013
2013
Atlantic Ocean ALGERIA
2012 JORDAN
Tropic of Cancer 2012
MAURITANIA YEMEN
2011 2015
NIGER CHAD Pacific Ocean
2009 2011
SENEGAL SUDAN ERITREA
2016 2014 2012
NICARAGUA GUINEA-BISSAU DJIBOUTI
2010 2011 2009 THAILAND
VENEZUELA
2014 2018
ETHIOPIA CAMBODIA **
Pacific Ocean COLOMBIA
2015 2010
2011 UGANDA **
2009
Equator ECUADOR CONGO, RWANDA
2017 REPUBLIC OF THE BURUNDI 2010
2011 CONGO, DR 2014
2012
PERU ANGOLA
2017 2013
Indian Ocean
MOZAMBIQUE
ZAMBIA
2014
2011
ZIMBABWE
2011
Tropic of Capricorn
CHILE
2012
ARGENTINA * **
2010
Article 5 deadlines for mine-affected States Parties FALKLAND ISLANDS/MALVINAS
2009
Article 5 deadlines for mine-affected States Parties
granted an extension in 2008
Other Countries * Argentina has declared that it is mine-affected by virtue of its claim of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands/Malvinas.
vb4
** This State Party requested an extension to its Article 5 deadline in 2009. © ICBL 2009

13. Mines and Explosive Remnants of War (ERW) Casualties in 2008
RUSSIA
POLAND
SERBIA
RUSSIA
BELARUS
ABKHAZIA
UKRAINE
MOLDOVA GEORGIA
CROATIA MONGOLIA
KYRGYZSTAN
BIH
MONTENEGRO AZERBAIJAN
KOSOVO TURKEY
GREECE TAJIKISTAN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CYPRUS NAGORNO- SOUTH
LEBANON SYRIA KARABAKH
MOROCCO AFGHANISTAN CHINA KOREA
PALESTINE IRAQ
IRAN
Atlantic Ocean NEPAL
ALGERIA JORDAN PAKISTAN
LIBYA
WESTERN EGYPT ISRAEL
Tropic of Cancer KUWAIT
SAHARA
INDIA
BANGLADESH
MALI Pacific Ocean
NIGER YEMEN LAO
CHAD MYANMAR
SENEGAL SUDAN PDR
EL SALVADOR NICARAGUA ERITREA
PHILIPPINES
GUINEA-BISSAU
SOMALILAND THAILAND VIETNAM
ETHIOPIA SOMALIA CAMBODIA
Pacific Ocean
COLOMBIA SRI LANKA
MALAYSIA
CÔTE D'IVOIRE UGANDA
KENYA
Equator RWANDA
DRC BURUNDI
INDONESIA
PERU
ANGOLA
Indian Ocean
ZAMBIA
MOZAMBIQUE
Tropic of Capricorn
Mine/ERW Casualties
Mine Casualties ZIMBABWE
ERW Casualties
No Casualties
V4
© ICBL 2009

14. Contents
Major Findings 1 Risk Education 45
1999–2009 Overview 45
Ban Policy 3
Risk Education in 2008 46
1999–2009 Overview 3 Risk Education from 1999 to 2008 50
2008–2009 Key Developments 3 The Future of Risk Education 51
Universalization 4
Use of Antipersonnel Mines 7 Victim Assistance 53
Production of Antipersonnel Mines 10
Survivor Inclusion 54
Global Trade in Antipersonnel Mines 12
Victim Assistance Implementation 55
Antipersonnel Mine Stockpiles and Their Destruction 12
Victim Assistance Strategic Framework 59
Mines Retained for Research and Training (Article 3) 15
National Commitment and Capacity 62
Transparency Reporting (Article 7) 17
Conclusion: Victim Assistance to 2014 63
National Implementation Measures (Article 9) 18
Special Issues of Concern 18
Support for Mine Action 65
Treaty-Related Meetings 22
The Oslo Process and the Convention 23 Introduction 65
on Cluster Munitions National Contributions to Mine Action 66
Convention on Conventional Weapons 24 International Contributions to Mine Action 66
Funding by Donor States 67
Mine Action 27 Major Recipients 73
Trust Funds 74
1999–2009 Overview 27
Research and Development 75
Scope of the Problem 28
Funding Article 5 Deadline Extentions 75
Mine Clearance 28
Battle Area Clearance 32 Status of the Convention 77
Land Release 33
Information Management 35
Convention on the Prohibition 79
Mine Action by Non-State Armed groups 35
Deminer Security 36 of the Use, Stockpiling, Production
The Future of Mine Action 36 and Transfer of Anti-Personnel
Mines and on Their Destruction
Casualties and Data Collection 37
1999–2009 Overview 37 Appendix 87
Casualties from 1999–2008 37 Abbreviations and Acronyms 87
Casualties in 2008 38 Glossary 88
Data Collection 42
Conclusion 43
ix

15. 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of Table Key
States Parties: Ratified or acceded as of
the Use, Stockpiling, Production and August 2009
Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and Signatories: Signed, but not yet ratified
States not Party: Not yet acceded
on their Destruction
The Americas Europe, the Caucasus & Central Asia
Antigua & Barbuda Argentina Albania Andorra Austria
Bahamas Barbados Belarus Belgium Bosnia & Herzegovina
Belize Bolivia Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus
Brazil Canada Czech Republic Denmark Estonia
Chile Colombia France Germany Greece
Costa Rica Dominica Holy See Hungary Iceland
Dominican Rep. Ecuador Ireland Italy Latvia
El Salvador Grenada Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg
Guatemala Guyana Macedonia, FYR Malta Moldova
Haiti Honduras Monaco Montenegro Netherlands
Jamaica México Norway Portugal Romania
Nicaragua Panamá San Marino Serbia Slovakia
Paraguay Peru Slovenia Spain Sweden
St. Kitts & Nevis St. Vincent & the Switzerland Tajikistan Turkey
Saint Lucia Grenadines Turkmenistan Ukraine United Kingdom
Suriname Trinidad & Tobago Poland Armenia Azerbaijan
Uruguay Venezuala Finland Georgia Kazakhstan
Cuba United States Kyrgyzstan Russia Uzbekistan
East & South Asia & the Pacific Middle East & North Africa
Afghanistan Australia Algeria Iraq Jordan
Bangladesh Bhutan Kuwait Qatar Tunisia
Brunei Cambodia Yemen Bahrain Egypt
Cook Islands Fiji Iran Israel Lebanon
Indonesia Japan Libya Morocco Oman
Kiribati Malaysia Saudi Arabia Syria United Arab Emirates
Maldives Nauru
New Zealand Niue Sub-Saharan Africa
Palau Papua New Guinea Angola Benin Botswana
Philippines Samoa Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon
Solomon Islands Thailand Cape Verde Central African Rep. Chad
Timor-Leste Vanuatu Comoros Congo, Dem. Rep. Congo, Rep.
Marshall Islands China Côte d’Ivoire Djibouti Equatorial Guinea
India Korea, North Eritrea Ethiopia Gabon
Korea, South Laos Gambia Ghana Guinea
Micronesia Mongolia Guinea-Bissau Kenya Lesotho
Myanmar Nepal Liberia Madagascar Malawi
Pakistan Singapore Mali Mauritania Mauritius
Sri Lanka Tonga Mozambique Namibia Niger
Tuvalu Vietnam Nigeria Rwanda São Tomé & Principe
Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone
South Africa Sudan Swaziland
Tanzania Togo Uganda
Zambia Zimbabwe Somalia
x

16. Major Findings
© Rune Bech Persson/DCA, May 2008
Mine clearance in
Albania.
Major Findings: 1999–2009 Since 1999, at least 1,100km2 of mined areas and a
further 2,100km2 of battle areas, an area twice the
Government use of antipersonnel mines has size of London, have been cleared in more than 90
greatly decreased over the last decade. In 1999, states and other areas. Operations have resulted in
Landmine Monitor recorded probable use of the destruction of more than 2.2 million emplaced
antipersonnel mines by 15 states, compared to just antipersonnel mines, 250,000 antivehicle mines,
two since 2007: Myanmar and Russia. and 17 million explosive remnants of war (ERW).
Use by non-state armed groups (NSAGs) has also As of August 2009, more than 70 states were
decreased; at least 59 NSAGs across 13 countries believed to be mine-affected.
have committed to halt use of antipersonnel mines
Mine and ERW risk education (RE) has evolved
in the last 10 years.
significantly in the last decade. Many programs
One hundred and fifty-six states—more than have shifted from a purely message-based
three-quarters of the world’s states—are party approach to more engaged efforts to bring about
to the Mine Ban Treaty. A total of 39 countries, broader behavior change and risk reduction.
including China, India, Pakistan, Russia, and the
Clearance, supported by RE, has resulted in a
United States, have still to join. Two of these are
significant reduction in casualties. Casualties
signatories: the Marshall Islands and Poland.
© Giacomo Pirozzi/UNICEF, 2008
are at a level far below earlier estimates of more
At least 38 former producers of antipersonnel than 20,000 casualties per year, with recorded
mines have stopped, leaving only 13 states as casualties down to under 5,200 in 2008.
actual or potential producers.
Despite data collection challenges, Landmine
For the past decade, global trade in antipersonnel Monitor has identified at least 73,576 casualties of
mines has consisted solely of a low-level of illicit landmines, ERW, and victim-activated improvised
and unacknowledged transfers. explosive devices in 119 states and areas in the
Young mine survivor
The only confirmed serious violations of the treaty past 10 years. in Senegal.
have been in stockpile destruction. Belarus, Greece, Total international support for mine action for
and Turkey missed their stockpile destruction 1992–2008 was US$4.27 billion.
deadlines of 1 March 2008, and all three remained in
Despite this high level of overall funding, over the
serious violation of the treaty as of September 2009.
past decade victim assistance has made the least
Eighty-six States Parties have completed the progress of all the major sectors of mine action,
destruction of their stockpiles, and four more are with funding and action falling far short of what
in the process. Together, they have destroyed about was needed. Most efforts remained focused on
44 million antipersonnel mines. medical care and physical rehabilitation, often only
Eleven states have cleared all known mined when supported by international organizations
areas from their territory: Bulgaria, Costa Rica, and funding, rather than on promoting economic
El Salvador, France, Guatemala, Honduras, FYR self-reliance for survivors, their families, and
Macedonia, Malawi, Suriname, Swaziland, and communities.
Tunisia.
L A N D M I N E M O N I TO R R E PO RT 2 0 09 : E X E CU T I V E S U M M A R Y / 1