“Mine survivors are not a problem to be solved. They are individuals with hopes and dreams like all of us. They are assets with the capacity to be productive contributors to the social and economic development of their communities. The challenge is to provide the environment and opportunities that will enable mine survivors and other people with disabilities to reach their full potential to contribute to their communities and realize their dreams.”^[81]

New Casualties in 2005-2006

In 2005, Landmine Monitor identified new casualties from mines and explosive remnants of war in 58 countries, the same number as in Landmine Monitor Report 2005.^{[82 ]}Landmine Monitor also registered mine/ERW casualties in seven of the nine non-state areas it covers, one less than reported last year.^{[83 ]}Between January and June 2006, casualties were recorded in 48 countries and six areas.

Compared to last year’s Landmine Monitor Report, there are seven new countries with reported casualties: Chile, Honduras, Kenya, Moldova, Morocco, Namibia and Peru. There are also seven countries dropped from last year’s list because there have been no reported mine/ERW casualties since the end of 2004 in Belarus, Cyprus, Djibouti, Ecuador, Uzbekistan, Venezuela and Zambia.

Landmine Monitor has identified another 16 countries and one area with no new landmine casualties in 2005-2006, but with casualties (130 total) caused exclusively by unexploded ordnance: Bangladesh, Belarus, Bolivia, Côte d’Ivoire, Guatemala, Hungary, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liberia, FYR Macedonia, Mongolia, Poland, Republic of Congo, Tunisia, Ukraine and Zambia, as well as Kosovo. In 11 of these, Landmine Monitor did not record casualties in 2004.

In 2005-2006, mine/ERW casualties were still occurring in every region of the world: in 17 countries and one area in sub-Saharan Africa, in 13 countries and one area in the Asia-Pacific region, in 12 countries and three areas in Europe and Central Asia, in 10 countries and two areas in the Middle East and North Africa, and in six countries in the Americas. Landmine Monitor found that 36 of the 65 countries and areas that suffered new mine casualties in 2005-2006 had not experienced any armed conflict during the research period. For all of the seven countries added to the casualty list in 2005-2006, the reason for inclusion was new casualties from previous conflicts, rather than the onset of a new conflict. However, expanded conflict in a number of countries accounted for most of the global increase in casualties in 2005, as explained below.

New Landmine and [ERW] Casualites January 2005-June 2006

Bold: States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty. Italics: Areas not internationally recognized as independent states. CAPITALS: new in 2005

Increased Casualties in 2005

Landmines continue to pose a significant, lasting and non-discriminatory threat. Landmine Monitor identified at least 7,328 new landmine/ERW casualties in calendar year 2005―721 (11 percent) more than in 2004 (6,607).^{[84 ]}It is important to remember, however, that the 7,328 figure represents only the reported casualties and does not take into account the many casualties that are believed to go unreported.^{[85 ]}In many countries, civilians are killed or injured in remote areas away from any form of assistance or means of communication; in some countries, casualties are not reported for military or political reasons. While acknowledging that it is not possible to know with absolute certainty, Landmine Monitor continues to estimate that there are between 15,000 and 20,000 new landmine/ERW casualties each year.^[86]

The vast majority (81 percent) of new landmine casualties in 2005 were civilians, as in past years. The 2005 total included at least 1,518 children (21 percent) and 347 women (5 percent).^{[87 ]}Nineteen percent of the reported casualties were identified as military personnel (1,404), a decrease from 25 percent (1,650) in 2004.^[88]

The number of reported new mine/ERW casualties has dropped significantly in some heavily affected countries (notably Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina), but continued to rise in some others (notably Colombia, Mozambique and Pakistan). The number of casualties remained fairly steady in most countries, including Afghanistan, Cambodia and Laos.

The global increase in casualties in 2005 was largely due to expanded conflict in a number of countries. In eight countries and one area experiencing conflict (Burma/Myanmar, Colombia, India, Iraq, Nepal, Pakistan, Somalia, Turkey; and Palestine) there was a combined increase in casualties totaling more than 950. Economic pressures and population movements contributed to increased casualties in countries like Lebanon, Mozambique, Syria and Uganda. In some cases, the higher number of reported casualties at least partly reflects better sources of information or improved media analysis (for example, in Algeria, Morocco, Nepal, Philippines and Russia). In a few cases, a single incident created a large increase in casualties, as in Eritrea and Yemen.

Global Human Impact of Mines/ERW in 2005

Of the total recorded casualties, 39 percent (2,833) occurred in just three countries: Afghanistan, Cambodia and Colombia. Most (58 percent) of the recorded casualties occurred in 37 States Parties, and 42 percent occurred in 28 non-States Parties or areas not recognized by the UN. Of the casualties in States Parties, 87 percent were recorded in the 24 countries identified as having significant numbers of mine survivors (the “VA 24”). Analysis of the data shows that far less is known about casualties in non-States Parties.

In 2005, the most reported casualties occurred in Colombia - 1,110 (up from 882 in 2004), Cambodia - 875 (down from 898 in 2004), Afghanistan - 848 (down from 857 in 2004), Iraq - 363 (up from 261 in 2004) and Palestine - 363 (up from 187 in 2004).

In 2005, notable increases in casualties occurred in Colombia - up 228 to 1,110, Palestine - up 176 to 363, Somalia - up 174 to 276, Iraq - up 102 to 363, and Burma - up 99 to 231.^[89]

In 2005, notable decreases in casualties were reported in Vietnam - down 126 to 112, Chechnya - down 70 to 24 (as recorded by UNICEF), Bosnia and Herzegovina - down 24 to 19, Albania - down 23 to 23 and Sri Lanka - down 18 to 38.^{[90 ]}It also appears there was a significant reduction in casualties in Angola, but full-year data for 2005 was not available by mid-2006.

In 2005-2006, an increasing number of countries have seen intensified conflict resulting in both more civilian and more military (national and foreign) mine and ERW casualties. In Chad, there were 54 casualties from January to May 2006, compared to 35 in 2005 and 32 in 2004. In Colombia, there has been a constant increase in casualties, with 526 in the first five months of 2006, 1,110 in 2005, 882 in 2004, 734 in 2003 and 627 in 2002. In Pakistan, in the first five months of 2006 at least 344 mine/ERW casualties were reported in the media, compared to 214 in all of 2005.

Not only mine-affected countries have a problem with landmines. In 2005-2006, mine/ERW casualties also included nationals from 31 countries and one area (including nine mine-free countries) who were killed or injured while abroad engaged in military conflict, demining operations, peacekeeping or other activities. The mine-free countries were France, Kazakhstan, Netherlands, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, South Africa, United Kingdom and United States. The others were Armenia, Bangladesh, Egypt, Eritrea, Georgia, India, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Mauritania, Moldova, Morocco, Peru, Philippines, Russia, South Korea, Sudan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine and Zimbabwe, as well as Palestine.

In 2005 and January-June 2006, mine accidents during clearance operations or in training exercises caused casualties in at least 29 countries and areas: Abkhazia, Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Chad, Chile, Croatia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Iran, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Peru, Serbia and Montenegro, Somaliland, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Vietnam and Yemen.

Improvised explosive devices are an increasing problem in many countries. Most IED incidents Landmine Monitor identified in 2005 and 2006 involved command-detonated or vehicle-born devices, and were therefore not included in Landmine Monitor’s casualty totals. Command-detonated devices were used extensively in Afghanistan, Iraq and India. But in some cases, IEDs exploded upon direct contact with a person, acting as de facto antipersonnel mines, and those casualties were included. However, identification of the type of IED (command-detonated or victim-activated) is often difficult, particularly when using media reports, which usually do not give enough detail on the circumstances of the explosion or accurate terminology for types of devices. In Algeria, victim-activated IEDs caused 46 of 51 casualties in 2005, the others being caused by antipersonnel mines and ERW. In Nepal, UNICEF found that from January-May 2006, 90 percent of civilian casualties were caused by IEDs, the majority of which were victim-activated.

An increasing number of casualties were attributed to people (mainly men and boys) engaging in the increasing scrap metal trade in many countries. In Vietnam, an impact survey in three provinces indicated that scrap metal collection, “bomb hunting,” and tampering accounted for at least 62 percent of casualties from 2001 to 2005. In Jordan, eight of nine casualties recorded through 18 April 2006 were from trading scrap metal. In Azerbaijan, an explosion in a metal workshop processing ordnance from former Soviet munition stores in Aghstafa killed three people and injured 23. On a positive note, in Cambodia stricter policing decreased the number of dealers selling hazardous material, resulting in fewer casualties in the first five months of 2006.

An Increasing Number of Survivors Globally

The number of new casualties each year is only a small indicator of the landmine problem, as the total number of landmine survivors having a right to assistance continues to increase. The exact number of mine survivors globally is unknown. Landmine Monitor has identified more than 264,000 mine survivors, the vast majority injured from the mid-1970s onwards. However, this figure of recorded survivors is only a starting point. It is reasonable to assume that, despite the increasing retroactive recording of survivors, a significant number of survivors have never been reported. Also, the number of recorded survivors does not include the many estimates of survivors in various countries. It does not include the new and more accurate estimate for the number of survivors in Afghanistan, of between 52,000 and 60,000, or the preliminary results of the disability database in Eritrea indicating that there are 84,000 known landmine survivors. Nor does it include longstanding estimates of 70,000 mine survivors in Angola, 30,000 in Mozambique, and 80,000 in Ukraine. While acknowledging that some country estimates may not be reliable, and that it is impossible to ascertain how many survivors are still living, a conservative estimate of survivors in the world today would be approximately 350,000 to 400,000, but could be well over 500,000.

Many countries with no new reported landmine casualties nevertheless have landmine survivors who continue to require assistance. Landmine Monitor has identified 122 countries with mine/ERW survivors, including 19 non-affected countries with nationals injured abroad in mine incidents and demining accidents. This means that almost two-thirds of the countries in the world are directly affected to some extent by the landmine/ERW problem and the issue of survivors.

Capacities and Challenges in Collecting Data

At the First Review Conference in November-December 2004, States Parties acknowledged “the value and necessity of accurate and up-to-date data on the number of new landmine casualties, the total number of survivors and their specific needs, and the extent/lack of and quality of services that exist to address their needs....”^{[91 ]}Nevertheless, comprehensive data on landmine/UXO casualties continues to be difficult to obtain, particularly in countries experiencing ongoing conflict, with minefields in remote areas, or with limited resources to monitor public health services. The sources used to identify new casualties include databases, government records, hospital records, media reports, surveys, assessments and interviews. The principal collectors of mine casualty data are mine action centers, the International Committee of the Red Cross, national Red Crescent and Red Cross societies, UNICEF, and some NGOs.

A number of mine-affected countries collect and store mine incident and casualty data using the Information Management System for Mine Action (IMSMA) or other databases. Often a lack of human and financial resources prevents prospective, proactive data collection and full operational use of databases.^{[92 ]}IMSMA was primarily set up for humanitarian mine action purposes, making it less suitable for casualty data and survivor assistance planning. Additionally, many actors have indicated that other systems are more easily adaptable to local contexts, more user-friendly and can contain more relevant survivor assistance information for planning purposes.^{[93 ]}Landmine impact surveys also give an indication of casualties in communities identified as mine-affected, but this does not indicate the number of mine survivors living outside these surveyed places, or nomadic or displaced populations. Even so, survivor assistance planners have told Landmine Monitor that LIS results have not been used to their full extent for planning purposes.

Of the 58 countries and seven areas reporting new mine casualties in 2005-2006, 40 countries and five areas reported using IMSMA or other comparable databases to record casualty data.^{[94 ]} Of those, only nine countries and one area were able to provide Landmine Monitor with complete full year data, collected in all mine-affected regions. Even in countries with a functioning data collection system, it is likely that not all mine casualties are reported.

In some countries, significant decreases in reported new casualties would appear to be the result of a decrease in capacity to undertake comprehensive data collection, such as in Angola, Burundi and Rwanda. In other cases, conflicts (as in Burma and Iraq), instability and insecurity (as in Sudan), or political reasons (as in Colombia) impede data collection and information sharing.

In other mine-affected countries, there is no formal data collection mechanism. Only limited data on landmine/UXO casualties is collected from government ministries and agencies, international agencies, NGOs, hospitals, media reports, surveys, and country campaigns of the ICBL. In many countries, there is a strong likelihood not only of significant underreporting, but also of inaccurate or duplicated data.

In 2005-2006, many countries made progress in the area of retrospective data collection by consolidating data sets, unifying separate data collection systems, reviewing existing records and revisiting survivors. In other countries, data collection was expanded to cover areas previously not monitored, or to include better statistics on less recent casualties. Additionally, many governments, NGOs, and other experts have identified better distribution of information and better integration into larger injury surveillance mechanisms as a priority area to improve; some countries tried to include more relevant survivor assistance information to enhance data for survivor assistance program planning purposes.

• Albania: In 2005, incident and needs assessment reports were compiled for previously unknown casualties in the “hotspots” from the 1997 uprising in order to improve planning. Survivor assistance planning and identification of beneficiaries are based on analysis of continuous data collection, including detailed information on the needs and status of beneficiaries. Socioeconomic reintegration projects are registered in IMSMA to measure progress and make comparisons with original impact surveys possible.
• Bosnia and Herzegovina: In 2006, full control of an integrated mine/UXO casualty database was passed to the BiH Mine Action Center (BHMAC) in an effort to avoid overlap. All survivors in the database will be visited and BHMAC will provide periodic updates to partners for better planning and coordination of survivor assistance and other mine action programs.
• Cambodia: In the Cambodia Mine/UXO Victim Information System, a subgroup of data collection and victim assistance actors was formed in December 2005 to address the lack of information on survivors’ progress through rehabilitation and other services.
• Eritrea: The National Survey of People with Disabilities was completed in 2005, establishing the first national database for people with disabilities, including mine survivors; the database has detailed psychological and social indicators.
• Ethiopia: In 2005-2006, casualty data was not collected because of a lack of political will, coordination, a clearly defined mandate and division of tasks between the federal and local level; implementing partners do not have free access to information in IMSMA.
• Pakistan: A mine/UXO database with results from a household survey in Kurram Agency has been set up to facilitate interventions in the future.

Collecting Information on Benificiaries

Collecting and sharing accurate information on the number of people assisted, and the people on waiting lists in relation to the total number of mine survivors and other people with disabilities, is crucial for planning purposes. Many facilities have been asked to report on how many people were assisted in the previous year, and how many were landmine survivors. Landmine Monitor was not always able to get this information and some facilities do not keep records on the cause of injury, as all people with disabilities are treated equally. Some facilities reported not having the capacity to record any form of data. In many cases, data is not collected in a systematic or centralized way so that it can be verified, aggregated and effectively analyzed for planning purposes. Some organizations do not count the number of beneficiaries, but count the number of sessions provided; others do not record the number of new patients, or do not include sufficient patient information to give an indication of the reach of the program, changes in patient profile, or changes in the scope of the problem. Improved information sharing would also reduce duplication of services and gaps in existing services, and improve referral systems. Nevertheless, while acknowledging that the data is far from complete, it does give an indication of where additional attention may be needed.

Progress in Casualtiy and Survivor Assistance in 2005^[95]

Addressing the Needs of Survivors

While there has been progress, existing programs are far from meeting the needs of landmine survivors. Survivors continue to face many of the same problems as in previous years. Survivors and other people with disabilities are still among the most impoverished groups in every society and often do not have access to some of the most basic needs: food security, clean water, adequate housing, a means to earn an income, affordable healthcare, rehabilitation, education or transportation services, let alone counseling services and equal rights. Additionally, many local and international NGOs report that a lack of funding, especially long-term funding, is limiting their operations and the sustainability of their programs.

The Mine Ban Treaty requires, in Article 6, Paragraph 3, that “Each State in a position to do so shall provide assistance for the care and rehabilitation, and social and economic reintegration, of mine victims....” Many mine survivors are benefiting from the increased attention given to the issue of victim assistance by States Parties and others. States Parties have agreed to promote a comprehensive integrated approach to victim assistance that rests on a three-tiered definition of a landmine victim. This means that a “mine victim” includes directly affected individuals, their families, and mine-affected communities. Consequently, victim assistance is viewed as a wide range of activities that benefit individuals, families and communities.^{[96 ]}

Furthermore, States Parties have recognized that mine survivors are part of a larger community of people with injuries and disabilities, and that victim assistance efforts should not exclude this larger group because “the impetus provided by the Convention enhanced the well-being of not only landmine victims but also all other people with war-related injuries and people with disabilities.”^{[97 ]}States Parties have also recognized that assistance to mine survivors must be considered in the broader context of development and underdevelopment. They have agreed that mine victim assistance should be integrated into poverty reduction strategies and long-term development plans to ensure sustainability and to avoid unnecessary segregation of survivors.

Capacities and Challenges in Providing Assistance

Landmine Monitor has found that in at least 49 of the 58 countries with new mine casualties in 2005-2006, and in six areas, one or more aspects of survivor assistance are reportedly inadequate to meet the needs of mine survivors and other people with disabilities. Landmine Monitor research indicated five main clusters of challenges impeding effective assistance in 2005-2006: accessibility, variety and efficiency of services provided, capacity, rights implementation, and financial resources.

• Access to care: Most healthcare, rehabilitation and socioeconomic reintegration services are located in urban centers, and are often long distances away from the mine-affected rural areas where the majority of mine survivors live. Community-based rehabilitation programs remain limited. Access to services is further hampered by the lack of transportation, including emergency transport, insufficient awareness of available services, the non-existence or deficiency of referral systems and bureaucratic obstacles for certain groups of people to obtain certain services. Whereas emergency care is mostly free of charge, continuing medical care, rehabilitation, counseling and socioeconomic services are not always free, especially not for the uninsured. Even if the services are free, transport, accommodation and food usually are not. Economic constraints often prevent people from leaving their homes for needed care.
• Variety and effectiveness of assistance: The majority of resources continue to be directed toward medical care and the provision of orthopedic appliances. Although there are vocational training programs, this training does not necessarily lead to employment or a sustainable income. These programs do not always meet market demand, and there may not be job placement services or sufficient follow-up for income generation projects. Additionally, people with disabilities are often not eligible for regular vocational training or micro-credit schemes. Special or inclusive education remains limited, as does the capacity of teachers to deal with children with special needs. In 2005-2006, psychosocial support remained limited due to social stigma and lack of knowledge of the beneficial effects. Few formal counseling services exist, making peer support groups and family networks the main support systems. Despite calls for integrated rehabilitation, many actors focus on just one part of survivor assistance and referral systems remain weak.
• Capacity: Infrastructure and human resources capacity remain key problematic issues. Many health, rehabilitation and reintegration facilities need upgrades and new equipment, and many have difficulties maintaining sufficient supplies. The greater part of the physical rehabilitation sector remains dependent on international support due to the high cost of materials. Specialized staff need ongoing technical and management training for sustainability of projects, as do local associations of people with disabilities. Building capacity at government level and coordination between stakeholders, including local, national and international agencies, remain priority challenges.
• Rights implementation: Many countries have general or specific legislation addressing discrimination against people with disabilities, but implementation remains weak. Several countries have introduced employment quotas for people with disabilities and fines for non-compliance, but these have rarely been enforced. Unemployment among people with disabilities remains high. Compensation for mine survivors, people with disabilities and disabled ex-combatants continues to be inadequate in many cases; in this reporting period, some countries have reduced benefits. Military personnel continue to receive higher compensation than civilians. Indigenous groups, nomadic people, refugees or internally displaced people still have less access to their rights, often because they cannot produce the necessary supporting documents.
• Financial resources: In 2005, donor financial support for victim assistance programs increased, but victim assistance remains the smallest component of mine action funding. Long-term funding to ensure sustainability of programs is difficult to obtain. National entities (both governmental and non-governmental) are only slowly increasing their contributions to internationally supported projects, and national entities often lack the financial resources to continue programs after international organizations have withdrawn.
• Other factors: Ongoing conflict, and consequent security concerns, severely limit the ability to provide assistance to landmine survivors in some countries. Entire groups of a population are excluded from assistance in some cases. Other emerging priorities for governments and non-governmental assistance providers, such as HIV/AIDS, also have an impact.

Victim Assistance and Mine Ban Treaty Implementation

The Mine Ban Treaty is the first multilateral disarmament treaty to call upon states to take responsibility in assisting victims of a particular type of weapon. In meetings of the Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and Socio-Economic Reintegration (SC-VA), governments, survivors, ICRC, ICBL and other NGOs work closely to advance victim assistance understanding and implementation. Since December 2005, Afghanistan and Switzerland have served as co-chairs of the SC-VA and Sudan and Austria have served as co-rapporteurs (they are expected to become co-chairs in September 2006).

At the First Review Conference in November-December 2004, States Parties agreed on 11 concrete actions to encourage allocation of sufficient efforts and resources to facilitate the full rehabilitation, reintegration and participation of mine/UXO survivors and other people with disabilities. Within this framework, 24 States Parties were identified as having significant numbers of mine survivors, and the “the greatest responsibility to act, but also the greatest needs and expectations for assistance” in providing adequate services for the care, rehabilitation and reintegration of survivors.^{[98 ]}Without neglecting other States Parties or states not party to the Mine Ban Treaty, these countries, the VA 24, are receiving more focused support for the period 2005-2009.

In early 2005, a questionnaire was developed to assist the VA 24 in developing a victim assistance action plan by answering four key questions: what is the situation in 2005 in each of the six main thematic areas of victim assistance;^{[99 ]}what are the SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound) objectives to be attained in each of these areas by 2009;^{[100 ]}what are the plans to achieve these objectives by 2009; and what means are available or required to implement these plans. In 2006, the SC-VA co-chairs acknowledged that “the questionnaire was not an end-product but rather an initial step in a long-term planning and implementation process.” Two regional workshops were organized in the Americas and in Africa to allow the relevant states to share experiences and develop their answers to the questionnaire.

At the Sixth Meeting of States Parties in Zagreb in November-December 2005, the VA 24 were to present information on the current status of survivor assistance and their objectives for the period to 2009, as a first step to turn objectives into concrete action plans. This information was included in a detailed annex to the Zagreb Progress Report that emerged from the Sixth Meeting of States Parties. However, the varying quality of responses and capacities to respond to the first two questions of the questionnaire made clear that the process could not proceed at the same pace for all 24 States Parties. Two countries did not submit a description of their current status nor objectives (Burundi and Chad). Several countries did not provide a complete overview of their status (Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, and Serbia and Montenegro). Several countries did not provide complete objectives (Colombia, Croatia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, and Serbia and Montenegro). Most countries did not provide SMART objectives (Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Colombia, DR Congo, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Peru, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sudan, Tajikistan and Thailand).

Nevertheless, the questionnaire was useful as a starting point to create some sense of national ownership, as a benchmark for progress and as an indication of priorities to be achieved. The ICBL has identified non-signatories to the treaty that could especially benefit from using the questionnaire, including Azerbaijan, Georgia, India, Iraq, Laos, Lebanon, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Vietnam.

With funding provided by Switzerland, the treaty’s Implementation Support Unit employed a Victim Assistance Specialist to provide support to the VA 24 in developing SMART objectives and action plans. This included country visits; one-on-one meetings with officials from relevant ministries to raise awareness and to stimulate interministerial coordination; communication with relevant international and other organizations regarding victim assistance efforts; and interministerial workshops to bring together relevant actors to discuss and consolidate objectives and plans.^{[101 ]}

At the May 2006 SC-VA meeting, Chad presented some of its 2005-2009 objectives; Afghanistan, DR Congo, and Serbia and Montenegro presented refined objectives; Tajikistan presented revised objectives and a plan of action agreed by relevant ministries; Albania presented an improved plan of action and progress achieved as of May 2006. Nine other VA 24 countries made general progress statements. Only 10 delegations included a victim assistance specialist (Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Colombia, DR Congo, Guinea-Bissau, Peru, Serbia and Montenegro, Sudan and Uganda)^{[102 ]}and only three delegations included a survivor or person with a disability (Afghanistan, Croatia and Uganda). Eight countries did not engage in the process: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Cambodia, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Mozambique and Senegal.

The ICBL’s Working Group on Victim Assistance (including mine survivors from various countries, national campaigns, Handicap International, Landmine Survivors Network and the Landmine Monitor thematic research coordinator on victim assistance) participated actively in the May 2006 SC-VA meeting. It presented a document aimed at increasing the level of knowledge on survivor assistance, Landmine Victim Assistance in 2005: Overview of the Situation in 24 States Parties, which was produced by Standing Tall Australia and Handicap International with funding from Australia. Survivors from El Salvador and Afghanistan made a statement urging States Parties to implement their victim assistance obligations and accurately represent the extent of the problem and the challenges faced rather than presenting a picture of a “survivor paradise.” The ICBL reaffirmed its commitment to provide a reality-check, to avoid the risk of the victim assistance efforts creating a “paper paradise.”

As of 12 July 2006, a total of 38 States Parties had submitted a voluntary Form J with their 2006 Article 7 reports to report on victim assistance activities or mine action funding. This included 22 mine-affected States Parties and 16 non-affected States Parties.^[103]

Based on a variety of factors, Landmine Monitor perceives that in 2005-2006, the most progress has been made on victim assistance in Afghanistan, Albania, Eritrea, Guinea-Bissau, Tajikistan and Uganda. The least progress has been made in Angola, Burundi, Cambodia, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Serbia and Montenegro, and Thailand.^[104]

Coordination and Integration for Sustainable Victim Assistance

Coordination and National Ownership

Each state with landmine survivors and other mine victims has the responsibility to ensure the well-being of this group as part of the larger population. In many mine/UXO affected countries this is done with the support of the international community, in implementing, advisory and funding roles. However, the ICBL urges states to see these services for what they are, temporary provisions until the national infrastructure can meet these needs. Therefore, close cooperation and coordination between national authorities, national and international partners, is necessary to ensure a better use of limited resources, prevent duplication of services, and decrease the gaps in services. States Parties and experts also prioritized this process as an area of work in 2006. This coordination responsibility ideally lies with the relevant line ministries in the form of interministerial committees or inter-sectoral task forces, which assess the needs and relevant existing activities, develop objectives and national plans and identify resources. The recent VA 24 process concerning the questionnaire has shown that dialogue within and between national and international stakeholders and government and non-governmental partners is flawed: objectives were sometimes written by one key player, an expatriate working in a mine action center, external consultants, or within one ministry, without consulting relevant colleagues, national and international NGOs, national campaigns or experts in the disability sector. In some countries, relevant actors were interviewed but were not able to provide input to the final result. In other countries, key assistance providers are not aware of the Nairobi Action Plan, other survivor assistance strategies or disability initiatives.

To be sustainable, survivor assistance programs must be integrated into the general national health and social network, whereby a feeling of national ownership, responsibility, accountability and gradual nationalization of programs both financially and in terms of implementation is stimulated. International organizations and NGOs can play an important role in the capacity-building of government officers and staff in several countries.

• Afghanistan: in 2005-2006, a disability task force, an NGO coordination unit and a national capacity-building program were established to integrate and coordinate disability services, create national ownership and include relevant actors in decision-making processes so that relevant ministries can gradually take over responsibilities.
• Angola: nationalization of the physical rehabilitation sector is hampered by a lack of government technical, managerial and financial capacity.
• Iraq: in mid-2005, several NGO-run rehabilitation and medical programs were handed over to the Ministry of Health in northern Iraq, which also developed cost and responsibility sharing strategies with the Ministry of Social Affairs to ensure future sustainability.
• Somalia: to reduce dependency on external funding and to create local ownership, a cost-sharing model has been introduced in several rehabilitation centers and referral hospitals, which is used to buy equipment and to facilitate travel and accommodations for patients.

Survivor Inclusion and Consultation

Action #38 of the Nairobi Action Plan that emerged from the First Review Conference states that States Parties need to “ensure the effective integration of mine victims in the work of the Convention.” At the national level, assessing the needs of survivors by consulting them directly is an important planning tool to increase efficiency of services. In 2005-2006, many survivors and their organizations continued to indicate that they were not included in planning and policy-making processes, and that they were not consulted on what they perceive as gaps. Only two mine survivors were part of government delegations at the Standing Committee meetings in May 2006. The ICBL delegation at the Sixth Meeting of States Parties included 23 survivors and at least 10 survivors were present at the Standing Committee meetings.

• Azerbaijan: in 2005, monthly information sharing meetings with relevant ministries, NGOs, ICRC and UN were started to increase the effectiveness of victim assistance. The first project completely managed by the national victim assistance program was funded.
• Bosnia and Herzegovina: in 2005, a user satisfaction survey was conducted to provide feedback to prosthetic centers and relevant governmental bodies, and to highlight the issue of the quality of prosthetic services and devices.
• Croatia: several survivors worked in the mine action center and with mine action operators as data entry, MRE or monitoring staff.
• El Salvador: survivor organizations, assistance providers and mine survivors were not included in discussions on the national victim assistance plan.
• Guinea-Bissau: survivors were revisited with the support of local NGOs and the World Health Organization to complete information in the mine/UXO casualty database; as a result, several medical and rehabilitation treatments were conducted in 2006.

Integration with Other Mine Action, Development, and Disability Programs

Victim assistance cannot be separated from a country’s health, social, economic, education and cultural policies and existing infrastructure and services. Assistance also needs to be seen within the larger context of a country’s development, reconstruction and mine action. In 2005-2006, a number of countries linked victim assistance programs to Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, reconstruction efforts, development of the health sector, mine action coordination, millennium goals, and disability legislation. In 2006, the VA 24 were asked to provide information on how victim assistance plans were integrated into broader care, legislative, and policy frameworks.

• Albania: victim assistance connects to other pillars of mine action, and to national disability and regional community development strategies, all driven by the needs of survivors and mine-affected communities, and with active survivor participation; the victim assistance program is also linked to national and local government activities to ensure sustainability.
• Cambodia: several NGOs have taken a “development approach” to survivor assistance, whereby (after mine clearance) they assist mine survivors and other members of the community by providing land, roads, wells, schools, healthcare facilities and income-generating assistance.
• Mozambique: disabled people’s organizations advocated for the inclusion of specific actions in favor of people with disabilities in the Poverty Reduction Strategy Program 2006-2009; as a result the program set specific targets in terms of people assisted, capacity to provide services, and awareness-raising.
• Serbia and Montenegro: ICRC completed the transfer of its basic health services pilot project to the Ministry of Health; the project inspired national primary healthcare reform and replication elsewhere in Serbia.
• Uganda: victim assistance is linked to the issue of internally displaced people; disability is included in Uganda’s Poverty Eradication Programme; the casualty database will include indicators to monitor the situation of mine/UXO survivors in relation to the Millennium Development Goals; the Office of the Prime Minister prepared a draft bill to legislate mine action, including a victim assistance component.

Progress in Survivor Assistance

As in past editions, Landmine Monitor Report 2006 provides information on the facilities that have been identified as assisting landmine survivors and other people with disabilities in mine-affected countries. It is not exhaustive, as information on the activities of some local and international NGOs and governmental agencies is sometimes difficult to obtain. Landmine Monitor would welcome more input from governmental agencies and NGOs on their survivor assistance activities for future editions of this report. Nevertheless, Landmine Monitor identified certain indications of the progress and problems faced in addressing the needs of mine survivors.

Emergency and Continuing Medical Care

Emergency and continuing medical care includes first aid and management of injuries in the immediate aftermath of a landmine explosion, surgery, pain management, acute hospital care, and the ongoing medical care needed for the physical recovery of the mine survivor.

In this reporting period, as in the past, emergency assistance was delayed in many instances because so many mine incidents occurred in remote, rural areas without adequate emergency transport and with facilities that could only provide first aid. The main obstacle impeding access to continuing medical care for many survivors is the lack of financial resources to afford services, exacerbated by lack of awareness, long distances, transport and accommodation costs, and documentation issues. Several mine-affected countries also have difficulties providing adequate assistance due to the lack of trained specialized staff, equipment and supplies.

• International Committee of the Red Cross assisted more than 6,300 weapon-injured patients in hospitals in 18 countries in 2005. Approximately 5 percent were identified as mine casualties. In Afghanistan alone, ICRC-supported hospitals surgically treated 2,241 war-injured, including 250 mine casualties.
• Emergency, the Italian NGO, operates hospitals and health centers in three countries (Afghanistan, Cambodia, and Iraq until May 2005) which performed at least 2,567 operations on war-injured in 2005 and provided medical treatment for 3,711 more; at least 1,154 new mine/UXO survivors were treated and an additional 491 mine survivors received follow-up treatment.
• Burundi: cost recovery schemes limited access to services for poor people; it is estimated that a majority of people go into debt or sell assets to pay for medical services.
• Chechnya: ICRC facilitated specialized war surgery training for 23 surgeons and facilitated specialized courses for 46 other doctors from the northern Caucasus.
• DR Congo: it generally takes more than 12 hours to reach a health center, up to 24 hours before being seen by a professional, and at least 48 hours before emergency surgery and amputations are performed.
• Ethiopia: only an estimated 10 percent of mine casualties have access to basic healthcare and rehabilitation; access to complex post-trauma care is even lower as the country only has two orthopedic surgeons.
• Iran: the Iranian Mine Victim Resource Center, the only NGO with the capacity and technology to provide pre-medical care and first aid training in the mine-affected Ilam province, lost international funding and ceased operations as of March 2006.
• Mozambique: hospitals treated 1,038 people registered as disabled in 2005; 397 disabled people were newly registered, 106 had been registered before and 535 were outpatients.
• Sudan/Kenya: on 31 May 2006, ICRC closed its Lopiding war hospital in Lokichokio, Kenya, which assisted mainly southern Sudanese people, who will now be treated in Juba (Sudan).

Physical Rehabilitation

Physical rehabilitation includes the provision of services for rehabilitation, physiotherapy and the supply of prosthetics/orthotics and assistive devices. Rehabilitation centers for the most part are located in urban areas far from patients who need them. For many people services are not affordable.

In Ethiopia, there are approximately 360,000 people in need of physical rehabilitation, yet in 2005 Landmine Monitor recorded only some 23,000 people receiving services, including 1,321 mine survivors. In Afghanistan, there are between 747,500 and 867,100 people with disabilities, including 52,000-60,000 mine survivors, while in 2005 Landmine Monitor recorded 113,340 people receiving physical rehabilitation, including at least 3,946 mine survivors. In North Korea, there are an estimated 64,000 amputees, yet in 2005 only 1,219 people were recorded as receiving rehabilitation services, including 10 mine survivors.

In 2005, ICRC supported prosthetics and orthotics training for 36 technicians from 10 countries and trained at least 51 more technicians in its national operations in three countries.

• Chad: a three-year national physiotherapy training program in Moundou is in the final development stages.
• Ethiopia: in August 2005, the Dessie Regional Rehabilitation Center moved to a location more accessible to people with disabilities and improved its infrastructure, leading to an increase in people assisted.
• North Korea: In May 2006, ICRC finished installing the newly constructed Rakrang center in Pyongyang, operated in cooperation with the Ministry of Defense to treat disabled military personnel.
• Rwanda: the Ministry of Health received support from a coordinator for physical disability to improve existing rehabilitation services; a survey on physical disability was conducted to facilitate the planning of services according to needs.
• Tajikistan: the government increased its budget for the operating costs of the National Ortho Center and coordinated an outreach program providing transportation and accommodation during treatment, and follow-up for amputees from remote areas.
• Lebanon: after the first prosthesis, provided free of charge, patients cannot get free repairs or replacements for two years, which is especially problematic for children.
• Yemen: nationalization of the Aden rehabilitation center on 31 December 2005 resulted in decreased staff salaries and shortages in raw materials by June 2006.

Supply of Prdthetics/Orthotics/Assistive Devices

In 2005, ICRC assisted approximately 140,000 people in 72 projects in 18 countries, producing 20,543 prostheses and 25,914 orthoses, and providing 1,979 wheelchairs and 19,446 pairs of crutches. Fifty-two percent of prostheses produced were for mine survivors. ICRC-supported centers produced 5,097 prostheses (2,218 for mine survivors), 4,282 orthoses, 7,349 pairs of crutches and 190 wheelchairs in Africa; 10,388 prostheses (6,862 for survivors), 11,553 orthoses, 9,064 pairs of crutches and 1,567 wheelchairs in Asia; and 3,199 prostheses (1,066 for survivors), 6,974 orthoses and 541 pairs of crutches in the Middle East and North Africa in 2005.

In 2005, Handicap International-supported projects in 12 countries produced 3,300 prostheses, 5,150 orthoses, 6,885 pairs of crutches, 876 wheelchairs and 2,785 other mobility devices.

Psychosocial Support and Social Reintegration

Psychological support and social reintegration includes activities that assist mine survivors and the families of those killed or injured to overcome the psychological trauma of a landmine explosion and promote their social well-being. These activities include community-based peer support groups, associations for the disabled, sporting and related activities, and professional counseling. This component of victim assistance remains the smallest and least appreciated, although several VA 24 countries indicated they will start assessing the needs in this field and develop support programs. In many countries, counseling is left to the family support network and there is a stigma attached to seeking professional psychological help. In some countries counseling is available through general war victim support, often targeting children. Social reintegration is hindered by the lack of understanding among the general population of the rights, needs and capacities of people with disabilities.

In 2005-2006, more organizations included sports activities in their programs, increasingly recognizing the value of sports both for health reasons and psychosocial reasons.

Inclusive education is becoming better known as a concept, but few countries have teachers trained in dealing with children with special needs.

• Angola: in 2005, the Rehabilitation through Sport Program provided training to physiotherapists, sports trainers and people with disabilities on the use of sports activities as a tool for rehabilitation.
• Kosovo: 24 young landmine survivors participated in a summer camp, where they were encouraged to talk about their incidents and how they cope.
• Nicaragua: psychological support and social reintegration are available in Managua, but the economic situation does not allow for services in the rest of the country.
• Peru: psychosocial support is available, but not free of charge, and financial support to assist civilian mine survivors facing post-traumatic stress issues is not available.
• Senegal: children disabled by mines can receive financial support to go to school, like other disabled children; Handicap International facilitates the integration of disabled children in classes as teachers are not trained in inclusive education.
• Sri Lanka: UNICEF supported psychosocial rehabilitation and trained counselors about the needs of people with disabilities.
• Sudan: in 2005, a psychological support curriculum and manual for use by social workers, rehabilitation staff and in hospitals was developed.

Economic Reintegration

Economic reintegration programs improve the economic status of mine survivors and other people with disabilities and raise awareness so that people with disabilities get equal chances at jobs and services. Economic reintegration includes education, vocational training, creation of employment opportunities, micro-credit schemes, and development of community infrastructure to reflect the local economic reality. For many mine survivors, taking up their roles as productive community members and working for their families’ well-being is the most important part of integral rehabilitation. However, they face challenges accessing employment opportunities and experience difficulties in maintaining a reasonable standard of living. The chances of socioeconomic reintegration are often further diminished by negative social perceptions, discrimination and stereotyping.

Where vocational training programs are available, they are not always geared towards people with disabilities, or free of charge. Training does not necessarily lead to employment and sustainable income: there is discrimination when accessing credit schemes or regular employment; training does not always meet market demand; and there is often insufficient follow-up for self-employed people. Moreover, it is important to open up economic reintegration programs to family members, and in particular to wives, widows and women alone. Women are often the primary care-giver, or become the principal income-earner, when their partner is killed or injured.

• Bosnia and Herzegovina: in 2005, the national Red Cross Society started a project creating employment and income-generating opportunities for survivors and their families, by providing training, micro-credits and job placements.
• Cambodia: the National Center for Disabled People has a disabled workers database, primarily for urban disabled seeking work; however, out of 1,500 people registered, only 125 are placed each year.
• Lebanon: at least 432 of the 2,239 recorded mine/UXO survivors received direct socioeconomic assistance in 2005, not including at least 350 mine survivors receiving socioeconomic follow-up. An assessment of income-generating projects for survivors was undertaken; 25 percent needed further financial assistance or better training.
• Morocco: results of a disability census released in December 2005 concluded that only 12 percent of disabled people, aged 15 to 60 years and capable of working, were employed.
• Senegal: vocational training is available in mine-affected areas, but not accessible for mine survivors because it is not free of charge. Mine survivors rarely resume their former employment and are often refused access to credit by the banks.
• Tajikistan: two national income generation projects for people with disabilities were discontinued at the end of 2005 due to a lack of funding.
• Thailand: in October 2005, the government started a pilot project, through which Social Development and Human Security Offices in provinces employed people with disabilities on a one-year contract basis.

Community-Based Rehabilitation Programs

Community-based rehabilitation (CBR) and outreach programs are designed to supplement facility-based rehabilitation in order to improve service delivery, provide equal opportunities and protect human rights for a larger group of people with disabilities who have limited access to services due to high costs, uneven distribution of services and small numbers of rehabilitation staff. CBR integrates actions for all domains of survivor assistance with survivors’ and disabled people’s participation using realistic and sustainable resources. CBR programs and outreach workers aim at empowering people with disabilities and integrating them into society, via development of disabled people’s organizations, increased community decision-making and accountability; skills training in self-care principles; needs-based programming; and identifying local skills and technologies. CBR also plays a role in improving coordination with and referral to other services, which are unavailable in the community and of which the community might be unaware.

• Bosnia and Herzegovina: many mine survivors start rehabilitation in the hospital and continue their rehabilitation in one of the community-based rehabilitation centers, which also provide psychosocial support.
• Cambodia: in June 2006, the government and Disability Action Council proposed a nationwide project to establish sustainable national community-based physical rehabilitation, standardize disability awareness-raising materials and activities, and develop mechanisms for monitoring, coordinating and exchanging information.
• Eritrea: the CBR program has trained community members in basic counseling, peer-to-peer support, mobility, physiotherapy, referrals and reporting and administering various aspects of disability support; and includes income generation, sustainable livelihood and attitude changing programs. Affirmative action in the CBR areas results in people with disabilities sometimes getting preference in employment over a person without disability.

Disability Policy and Practice

States Parties have recognized the need for legislation and actions “that promote effective treatment, care and protection of all disabled citizens.”^{[105 ]}Landmine survivor assistance, as with assistance for all people with disabilities, is more than just a medical and rehabilitation issue; it is also a human rights issue. Landmine Monitor has identified over 50 mine-affected countries or areas with legislation or measures explicitly protecting the rights of people with disabilities; in other countries people with disabilities are protected by common law. However, in many instances these laws are not fully implemented or enforced.

• Algeria: as of May 2006, draft decrees assess financial penalties on businesses and organizations failing to provide employment for people with disabilities and stipulate criteria for free public transport, reduced costs for property rental and social housing.
• Croatia: in December 2005, the Law on Humanitarian Demining was passed which lists and defines the rights of deminers, their relatives and other participants in demining who are injured or unable to work after their injuries.
• India: in 2006, a review of the People with Disabilities bill was started; the National Policy for People with Disabilities was presented, recognizing that people with disabilities are a valuable human resource deserving full participation in society.
• Sri Lanka: in February 2006, the Human Rights Commission conducted a National Conference on Disability Rights establishing specific commitments and activities toward the implementation of the National Policy on Disability.
• Tajikistan: in 2005, the government allocated more than $30,000 for pensions for mine survivors or the families of those killed in a mine explosion, and the minimum pension was raised.
• Uganda: in February 2006, two members of parliament who had been elected as part of the special interest group of representatives of people with disabilities stood on the ordinary ballot and were elected on their own political party merits.

Other International Developments

Negotiations on the draft text of the Comprehensive and Integral Convention on Protection and Promotion of Human Rights and Dignity of People with Disabilities were scheduled to be completed in August 2006. In December 2005, the General Assembly of the UN adopted a resolution calling upon states to participate constructively to have the text ready for submission at the 61st session of the UN General Assembly starting in September 2006.  The adoption and implementation of the Convention would require inclusion of disability issues into mainstream policy agendas, commitment of resources, awareness-raising, capacity-building, comprehensive data collection, implementation of services and programs, and establishment of an independent monitoring body.

From 28 August to 3 September 2005, Raising the Voices East Africa, in Kampala, Uganda provided advocacy training to 10 participants from Eritrea, Rwanda, Sudan and Uganda. In May 2006 in Geneva, Landmine Survivors Network initiated its Widening the Voices training program for graduates of its Raising the Voices program aimed at improving their advocacy skills so they can engage at local, regional and international levels, and helping them implement sustainable initiatives for survivors and other people with disabilities.

[81] Sheree Bailey, Victim Assistance Specialist, GICHD, “Developing SMART objectives and a national plan of action – the role of inter-ministerial coordination,” Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and Socio-Economic Reintegration, Geneva, 9 May 2006.

[82] For the purposes of Landmine Monitor research, casualties include the individuals killed or injured as a result of an incident involving antipersonnel mines, antivehicle mines, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), cluster munitions and other unexploded ordnance (UXO). When it was clear that a device was command-detonated, these incidents were excluded. In the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, all casualties identified as IED casualties were excluded from the totals as they appeared to be command-detonated incidents. From the information available in many countries, it is not always possible to determine with certainty the type of weapon that caused the incident. Where this level of detail is available, information is included in the country report.

[83] These include Abkhazia, Chechnya, Nagorno-Karabakh, Palestine, Somaliland, Taiwan and Western Sahara.

[84] Landmine Monitor reported 6,521 casualties for the year 2004 in Landmine Monitor Report 2005, but due to the ongoing nature of data collection, additional casualties occurring in 2004 have been registered in several countries, including Colombia, DR Congo and Sudan.

[85] Moreover, even the number of reported new casualties should be viewed as a minimum, as many heavily mine-affected countries were not able to provide statistics for the full year or for the whole country. Some reports refer to several people killed or injured without giving a specific figure; these reports and any with “estimates” are not included in the total.

[86] There are some indications that this estimate should be revised and reduced, but at this point there is insufficient country data on which to base a new estimate.

[87] The figures for mine casualties involving women and children should also be viewed as a minimum; the gender and age of casualties is often not identified; the gender and age of 2,450 casualties unknown.

[88] In mine-affected countries where the media is the main source of information, reported casualties are predominantly military. In Colombia, for example, where a data collection mechanism has been established and the country is experiencing armed conflict, 69 percent of 1,110 recorded casualties in 2005 were military personnel. Reported mine/UXO casualties in Colombia account for 15 percent of casualties recorded by Landmine Monitor in 2005. Therefore, the high percentage of military casualties in Colombia impacts on the overall global percentage of military to civilian casualties. In contrast, in Cambodia, a country at peace, only one percent of 898 casualties were military.

[89] Landmine Monitor recorded 305 casualties in Russia in 2005 compared to just six in 2004, but this increase is primarily due to more extensive research in Russian-language sources.

[90] Landmine Monitor also recorded far fewer casualties in Burundi and Georgia in 2005 than 2004, but further review indicates the 2004 data was not accurate.

[91] Final Report of the First Review Conference, APLC/CONF/2004/5, 9 February 2005, p. 29.

[92] Most database management systems only have the capacity to record casualties reported to them, but not to actively identify casualties in mine-affected areas.

[93] Survivor assistance planners and providers in Afghanistan, Laos, and elsewhere have also noted this to Landmine Monitor, and have cited other systems such as CMVIS in Cambodia, INSEC in Nepal, IHSCO in Iraq, and Epi.info systems.

[94] This compares with 33 countries and six areas reported in Landmine Monitor Report 2005.

[95] “Incomplete Data Collection” means the system does not cover all mine-affected areas or does not allow analysis, or relevant actors have stated data is incomplete for other reasons. “Data Management System” includes IMSMA and all other types of formal data collection, but not media analysis. “Adequate Assistance” does not mean everyone is served or the system is perfect; assistance is considered inadequate if relevant actors state it is, or if it is clear that the services do not meet the needs of people with disabilities in general. “Disability Law” indicates whether there are specific laws, not whether they are enforced, which is mostly not the case. “Form J” indicates the presence of victim assistance information in Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 voluntary Form J; it does not reflect the quantity or quality of the information. There were 98 casualties in 2004 that do not appear on this chart because they occurred in the seven states that were dropped from Landmine Monitor’s list this year due to no casualties in 2005 or 2006, but they are included in the total casualty figure for 2004.  For reasons of comparison, in the case of Chechnya, UNICEF data were used, whereas in the total casualties in 2004 the results of Landmine Monitor media analysis in Chechnya were also included.

[96 ] Final Report of the First Review Conference, APLC/CONF/2004/5, 9 February 2005, p. 27.

[97] Final Report of the First Review Conference, APLC/CONF/2004/5, 9 February 2005, p. 27. Landmine Monitor provides information on facilities available to people with disabilities regardless of the cause of disability and where possible identifies the number of mine survivors accessing these services.

[98] The VA 24 are: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, Colombia, Croatia, Democratic Republic of Congo, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Peru, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sudan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Uganda and Yemen. Final Report of the First Review Conference, APLC/CONF/2004/5, 9 February 2005, p. 33.

[99] These thematic areas are: data collection, emergency and continuing medical care, physical rehabilitation, psychosocial support, economic reintegration, and laws and public policies.

[100] Specific: quantifiable change compared to current situation; Measurable: system to measure progress in place; Achievable: can be met by 2009 with a reasonable amount of effort; Relevant: constitute important improvement of current situation; and Time-bound: no later than 2009.

[101] GICHD, “Process Support provided by the Implementation Support Unit of the GICHD to States Parties to the AP Mine Ban Convention that have reported the responsibility for significant numbers of landmine survivors,” 8 February 2006, pp. 2-3.

[102] A victim assistance specialist for Burundi was included in the List of Participants of the Standing Committee Meetings, but Landmine Monitor could not verify this person’s presence.

[103] Mine-affected: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Cambodia, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, DR Congo, Ecuador, Mozambique, Peru, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sudan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, Yemen (used Form I) and Zimbabwe. Non-mine affected: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain and Sweden. At least 11 other countries used Form J to report on matters other than victim assistance and funding, including: Argentina, Republic of Congo, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Greece, Malawi, Nigeria, Poland, Rwanda and Slovakia.

[104] This reflects an overview of total progress (or the lack thereof) in the field of victim assistance, not an evaluation of specific activities, based on the information Landmine Monitor has been able to obtain. Landmine Monitor considered the following indicators: number of mine/UXO casualties; improved existing projects or newly implemented projects in the areas of data collection, medical care coverage, rehabilitation, socioeconomic reintegration, and psychosocial services; improved implementation of disability rights; increased national coordination and capacity; and quality of progress reporting and participation in treaty forums (including survivor participation) between May 2005 and May 2006. Specific information can be found in the country reports in Landmine Monitor Report 2006.

[105] Final Report of the First Review Conference, APLC/CONF/2004/5, 9 February 2005, pp. 31-32.