Uganda

Mine Ban Policy

The Republic of Uganda signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 3 December 1997 and ratified it on 25 February 1999, becoming a State Party on 1 August 1999. National implementation legislation has reportedly been under development for six years, but as of June 2008 had still not been enacted.^[1]

As of August 2008, Uganda had not submitted its Article 7 report for calendar year 2007, due 30 April 2008. Landmine Monitor obtained a copy of Uganda’s last Article 7 report, which is undated, and covers the period from 1 May 2006 to 1 April 2007. Although the report was reportedly submitted during the April 2007 Standing Committee meetings, it had not been posted on the UN website as of August 2008.^[2] Uganda did not submit a report in 2006.^[3] Its most recent report received by the UN was submitted on 5 December 2005 (covering September 2004 to September 2005).^[4]

Uganda participated in the Eighth Meeting of States Parties in Jordan in November 2007, as well as the intersessional Standing Committee meetings in June 2008. At the Eighth Meeting of States Parties, Uganda made statements on mine clearance and victim assistance. At the 2008 intersessional meetings it made statements on mine clearance, victim assistance and the general status of the convention.

Uganda was absent from the 5 December 2007 vote on UN General Assembly Resolution 62/41 calling for universalization and full implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty.

Uganda has not engaged in States Parties’ discussions on matters of interpretation and implementation related to Articles 1 and 2 of the Mine Ban Treaty, dealing with the issues of joint military operations with states not party to the treaty, foreign stockpiling and transit of antipersonnel mines, and antivehicle mines with sensitive fuzes or antihandling devices. With regard to mines retained under Article 3, “Uganda supports the position already taken by African states which have called for a minimum number of retained mines to be of a bare minimum and not in thousands.”^[5]

Uganda is party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons and its original Protocol II on landmines, but not Amended Protocol II or Protocol V on explosive remnants of war. It participated in the Dublin Diplomatic Conference on Cluster Munitions in May 2008 and adopted the final treaty text.

Production, Transfer, Use, Stockpiling, and Destruction

Uganda produced antipersonnel mines until at least 1995; the state-run production facility has been decommissioned. Uganda has stated that it has never exported antipersonnel mines.^[6]

In July 2003, Uganda completed destruction of its stockpile of 6,383 antipersonnel mines. This figure was considerably higher than Uganda initially indicated would be destroyed, apparently because of additional mines captured from rebel forces and a decrease in the number of mines kept for training purposes.^[7]

Since the official completion of stockpile destruction, Uganda has discovered and destroyed additional stocks of mines. Uganda reported destroying 120 Type 72 antipersonnel mines in October 2007, within the framework of the UN Development Programme (UNDP)-supported Small Arms and Light Weapons Project. Destruction was carried out at the Nakasongora military range by the Ministry of Defence. In addition, 2,000 antivehicle mines were destroyed.^[8] Uganda did not report on the sources of the antipersonnel mines.

In January 2008, a media report stated that 12 landmines had been destroyed in an 11-month period in Acholiland, a sub-region composed of Gulu, Kitgum and Pader districts, to support resettlement of internally displaced persons (IDPs). The report did not specify whether the mines had been cleared from the ground or taken from caches.^[9]

Given the lack of explicit reporting, it is unclear how many mines Uganda is retaining for training or development purposes under Article 3. The Article 7 report covering 1 May 2006 to 1 April 2007, obtained by Landmine Monitor, states “As reported last year” regarding retained mines.^[10] Uganda did not submit an Article 7 report in 2006, but at the Seventh Meeting of States Parties in September 2006, Uganda said it was retaining 1,798 mines of seven types for training purposes, and reported the destruction of 202 mines since the previous annual meeting.^[11] Uganda has not yet reported in any detail on the intended purposes and actual uses of its retained mines—a step agreed by States Parties at the First Review Conference in 2004.

The only report of use of a landmine in Uganda in 2007 and early 2008 was in October 2007 when a mine was discovered at a primary school in Pader district. The report did not specify if it was an antipersonnel or antivehicle mine. It is not known who used the mine or why.^[12]

As part of what has become known as the Juba Peace Process, the Lord’s Resistance Army/Movement (LRA/M) and the government of Uganda entered into a Cessation of Hostilities Agreement (CHA) in August 2006, which required the parties to cease all hostile military action, but did not make a halt in mine use a specific obligation. In February 2008, several sub-agreements were concluded, including a requirement for LRA members to reveal the location of mined areas.^[13] On 28 March 2008, the last extension of the CHA expired without renewal and as of June 2008, a final peace agreement remained unsigned.^[14]

Uganda has not reported any use of antipersonnel mines by the LRA since 2004, and has not reported the seizure or recovery of stockpiled antipersonnel mines from the LRA since 2005.^[15]

However, at least two seizures of antipersonnel mines took place in the West Nile sub-region of Uganda, which is bordered by the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Sudan. In September 2007, the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) recovered 12 antipersonnel mines, some antivehicle mines, and other weapons in Yumbe district. The mine types were not identified but had Arabic writing on them.^[16] Uganda reported seizing weapons between 5 and 14 March 2008 in the West Nile region, including 52 antipersonnel mines, 50 antipersonnel mine fuzes, and four antivehicle mines. The locations of the seizures were reported as Kuru sub-county (Yumbe district), Alelinja village and Genya Parish. The government stated, “These weapons are suspected to be coming from DRC and Sudan,” but did not provide evidence or additional details to support this.^[17]

Landmine/ERW Problem

Landmines and explosive remnants of war (ERW) in Uganda are the result of armed conflict and civil strife over the past four decades.^[18] The greatest threat is in the north of the country, following many years of conflict with the non-state armed group, the LRA/M, and includes mines, unexploded ordnance (UXO) and abandoned explosive ordnance.^[19]

Although the precise extent of mine contamination in Uganda remained to be clarified, by June 2008, based on evidence from re-survey and clearance records, it seemed that the mine problem was far smaller than previously thought. Danish Demining Group (DDG), which provides technical advice to the Uganda Mine Action Centre (UMAC), believes the mine contamination in Uganda is “limited,” observing that mines are often confused with UXO and that, more often, suspected hazardous areas (SHAs) prove to contain no contamination at all. Indeed, according to DDG, as of April 2008 there were no confirmed mined areas remaining in the country.^[20] In March, during a field mission with the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD), the Commander of the Land Forces raised concerns about two suspected mined areas in Kitgum district near the Sudanese border.^[21] UMAC planned to survey them in July.^[22]

In March 2008, UMAC, DDG and the GICHD conducted a desk study of 533 completed survey forms and concluded that Uganda had a “small-scale nuisance” mine problem. Only 24 landmines had been found after visiting hundreds of sites over a two-year period.^[23]

UNDP in Uganda also believes the remaining landmine problem is small. In April 2008, the resident representative said in a speech on International Mine Awareness Day that “Recent technical assessments have concluded that landmine contamination in the north is actually very small, and people’s fears of large minefields are unfounded. Landmines do not present a major threat to returning IDPs [internally displaced persons] if the people are given adequate mine risk education.”^[24] Also in April, the UNDP Crisis Prevention and Recovery Unit in Uganda said “Our surveys in Gulu, Amuru, Pader, Kitgum and Kasese districts, Lango and Teso regions, show no minefields exist.”^[25]

Another indication of the nature of the contamination was that by April 2008 UMAC had re-visited 200 of the 500 SHAs identified in a 2005–2006 Mines Awareness Trust (MAT) survey and determined that 90% were spot tasks, such as hand grenades or rocket-propelled grenades. The ratio of UXO to landmines found at these sites was around 500 to 1.^[26] Similarly, most of the incidents reported since 2006 were caused by UXO rather than landmines.^[27] Furthermore, no casualties as a result of mines occurred in 2007 or 2008 through May (see Casualties section).

In the west, 59 suspected mined areas in Kasese district were found to have no mines and another survey assessment in May 2008 in Bundibugyo district, in the west among mountain ranges where several factions have fought over the years and where mine use was strongly suspected, also found no mines.^[28] However, according to the director of UMAC, it is believed “nuisance” mines are in both Kasese and Bundibugyo districts.^[29]

Mine Action Program

Coordination and management

Uganda’s national mine action authority is its National Mine Action Steering Committee (NMASC), which is located at the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) in Kampala. A mine action policy drafted in early 2006 was formally adopted in October 2006 by the committee, and was pending cabinet approval in 2008.^[30] The policy laid down the aims of the program and clarified the responsibilities of the program’s main institutions and other actors.^[31] With GICHD support, national mine action standards have been drafted and were under review by DDG and the OPM.^[32]

In April 2006, in accordance with the draft policy, UMAC was opened in Kampala under the responsibility of the NMASC. The mine action program was established as a UNDP direct execution project supported by international funding and technical advisors. Personnel from the Ugandan army and police were trained as deminers and explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) personnel. UNDP has continued to provide support to Uganda’s mine action program, including a chief technical advisor and a technical advisor for victim assistance (VA),^[33] although the VA advisor left at the end of 2007 and the last chief technical advisor left in March 2008. There were no plans to fill either position.^[34] In April 2007, Uganda had announced that it would move to a nationally executed program during the course of the year but as of June 2008 the transition had not been finalized.^[35]

In June 2008, UMAC had 41 personnel in the field, consisting of 20 UPDF and 21 police deminers. UMAC planned to deploy an additional 27 personnel in the second half of 2008, of whom 21 were intended for EOD, battle area clearance (BAC), and technical survey, and the remaining six for quality assurance/quality control.^[36] It was expected that in July 2008, in recognition of ERW forming the bulk of the problem and with the number of spot UXO tasks expected to be high, the existing capacity would be divided to form 12 smaller, multipurpose mine action teams.^[37] The mobilization of mine detection dog teams trained at the International Mine Action Training Centre in Nairobi was cancelled as the problem in Uganda required EOD rather than mine clearance teams.^[38]

According to UMAC, the mine action program in Uganda in June 2008 was still directly executed by the UNDP country office despite several requests by the OPM that the mine action program become nationally executed. UMAC believes that the continued direct execution of the mine action program hampers implementation of the various mine action activities. For example, the position of Information Management System for Mine Action (IMSMA) officer had been vacant since October 2007 and planned projects in 2008 to assist landmine survivors had not been initiated.^[39] UNDP responded that any delays were the result of an absence of a final approved National Work Plan on which funding disbursements are made.^[40]

In July 2007, DDG’s “Targeted Mine Action in Uganda to support returnees” program established a base in Gulu district. DDG also planned to assist UMAC in establishing a Regional Mine Action Centre (RMAC) in Gulu, which would move the daily management, coordination and tasking functions for mine action from Kampala to Gulu and assist the OPM and UMAC in fundraising for clearance and survey. In 2008, DDG, operating within UMAC, planned to continue in its technical advisory role and oversee demining work with UMAC in order to facilitate IDP returns.^[41]

An older version of IMSMA was installed at UMAC in March 2006. A gazetteer (geographical dictionary) of Uganda was entered into the system with districts and their respective counties, sub-counties and parishes. A satellite map of Uganda was also imported into IMSMA. GICHD provided IMSMA training to several mine action organizations. Despite these efforts, as of May 2008 the national database faced numerous problems and could not be used for planning.^[42]

One of the fundamental problems with data collection was that the Ugandan Police Force and UDPF do not use forms that are compatible with IMSMA when recording clearance tasks. Consequently, not all clearance tasks have been entered into the database. DDG believed the database contained outdated and incorrect information, and that some of the SHAs in the database did not exist or had been cleared.

In May 2008, DDG and UNDP were in the process of moving the terminals and the map plotters from UMAC in Kampala to RMAC in Gulu, which was due to become operational before the end of 2008.^[43] No data had been entered into the IMSMA database since October 2007 when the database manager left the program.^[44] UMAC said that when RMAC is officially established in Gulu, a national IMSMA officer will undertake the tasks necessary to update the database.^[45]

Integration of mine action with relief, reconstruction and development

The main focus of the mine action program is on facilitating the safe return and recovery of IDPs.^[46] According to the UN, “Mine action is directly linked to the National IDP Policy and the Three-Year (2007–2010) Peace, Recovery and Development Plan for Northern Uganda (PRDP).”^[47] However, the sole reference to mines in the 157-page plan is in conjunction with lost agricultural productivity, rather than landmines being a cause of slow IDP returns, or a threat to the population.^[48]

Interviewed in June 2008, Rose Bwenvu, the Principal Disaster Officer with the OPM, stated that the presence of mines was not a factor in whether IDPs decided to return home. She said food security, lack of services, clinics, livelihood opportunities, and housing were the determinant considerations. The lack of progress in the Juba Peace Process (between the Ugandan government and the LRA) was also affecting the number of returns.^[49] In May 2008, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported that 47% of the original IDP population remained in IDP camps, but this rose to 66% in Kitgum district, where two suspected mined areas were located.^[50]

In the UN Portfolio of Mine Action Projects for 2008, UMAC included a project intended to analyze the use of recently released land. The data from the project will be used to measure how the socio-economic situation changed in the cleared areas, which could form a basis for assessing in advance the potential of socio-economic benefits from mine action activities.^[51] As of June 2008, however, this project had not been funded.^[52]

Mine action evaluations

An external evaluation of Uganda’s mine action program took place in March–April 2007.^[53] The results were not publicly available, but according to UMAC, one of the recommendations was to ensure the transition to a nationally executed program.^[54]

Demining

Demining in Uganda has been conducted primarily by multipurpose demining teams under UMAC.^[55] As of May 2008, there were six operational clearance teams and one quality assurance team.^[56]

Identifying hazardous areas

A survey in 2006 managed by MAT established a baseline for the landmine problem in Uganda. However, the results were questioned by UNDP and UMAC, and with DDG’s technical assistance, re-survey began in 2007. In March 2008, the preliminary results of the re-surveying and an analysis of the MAT survey forms showed that the clearance records in 2007 indicated that only about 1% of the items found in Acholiland were landmines. Although Anti-Mine Network Rwenzori (AMNET-R), which implemented the MAT survey, estimated that 10% of reports of contamination were mines, clearance records do not bear this out.^[57]

Mine and ERW clearance in 2007 and 2008

UMAC tasks the multipurpose demining teams to mark SHAs within three months of their identification by targeted needs assessments.^[58] The main method for clearance is BAC and EOD in situ or at a central disposal site.^[59]

In April 2007, Uganda declared that 13 SHAs in Lira district had been demined, pending quality control, and that all affected areas in Kaberamaido district had been cleared and were being used by the community for farming. This had enabled the return of more than 2,000 IDPs in Kaberamaido. In May 2007, the UPDF also recovered UXO and “about 10 mines” from Palukere, Gulu district.^[60]

In total, for 2007 UMAC reported clearing 24 antipersonnel mines and four antivehicle mines, as well as 1,162 items of UXO from BAC covering 21,679m².^[61] Although UMAC clearance teams are not finding many landmines in total, several different types of mines have been found. They include Type 72, OZM, PMD-6, Arabic no. 4, PMN, and NR 409 antipersonnel mines; and Type 5, Mirsad 3 and PRB antivehicle mines.^[62]

Summary of Efforts to Comply with Article 5

Under Article 5 of the Mine Ban Treaty, Uganda is required to destroy all antipersonnel mines in mined areas under its jurisdiction or control as soon as possible, but not later than 1 August 2009. Uganda was slow to initiate a mine action program—mine clearance did not start until 2006—but it swiftly gained momentum. At the Standing Committee meetings in April 2007, the UMAC coordinator declared that: “It is anticipated that by 2009 Uganda shall have adequate capacity to carry out technical surveys, explosive disposal ordnance and clearance capacity to enable the Uganda Mine Action Centre to destroy all anti-personnel mines in the identified mined areas under Uganda’s jurisdiction.”^[63]

In November 2007 at the Standing Committee meetings, UMAC’s director repeated Uganda’s commitment to the Mine Ban Treaty but reported that instead of having capacity to meet their Article 5 obligation by 2009 that the revised plan “is to clear all identified mined areas in Uganda… by August 2009. There is strong will and support by Government of Uganda to ensure this is achieved.” He added that the mine action plan is dependent on “the successful outcome of the peace negotiations and the eventual end of conflict. The prospective end-date of fulfilling obligations in Article 5 is dependent on this factor.”^[64]

A joint UMAC/DDG/GICHD study of completed survey forms in March 2008 concluded that Uganda could meet its Article 5 obligations without a deadline extension. The study also concluded, however, that a residual UXO problem would continue for many years after 2009.^[65]

Landmine/ERW Casualties^[66]

In 2007, the Association of Volunteers in International Service (AVSI) recorded 23 mine/ERW casualties in five incidents, including 10 people killed and 13 injured. Two casualties were military and the others were civilian (five boys, five girls, three men, two women, and six of unknown age/gender). Twenty-two casualties were caused by ERW and one by an unknown device. AVSI casualty data is not nationwide.

An incident on 21 July 2007 causing 14 casualties occurred while transporting ERW in Lira district. Other activities at the time of the incident were digging while farming (four), cooking (three), and burning ERW (two military). Most casualties occurred in Lira (17), followed by Oyam (three), Kitgum (two), and Gulu (one) districts. Landmine Monitor was unable to identify new casualties in Kasese or surrounding districts in the west of the country: the status of six people reportedly injured in Kasese in 2006 remained unconfirmed.^[67]

No casualties were reported in 2008 to 31 May.

The OPM/UMAC was not able to provide annual casualty information for 2007;^[68] it had previously reported six people injured in the first half of 2007.^[69] The lack of UMAC data makes reliable comparisons with the 2006 casualty rate impossible. OPM/UMAC reported at least 50 casualties in 2006 (11 killed and 39 injured).^[70]

Although UNDP and AVSI have both been quoted in the media as saying that the mine threat is low to non-existent in Acholiland,^[71] AVSI cautioned that the potential threat had not been assessed, and that only 15% of the IDP population had returned as of May 2008.^[72] Operators in Acholiland believed that people could be at risk from mines in the border areas and from ERW in resettlement areas. Farmers (particularly women), hunters, children and scrap metal dealers were considered to be the most at-risk groups, as also noted in the 2006 AVSI survey.^[73] In Kasese district, farmers were believed to be most at risk; no casualties have, however, been recorded since 2005.^[74]

Data collection

There is no comprehensive casualty data collection mechanism in Uganda. Regional data collection is not proactive or complete. In 2007–2008, NGOs stated that there was no progress on the National Surveillance Network (NSN) under the Ministry of Health (MoH), which was to record all types of injuries, including mine/ERW incidents.^[75] The NSN pilot project in Pader and Kasese districts, scheduled for July 2007, did not occur. This was variously ascribed to a lack of funding or leadership, or to poor coordination from UNDP/UMAC.^[76]

The Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development (MoGLSD), as the lead agency for victim assistance (VA), was prepared to proceed with the NSN when UNDP makes the necessary funds available.^[77] At the Standing Committee meetings in June 2008, the ministry’s representative stated that a Community Information System that included socio-economic and disability information was fully operational in 28 districts.^[78]

According to UMAC and DDG, casualty data had not been entered into the IMSMA database as of 2008 because of a lack of staff and a standardized reporting format, as well as questionable data collection by operators.^[79]

In 2007, AVSI started monitoring reports of casualties in Acholiland after completion of its 2006 survey.^[80] AMNET-R shares casualty data collected in Kasese and surrounding districts with UMAC.^[81]

The cumulative number of mine casualties in Uganda is not known. The government has been reporting 900 survivors in northern Uganda and 200 in western Uganda since 2005.^[82] AVSI identified at least 1,387 mine/ERW casualties between 1986 and 2006; there could be up to 2,000 casualties.^[83] The Kasese Landmine Survivors Association (KLSA) stated that some survivors in districts around Kasese had not been included in the official estimates.^[84]

Accurate information about the number of persons with disabilities in Uganda and their living circumstances was lacking, but a disability census was planned for 2008.^[85] It was estimated that 16% of the population had a disability.^[86]

Landmine/ERW Risk Education

In 2007–2008, mine/ERW risk education (RE) activities remained limited mostly to Acholiland, while the conflict-affected Kasese district remained largely uncovered. In mid-2007, UNDP reported that 70% of casualties occurred in areas without RE activities.^[87]

In 2007, RE operators in Acholiland responded to increased IDP resettlement by extending activities to camps and resettlement areas in Amuru, Apac, Gulu, Kitgum, Lira, and Pader districts. At least 241,919 people were reached with some form of RE, almost twice as many as in 2006 (125,000), including 103,000 students and 132,280 returnees (the remaining beneficiaries were not classified).^[88] Limited adaptations were made to RE activities due to increasing ERW and particularly scrap metal collection casualties.

Strategic framework and capacity

UMAC is responsible for overall coordination and monitoring of RE. It reports to the NMASC which includes eight ministries, AVSI, Canadian Physicians for Aid and Relief (CPAR), World Vision International (WVI), and DDG.^[89] UMAC was not able to fulfill its role because of a lack of staff and a focal point for RE.^[90]

Uganda does not have a national strategy for RE and the Uganda Mine Action Standards, reportedly including RE, were still in draft form as of March 2008.^[91] UNDP provided technical advice until a chief technical advisor for mine action left in November 2007; the RE focal point position remained vacant as of March 2008.^[92]

RE providers noted a lack of leadership and coordination from both UMAC and UNDP, and that no steps had been undertaken to standardize and coordinate messages or activities. They also complained that technical advisors rarely visited field operations.^[93] Previously, UNDP had reported that operators failed to meet their reporting and coordination requirements.^[94]

Practical coordination of RE in Acholiland occurred through the NGO Forum in Gulu under the leadership of AVSI. The forum meets regularly and participants report on activities (AVSI, CPAR and WVI); operators in Acholiland all work in different areas to avoid duplication of activities.^[95] UMAC demining teams participated irregularly.^[96]

Activities

Providers continued to undertake community-based RE activities, with minor adjustments (featuring ERW more prominently and increasing coverage for returnees). Focal points continued to receive reports of suspicious devices leading to ad hoc clearance responses.^[97] However, response times were said to be long and poorly coordinated.^[98]

In Acholiland, AVSI reached 65,280 people, including 33,000 IDP returnees, 23,000 schoolchildren, 8,530 farmers, and 750 hunters in 2007. It adjusted its activities slightly to focus more on the highest-risk groups within the returnee population, such as farmers and hunters.^[99] In March 2008, CPAR reached 5,618 people and adjusted its RE materials to focus more on the ERW threat and the scrap metal trade in particular. Activities were reduced in 2007 and early 2008 due to insufficient funding.^[100] In 2007, WVI reached 170,686 people including 90,000 returnees and 80,000 students; training materials were revised in January 2008.^[101] In 2008, DDG was trying to identify a “qualified trainer” to become a regional RE focal point for liaison between AVSI, CPAR, WVI, and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).^[102] It also aimed to start a project to build sustainable RE capacity within communities in July 2008.^[103]

AMNET-R continued to undertake marking in accordance with locally understood practices and past awareness messages to communities in Kasese district; funding challenges continued to limit activities.^[104]

Victim Assistance

The government has insufficient funding to undertake or support activities for persons with disabilities,^[105] and service provision to them is a drain on the country’s limited resources. Most services for persons with disabilities are urban-based and do not reach the majority of rural mine/ERW survivors and persons with disabilities.^[106]

Traditionally, persons with disabilities were cared for in the family or community network, but this social structure has been damaged by conflict, displacement and poverty. IDP mine/ERW survivors are a particularly vulnerable group often without property, and face difficulties in participating in government programs for returnees or persons with disabilities. Disabled IDPs were often left behind in camps.^[107]

Both emergency and complex trauma care services are insufficient in Uganda, lacking specialized staff, equipment, material, emergency transport, and an adequate referral system, particularly in Acholiland. Around half of all households nationwide have access to healthcare.^[108] Amputations in district hospitals are often performed by non-specialists.

Less than 25% of persons with disabilities have access to rehabilitation services. There are rehabilitation centers in the three mine-affected regions, but only in Acholiland were services of good quality, due to support from an international NGO.^[109] Government-run centers were understaffed, waiting lists long, basic assistive devices in short supply, and physiotherapy and occupational therapy limited. Follow-up services, particularly in the west, were inadequate and the cost of transport and accommodation further limited access. Community-based rehabilitation (CBR) through the MoGLSD and NGOs was available.^[110]

Psychosocial support mechanisms remained weak as structures, coordination and culturally appropriate methods were lacking; there were no counseling services at the community level.^[111] Socio-economic opportunities remained limited for persons with disabilities; literacy and education rates among persons with disabilities, particularly women, are low. Access to education was limited due to a lack of awareness and physical inaccessibility. Vocational training was expanding in 2007 but few mine/ERW survivors accessed the services as intake was limited by governmental financial constraints.^[112]

Uganda has legislation and policies to protect the rights of persons with disabilities, but stigmatization and negative societal attitudes persisted.^[113] Five seats in parliament are reserved for representatives of persons with disabilities; two previously occupying the preferential seats have been elected in the normal ballot.^[114] On 30 March 2007, Uganda signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol, but they had not been ratified as of 31 July 2008.

Progress in meeting VA25 victim assistance objectives

Uganda is one of 25 States Parties with significant numbers of mine survivors and “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.^[115] As part of its commitment to the Nairobi Action Plan, Uganda presented its 2005–2009 objectives at the Sixth Meeting of States Parties in 2005. Progress was reported in 2006–2007, but the presentation of revised objectives and plans to achieve the objectives was delayed until November 2007.

The Uganda Comprehensive Plan of Action for Victim Assistance 2008–2012 was developed in cooperation with ministries, NGOs, and survivors, and a national workshop was held in Munyonyo near Kampala in August 2007.^[116] The plan contained a comprehensive overview of the situation, detailed objectives and plans, clear responsibilities, and funding requirements (US$2,954,684).^[117] It included development of guidelines to include disability in all planning processes; establishment of village emergency aid teams; strengthened physical rehabilitation, increased participation of persons with disabilities in education; and institutional strengthening.^[118] Uganda received support from the co-chairs of the Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and Socio-Economic Reintegration and the treaty’s Implementation Support Unit in 2007.^[119]

While the plan is a vast improvement over the previously presented objectives, it does not fit the 2005–2009 timeframe, as only 30% of the objectives are scheduled for completion in 2008–2009. Moreover, many of these objectives pertain to needs assessment, capacity-building, and strengthening of structures, rather than actual activity implementation. Most of the six objectives with 2008 deadlines seemed on track for full achievement:

• establish a database of survivors and persons with disabilities to assess their needs and gaps in service provision: incomplete databases exist but not unified or used for planning, unclear how much assistance data is gathered;
• advocate for physical accessibility: no progress reported;
• establish a mechanism to identify economic/development needs and incorporate them in development plans: no progress reported;
• build VA implementer capacity: no progress due to lack of funds and coordination;
• assess progress in action plan for the African Decade 2000–2009: no progress reported; and
• ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (reportedly close to be achieved as of mid-2008).

At the Standing Committee meetings in June 2008, the MoGLSD presented a detailed overview of the progress and challenges in achieving Uganda’s VA objectives.^[120] Issues impeding the implementation of the plan included: coordination challenges and limited information sharing between the mine action program and implementing agencies; a lack of technical support from UNDP; competing priorities; and funding problems.^[121] Only VA programs under direct NGO implementation continued with external funding, though one survivor group continued limited operation with its own resources.^[122]

Victim assistance strategic framework

The NMASC is responsible for strategic planning, coordination, and budgeting of mine action, including VA. Under Uganda’s Comprehensive Plan of Action on Victim Assistance 2008–2012, it was stated that the OPM “will coordinate the implementation of activities for landmine survivors and [victim] assistance within the Ministries of Health and Gender, Labour and Social Development.”^[123] The ministry is responsible for socio-economic reintegration of survivors through the CBR network; the MoH is responsible for medical rehabilitation by using the surveillance network. Both ministries report to the NMASC.^[124] Until her departure in September 2007, a UNDP VA technical advisor facilitated coordination and strategic development.^[125]

The 2008–2012 VA plan should be the basis of implementation, but the National Mine Action Policy also contains provisions for assistance and the draft national mine action standards were said to include VA provisions.^[126] The plan is also linked to, and overlaps with, the existing Poverty Eradication Action Plan, the Social Development Sector Strategic Investment Plan, and the Health Sector Strategic Plan II.^[127] It is unclear how implementation of activities is divided between the different strategies. Additionally, implementation of the plan is hampered by coordination challenges between all stakeholders resulting in a non-release of funds available for VA. UNDP stated that funding was blocked because the ministries and UMAC failed to submit the annual workplans required to receive the funds.^[128] MoGLSD asserted that the workplans had been submitted and that it had requested the recruitment of a new VA technical advisor.^[129]

Uganda noted that “[t]he establishment and strengthening of survivor groups is essential in the whole process.”^[130] However, survivors were not included in NMASC meetings.^[131] It was reported previously that the National Council for Disability (NCD), the National Union of Disabled Persons of Uganda, and the Uganda Landmine Survivors’ Association (ULSA) cooperated with NMASC.^[132] ULSA was planned to be an umbrella organization for survivor groups,^[133] but could not fulfill this role as the legal process to establish the organization was stalled in late 2007 and required funding was not released.^[134]

Practical coordination of VA is conducted through NGO Forum meetings in Gulu district (AVSI, CPAR and WVI). There is no coordinating body in Kasese district. UMAC or UNDP have not conducted monitoring visits to either region since late 2007.^[135]

The MoGLSD is responsible for disability issues in general and has a Minister of State for the Elderly and Disability Affairs and a Department for Disabled Persons.^[136] The NCD coordinates, monitors, and evaluates disability activities and their integration into development plans.^[137]

Assistance activities

Although there are only an estimated 900 survivors in northern Uganda, some 2,644 services were provided in 2007: 69 people received medical care, 396 physical rehabilitation, 1,130 psychological support, and 1,052 socio-economic reintegration; 37 also received transportation assistance. AVSI assisted 383 survivors with physical rehabilitation, 533 with psychological support, and 304 with socio-economic reintegration.^[138] CPAR provided 34 with continuing medical care, 11 with physical rehabilitation, 269 with psychological support and 190 with socio-economic reintegration.^[139] WVI assisted 35 survivors with continuing medical care, two with physical rehabilitation, 328 with psychological support, and 198 with socio-economic reintegration.^[140] The KLSA assisted 360 members and other persons with disabilities with employment and vocational training opportunities.^[141]

The KSLA stated that since the UNDP VA technical advisor’s departure in September 2007 financial and technical support were suspended without notice or explanation. The group was to establish an office and train its membership at the village level in banana rope-making;^[142] the group continues its activities with donations from members.^[143] UNDP stated that materials purchased for survivor groups were in storage and could not be distributed unless UMAC provided a distribution list.^[144]

In 2007, AVSI expanded services for persons with disabilities with European Union and Canadian funding: health centers in returnee areas received support and survivor groups were extended, and income generation and psychological support activities continued.^[145] CPAR continued medical care, economic reintegration and peer support activities in 2007, but funding ended in March 2008 and concerns about sustainability were expressed.^[146] WVI assisted the government in developing a CBR manual.^[147] AMNET-R was unable to provide transportation services to survivors to access rehabilitation services in Fort Portal due to insufficient funds.^[148]

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) ended support to health centers in the north and east at the end of 2007 because services had improved sufficiently. In March 2008, it started an assessment of rehabilitation capacity in the west.^[149]

Support for Mine Action

The NMASC is responsible for development and coordination of budgets, resource mobilization and donor relations for all areas of mine action in Uganda.^[150] The Uganda Comprehensive Plan of Action on Victim Assistance 2008–2009, which seeks to strengthen and improve a range of VA capacities in Uganda, includes a cost estimate for the period from 2008–2012 totaling $2,954,684 (€2,154,973), including $212,404 for research and monitoring, $378,320 for medical care, $787,000 for physical rehabilitation, $323,000 for psychological support and social reintegration, $686,460 for economic reintegration, and $567,500 to support laws and public policies.^[151]

National support for mine action

In a submission to the Eighth Meeting of States Parties, Uganda stated that negotiations had begun to initiate a new national budget line for mine action, and that an allocation of $300,000 was planned for 2007.^[152] The UN Mine Action Service subsequently reported that the budget line had been opened and funds allocated from it. In addition, the government of Uganda seconds management staff from other ministries to support mine action.^[153]

International cooperation and assistance

In 2007, four countries reported providing $1,841,052 (€1,342,755) to mine action in Uganda. Reported mine action funding in 2007 was approximately 10% more than that reported for 2006. Funding has been relatively stable since 2005. VA, however, was reportedly “highly affected” by lack of funds.^[154]

2007 International Mine Action Funding to Uganda: Monetary^[155]