3MSP Statement by the ICBL Working Group on Victim Assistance

(Tuesday 25 September 2001 Managua, Nicaragua)

Presentation for the Informal Session on
Victim Assistance and Mine Awareness
by Landmine Monitor and the ICBL Working Group on Victim Assistance
Third Meeting of States Parties
Managua, Nicaragua
18-21 September 2001

Excellencies, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen

It should have been my pleasure to present to this meeting, on behalf of the ICBL Working Group on Victim Assistance, the fourth edition of the Portfolio on Landmine Victim Assistance Programs. However, due to the tragedy in the United States it has not been possible to transport copies of the Portfolio to Managua in time for this presentation. An information sheet is available on the ICBL resources table that provides information on the Portfolio and who to contact if you would like to receive a copy of the Portfolio, and on how to access it on the internet.

The Portfolio has 4 main aims:

• to demonstrate the broad range of activities that constitute victim assistance;
• to contribute to transparency among all actors in victim assistance;
• to present a snapshot of the current state of victim assistance to help guide the allocation of resources; and
• to provide a tool to facilitate contact and information sharing among actors in victim assistance.

The Portfolio is not intended as a fundraising tool – it is a communication tool. It is a picture of the field of victim assistance at a glance, and an illustration of what victim assistance is in the field.

The Portfolio for 2001 consists of 119 programs from 79 organizations across 39 countries. Of the programs, 43 provided only one type of assistance, whereas 76 provided multiple types of programs. Seven countries appeared in the Portfolio for the first time: Azerbaijan, Chile, Croatia, Guinea Bissau, Honduras, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.

The Standing Committee and ICBL Working Group on Victim Assistance encourages programs that build local capacity. Of the 119 programs listed, 23 are operated by local NGOs, and 31 programs involve a local NGO partner. Local government is involved in 37 programs.

However, it is acknowledged that the Portfolio is far from a complete picture of victim assistance in the field. The Portfolio is compiled from information provided by organizations assisting landmine victims. The ICBL Working Group on Victim Assistance encourages more organizations to submit information to subsequent editions of the Portfolio to provide a more comprehensive picture of available services.

The United Nations Mine Action Service produces a Portfolio of Mine Action Programs each year. The ICBL Working Group on Victim Assistance believes it would be logical to merge the Victim Assistance Portfolio with a more general one. With this in mind the Working Group on Victim Assistance will be holding discussions with the UN Mine Action Service in the weeks following this meeting.

I would now like to turn your attention to the Form J attachment to the Article 7 report. Form J was added as a voluntary section of the overall reporting mechanism, Article 7, of the Mine Ban Treaty as of the Second Meeting of States Parties. This is, therefore, the first opportunity we have had Form Js to examine. To date, 11 countries have submitted Form J reports with victim assistance information. These countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Peru, Sweden, Thailand, and Zimbabwe. That is 7 Form Js from donor countries and 4 from mine-affected countries. We applaud these 11* countries for their efforts in supporting victim assistance and reporting on it.

What do the reports tell us?

In general terms, from the donor countries we know that:

• in only 3 countries does the information provided match information in the Mine Investment Database;
• only 4 countries listed a focal point on their Form J report – it would be very helpful to have a focal point named on each and every Form J so that important points can be clarified when necessary;
• donor countries have less of a tendency to fund local NGOs or those based in other countries;
• 4 countries Form J information listed funding for the year 2000, while 3 countries listed funding for multiple years; and
• in the majority of Form J reports countries provided information for all mine action funding not just victim assistance.

From the mine-affected countries, we learnt such things as:

• which countries have laws to protect the rights of persons with disabilities;
• whether mine victims are included in the national mine action plan;
• which ministries have responsibility for victim assistance;
• how data is collected on mine casualties; and
• what assistance is available to landmine victims.

While the information is interesting and pertinent, it would be more useful to have information that one can compare with other countries, within regions, and across time. Regarding the form itself, we can see that it leaves too much room for interpretation More detailed explanations of what information is needed, and a sample form already filled out would, perhaps, help to elicit more standardized information.

The ICBL Working Group has already prepared guidelines to assist States Parties in completing the Form J is willing to continue contributing to this work in collaboration with the Standing Committee on Victim Assistance during the coming cycle of the Intersessional Program.

The ICBL Working Group on Victim Assistance encourages more countries, both donor countries and mine-affected countries, to complete the voluntary Form J attachment to the Article 7 report so that it will be possible to obtain a clearer picture of victim assistance programs and the global resources available.

Thank you.

* The representative of Honduras advised the meeting that their Article 7 Report also included the Form J attachment. The report was deposited on 10 August 2001.