Impact survey: Guinea Bissau A selective nationwide survey of communities affected by landmines and explosive remnants of war Survey team: Dionco Sousa Cardoso (Team Leader) Mamadu Lamine Cante (Team Leader) Eufemia Barros Agosto Aurelia Gomes Lamine Gomes Clemente Mendes Support staff: Ricardo Nhaga Nicolau Nharo Balde Jose Pedro Gomes Amido Jalo Technical Advisor: Hagos Kiflemariam, Landmine Action Report by: Melissa Fuerth, Operations Officer, Landmine Action Penelope Caswell, GIS Officer, Landmine Action Editor: Rob Deere, Operations Director, Landmine Action Commissioning Editor: Sebastian Taylor, Director, Landmine Action Special thanks to: John Blacken, Director General, HUMAID Financial support from: U.S. State Department’s Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement United Kingdom’s Department for International Development 1 Executive summary Background Guinea Bissau is a former Portuguese colony, situated on the west coast of Africa. It has been affected by three periods of conflict, including the Liberation War (1963–1974), the Civil War (1998-1999) and the Casamance Conflict (March 2006) in the north which remains unresolved. These periods of fighting have left the largely rural and agricultural country of Guinea Bissau affected by mines and explosive remnants of war (ERW). ERW and mine contamination is contextualised by relatively very high rates of absolute poverty, rural marginalisation, low rates of rural and urban health and education services, and employment, and stalled or reversed socio-economic development. Weapons contamination and persistent, encompassing poverty are, themselves, contextualised by structural insecurity – frequently associated with criminality and armed violence – resulting from continuously contested government and weak and failing systems of governance. Project With funding from the United Nations Development Programme, Landmine Action conducted the country‟s first selective nationwide Impact Survey of 264 communities from October 2007 to May 20081. Landmine Action worked in coordination with HUMAID, a local NGO and CAAMI, the national mine action coordination centre. Findings Of the 264 communities visited, the Impact Survey identified 80 communities affected by mines and/or ERW in 7 of the 8 regions of Guinea Bissau. Using the Survey Working Group Protocol2, (adjusted to reflect conditions in Guinea Bissau), 11 were assessed to be high- priority, 13 to be medium-priority and 56 to be low-priority for clearance. Mine contamination was found to pose the greatest risks to contaminated communities as a result of the weight assigned to mine contamination as opposed to ERW. The regions most affected are Cacheu and Oio in the north; this is mostly due to mine contamination from the Casamance Conflict. They, together with Buruntuma in Gabu region, constitute the highest priorities for clearance. Eighty-one percent of the communities affected by ERW and mines are compact villages, relying on small-scale agriculture for survival. Although the overall scale of contamination and impact is limited, there is evidence from the survey that clearance will ameliorate currently blocked or compromised access to agricultural and pasture land for almost half of these communities. Previous mine action activities in affected communities have been limited. Only 18 percent have received risk education, 11 percent of the affected communities have dangerous areas marked, and 14 1 Communities covered by this Impact survey were pre-selected by national government counterparts (CAAMI). It is anticipated that, whilst indicative of national scale of contamination, further localised survey work in areas of high contamination may reveal other, as yet unsurveyed but ERW/landmine- affected communities. 2 http://www.sac-na.org/resources_lisprotocols.html 2 percent have previously been visited by survey teams. Professional demining has been previously conducted in 15 percent of affected communities, but these remain affected to some extent. A quarter of the communities (23 percent) reported the conduct of informal village demining. Recommendations for Future Work This is the first national-level survey identifying communities affected by mines and ERW in Guinea Bissau. The survey includes a range of indicators showing both contamination and wider socio- economic/livelihoods conditions in these communities. 1. This Impact Survey, whilst not fully comprehensive, provides a set of clear and manageable goals for a national mine action plan and for addressing the humanitarian effects of the mines and ERW in Guinea Bissau. In particular, this document should help the Guinea Bissau Government to meet its obligation under Article 5 of the 1997 anti-personnel Mine Ban Treaty to ensure the destruction of anti-personnel mines in mined areas by November 2011. 2. The Impact Survey also provides the basis for further understanding and acting on the conditions resulting from, and contributing to, insecurity and instability in Guinea Bissau. Security Council (SC 9286 AFR/1670) and Peacebuilding Fund statements (S/2008/87) highlight the central importance of consolidating stable governance in Guinea Bissau. This national-level survey can support further in-depth survey work on risk factors for instability and insecurity in both rural and urban sectors. 3 Acronyms AP Mine Anti-personnel mine AT Mine Anti-tank mine AXO Abandoned explosive ordnance BAC Battle area clearance CAAMI Centro Nacional de Coordenação da Acção Anti-Minas (National Mine Action Coordination Centre) DA Dangerous area EOD Explosive ordnance disposal ERW Explosive remnants of war GIS Geographical information systems GPS Global positioning system HUMAID Humanitarian Aid (a national demining NGO) HQ Headquarters ICBL International Campaign to Ban Landmines IMAS International Mine Action Standards IMSMA Information Management System for Mine Action LMA Landmine Action MFDC Movement of Democratic Forces of Casamance MRE Mine risk education PAIGC Partido Africano da Independência da Guiné e Cabo Verde (African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde) SHA Suspected hazard area SOPs Standard operating procedures TA Technical Advisor UNDP United Nations Development Programme UXO Unexploded ordnance QA Quality assurance 4 Table of Contents Executive Summary 2 Acronyms 4 Table of Contents 5 Table of Maps, Figures and Tables 6 Table of Annexes 7 Introduction 8 Introduction 9 Background – Guinea Bissau and Survey 10 Background – Contamination 12 Scope of the Problem 13 Objectives and Deliverables 14 Methodology 15 Introduction to Methodology 16 Stakeholders 17 Site Selection 18 Lack of Base Maps 18 Survey Team and Training 19 Survey Forms and Group Interviews 19 Priority Scoring of Affected Communities 22 Mine-Impact Sensitivity 23 Quality Assurance 23 Results and Findings 24 Geographical Distribution 25 Ordnance Class of Contaminated Land 28 Mined Areas and Widespread UXO Contamination 29 Settlement Type 30 Socio-economic Blockages and Prioritisation for Clearance 31 Mine Action Activities in Guinea Bissau 34 Case Study 36 Regional Profiles 39 Bafata 40 Biombo 42 Cacheu 44 Gabu 47 Oio 49 Quinara 52 Tombali 55 5 Summary Results 58 Summary of the Results and Conclusions 59 Recommendations for Future Activities 60 Challenges 61 Maps, Figures and Tables Maps Map 1: Republic of Guinea Bissau: Regions 9 Map 2: Impact Survey Guinea Bissau 25 Map 3: Landmine & UXO Affected Communities – Guinea Bissau 26 Map 4: Bafata Region: Affected Communities 41 Map 5: Biombo Region: Affected Communities 43 Map 6: Cacheu Region: Affected Communities 46 Map 7: Gabu Region: Affected Communities 48 Map 8: Oio Region: Affected Communities 51 Map 9: Quinara Region: Affected Communities 54 Map 10: Tombali Region: Affected Communities 57 Figures Figure 1: Impacted Communities – Priority Ranking 27 Figure 2: Risk Education activities to date in affected communities 34 Figure 3: Clearance activities in communities still affected by ERW/mines 35 Tables Table 1: Socio-Economic Indicators in Guinea Bissau 11 Table 2: SAC Recommended Impact Scoring 22 Table 3: Landmine Action‟s Adjusted Priority Scoring for Guinea Bissau Survey 23 Table 4: Proportion of Communities Affected and Unaffected by Region 26 Table 5: Impacted Communities by Region 27 Table 6: Impacted Communities by Ordnance Type 28 Table 7: Estimated Area of Minefields in Guinea Bissau 29 Table 8: Estimated Area of Widespread UXO Contamination in Guinea Bissau 29 Table 9: Impacted Communities by Settlement Type 30 Table 10: Total Blockages, by Region 31 Table 11: Blockages Reported Due to DAs 32 Table 12: Blockages Reported Due to SHAs 32 6 Table 13: Mine Action Activities Previously Conducted in Affected Communities 34 Table 14: Number of Affected Communities by Priority (Bafata) 40 Table 15: Blockages Affecting Impacted Communities (Bafata) 40 Table 16: Past Mine Action Activities in Affected Communities (Bafata) 40 Table 17: Socio-Economic Blockages in Bafata Region 41 Table 18: Number of Affected Communities by Priority (Biombo) 42 Table 19: Blockages Affecting Impacted Communities (Biombo) 42 Table 20: Past Mine Action Activities in Affected Communities (Biombo) 42 Table 21: Socio-Economic Blockages in Biombo Region 43 Table 22: Number of Affected Communities by Priority (Cacheu) 44 Table 23: Blockages Affecting Impacted Communities (Cacheu) 44 Table 24: Past Mine Action Activities in Affected Communities (Cacheu) 44 Table 25: Socio-Economic Blockages in Cacheu Region 45 Table 26: Number of Affected Communities by Priority (Gabu) 47