Vol. 1, Issue 1, 2023

 

DOWNLOAD VOL. 1, ISSUE 1

Collecting and Sharing Data on Explosive Weapons Use

A Prerequisite for understanding impact, informing change and implementing the Political Declaration

Simon Bagshaw, Policy Advisor, Article 36

The importance of collecting data on the impact of explosive weapons on civilians and civilian objects is firmly recognized in the Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences Arising from the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas that was adopted and endorsed by 83 states in November 2022. This article examines the Declaration’s commitments on data collection and suggests practical steps for their implementation by endorser states.

Introduction

Collecting and sharing data on the impact on civilians of the use of explosive weapons in populated areas has long been recognized as critically important. In 2009, as the issue of explosive weapons in populated areas was emerging onto the global policy agenda, the need for states, international organisations and civil society to “develop better data as a basis for policy making on explosive weapons” was a key recommendation of Landmine Action’s pioneering report on the issue.[i]

The following year, the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General called for more systematic data collection and analysis of the “human costs” of explosive weapons use as this was “essential to deepening the understanding of the humanitarian impact … and to informing the development of policy and practice that would strengthen the implementation of international humanitarian and human rights law.”[ii]

From 2011, civil society, the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) worked to collect, analyse and report data on the humanitarian impact of the use of explosive weapons globally and in relation to specific conflicts. Their efforts established a credible evidence base to support advocacy aimed at raising awareness of the harm to civilians resulting from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas and the need for state-led action to address it.

State action on the issue resulted in November 2022 in the endorsement by 83 states of the Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences Arising from the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas.[iii] The outcome of almost three years of intergovernmental consultations, the Declaration marked the first formal recognition at the international level that the use of explosive weapons in populated areas has severe humanitarian consequences that must be addressed.

The importance of including data collection and sharing in the future declaration was apparent from the outset of the consultation process leading to its adoption. At the first consultation in November 2019 (and all subsequent consultations), the International Network on Explosive Weapons (INEW), a coalition of civil society organizations, was among the participants to call for the future declaration to commit states to “[s]upport and undertake data gathering including data on victims of explosive weapons disaggregated by sex, age, and ability, and data on the weapon types used in populated areas and their impacts”.[iv]

INEW and its members, along with the UN and the ICRC, were also key in advocating for a broad understanding of the impact of explosive weapons and the scope of the data required. Impact should not only be considered in terms of the direct effects of explosive weapons, such as deaths and injuries, but also their indirect or reverberating effects: “a series of complex knock-on effects that spread out over time and space in urban ecosystems, with negative consequences for civilian well-being and the environment in which people live [and which] manifest across a wide range of interlinked sectors, including urban infrastructure, public health, education, culture and heritage, food security, economic prospects, and adverse environmental impacts.”

The importance of data collection on the impact of explosive weapons is firmly recognized in the Declaration as endorsed in November 2022. A number of its commitments speak to data collection and sharing by armed forces and supporting the data collection efforts of civil society, the UN and the ICRC. This article examines those commitments and makes recommendations for how they should be implemented by endorser states.[v]

The Political Declaration and Data Collection and Sharing

The Declaration includes a number of provisions on data collection. Paragraph 1.8 of the preamble underlines the rationale for, and importance of, data collection for states and armed forces, stating in part that:

“…improved data on civilian harm would help to inform policies designed to avoid, and in any event minimize, civilian harm; aid efforts to investigate harm to civilians; support efforts to determine or establish accountability, and enhance lessons learned processes in armed forces.”

Paragraph 1.8 could be interpreted as broadening the notion of data collection in terms of its purpose and the actors involved. Prior to the Declaration, data collection was largely understood in the context of the work of civil society, the UN and the ICRC. Its purpose was to raise awareness of the humanitarian impact of explosive weapons use and to push for more effective protection of civilians. The notion of data collection under the Declaration is expanded and focuses more on supporting states and their armed forces in understanding the causes of civilian harm. This understanding can then be used to inform tactical changes and the development of policy to mitigate harm and to support accountability by identifying civilian harm incidents that require investigation.

This understanding is reflected in the Declaration’s “operative section” which contains three paragraphs that speak to data collection and sharing with a particular, though not exclusive, emphasis on the role of armed forces.

Specifically, paragraph 4.2 commits states to:

“Collect, share, and make publicly available disaggregated data on the direct and indirect effects on civilians and civilian objects of military operations involving the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, where feasible and appropriate.”

In addition to ascribing a clear role to states and, by extension their armed forces, in collecting and sharing data, this paragraph is significant in that it clearly signifies that data should be collected on both the direct and indirect effects of the use of explosive weapons. Data collection is not just about capturing data on the number of civilians killed and injured by explosive weapons, but on the knock-on and longer-term impacts as well, such as damage to healthcare and other essential infrastructure. This would provide a fuller and more comprehensive understanding of the impact of military operations on civilians which would support the identification of tactical and other actions to better mitigate or prevent harm to civilians.

Paragraph 4.2 should be read in conjunction with paragraph 3.4 which, in part, commits states to:

“Ensure that their armed forces … conduct damage assessments to the degree feasible, and identify lessons learned.”

Reference should also be made to paragraph 4.3 which, though aimed at states, addresses the role of the UN, the ICRC and civil society in data collection. The paragraph commits states to:

“Facilitate the work of the [UN, ICRC] and relevant civil society organizations collecting data on the impact of civilians of military operations involving the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, as appropriate.”

Implementing the Commitments in Paragraphs 4.2 and 3.4

States could readily implement the commitments in paragraphs 4.2 and 3.4 of the Declaration through the practice of civilian harm tracking – an internal process through which state armed forces systematically gather data on civilian deaths and injuries, property damage or destruction, and other instances of harm to civilians caused by its operations.

The alternative would be for armed forces to rely on the existing practice of battle damage assessments (BDAs), or “damage assessments” as referred to in paragraph 3.4. BDAs are conducted immediately after an attack to assess the effect or degree of damage inflicted on the target and to make recommendations for additional strikes. In practice, BDAs are not always undertaken nor do they always consider the impact of the attack on civilians and civilian objects, let alone the resulting direct and indirect effects.[vi]

Embedding the commitments in paragraphs 4.2 and 3.4 in policy and practice

A conscious and concerted effort to understand the impact of military operations on civilians and civilian objects, including from the use of explosive weapons, is vital for ensuring accountability and redress, learning lessons and continuously working to strengthen the protection of civilians over time. To this end, in order to implement the commitments in paragraphs 4.2 and 3.4, militaries should develop policy and practice which provides for the establishment of:

• A standing capability to track, receive, analyze, and learn from, incidents of harm to civilians and civilian objects that would also provide the basis for regular, public reporting. Such a capability should ensure the collection of data on both the direct and indirect effects of military operations on civilians.
• Processes to ensure that analyses, findings and lessons-learned routinely inform operational changes and broader policy development in support of more effective protection of civilians.

Implementing the Commitment in Paragraph 4.3

The actors listed in paragraph 4.3 – the UN, the ICRC and civil society – collect such data for a variety of reasons, including to better understand the full scope of short and long-term impacts on civilians of explosive weapons use in populated areas. Data collection is also an essential component of their efforts to assist the victims of explosive weapons and to protect civilians from the risk of explosive remnants of war (ERW), including through such activities as risk education, and ERW marking and clearance.

Embedding the commitment in paragraph 4.3 in policy and practice

The commitment by states to facilitate the work of the UN, the ICRC and civil society organizations collecting data on the impact of explosive weapons should be understood broadly by states to include a range of possible actions which should be reflected in revised or new policy and practice. These include:

• Collecting, sharing, and making publicly available to the UN, the ICRC and civil society organizations disaggregated data on the direct and indirect effects on civilians and civilian objects of military operations involving the use of explosive weapons in populated areas (as provided for in paragraph 4.2)
• Commissioning and/or funding research and studies by the UN, the ICRC and civil society organizations into the short and long-term impact of the use of explosive weapons in populated areas to further broaden and deepen our understanding of those impacts, the nature and scope of what “can be reasonably foreseen in the planning of military operations”[xii], and the steps required to prevent and mitigate them.
• Supporting ERW risk education, marking and clearance activities by the UN, the ICRC and civil society by providing them with data on the use of explosive weapons, including the approximate number of explosive weapons used, the type and nature of explosive weapons used, and the general location of known and probably unexploded ordnance.

Conclusion

Collecting and sharing data on the use of explosive weapons in populated areas is a fundamental prerequisite for understanding the impacts of such use on civilians and for informing tactical and broader policy changes to better protect civilians.

Since November 2022, data collection is also a fundamental prerequisite for the implementation of the political Declaration. The inclusion in the Declaration of commitments relating to data collection and sharing by armed forces, as well as their role in supporting the data collection efforts of other actors, is an important recognition of the vital contribution of these activities to strengthening the protection of civilians.

Key now will be ensuring that states and their armed forces establish the necessary capacities, policies and processes to give effect to these commitments. Fortunately, precedents exist, especially in the area of civilian harm tracking, and can be built upon. In that sense, the path forward is clear. Endorser states and their armed forces must now demonstrate the political will to follow it.