SafeGround Pacific Strategy

“FIND ME BOMB”SafeGround Pacific Explosive Remnants of War Strategy2015-2018

Find Me Bomb | SafeGround Nine Island Pacific Explosive Remnants of War Strategy 2015-2018 2

Acronyms & Definitions 3

Executive Summary 4

1. Explosive Remnants of War in the Pacific 5 1.1 Introduction 51.2 SafeGround’s Key Strategic Objectives 61.3 Explosive Remnants of War 71.4 WWII in the Pacific 71.5 ERW: A dangerous legacy 81.6 Casualties from ERW 9

2. Recent Developments 102.1 Pacific Islands Forum Regional UXO Strategy 102.2 PIFS Partnership 102.3 SafeGround 112.4 ERW Survey and Clearance 12

3. SafeGround’s Key Strategic Objectives 133.1 Research 133.2 Strategise 153.3 Produce 153.4 Educate 16 3.5 Advocate 17

Appendices 191. Relevant International Frameworks 19

Cover photo: Explosive ordnance lies abandoned in the Solomon Islands in April 2015.All photos copyright John Rodsted unless otherwise stated.

Strategy written by Kerryn ClarkeApproved by SafeGround National Committee: April 26, 2015

CONTENTS


Acronyms

ANBLC: Australian Network to Ban Landmines and Cluster Munitions

AXO: Abandoned Explosive Ordnance

ERW: Explosive Remnants of War

GICHD: Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining

ICBL-AN: International Campaign to Ban Landmines – Australian Network Inc

PNG: Papua New Guinea

PIF: Pacific Island Forum

PIFS: Pacific Island Forum Secretariat

UXO: Unexploded Ordnance

WWII: World War Two

Definitions

Abandoned Explosive Ordnance: AXO are explosive ordnance that were not used during an armed conflict but were left behind or dumped by a party to an armed conflict who no longer has control over the ordnance. AXO may or may not have been primed, fused, armed or otherwise prepared for use.

Explosive Remnants of War: ERW are explosive munitions that have been left over after a conflict has ended. This includes Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) and Abandoned Explosive Ordnance (AXO).

Mine action: Activities aimed at addressing the social, economic and environmental impacts of landmine and UXO through five pillars of action: humanitarian clearance, risk education, victim assistance, stockpile destruction and advocacy.

Pacific War: Refers to the fighting during WWII throughout the Pacific region that was fought in nine of the island nations.

Unexploded Ordnance: Explosive ordnance that have been primed, fused, armed, or otherwise prepared for use or used. It may have been fired, dropped, launched or projected yet remains unexploded either through malfunction or design or for any other reason.

World War Two: WWII from 1939 to 1945 spanned numerous continents with the majority of the contestation on the Pacific front fought during the later years of the war, commonly referred to as the ‘Pacific War’.

ACRONYMS & DEFINITIONS


The presence of unexploded and abandoned ordnance from World War Two (WWII) in the Pacific Islands region continues to endanger lives and hinder development 70 years after the conclusion of hostilities. WWII in the Pacific turned much of the isolated region into one large extended battlefield. At the end of the war foreign military forces left behind sunken ships, burnt-out tanks, abandoned stockpiles and large empty gun emplacements as well as unexploded ordnance (UXO) that continue to litter land and sea. Limited research has been undertaken to understand and map the impacts of explosive remnants of war (ERW) throughout the nine affected Pacific Island nations. SafeGround is working with the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS), local communities and other partners throughout the Pacific Islands region to reduce the impacts of ERW on communities and clear this on-going legacy of WWII.

The primary focus of SafeGround’s work is to establish a foundation of knowledge regarding the impacts of ERW on communities and their environment throughout the nine affected Pacific Island nations. Practical research will be undertaken in locations with suspected high

levels of ERW contamination, capturing the stories of the affected individuals and communities and to map the diverse range of current and potential future impacts of ERW for Pacific Island communities and the environment. The cornerstones of this program are the partnership with PIFS and the extensive field research working with local communities, national governments, civil society actors and mine action agencies. With this knowledge, SafeGround will help promote awareness and advocate for change, working closely with governments, local communities, and civil society groups to spur action and remediate this region-wide problem. This will include risk education with affected communities, growing awareness of the issues locally, regionally and globally, and calling for an increase of resources into the region.

As the 70th anniversary of the ending of the WWII in the Pacific comes to pass, the violence of the war continues for many Pacific Islander communities living in areas where the weaponry and threat of WWII remains. SafeGround with our partners seek to end the presence and impacts of ERW across this vast and beautiful region.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Explosive ordnance found in the Solomon Islands awaits destruction.


1.1 Introduction

While the fighting of World War Two (WWII) in the Pacific ended seventy years ago, its legacy is much more than a memory for many Pacific Island communities. The presence of WWII unexploded and abandoned ordnance continues to endanger lives and inhibit development throughout the region. Globally, awareness of the diverse and inhibiting impacts of explosive remnants of war (ERW) and unexploded ordnance (UXO) on civilian communities has grown substantially over the past three decades.1 Efforts to reduce the human and environmental impacts have also grown exponentially. The Mine Ban Treaty and the Convention on Cluster Munitions are two prominent international frameworks that have been enacted to reduce the legacy of harm some weapon systems cause.2 In contrast, no such attention has been paid to the impacts of ERW on Pacific Island communities.3 There is no detailed profile of the ERW problems affecting Pacific Island nations and their communities. Over the decades since WWII, clearance has been conducted predominantly by ad hoc military engagements and a small number of humanitarian clearance organisations without sustained and coordinated efforts throughout the region.4 Only limited surveying of the ERW-affected areas within the region has been undertaken and a systematic survey across the region is yet to occur. Limited risk education has been conducted with impacted communities.

Nine Pacific Island nations were contaminated by ordnance to varying degrees during WWII. These are Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea (PNG), Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. The impacts from ERW across the nine contaminated Pacific islands are wide

ranging. A myriad of factors have bearing on the legacy of ERW in each locality from the amount and type of weapons used, how and where they were deployed, munition failure rates, the uncontrolled dumping of munitions, and variations in terrain. Post-conflict there are additional factors that need to be considered, including cultural practices relating to land and maritime estuaries, population density and economic activities. As such, the impacts of ERW on individuals, communities and their nation shift and change over space and time.

Given this dynamic nature, SafeGround’s strategy is to undertake practical research in each location, capturing the stories of the affected individuals and communities, and to map the diverse range of current and potential future impacts of ERW on Pacific Island communities and their environment.

The research will highlight the multifaceted impacts of ERW on communities and the environment through deskwork and field investigations, and advocate for activities and risk education required as well as clearance operations. The cornerstones of this program are the partnership with Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS), and extensive field research working with local communities, national governments, civil society actors and mine action agencies. On-the-ground investigation will establish the first in depth analysis of the impact of WWII ERW across the affected Pacific Island nations and establish the foundations for local solutions and international funding requirements to resolve the issues. Working closely with local communities, governments and civil society, the research will be synthesised and presented to inspire action to eradicate ERW and their impacts.

1. ERW IN THE PACIFIC

1 The definitions of ERW and UXO are in the Definitions section. UXO is a subset of ERW.2 See Appendices for more information about the Mine Ban Treaty and the Convention on Cluster Munitions.3 PIFS, “WWII Unexploded Ordnance – A study of UXO in four Pacific Island Countries”, PIFS, August 2011, p. 14.4 Smith, J. “ERW contamination in the Pacific Islands”, Journal of ERW and Mine Action, Fall 2014, issue 18, volume 3, p. 10


1.2 Key Strategic Objectives

SafeGround’s strategy is to undertake practical research in the Pacific nations, capturing the stories of the affected individuals and communities, and to map the diverse range of current and potential future impacts of ERW on communities and their environment. SafeGround’s goal is to support PIFS in enhancing the wellbeing and economic prospects of Pacific Island communities through reducing the impacts of WWII ERW. Six objectives will be achieved through five inter-related activities:

» ResearchObjective 1: Increased identification and understanding of the impacts of ERW that cause community hardship, economic barriers and/or negative environmental impacts across nine affected Pacific Island nations – Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea (PNG), Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.

» StrategiseObjective 2: In partnership with PIFS and through

consultation with affected communities, local partners and other relevant stakeholders, practical strategies identified to reduce the impacts of ERW.

» ProduceObjective 3: Pacific Islanders and their communities affected by ERW share their stories and promote strategies to reduce the impacts of ERW through the production of awareness raising materials.

» EducateObjective 4: Risk to communities posed by ERW is reduced through awareness raising and behaviour change.

» AdvocateObjective 5: Increased resources committed and utilized to reduce the human and environmental impacts of ERW in Pacific Island nations, including resources from nations that created the ERW problem and other international donors.

Objective 6: Regional coordination to reduce ERW and their impacts increased.

Explosive remnants of war are collected in the Solomon Islands for safe disposal by ERW clearance teams.


1.3 Explosive Remnants of War

SafeGround’s strategy is driven by the need to understand and address the harm to individuals, communities and the environment caused by a wide range of weapons deployed in the region that have a post-conflict legacy. The term ‘ERW’ is used to cover conventional explosive weapons such as artillery, mortars, bombs, grenades, detonators, landmines and sea mines that were either deployed and failed to explode or that were abandoned. This broad mandate will allow for a regional profile of the presence and impacts of ERW to be established without restricting the focus to any particular weapon system.

The presence of chemical and biological weapons that were predominantly abandoned and the long-term effect of nuclear weaponry testing cannot be separated from the discussion of ERW and their impacts in the Pacific

region. To consider ERW while overlooking the impacts of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons would be to ignore part of the context. In some cases chemical or biological weapons have been found to be with ERW and required to be cleared within the same operations using similar processes. While this strategy focuses on a much under-researched area of ERW in the Pacific, it will include the impacts of other weaponry where there is overlap.

‘ERW impact’ refers to the multifaceted way in which the presence and or suspected presence of ERW affects people’s lives. This includes the most obvious risks posed to health and safety, as well as encompassing the economic, social and environmental impacts of ERW, such as access to potable water sources, agriculture and fishing locations, and infrastructure development such as roads, markets and schools.

5 PIFS, “WWII Unexploded Ordnance – A study of UXO in four Pacific Island Countries”, PIFS, August 2011, p. 166 ibid7 ibid8 ibid, p. 17. Further evidence of significant ERW contamination has been revealed by Operation Render Safe, conducted by the Australian Defence Force.

1.4 WWII in the Pacific

WWII expanded to the Pacific region following the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941. The bombings launched Japan’s campaign to seize numerous territories and islands across South East Asia and the Pacific. Japanese forces seized territories as far west as Burma, as far east as Kiritimati Island in Kiribati, and as far south as Vanuatu. The Allied forces, primarily from the United States, Australia and New Zealand aided by local communities, eventually pushed back the Japanese forces by 1945 through a series of bloody battles that brought with them vast amounts of ordnance into the Pacific region. The exact amount is difficult to verify, however it is known to be substantial. This is evidenced by reports claiming over 6,800 tonnes of bombs were dropped on Chuuk Lagoon alone (today in the Federated States of Micronesia), while 4,818 tonnes of bombs and artillery were directed at Kwajalein Atoll (today in the Marshall Islands) by the US Armed Forces.5

Another estimate totals some 15,000 tonnes of explosives dropped on the Marshall Islands during the war. Masses of weaponry including landmines, grenades, ammunitions and in some cases chemical weapons were shipped into areas of conflict for storage and deployment.6 Of the weaponry deployed, the failure rate of some ordnance deployed was up to 30%.7 During the war years, both the Japanese and Allied forces established military bases and ammunition depots in numerous localities across the Pacific Island region, including Chuuk, Funafuti, Nanumea, Betio, Guadalcanal, Tulagi, Gavutu and New Britain. Vast quantities of ammunition were abandoned at the end of the war, predominantly consisting of US and Japan stockpiles. Although little data has been compiled to determine the levels of WWII ERW throughout the nine affected Pacific Island nations, evidence suggests it is substantial. The quantity of ordnance rendered safe by active clearance operations in Palau, Bougainville and the Solomon Islands in recent years is testimony to the abundant and lethal legacy of WWII ERW.8


1.5 ERW: A dangerous legacy

WWII in the Pacific turned much of the isolated region into one large extended battlefield. At the end of WWII the foreign military forces left behind sunken ships, burnt-out tanks, abandoned ammunition stockpiles, and large empty gun emplacements as well as UXO and chemical weapons. The 2011 report WWII UXO – A study of UXO in four Pacific Island countries by PIFS is the only field study on the impacts of ERW in the region. The study covers Kiribati, Palau, PNG and the Solomon Islands and found that:

This useful study was however limited by a severe lack of information and data on UXO in the region as well as by scarce resources to fund extensive field research.10 The need for understanding the depth and scope of the issues was identified as key to addressing this problem. The study highlighted the need for increased data and information on the location and manifestations of ERW impacts as well as a technical survey of the contamination.11 In addition, a 2009 desk study commissioned by the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) concluded that based on historical data there was an obvious degree of ERW contamination within many countries in the Pacific region. GICHD noted that ‘dealing with the full extent of the contamination is beyond the scope of many of the countries’,12 and recommended that field research was required to fully understand ERW contamination throughout the region.

…UXO items continue to be present in varying levels in affected areas. These items are located on the ground, sub-surface or underwater in both rural and urban areas. UXO has the potential to cause significant impacts on local communities through safety issues resulting in possible loss of life or injuries as evidenced in PNG and Solomon Islands; environmental impacts resulting from the leaching of harmful chemicals contained in the UXO, or from the links of UXO to fishing with explosives which damages reefs and lagoon ecological systems; impeding development

9 PIFS, “WWII Unexploded Ordnance – A study of UXO in four Pacific Island Countries”, PIFS, August 2011.10 ibid, p. 1411 ibid, p. 7212 GICHD Pre-Survey Study into Explosive Remnants of War (ERW) in the South Pacific, GICHD, Geneva, March 2009, p. 23

activities especially those linked to excavation; and impeding the ability of local communities to utilise land for economic activities such as those related to tourism and subsistence agriculture. 9

A fisherman who was injured by WWII ERW when he was fish bombing, the practice of re-using explsoives from WWII as fishing devices.


13 PIF Member representative statements at the Brisbane Pacific Regional ERW Workshop, June 201314 One such chemical is picric acid found in Japanese depth charges sunk with a ship in Palau and have been found to be leaking the acid into the harbour. While no scientific study has been conducted visual indications of environmental impact are evident. See Smith, J. “ERW Contamination in the Pacific Islands”, Journal of Mine Action, Fall 2014, vol. 18, issue 3, p. 12 15 The Landmine Monitor does not regularly report casualty rates from the Pacific region. When it has reported in the past, the information has been sourced from official government statistics and has not been validated through in-country research. See country profiles on www.the-monitor.org.

Many facets of life are affected by the presence of ERW, from limiting agricultural practices, restricting building of new infrastructure, operating a small business, access for tourism, and/or fishing in contaminated waters.13 A further issue to be explored under this strategy will be the impacts of individuals tampering with ERW. ERW is tampered with to salvage the explosive component to be used in fishing. While this practice of ‘fish bombing’ is illegal in all of the nine ERW-affected Pacific Islands states, it is anecdotally prevalent. Further research is required to understand, document and reduce death and injury from this issue.

Numerous underwater shipwrecks still contain full fuel tanks. While many of the tanks have remained intact for the past 70 years, it is only a matter of time before they begin to rupture and disgorge their cargoes of fuel across sea, land and reefs. The danger of disturbing a discarded munition and the leaching of poisonous chemicals into the soil, ocean and waterways, means this violent chapter of history has never truly been closed for communities throughout the Pacific Islands.14 Whilst these munitions remain, this ever-present danger will continue to exist.

1.6 Casualties from ERW

The exact number of deaths and injuries from ERW across the nine-affected Pacific nations is unknown due to the lack of record keeping and incident reporting. No comprehensive study has been conducted to investigate the numbers of injuries and deaths from ERW. Casualties from tampering with ERW are assumed to often go unreported due to the illegal nature of this activity. SafeGround seeks to understand the extent to which people are injured and killed each year from ERW in the nine affected countries, and to work with partners to prevent casualties.15

Explosive ordnance disposal training in the Solomon Islands in April 2015.


2.1 Pacific Islands Forum Regional UXO Strategy

Pacific Island Forum16 members endorsed the first Regional Strategy on UXO in 2012. The strategy aims to assist Members in the management of the negative impacts of WWII UXO and improve coordination between national administrations, donors and demining organisations to mitigate and remove the threats posed by the presence of unexploded ordnance. The key areas of focus include: reducing adverse impacts caused by WWII UXO on Pacific communities and the environment; enhancing capacity of Forum Island Countries to manage UXO threats; improving mobilisation and coordination of resources; and increasing public awareness and support for relevant international conventions. In their 2013 Annual Report, the strategy was reported to have ‘proved valuable in generating a significant increase in demining activities in the region’.17 However, PIFS has identified a primary challenge facing countries with ERW contamination as the lack of awareness and data on the extent and severity of the issues communities are facing.18 A lack of resources allocated to understand and deal with the presence and impacts of ERW across the region form a significant barrier to understanding and ending the harm caused by ERW.

2.2 PIFS Partnership

PIFS was tasked in 2010 by Forum Leaders to assist in addressing the longstanding presence of ERW throughout the region.19 Since 2013, SafeGround has been partnering with PIFS to support their regional coordination efforts to raise awareness and develop local solutions to address the ERW legacy of WWII. The partnership was cemented with the joint coordination of the Regional Pacific ERW Workshop held in Brisbane, Australian in June 2013. Funded by the Australian Government Aid Program, the workshop brought together government representatives from affected and non-affected Pacific Island nations, as well as from the Australian and United States governments, to discuss the impacts of ERW in the Pacific and future requirements to resolve the problems. Those present called for positive action to be taken to end this harmful legacy of WWII.20

SafeGround is committed to working alongside PIFS and with relevant stakeholders in Pacific Island nations in the implementation of their current and future plans to eradicate the presence and impacts of ERW. The SafeGround strategy supports the development and implementation of such plans. PIFS representatives invited SafeGround to undertake a joint project aimed at researching ERW contamination in Pacific Island nations and to disseminate this information via accessible and interactive means to both increase awareness of ERW in the Pacific and attract international funding to help ameliorate the problem. This strategy is an evolution of that request, continuing the collaboration between PIFS and SafeGround.

2. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

16 The Pacific Islands Forum is a political grouping of independent and self-governing states within the Pacific region. For more information see www.forumsec.org 17 PIFS, “Annual Report 2013”, PIFS, p. 21.18 PIFS, “WWII Unexploded Ordnance – A study of UXO in four Pacific Island Countries”, PIFS, August 201119 The Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS) is mandated to coordinate the implementation of Forum Leaders’ decisions on regional cooperation for the benefit of the peoples of the Pacific. Specifically, the PIFS Law Enforcement Unit was tasked by the Forum Regional Security Committee (FRSC) to investigate the impacts of WWII unexploded ordnance in 2010 and to assist them in addressing this longstanding issue.20 PIF Member representative statements at the Brisbane Pacific Regional ERW Workshop, June 2013


2.3 SafeGround

SafeGround is an Australian research and education not-for-profit organisation that works to minimise the impacts of war and conflict. SafeGround’s mission is:

The organisation was incorporated in the early 1990s as the International Campaign to Ban Landmines – Australian Network (ICBL-AN) and later became the Australian Network to Ban Landmines and Cluster Munitions (ANBLC). In 2013 the organisation transitioned to become SafeGround and broadened its focus to conduct research and education, and to advocate on specific issues that impact civilians during and after conflict, while maintaining its historical focus of ending the harm to civilians caused by landmines and cluster munitions. Since the early 1990s SafeGround members have actively participated in the international legal treaty processes that culminated in the adoption of the Mine Ban Treaty and the Convention on

Cluster Munitions (which are explained in Appendix 1). The organisation has conducted research projects and produced dual language books that document landmines and cluster bomb contamination in Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Vietnam.21 All three books have increased awareness of the issues caused by ERW and successfully facilitated funding into the region for mine action activities. Notably the publication focusing on ERW in eastern Cambodia titled “In Search of Safe Ground” has facilitated some 2.2 million USD of donor assistance into the area for mine action activities through raising international awareness of the level of ERW contamination and the challenges faced by communities. Working in close partnership with affected communities, local partners and government agencies is foundational to SafeGround’s way of working.

SafeGround members possess a diverse set of expertise and skills that reflect many years of experience in the mine action sector. Through paid and volunteer work, the members undertake the work of the organisation offering vital skills and knowledge. The organisation is dynamic and aims to continuously learn and develop through research, refection and partnerships. An important aspect of this approach is mentoring newer members to ensure the organisation’s expertise and skill-set is grown and strengthened for many years to come.

through applied research, education and advocacy, SafeGround works to help prevent and reduce the impacts of war and conflict, to eradicate explosive remnants of war, to protect lives and restore livelihoods, to make unsafe ground safe and to prevent safe ground becoming unsafe.

21 The titles of the publications are: Claiming the Future - The Impact of UXO and Landmines in Lao PDR; The People’s Story-Confronting UXO and Landmines in Vietnam; and In Search of Safe Ground- Cluster Bombs and ERW in Eastern Cambodia.

SafeGround committee member Mette Eliseussen interviews a Solomon Islander who lost his arm in an ERW-related incident.


2.4 ERW Survey and Clearance

A small number of actors currently conduct limited ERW mapping and clearance in Pacific Island nations, including periodic military clearance operations, commercial and humanitarian clearance organisations. There is, however, a lack of regional and national coordination and priority setting based on technical and non-technical survey data to best target efforts. Humanitarian clearance organisations, including the Japanese Mine Action Service, Cleared Ground Demining and Golden West Humanitarian Foundation have been active in the Marshall Islands, Palau and the Solomon Islands. Milsearch Proprietary Limited, an Australian commercial company, has conducted some survey and clearance activities

in Kiribati, PNG and the Solomon Islands. Operation Render Safe is a multinational military operation led by Australia to safely dispose of WWII ERW in South Pacific nations. In 2014 Explosive Ordnance Disposal teams from Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada and Solomon Islands disposed of some 16 tons of ERW in the district of Torokina on the west coast of Bougainville, PNG.22 This mission supported the development of clearance capacity within the region with the inclusion of Solomon Island clearance personnel. Despite these achievements, a coordinated ERW survey and clearance plan has yet to be developed, and clearance activities continue to be conducted on an ad hoc and periodic basis.

22 “Operation RENDER SAFE”, http://www.defence.gov.au/operations/SouthWestPacificNations/, accessed 6 February 2015

A mortar recovered from a village soccer field in the Solomon Islands in April 2015.


Understanding the extent, severity and location of ERW contamination throughout the Pacific and the ERW impact on individuals and communities, are initial steps in remediating the impacts of this WWII legacy. SafeGround’s research is focused on building an evidence-base of information from which localized, national and regional solutions can be developed and implemented. These solutions will need to be agreed by PIFS, and should be supported by the development of national and regional ERW policies and action plans. Higher levels of donor support and coordination is expected to be required, particularly from those countries responsible for the ERW contamination. To complement its own research SafeGround calls for the resourcing of a comprehensive ERW Level One Survey of the areas of concern throughout the region.

SafeGround field surveys and documentation will follow extensive preliminary desk research to identify

WWII battle areas with legacies that continue to affect communities. This will include reviewing information contained in US and Australian military archives as well as acting in consultation with mine action agencies and local government authorities. During field visits the community local knowledge will be paramount in locating ERW and understanding their impacts. In addition, local partnerships will be important to access contaminated areas that can be geographically remote and isolated resulting in high cost of travel and long, slow movement between the affected communities due to limited boat and plane access to many areas.

SafeGround’s field methodology utilizes in-depth interviewing and first-hand documentation of the ERW impacts on communities and the environment. This will include capturing in photograph and film ERW and their impacts on communities, including on tourism, economic prospects, social life and environmental harm. Interviews

3. KEY OBJECTIVES

3.1 Research

Objective 1: Increased identification and understanding of the impacts of ERW that cause community hardship, economic barriers and/or negative environmental impacts across nine affected Pacific Island nations – Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.• Output 1.1: Areas of high likelihood of heavy contamination with WWII ERW identified through desk

research, including archival data research.• Output 1.2: Field visits planned in partnership with PIFS, relevant government authorities, local civil society

members and mine action organisations.• Output 1.3: Participatory field research undertaken visiting communities and areas identified in initial desk

research and through community consultations.• Output 1.4: Rates of ERW incidents and casualties investigated in areas visited.


will be the primary source of information. They will be conducted with community members, government and civil society representatives as well as ERW survivors. The fieldwork and desk research will be undertaken through a participatory and collaborative lens. SafeGround is committed to an inclusive and consultative approach working closely with local communities, national governments, regional organisations, civil society and mine action partners.

Researchers will also utilize photographs and film during the fieldwork. For many Pacific Island communities the presence of ERW is commonplace and has been a part of daily life for many decades. As such there is a risk of ERW not being identified to the researchers as it has ceased to be considered as dangerous or even something of interest. SafeGround researchers will use photographs and films to show villagers exactly what they are seeking and so increase the chances of effectively locating ERW.

The order and extent of research conducted in each of the nine ERW-affected Pacific Island nations is guided by a number of principles and determined in collaboration with PIFS. The central guiding principles include the extent and number of battlefields from WWII within the

country boundaries of today, casualty data if available, current level of mine action activity, and the national government’s interest and/or request for assistance.

Phase 1 of SafeGround’s ERW program in the Pacific is currently underway and focuses on the Solomon Islands, with joint funding provided by SafeGround and the Australian Government Aid Program. Phase 1 is scheduled to conclude in mid 2015, after which SafeGround intends to conduct Phase 2 in 2015-16, in accordance with PIFS priorities. Phase 2 addresses three separate but inter-related ERW activities in the Pacific islands:

• research to prevent the dangerous practice of dynamite fishing in the Solomon Islands;

• a scoping mission to PNG to validate arrangements for a subsequent ERW research team; and

• commencement of an ERW country study in Vanuatu.

The outcomes of Phases 1 and 2 will inform priorities for subsequent work to be determined by SafeGround in partnership with PIFS and other stakeholders.

War refuse litters islands across the Pacific. This vehicle was found in the Solomon Islands in April 2015.


Capturing the stories of affected communities and giving their voices a megaphone to be heard by their governments, mine action community and international donor community is another key component of this strategy. Utilizing the information and data from the fieldwork, a number of accessible resources for local communities, national governments, SafeGround and

mine action agencies will be developed to document the findings and to present possible strategies to reduce ERW impacts. The products are intended to be highly visual in nature. They will be thoroughly researched and factual as well as engaging and accessible to a wide spectrum of stakeholders.

SafeGround is committed to the principle of national ownership and will work closely with local and national governments of Pacific Island states, civil society representatives and, importantly, with communities to identify ways to reduce and end the impacts of ERW on

communities and the environment. Technical expertise and strategy development will be sought from mine action partners to combine with the experience of the SafeGround field research team.

3.2 Strategise

Objective 2: In partnership with PIFS and through consultation with affected communities, local partners and other relevant stakeholders, practical strategies identified to reduce the impacts of ERW.• Output 2.1: Key stakeholders in-country with respect to ERW engaged in discussions to develop strategies

to reduce impacts.

3.3 Produce

Objective 3: Pacific Islanders and their communities affected by ERW share their stories and promote strategies to reduce the impacts of ERW through the production of awareness raising materials.• Output 3.1: The stories of ERW-affected communities and the impacts of ERW on their environment are

captured in a documentary produced in each country field research is conducted.• Output 3.2: Photographic exhibition developed to share the stories of survivors and affected communities

for each country in which field research is conducted.• Output 3.3: Report detailing impacts of ERW on communities and the environment for each country in

which field research is conducted.• Output 3.4: A book sharing the voices of affected communities is produced with a comprehensive overview

of the impacts of WWII ERW throughout the Pacific Islands region.


Risk education is one of the five pillars of mine action programs to reduce harm caused by landmines, UXO and ERW more generally. Growing awareness and changing the way individuals perceive and interact with ERW is central to increasing their safety. ERW risk awareness materials will be developed to be locally appropriate and to utilize a range of tools from photographic exhibitions

and films to interactive education sessions. As well as affected communities, ERW risk awareness education will be shared with local government representatives and civil society groups to increase awareness of the issues and engage key groups to advocate their national government to implement strategies to reduce and or eliminate the risks.

3.4 Educate

Objective 4: Risk to communities posed by ERW is reduced through awareness raising and behaviour change.• Output 4.1: ERW risk awareness materials developed appropriate for local contexts within each country of

focus.• Output 4.2: ERW risk awareness sessions conducted with highly impacted affected-communities.• Output 4.3: Local government and civil society groups participate in ERW risk awareness education.

Children from a village impacted by WWII ERW in the Solomon Islands.


Mobilising the support of international donors, including key actors from WWII in the Pacific, will be key for ERW-affected Pacific Island nations to overcome this legacy. It is a legacy that is within the national boundaries of Pacific Island states, however was created as part of an international conflict between global actors. Although owned by Pacific Island states, the responsibility to support the clearance ERW and eliminating their impacts lies far wider. This includes the commitment of newly allocated assistance to the region not at the expense of existing international support to Pacific Island states. As part of this, and to strengthen resolves to end this legacy, SafeGround will advocate for the integration of ERW issues into Pacific Island states national policy frameworks with particular focus on poverty reduction, development and environmental management.

No treaty or agreement under international law regulates

the clearance of WWII ERW, however a number of disarmament treaties can provide the framework for state parties to access assistance for their broader ERW problems. The majority of ERW affected Pacific Island countries are members of the Mine Ban Treaty. However only a small number of the nine states are party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

The universalisation of these treaties in and of itself is important in the international context of preventing future contamination by either weapon system and supporting affected individuals and communities. For ERW-affected Pacific Island states their lack of membership to the CCM excludes them from accessing the treaty network of key donors and technical experts. PIFS has reported that the international assistance provided to Palau to clear WWII ERW was activated through their participation in the Mine Ban Treaty.

3.5 Advocate

Objective 5: Increased resources committed and utilized to reduce the human and environmental impacts of ERW in Pacific Island nations, including resources from nations that created the ERW problem and other international donors.• Output 5.1: In coordination with PIFS, ERW-affected Pacific Island governments engaged in advocating for

international assistance to deal with ERW impacts, including to nations that caused the ERW problems.• Output 5.2: Photographic exhibition and film presented in key locations of affected countries and for

representatives of donor governments and those that caused the ERW problems.• Output 5.3: Support provided to Pacific Island nations not States Party to the Mine Ban Treaty and or the

Convention on Cluster Munitions to make progress towards joining the international conventions. • Output 5.4: In collaboration with PIFS, affected Pacific Island governments supported to include strategies

to overcome the presence and impacts of ERW in their national policy framework, including within broad national development plans.

WWII refuse found in the Solomon Islands in April 2015.


A strong mine action sector and central coordinating body to end the presence and impacts of ERW in the region would enhance collaboration between partners and the sharing of technical expertise and resources. SafeGround seeks to work with partners to support the development of such capacities to be utilised in the Pacific Islands region. This includes supporting the development of regional technical skills and clearance personnel within government infrastructures, as such with the Solomon Islands Clearance Training Centre.

SafeGround is committed to working with local civil society groups to develop ownership and expertise of the

ERW-issues communities are facing, as well as support them to advocate for ending the harm caused by WWII ERW. Currently there is little to no work undertaken by civil society actors throughout the region on this issue. Coupled with this there is limited knowledge of how the impacts of ERW can be reduced and eventually eliminated. A cornerstone of this program is to work collaboratively with local communities to share knowledge and expertise on this issue, as well as develop a network of civil society actors that are interested and equipped to advocate for the reduction and eradication of ERW. This will be intertwined with the research fieldwork at each country level.

Objective 6: Regional coordination to reduce ERW and their impacts increased.• Output 6.1: Advocate for the implementation and resourcing of the Pacific Island Forum UXO Strategy.• Output 6.2: Advocate regional coordination and sharing of technical support for ERW clearance within the

Pacific Island region, including with the Solomon Islands clearance training center.• Output 6.3: Network of civil society organisations engaged at local, national and regional levels advocating

governments to implement strategies to reduce ERW and their impacts.• Output 6.4: Online community active in engaging local stakeholders in discussion and sharing of knowledge

on reducing ERW in the Pacific Islands region.

A WWII tank lies abandoned in the Solomon Islands.


1. Revelant International Frameworks

Convention on Cluster Munitions: The Convention on Cluster Munitions is an international treaty that prohibits all use, stockpiling, production and transfer of cluster munitions. Separate articles in the Convention include assistance to victims, clearance of contaminated areas and destruction of stockpiles.

Mine Ban Treaty: The Mine Ban Treaty is an international treaty that prohibits all use, stockpile, production and transfer of victim-activated anti-personnel landmines. It does not include anti-vehicle mines.

Convention on Conventional Weapons: The Convention on Conventional Weapons is an international framework with a number of protocols restricting the use of specific weapon systems which are considered excessively injurious or whose effects are indiscriminate.

Chemical Weapons Convention: The Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits the use, production, stockpiling or transfer of chemical weapons. Obligations on states party include declaring chemical weapons that have been abandoned by another state without consent on or after January 1, 1925. All Pacific Island nations are full states party to this convention. The convention covers landmines, booby traps, incendiary weapons, blinding laser weapons and clearance of explosive remnant of war.

Geneva Protocol: The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare – otherwise known as the Geneva Protocol - was signed in 1925 and entered into force in 1928. It prohibits the use of biological and chemical weapons. It does not include regulations on the production, storage or transfer of such weapons.

APPENDICES

Abandoned artillery shells cut in half ready to be burned and destroyed by trained clearance teams in the Solomon Islands.

Documents

SafeGround Pacific Strategy