The use of explosive weapons in populated areas continues to wreak devastation on civilians and infrastructure globally. But how do we address the long-lasting consequences of these attacks? One of the most crucial steps lies in gathering comprehensive data on the impact of these weapons.
In fact, this was a focal point in the Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences Arising from the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas, endorsed by 83 states in November 2022.
This article explores the Declaration’s commitments to data collection, examining how these promises might translate into practical action and what states can do to fulfill their obligations.
The Importance of Data: A Foundation for Action
For over a decade, collecting reliable data on the civilian toll of explosive weapons has been recognised as essential. Back in 2009, a landmark report from Landmine Action called for more robust data to guide policy on the use of explosive weapons. Just a year later, the UN Secretary-General emphasised that detailed, systematic data collection was fundamental to understanding the human costs of these weapons and shaping meaningful international policy. Since that time, AOAV has been collating data on explosive weapon use globally, along with the United Nations (UN) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Most importantly, our focus has been on documenting the effects of explosive weapons in conflict zones.
Our work provided the evidence needed to highlight the widespread devastation these weapons cause, particularly in urban areas, where civilians often bear the brunt of the attacks. The efforts of these groups also laid the groundwork for state-led initiatives, culminating in the Political Declaration of 2022.
What the Declaration Says About Data Collection
A core component of the Declaration is its emphasis on data collection and transparency. It urges governments to prioritize gathering and sharing data on civilian casualties and infrastructure damage caused by explosive weapons. This goes beyond simply counting deaths and injuries—it calls for understanding the ripple effects of explosive weapons, which often extend to the destruction of essential services like healthcare, education, and sanitation.
It is something AOAV is passionate about.
Under the Declaration, state militaries are encouraged to track and report not just immediate harm but also the indirect consequences of their operations. Paragraph 4.2 specifically 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.”
This shift signals a more inclusive approach to data collection, moving away from the reliance on civil society and international organizations. Now, state actors are being called to play a central role in documenting and mitigating the harm caused by their actions.
How Can States Turn Promises Into Practice?
For states, implementing the Declaration’s commitments will require a thorough overhaul of military procedures. One practical step involves establishing civilian harm tracking mechanisms, similar to those used in Afghanistan by the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Civilian harm tracking allows militaries to gather information about civilian casualties, property destruction, and other forms of harm in real-time. This data can then inform immediate changes to military tactics, minimising future harm.
In the absence of robust civilian harm tracking, many armed forces rely on battle damage assessments (BDAs), which primarily focus on the destruction of military targets. Unfortunately, BDAs often overlook civilian casualties and infrastructure damage, leaving a critical gap in understanding the full impact of explosive weapons.
For real progress, militaries need to move beyond the limited scope of BDAs and adopt more comprehensive harm tracking practices. By doing so, they can develop policies that not only reduce civilian casualties but also ensure accountability when harm does occur.
Supporting the Role of Civil Society and International Organisations
While the Declaration rightly calls for greater involvement from state actors, civil society and international organisations like the UN and ICRC still have an essential role to play. Paragraph 4.3 of the Declaration commits states to facilitate the work of these organisations by providing data and supporting research into the effects of explosive weapons.
These groups often work in the aftermath of conflicts to assess long-term damage and provide aid, including risk education and the clearance of unexploded ordnance. For them to operate effectively, they need access to accurate data on where explosive weapons have been used, the types of weapons involved, and the scale of the destruction.
By sharing this information, states can help create a clearer picture of the long-term impacts of explosive weapons and support efforts to rebuild affected communities.
A Path Forward
Collecting and sharing data on the use of explosive weapons is not just about understanding the scale of destruction; it’s about saving lives and reducing suffering. Since the adoption of the Political Declaration, states have a clear mandate to prioritize data collection as a tool for enhancing civilian protection.
But the real test lies in implementation. States now need to establish the policies and mechanisms necessary to track civilian harm, share data transparently, and learn from their actions. The examples set by NATO and the United States Department of Defense’s civilian harm mitigation programs provide a framework that others can follow.
As explosive weapons continue to devastate communities, the need for robust data is greater than ever. Only by fully committing to the Declaration’s promises can states hope to reduce the harm caused by these deadly weapons and take meaningful steps toward a safer, more humane future for civilians in conflict zones.