World: Weapon Contamination in Urban Settings: An ICRC Response
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Unexploded and abandoned ordnance constitutes a clear and serious danger to civilians and humanitarian operations wherever it is found. But its presence in urban settings raises particular concerns and challenges. This document outlines the risks and consequences that these weapons have in such settings for civilian communities, critical civilian infrastructure and humanitarian operations, including those of the ICRC.
The document also highlights the assistance that the ICRC’s Weapon Contamination Unit can provide to ICRC units and programmes, as well as to the broader International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. This assistance aims to help the Movement assess and mitigate the dangers of weapon contamination (WeC) so as to protect staff and civilians and allow humanitarian services to be delivered unimpeded.
The document draws on two existing ICRC studies, Urban Services in Protracted Armed Conflict (2016) and Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas (2015), which emphasize the impact and challenges associated with the use of explosive ordnance in urban areas. It also includes a series of examples from the field, or operational vignettes, which illustrate the impact of weapon contamination and the actions taken by the WeC Unit in support of the work of ICRC delegations and National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
In November 2017, a round-table discussion was held in Geneva to explore the growing interconnection between WeC activities and the work of other ICRC units. This discussion helped to identify a “spectrum of WeC response activities” that could be offered to ICRC and National Society programmes in a variety of situations. As reflected in the table below and elsewhere in this document, the services range from technical advice and guidance to actual explosive ordnance clearance and disposal.
The following table provides an overview of the ICRC’s WeC activities.
TYPES OF SERVICE: Technical advice & situational assessment
EXAMPLES:
Assessing risk from emplaced devices, ERW, CBRN hazards and unstable ammunition stockpiles.
Providing advice on the effects of weapons and on risk mitigation.
Developing conflict-specific guidelines on PPE, collective protection measures and decontamination procedures.
Contributing to the development of international standards and policies.
TYPES OF SERVICE: Education & training
EXAMPLES:
Risk-awareness and safer-behaviour training.
Training on WeC data needs and data gathering.
TYPES OF SERVICE: Mitigation & resilience action
EXAMPLES:
Low-profile passive-protection measures for ICRC facilities in support of WatHab.
Proposing measures to enable the ICRC to do its work despite the presence of emplaced devices,
ERW or CBRN hazards.
TYPES OF SERVICE: Clearance & decontamination
EXAMPLES:
Disposing of emplaced devices and ERW, or coordinating this task by external agencies.
Destroying unsafe stockpiles.
CBRN decontamination
The document concludes with a number of recommendations covering issues such as data collection, evidence-based decision making, and risk-awareness and saferbehaviour actions. An argument is also made for more clearly identifying where the ICRC’s WeC Unit and its delegates could intervene to help unblock or enable humanitarian assistance.
The recommendations include the following:
• Data collection activities and analyses on how weapon contamination affects communities should be improved.
• Prot and other ICRC colleagues whose work is needed to capture field data related to weapon use should be given greater support, both in the field and in terms of training.
• Greater interaction between the WeC and SCMS units should be considered, in order to coordinate the risk-assessment processes being developed and ensure that they are mutually supportive.
• The ICRC’s ability to identify where WeC expertise can be used to unblock humanitarian assistance should be expanded.
• National Societies, which are an important source of WeC-related information, should be seen as important partners in the implementation of WeC risk-management services.
• Evidence-gathering and assessments need to be coordinated between ICRC units, with WeC-related information part of the question sets, where relevant.
• A retrospective analysis of ICRC-wide data sets from the point of view of WeC could be a valuable guideline for future resource-allocation decisions. This would help other ICRC units to identify WeC-related issues and determine the feasibility of a joint response.
• The ICRC and the Movement as a whole should be informed of the services that the WeC Unit can provide in support of the ICRC’s risk-management approach.
