L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A

i
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
1
Table of Contents
Foreword ..........................................................................................................................................................................i
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 7
Background of the Landmine Impact Survey Process ................................................................................ 17
Survey Results & Findings
Scope of the Landmine Problem ......................................................................................................................... 23
Victims and Survivors ............................................................................................................................................. 35
Impact on Communities ......................................................................................................................................... 45
Mine Action Activities ............................................................................................................................................ 53
Consequences for Mine Action ........................................................................................................................... 57
Update of National Mine Action Database (May 2007) .............................................................................. 75
Profles By Province
Bengo ............................................................................................................................................................................ 83
Benguela ...................................................................................................................................................................... 87
Bié .................................................................................................................................................................................. 91
Cabinda ....................................................................................................................................................................... 95
Huambo ...................................................................................................................................................................... 99
Huíla ........................................................................................................................................................................... 103
Kuando Kubango ................................................................................................................................................... 107
Kunene ....................................................................................................................................................................... 111
Kwanza Norte ......................................................................................................................................................... 115
Kwanza Sul ............................................................................................................................................................... 119
Luanda ....................................................................................................................................................................... 123
Lunda Norte ............................................................................................................................................................. 127
Lunda Sul ................................................................................................................................................................... 131
Malanje....................................................................................................................................................................... 135
Moxico ........................................................................................................................................................................ 139
Namibe ....................................................................................................................................................................... 143
Uíge ............................................................................................................................................................................. 147
Zaire ............................................................................................................................................................................ 153
2
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S
Annexes
Annex I—Key Participants ................................................................................................................................... 159
Annex II—Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 163
Annex III—Project Timeline ................................................................................................................................ 167
Annex IV—National Mine Action Strategic Plan 2006–2011.................................................................... 171
Annex V—Scoring and Classification .............................................................................................................. 173
Annex VI—Estimation of Prevalence of Mine-Affected Communities ................................................. 175
Annex VII—Administrative Structures ............................................................................................................ 179
Annex VIII—List of Inaccessible Comunas .................................................................................................... 181
Annex IX—Abbreviations..................................................................................................................................... 183
Annex X—Finances ................................................................................................................................................ 185
Annex XI—Photography Credits ........................................................................................................................ 187
Case Studies, Figures, Maps & Tables
Figures
1 Impacted Communities, by Province ................................................................................................................................. 27
2 Number of SHAs per Impacted Community ................................................................................................................... 29
3 Mine Victims, by Gender ........................................................................................................................................................ 35
4 Recent Victims, by Age and Gender .................................................................................................................................. 38
5 Type of Wounds Suffered by Mine Incident Survivors, by Gender ......................................................................... 39
6 Distribution of Impact Scores ............................................................................................................................................... 45
7 Communities with Recent Incidents and Victims, by Impact .................................................................................. 47
Case Studies
1 In-Country Mine Action NGOs as Survey Implementing Partners .......................................................................... 19
2 Lessons Learned for LIS: Importance of Rigorous Visual Inspection .................................................................... 33
3 National Mine Action Strategic Plan 2006–2011 Goals ............................................................................................... 57
4 CNIDAH Preliminary Guidelines for Use of LIS Results for Provincial Planning, in the Framework
of the National Mine Action Strategic Plan (Summary in Annex IV) ..................................................................... 61
5 Community Prioritization of Landmine Problem ........................................................................................................... 73
6 Results of Implementing the LIS – Reflections of an Operational Partner (Mines Advisory Group) .......... 76
7 Reflections On The Survey, By An LIS Operational Partner (Intersos) .................................................................. 78
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
3
Maps
1 Impacted Communities .............................................................................................................................................................8
2 Roads and Suspected Hazard Areas .................................................................................................................................. 10
3 Overview of Angola ................................................................................................................................................................. 20
4 Communities Surveyed and Impact Identified .............................................................................................................. 24
5 Impacted Communities .......................................................................................................................................................... 28
6 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Impacted Communities .......................................................................... 29
7 Geographical Distribution of Recent Victims ................................................................................................................. 36
8 Distribution of Recent Victims in Impacted Areas ....................................................................................................... 41
9 Roads and Suspected Hazard Areas .................................................................................................................................. 52
10 Hypothetical Electric Grid and SHAs ................................................................................................................................ 70
11 Locations of Landmine Victims and Orthopedic Centers .......................................................................................... 71
12 Hypothetical Polling Places ................................................................................................................................................... 72
13 Impacted Communities in Huambo Province, 2004 ..................................................................................................... 76
14 Impacted Communities in Huambo Province, May 2007 ........................................................................................... 77
15 Mine-Impacted Communities in Bengo ............................................................................................................................ 84
16 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Bengo ............................................................................................................ 85
17 Mine-Impacted Communities in Benguela ...................................................................................................................... 88
18 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Benguela ...................................................................................................... 89
19 Mine-Impacted Communities in Bié .................................................................................................................................. 92
20 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Bié ................................................................................................................. 93
21 Mine-Impacted Communities in Cabinda ........................................................................................................................ 95
22 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Cabinda ........................................................................................................ 97
23 Mine-Impacted Communities in Huambo ...................................................................................................................... 100
24 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Huambo ..................................................................................................... 101
25 Mine-Impacted Communities in Huíla ............................................................................................................................. 104
26 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Huíla ............................................................................................................ 105
27 Mine-Impacted Communities in Kuando Kubango ..................................................................................................... 108
28 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Kuando Kubango .................................................................................... 109
29 Mine-Impacted Communities in Kunene ........................................................................................................................ 112
30 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Kunene ....................................................................................................... 113
31 Mine-Impacted Communities in Kwanza Norte ...........................................................................................................116
32 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Kwanza Norte ...........................................................................................117
33 Mine-Impacted Communities in Kwanza Sul ................................................................................................................ 119
34 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Kwanza Sul ............................................................................................... 121
35 Mine-Impacted Communities in Luanda ........................................................................................................................ 123
36 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Luanda ....................................................................................................... 125
37 Mine-Impacted Communities in Lunda Norte .............................................................................................................. 127
38 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Lunda Norte ............................................................................................. 129
39 Mine-Impacted Communities in Lunda Sul ................................................................................................................... 131
40 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Lunda Sul .................................................................................................. 133
41 Mine-Impacted Communities in Malanje ....................................................................................................................... 135
42 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Malanje ...................................................................................................... 137
43 Mine-Impacted Communities in Moxico ........................................................................................................................ 140
44 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Moxico ........................................................................................................ 141
45 Mine-Impacted Communities in Namibe........................................................................................................................ 143
46 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Namibe ....................................................................................................... 145
47 Mine-Impacted Communities in Uíge .............................................................................................................................. 148
48 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Uíge ............................................................................................................. 149
49 Mine-Impacted Communities in Zaire ............................................................................................................................. 153
50 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Zaire ............................................................................................................ 155
51 Area of Survey Operation of LIS Partners ...................................................................................................................... 165
Case Studies, Figures, Maps & Tables
4
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S
Case Studies, Figures, Maps & Tables
Tables
1 Impacted Communities, Populations, and SHAs, by Impact Category ................................................................. 23
2 Impacted Communities and Populations, by Province ................................................................................................ 25
3 Number of High- and Medium-Impact Communities, by Province ......................................................................... 25
4 Impacted Comunas and Communities, by Province .................................................................................................... 26
5 Impacted Communities and Populations, by Settlement Type ................................................................................ 27
6 Number of SHAs per Community, by Level of Impact ................................................................................................. 30
7 Number of Impacted Communities and SHAs, by Province...................................................................................... 30
8 SHAs With and Without Area Estimates ......................................................................................................................... 31
9 Average SHA Area Determined by Each Survey Partner ........................................................................................... 32
10 Estimated Total Area and Area Reduction with Visual Inspection ........................................................................ 32
11 SHAs, by Ground Profile ......................................................................................................................................................... 34
12 Impacted Communities and SHAs, by Munitions Type .............................................................................................. 34
13 Recent Victims by Province .................................................................................................................................................. 37
14 Activity of Victims at Time of Incident ............................................................................................................................. 38
15 Recent Victims, by Gender and Occupation ................................................................................................................... 39
16 Post-Incident Occupation of Mine Incident Survivors, by Gender ......................................................................... 40
17 Frequency of Recent Victims in Impacted Communities ........................................................................................... 40
18 SHAs with Victims, by Province .......................................................................................................................................... 42
19 Communities, by Number of Recent Incidents and Impact Category ................................................................... 43
20 Proximity of SHAs to the Community and Frequency of Victims ........................................................................... 43
21 Impact Category Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 45
22 Impact Score and Classification of All Impacted Communities ............................................................................... 46
23 Impact by Blockage (Without Victims) .............................................................................................................................. 47
24 Inaccessible Comunas ............................................................................................................................................................ 48
25 Percentage of Communities Reporting Blocked Access ............................................................................................. 49
26 Communities Reporting Blockages, by Blockage Type .............................................................................................. 50
27 Mine Action Activities in Impacted Communities ........................................................................................................ 55
28 MRE Priority Rankings by MRE Tasking Tool, by Province ....................................................................................... 63
29 Individual Resource Blockages to Prioritize Impacted Communities ................................................................... 64
30 Communities with Blockage of Drinking Water, by Province ................................................................................... 65
31 Communities with Blockage of Housing, by Province ................................................................................................. 65
32 Communities with More Than Three or Six Recent Victims ..................................................................................... 66
33 Number of Recent Victims per Community, by Impact Level .................................................................................. 66
34 Communities with At Least Two or At Least Four Mine Incidents ......................................................................... 67
35 SHAs with Victims .................................................................................................................................................................... 68
36 Blocked Health Facilities, by Province............................................................................................................................... 69
37 Blocked Irrigation, by Province ............................................................................................................................................ 69
38 Blocked Education Facilities, by Province ........................................................................................................................ 69
39 Update of Impacted Communities, as of May 2007 ...................................................................................................... 75
Bengo
40 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact ................................................ 83
41 Distribution of Recent Victims, Incidents, and SHAs with Victims, by Level of Impact ................................. 84
42 Activity at the Time of Incident, by Gender .................................................................................................................... 84
43 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ..................................................................... 85
44 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ..................................... 85
45 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna .............................. 86
Benguela
46 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact ................................................ 87
47 Distribution of Recent Victims, Incidents, and SHAs with Victims, by Level of Impact ................................. 87
48 Activity at the Time of Incident, by Gender .................................................................................................................... 88
49 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ..................................................................... 89
50 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ..................................... 89
51 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna .............................. 90
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
5
Tables (continued)
Bié
52 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact ................................................ 91
53 Distribution of Recent Victims, Incidents, and SHAs with Victims, by Level of Impact ................................. 92
54 Activity at the Time of Incident, by Gender .................................................................................................................... 92
55 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ..................................................................... 93
56 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ..................................... 93
57 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna .............................. 94
Cabinda
58 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact ................................................ 96
59 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ..................................................................... 96
60 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ..................................... 96
61 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna .............................. 97
Huambo
62 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact ................................................ 99
63 Distribution of Recent Victims, Incidents, and SHAs with Victims, by Level of Impact ............................... 100
64 Activity at the Time of Incident, by Gender .................................................................................................................. 100
65 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ................................................................... 101
66 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ................................... 101
67 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna ............................ 102
Huíla
68 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact .............................................. 103
69 Distribution of Recent Victims, Incidents, and SHAs with Victims, by Level of Impact ............................... 104
70 Activity at the Time of Incident, by Gender .................................................................................................................. 104
71 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ................................................................... 105
72 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ................................... 105
73 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna ............................ 106
Kuando Kubango
74 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact .............................................. 107
75 Distribution of Recent Victims, Incidents, and SHAs with Victims, by Level of Impact ............................... 108
76 Activity at the Time of Incident, by Gender .................................................................................................................. 108
77 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ................................................................... 109
78 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ................................... 109
79 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna ............................ 110
Kunene
80 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact ...............................................111
81 Distribution of Recent Victims, Incidents, and SHAs with Victims, by Level of Impact ............................... 112
82 Activity at the Time of Incident, by Gender .................................................................................................................. 112
83 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ................................................................... 113
84 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ................................... 113
85 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna .............................114
Kwanza Norte
86 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact ...............................................115
87 Distribution of Recent Victims, Incidents, and SHAs with Victims, by Level of Impact ................................116
88 Activity at the Time of Incident, by Gender ...................................................................................................................116
89 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ....................................................................117
90 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ....................................117
91 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna ............................ 118
Kwanza Sul
92 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact .............................................. 120
93 Distribution of Recent Victims, Incidents, and SHAs with Victims, by Level of Impact ............................... 120
94 Activity at the Time of Incident, by Gender .................................................................................................................. 120
95 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ................................................................... 120
96 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ................................... 121
97 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna ............................ 122
Tables (continued)
Luanda
98 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact .............................................. 124
99 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ................................................................... 124
100 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ................................... 124
101 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna ............................ 126
Lunda Norte
102 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact .............................................. 128
103 Distribution of Recent Victims, Incidents, and SHAs with Victims, by Level of Impact ............................... 128
104 Activity at the Time of Incident, by Gender .................................................................................................................. 128
105 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ................................................................... 128
106 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ................................... 129
107 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna ............................ 130
Lunda Sul
108 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact .............................................. 132
109 Distribution of Recent Victims, Incidents, and SHAs with Victims, by Level of Impact ............................... 132
110 Activity at the Time of Incident, by Gender .................................................................................................................. 132
111 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ................................................................... 132
112 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ................................... 133
113 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna ............................ 134
Malanje
114 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact .............................................. 136
115 Distribution of Recent Victims, Incidents, and SHAs with Victims, by Level of Impact ............................... 136
116 Activity at the Time of Incident, by Gender .................................................................................................................. 136
117 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ................................................................... 136
118 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ................................... 137
119 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna ............................ 137
Moxico
120 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact .............................................. 139
121 Distribution of Recent Victims, Incidents, and SHAs with Victims, by Level of Impact ............................... 140
122 Activity at the Time of Incident, by Gender .................................................................................................................. 140
123 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ................................................................... 141
124 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ................................... 141
125 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna ............................ 142
Namibe
126 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact .............................................. 144
127 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ................................................................... 144
128 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ................................... 144
129 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna ............................ 145
Uíge
130 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact .............................................. 147
131 Distribution of Recent Victims, Incidents, and SHAs with Victims, by Level of Impact ............................... 148
132 Activity at the Time of Incident, by Gender .................................................................................................................. 148
133 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ................................................................... 149
134 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ................................... 149
135 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna ............................ 150
Zaire
136 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact .............................................. 154
137 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ................................................................... 154
138 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ................................... 154
139 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna ............................ 156
6
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
7
Executive Summary
T
he Angola Landmine Impact Survey (LIS), for which the fieldwork was conducted
from April 2004 through May 2007, identified 1,988 mine-impacted communities
and 3,293 suspected hazardous areas (SHAs). It is estimated that 8 percent of the
23,504 communities of Angola are impacted by mines. The LIS identified a total of 341
people killed or injured by mines/UXO during the 24 months preceding the fieldwork
in each province. An estimated 2.4 million people, or 17 percent of the national
population, live in mine-impacted communities. Of the 1,988 impacted communities,
2 percent were categorized as high impact, with another 23 percent categorized
as medium impact. The global averages from other Landmine Impact Surveys for
high and medium impact are approximately 10 percent and 30 percent, respectively.
Further analysis could determine the cause of the lower-than-expected number of
high- and medium-impact communities, although it appears likely that it reflects the
positive results of past mine action, community learning, and adaptation since the time
when the mines were laid, as well as the relatively low pressure on agricultural land
due to the comparatively low density of the rural population in Angola.
SUMMary oF THe LaNdMiNe iMpaCT SUrvey reSULTS
Impacted Communities
Province Total Number High Impact Medium Impact Low Impact
Moxico 290 15 107 168
Bié 282 1 60 221
Kuando Kubango 171 1 33 137
Uíge 171 0 29 142
Kwanza Sul 169 6 33 130
Huambo 153 2 35 116
Benguela 127 4 17 106
Kunene 126 0 7 119
Malanje 88 4 38 46
Bengo 74 0 15 59
Lunda Sul 73 1 31 41
Huíla 72 1 9 62
Zaire 66 0 12 54
Kwanza Norte 64 3 22 39
Lunda Norte 30 2 5 23
Cabinda 27 0 0 27
Namibe 3 0 1 2
Luanda 2 0 1 1
TOTAL 1,988 40 455 1,493
Percentage of Total 100% 2% 23% 75%
8
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – E x E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y
This was a complete countrywide survey, with all but 19 of the 556 comunas
visited and 383 of them found to be impacted. A total of 28,000 people (of whom 65
percent were men and 35 percent women) took part in community interviews in the
1,988 impacted communities; an additional 10,000 took part in interviews in roughly
4,000 communities that were determined to not be impacted.
The LIS rechecked the information contained in the previous national minefield
database developed by NPA over the period from 1995 to 1998. Overall, the LIS
reduced the suspected affected area from an ill-defined “30 percent of the national
territory” to a very conservatively estimated combined SHA total of less than 1
percent of the national territory.
MAp 1
iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
9
The survey data afford extensive opportunities for
research, analysis and project planning and led to several
conclusions relevant to mine action:
-
The survey recorded 341 recent victims, of whom 168
were fatalities of mine/UXO incidents within the two
years preceding the field survey, in 173 communities.
-
Three-fourths of the victims were male, which is
somewhat below the global average of 80 percent.
Slightly more than 75 percent of mine victims were
between the ages of 15 and 44.
-
Fewer than 10 percent of the recent victims were under
15 years of age.
-
More than 50 percent of the female victims were engaged in gathering or
agriculture at the time of the incident.
-
Roughly 5 percent of the male victims were reported to be conducting informal
village demining when the incident occurred.
-
While there are high- or medium-impact communities in all 18 provinces, nearly
40 percent of high-impact communities are found in a single province (Moxico),
and an additional 40 percent are found in the four provinces of Kwanza Sul,
Benguela, Malanje and Kwanza Norte.
-
While the preceding five provinces account for 80
percent of high-impact communities, they account for
only 35 percent of all impacted communities.
-
The most prevalent resource blockages are rain-fed
cropland and nonagricultural rural land.
-
The LIS confirmed the extensive mine action activities
that have occurred throughout the country. Mine risk
education (MRE) has been conducted in fully 62 percent
of all high-impact communities and 37 percent of all
impacted communities. Similarly, official mine clearance
has occurred in 50 percent of high-impact communities
and 21 percent of all mine-affected communities. There
have been proportionately more mine action activities in high- and medium-
impact communities, although the majority of all mine action activities have
been in low-impact communities.
-
Informal village demining was reported in 8 percent of all mine-affected commu-
nities; one-third of informal village demining was conducted in medium-impact
communities and two-thirds in low-impact communities.
-
The LIS pilot tested the revised Survey Working Group (SWG) protocol for more
rigorous visual inspection, producing a more precise estimate of SHAs.
HaLo TrUST SUrveyor
CroSSiNg a Bridge
To reaCH a viLLage
iN BeNgUeLa
HaLo TrUST CoMMUNiTy
iNTerview iN BeNgUeLa
10
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – E x E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y
-
The LIS data indicate that SHAs in close proximity to communities do not have a
higher likelihood of producing victims.
-
Transportation linkages were widely disrupted by the long civil war. The LIS
identified a significant number of blockages affecting vehicle and pedestrian
travel as illustrated in Map 2 below, although travel by the survey teams was
interrupted more by poor road surfaces and the lack of bridges to cross water-
ways than by mined roads.
-
Blockages identified by the LIS can be a useful input for planning; for example,
identifying particular communities with blocked schools, health centers,
irrigated land, etc., which should be taken into consideration as part of broader
policies rebuilding different sectors.
-
The LIS found that certain blockages are strongly associated with higher-impact
communities. For example, targeting all drinking water blockages would direct
MAp 2
roadS aNd SUSpeCTed
HaZard areaS
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
11
activities to high- or medium-impact communities 80 percent of the time, while
targeting all rain-fed agriculture would lead to high- or medium-impact communi-
ties only 35 percent of the time.
-
Agricultural land was the most reported blockage. Determining how much of
this land should be cleared in order to increase food productivity in the country
requires a thorough examination of the law on land rights and a cost-benefit
analysis comparing clearance costs with future economic benefits.
The results of the LIS have already been incorporated into planning and tasking.
This has been promoted by CNIDAH, which provided ready access to the interim
data as the LIS was completed in individual provinces. In Angola, provincial authori-
ties are responsible for annual operational planning. This LIS report provides greater
focus and detail regarding the landmine situation in each province to support provin-
cial planning. SAC prepared and CNIDAH widely circulated two interim reports
providing the key data: one in August 2005 on the 10 provinces completed as of May
2005 and the other in October 2006 on the 15 provinces completed as of September
2006.
-
The National Mine Action Strategy 2006–2011 was designed on the basis of
interim results covering 12 provinces and sets goals of resolving 100 percent of
high-impact communities and 50 percent of medium-impact communities within
its time frame.
-
CNIDAH has provided guidelines for the implementation of the National Mine
Action Strategy in the context of each province.
-
Provincial authorities – responsible in Angola for development of annual mine
action operational plans – are using the LIS to identify mine-affected communi-
ties requiring mine action as part of development plans as well as to prioritize
the humanitarian response.
-
Mine action operators and donors are using the results of the LIS to cross-check
the selection of tasks to confirm the expected impact of their activities.
BACKGROUND AND PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Landmine Impact Survey in Angola began with a SAC Advance Survey Mission
in October 2002. During this mission, the discussions included agreements in
principle with several in-country operators to conduct the LIS. In June 2003, SAC
opened an office in Luanda to coordinate the LIS, following agreement with the
government to conduct the survey with initial funding from the U.S., Canada,
Germany and the E.C. Formal agreements were signed during the second half of
2003 with HALO Trust and Norwegian People’s Aid, followed by agreements with
Mines Advisory Group, INTERSOS, Santa Barbara Foundation and the National
Demining Institute in 2004.
12
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – E x E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y
SAC and the various partners conducted the LIS in accordance with the princi-
ples and operating protocols established by the Survey Working Group, and activities
were subject to periodic review by an UNMAS/UNOPS-supplied quality assurance
monitor.
LIS implementation was interrupted when SAC faced an unexpected financing
shortfall in May 2005. SAC had to close its office as a result and was unable to
contract further with the implementing partners. CNIDAH assumed responsibility for
continuing the overall management of the LIS and the development of the database,
UNDP assisted with funding for the database advisor, and the implementing partners
searched for additional direct funding. By August 2005, field activities were once
again underway, but at a slower pace. In mid-2006, in response to the CNIDAH
request that SAC return, and with funding from Germany, SAC provided a part-time
advisor to CNIDAH for overall guidance and completion of the LIS.
The LIS was initially projected to cost about $6 million and be completed by
early 2006. The interruption in funding caused a delay in completion and an increase
in the overall cost of the survey.
SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM
The LIS identified 1,988 landmine/UXO-impacted communities in 383 of Angola’s
comunas. These impacted communities represent 8 percent of the 23,504 communi-
ties in Angola. An estimated 2.4 million people live in landmine/UXO-impacted
communities, with 0.6 million living in high- or medium-impact communities. It is
estimated that approximately 17 percent of all citizens are living in mine-impacted
communities. Sixty percent of impacted communities have a single suspected
hazardous area, and 85 percent have one or two SHAs.
IMPACT ON COMMUNITIES
The scoring mechanism developed by the Survey Working Group categorizes the
communities by their degree of impact. The scoring system is driven by three
elements: the number of victims, blocked access to resources and the type of
munitions contaminating the community. Governments may modify this system
within parameters established by the SWG. CNIDAH decided to adopt the SWG
default scores, with a small adjustment to reflect the severe disruption of transporta-
tion network by combining the two separate blockages of roadways and pathways
into a single blockage worth two points. Thus the scoring system was responsive to
national concerns while remaining within the accepted international norm. Using
this ranking system, Angola was found to contain 40 high-impact communities, 455
medium-impact communities and 1,493 low-impact communities.
Impacted communities are not equally distributed throughout the country.
Seventy-five percent of the impacted communities and a like percentage of SHAs
and recent victims are found in just eight of the country’s 18 provinces. Bié, Kuando
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
13
Kubango, Kwanza Sul, Malanje, Moxico and Uíge are the most heavily impacted
provinces. Although all provinces are mine affected, the provinces with the fewest
mine-affected communities are Luanda, Namibe and Cabinda.
A further breakdown of the data reveals an exceptionally high number of
incidents and victims in some communities. In Lunda Norte, one community with
only one suspected hazardous area has had 23 separate incidents resulting in 17
victims over a 24-month period. These are extraordinary numbers for one commu-
nity. Four provinces have an unduly high number of incidents and recent victims,
with at least six recent victims in each community. Overall, however, 173 of the 1,988
impacted communities, or fewer than 10 percent, reported incidents that resulted
in victims in the last 24 months. This mirrors other data sources that indicate the
number of people injured or killed by landmines in Angola has rapidly declined since
the end of the conflict in 2002.
IMPACT ON ECONOMIC SECTORS
The most commonly reported economic blockage was rain-fed agriculture, which
was reported in 61 percent of the impacted communities. Nonagricultural rural land
was the second-most-commonly reported blockage, noted by 42 percent of impacted
communities; blockage of irrigated land was noted by 5 percent. Blockages of roads
were identified by 23 percent of impacted communities, while drinking water was
identified by 7 percent.
MINE VICTIMS
The survey identified 341 persons who had come to harm or death due to a mine
incident in the 24 months preceding the survey. Recent incidents took place in 169
of the 1,988 impacted communities in Angola. Nearly 75 percent of all recent victims
are in the five provinces of Moxico, Bié, Kwanza Sul, Malanje and Lunda Norte. The
two most frequent activities at the time of the incident were traveling and gathering.
Many of those killed while traveling were from outside the community and were not
known to the local population, resulting in a higher than usual group of “unknowns.”
Seventy-five percent of all recent victims are male, and 75 percent of those are
between the ages of 15 and 44 years old; 86 percent of female victims are between 15
and 44 years old.
DONOR ATTENTION TO HIGH- AND MEDIUM-IMPACT COMMUNITIES
The Angolan National Mine Action Strategy set the goal of resolving the landmine
problems of 100 percent of high-impact and 50 percent of medium-impact commu-
nities by 2011. Analysis of the LIS data indicates that only four high-impact
communities would have scored 11 points or more if they had had no victims, and
that the presence of SHAs and blockages is very similar among high- and medium-
impact communities. This argues for international donor support for the resolution of
landmine problems of all high- and medium-impact communities.
14
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – E x E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y
UPDATE OF EXISTING MINEFIELD DATABASE
One of the tasks carried out during the LIS was the validation of the existing national
minefield database compiled by NPA beginning in 1995. The database was used as
an element of “expert opinion” to be confirmed in the survey, although in this case
the information included much more detail than the simple suspicion of contamina-
tion. The LIS not only validated the previous minefields, but when it confirmed them
it also linked them to individual communities, supported by a community interview
that inquired about the socioeconomic blockages, the location of the minefields, and
the history of landmine/UXO incidents and victims. Over the course of the three-
year fieldwork period, approximately xx percent of the database was discounted as
being out of date and no longer valid. This was replaced by new information that
can be used for long-term planning, priority setting and operational tasking. The LIS
has successfully converted the individual mine site data in the old national database
into community data that provide a clearer picture of the true extent of the impact of
landmines on Angolan communities. The LIS results have established new, updated
benchmarks that can be used for national and provincial planning and on the basis of
which progress and success can now be measured.
PILOT TEST OF SWG PROTOCOL FOR VISUAL INSPECTION
The LIS piloted a much more rigorous visual inspection protocol approved by the
SWG in November 2004, after the LIS had begun. One of the survey partners (HALO
Trust) applied the revised protocol, while the others used the traditional approach.
The pilot resulted in more accurate area estimates that are, on average, 80 to 90
percent smaller than those provided by the old approach, without extension or delay
in the survey time. This provides a standard for the expectations of the first stage
of area reduction that would occur whenever a survey team would return to plan
operational work. The resulting area for further work is now estimated to be small
enough to permit resolution of all high- and medium-impact communities in less
than 10 years, and of most other areas within an additional decade, if current rates of
clearance continue.
INACCESSIBLE COMMUNITIES
Access was better than anticipated during the planning stages. The survey teams
were able to visit all mine-suspected communities in all but 19 of the 557 comunas.
Of the 19 that were not accessible, 14 were in Lunda Norte and Malanje. Landmine
contamination on roads was not the major cause of inaccessibility. More often, the
lack of roads and the lack of bridges hindered movement. The number of mine-
impacted communities in the 19 inaccessible comunas is unknown, although, based
on the experience of the LIS in other areas of Angola, it is likely that fewer than 50
percent of the inaccessible communities are impacted by landmines.
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
15
CONSEQUENCES FOR MINE ACTION
The results of the LIS afford an examination of the consequences for mine action in
Angola. The survey findings inform the government’s national mine action strategy
and make it possible to plan mine action activities from both humanitarian and
development perspectives. Specifically, the LIS provided data on the basis of which
CNIDAH designed and the Council of Ministers adopted a national mine action
strategic plan that encompasses clear focus on reduction of impact, support to recon-
struction and development, support to landmine survivors, and the establishment of
a post-LIS monitoring system that will capture both humanitarian and development
mine action activities as well as incorporate new problems that may be identified to
use for measuring progress and impact, systematic planning and reporting to donors.
One of the concerns of all the partners involved in the LIS was to ensure that
it would be useful to actors outside as well as within the mine action community.
A separate tool to prioritize communities for mine risk education is already being
used. The LIS has identified specific communities in each province that suffer from
socioeconomic blockages that could impede sector development plans: blocked
irrigated land, primary schools, roads, health centers, bridges, housing, etc. This
information should be readily useable by other sectors to ensure their own plans
address the landmine problem when it would be an obstacle to their success; it
would be beneficial that CNIDAH bring such information proactively to the attention
of the other sectors.
A newly updated database, a more comprehensible description of the landmine
problem, and a national goal to resolve the landmine impact on high- and medium-
impact communities are some of the opportunities afforded Angola as a result of
the LIS. At the same time, careful planning to open or build new power lines, roads,
irrigation canals, schools and health posts can also move forward. An ongoing
monitoring process with regular visits to impacted communities would maintain the
accuracy and integrity of the LIS over the long term, protecting the initial invest-
ment in the LIS and ensuring that mine action actors have access to current, reliable
information for as long as the mine action program operates.
A monitoring system would also ensure that the database remains consistently
maintained, which in turn would allow CNIDAH to undertake regular analysis and
monitoring to ensure that its program is being targeted effectively. Priorities can be
updated on an ongoing basis to ensure that high-impact communities are kept at the
top of the agenda, including communities newly categorized as impacted owing to
recent victims or new blockages. By maintaining the critical two-year window of
information that drives community scoring, CNIDAH and the provincial authorities
would be able to base their annual and long-term planning on current and up-to-date
information. Maintaining the database will ensure a baseline for CNIDAH, donors
and the wider mine action community to measure progress by the mine action
program.
16
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – E x E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y
CONCLUSION
The LIS in Angola has produced three major findings: first, landmines impact 8
percent of the more than 23,000 communities in Angola; second, landmine contami-
nation is spread throughout the country, with mine-affected communities in all
provinces, but a limited number of provinces concentrate the majority of the high-
and medium-impact communities and recent victims; and third, systematic review
of all suspected contamination has better defined the magnitude of the landmine
problem in Angola and revealed it to be a problem that can be largely resolved within
a realistic planning horizon of one to two decades at current levels of effort, with a
properly focused program of technical survey, clearance, marking, fencing and MRE.
The survey also provides the national authorities, the United Nations and donors
geo-referenced data that will improve their planning and form the basis of their
priority settings, which should significantly reduce the roughly 1,300 square kilome-
ters of suspected hazardous areas logged in the CNIDAH database at the end of
the survey.
The data from the LIS provides a tool to use for national and provincial planning.
This report is not a substitute for a national plan. The survey data can be used to
set priorities at the national, provincial, municipal and community level. Whether
the priority or particular interest of a donor, government ministry, NGO or the
United Nations is improving agriculture; ensuring access to water; clearing roads;
conducting mine risk education; building schools and health clinics; or assisting
landmine survivors, widows and other vulnerable groups, the data from the LIS
have transformed the unknown in these areas into information and knowledge. The
challenge now is to use this knowledge to bring about positive, constructive action to
the development of Angola and to end the threat of landmines to its people.
FUNDING
The final cost estimate for the impact survey in Angola was US$6.8 million. The
governments of the United States, Canada and Germany, through SAC; the govern-
ment of Italy and the European Commission (EC), through UNDP; the government
of Norway to NPA; the government of the United States, through HALO Trust and
MAG; the government of Ireland through HALO Trust; and the government of
Liechtenstein, through the United Nations Mine Action Service Voluntary Trust Fund
for Mine Action provided funding.
NOTE
The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of the Survey Action
Center and CNIDAH and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the
position of the United Nations or the governments of the United States, the European
Community, Liechtenstein, Norway, Italy, Ireland, Canada and/or Germany.

L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
17
Background of the
Landmine Impact Survey Process
g
rowing out of the wide collaborative efforts that led to the International
Campaign to Ban Landmines and the Mine Ban Treaty, Landmine Impact
Surveys (LIS) are executed to meet the needs of the international humanitarian mine
action community, national authorities, donors, and mine action implementers.
The overall LIS vision is to “facilitate the prioritizing of human, material, and
financial resources supporting humanitarian mine action at the national, regional,
and global levels.” To fulfill this vision, Landmine Impact Surveys are executed
across the globe to meet the rigorous standard established by the Survey Working
Group (SWG).
There are two things that the LIS is not. First, it is not a sample – the LIS is an
inventory of all known impacted communities, and all data is tied to clearly specified
geo-referenced locations. Second, it is not a listing of minefields – rather, it is a record
of all known Suspected Hazard Areas (SHAs), as identified by the communities
under threat. The LIS provides for the first time a clear definition of the extent of the
problem: the number of impacted communities and the number of SHAs affecting
those communities. The LIS is the initial step in the identification of mine/ERW
areas. The next step is targeted area reduction and local cancellation work in the
impacted communities identified by the LIS.
Landmine Impact Surveys provide the three major partners of mine action
– national authorities, donors, and implementing agencies – with a common dataset
– one which it is hoped will also prove to be of value to development agencies. This
data is different from pre-survey data in three significant ways. First, the unit of
measure for the landmine problem has been shifted from the number of mines or
square meters of contaminated territory, with the LIS taking as its unit of measure
communities impacted by landmines. Second, virtually all the information in the LIS
is primary information gathered at the community level from those who live with the
threat of landmines in their daily lives. Third, a methodology is employed with the
goal of the complete enumeration of every SHA in every impacted community.
With the conclusion of the Landmine Impact Survey in Angola, impact from
landmine contamination is now categorized from the province to the community
level. The data collected during the LIS includes the following:
18
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – E x E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y
DESCRIPTION OF KEy INFORMATION COLLECTED
By THE LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEy
Community Background
Unique ID of province, municipio, comuna, community
Community reference point and GPS coordinates
Name, gender, and age of participants in community interview
Type of settlement
Facilities: Transport, health, education, infrastructure
Current population
Main economic base of community
Past Mine Action
History of armed conflict in the community
Mine/UXO awareness provided in the last 24 months
Marking/survey carried out in the last 24 months
Clearance carried out in the last 24 months
Landmine Victims
Old victims: Number of people killed by mine/UXO before 24 months ago
Old victims: Number of people injured by mine/UXO before 24 months ago
Recent victims: Number of people killed by mine/UXO in the last 24 months
Recent victims: Number of people injured by mine/UXO in the last 24 months
Name, age at time of accident, and gender of each recent victim
Number of landmine/UXO survivors living in the community
Name, if any, and survey designation of SHA where accident happened
Killed or wounded?
Occupation at time of accident and current occupation, if living
Activity when the accident happened
Wounds received as a result of accident
Description of victim assistance given during the last 24 months
Suspected Hazard Area
Name, if any, and survey designation of SHA
Coordinates and estimated size of SHA
Digital photo of sketch map of SHA
Contamination type (mine and/or UXO)
Terrain: Vegetation type and landscape type
Socioeconomic blockages
1. Housing blocked
2. Roads blocked (various type of roads and paths)
3. Other infrastructure blocked (various types of infrastructure)
4. Fixed pasture blocked
5. Access to drinking water blocked
6. Access to other water blocked
7. Irrigated cropland blocked
8. Rain-fed cropland blocked
9. Nonagricultural land blocked (various types of rural land use)
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
19
This data, when analyzed, defines the landmine problem in terms of scale, type,
approximate location, hazard, infrastructure, and socioeconomic impact experienced
by local communities, fostering the development of national strategies and opera-
tional plans with well-defined immediate, intermediate, and end-state objectives.
Impact surveys improve the quality of information available, supporting manage-
ment decision making at all levels. The findings and information presented in this
report, stored in the Information Management System for Mine Action (IMSMA)
database held in Luanda at the CNIDAH headquarters, are intended to be descrip-
tive in nature, providing a comprehensive picture of the nature of the mine and UXO
threat experienced by communities in Angola.
The data from the LIS provides a tool for national and provincial planning. This
report is not a substitute for a national plan. It does not relieve national authorities
or mine action professionals of their collective responsibility to gain a full under-
standing of the survey results and information from other sources such as national
development plans, and to use these results to set priorities, mobilize funding, and
allocate mine action resources in the most effective and rational manner.
The survey data can be used to set priorities at the national, provincial, munic-
ipal, and community level. Whether the priority or particular interest of a donor, a
government ministry, a nongovernmental organization (NGO), or the United Nations
is improving agriculture, ensuring access to water, clearing roads, conducting mine
risk education (MRE), building schools and health clinics, or assisting landmine survi-
vors, widows, and other vulnerable groups, the data from the LIS has transformed
the unknown in these areas into information and knowledge. The challenge now is to
use this knowledge to bring about positive, constructive action in the development of
Angola and to end the threat of landmines to its people.
In-Country Mine Action NGOs as Survey Implementing Partners
p
rior to October 2002, when the LIS began planning, all surveys had been conducted
by organizations that were not previously operating in the country. This approach
was an attempt to minimize possible conflict of interest and bias based on previous expe-
rience in the country. When the LIS was being planned, SAC sought the input and expres-
sions of interest among the mine action operators regarding cooperation in implementing
the LIS. The idea was to build on existing capacities and knowledge of the landmine
situation in the provinces where these mine action operators worked. From the beginning
the five international NGOs and the Angolan National Demining Institute (INAD) were
actively engaged in the survey process, and over the five-year period of the survey their
interest and enthusiasm never waned. They brought considerable knowledge of how to
operate in the country, they made immediate use of the LIS results for their own activities,
and they remained in the country and able to continue the survey even when the core
survey funding was unexpectedly cut short
20
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – E x E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y
As a global initiative with a stated goal of standardizing information across
countries, Landmine Impact Surveys make a concentrated effort to ensure confor-
mity of methods, procedures, and processes. These are based on best practices in
the fields of social science research and mine action. All Landmine Impact Surveys
measure and score the impact on communities in a uniform manner. The question-
naire developed for use in Angola was a collective effort of CNIDAH, the Survey
Action Center, and the six implementing partners. To ensure confidence in the
results, impact surveys are supported by both internal and external quality-control
mechanisms. The true value and nature of the impacts, however, cannot be ascer-
tained by a quick tallying of colored dots on a map; instead, readers and end users
of the data should make a concentrated effort to comprehend all aspects of the
landmine problem and then develop plans to address the problem..
MAp 3
overview oF aNgoLa
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
&
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
&
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
23
Scope of the Landmine Problem
NUMBER OF COMMUNITIES IMPACTED
The LIS identified 1,988 communities in all 18 provinces as having been impacted by
landmines. Using the Survey Working Group Protocol Eight: Impact Scoring, adopted
by CNIDAH as the basis to categorize impacted communities, Table 1 below shows
that the LIS categorized 40 communities (2 percent) as high-impact, 455 (23 percent)
as medium-impact, and 1,493 (75 percent) as low-impact. There are 3,293 SHAs
associated with the impacted communities. It should be noted that although the
medium-impact communities represent 23 percent of all impacted communities, they
contain 33 percent of all SHAs. The LIS estimates that 2,376,068 people are living in
the impacted communities. This represents between 15 and 20 percent of the people
in Angola. Map 4
on next page shows
the communities
surveyed and the
impact identified.
All 18 provinces
in Angola are
impacted by
landmines, but not
all have the same
levels of impact.
As Table 2 (page
25) shows, Moxico and Bié provinces experience greater
impact than the other provinces. Moxico and Bié, with
a combined 572 impacted communities, represent 30
percent of all impacted communities, and the 183 high-
and medium-impact communities in the two provinces
represent 38 percent of all high- and medium-impact
communities in the country. They are followed by Kuando
Kubango, Uíge, Kwanza Sul, and Huambo, each with
roughly the same number of impacted communities
(approximately 150–170), with Kwanza Sul having slightly
more high- and medium-impact communities than the
others. In the next grouping, Benguela and Kunene each have the same number of
impacted communities (126 and 127), although Benguela has three times more high-
and medium-impact communities than Kunene.
The Angolan National Mine Action Strategic Plan 2006–2011 has established
that high- and medium-impact communities are a priority. Table 3 (page 25) which
provinces have the most high- and medium-impact communities, and the percentage
Npa CoNdUCTiNg
CoMMUNiTy iNTerview
iN KwaNZa SUL
TAble 1
iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS, popULaTioNS, aNd SHas, By iMpaCT CaTegory
Communities SHAs Population
Impact Category Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage
High 40 2% 86 3% 59,742 3%
Medium 455 23% 1,087 33% 598,717 25%
Low 1,493 75% 2,120 64% 1,717,609 72%
Total 1,988 100% 3,293 100% 2,376,068 100%
24
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S
MAp 4
CoMMUNiTieS SUrveyed
aNd iMpaCT ideNTiFied
in each compared to the total number of impacted communities. In this regard,
Malanje has the highest percentage of high- and medium-impact communities,
with more than 48 percent of
impacted communities in the
province categorized as high or
medium. Lunda Sul and Moxico
also have more than 40 percent
of their impacted communities as
high or medium. Kwanza Norte
HaLo TrUST
CoMMUNiTy
iNTerview iN
KUaNdo KUBaNgo
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
25
TAble 2
iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd popULaTioNS, By proviNCe
Province Total High Medium Low Population
Moxico 290 15 107 168 170,700
Bié 282 1 60 221 322,970
Kuando Kubango 171 1 33 137 393,728
Uíge 171 0 29 142 134,030
Kwanza Sul 169 6 33 130 177,858
Huambo 153 2 35 116 267,373
Benguela 127 4 17 106 139,736
Kunene 126 0 7 119 211,358
Malanje 88 4 38 46 114,872
Bengo 74 0 15 59 80,833
Lunda Sul 73 1 31 41 66,388
Huíla 72 1 9 62 81,521
Zaire 66 0 12 54 48,968
Kwanza Norte 64 3 22 39 108,052
Lunda Norte 30 2 5 23 30,888
Cabinda 27 0 0 27 11,696
Namibe 3 0 1 2 6,560
Luanda 2 0 1 1 8,537
Total 1,988 40 455 1,493 2,376,068
Percentage of Total 100% 2% 23% 75%
TAble 3
NUMBer oF HigH- aNd MediUM-iMpaCT CoMMUNiTieS, By proviNCe
High and Medium High/Medium Impact
Province Total Impact as Percentage of Total
Moxico 290 122 42%
Bié 282 61 22%
Malanje 88 42 48%
Kwanza Sul 169 39 23%
Huambo 153 37 24%
Kuando Kubango 171 34 20%
Lunda Sul 73 32 44%
Uíge 171 29 17%
Kwanza Norte 64 25 39%
Benguela 127 21 17%
Bengo 74 15 20%
Zaire 66 12 18%
Huíla 72 10 14%
Kunene 126 7 6%
Lunda Norte 30 7 23%
Luanda 2 1 50%
Namibe 3 1 33%
Cabinda 27 0 0%
Total 1,988 495 25%
26
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S
follows with 39 percent. These four provinces exceed
the average for Angola, which is 25 percent.
Impacted communities are located throughout the
national territory, in all 18 provinces and in 388, or 69
percent, of the 556 comunas (the smallest territorial
administrative unit above the community).
1
The 1,988
impacted communities represent 8 percent of the total
number of communities nationally, as described in
Table 4 above.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF IMPACTED COMMUNITIES
Of the 40 high-impact communities, 15 (38 percent) are located in Moxico; a total of
17 are located in the four provinces of Kwanza Sul, Benguela, Malanje, and Kwanza
Norte; and the remaining eight are located in the six provinces of Huambo, Lunda
Norte, Lunda Sul, Bié, Kuando Kubango, and Huíla. The other nine provinces do not
TAble 4
iMpaCTed CoMUNaS aNd CoMMUNiTieS, By proviNCe
Comuna
Communities
Percentage of
Province Total number Impacted Impact-free Impacted Total number Impacted Comm. impacted
Bié 39 37 2 0 2,825 282 10%
Uíge 48 37 13 1 2,208 171 8%
Malanje 55 32 12 8 1,868 88 5%
Benguela 36 30 6 0 1,807 127 7%
Huambo 37 29 8 0 2,938 153 5%
Kwanza Sul 36 29 7 0 1,997 169 8%
Kuando Kubango 31 28 3 1 886 171 19%
Moxico 30 26 3 1 1,676 290 17%
Kwanza Norte 31 21 10 0 815 64 8%
Bengo 33 20 13 1 540 74 14%
Huíla 37 19 18 0 1,863 72 4%
Kunene 20 19 1 0 426 126 30%
Zaire 24 19 5 0 741 66 9%
Lunda Norte 26 17 6 6 1,059 30 3%
Lunda Sul 14 12 2 0 735 73 10%
Cabinda 12 8 4 0 394 27 15%
Namibe 14 3 11 1 420 3 1%
Luanda 33 2 31 0 291 2 1%
Total 556 388 155 13 23,489 1,988 8%
a viLLage iN
KwaNZa SUL
1 The actual number of comunas with impacted communities is probably slightly higher, since 19 comunas
(equal to 3.4 percent of all comunas and 5 percent of impacted comunas) were inaccessible to the LIS
survey teams.
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
27
have any high-impact communities. All provinces have medium-impact communities
with the exception of Cabinda, with the greatest number in Moxico (107) and Bié (60),
followed by the five provinces of Malanje, Kwanza Sul, Kuando Kubango, Huambo,
and Lunda Sul, each with between 31 and 38 medium-impact communities. Figure
1 above and Map 5 on page 28 show the distribution of impacted communities in
Angola. More detail is provided in the Province Profiles section.
figuRe 1
iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS, By proviNCe
0
'0
00
'0
200
2'0
o00
Hg|
/ouuu
|ov
|
u
u
|
u
u
|
u
u
|
o
C
u
|
|
u
u
|
u
|
u
u

|
o
|
|o
|
v
u
|
z
u

|
o
|
|o
z
u
|
o
H
u
´|u
|
u
|
u
u

S
u
|
E
o
|
g
o
/
u
|u
|
,o
|
u
|
o
|
o
E
o
|
g
u
o
|u
H
u
u
u
|
o
|
v
u
|
z
u

S
u
|
U
´g
o
|
u
u
|
u
o

|
u
|
u
|
g
o
E
o
/
o
x
c
o
||ov|co
|
u
p
u
c
|
o
u

C
o
u
u
u
|

|

o
s
|ov
/ou
Hg|
TAble 5
iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd popULaTioNS, By SeTTLeMeNT Type
Impacted Mean
Settlement Type Communities Population Population
Compact community 1,185 991,515 837
Dispersed Community 343 272,392 794
Suburban 298 564,775 1,895
Urban 100 505,498 5,055
Temporary Community 22 9,549 434
Other 18 14,287 794
Unknown 15 11,002 733
IDP 6 6,593 1,099
Refugee Camp 1 457 457
Total 1,988 2,376,068 1,195
28
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S
Angola comprises more than 23,000 communities. Of these, 1,988, or 8 percent,
are impacted by landmines. Table 5 on page 27 illustrates the variety of settlements
impacted by landmines. An estimated 2,376,068 people live in the impacted commu-
nities, resulting in an average of 1,195 people per impacted community. Seven of the
impacted communities were identified as internally displaced person (IDP) or
refugee camps.
SUSPECTED HAZARD AREAS (SHAs)
The LIS identified 3,293 SHAs in the 1,988 impacted communities in the 18 provinces
of Angola. Map 6 on next page illustrates the distribution and location of the SHAs
in impacted communities. Table 6 on page 30 shows that Moxico and Bié have a
combined 965 SHAs, or 30 percent of all SHAs in the country. When the number of
SHAs in Uíge and Kuando Kubango are added to the totals from Moxico and Bié,
these four provinces contain one-half of the SHAs in Angola.
MAp 5
iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
29
MAp 6
LoCaTioN oF SHas aNd
reCeNT viCTiMS iN
iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS
figuRe 2
NUMBer oF SHas per iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTy
0
200
^00
c00
o00
000
200
^00
0 ' o . c ' ^ o 2
|uu|o| o| SH/s po| couuu||,
|
u
u
|
o
|

o
|

c
o
u
u
u
|

|

o
s
,c'
'22
o
.c
'
^ 2
0
^
|ov |upuc|
/ou |upuc|
Hg| |upuc|
30
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S
Figure 2 and Table 7 show the number of SHAs per
impacted community, ranging from one to ten, with 59
percent, or 1,169 communities, reporting only one SHA. The
average number of SHAs per impacted community is 1.66,
which is consistent with the global norm determined by
other Landmine Impact Surveys.
Further investigation is required in the 40 impacted
communities with five or more SHAs (Table 7) to better
understand the impact of this situation.
TAble 6
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd SHas, By proviNCe
Impacted Communities SHAs
Province Number Percentage Number Percentage
Moxico 290 15% 522 16%
Bié 282 14% 443 13%
Kuando Kubango 171 9% 325 10%
Uíge 171 9% 312 9%
Kwanza Sul 169 9% 269 8%
Huambo 153 8% 206 6%
Benguela 127 6% 190 6%
Kunene 126 6% 160 5%
Malanje 88 4% 165 5%
Bengo 74 4% 116 4%
Lunda Sul 73 4% 151 5%
Huíla 72 4% 108 3%
Zaire 66 3% 106 3%
Kwanza Norte 64 3% 125 4%
Lunda Norte 30 1.5% 45 1.4%
Cabinda 27 1.4% 37 1.1%
Namibe 3 0.2% 11 0.3%
Luanda 2 0.1% 2 0.1%
Total 1,988 100% 3,293 100%
TAble 7
NUMBer oF SHas per CoMMUNiTy, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Number of SHAs in Each Community
Impact Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
High 16 14 3 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 40
Medium 116 160 112 43 12 6 3 2 0 1 455
Low 1,037 348 66 29 6 6 1 0 0 0 1,493
Total 1,169 522 181 76 19 14 4 2 0 1 1,988
Percent of Total 59% 26% 9% 4% 1% 0.7% 0.2% 0.1% 0% 0.05% 100%
a ppM2 ap
MiNe iN
aN SHa iN
HUaMBo
proviNCe
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
31
Extent of Suspect Area
Many factors and data elements are considered during the planning process, along
with where and how to allocate resources, whether they be funds, equipment, or
teams. One of the most common metrics used in planning is the amount of mine-
affected area, although the quantity of suspected land cleared or remaining does
not measure the impact removed or remaining. The LIS in Angola, through a very
rigorous visual verification methodology applied by HALO Trust, has resulted in
smaller area estimates for SHAs.
LIS survey teams usually estimate
the extent of contaminated area of the
SHAs. Such estimates were made in about
80 percent of the cases in Angola. Table
8 provides a summary of the information
collected for each category of impacted
community.
Rigorous Visual Inspection
The Survey Working Group LIS Protocols
require that during the community interview SHAs identified by the
community should be verified through a visual inspection from a
safe viewing point, and an estimate of the size of the SHA should be
determined. In some Landmine Impact Surveys prior to the one in
Angola, the area estimates of the SHAs have provided results that led
to disagreements over the actual extent of the landmine problem in
terms of the suspected hazard area.
Because of this problem, in November 2004 the SWG adopted
a revised and more stringent protocol for visual inspection of SHAs.
As the revised protocol was adopted after the beginning of the LIS,
HALO Trust volunteered to test the new protocol in Angola, providing
its survey staff with appropriate training and equipment, while the
remaining implementing partners conducted their work under the
old protocol. The end result was a significant improvement in the LIS
process, providing Angola with a more accurate picture of the mine-
contaminated area in the HALO Trust–surveyed provinces. Table 9 indicates the
results. The average SHA size measured by the more precise HALO Trust measure-
ments was about one-sixth of the overall average size, and about one-ninth of the
other partners average sizes.
2

While the LIS was underway, the UNMAS Quality Assurance Monitor wrote the
following: “HALO’s decision to apply additional effort in determining the size of SHAs
has provided these four provinces (Benguela, Huambo, Bié, and Kuando Kubango)
2 Since HALO Trust accounts for one-third of all SHAs, one might suspect that it subdivided larger SHAs
into multiple smaller ones. However, review of the LIS data indicates that the average number of SHAs
per community identified by HALO Trust does not differ significantly from those of the other imple-
menting partners, which suggests that it did not identify multiple SHAs where other partners would have
reported only one.
TAble 8
SHas wiTH aNd wiTHoUT area eSTiMaTeS
With Area Estimate Without Area Estimate Total SHAs
High 76 10 86
Medium 883 204 1,087
Low 1,657 483 2,120
Total 2,617 (79%) 699 (21%) 3,293
HaLo TrUST CoNdUCTiNg
viSUaL iNSpeCTioN
32
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S
with very accurate data
with which to plan and
conduct clearance and
follow-on activities. The
accuracy of the SHA sizes
is demonstrated by the
relatively small SHAs in
the HALO provinces – an
average of 46,000m
2

(0.05 sq km) compared to
433,000 m
2
(0.43 sq km)
across the country as a
whole.”
CNIDAH, UNDP, and SAC have used this reduction (85 percent) to more
accurately estimate a realistic size of the problem nationally. This reduced figure
has been key to the realistic planning described in Angola’s National Strategic Mine
Action Plan.
Table 10 presents
the extrapolation of the
LIS-estimated SHA area,
based on the revised
visual inspection protocol
as conducted by HALO
Trust and applying a more
conservative reduction
to only one-fifth of the
original estimate. The
results of the more precise
SHA survey provide an
upper estimate of current
suspect hazardous
area and a realistic estimate of the area to be treated. These figures suggest that,
following the systematic and more precise estimation of each SHA’s area at the
beginning of operational
planning for each task,
the total area remaining
for further area reduc-
tion and clearance or
other treatment will be
TAble 9
average SHa area deTerMiNed By eaCH SUrvey parTNer
Operator SHA Average Area (sq km)
INAD 81 0.23
MAG 676 0.31
INTERSOS 119 0.44
NPA 977 0.49
SBF 276 0.62
Subtotal 2,129 0.44
HALO Trust 1,164 0.05
Total 3,293 0.3
TAble 10
eSTiMaTed ToTaL area aNd area redUCTioN
wiTH viSUaL iNSpeCTioN
Community Estimated Total Estimated Area on Basis of
Impact Level SHA Area (sq km) Revised Protocol VI (sq km)
High 40 8
Medium 388 78
Low 811 162
Total 1,239 248
HaLo TrUST SUrvey
oFFiCer MappiNg
iN KUiTo
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
33
approximately 250 square kilometers, including less than 10 square kilometers for
high-impact communities, and 86 square kilometers for high- and medium-impact
communities combined.
Lessons Learned for LIS: Importance of Rigorous Visual Inspection
Referring to the use of the revised visual inspection protocol, HALO Trust says that the new
SWG protocol “is probably the most significant improvement to the LIS output. Previous
Landmine Impact Survey estimates of the size of the affected area have significantly
inflated the size of the problem. This is unfortunate since the size of the suspected mine-
affected areas is one of the most important pieces of information required for planning
future activities. From the outset of the survey HALO made the decision to dedicate
experienced mine clearance surveyors to the survey. HALO firmly believed that by tap-
ping their additional skills greater value would be added to the end product. In particu-
lar, concurrent to conducting the normal LIS community survey, the more experienced
HALO teams were tasked to conduct precise visual inspection and report the results on
the IMSMA Level 2 survey forms. The fear that this extra requirement would slow down
the progress of the survey never materialized. This was mainly because community visits
were arranged for early morning when most villagers were at home (i.e., before they had
dispersed to attend to daily chores such as plowing fields and tending to crops, cutting
firewood, watching over cattle, or, in the case of children, going to school). During the
morning session it was then possible to ascertain which individuals had best knowledge
of the SHA, and they were asked to accompany the surveyors for a closer reconnaissance
later in the day. Thus the HALO surveyors were able to use much of the remaining day
to confirm many more technical details normally required by mine clearance operators
before clearance operation can commence. Of greatest significance was the ability to
more accurately map and record the physical boundaries of the SHAs by using modern
equipment such as GPS, prismatic compasses, and laser range finders to draw polygon
maps. The equipment needed is relatively inexpensive, and being light and portable it
did little to hinder the survey or the teams. Importantly, whilst the use of compass and
measuring tape is not difficult or new to technical surveying, the use of laser range finders
makes the process far easier and quicker and safer. On return to base locations, resultant
polygon maps can be checked using simple software such as Map Maker (www.map-
maker.com), which then very accurately calculates the actual area within the boundaries
of the recorded SHA.”
34
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S
GROUND PROFILE AND ORDNANCE CLASS OF CONTAMINATED LAND
Ground Profle in Impacted Communities
The LIS provides information on the profile of the suspected contaminated land in
impacted communities. As indicated in Table 11, nearly three-fourths of the known
contaminated land is
flat and covered with
low growth.
Contaminated Land
by Ordnance Class
The LIS results
indicate that 58
percent of impacted
communities (and
62 percent of SHAs)
have only a single
type of ordnance, as
reflected in Table 12.
The number of SHAs
reported to have AT
mines is 952 and the
number reported to
have AP mines is 2,723.
oNe oF MaNy TM57
aT MiNeS iN CUiTo
CUaNavaLe, KUaNdo
KUBaNgo proviNCe
TAble 11
SHas, By groUNd proFiLe
SHAs Vegetation Type
Ground Profle Number Percentage Trees Tall Grass Short Grass Bushes Other
Gully 8 0.25% 0 4 4 0 0
Hills 303 9% 5 173 115 4 6
Other 297 9% 3 128 133 1 32
Mountainous 359 11% 10 179 166 2 2
Flat 2,326 71% 58 916 1,293 22 37
Total 3,293 100% 76 1,400 1,711 29 77
TAble 12
iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd SHas, By MUNiTioNS Type
Ordnance Type Number of Communities Number of SHAs Percent of Estimated Area
Mixed AP & AT 310 455 9%
AP & UXO 288 424 22%
AP, AT, UXO 108 144 7%
AT & UXO 47 64 4%
Subtotal 753 1,087 42%
Unmixed AP Only 968 1,700 48%
AT Only 172 289 1%
UXO Only 20 39 1%
Subtotal 1,160 2,028 50%
Unknown 75 178 8%
Total 1,988 3,293 100%
ied oN Trip wire, gaNda,
BeNgUeLa proviNCe
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
35
Victims and Survivors
VICTIMS OF MINE INCIDENTS
Figure 3 below shows that of the 341 casualties, 232, or 68 percent, were male and
79, or 23 percent, were female; the gender is unknown among 9 percent of the recent
victims. The fatality rate for the female and male casualties was essentially the same.
When discarding the unknown fate of 14 of the recent victims, the number of injured
and the number killed are the same. The survivor rate of 50 percent is lower than
in most other mine-affected countries, where the rate is closer to 60 percent and
sometimes as high as 70 percent.
Map 7 shows the geographical distribution of the recent victims identified
during the LIS. More recent victims were identified in Moxico than in any other
province.
figuRe 3
MiNe viCTiMS, By geNder
U|||ov| U|||ov|
U|||ov| Su|vvo|s
U|||ov| |u|u||os
|ouu|o U|||ov|
|ouu|o Su|vvo|s
|ouu|o |u|u||os
/u|o U|||ov|
/u|o Su|vvo|s
/u|o |u|u||os
0o, o.´
', o^'´
', '´
o^, 0´
o., 0'´
o, 2o´
22, c'´
., 2´
, 0o´
36
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S
As Map 7 and Table 13 indicate, one-third of the recent victims identified during
the LIS are in Moxico province. Seventeen percent of the recent victims are in Bié,
meaning that one-half of the casualties have occurred in just two provinces. Kwanza
Sul, Malanje, Lunda Norte, and Benguela have between 20 and 30 recent victims.
These six provinces contain 80 percent of the recent victims identified in the LIS.
Despite a relatively large number of impacted communities and SHAs in Uíge, only
two recent victims were reported. This low number of recent victims in Uíge repre-
sents the trend in recent victims throughout Angola, and is also a reflection of the
survey’s timing. In 2002 Uíge was reporting more casualties from landmine accidents
MAp 7
geograpHiCaL
diSTriBUTioN oF
reCeNT viCTiMS
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
37
than all but two other provinces. Five
years later Uíge is on the opposite end,
with nearly the least casualties of the
provinces reporting recent victims. The
four provinces of Namibe, Cabinda,
Luanda, and Zaire recorded no recent
victims in the two years prior to the
survey being conducted in the province.
DEMOGRAPHy OF RECENT VICTIMS
The age and gender breakdown of
recent victims as identified by the LIS
is close to the global norm for landmine
casualties. Figure 4 below shows that 39
of the recent victims, or 11 percent, were
between 5 and 14 years of age, and
more than three-quarters of the recent
victims were aged 15–44. Compared
with other countries, a higher portion
of the recent victims aged 30–44 are
women.
Table 14 details the activities that
victims were engaged in at the time
of their landmine incident. The most
common activity at the time of the
incident was traveling, as is the case in 30 percent of the incidents. The next most
common activities were collecting firewood and water and farming. The fact that
these activities are usually performed by women may largely account for why the
casualty rate among females aged 30–44 is 35 percent.
TAble 13
reCeNT viCTiMS By proviNCe
Recent Victims
Province Number Percentage
Moxico 111 33%
Bié 58 17%
Kwanza Sul 30 9%
Malanje 26 8%
Lunda Norte 25 7%
Benguela 20 6%
Kwanza Norte 18 5%
Huambo 15 4%
Huíla 13 4%
Lunda Sul 7 2%
Kunene 7 2%
Kuando Kubango 7 2%
Bengo 2 1%
Uíge 2 1%
Luanda 0 0%
Cabinda 0 0%
Zaire 0 0%
Namibe 0 0%
Total 341 100%
38
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S
TAble 14
aCTiviTy oF viCTiMS aT TiMe oF iNCideNT
Activity Male Female Unknown Total Percentage
Traveling 59 17 25 101 30%
Collection 36 24 0 60 17%
Farming 21 16 0 37 11%
Other 30 4 0 34 10%
Unknown 21 3 1 25 7%
Household Work 6 10 0 16 5%
Hunting 15 1 0 16 5%
Unofficial Demining 12 0 4 16 5%
Playing 10 4 0 14 4%
Herding 11 0 0 11 3%
Tampering 7 0 0 7 2%
Fishing 4 0 0 4 1%
Total 232 79 30 341 100%
Figure 5 shows that amputations are the most common injury, suffered by a
majority of mine incident survivors both men and women.
Table 15 indicates the occupation, by gender, of mine victims. The largest single
category among men is military, followed closely by “unknown” and farmers. For
women, the most common occupation is farmer, for more than 50 percent of female
mine victims.
figuRe 4
reCeNT viCTiMS, By age aNd geNder
|
u
u
|
o
|

o
|

\

c
|

u
s
\c|us /go
0
20
^0
c0
o0
00
20
U|||ov| c0 u|u ovo| o0^^ '2' '^ 0^
/u|o 2o2
|ouu|o .'
U|||ov| o0
0 0 0 0
20
'
'.
0
^
20
c
oo
0
.
.o
0

^
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
39
TAble 15
reCeNT viCTiMS, By geNder aNd oCCUpaTioN
Occupation Male Female Unknown Total Percentage
Farmer 41 42 0 83 24%
Unknown 30 7 27 64 19%
Soldier 48 1 3 52 15%
Student 33 4 0 37 11%
Household Worker 14 14 0 28 8%
Other 16 1 0 17 5%
Unemployed 16 0 0 16 5%
Hunter 14 1 0 15 4%
Trader 7 7 0 14 4%
Herder 6 0 0 6 2%
Office Worker 4 0 0 4 1%
Artisan 1 2 0 3 1%
Fisherman 2 0 0 2 1%
Grand Total 232 79 30 341 100%
Table 16 shows the change in job status among the landmine survivors. Before
the incidents among the survivors there were 37 farmers. After the incident there are
only 14 farmers among the 37. While this denotes a movement away from farming
as a result of their injuries it is interesting to note that 18 others became farmers
after the incidents. It is also worth noting that 12 of the 18 survivors who were in the
military at the time of the incident are still in the military. Although the data is not
figuRe 5
Type oF woUNdS SUFFered By MiNe iNCideNT SUrvivorS, By geNder
|
u
u
|
o
|

o
|

S
u
|
v

v
o
|
s
¹,po o| \ou|u
0
0
20
o0
^0
'0
c0
.0
o0
|oss o| Sg|| C||o| ||,u|, /upu|u|o|
/u|o
|ouu|o
U|||ov|
2o
^2
0
. .
^
.0
0
0
40
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S
complete in this area as many of the occupations of the survivors was not known at
the time of interview the data is indicative that landmine injuries cause major shifts
in employment status.
TAble 16
poST-iNCideNT oCCUpaTioN oF MiNe iNCideNT SUrvivorS, By geNder
Occupation
Before
Occupation After the Incident

the Incident Artisan Farmer Fisherman Herder House Worker Hunter Soldier Offce Worker Student Trader Other Unknown Total
Artisan 2 2
Farmer 2 14 1 4 1 1 1 13 37
Fisherman 1 1
Herder 1 1
House Worker 5 4 2 11
Hunter 2 2 1 5
Soldier 3 11 1 3 18
Office Worker 1 1 1 3
Student 1 1 12 1 4 19
Trader 1 1 1 3
Other 2 4 1 7
Unknown 2 2 14 18
TOTAL 2 32 2 1 11 2 12 2 14 2 6 39 125
TAble 17
FreqUeNCy oF reCeNT viCTiMS iN iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS
Number Number of Communities Percentage
of Recent Victims of Recent Victims of All Impacted
in the Community with This Number Communities
0 1,819 91.5%
1 108 5.4%
2 28 1.4%
3 15 0.75%
4 5 0.25%
5 5 0.25%
6 2 0.10%
9 1 0.05%
11 3 0.15%
16 1 0.05%
17 1 0.05%
Total 1,988 100.00%
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
41
RECENT VICTIMS PER SHA
The number of recent victims is an important measure of the impact of landmines on
the community, and largely determines which communities have high-impact. The
number of recent victims ranges from zero in the vast majority of cases to as high
as 17 in one case. Ninety-one percent of impacted communities reported no recent
victims. The full distribution is shown in Map 8 and Table 17 above.
The LIS recorded a total of 341 recent victims in 173 SHAs in a total of 169
communities. In 98 percent of communities with victims, a single SHA produced
the victims. Since the LIS fieldwork occurred over a three-year period, and since the
LIS considers as recent victims those casualties of mine incidents within two years
of the respective interview, the LIS includes individual casualties from different
times during the period of years 2002 to 2007. The number of victims is consistent
with annual records compiled by CNIDAH, which indicate there were roughly 100
MAp 8
diSTriBUTioN oF
reCeNT viCTiMS iN
iMpaCTed areaS
42
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S
new mine victims in 2005 and 125 in 2006. There were recent victims in 15 of the 18
provinces, as shown in Table 18, with Moxico and Bié combined accounting for 50
percent of the total. Malanje, Kwanza Sul, and Huambo have 12–14 SHAs with recent
victims, and the remaining provinces have fewer than ten.
TAble 18
SHas wiTH viCTiMS, By proviNCe
SHAs with Victims Recent Victims
Province Number Percentage Number Percentage
Moxico 51 29% 111 33%
Bié 37 21% 58 17%
Malanje 14 8% 26 7%
Huambo 12 7% 15 4%
Kwanza Sul 12 7% 30 9%
Benguela 8 5% 20 6%
Kuando Kubango 7 4% 7 2%
Huíla 6 3% 13 4%
Lunda Norte 6 3% 25 7%
Lunda Sul 6 3% 7 2%
Kunene 5 3% 7 2%
Kwanza Norte 5 3% 18 5%
Bengo 2 1% 2 1%
Uíge 2 1% 2 1%
Luanda 0 0% 0 0%
Cabinda 0 0% 0 0%
Namibe 0 0% 0 0%
Total 173 100% 341 100%
The number of recent incidents is another important indicator of the impact and
continuing threat of landmines in specific communities. The vast majority of low- and
medium-impact communities have had no recent incidents, while seven out of 40
high-impact communities had no recent incidents, and one high-impact community
had 23. Table 19 presents the distribution of recent incidents by impact category.
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
43
TAble 19
CoMMUNiTieS, By NUMBer oF reCeNT iNCideNTS aNd iMpaCT CaTegory
Impact
Communities, by Number of Recent Incidents
Category 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 23 Total
High 7 10 6 5 4 4 1 1 1 1 40
Medium 339 88 19 5 2 2 0 0 0 0 455
Low 1,461 28 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,493
Grand Total 1,807 126 28 11 6 6 1 1 1 1 1,988
Furthermore, the LIS indicates that victims of UXO incidents are more strongly
associated with medium-impact communities, while victims who encountered anti-
vehicle mines are most strongly associated with high-impact communities.
PROXIMITy AND RISK
As the LIS was being carried out, there was rich discussion among the survey-imple-
menting partners regarding the meaning of the impact score. One question raised
was whether other dimensions of risk should be considered when assessing impact.
Specifically, it was suggested that SHAs in the immediate proximity of a community
create higher risk of incident, injury, and death. While this is an intuitively sensible
conclusion, it is also possible that members of a community would know well those
SHAs in the immediate proximity and therefore would have adopted behaviors that
reduce risk caused by such “environmental” hazards. The LIS indicates that SHAs
in close proximity to a community generally are not more likely to result in victims,
as indicated in Table 20. Instead, the LIS clearly shows that the risk at any distance
depends primarily on the impact category of the community and that those SHAs
more than one kilometer from the community appear to cause the greatest risk.
This is consistent with the results of a similar analysis conducted on the basis of
the Afghanistan LIS. While there may be good reasons to clear minefields in close
proximity to settlements, greater risk to the inhabitants does not seem to be one of
them.
TAble 20
proxiMiTy oF SHas To THe CoMMUNiTy aNd FreqUeNCy oF viCTiMS
High Medium Low Total Total
Distance SHA Victim SHA Victim SHA Victim SHA Victim
Less than 50m 6 5 30 3 64 1 100 9
50–100m 0 0 31 1 50 2 81 3
100–500m 27 48 262 32 464 3 753 83
500–1000m 16 27 242 27 444 4 702 58
More than 1000m 36 98 509 84 1,078 5 1,623 187
Unknown 1 0 13 1 20 0 34 1
Total 86 178 1087 148 2,120 15 3,293 341
44
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
45
Impact on Communities
L
andmines and UXOs adversely impact communities in a variety of ways. The
LIS identifies and categorizes the impact and assigns each surveyed community
an impact score indicating relative severity. This score is based on three important
factors:
-
The number of recent victims (within 24 months preceding the survey)
-
The number of different types of socioeconomic and institutional blockages
-
The nature of the munitions (landmines and/or UXOs) present
Impact scores are used to classify communities’ impacts as low, medium, or
high, using a framework common
to all Landmine Impact Surveys
(0–5 points = low impact; 6–10
points = medium impact; and 11
or more points = high impact).
Table 21 shows that 40
impacted communities (2 percent)
were categorized as high-impact,
455 (23 percent) as medium-
impact, and 1,493 (75 percent) as
low-impact.
RANGE OF IMPACT
ON COMMUNITIES
Community impact
scores in Angola
range from 1 to 38.
Figure 6 presents
the distribution of
low-, medium-, and
high-impact scores,
indicating the number
of impacted commu-
nities and SHAs
associated with each
community impact
score. The most
frequent community
impact score was 4,
followed by scores of
TAble 21
iMpaCT CaTegory SUMMary
Impact Communities
Category Number Percentage
High 40 2%
Medium 455 23%
Low 1,493 75%
Total 1,988 100%
figuRe 6
diSTriBUTioN oF iMpaCT SCoreS
0
00
200
o00
^00
'00
c00
.00
o00
oo o. oc o' o^ oo o2 o o0 2' 2o 2. 2c 2' 2^ 2o 22 2 20 ' o . c ' ^ o 2 0 ' o . c ' ^ o 2
Couuu||, upuc| sco|o
|
u
u
|
o
|

o
|

u
p
u
c
|
o
u

c
o
u
u
u
|

|

o
s
0
2
^
c
o
0
2
oo o. oc o' o^ oo o2 o o0 2' 2o 2. 2c 2' 2^ 2o 22 2 20 ' o . c ' ^ o 2 '
Sco|os |||u oo
|xpu|uou \ov
|ov |upuc|
/ou |upuc|
Hg| |upuc|
46
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S
3 and then 5. There were 689, 381, and
380 communities, respectively, with
these three scores, for a combined total
of 1,450, which includes 73 percent
of all impacted communities. These
are all “low” impact scores. A score of
3 or 4 is most frequently the result of
having one or two SHAs producing two
socioeconomic blockages to community
activities. The figure shows that 12
impacted communities had scores of
16 to 38. The modal score (i.e., the score
most often received) was 4. The mean
score is 4.88.
Overall, there were a total of 318
incidents reported during the two
years preceding the LIS, as show in
Table 22 and illustrated in Figure 7.
These incidents occurred in 173 SHAs
associated with 170 communities and
produced 341 recent victims. The table
shows several communities with many
incidents and recent victims as well as
communities with few incidents but
with a high number of victims. All of
these communities are categorized as
high impact. Most notably, the commu-
nity with the highest impact score – 38
– has had 23 incidents over a 24-month
period resulting in 17 recent victims.
This community has only one SHA. The
community is in Lunda Norte where little mine action has occurred. This community
should be high priority for further investigation. Other communities reported only
one or two incidents but with at least six recent victims. At the same time 16 commu-
nities with a score of 4 – the most frequently reported score – reported 15 incidents
without victims. The LIS recorded more than 30 mine incidents in which there were
no injuries or fatalities.
TAble 22
iMpaCT SCore aNd CLaSSiFiCaTioN
oF aLL iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS
Impact Recent Recent
Score Incident Victim
1 0 0
2 0 0
3 3 0
4 16 1
5 18 14
6 44 36
7 38 39
8 43 37
9 18 19
10 16 17
11 16 20
12 14 21
13 10 13
14 9 9
15 4 8
16 11 15
17 1 6
18 11 11
22 9 9
26 2 11
27 10 11
28 1 11
37 1 16
38 23 17
Total 318 341
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
47
COMMUNITy IMPACT SCORES WITH AND WITHOUT RECENT VICTIMS
Since victims are such an important part of the LIS impact score, it is worthwhile
to consider the scores that would exist without victims. The range of impact scores
without considering recent victims is from 1 to 13, with only four communities having
scores of 11 or higher (high-impact) without victims, as shown in Table 23. The modal
score for low-impact communities without victims is 4; for medium-impact it is 6;
and for high-impact communities without victims it is 5. Arguably, in Angola, what
distinguishes a high-impact community from a medium- and even some low-impact
communities is the number of recent victims. The 50 medium-impact communi-
ties with impact scores of 9 or 10 are one incident away from being categorized as
high-impact. The number and extent of socioeconomic blockages are very similar
in high- and medium-impact communities, and are much greater than those in
low-impact communities. The narrow distinction between high and medium impact
figuRe 7
CoMMUNiTieS wiTH reCeNT iNCideNTS aNd viCTiMS, By iMpaCT
Couuu||, |upuc| Sco|o
|
o
c
o
|
|

|
|
c

u
o
|
|
s

u
|
u

\

c
|

u
s
0
'
0
'
20
2'
o0
o'
^0
^'
'0
oo o. 2o 2. 2c 22 o . c ' ^ o 2 0 ' o . c ' ^ o 2
|oco|| ||cuo||
|oco|| \c|u
TAble 23
iMpaCT By BLoCKage (wiTHoUT viCTiMS)
Impact Score (Without Victims)
Impact 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Total
High 0 0 0 5 11 10 3 2 3 2 2 1 1 40
Medium 0 1 7 44 32 200 92 50 18 11 0 0 0 455
Low 1 43 395 688 366 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,493
Total 1 44 402 737 409 210 95 52 21 13 2 1 1 1,988
48
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S
is one of the reasons why the National Mine Action Strategic
Plan 2006–2011 prioritizes all cases of high- and medium-impact
communities to be resolved and why this report combines the two
categories for the purpose of analysis. More analysis regarding
the number of recent victims and SHAs causing accidents can be
found in the Consequences for Mine Action section under Priority
to SHAs with Recent Victims.
INACCESSIBLE COMMUNITIES
The LIS identified 1,988 communities as having been impacted by
landmines. A limited number of communities suspected of being
impacted were not covered by the LIS because the survey teams
could not reach them or because the survey team was unable to
find local inhabitants to interview. (In addition, new communities
formed since the LIS are not necessarily included in the original
dataset.) Inaccessibility was the product of several causes, mainly
lack of roads, lack of bridges, and in some cases landmine contami-
nation. The exact number of inaccessible communities is unknown.
They are located in 19 of the nation’s 557 comunas, listed by
province in Table 24 below. Of the 19 inaccessible comunas, 14 are
in Lunda Norte and Malanje. They should be surveyed and added
to the national mine action database when conditions permit.
Based on LIS experience in Angola, no more and probably much
less than 50 percent of the inaccessible communities may have
been impacted.
ECONOMIC BLOCKAGE IMPACTS
Key informants in the impacted communities pointed to five major types of resources
to which landmines and UXOs were blocking access:
-
Rain-fed cropland
-
Nonagricultural rural land
-
Pasture
-
Roads
-
Infrastructure
The core insight underlying the landmine impact survey is that the landmine
problem should be understood according to the impact on communities whose
normal social and economic activities are blocked. Thus the LIS seeks to determine
the social and economic resources with access blocked by landmines. Blockages
may be of many forms, but the most commonly identified are blockage of economic
activity (farming, gathering, herding, trading), blockage of access to basic services
(water, schools, health centers, housing), and blockage of transit to other locations
(roads, paths). Table 25 below ranks resource type by the percentage of communi-
TAble 24
iNaCCeSSiBLe CoMUNaS
Total Inaccessible
Province Comunas Comunas
Bengo 33 1
Benguela 36 0
Bié 39 0
Cabinda 12 0
Huambo 37 0
Huíla 37 0
Kuando Kubango 31 1
Kunene 20 0
Kwanza Norte 31 0
Kwanza Sul 36 0
Luanda 33 0
Lunda Norte 26 6
Lunda Sul 14 0
Malanje 55 8
Moxico 30 1
Namibe 14 1
Uíge 48 1
Zaire 25 0
Total 557 19
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
49
ties that reported blocked access to them. The most commonly reported economic
blockage in impacted communities is rain-fed agriculture, with 61 percent of the
impacted communities reporting such a blockage. Similarly, more than 53 percent
of the SHAs are blocking rain-fed agriculture. Nonagricultural land was the second
most frequently reported blockage, and pasture was third with 35 percent. Blockages
of access to water, housing, irrigated agricultural land, and ways/paths were each
reported in less than 10 percent of the SHAs.
TAble 25
perCeNTage oF CoMMUNiTieS reporTiNg BLoCKed aCCeSS
Impacted Communities SHAs
Types of Blockage No. % Population No. %
Rain-Fed Agriculture 1,216 61% 1,655,272 1,748 53%
Nonagricultural Land 840 42% 1,094,283 1,203 37%
Pasture 696 35% 964,954 945 29%
Roads 465 23% 429,595 529 16%
Infrastructure 323 16% 331,448 396 12%
Other Water 155 8% 173,948 216 7%
Housing 151 8% 183,186 188 6%
Drinking Water 133 7% 152,585 176 5%
Irrigated Agriculture 105 5% 154,112 139 4%
The three most frequent blockages are to access of rain-fed agriculture,
nonagricultural rural activities (e.g., gathering fuel and food), and pasture. Angola
is an agricultural country, with the majority of the population living in rural areas,
and these blockages affect the daily activities of the rural population. The next
most frequent blockage affects roads. Transportation and movement were greatly
restricted during the long period of conflict, and the continuing legacy of blocked
transit routes interferes with the recovery and development of the country. There is a
significant although smaller number of blockages related to drinking water, housing,
and public services. Although the number of such blockages is smaller, each of these
resources typically serves many more people and their significance is much greater
than the comparison of frequency might suggest.
The importance of the different blockages varies among the provinces, as shown
in Table 26. Many communities report more than one type of blockage (as a result
of which the individual blockages add up to more than the number of communities
and SHAs, and surpass 100 percent). Agricultural resources are blocked throughout
the country, while blocked roads are a problem especially in the interior, and blocked
irrigated land is a problem primarily in Moxico, Kuando Kubango, Lunda Sul, and
Uíge. Blocked drinking water is a problem nationwide but is particularly concen-
trated in Moxico, Lunda Sul, Malanje, Kwanza Sul, and Kwanza Norte. Blocked roads
are similarly a problem nationwide but are concentrated especially in Moxico, Bié,
and Huambo provinces.
50
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S
Agriculture in Angola
Prior to the 40-year conflict,
Angola was self-sufficient in
food production and exported
coffee, maize, and beans. Since
the spread of peace in 2002,
Angola has struggled to regain
its self-sufficiency in food produc-
tion, and globalization has
created more competitive export
markets requiring new strategies
and investments that have yet to materialize. In the LIS, agricultural land (rain-fed
and irrigated) was the most cited socioeconomic blockage, with 66 percent of the
impacted communities reporting blockage to agricultural land. In a 2005 study,
“Right to Land and Livelihood,” Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA) found that landmines
paSTUre aNd
agriCULTUraL LaNd
iN KwaNZa SUL
TAble 26
CoMMUNiTieS reporTiNg BLoCKageS, By BLoCKage Type
Rain- Non-
Irrigated Fed agricultural Other Drinking
Province Land Land Land Pasture Roads Housing Infrastructure Water Water Total
Moxico 30 164 210 79 71 39 93 30 29 745
Bié 1 190 75 85 105 10 31 2 2 501
Kuando Kubango 21 108 70 95 36 12 21 9 7 379
Kwanza Sul 4 109 98 55 16 7 20 11 14 334
Uíge 10 93 57 23 66 25 28 9 9 320
Huambo 2 95 62 58 53 1 29 4 1 305
Benguela 3 79 65 75 19 5 8 1 1 256
Malanje 2 56 33 30 38 10 21 24 16 230
Lunda Sul 18 50 51 30 9 12 14 19 18 221
Kwanza Norte 0 45 44 17 4 4 15 15 13 157
Kunene 2 56 5 76 12 2 1 2 1 157
Huíla 5 28 15 46 8 6 17 6 4 135
Zaire 1 48 33 10 11 8 5 4 4 124
Bengo 3 49 15 7 12 5 8 11 9 119
Lunda Norte 0 20 3 4 2 2 11 7 4 53
Cabinda 2 25 2 3 2 3 0 0 0 37
Luanda 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 6
Namibe 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 5
Total 105 1,216 840 696 465 151 323 155 133 4,084
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
51
hindered the expansion of land under communal use.
3
The study concluded with
the question of whether mine action can lead to more access to agricultural land
and improved access to land – a complex social, historical, and political issue that is
beyond the scope of this report. However, landmines are only one of several factors
when considering food security and agricultural production. What investments are
being planned for fertilizers, roads, irrigation systems, energy, transportation, and
markets? Equally important is the land tenure law and assessing ownership of the
land. Small farmers have traditionally been the backbone of agricultural production
in Angola. A program that includes clearing agricultural land should also include
support to small farmers in the form of credit, tools, fertilizer, technical assistance,
and training. The LIS only
identified agricultural land as a
socioeconomic blockage; it did not
identify the owners of the land or
its potential use.
Roads in Angola
The lost ability to safely travel
and transport goods has been one
of the lasting effects of the long
conflict in Angola. Blockage of
roads and paths remains a major
problem, interfering with local and
national recovery as well as plans for
elections and future development.
While the LIS is not designed as a
road survey, it can identify many
roads and road segments that are
blocked. Map 9 shows the SHAs that
are within 25 meters of a road.
3 Paulo Filipe, “The Right to Land and Livelihood: The Dynamics of Land Tenure Systems in Conda,
Amboim, and Sumbe Municipios,” NPA, 2005; page 9.
road iN BeNgUeLa
THe Npa SUrvey
TeaM driviNg
oN THe NaTioNaL
HigHway iN Uíge
52
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S
MAp 9
roadS aNd SUSpeCTed
HaZard areaS
road iN MaLaNje
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
53
Mine Action Activities
HISTORy OF LANDMINES IN ANGOLA
Angola was mired in conflict for more than 40 years, beginning in 1961 while the
country was under Portuguese rule. The conflict continued after independence
in November 1975, until all hostilities ceased in 2002. Landmines were used by all
parties, including the various foreign interests involved when Cold War politics
played a role in the conflict. The full extent of landmine contamination in the country
has never really been known, although estimates have placed Angola as one of the
most mine-affected countries in the world. Without accurate data, no one was sure
what this meant in comparison to other mine-impacted countries. Nevertheless, there
was substantial evidence that thousands of people were being injured and killed by
landmines, based on the number of beneficiaries in the major orthopedic centers
in the country and anecdotally supported by the numbers of amputees seen on the
streets of Luanda and in the villages of rural Angola. Road accidents and general
surveys by NPA from 1995 to 1998 were other indicators that the people of Angola
were severely impacted by landmines. In 1994, after the Lusaka Protocol was signed,
the international community and the United Nations launched a major program to
minimize the landmine problem in Angola and to develop a national capacity for
addressing the landmine problem in the long term.
SUMMARy OF PAST MINE ACTION
International NGOs were the first major mine action operators in Angola. Norwegian
People’s Aid, HALO Trust, and Mines Advisory Group established mine action
programs in Malanje, Huambo, and Moxico, respectively, in 1994. Three more interna-
tional NGOs established mine action programs in subsequent years – MgM in 1996,
Santa Barbara in 1997, and INTERSOS in 1999.
In 1995, in the framework of its peacekeeping mission (UNAVEM III), the UN
supported the establishment of the Central Mine Action Office (CMAO) and the
Demining Training Centre (ETAM). Subsequently the UN supported the establish-
ment of Angola’s national mine action center, the National Institute for the Removal
of Explosive Devices (INAROEE).
In November 2003 INAROEE was dissolved and transformed into a mine
clearance organization, the Angolan National Demining Institute (INAD). CNIDAH
assumed the lead role in planning, policy making, and coordination functions, and
INAD assumed an operational function. Since 2004, these institutions have evolved
54
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S
and matured. CNIDAH is now focused on strategic coordination and planning, policy
creation, information management, and quality assurance, and INAD is responsible
for demining operations and management of the mine clearance school.
Also in 2003, UNDP began its activities in support of the present-day institutions
for mine action. The first phase of this support has been the implementation of an
ongoing project in support of CNIDAH at the central level. The second phase has
been the development of a capacity for mine action coordination, planning, and
resources mobilization at the provincial level.
The Executive Commission for Demining (CED) was established in 2005 to
coordinate the new national demining capability, to be developed in the Armed
Forces (FAA), INAD, and the National Reconstruction Office (GRN). Attached as
Annex I are the roles and responsibilities of each institution involved with the LIS.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) began a victims’ assistance
program in Kuito and Huambo in the 1980s and from 1999 in Luanda, where they
also produced orthopedic parts for making prosthesis. Starting in 1994, Handicap
International established rehabilitation centers and mine risk education work in
Huambo, Huíla, Benguela, and Luanda provinces, and the Vietnam Veterans of
America Foundation (VVAF) followed in 1995 with the provision of orthopedic
services to landmine survivors and people with disabilities in Moxico province. In
2004 and 2006 Handicap International and VVAF (now Veterans for America) handed
the programs over to provincial and national authorities. ICRC continues to provide
orthopedic components to organizations that produce prostheses.
UNICEF has led programming in mine risk education (MRE) through local and
international implementing partners.
In 2007 the mine action program in Angola is robust and mature, with both
significant national and international support and a national strategic plan with
priorities guiding implementers and donors.
LIS-REPORTED MINE ACTION IN IMPACTED COMMUNITIES
From April 2004 to May 2007 the LIS gathered information about the nature of mine
action activities – MRE, marking, fencing, mine clearance, and mine victim assis-
tance – that have already taken place in impacted communities. These activities,
whether implemented by outside agencies or initiated locally, are the foundation for
future mine action programs. These activities also reveal the magnitude of potential
needs not yet met.
As Table 27 shows, the LIS reported that a large amount of mine action activity
occurred in the impacted communities. MRE was the most commonly reported
activity, with 37 percent of communities reporting it, including 25 of the 40 high-
impact communities, or 62 percent. Mine clearance was reported to have occurred
in 20 of the 40 high-impact communities. Together with MRE this indicates that the
mine action operators have targeted more than one-half of the high-impact communi-
ties, although the majority of mine action efforts in all categories have been directed
at low-impact communities. The LIS is intended to ensure that attention is focused
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
55
as much as possible on where it will have the greatest result in relieving impact on
communities, which will normally prioritize response to high- and medium-impact
communities, as already reflected in the National Mine Action Strategy of Angola.
TAble 27
MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS iN iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS
Mine Action High Medium Low Total
Activities (n=40) (n=455) (n=1,493) (n=1,988) Percent
MRE 25 217 494 736 37%
Survey 11 141 242 394 20%
Official Clearance 20 136 257 413 21%
Informal Village Demining 1 58 95 154 8%
Uxo SiTe
56
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
57
Consequences for Mine Action
MINE ACTION STRATEGy
One of the most important uses the LIS serves is as a tool to inform the development
of a meaningful and achievable national mine action strategy. In the case of Angola,
the Council of Ministers adopted just such a strategy on 6 September 2006, based on
the preliminary results of the LIS in 15 provinces. The goals of the Angolan National
Mine Action Strategic Plan are in the box below, and the complete goals and objec-
tives are in Annex IV of this report.
The LIS provides a clear quantitative baseline and measures for the first goal:
Significantly reduce the risk to impacted communities and at-risk groups by 2011.
The objectives for this goal include:
-
Reduce the number of high-impact communities to zero
-
Reduce the number of medium-impact communities by 50 percent
-
Mark all remaining SHAs, using community-based and mine action operator
resources
-
Reduce number of victims to virtually zero by 2011
-
Refocus MRE on impacted communities and at-risk groups as identified in the
LIS and accident data
The LIS also provides important data to support Goals 2 and 3.
National Mine Action Strategic Plan 2006–2011 Goals
Goal 1 Significantly reduce the risk to impacted communities and at-risk groups by
2011
Goal 2 Landmine/ERW survivors and persons with disabilities receive medical care
within the national health system and have access to assistance in reintegrating
into community life
Goal 3 The Angola mine action program supports national infrastructure investment and
reconstruction
Goal 4 Fully establish a national mine action capability that is sustainable by national
resources after the end of major international assistance
Goal 5 Establish a world-class mine action program in Angola
58
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S
Based on the combined estimate of SHAs by all implementing partners,
reduced according to the results of the application of the revised visual inspection
protocol as conducted by HALO Trust (described above), the overall concept of the
Angola National Mine Action Strategy 2006–2011 appears to be quite reasonable.
The national authorities estimate the size of the SHAs in high- and medium-impact
communities to be about 90 square kilometers. Further surveys will reduce further
the amount of land that actually requires physical clearance. If annual combined
clearance of all operators is maintained at 10 square kilometers per year, focused
clearance of high- and medium-impact communities would require less than 10 years
to complete, and under these assumptions the elimination of the entire contamina-
tion would require less than 25 years. This is far below the one to two centuries often
cited in the past as required to finish the job.
USE OF LIS FOR MINE ACTION PLANNING
Development of a strategic plan produces goals and the requisite activities to
achieve them. Numerous factors determine the final priorities. In the case of Angola,
the LIS impact categories were major criteria in determining the priorities of the
National Strategic Mine Action Plan 2006–2011.
Impact and Priority
The LIS produces an impact ranking – high, medium, or low – for each mine-affected
community. The LIS classified 40 communities as high-impact, 455 as medium-
impact, and 1,493 as low-impact. This is not a ranking of priority, but is an important
element to be considered in setting mine action priorities, which may also take into
consideration many other factors known locally to be important, including particular
plans for development of the area or region.
The LIS identified 2 percent of impacted communities as high-impact and 23
percent as medium-impact. However, primarily the difference in Angola between
high- and medium-impact communities is whether or not the community had victims
because a majority of the communities have the same number of blockages. In fact,
if the recent victims were removed from the scoring system, only four communities
would remain with a high-impact score. This is consistent with the argument that
international support for national mine action should continue at least until the
resolution of conditions in all high- and medium-impact communities.
Operations for the National Mine Action Strategy
Impact does not necessarily imply priority for mine clearance, although according to
the National Mine Action Strategy of Angola it does imply priority for further inves-
tigation. The National Mine Action Strategy 2006–2011 sets a goal of resolving all
high-impact communities, resolving 50 percent of medium-impact communities, and
marking all low-impact communities. This implies that:
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
59
-
All high-impact communities should be included in provincial operations plans
at a rate that will resolve them all by the end of the period of the Strategic Plan.
However, it does not necessarily mean they should be listed for mine clearance.
Rather, it means that each should be visited by a survey team to reconfirm the
impact and the SHA data, and to determine what treatment is necessary to
resolve the problem. In some cases that will likely include mine clearance, and
in most cases it will involve area reduction, although in some cases it may only
be the systematic confirmation that the problem originally identified no longer
exists. In order for all mine danger in such communities to be resolved over a
five-year period, roughly 20 percent should be resolved each year. The selection
of which communities to address each year should be made according to provin-
cial prioritization; since all provinces except Moxico (15) and Kwanza Sul (6) have
fewer than five high-impact communities, a good practice guideline could be to
resolve the problem in a least one community per year.
-
Medium-impact communities should receive a similar treatment. If 50 percent of
the medium-impact communities are to be resolved over a five-year period, this
implies that about 10 percent should be resolved each year. Which communities
will be included in this 10 percent should be determined according to provincial
prioritization and available resources.
-
Low-impact communities receive a different treatment, normally not including
mine clearance but rather focusing on marking and risk reduction through mine
risk education, following the National Mine Action Strategy. According to the
National Strategy, all low-impact communities should be surveyed and marked
over the period of the National Strategy. This should be done with return visits to
confirm blockages, with a trained visual verification team properly equipped to
determine the minimum polygon for the suspect area and to mark the resulting
SHA. This also implies the need to establish marking teams considerably beyond
the current numbers.
It is of course possible that a community classified as low-impact by the LIS may
represent a higher priority for the provincial authorities and may require clearance
because of resources for development of that community or the community’s relation
to other development plans. However, the National Strategy indicates that such
cases should have a strong justification. Basing priorities on socioeconomic block-
ages rather than impact categories is discussed in more detail later in this section.
Once a community has been selected for action, a team should return to recon-
firm the key information collected by the LIS regarding blockages and SHAs, and
should supplement this with an assessment of the development potential of the
community and the availability of necessary resources. A methodology such as the
NPA Task Impact Assessment or the more community-oriented Task Assessment
Planning approach – adapted as the Community-based Integrated Mine Action
Planning (CIMAP) in Bosnia and Herzegovina – could be used.
60
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S
Monitoring and Surveillance to Maintain the National Mine Action Database
The LIS systematically collected information about the impact of landmines on
communities. The resulting database provided a fresh starting point for the national
mine action database. In the case of Angola, the LIS considered and rechecked infor-
mation in existing databases while also reaching many communities that previously
were not in the mine action database. This has provided CNIDAH with an update
and a very comprehensive database.
In order for the CNIDAH database to remain fully useful, it needs to be continu-
ously updated with information as work advances or situations change. Specifically,
it must continue to receive and incorporate new information, particularly information
reflecting the progress of mine action activities, previously unrecorded impacted
communities, and new victims. Changes overall are relatively slow, but for each
specific place that is freed of blockages or suffers an accident, the change is sudden
and significant. Maintaining the flow of this information is essential in order to keep
the quality of the CNIDAH database as the central reference point for mine action,
to enable the database to measure progress against the goals of the national mine
action strategy, and to provide updated information to potential end users.
There are multiple possible channels through which to obtain this information;
for some, CNIDAH is responsible, while others will have to establish an appropriate
quality-assurance mechanism.
Information regarding the conduct of mine action activities should be prepared
by the respective operator on the corresponding CNIDAH/IMSMA form and deliv-
ered to the CNIDAH Provincial Operations Room for follow-up by the Provincial
Quality Assurance team (conducting such surveys is part of their role), while also
being sent to CNIDAH HQ. This is also the basis for issuance of minefield completion
and acceptance reports.
Information regarding previously unknown mine-affected communities and
hazards should be reported to the Provincial Operations Room (whether by the
individual concerned, police, or others), which will send or request a survey team
to follow up and complete the respective LIS form, which will then be forwarded to
CNIDAH for entry in the database.
In cases where a mine action operator identifies a previously unrecorded
impacted community, one of the operator’s qualified survey teams may complete the
LIS forms and forward them to the Provincial Operations Room and CNIDAH HQ.
Information regarding new mine incidents should be checked and incorporated
into the database promptly. This new information may alter the impact scores of the
respective communities, in which case the communities should receive the response
appropriate to the higher level of impact.
In addition to updating the LIS information, it is important to recognize that
the CNIDAH database, as the national mine action database, requires information
regarding other hazardous areas that may be identified without regard to their
impact on local communities. For example, this might include railroads, bridges, or
isolated SHAs. Such information may be relevant in the future, especially for national
development projects such as electricity or road expansion as well as for new
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
61
settlements. Even during the LIS survey process, SHAs were sometimes identified
that were distant from any population center. In such cases they were assigned to a
community in order to integrate the data into the system.
Operational Considerations for Provincial Priorities and National Strategic Goals
The tasks below represent some of the ways to identify and meet local priorities and
national strategic goals. To ensure realism and greater chance of success, each task
should include a quantifiable indicator (e.g., number or percentage coverage per
year; examples indicated below by “xx percent” with percentage to be determined
at provincial level). Implications regarding the number of teams and the amount of
budgets should also be assessed and translated into realistic resource mobilization
and growth plans, as appropriate, since the current assets are likely to be insufficient
for responding to all these factors as promptly as would be preferred. These tasks
should be allocated as part of the annual provincial planning process.
Survey: Deploy specialized survey teams to determine more precise boundaries
and area of SHAs, with priority to high- and medium-impact communities. In
other countries, this area-reduction process has canceled from 50 percent to
95 percent of the initially reported SHAs. Confirm blockage of community or
development activity caused by SHAs and identify for clearance the portion of
each SHA causing the blockage. Identify blocked roads, bridges, and access
CNIDAH Preliminary Guidelines for Use of LIS Results for
Provincial Planning, in the Framework of the National
Mine Action Strategic Plan (Summary in Annex IV)
• IdentifyallLIShigh-impactcommunitiesintheprovinceandincludethemintheannual
and medium-term plans in order to eliminate all impact and minimize further risk in all
high-impact communities within two to three years.
• IdentifyallLISmedium-impactcommunitiesintheprovinceandincludetheminthean-
nual and medium-term plans in order to eliminate all impact and minimize further risk in
at least 50 percent of medium-impact communities within three to five years.
• Identifyallhigh-andmedium-impactcommunitiesintheprovinceandrefocusannual
and medium-term plans to address risk according to impact, particularly by conducting
MRE to reduce risky behavior of population and by reconfirming blockages. This should
include prompt response to all new incidents with victims.
• Reportallprogress,changesinsituation,andactionstakentoCNIDAHProvincial
Operations Room and CNIDAH HQ for incorporation into the CNIDAH database.
62
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S
routes, and plan to open xx percent within two years, with priority to those
routes without viable alternatives. Identify all blocked water sources and clear
xx percent blockages within one year. Identify all blocked community facilities
(schools, health posts, markets) and remove xx percent blockages through area
reduction or clearance within one year. Identify blockages interfering with
national development projects (road network, irrigation, power distribution) and
clear blockages as part of each respective project.
MRE: Deploy MRE teams to all high- and medium-impact communities with
an appropriate frequency in order to reduce risky behavior and reconfirm
blockages.
Clearance: Clear portions of SHAs blocking community or development
activities.
Marking: Mark portions of SHAs not blocking community or development activi-
ties (but clear small remaining areas and areas within 25 meters of a settlement).
Priority Setting: Give greater priority to clear blockages affecting more than one
community. Give greater priority to clear blockages of resources without reason-
able alternative. Give greater priority to clear blockages when the resources
necessary to fully utilize the previously blocked activity are readily available (and
lower priority to clear those blockages where significant additional resources
must be obtained to reactivate the activity).
Budgeting: Consider logistical costs and address other blockages clustered
in the same area. Reconcile the available mine action resources (clearance,
marking, MRE) with the requirements identified, and consider the development
of additional or different resources as may be appropriate.
Reporting: Ensure CNIDAH has accurate information reflecting changes in
circumstances and mine action work completed since the LIS was carried out.
Investigate and provide updated reports to CNIDAH on all new mine incidents,
newly identified mine-affected communities or SHAs, and changes to previous
information since the LIS. Submit quarterly progress reports and task completion
reports to CNIDAH.
MRE Tasking Tool
CNIDAH and its MRE partners in Angola have developed a tool based on the LIS
database to establish priorities for allocation of MRE tasks. With a methodology
analogous to that used for LIS impact scoring, the tool assigns points in order to
arrive at a community score considering the following factors:
-
Size of population
-
Level of impact according to the LIS
-
SHAs marked or not
-
Number of SHAs
-
Number of socioeconomic blockages
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
63
-
Recent victims (in the last two years)
-
Old victims (prior to the last two years)
-
Type of explosive devices
Applying the MRE tool to the LIS database classifies the impacted communities
into MRE-High, MRE-Medium, and MRE-Low priority communities, which overlap to
some extent with the community impact scores of the LIS, as reflected in Table 28. It
is to be expected that the two approaches produce somewhat different results, since
the LIS impact score is related to attention to resolution of socioeconomic blockages,
while the MRE priority score is related to attention to modification of behavior in
risky settings. More information on this tool is available from CNIDAH.
TAble 28
Mre prioriTy raNKiNgS By Mre TaSKiNg TooL, By proviNCe
Province MRE-High MRE-Medium MRE-Low Total
Moxico 118 111 61 290
Bié 59 126 97 282
Uíge 26 94 52 172
Kuando Kubango 28 84 59 171
Kwanza Sul 30 75 64 169
Huambo 37 64 52 153
Benguela 27 47 53 127
Kunene 20 81 25 126
Malanje 22 38 27 87
Bengo 6 29 39 74
Lunda Sul 33 34 6 73
Huíla 12 36 24 72
Zaire 14 35 17 66
Kwanza Norte 20 30 14 64
Lunda Norte 6 16 8 30
Cabinda 1 16 10 27
Namibe 1 2 0 3
Luanda 1 0 1 2
Grand Total 461 918 609 1,988
SUPPORT TO ALTERNATIVE PRIORITIZATIONS
Blocked Resources as Pilot Indicators to High-/Medium-Impact Communities
Even without specific sector policies, the provincial authorities or donors could target
certain types of blockages which would focus resources into high- and medium-
impact communities. Overall, high- and medium-impact communities represent 25
percent of the total, so random selection of a task from the full list of communities
would result one-fourth of the time in a high- or medium-impact community. A strong
64
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S
pilot indicator should increase the likelihood of working in a high- or medium-impact
community to at least 50 percent, and a very strong indicator would increase it to
75 percent or more. The association of blockage of major resource categories with
high- and medium-impact communities is shown in Table 29, and the implication of
task selection focused on three such blockages is illustrated below. Thus, if tasking
were based on some blockage types rather than on level of impact, depending on
provincial priorities, clearance resources would still be effectively focused primarily
on high- and medium-impact communities.
TAble 29
iNdividUaL reSoUrCe BLoCKageS To prioriTiZe iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS
Communities Reporting High & Medium-Impact Low-Impact
Blockage Category this Blockage Community Community
Rain-fed Agricultural 1,216 35% 65%
Non Agriculture 840 42% 58%
Pasture 696 42% 58%
Roads and Paths 465 35% 65%
Infrastructure 323 53% 47%
Housing 151 56% 44%
Drinking Water 133 80% 20%
Irrigated Land 105 55% 45%
A strategy focused on resolution of drinking water problems, when checked
against the LIS database, would identify a total of 133 communities nationwide for
attention, and fully 82 percent of these are high- or medium-impact communities,
distributed throughout the provinces as indicated in Table 30.
A strategy focused on removing blockages to housing, when checked against
the LIS database, would identify a total of 151 communities for attention, and 57
percent of these are high- or medium-impact communities (twice the average rate),
distributed throughout the provinces as indicated in Table 31.
On the other hand, a strategy focused on removing blockages to agricultural
land, when checked against the LIS database, would identify a total of 1,216
communities for attention, only 39 percent of which are high- or medium-impact
communities.
Exact updated information, including precise listing of the localities affected
and sketch maps of the SHAs, is available from CNIDAH centrally or through the
Provincial Mine Action Operations Room, and is available in both electronic and
paper format.
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
65
Priority to Communities with Multiple Recent Victims
In addition to the individual and social needs of the victims, mine deaths and injuries
present trauma to the community that is not simply hypothetical. When a significant
portion of a population is disabled, widowed, orphaned, or in need of special social
protection services, the community impact of landmines and conflict can be exten-
sive and should receive priority when needs are assessed. In this regard provincial
or national authorities might wish to prioritize those communities that have had
multiple recent victims. Table 32 indicates the number of impacted communities in
each province that would be prioritized under a policy to resolve first those communi-
ties with at least three or at least six recent victims.
Prioritizing communities with greater numbers of victims indirectly focuses
greater attention on high-impact communities, given the distribution of victims by
impact category, as shown in Table 33.
TAble 30
CoMMUNiTieS wiTH BLoCKage oF
driNKiNg waTer, By proviNCe
Communities with Blockage
Province of Drinking Water
Moxico 29
Lunda Sul 18
Malanje 16
Kwanza Sul 14
Kwanza Norte 13
Bengo 9
Uíge 9
Kuando Kubango 7
Huíla 4
Lunda Norte 4
Zaire 4
Bié 2
Benguela 1
Huambo 1
Kunene 1
Luanda 1
Cabinda 0
Namibe 0
Total 133
TAble 31
CoMMUNiTieS wiTH BLoCKage
oF HoUSiNg, By proviNCe
Communities with
Province Blockage of Housing
Moxico 39
Uíge 25
Kuando Kubango 12
Lunda Sul 12
Bié 10
Malanje 10
Zaire 8
Kwanza Sul 7
Huíla 6
Bengo 5
Benguela 5
Kwanza Norte 4
Cabinda 3
Kunene 2
Lunda Norte 2
Huambo 1
Luanda 0
Namibe 0
Grand Total 151
66
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S
TAble 33
NUMBer oF reCeNT viCTiMS per CoMMUNiTy, By iMpaCT LeveL
Recent Victims High Medium Low Total
0 4 337 1,478 1,819
1 2 91 15 108
2 4 24 0 28
3 12 3 0 15
4 5 0 0 5
5 5 0 0 5
6 2 0 0 2
9 1 0 0 1
11 3 0 0 3
16 1 0 0 1
17 1 0 0 1
Total 40 455 1,493 1,988
TAble 32
CoMMUNiTieS wiTH More THaN THree or Six reCeNT viCTiMS
Three or More Six or More
Province Recent Victims Recent Victims No Recent Victims Total
Moxico 46 4 240 290
Bié 35 1 246 282
Uíge 2 0 170 172
Kuando Kubango 7 0 164 171
Kwanza Sul 11 1 157 169
Huambo 12 0 141 153
Benguela 8 0 119 127
Kunene 5 0 121 126
Malanje 12 0 75 87
Bengo 2 0 72 74
Lunda Sul 6 0 67 73
Huíla 6 0 66 72
Zaire 0 0 66 66
Kwanza Norte 4 1 59 64
Lunda Norte 5 1 24 30
Cabinda 0 0 27 27
Namibe 0 0 3 3
Luanda 0 0 2 2
Total 161 8 1,819 1,988
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
67
Priority to Communities with Multiple Mine Incidents
Provincial authorities might wish to give priority to resolution of problems in those
communities that have had multiple mine incidents. Table 34 indicates the number
of impacted communities in each province that would be prioritized by a policy to
resolve first those communities with at least two or at least four mine incidents.
TAble 34
CoMMUNiTieS wiTH aT LeaST Two or aT LeaST FoUr MiNe iNCideNTS
Two or More Four or More
Province Incidents Incidents No Incidents Total
Moxico 42 6 242 290
Bié 34 1 247 282
Kuando Kubango 5 0 166 171
Uíge 0 0 171 171
Kwanza Sul 16 2 151 169
Huambo 12 1 140 153
Benguela 10 0 117 127
Kunene 7 0 119 126
Malanje 9 4 75 88
Bengo 0 0 74 74
Lunda Sul 11 1 61 73
Huíla 7 0 65 72
Zaire 0 0 66 66
Kwanza Norte 7 0 57 64
Lunda Norte 5 1 24 30
Cabinda 0 0 27 27
Namibe 0 0 3 3
Luanda 0 0 2 2
Total 165 16 1,807 1,988
Priority to SHAs with Recent Victims
The LIS indicates that only 173 SHAs, or 5 percent, have produced recent victims
overall, although there are major differences among impact categories, with less than
1 percent of SHAs in low-impact communities having produced victims, compare to
11 percent of SHAs in medium-impact communities and nearly 45 percent of SHAs in
high-impact communities, as shown in Table 35.
68
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S
TAble 35
SHas wiTH viCTiMS
Percentage of SHAs
Community SHAs with Recent with Recent Victims
Impact Category Victims Victims in Impact Category
High 38 178 44%
Medium 120 148 11%
Low 15 15 1%
Total 173 341 5%
Use of LIS Data to Support Programs of Other Sectors
The LIS results can be a powerful tool in support of planning activities for most
sectors that are responsible for developing activities throughout the national terri-
tory. The national mine action database can be used to produced special reports
targeted at different end users. A few examples follow, indicating how the LIS data
could be used.
The Ministry of Social Affairs and Reintegration (MINARS) may wish to identify
land for possible resettlement of displaced population. In order to avoid settling
people in or near SHAs, MINARS could develop a long list of possible resettlement
locations, and then cross-check the LIS for whether the specific terrains it is consid-
ering have been identified as mine-affected and whether the resettled population
will have to cross SHAs for access to water, town market, etc. If the land were highly
valued for housing, then perhaps it could be prioritized for future clearance.
If the agriculture sector planned to reactivate all irrigated farmland, the agricul-
ture ministry’s provincial departments could compile a list of all known irrigated
farmland – for example, by requesting that provincial or municipal agricultural
officers submit a list of irrigated farmland that is not being used – and could check it
against the LIS list of all irrigated land with landmine blockages. The LIS indicates a
total of 105 communities with blockage of irrigated land throughout the country but
mainly concentrated in the provinces of Moxico, Kuando Kubango, Lunda Sul, and
Uíge, as shown in Table 36. The irrigation reactivation program should incorporate
the additional cost required for resolving any landmine blockages.
The health sector may consider a program for reactivating all health posts in the
country. Through the network of provincial and local health workers, the ministry is
able to determine how many health posts are inactive and establish a budget based
on the average cost of repair and operation. The LIS can provide a list of the health
posts that are blocked by landmines. The LIS indicates a total of 25 communities
with blockage of health facilities, distributed widely among provinces as indicated
in Table 37. The health sector’s local health services reactivation plan should incor-
porate the added cost of mine action to resolve these blockages, or should seek an
alternative, mine-free site for a new health facility.
The education sector could initiate a program to redevelop primary schools
around the country. The LIS database could provide a list of the primary schools that
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
69
are blocked by landmines. The database
indicates a total of 47 communities with
blockage of local schools, distributed
among provinces as indicated in Table
38. The education sector’s primary
education reactivation program should
incorporate the cost of mine action to
resolve these blockages. In addition,
provincial education department
proposals of locations for new schools
should be cross-checked with the LIS
to ensure that the specific sites are
neither on contaminated land nor require
children to walk through hazardous
areas, or should include the funds neces-
sary to resolve those issues.
The electric energy sector may have
a program for the reactivation or exten-
sion of the power grid. The old power
pylons were often mined for protection,
TAble 36
BLoCKed irrigaTioN, By proviNCe
Communities with
Province Blocked Irrigation
Moxico 30
Kuando Kubango 21
Lunda Sul 18
Uíge 10
Huíla 5
Kwanza Sul 4
Bengo 3
Benguela 3
Cabinda 2
Huambo 2
Kunene 2
Malanje 2
Bié 1
Luanda 1
Zaire 1
Kwanza Norte 0
Lunda Norte 0
Namibe 0
Total 105 TAble 37
BLoCKed HeaLTH FaCiLiTieS, By proviNCe
Communities with
Province Blocked Health Facilities
Moxico 6
Malanje 4
Kwanza Norte 3
Uíge 3
Huíla 2
Kuando Kubango 2
Bengo 1
Benguela 1
Bié 1
Huambo 1
Kwanza Sul 1
Cabinda 0
Kunene 0
Luanda 0
Lunda Norte 0
Lunda Sul 0
Namibe 0
Zaire 0
Grand Total 25
TAble 38
BLoCKed edUCaTioN FaCiLiTieS, By proviNCe
Communities with
Province Blocked Education Facilities
Moxico 13
Malanje 8
Uíge 7
Bengo 2
Benguela 2
Huambo 2
Huíla 2
Kuando Kubango 2
Kwanza Sul 2
Lunda Norte 2
Zaire 2
Bié 1
Kwanza Norte 1
Lunda Sul 1
Total 47
70
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S
and the lines typically follow roadways and passes through areas that may have
also been mined. During the early planning stages, when approximate routes are
under consideration, proposed routes should be compared to contamination maps in
order to begin planning for mine action and perhaps even to inform the selection of
routes, as illustrated in Map 10. The LIS can indicate where specific routes will cross
hazardous areas, and the planning should incorporate measures to reduce the need
for mine action but also to budget for the costs of mine action required to resolve
hazards along the power line route.
The health sector could develop a program to provide prostheses to all those
requiring them, including survivors of landmine accidents. The LIS database can
indicate where landmine victims live in relation to the location of orthopedic service
centers in order to inform the decision about where to expand services and how to
alleviate difficulty of access, as illustrated in Map 11.
National elections are planned for 2008 and 2009. Thousands of polling places
will be established throughout the country. The electoral commission might plan to
provide sufficient polling places so that no voter needs to travel more than 5 kilome-
ters to vote. The LIS database can help identify those communities that are more
than 5 kilometers from a polling station due to landmine-caused blockage of the more
direct access roads as illustrated in Map 12. The electoral commission could check
MAp 10
HypoTHeTiCaL eLeCTriC
grid aNd SHas
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
71
whether the proposed polling sites are being inadvertently located in contaminated
areas, or whether people would be required to cross contaminated areas to access
these sites. In such cases, the electoral commission may seek prioritization of clear-
ance of the respective areas, or may consider different or additional locations for
polling stations.
While the above examples illustrate how individual sectors might use the LIS to
identify possible problems and ensure greater success of their plans, in general the
provincial authorities can use the LIS as a baseline to support comprehensive provin-
cial development plans as well as sector planning efforts. They can use the LIS to
determine whether communities or areas included in provincial development plans
are on the list of impacted communities. CNIDAH can facilitate this by providing
reports tailored to different end users. With this information, the provincial and sector
authorities can plan for the necessary effort of removing particular obstacles.
MAp 11
LoCaTioNS oF
LaNdMiNe viCTiMS
aNd orTHopediC
CeNTerS
72
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S
MAp 12
HypoTHeTiCaL
poLLiNg pLaCeS
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
73
Community Prioritization of Landmine Problem
i
n parallel with the LIS, SAC contracted with Development Workshop (DW), a develop-
ment NGO working in Angola since 1981 to conduct assessments of the landmine
problem in relation to other concerns of the community. In 2004, community planning
assessments were conducted in 14 high- and medium-impact communities of Huambo
Province. The assessment consisted of semi-structured interviews with the local administra-
tion, traditional and religious leaders, and professionals including teachers and nurses.
More in-depth assessments were conducted in four of the communities, including focus
group meetings and mapping and drawing exercises for further elaboration on the views
held by the participants. The priorities in the 14 communities based on the DW assess-
ment are the following (in descending order):
1. Agricultural inputs
2. Basic food needs
3. Mine risk education
4. Water wells
5. School buildings
6. Health posts
7. Mine clearance
The priorities can be summarized as food, water, health, education, and protection from
landmines. Although demining is at the bottom of the list, the results of the assessment are
unclear about how much demining may be required to achieve the other priorities or if,
over time, the communities have adjusted to living near mine-affected locations and have
made the necessary adjustments. Further work by DW has led to the conclusion that resi-
dents of mine-affected communities may conceive of landmines as essentially one more
environmental hazard they must face in their daily activities.
74
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
75
Update of National Mine
Action Database (May 2007)
T
he LIS reports the data collected on the day that each community was visited
and interviewed. Throughout the 3-year time-span of LIS data collection,
clearance and technical surveys were underway and sometimes conducted in
communities after the LIS data was collected. As of May 2007, clearance or technical
survey activities have taken place in 164 (or 8%) of the 1,988 LIS-identified impacted
communities. Of the 164 communities receiving mine action after the LIS, 41 received
technical survey and marking, 41 had ongoing clearance projects as of May 2007, and
41 received mine clearance that has rendered them impact free. The national mine
action database is presented in Table 39 with updates as of May 2007.
The database at CNIDAH is continually being updated as mine action continues.
The table below will change monthly and should be updated and distributed on a
regular basis in order to provide as accurate a picture as possible of the number of
impacted communities in Angola. Hence, the LIS provides the baseline from which
progress can be measured.
TAble 39
UpdaTe oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS, aS oF May 2007
Province Original LIS Findings Progress Since LIS (Impact Free*) Update as of May 2007
Moxico 290 1 289
Bié 282 8 274
Kuando Kubango 171 1 170
Uíge 171 0 171
Kwanza Sul 169 0 169
Huambo 153 65 88
Benguela 127 5 122
Kunene 126 1 125
Malanje 88 0 88
Bengo 74 0 74
Lunda Sul 73 0 73
Huíla 72 0 72
Zaire 66 0 66
Kwanza Norte 64 0 64
Lunda Norte 30 1 29
Cabinda 7 0 7
Namibe 3 0 3
Luanda 2 0 2
Total 1,988 82 1,886
* Note: “Impact Free” means all SHAs in the community have been cleared.
76
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S
One illustration of the threat reduction since the LIS can be found in the compar-
ison of Maps 13 and 14 in Huambo Province, where HALO Trust has been operating
since 1996. Since the LIS was conducted in Huambo in 2004, 65 communities are
now impact free through clearance activities.
MAp 13
iMpaCTed
CoMMUNiTieS
iN HUaMBo
proviNCe, 2004
Results of Implementing the LIS – Refections of an
Operational Partner (Mines Advisory Group)
o
ver the course of the LIS, MAG Angola surveyed 363 localities in Moxico and Lunda
Sul. This brought MAG Angola into contact with 27,606 families and 170,700
individuals.
While the survey process helped create a platform against which a baseline set of data
can operate, more importantly it gave MAG Angola a platform on which to build a con-
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
77
MAp 14
iMpaCTed
CoMMUNiTieS iN
HUaMBo proviNCe,
May 2007
stituency that helped us process, remove, neutralize, and destroy thousands of munitions
and hundreds of landmines. The true benefit of the LIS – beyond the organization of data
and information – is that it brought us into contact with hundreds of communities that had
never before been given any kind of humanitarian mine action service.
Because of data extrapolated from the LIS, MAG Angola was able to process these items
last year in 2006:
•Areacleared:237,361(allinhigh/mediumLISpriorityareas)
•APminesremoved:687
•ATminesremoved:45
•UXO/AXOremoved:49,459
78
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S
Refections On The Survey, By An LIS
Operational Partner (Intersos)
T
he desert of Iona is unmistakably a desert. It is vast and empty with an occasional
wandering animal. You hope you never really meet any of the starving antelopes
running around. There are no markings of any kind - it is not even clear where exactly
the roads lie - and those who were contacted in the preliminary opinion collection (POC)
could not say for certain where the mined areas are exactly.
It is September 2004 and the Intersos teams are performing POC and interviews in
Namibe. One supervisor and a driver make the first contact with the comuna of Iona in
the municipio of Tomba. They confirm the presence of suspected hazard areas and then
schedule a time and day to conduct the interview. But bad luck interferes and we experi-
ence two flat tires and a broken radio. We are cut off from communication and face an
overwhelming hot sun. The supervisor decides to walk in search of humans and communi-
cations to the outside world. After ten kilometers he succeeds and eventually everyone is
rescued. A few days later a larger group we try again and this time, better supplied with
tires and water, we return to Iona on the same road to conduct the survey.
Just after dark we reach our destination: the top of a beautiful hill covered by thousands
of tiny imbundero plants. A sharp peak of a high, mountain-shaped rock defines one of
the two sides of the saddle-like village area. We can see that maybe there are only 15
households in Iona, or maybe only 10, or is it eight. “Whatever, tomorrow will be quick,”
says one of us. We all agree and begin to write down our observations on the question-
naire; “This place is isolated and landmines cannot make that much difference” – and
so on.
A local administrator makes available for us a newly reconstructed house. We talk with
him about arranging the interviews for the next day. Yes, “interviews” as in more than
one. We already know from our other work in the area that we would have to meet not
only the community living in Iona, but also nomads from the area. This sounds exciting
to us. But the official has bad news for us. There is a funeral in the nomadic community,
so he doesn’t think it is appropriate to schedule an interview on the same day, or at least
not in the morning of the funeral. We are told the oldest and richest chief of his group
has passed away, so there is no chance to complete our job tomorrow. But the good
news is that a large group of Himbas, the tribe of the dead chief, are gathering for the
event. They are coming from Namibia and from the neighboring province of Kunene. This
means that a much larger representative group of Himbas will be here in just a few hours.
The Himbas are the famous indigenous nomadic people with skin the color of mud or
red dirt, who used to populate the Kaokoland, the area defined – disregarding political
boundaries – by the south of Angola and the north of Namibia.
The next day the official, who is also acting as our translator, tells us that the Himba will
welcome us, and talk about their experience with landmines. But we will have to wait
until after the funeral, which will last the whole day. We agree to meet them. We are then
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
79
invited to join the funeral and make plans to attend. As we are preparing to go we hear
an animal cry from the bush. We see the men stand up with hands on their mouths, and
running towards the animals while at the same time answering the animal cries with a
similar song. But it wasn’t animals they were greeting. They were greeting other people
from their tribe who were arriving for the funeral. Each time more people arrive we hear
more unfamiliar cries.
The funeral is unexpectedly short and suddenly we are scrambling to prepare for the
interview. We wait in silence for our contact and the border police, who speak the Himba
language, to arrive. We do not wait long. With the help of the policeman, we speak with
the son of the dead chief. Even though the Himba are gathering for a funeral they do not
seem annoyed that on the same day somebody wants to talk with them about landmines.
We seem to be treated as an unexpected and new delegation of some sort which adds to
the solemnity of the occasion. Our contact organizes the interview and we begin.
They say there is landmine contamination everywhere they walk in Iona but also further
down close to the border with Namibia, too. The map they draw in the sand looks to
us like an abstract juxtaposition, like a mental simplification that does not really fit the
intriguing reality of high and low scattered bushes, few hills, and the small ponds all
around us. There is no clear reference point available. We don’t know what to make of
it. The map is odd. It is unlike any other map a community has drawn during the survey.
But the more they talk and draw
signs on the ground and use
gestures, the more we adopt a
different sensitivity towards the
surroundings. Slowly, we begin
seeing the area differently than
when we arrived. They point
in different directions, guided
by different trees and bushes,
with a clear vision of the space
in which they move with their
cattle. Things soon begin to look
distinct for us as well, and the
space takes on a sense of reality – as well as a sense of danger. We need to know the
locations of the landmines and the Himba agree to take us there.
We go to an area where they tell us a landmine accident has occurred. The SHA is
unusual. The Himba know the contours, but how can we draw a polygon when it is dif-
ficult to recognize any reference point? It is not only a matter of an accurate estimation of
the length and width, but really more of trying to understand the location of the line they
probably see when looking in the direction they are pointing. While we walk to the SHA,
I sense we are all thinking of the recommendation from the protocol on visual verification:
(Continued on next page)
deSerT wiTH aNTeLope Near ioNa iN NaMiBe
80
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S
stay behind the guide, do not follow too close. But how do we know if the guide is really
stepping in safe spots if every step he takes seems the same as every other one?
Of course, neither mine risk education nor any organized mine clearance has ever taken
place here. Sometimes they just do it themselves not expecting anybody to come back to
pick up the trash from a war they had not wished to fight in the first place.
We can definitely classify some of the blockages they face – mostly land for pasture and
roads. But shouldn’t we also include housing, we wonder? And agriculture doesn’t fit for
those whose livelihood is based on wandering. And roads are blocked too, but do their
travels take them along roads? We do not see any. Do blocked roads even matter for the
Himba? The main problem for them as far as I can tell is their habit of roaming the desert.
When they move the cattle while looking for water, how do they know one of the animals
will not step on a landmine? They try to avoid the places where they have found mines,
but the information is so minimal, the place so vast, the people so few, and the sandy
ground so prone to change with winds that….
As we get in the car to leave early the next morning, we think about what we have seen.
What donor or government would assume the cost of clearing mines from the desert
so the Himba can safely move each season in order to find food and water and raise
their cattle? If it were even possible to count the direct beneficiaries, what would the per
capita cost be? We talk among ourselves about building a “Park of Peace,” in which the
traditional inhabitants move around in safe corridors and are involved in a sustainable
tourism initiative to bring in the money that would make the effort of a selective clearance
program worthwhile. This could present an interesting demining scenario for sustainable
development, even worthy of a multiyear integrated program, I think. Would the Himba
just be happy to migrate along “cattle-snake-shaped-paths” in that beautiful forgotten
area, eliminating borders and creating unlimited paths to the horizon?
The more I think about our encounter with the Himba, the more it is clear that a program
in this area would not only be about a national mine action and developmental strategy,
but would also be about the rights of minorities in a delicate, post-conflict developing
democracy. The number of people is definitely small compared to the areas which might
be contaminated by landmines, but protecting minorities, especially those who have lived
outside the logic of the long civil war, may be the most important criterion for making this
area a priority for intervention.
P
r
o
f
l
e
s
B
y
P
r
o
v
i
n
c
e
P
r
o
f
l
e
s
B
y
P
r
o
v
i
n
c
e
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
83


B
e
n
g
o
Bengo
TAble 40
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Category Number of Communities Percentage Population Impacted
High 0 0% 0
Medium 14 19% 12,690
Low 59 81% 67,493
Total 73 100% 80,183
PROVINCE SUMMARy
i
n Bengo the LIS identified 73 mine-impacted communities with 115 associated SHAs.
Fourteen of the 73 impacted communities, or 19 percent, are medium-impact. There
are no high-impact communities in Bengo, and 11 of the 33 comunas, or 33 percent,
are mine-free. The population living in these impacted communities is 80,173. The map
below shows the mine-impacted communities to be in the northern half of the province.
The six tables below provide a general description of the landmine problem in Bengo.
Only two communities reported any landmine incidents, resulting in two recent victims.
Both recent victims were engaged in farming at the time of the incidents.
Of the 73 impacted communities, 40, or 55 percent, are located in the three municipios
of Dembos, Dande, and Nambuangongo. The most heavily impacted comuna is Kibaxe,
with 13 impacted communities and 18 SHAs. Agricultural land, nonagricultural land,
economic infrastructure, and water are the socioeconomic blockages in Kibaxe. In Bengo,
agricultural land accounts for one-half of the socioeconomic blockages reported overall in
the 73 impacted communities.
Over half of the impacted communities reported MRE activities occurred in the community,
and nine reported that mine clearance had taken place.
84
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
TAble 41
diSTriBUTioN oF reCeNT viCTiMS, iNCideNTS, aNd SHas wiTH viCTiMS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Category Recent Victims Incidents Communities with Victims SHAs with Victims
High 0 0 0 0
Medium 2 1 2 2
Low 0 0 0 0
Total 2 1 2 2
TAble 42
aCTiviTy aT THe TiMe oF iNCideNT, By geNder
Activity Female Male Unknown Total
Tampering 0 0 0 0
Collecting Water 0 0 0 0
Traveling 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0
Playing 0 0 0 0
Farming 1 1 0 2
Household Work 0 0 0 0
Unknown 0 0 0 0
Total 1 1 0 2
MAp 15
MiNe-iMpaCTed
CoMMUNiTieS iN BeNgo
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
85


B
e
n
g
o
MAp 16
LoCaTioN oF
SHaS aNd reCeNT
viCTiMS iN BeNgo
TAble 43
NUMBer oF SHas, By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT
Roads Non-
Impact and Ways Cultivated agricultural Local
Category & Paths Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
High 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Medium 3 13 2 8 9 1 1 6
Low 7 47 8 12 6 4 1 2
Total 10 60 10 20 15 5 2 8
TAble 44
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Number of Offcial Marking Village Victim
Category Communities Clearance and Survey Demining MRE Assistance
High 0 0 0 0 0 0
Medium 14 2 2 1 7 2
Low 59 9 4 0 31 0
Total 73 11 6 1 38 2
Muxima
Catete
Ambriz
Quibaxe
Muxaluando
Bula Atu
Pango Aluquem
UÍGE
KWANZA NORTE
LUANDA
ZAIRE
KWANZA SUL
KISSAMA
DANDE
AMBRIZ
NAMBUANGONGO
ICOLO E BENGO
DEMBOS
PANGO-ALUQUEM
Caxito
Bengo
A t l a n t i c
O c e a n
1:2,500,000
0 10 20
Kilometers
Legend
Municipio capital
Province capital
Railway
Primary road
Other road
Municipio boundary
Province boundary
Country boundary
SHA Location
SHA with recent victims
SHA without recent victims
Survey Status
Impacted Comuna
Non-Impacted Comuna
Inaccessible Comuna
86
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
TAble 45
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS, SHas, reCeNT viCTiMS, aNd BLoCKageS, By CoMUNa
Non-
Impacted Recent Cultivated agricultural Local Economic
Municipio Comuna Communities SHAs Victims Roads Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
Ambriz Ambriz 2 2 0 X X
Ambriz Bela Vista 2 3 0 X X X
Ambriz Tabi 2 2 1 X X
Bula Atumba Bula Atumba 2 4 0 X X X
Bula Atumba Kiaje 0 0 0
Dande Barra do Dande 4 6 0 X X X X
Dande Caxito 0 0 0
Dande Kikabo 9 14 1 X X X X X X X
Dande Mabubas 8 12 0 X X X X X X
Dande Ucua 5 6 0 X X X
Dembos Kibaxe 13 18 0 X X X X
Dembos Koxe 0 0 0
Dembos Paredes 3 4 0 X X
Dembos Piri 0 0 0
Icolo e Bengo Bom Jesus 2 11 0 X X X
Icolo e Bengo Catete 2 2 0 X
Icolo e Bengo Kabiri 0 0 0
Icolo e Bengo Kakulo-Kahango 0 0 0
Icolo e Bengo Kassoneka 1 1 0 X
Kissama Cabo Ledo 1 2 0 X
Kissama Demba Chio 0 0 0
Kissama Kixinje 0 0 0
Kissama Mumbondo 0 0 0
Kissama Muxima 0 0 0
Nambuangongo Gombe 3 6 0 X X X X X X
Nambuangongo Kaje 1 1 0 X
Nambuangongo Kanakassala 5 7 0 X X
Nambuangongo Kikunzo 0 0 0
Nambuangongo Kixico 1 1 0 X
Nambuangongo Muxaluando 5 10 0 X X X X X
Nambuangongo Zala 0 0 0
Pango-Aluquém Kazua 0 0 0
Pango-Aluquém Pango-Aluquém 3 3 0 X
Total 74 115 2 4 18 5 10 9 4 2 6
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
87


B
e
n
g
u
e
l
a
Benguela
TAble 46
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Category Number of Communities Percentage Population Impacted
High 4 3.1% 2,525
Medium 17 13.4% 28,645
Low 106 83.5% 108,566
Total 127 100% 139,736
TAble 47
diSTriBUTioN oF reCeNT viCTiMS, iNCideNTS, aNd SHas wiTH viCTiMS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Category Recent Victims Incidents Communities with Victims SHAs with Victims
High 15 3 4 4
Medium 5 7 4 4
Low 0 1 0 0
Total 20 11 8 8
PROVINCE SUMMARy
i
n Benguela the LIS identified 127 mine-impacted communities, with a population of
139,736 living in these communities. The 17 percent of high- and medium-impact
communities is below the national average of 25 percent. Although 84 percent of the
impacted communities are categorized as low–impact, the landmine contamination is
widespread in Benguela as all 10 municipios have impacted communities and 30 of the
36 comunas are impacted. The majority of the impacted communities, 57 percent, are
located in Bocoio, Ganda, Lobito, and Balombo Bailundo.
Socioeconomic blockages of agriculture or pasture are reported in all but two of the 190
SHAs. Additionally, 11 percent of the SHAs are blocking roads and paths.
Of the 20 recent victims in Benguela, 12 were located in Ganda. Based on the com-
munity interviews, several mine action activities have occurred in the 127 impacted com-
munities, with 41 percent reporting official clearance and MRE.
88
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
TAble 48
aCTiviTy aT THe TiMe oF iNCideNT, By geNder
Activity Female Male Unknown Total
Tampering 0 5 4 9
Collecting Water 1 5 0 6
Traveling 0 3 0 3
Other 0 1 0 1
Playing 0 1 0 1
Farming 0 0 0 0
Household Work 0 0 0 0
Unknown 0 0 0 0
Total 1 15 4 20
MAp 17
MiNe-iMpaCTed
CoMMUNiTieS
iN BeNgUeLa
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
89


B
e
n
g
u
e
l
a
TAble 49
NUMBer oF SHas, By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT
Roads Non-
Impact and Ways Cultivated agricultural Local
Category & Paths Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
High 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0
Medium 5 23 28 41 2 4 0 11
Low 16 77 69 56 0 7 1 22
Total 21 106 103 97 2 11 1 33
TAble 50
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Number of Offcial Marking Village Victim
Category Communities Clearance and Survey Demining MRE Assistance
High 4 3 1 0 1 4
Medium 17 8 4 5 9 2
Low 106 10 29 5 22 1
Total 127 21 34 10 32 7
MAp 18
LoCaTioN oF SHaS
aNd reCeNT viCTiMS
iN BeNgUeLa
90
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
TAble 51
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS, SHas, reCeNT viCTiMS, aNd BLoCKageS, By CoMUNa
Non-
Impacted Recent Cultivated agricultural Local Economic
Municipio Comuna Communities SHAs Victims Roads Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
Baía Farta Baía Farta 0 0 0
Baía Farta Dombe Grande 0 0 0
Baía Farta Ekimina 1 2 0 X
Baía Farta Kalahanga 0 0 0
Balombo Balombo 3 5 0 X X
Balombo Chigongo 3 3 0 X X X
Balombo Chindumbo 6 9 0 X X X X
Balombo Maka Mombolo 3 3 0 X X X
Benguela Benguela 2 2 0 X X X
Bocoio Bocoio 6 6 1 X X X X
Bocoio Chila 2 5 0 X X X X X X
Bocoio Cubal do Lumbo 4 9 0 X X X X X X X
Bocoio Monte Belo 2 3 0 X X
Bocoio Passe 5 10 0 X X X X X
Chongorói Bolonguela 0 0 0
Chongorói Chongorói 10 15 3 X X X X
Chongorói Kamuine 1 1 0 X
Cubal Cubal 8 11 3 X X X X
Cubal Iambala 1 1 0
Cubal Kapupa 1 1 0
Cubal Tumbulo 2 3 0 X X X X
Ganda Babaera 11 14 9 X X X X X
Ganda Chikuma 4 5 3 X X X
Ganda Ebanga 1 1 0 X X X
Ganda Ganda 14 21 0 X X X X
Ganda Kaseke 1 2 0 X X
Kaimbambo Kaiave 3 6 0 X X X
Kaimbambo Kaibambo 6 13 0 X X X X X
Kaimbambo Kanhamela 1 1 0 X X
Kaimbambo Katengue 4 8 1 X X X X X
Kaimbambo Wyiagombe 0 0 0
Lobito Biópio 11 12 0 X X
Lobito Egito – Praia 0 0 0
Lobito Kanjala 6 8 0 X X X
Lobito Katumbela 2 2 0 X X X
Lobito Lobito 3 8 0 X X X
Total 127 190 20 8 23 25 25 2 5 3 5
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
91


B
i
é
Bié
TAble 52
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Category Number of Communities Percentage Population Impacted
High 1 0.4% 3,500
Medium 56 19.9% 75,218
Low 225 79.8% 244,252
Total 282 100% 322,970
PROVINCE SUMMARy
B
ié contains 282 mine-impacted communities, of which 20 percent are high- or
medium-impact, with a population of 322,970 living in these communities. All
nine municipios have impacted communities. With the exception of Chinguar with 11
impacted communities and Andale with 62, the number of impacted communities in the
remaining seven municipios ranges from 23 to 41, indicating a wide use of landmines
throughout the province.
Although 80 percent of the communities are categorized as low-impact, the LIS identified
443 SHAs, or 1.5 per community, representing a significant level of socioeconomic block-
age to agriculture, pasture, and roads and paths. Development, crop yields, and agricul-
tural input, as well as land tenure laws, are important factors that warrant further research
before determining priorities regarding the resolution of blocked agricultural land.
Based on the community interviews several types of mine action activities have occurred
in Bié, with MRE and survey and marking being the most common. Twelve percent of the
impacted communities report clearance activities.
Katakana and Kuito report the highest number of recent victims, even though they have
fewer impacted communities than other municipios. One incident in Kuito resulted in 16
victims, which accounts for all but 10 of the recent victims in Kuito.
92
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
TAble 53
diSTriBUTioN oF reCeNT viCTiMS, iNCideNTS, aNd SHas wiTH viCTiMS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Category Recent Victims Incidents Communities with Victims SHAs with Victims
High 16 1 1 1
Medium 37 38 30 31
Low 5 5 5 5
Total 58 44 36 37
TAble 54
aCTiviTy aT THe TiMe oF iNCideNT, By geNder
Activity Female Male Unknown Total
Tampering 1 2 16 19
Collecting Water 6 10 0 16
Traveling 5 5 0 10
Other 1 9 0 10
Playing 1 1 0 2
Farming 1 0 0 1
Household Work 0 0 0 0
Unknown 0 0 0 0
Total 15 27 16 58
MAp 19
MiNe-iMpaCTed
CoMMUNiTieS iN Bié
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
93


B
i
é
TAble 55
NUMBer oF SHas, By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT
Roads Non-
Impact and Ways Cultivated agricultural Local
Category & Paths Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
High 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
Medium 27 84 41 41 0 4 2 4
Low 72 188 72 56 2 1 1 0
Total 100 273 113 89 2 5 3 6
TAble 56
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Number of Offcial Marking Village Victim
Category Communities Clearance and Survey Demining MRE Assistance
High 1 0 1 0 1 0
Medium 56 14 18 4 21 19
Low 225 22 51 3 73 11
Total 282 36 70 7 95 30
MAp 20
LoCaTioN oF SHaS aNd
reCeNT viCTiMS iN Bié
94
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
TAble 57
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS, SHas, reCeNT viCTiMS, aNd BLoCKageS, By CoMUNa
Non-
Impacted Recent Cultivated agricultural Local Economic
Municipio Comuna Communities SHAs Victims Roads Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
Andale Andulo 30 40 1 X X X X X
Andulo Chivaúlo 12 25 2 X X X X X
Andulo Kalucinga 14 22 3 X X X X
Andulo Kassumbe 6 8 1 X X X X
Chinguar Chinguar 4 4 0 X X
Chinguar Kangote 5 5 0 X X
Chinguar Kutato 2 2 0 X
Chitembo Chitembo 15 22 0 X X X X X X
Chitembo Kachingues 2 3 0 X X
Chitembo Malengue 1 1 0 X X
Chitembo Mumbué 9 13 1 X X X X
Chitembo Mutumbo 2 2 0 X X
Chitembo Soma Kwanza 4 6 1 X X
Kamakupa Kamakupa 16 20 8 X X X X
Kamakupa Kwanza 5 8 2 X X X X X
Kamakupa Ringoma 4 5 0 X X X X X
Kamakupa Sto António 3 4 0 X X X X
da Muinha
Kamakupa Umpulo 3 4 0 X X
Katabola Chipeta 3 3 0 X X
Katabola Chiuca 7 10 0 X X X X
Katabola Kaiuera 0 0 0
Katabola Katabola 10 15 1 X X X X
Katabola Sande 5 7 1 X X X
Kuemba Kuemba 12 24 4 X X X X X X
Kuemba Luando 4 6 0 X X X X
Kuemba Munhango 7 9 5 X X X X X
Kuemba Sachinemuna 0 0 0
Kuito Cambândua 6 14 1 X X X X
Kuito Chicala 2 6 1 X X X
Kuito Kuito 16 26 21 X X X X X
Kuito Kunje 11 28 1 X X X X X
Kuito Trumba 7 20 2 X X X
Kunhinga Belo Horizonte 5 6 0 X X X X X
Kunhinga Kunhinga 22 42 1 X X X X
Nharea Dando 2 2 0 X X
Nharea Gamba 1 2 0 X X X X
Nharea Kaiei 6 6 0 X X X X
Nharea Lúbia 3 4 0 X X X X
Nharea Nharea 16 19 1 X X X X
Total 282 443 58 27 34 24 27 2 8 1 13
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
95


C
a
b
i
n
d
a
Cabinda
PROVINCE SUMMARy
i
n Cabinda the LIS identified 27 mine impacted communities in 8 comunas covering
a population of 11,696. All 27 communities are categorized as low impact and no
recent victims were identified. In the 27 communities a total of 37 SHAs were identified.
Cultivated land was the primary socio-economic blockage. No mine clearance or MRE
were reported to have occurred in Cabinda.
MAp 21
MiNe-iMpaCTed
CoMMUNiTieS
iN CaBiNda
96
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
TAble 58
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Category Number of Communities Percentage Population Impacted
High 0 0% 0
Medium 0 0% 0
Low 27 100% 11,696
Total 27 100% 11,696
No recent victims were identified by the LIS in the province of Cabinda
TAble 59
NUMBer oF SHas, By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT
Roads Non-
Impact and Ways Cultivated agricultural Local
Category & Paths Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
High 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Medium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Low 2 25 3 2 0 3 0 0
Total 2 25 3 2 0 3 0 0
TAble 60
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Number of Offcial Marking Village Victim
Category Communities Clearance and Survey Demining MRE Assistance
High 0 0 0 0 0 0
Medium 0 0 0 0 0 0
Low 27 0 2 1 0 4
Total 27 0 2 1 0 4
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
97


C
a
b
i
n
d
a
MAp 22
LoCaTioN oF SHaS
aNd reCeNT viCTiMS
iN CaBiNda
TAble 61
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS, SHas, reCeNT viCTiMS, aNd BLoCKageS, By CoMUNa
Non-
Impacted Recent Cultivated agricultural Local Economic
Municipio Comuna Communities SHAs Victims Roads Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
Cabinda Cabinda 5 6 0 X X X
Malembo 4 5 0 X X X
Tando Zinze 5 8 0 X X
Belize Belize 2 2 0 X X
Minkonje 1 2 0 X X X
Buco Zau Nekuto 2 2 0 X X
Lândana Kakongo 4 6 0 X
Massabi 4 6 0 X X
Total 27 37 0 2 25 3 2 0 3 0 0
98
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
99


H
u
a
m
b
o Huambo
TAble 62
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Category Number of Communities Percentage Population Impacted
High 2 1.3% 3,171
Medium 33 21.6% 74,823
Low 118 77.1% 189,379
Total 153 100% 267,373
PROVINCE SUMMARy
i
n Huambo province the LIS identified 153 mine-impacted communities, of which 35
are categorized as high- and medium-impact. All 11 comunas have impacted com-
munities, resulting in an impacted population of 267,373. However, 51 percent of the
impacted municipios are located in Bailundo, Huambo, and Thicala-Thilohanga. All of the
15recentvictimsarelocatedin12communitiesinHuambo,Kaala,Ukuma,andThicala-
Thilohanga.
There are 206 SHAs in Huambo. Socioeconomic blockages of agriculture and pasture
are reported in 95 percent of the SHAs. Additionally, 28 percent of the SHAs are block-
ing roads and paths, the highest percentage of all provinces in Angola for roads and
paths.
Based on the community interviews, several types of mine action activities have occurred
in the 153 impacted communities, with a reported 33 percent receiving MRE. Clearance
and marking and survey were reported in 49 percent of the communities.
Since the LIS was conducted in Huambo from April to August 2004, HALO Trust has
addressed SHAs in 65 communities, greatly reducing the overall threat risk and impact
in the province. A map showing an update of impact in Huambo has been previously
presented on page 77. When the LIS was conducted in 2004, Huambo was considered
one of the most impacted provinces in Angola. Three years later in 2007 the impact has
been greatly reduced and the people of Huambo are now living with much less risk than
in recent memory.
100
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
TAble 63
diSTriBUTioN oF reCeNT viCTiMS, iNCideNTS, aNd SHas wiTH viCTiMS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Category Recent Victims Incidents Communities with Victims SHAs with Victims
High 5 3 2 2
Medium 9 15 9 9
Low 1 2 1 1
Total 15 20 12 12
TAble 64
aCTiviTy aT THe TiMe oF iNCideNT, By geNder
Activity Female Male Unknown Total
Tampering 1 6 0 7
Collecting Water 0 5 0 5
Traveling 1 1 0 2
Other 0 1 0 1
Playing 0 0 0 0
Farming 0 0 0 0
Household Work 0 0 0 0
Unknown 0 0 0 0
Total 2 13 0 15
MAp 23
MiNe-iMpaCTed
CoMMUNiTieS
iN HUaMBo
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
101
MAp 24
LoCaTioN oF SHaS
aNd reCeNT viCTiMS
iN HUaMBo
TAble 65
NUMBer oF SHas, By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT
Roads Non-
Impact and Ways Cultivated agricultural Local
Category & Paths Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
High 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 1
Medium 10 49 39 38 2 1 0 15
Low 46 74 33 35 3 0 2 16
Total 57 125 74 75 5 1 2 32
TAble 66
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Number of Offcial Marking Village Victim
Category Communities Clearance and Survey Demining MRE Assistance
High 2 0 0 0 1 2
Medium 33 15 18 5 17 8
Low 118 20 22 12 33 1
Total 153 35 40 17 51 11


H
u
a
m
b
o
102
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
TAble 67
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS, SHas, reCeNT viCTiMS, aNd BLoCKageS, By CoMUNa
Non-
Impacted Recent Cultivated agricultural Local Economic
Municipio Comuna Communities SHAs Victims Roads Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
Bailundo Bailundo 2 3 0 X X X
Bailundo Bimbe 7 10 0 X X X X
Bailundo Hengue 0 0 0
Bailundo Lunge 11 11 0 X
Bailundo Luvemba 0 0 0
Chinjenje Chiaca 1 1 0 X
Chinjenje Chinjenje 5 9 0 X X X X
Ekunha Ekunha 0 0 0
Ekunha Tchipeio 3 3 0 X X X
Huambo Chipipa 8 9 1 X X X X X
Huambo Huambo 19 25 5 X X X X X X
Huambo Kalima 8 10 0 X X X X
Kaála Kaála 2 2 0 X X X
Kaála Kalenga 1 1 3 X X X
Kaála Katata 2 3 0 X X X
Kaála Kuima 10 15 1 X X X X X
Kachiungo Chinhama 6 7 0 X X X X
Kachiungo Chiumbo 6 7 0 X X X X X X
Kachiungo Kachiungo 5 8 0 X X X X X
Londuimbali Alto – Uama 1 1 0 X X X
Londuimbali Galanga 0 0 0
Londuimbali Kumbila 0 0 0
Londuimbali Londuimbali 2 2 0 X X X
Londuimbali Ussoke 2 3 0 X X X
Longonjo Chilata 0 0 0
Longonjo Katabola 2 2 0 X X X
Longonjo Lépi 10 11 0 X X X X X
Longonjo Longonjo 2 5 0 X X X X X
Mungo Kambuengo 3 3 0 X
Mungo Mungo 5 6 0 X X X
Thicala-Thilohanga Hungulo 0 0 0
Thicala-Thilohanga Mbave 9 9 0 X X X
Thicala-Thilohanga Sambo 4 10 0 X X X X
Thicala-Thilohanga Thicala Yhilohanga 10 17 3 X X X X X
Ukuma Kakoma 1 1 0 X
Ukuma Mundundo 0 0 0
Ukuma Ukuma 6 12 2 X X X X
Total 153 206 15 12 26 22 23 3 1 2 14
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
103


H
u
í
l
a
Huíla
TAble 68
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Category Number of Communities Percentage Population Impacted
High 1 1.4% 180
Medium 9 12.3% 13,565
Low 63 86.3% 67,858
Total 73 100% 81,603
PROVINCE SUMMARy
i
n Huíla province the LIS identified 73 mine-impacted communities, with 13.7 percent
categorized as high- and medium-impact. Approximately 81,603 people live in the
impacted communities.
Of the 73 impacted communities there is just one categorized as high-impact, with a
population of 180. The designation of this single high-impact community is the result of
one incident with five recent victims. The main blockages involve agriculture and pasture.
The landmine problem in Huíla is centered on the two municipios of Jamba and Kuvango,
where there are 34 impacted communities, or 47 percent of the total mine-impacted com-
munities in Huíla.
The 13 recent victims are located in four municipios.
104
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
TAble 69
diSTriBUTioN oF reCeNT viCTiMS, iNCideNTS, aNd SHas wiTH viCTiMS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Category Recent Victims Incidents Communities with Victims SHAs with Victims
High 5 1 1 1
Medium 7 6 4 4
Low 1 4 1 1
Total 13 11 6 6
TAble 70
aCTiviTy aT THe TiMe oF iNCideNT, By geNder
Activity Female Male Unknown Total
Tampering 1 5 0 6
Collecting Water 0 3 0 3
Traveling 3 0 0 3
Other 0 1 0 1
Playing 0 0 0 0
Farming 0 0 0 0
Household Work 0 0 0 0
Unknown 0 0 0 0
Total 4 9 0 13
MAp 25
MiNe-iMpaCTed
CoMMUNiTieS iN HUíLa
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
105


H
u
í
l
a
TAble 71
NUMBer oF SHas, By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT
Roads Non-
Impact and Ways Cultivated agricultural Local
Category & Paths Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
High 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0
Medium 3 8 15 1 6 0 0 7
Low 5 30 45 14 4 7 2 14
Total 8 38 63 15 12 7 2 21
TAble 72
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Number of Offcial Marking Village Victim
Category Communities Clearance and Survey Demining MRE Assistance
High 1 1 0 0 1 0
Medium 9 4 4 0 5 2
Low 63 23 22 3 35 5
Total 73 28 26 3 41 7
MAp 26
LoCaTioN oF
SHaS aNd reCeNT
viCTiMS iN HUíLa
106
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
TAble 73
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS, SHas, reCeNT viCTiMS, aNd BLoCKageS, By CoMUNa
Non-
Impacted Recent Cultivated agricultural Local Economic
Municipio Comuna Communities SHAs Victims Roads Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
Chibia Chibia 0 0 0
Chibia Jau 0 0 0
Chibia Kapunda Kavilongo 0 0 0
Chibia Kihita 0 0 0
Chicomba Chicomba 4 8 0 X X X X
Chicomba Kutenda 1 2 0 X X X
Chipindo Bambi 0 0 0
Chipindo Chipindo 5 8 0 X X X X
Gambos Chiange 0 0 0
Gambos Chimbemba 0 0 0
Humpata Humpata 0 0 0
Jamba Dongo 6 7 4 X X X
Jamba Jamba 1 1 0 X X
Jamba Kassinga 11 15 0 X X X X X
Kakonda Gungue 1 1 0 X
Kakonda Kakonda 2 3 0 X X X
Kakonda Kusse 1 1 1 X X
Kakonda Uaba 1 3 0 X X X
Kalukembe Kalépi 1 1 0 X X
Kalukembe Kalukembe 1 1 0 X X
Kalukembe Ngola 3 4 0 X X X X
Kilengue Dinde 0 0 0
Kilengue Impulo 0 0 0
Kilengue Kilengue 5 6 0 X X X X X
Kuvango Galangue 3 3 0 X X X
Kuvango Kuvango 13 26 6 X X X X X X X
Kuvango Vikungo 0 0 0
Lubango Arimba 0 0 0
Lubango Cacula 3 3 0 X X
Lubango Hoque 0 0 0
Lubango Huíla 0 0 0
Lubango Kilemba 0 0 0
Lubango Lubango 1 2 0 X
Matala Kapelongo 0 0 0
Matala Matala 8 11 0 X X X X
Matala Mulondo 0 0 0
Tchipungo Tchipungo 2 3 2 X X X X
Total 73 109 13 3 15 17 8 4 5 2 10
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
107


K
u
a
n
d
o

K
u
b
a
n
g
o
Kuando Kubango
TAble 74
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Category Number of Communities Percentage Population Impacted
High 0 0% 0
Medium 30 18% 87,727
Low 141 82% 306,001
Total 171 100% 393,728
PROVINCE SUMMARy
T
he LIS identified 171 mine-impacted communities in Kuando Kubango, of which
18 percent are categorized as high- and medium-impact. Associated with these
impacted communities are 325 SHAs – more than any other province with the exception
of Moxico and Bié. Approximately 393,000 people live in these communities. Six recent
victims were identified in six different impacted communities.
The landmine problem is concentrated in the municipios of Mavinga, Menongue, and
Kuito Kuanavale. There are eight comunas with more than 10 impacted communities, and
11 comunas with more than 10 SHAs. The comuna of Menongue alone has 36 impacted
communities and 56 SHAs. However, despite this highly concentrated number of im-
pacted communities and associated SHAs, the people living in the communities reported
only one recent victim in the two-year period covering the survey in the province. All but
one of the recent victims were in comunas with few impacted communities and SHAs.
The most reported socioeconomic blockages involved agricultural and pasture land. Even
though Kuando Kubango is an isolated and distant province, some mine action activi-
ties were reported during the LIS. Forty-six impacted communities reported MRE and 20
reported clearance.
108
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
TAble 75
diSTriBUTioN oF reCeNT viCTiMS, iNCideNTS, aNd SHas wiTH viCTiMS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Category Recent Victims Incidents Communities with Victims SHAs with Victims
High 0 0 0 0
Medium 5 5 5 5
Low 1 1 1 1
Total 6 6 6 6
TAble 76
aCTiviTy aT THe TiMe oF iNCideNT, By geNder
Activity Female Male Unknown Total
Tampering 1 3 0 4
Collecting Water 0 1 0 1
Traveling 0 1 0 1
Other 0 0 0 0
Playing 0 0 0 0
Farming 0 0 0 0
Household Work 0 0 0 0
Unknown 0 0 0 0
Total 1 5 0 6
MAp 27
MiNe-iMpaCTed
CoMMUNiTieS iN
KUaNdo KUBaNgo
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
109


K
u
a
n
d
o

K
u
b
a
n
g
o
TAble 77
NUMBer oF SHas, By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT
Roads Non-
Impact and Ways Cultivated agricultural Local
Category & Paths Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
High 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Medium 15 58 53 38 4 0 0 7
Low 15 142 102 72 6 7 2 14
Total 30 200 155 110 10 7 2 21
TAble 78
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Number of Offcial Marking Village Victim
Category Communities Clearance and Survey Demining MRE Assistance
High 0 0 0 0 0 0
Medium 30 8 11 1 10 6
Low 141 12 39 4 36 6
Total 171 20 50 5 46 12
MAp 28
LoCaTioN oF
reCeNT viCTiMS iN
KUaNdo KUBaNgo
110
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
TAble 79
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS, SHas, reCeNT viCTiMS, aNd BLoCKageS, By CoMUNa
Non-
Impacted Recent Cultivated agricultural Local Economic
Municipio Comuna Communities SHAs Victims Roads Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
Cuangar Bondo 1 2 0 X X X
Cuangar Cuangar 3 5 2 X X
Cuangar Savate 4 7 0 X X X X
Dirico Dirico 3 6 1 X X X X
Dirico Mucusso 2 4 0 X X X X
Dirico Xamavera 3 5 0 X X X
Kalai Kalai 3 4 0 X X X X
Kalai Maue 1 1 0 X X
Kalai Mavengue 3 5 0 X X X X
Kuchi Chinguanja 3 3 0 X X X X
Kuchi Kuchi 11 14 0 X X X X X
Kuchi Kutato 9 14 0 X X X X
Kuchi Vissati 5 5 0 X
Kuito Kuanavale Baixo Longa 3 7 0 X X X
Kuito Kuanavale Kuito Kuanavale 6 14 0 X X X X
Kuito Kuanavale Longa 11 26 1 X X X X X
Kuito Kuanavale Lupiri 0 0 0
Mavinga Kunjamba/ Dima 0 0 0
Mavinga Kutuile 4 12 0 X X
Mavinga Luengue 9 26 0 X X X X X X
Mavinga Mavinga 10 26 0 X X X
Menongue Kaiundo 13 35 0 X X X X X
Menongue Kueio 4 7 0 X X X X X X X
Menongue Menongue 38 56 1 X X X X X X X
Menongue Missombo 4 6 0 X X X
Nancova Nancova 3 3 0 X X X
Nancova Rito 1 2 0 X
Rivungo Chipundo 0 0 0
Rivungo Luiana 5 12 0 X X X X
Rivungo Neriquinha 6 14 1 X X X X X X X
Rivungo Rivungo 3 4 0 X X X X
Total 171 325 6 15 25 24 19 4 5 3 13
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
111


K
u
n
e
n
e
Kunene
TAble 80
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Category Number of Communities Percentage Population Impacted
High 0 0% 0
Medium 7 6% 13,156
Low 119 94% 198,202
Total 126 100% 211,358
PROVINCE SUMMARy
K
unene has 126 mine-impacted communities with only seven, or 6 percent, cat-
egorized as high- and medium-impact. There are 211,358 people living in these
impacted communities.
As the map below indicates, the impacted communities are distributed throughout the
province. Although all municipios are impacted by landmines, the municipios of Kahama
and Kuroka have fewer than 10 impacted communities and 60 percent of the impacted
communities are located in Kuvalai and Kwanyama. Like most of the other provinces in
Angola, Kunene has few recent victims compared to the number of SHAs.
Although agricultural land and pasture are affected by 95 percent of the 160 SHAs, the
actual impact on development and food production, while also considering land tenure
laws, warrants further research in order to determine future priorities. Roads and paths
are affected by 13 SHAs, or 8 percent of the total SHAs in Kunene.
112
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
TAble 81
diSTriBUTioN oF reCeNT viCTiMS, iNCideNTS, aNd SHas wiTH viCTiMS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Category Recent Victims Incidents Communities with Victims SHAs with Victims
High 0 0 0 0
Medium 7 4 5 5
Low 0 4 0 0
Total 7 8 5 5
TAble 82
aCTiviTy aT THe TiMe oF iNCideNT, By geNder
Activity Female Male Unknown Total
Tampering 0 4 0 4
Collecting Water 0 1 0 1
Traveling 0 1 0 1
Other 0 1 0 1
Playing 0 0 0 0
Farming 0 0 0 0
Household Work 0 0 0 0
Unknown 0 0 0 0
Total 0 7 0 7
MAp 29
MiNe-iMpaCTed
CoMMUNiTieS iN KUNeNe
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
113


K
u
n
e
n
e
MAp 30
LoCaTioN oF SHaS
aNd reCeNT viCTiMS
iN KUNeNe
TAble 83
NUMBer oF SHas, By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT
Roads Non-
Impact and Ways Cultivated agricultural Local
Category & Paths Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
High 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Medium 3 8 8 0 0 4 2 4
Low 10 57 77 5 2 1 1 0
Total 13 65 85 5 2 5 3 6
TAble 84
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Number of Offcial Marking Village Victim
Category Communities Clearance and Survey Demining MRE Assistance
High 0 0 0 0 0 0
Medium 7 2 0 3 2 3
Low 119 29 5 20 37 1
Total 126 31 5 23 39 4
114
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
TAble 85
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS, SHas, reCeNT viCTiMS, aNd BLoCKageS, By CoMUNa
Non-
Impacted Recent Cultivated agricultural Local Economic
Municipio Comuna Communities SHAs Victims Roads Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
Kahama Kahama 6 8 1 X X X
Kahama Otchinjau 0 0 0
Kuroka Chitado 6 7 0 X
Kuroka Onkokwa 0 0 0
Kuvelai Kalonga 9 10 0 X X X
Kuvelai Kuvati 5 6 0 X X
Kuvelai Kuvelai 11 12 1 X X
Kuvelai Mupa 11 15 0 X X X
Kwanyama Evale 6 7 0 X X
Kwanyama Kafima 13 15 0 X X X X X X
Kwanyama Môngua 5 7 0 X X
Kwanyama Ondjiva 6 6 0 X X X
Kwanyama Oximolo 9 10 1 X X X
Namakunde Namakunde 6 6 0 X X X
Namakunde Shiede 11 15 0 X X X X
Ombadja Humbe 1 1 0 X
Ombadja Mukope 1 1 0 X
Ombadja Naulila 10 16 0 X X X X
Ombadja Ombala yo Mungu 4 5 0 X X
Ombadja Xangongo 6 13 4 X X X
Total 126 160 7 8 15 16 4 2 1 0 2
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
115
Kwanza Norte
TAble 86
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Category Number of Communities Percentage Population Impacted
High 3 4.7% 685
Medium 22 34.4% 17,293
Low 39 60.9% 90,074
Total 64 100% 108,052
PROVINCE SUMMARy
i
n Kwanza Norte the LIS identified 64 mine-impacted communities, with 39 percent
categorized as high- and medium-impact. This is above the national average of 25
percent. There are 108,052 people living in these communities, but only 17 percent of
the population living in the impacted communities resides in the high- and medium-impact
communities.
The LIS identified 18 recent victims in five impacted communities. Of the 18 recent vic-
tims, 11 were female and were either tampering with ordnances or collecting water at the
time of the mine accidents.
There are 125 SHAs in Kwanza Norte, with 61, or almost 50 percent, in the high- and
medium-impact communities. Socioeconomic blockages of agricultural and pasture land
are the most reported types of blockage.


K
w
a
n
z
a

N
o
r
t
e

116
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
TAble 87
diSTriBUTioN oF reCeNT viCTiMS, iNCideNTS, aNd SHas wiTH viCTiMS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Category Recent Victims Incidents Communities with Victims SHAs with Victims
High 16 5 3 3
Medium 2 3 2 2
Low 0 1 0 0
Total 18 9 5 5
TAble 88
aCTiviTy aT THe TiMe oF iNCideNT, By geNder
Activity Female Male Unknown Total
Tampering 7 2 0 9
Collecting Water 4 0 0 4
Traveling 0 3 0 3
Other 0 1 0 1
Playing 0 1 0 1
Farming 0 0 0 0
Household Work 0 0 0 0
Unknown 0 0 0 0
Total 11 7 0 18
MAp 31
MiNe-iMpaCTed
CoMMUNiTieS iN
KwaNZa NorTe
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
117
MAp 32
LoCaTioN oF SHaS
aNd reCeNT viCTiMS
iN KwaNZa NorTe
TAble 89
NUMBer oF SHas, By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT
Roads Non-
Impact and Ways Cultivated agricultural Local
Category & Paths Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
High 0 6 6 4 0 0 0 2
Medium 5 23 28 28 0 4 2 4
Low 16 77 69 57 2 1 1 0
Total 21 106 103 89 2 5 3 6
TAble 90
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Number of Offcial Marking Village Victim
Category Communities Clearance and Survey Demining MRE Assistance
High 3 1 1 0 2 2
Medium 22 8 1 3 14 1
Low 39 5 3 4 25 1
Total 64 14 5 7 41 4


K
w
a
n
z
a

N
o
r
t
e
118
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
TAble 91
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS, SHas, reCeNT viCTiMS, aNd BLoCKageS, By CoMUNa
Non-
Impacted Recent Cultivated agricultural Local Economic
Municipio Comuna Communities SHAs Victims Roads Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
Ambaca Bindo 0 0 0
Ambaca kamabatela 2 2 0 X X X X X
Ambaca Luinga 1 1 0 X
Ambaca Maúa 1 2 0 X X X
Ambaca Tango 1 1 0 X X
Banga Aldeia Nova 1 1 3 X X
Banga Banga 1 1 0 X
Banga Kakulo Kabassa 0 0 0
Banga Kariamba 0 0 0
Bolongongo Bolongongo 0 0 0
Bolongongo Kikiemba 0 0 0
Bolongongo Terreiro 0 0 0
Golungo Alto Cerca 0 0 0
Golungo Alto Golungo Alto 4 6 0 X X X X X X
Golungo Alto Kambondo 1 4 0 X X X X
Golungo Alto Kiluanje 0 0 0
Kambambe Danje – ia – Menha 4 8 0 X X X X
Kambambe Dondo 5 6 0 X X X X
Kambambe Massangano 4 15 0 X X X
Kambambe S_ Pedro da Kilemba 2 5 0 X X X
Kambambe Zenza do Itombe 5 19 0 X X X X X X
Kazengo Kanhoca 2 7 0 X X X X X
Kazengo Ndalatando 14 24 14 X X X X X X X
Kiculungo Kiculungo 2 2 0 X X X
Lukala Kiangombe 1 2 0 X X
Lukala Lukala 4 5 1 X X X X X
Ngomguembo Camame 0 0 0
Ngomguembo Cavunga 0 0 0
Ngomguembo Kilombo dos Dembos 3 3 0 X X X
Samba Cajú Samba Cajú 5 10 0 X X X X X
Samba Cajú Samba Lukala 1 1 0 X
Total 64 125 18 3 16 9 18 10 3 4 12
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
119
Kwanza Sul
MAp 33
MiNe-iMpaCTed
CoMMUNiTieS iN
KwaNZa SUL


K
w
a
n
z
a

S
u
l
PROVINCE SUMMARy
i
n Kwanza Sul province the LIS identified 169 mine-impacted communities, of which
39, or 23 percent, are categorized as high- or medium-impact. There are approxi-
mately 177,000 living in these communities.
There are 269 SHAs in Kwanza Sul. Only four other provinces have more SHAs. The
map below shows that most of the landmine problem is in the eastern half of the province.
Almost three-quarters of the SHAs can be found in just 10 of the comunas. The main socio-
economic blockages involve agriculture and pasture land. However, like other provinces
in Angola with landmines blocking agricultural land, more in-depth research on owner-
ship, land tenure laws, and future use of the land is required before setting priorities.
Five SHAs in five comunas are responsible for the 18 recent victims. Each of these victims
is from a high-impact community, and eight incidents indicate a high threat environment
for the high-impact communities.
120
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
TAble 92
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Category Number of Communities Percentage Population Impacted
High 4 2.4% 13,100
Medium 35 20.7% 40,845
Low 130 76.9% 123,913
Total 169 100% 177,858
TAble 93
diSTriBUTioN oF reCeNT viCTiMS, iNCideNTS, aNd SHas wiTH viCTiMS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Category Recent Victims Incidents Communities with Victims SHAs with Victims
High 16 5 3 3
Medium 2 3 2 2
Low 0 1 0 0
Total 18 9 5 5
TAble 94
aCTiviTy aT THe TiMe oF iNCideNT, By geNder
Activity Female Male Unknown Total
Tampering 0 2 9 11
Collecting Water 1 7 0 8
Traveling 1 3 1 5
Other 0 3 0 3
Playing 1 1 0 2
Farming 0 1 0 1
Household Work 0 0 0 0
Unknown 0 0 0 0
Total 3 17 10 30
TAble 95
NUMBer oF SHas, By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT
Roads Non-
Impact and Ways Cultivated agricultural Local
Category & Paths Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
High 0 8 5 6 0 0 0 1
Medium 9 47 24 40 15 7 1 11
Low 8 93 38 88 4 3 4 8
Total 17 148 67 134 19 10 5 20
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
121


K
w
a
n
z
a

S
u
l
TAble 96
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Number of Offcial Marking Village Victim
Category Communities Clearance and Survey Demining MRE Assistance
High 4 3 1 0 3 4
Medium 35 5 7 4 11 4
Low 130 22 19 8 34 3
Total 169 30 27 12 48 11
MAp 34
LoCaTioN oF SHaS
aNd reCeNT viCTiMS
iN KwaNZa SUL
122
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
TAble 97
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS, SHas, reCeNT viCTiMS, aNd BLoCKageS, By CoMUNa
Non-
Impacted Recent Cultivated agricultural Local Economic
Municipio Comuna Communities SHAs Victims Roads Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
Amboim Assango 8 12 0 X X X X X
Amboim Gabela 12 15 6 X X X X
Ebo Condé 9 18 2 X X X X X
Ebo Ebo 17 28 1 X X X X X X
Ebo Kassanje 4 4 0 X X
Kassongue Atóme 0 0 0
Kassongue Dumbi 2 2 0 X X
Kassongue Kassongue 6 7 1 X X X
Kassongue Pambangala 4 6 3 X X X X
Kibala Kariango 4 5 0 X X X X
Kibala Kibala 13 28 11 X X X X X X
Kibala Lonhe 0 0 0
Kibala Ndala Kachibo 1 1 0
Kilenda Kilenda 21 28 0 X X X X X X
Kilenda Kirimbo 0 0 0
Konda Konda 3 11 0 X X X X X X
Konda Kunjo 2 4 0 X X X X
Libolo Kabuta 1 1 0 X
Libolo Kalulo 7 8 0 X X X
Libolo Kissongo 4 4 0 X X X X
Libolo Munenga 3 3 0 X X
Mussende Kienha 1 1 0
Mussende Mussende 4 8 0 X X X X X X X
Mussende Sao Lucas 1 2 0 X X
Porto Amboim Kapolo 1 2 0 X X X
Porto Amboim Porto Amboim 0 0 0
Seles Amboiva 0 0 0
Seles Botera 1 1 0 X X
Seles Ucu – Seles 5 11 0 X X X
Sumbe Gangula 1 1 0 X X
Sumbe Gungo 0 0 0
Sumbe Kikombo 4 6 0 X X X
Sumbe Sumbe 0 0 0
Waco Kungo Kissanga Kungo 22 35 4 X X X X X X X
Waco Kungo Sanga 3 5 0 X X X X X
Waco Kungo Waco Cungo 5 12 2 X X X X X
Total 169 269 30 8 26 20 22 10 6 4 10
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
123
Luanda
MAp 35
MiNe-iMpaCTed
CoMMUNiTieS iN LUaNda


L
u
a
n
d
a
PROVINCE SUMMARy
T
he province of Luanda contains almost one-third of the population of Angola. The
landmine problem, however, is very small, with only two impacted communities;
each community has one SHA. The mine-impacted communities are in the municipios of
Cacuaco and Viana. The socioeconomic blockages involve agricultural land and water.
According to the people in the communities, some surveys and marking have occurred
but no other mine action activities were reported.
124
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
TAble 98
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Category Number of Communities Percentage Population Impacted
High 0 0% 0
Medium 1 50.0% 8,077
Low 1 50.0% 460
Total 2 100% 8,537
No recent victims were identified by the LIS in the province of Luanda.
TAble 99
NUMBer oF SHas, By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT
Roads Non-
Impact and Ways Cultivated agricultural Local
Category & Paths Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
High 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Medium 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
Low 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
TAble 100
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Number of Offcial Marking Village Victim
Category Communities Clearance and Survey Demining MRE Assistance
High 0 0 0 0 0 0
Medium 1 0 1 0 0 0
Low 1 0 1 0 0 0
Total 2 0 2 0 0 0
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
125


L
u
a
n
d
a
MAp 36
LoCaTioN oF SHaS
aNd reCeNT viCTiMS
iN LUaNda
126
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
TAble 101
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS, SHas, reCeNT viCTiMS, aNd BLoCKageS, By CoMUNa
Non-
Impacted Recent Cultivated agricultural Local Economic
Municipio Comuna Communities SHAs Victims Roads Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
Cacuaco Cacuaco 1 1 0 X X X X
Cacuaco Funda 0 0 0
Cacuaco Kifangondo 0 0 0
Cacuaco Kikolo 0 0 0
Cazenga Cazenga 0 0 0
Cazenga Tala Hadi 0 0 0
Ingombota Ilha do Cabo 0 0 0
Ingombota Ingombota 0 0 0
Ingombota Kinanga 0 0 0
Ingombota Maculusso 0 0 0
Ingombota Patrice Lumumba 0 0 0
Kilamba Kyaxi Golfe 0 0 0
Kilamba Kyaxi Havemos de Voltar 0 0 0
Kilamba Kyaxi Kamama 0 0 0
Kilamba Kyaxi Neves Bendinha 0 0 0
Kilamba Kyaxi Palanca 0 0 0
Kilamba Kyaxi Vila do Estoril 0 0 0
Maianga Cassequel 0 0 0
Maianga Maianga 0 0 0
Maianga Prenda 0 0 0
Rangel Marçal 0 0 0
Rangel Rangel 0 0 0
Rangel Terra Nova 0 0 0
Samba Benfica 0 0 0
Samba Futungo de Belas 0 0 0
Samba Mussulo 0 0 0
Samba Samba 0 0 0
Sambizanga Bairro Operário 0 0 0
Sambizanga N`gola Kilwanji 0 0 0
Sambizanga Sambizanga 0 0 0
Viana Barra do Cuanza 1 1 0
Viana Calumbo 0 0 0
Viana Viana 0 0 0
Total 2 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
127
Lunda Norte
MAp 37
MiNe-iMpaCTed
CoMMUNiTieS iN
LUNda NorTe


L
u
n
d
a

N
o
r
t
e
PROVINCE SUMMARy
i
n Lunda Norte province the LIS identified 28 mine-impacted communities, with seven,
or 25 percent, being categorized as high- or medium-impact. Approximately 30,600
people are living in the 28 impacted communities.
Almost two-thirds of the recent victims were traveling when the mine incident occurred,
and thus it is not surprising that the map below, showing the locations of accidents, clearly
indicates that most of them were on or near roads. The impacted communities, however,
did not report roads and paths as a blockage. Lunda Norte is the only province in which
roads and paths were not reported as a blockage. Instead, agricultural land and water are
the most reported blockages. Very little mine action activities have occurred in Lunda Norte
compared to the other provinces, with the exception of Luanda and Namibe. The priorities
for mine action need to be closely aligned with development plans for the province.
128
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
TAble 102
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Category Number of Communities Percentage Population Impacted
High 2 7.1% 4,120
Medium 5 17.9% 7,399
Low 21 75.0% 19,154
Total 28 100% 30,673
TAble 103
diSTriBUTioN oF reCeNT viCTiMS, iNCideNTS, aNd SHas wiTH viCTiMS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Category Recent Victims Incidents Communities with Victims SHAs with Victims
High 20 26 2 2
Medium 5 6 4 4
Low 0 0 0 0
Total 25 32 6 6
TAble 104
aCTiviTy aT THe TiMe oF iNCideNT, By geNder
Activity Female Male Unknown Total
Tampering 0 16 0 16
Collecting Water 0 4 0 4
Traveling 0 2 0 2
Other 1 1 0 2
Playing 0 1 0 1
Farming 0 0 0 0
Household Work 0 0 0 0
Unknown 0 0 0 0
Total 1 24 0 25
TAble 105
NUMBer oF SHas, By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT
Roads Non-
Impact and Ways Cultivated agricultural Local
Category & Paths Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
High 0 4 1 4 2 0 0 0
Medium 0 4 1 0 4 0 0 3
Low 0 15 2 3 3 2 7 6
Total 0 23 4 7 9 2 7 9
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
129


L
u
n
d
a

N
o
r
t
e
TAble 106
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Number of Offcial Marking Village Victim
Category Communities Clearance and Survey Demining MRE Assistance
High 2 0 0 0 0 2
Medium 5 0 0 0 0 4
Low 21 4 0 1 3 0
Total 28 4 0 1 3 6
MAp 38
LoCaTioN oF SHaS
aNd reCeNT viCTiMS
iN LUNda NorTe
130
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
TAble 107
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS, SHas, reCeNT viCTiMS, aNd BLoCKageS, By CoMUNa
Non-
Impacted Recent Cultivated agricultural Local Economic
Municipio Comuna Communities SHAs Victims Roads Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
Chitato Chitato 0 0 0
Chitato Lóvua 1 2 0 X X
Chitato Luachimo 1 1 0 X
Kambulo Kachimo 1 1 0 X
Kambulo Kambulo 1 4 3 X X X X
Kambulo Kanzar 1 5 0 X X X X
Kambulo Luia 2 3 0 X X
Kapenda Kapenda 3 4 2 X X
Kamulemba kamulemba
Kapenda Xinge 2 2 1 X X X
Kamulemba
Kaungula Kamaxilo 1 1 0 X
Kaungula Kaungula 3 4 1 X X X X X
Kuango Kuango 4 6 17 X X X X X
Kuango Luremo 1 1 0 X
Kuilo Kaluango 0 0 0
Kuilo Kuilo 0 0 0
Lubalo Luangue 0 0 0
Lubalo Lubalo 0 0 0
Lubalo Muvulage 0 0 0
Lukapa Kamissombo 1 1 0 X X X
Lukapa Kapaia 0 0 0
Lukapa Lukapa 0 0 0
Lukapa Xa – Cassau 2 2 1 X X X
Xá – Muteba Cassanje 0 0 0
Xá – Muteba Iongo 1 2 0 X X
Xá – Muteba Kitapa 0 0 0
Xá – Muteba Xá – Muteba 3 3 0 X X
Total 28 42 25 0 13 4 3 6 2 6 7
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
131
Lunda Sul
MAp 39
MiNe-iMpaCTed
CoMMUNiTieS iN
LUNda SUL


L
u
n
d
a

S
u
l
PROVINCE SUMMARy
i
n Lunda Sul province the LIS identified 75 mine-impacted communities, of which, 30, or
40 percent, are high- or medium-impact. There is an estimated population of 28,360
living in these 30 communities. Much of the landmine contamination in the province is
near Saurimo or on the road leading to Saurimo from Lunda Norte.
Seven recent victims were recorded by the LIS. At the time of the landmine incidents, the
victims were either collecting water or farming. There are 155 SHAs in Lunda Sul.
Based on the community interviews, mine action activities have largely consisted of MRE
and victim assistance, with some clearance.
132
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
TAble 108
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Category Number of Communities Percentage Population Impacted
High 0 0% 0
Medium 30 40.0% 28,360
Low 45 60.0% 38,243
Total 75 100% 66,603
TAble 109
diSTriBUTioN oF reCeNT viCTiMS, iNCideNTS, aNd SHas wiTH viCTiMS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Category Recent Victims Incidents Communities with Victims SHAs with Victims
High 0 0 0 0
Medium 7 14 6 6
Low 0 2 0 0
Total 7 16 6 6
TAble 110
aCTiviTy aT THe TiMe oF iNCideNT, By geNder
Activity Female Male Unknown Total
Tampering 0 3 0 3
Collecting Water 0 2 0 2
Traveling 0 1 0 1
Other 1 0 0 1
Playing 0 0 0 0
Farming 0 0 0 0
Household Work 0 0 0 0
Unknown 0 0 0 0
Total 1 6 0 7
TAble 111
NUMBer oF SHas, By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT
Roads Non-
Impact and Ways Cultivated agricultural Local
Category & Paths Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
High 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Medium 7 52 33 47 26 8 1 9
Low 3 32 14 33 2 7 0 6
Total 10 84 47 80 28 15 1 15
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
133
TAble 112
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Number of Offcial Marking Village Victim
Category Communities Clearance and Survey Demining MRE Assistance
High 0 0 0 0 0 0
Medium 30 3 7 2 22 14
Low 45 4 5 4 23 9
Total 75 7 12 6 45 23
MAp 40
LoCaTioN oF SHaS
aNd reCeNT viCTiMS
iN LUNda SUL


L
u
n
d
a

S
u
l
134
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
TAble 113
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS, SHas, reCeNT viCTiMS, aNd BLoCKageS, By CoMUNa
Non-
Impacted Recent Cultivated agricultural Local Economic
Municipio Comuna Communities SHAs Victims Roads Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
Dala Dala 4 13 1 X X X X X
Dala Kazage 0 0 0
Dala Luma-Kassai 0 0 0
Kakolo Alto-Chikapa 2 2 0 X X X
Kakolo Kakolo 10 22 1 X X X X X X
Kakolo Kukumbi 2 4 0 X X X X X
Kakolo Xassengue 2 4 0 X X X
Mukonda Chiluage 3 5 0 X X X X X
Mukonda Kassai-Sul 4 12 0 X X X X X X
Mukonda Mukonda 7 12 0 X X X X X X X
Mukonda Murieje 7 14 0 X X X X X X
Saurimo Mona-Kimbundo 7 15 0 X X X X X X X
Saurimo Saurimo 24 48 5 X X X X X X X
Saurimo Sombo 3 4 0 X X X X
Total 75 155 7 5 11 8 12 8 9 1 10
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
135
Malanje
PROVINCE SUMMARy
i
n Malanje province the LIS identified 87 mine-impacted communities, of which 40, or
46 percent, were either high- or medium-impact. The 46 percent of high- and medium-
impact communities represents the highest ratio for one province in Angola. There is an
estimated population of 115,000 living in the impacted communities.
The LIS recorded 26 victims between 2002 and 2004. Eleven, or 42 percent, of the
recent victims were female.
A majority of the impacted communities are in the southern part of the province in the
vicinity of Malanje. The Malanje comuna is the most impacted, with 24 impacted commu-
nities. This is followed by Kangandala with 14 impacted communities. The two comunas
together comprise 44 percent of all impacted communities in the province. There are 164
SHAs in Malanje. Major socioeconomic blockages were reported for roads and paths, as
well as agricultural land and water.
Based on the community interviews, mine action activities have largely consisted of MRE
and clearance.
MAp 41
MiNe-iMpaCTed
CoMMUNiTieS
iN MaLaNje


M
a
l
a
n
j
e
136
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
TAble 114
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Category Number of Communities Percentage Population Impacted
High 4 4.6% 18,670
Medium 36 41.4% 63,770
Low 47 54.0% 32,202
Total 87 100% 114,642
TAble 115
diSTriBUTioN oF reCeNT viCTiMS, iNCideNTS, aNd SHas wiTH viCTiMS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Category Recent Victims Incidents Communities with Victims SHAs with Victims
High 15 18 4 6
Medium 8 8 5 5
Low 3 5 3 3
Total 26 31 12 14
TAble 116
aCTiviTy aT THe TiMe oF iNCideNT, By geNder
Activity Female Male Unknown Total
Tampering 7 1 0 8
Collecting Water 3 3 0 6
Traveling 1 5 0 6
Other 0 4 0 4
Playing 0 1 0 1
Farming 0 1 0 1
Household Work 0 0 0 0
Unknown 0 0 0 0
Total 11 15 0 26
TAble 117
NUMBer oF SHas, By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT
Roads Non-
Impact and Ways Cultivated agricultural Local
Category & Paths Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
High 1 10 0 3 2 0 0 2
Medium 28 53 37 28 31 9 11 11
Low 15 27 7 15 8 3 2 7
Total 44 90 44 46 41 12 13 20
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
137


M
a
l
a
n
j
e
TAble 118
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Number of Offcial Marking Village Victim
Category Communities Clearance and Survey Demining MRE Assistance
High 4 0 0 0 3 3
Medium 36 14 13 3 12 2
Low 47 9 1 6 13 2
Total 87 23 14 9 28 7
MAp 42
LoCaTioN oF SHaS
aNd reCeNT viCTiMS
iN MaLaNje
TAble 119
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS, SHas, reCeNT viCTiMS, aNd BLoCKageS, By CoMUNa
Non-
Impacted Recent Cultivated agricultural Local Economic
Municipio Comuna Communities SHAs Victims Roads Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
Kahombo Banje – Angola 0 0 0
Kahombo Kahombo 1 3 0 X X X X
Kahombo Kambo 3 8 0 X X X X X X X
Kahombo Micanda 0 0 0
Kakuso Kakuso 0 0 0
Kakuso Kizenga 2 3 0 X X X X
Kakuso Lombe 2 9 2 X X X X X
Kakuso Pungo-Andongo 0 0 0
Kakuso Sokeko 1 3 0 X X
Kalandula Kalandula 2 4 5 X X X X
Kalandula Kateco -Kangola 1 1 0 X X
138
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
Non-
Impacted Recent Cultivated agricultural Local Economic
Municipio Comuna Communities SHAs Victims Roads Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
Kalandula Kinje 0 0 0
Kalandula Kota 2 4 0 X X
Kalandula Kuale 0 0 0
Kambundi-Katembo Dumba Kabango 0 0 0
Kambundi-Katembo Kambumdi – Katembo 0 0 0
Kambundi-Katembo Tala – Mungongo 0 0 0
Kangandala Kalamagia 1 1 0 X
Kangandala Kangandala 12 17 3 X X X X X X X
Kangandala Karibo 1 2 0 X X X X X
Kangandala Mbembo 0 0 0
Kela Bangalas 0 0 0
Kela Kela 3 5 0 X X
Kela Moma 1 1 0 X
Kela Xandele 2 3 0 X X X X X
Kirima Karima 0 0 0
Kirima Sautari 0 0 0
Kiuaba-Nzoji Kiuaba-Nzoji 1 4 0 X X X
Kiuaba-Nzoji Mufuma 3 6 0 X X X X X
Kunda-iá-Baze Kunda-iá-Baze 1 1 0 X X
Kunda-iá-Baze Lemba 0 0 0
Kunda-iá-Baze Milando 2 2 1 X
Lukembo Dombo 0 0 0
Lukembo Kapunda 0 0 0
Lukembo Kimbango 0 0 0
Lukembo Kunga – Palanca 0 0 0
Lukembo Lukembo 0 0 0
Lukembo Rimba 0 0 0
Malanje Kambaxe 4 7 0 X X X X X X X
Malanje Kambondo 2 6 0 X X X X
Malanje Kangando 3 7 0 X X X X X X X
Malanje Kimambamba 2 4 0 X X X
Malanje Kissele 4 6 0 X X X X
Malanje Malanje 15 24 10 X X X X X X X X
Malanje Ngola-Luije 4 9 1 X X X X X
Marimba Kabombo 0 0 0
Marimba Marimba 0 0 0
Marimba Tembo – Aluma 2 4 0 X X X X X X
Massango Chihuhu 0 0 0
Massango Cinguengue 1 3 0 X
Massango Massango 1 1 0 X
Mukari Katala 0 0 0
Mukari Kaxinga 2 4 0 X X X X
Mukari Mikixi 3 6 0 X X X X X
Mukari Mukari 3 6 4 X X X X X
Total 87 164 26 14 23 18 21 18 8 8 13
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
139
Moxico
TAble 120
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Category Number of Communities Percentage Population Impacted
High 14 4.8% 8,421
Medium 105 36.2% 81,473
Low 171 59.0% 80,806
Total 290 100% 170,700
PROVINCE SUMMARy
T
he LIS identified 290 mine-impacted communities in Moxico province, of which 119,
or 41 percent, are either high- or medium-impact. There is an estimated population
of 170,000 living in the impacted communities, of which one-half are living in high- or
medium-impact communities. Luau and Luena are the most impacted comunas in Moxico.
They account for 89 impacted communities and 160 SHAs. Luau has more impacted com-
munities and SHAs than any other municipio in Moxico. Additionally, 18 percent of all
communities in Moxico are impacted by landmines; the rate for all of Angola is
8 percent.
The LIS recorded 111 recent victims in Moxico in 50 of the impacted communities, or 17
percent. Not surprisingly, Moxico and neighboring Lunda Sul reported the availability of
victim assistance more than any other province. This can be directly attributed to the or-
thopedic and rehabilitation center in Luena, which has been assisting landmine survivors
since 1997.
The most common socioeconomic blockages are of agriculture and pasture. Mine action
activities have consisted of relatively high numbers of interventions for mine clearance,
MRE, and victim assistance. The LIS data clearly indicates that Moxico is the most mine-af-
fected province in Angola.


M
o
x
i
c
o
140
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
TAble 121
diSTriBUTioN oF reCeNT viCTiMS, iNCideNTS, aNd SHas wiTH viCTiMS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Category Recent Victims Incidents Communities with Victims SHAs with Victims
High 61 53 12 12
Medium 45 40 33 34
Low 5 8 5 5
Total 111 101 50 51
TAble 122
aCTiviTy aT THe TiMe oF iNCideNT, By geNder
Activity Female Male Unknown Total
Tampering 7 23 0 30
Collecting water 1 23 0 24
Traveling 9 11 0 20
Other 1 11 0 12
Playing 4 6 0 10
Farming 5 5 0 10
Household Work 0 5 0 5
Unknown 0 0 0 0
Total 27 84 0 111
MAp 43
MiNe-iMpaCTed
CoMMUNiTieS iN MoxiCo
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
141
MAp 44
LoCaTioN oF SHaS
aNd reCeNT viCTiMS
iN MoxiCo
TAble 123
NUMBer oF SHas, By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT
Roads Non-
Impact and Ways Cultivated agricultural Local
Category & Paths Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
High 4 17 7 20 4 8 4 10
Medium 33 132 73 155 32 37 11 65
Low 43 109 26 137 6 8 2 34
Total 80 258 106 312 42 53 17 109
TAble 124
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Number of Offcial Marking Village Victim
Category Communities Clearance and Survey Demining MRE Assistance
High 14 9 6 0 10 9
Medium 105 48 43 17 61 25
Low 171 75 34 19 95 11
Total 290 132 83 36 166 45


M
o
x
i
c
o
142
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
TAble 125
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS, SHas, reCeNT viCTiMS, aNd BLoCKageS, By CoMUNa
Non-
Impacted Recent Cultivated agricultural Local Economic
Municipio Comuna Communities SHAs Victims Roads Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
Alto Zambeze Alto Zambeze 20 34 3 X X X X X X X
Alto Zambeze Kaianda 11 19 0 X X X X X X X
Alto Zambeze Kalunda 8 12 1 X X X X X X
Alto Zambeze Kavungo 15 28 0 X X X X X X X
Alto Zambeze Lóvua 1 1 0 X
Alto Zambeze Lumbala-Kakengue 15 34 0 X X X X X X X X
Alto Zambeze Macondo 1 1 0 X
Kamanongue Kamanongue 17 19 26 X X X X X X
Léua Léua 16 27 10 X X X X X X X
Léua Liangongo 22 39 12 X X X X X X X X
Luakano Lago-Dilolo 5 10 0 X X X X X X X
Luakano Luakano 5 7 4 X X X X X
Luau Luau 48 99 8 X X X X X X X X
Lumbala-Nguimbo Chiume 4 6 0 X X X
Lumbala-Nguimbo Lumbala-Nguimbo 9 11 0 X X X X X
Lumbala-Nguimbo Lutembo 4 4 1 X X X
Lumbala-Nguimbo Luvuei 0 0 0
Lumbala-Nguimbo Mussuma 5 6 0 X X X X
Lumbala-Nguimbo Ninda 2 4 0 X X X
Lumbala-Nguimbo Sessa 0 0 0
Lumeje Kameia Lumeje Kameia 5 10 15 X X X X X X
Luxazes Kangamba 6 8 1 X X X
Luxazes Kangumbe 3 6 0 X X X X X
Luxazes Kassamba 0 0 0
Luxazes Muié 0 0 0
Luxazes Tempué 1 3 1 X X
Moxico Kangumbe 13 29 3 X X X X X X X
Moxico Luena 41 61 20 X X X X X X X X
Moxico Lukusse 12 36 6 X X X X X X
Moxico Lutuai ou Muangai 1 8 0 X X X X
Total 290 522 111 16 24 20 25 12 14 8 18
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
143


N
a
m
i
b
e
Namibe
MAp 45
MiNe-iMpaCTed
CoMMUNiTieS iN NaMiBe
PROVINCE SUMMARy
N
amibe province has a small landmine problem. It contains only three impacted com-
munities affecting 6,560 people. The LIS identified 11 SHAs, including one comuna
with seven SHAs, of which almost half are blocking roads and paths. The data indicates
that investigation into alternatives to the mined roads is required to determine mine action
priorities. The LIS reported no recent victims in Namibe.
144
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
TAble 126
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Category Number of Communities Percentage Population Impacted
High 0 0.0% 0
Medium 1 33.3% 3,500
Low 2 66.7% 3,060
Total 3 100% 6,560
No recent victims were identified by the LIS in the province of Namibe.
TAble 127
NUMBer oF SHas, By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT
Roads Non-
Impact and Ways Cultivated agricultural Local
Category & Paths Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
High 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Medium 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
Low 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
Total 5 0 3 1 0 0 0 2
TAble 128
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Number of Offcial Marking Village Victim
Category Communities Clearance and Survey Demining MRE Assistance
High 0 0 0 0 0 0
Medium 1 1 1 0 2 0
Low 2 0 4 5 8 1
Total 3 1 5 5 10 1
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
145
MAp 46
LoCaTioN oF SHaS
aNd reCeNT viCTiMS
iN NaMiBe


N
a
m
i
b
e
TAble 129
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS, SHas, reCeNT viCTiMS, aNd BLoCKageS, By CoMUNa
Non-
Impacted Recent Cultivated agricultural Local Economic
Municipio Comuna Communities SHAs Victims Roads Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
Bibala Bibala 0 0 0
Bibala Kaitou 0 0 0
Bibala Kapangombe 0 0 0
Bibala Lola 0 0 0
Kamukuio Chingo 0 0 0
Kamukuio Kamukuio 0 0 0
Kamukuio Mamué 0 0 0
Namibe Bentiaba 2 4 0 X X
Namibe Lucira 0 0 0
Namibe Namibe 0 0 0
Tômbua Baía dos Tigres 0 0 0
Tômbua Tâmbua 1 7 0 X X X
Virei Kainde 0 0 0
Virei Virei 0 0 0
Total 3 11 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1
146
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
147


U
í
g
e
Uíge
TAble 130
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Category Number of Communities Percentage Population Impacted
High 0 0% 0
Medium 23 14% 14,604
Low 144 86% 112,989
Total 167 100% 127,593
PROVINCE SUMMARy
i
nUígeprovincetheLISidentified167mine-impactedcommunities,ofwhich23are
medium-impactand144arelow-impact.NocommunitiesinUígearecategorized
as high-impact. This is largely the result of the communities reporting only two recent
victims in 2005–2006, the two-year period for which recent victims were counted. The
14 percent of the combined high- and medium-impact communities is below the national
average of 25 percent.
However,the297SHAsidentifiedinUígeandthehighnumberofcommunitiesreport-
ing the need for orthopedic services indicates the true level of landmine contamination in
the province. Although the very low number of recent victims indicates that the people of
Uígeareatleastavoidingmineaccidents,in2002(priortotheLIS)Uígerecordedmore
victims than all but two other provinces in Angola. Comunas bordering the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Bengo, and Zaire are impact-free. The landmine problem is
largelyincentralUígenearthetownsofUígeandSanzaPombo.However,Bungo
comuna, in the municipiowiththesamenameimmediatelynortheastofthetownofUíge,
contains more impacted communities than any other comuna in the province.
Agricultural land, nonagricultural land, and roads and paths represent 70 percent of all
reported socioeconomic blockages in the province.
ThelandmineprobleminUígeisdistributedunevenlyamongthecomunas. There are 11
comunas with no impact from landmines, and 8 of the 50 comunas contain 53 percent of
all impacted communities.
148
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
TAble 131
diSTriBUTioN oF reCeNT viCTiMS, iNCideNTS, aNd SHas wiTH viCTiMS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Category Recent Victims Incidents Communities with Victims SHAs with Victims
High 0 0 0 0
Medium 1 2 1 1
Low 0 6 0 0
Total 1 8 1 1
TAble 132
aCTiviTy aT THe TiMe oF iNCideNT, By geNder
Activity Female Male Unknown Total
Tampering 0 0 0 0
Collecting Water 1 0 0 1
Traveling 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0
Playing 0 0 0 0
Farming 0 0 0 0
Household Work 0 0 0 0
Unknown 0 0 0 0
Total 1 0 0 1
MAp 47
MiNe-iMpaCTed
CoMMUNiTieS iN Uíge
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
149


U
í
g
e
MAp 48
LoCaTioN oF SHaS aNd
reCeNT viCTiMS iN Uíge
TAble 133
NUMBer oF SHas, By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT
Roads Non-
Impact and Ways Cultivated agricultural Local
Category & Paths Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
High 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Medium 9 43 10 23 11 12 5 8
Low 38 106 15 39 6 18 4 20
Total 47 149 25 62 17 30 9 28
TAble 134
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Number of Offcial Marking Village Victim
Category Communities Clearance and Survey Demining MRE Assistance
High 0 0 0 0 0 0
Medium 23 1 5 4 11 1
Low 144 12 8 6 38 2
Total 167 13 13 10 49 3
150
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
TAble 135
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS, SHas, reCeNT viCTiMS, aNd BLoCKageS, By CoMUNa
Non-
Impacted Recent Cultivated agricultural Local Economic
Municipio Comuna Communities SHAs Victims Roads Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
Ambuíla Ambuíla 1 2 0 X
Ambuíla Kipedro 0 0 0
Bembe Bembe 5 8 0 X X X X
Bembe Lukunga 0 0 0
Bembe Mabaia 4 5 0 X X
Buengas Buengas 3 3 0 X X
Buengas Buengas do Sul 4 5 0 X X X
Buengas Kuilo Kambonzo 0 0 0
Bungo Bungo 18 36 1 X X X X
Damba Damba 8 13 0 X X X X
Damba Kamatambo 0 0 0
Damba Lemboa 0 0 0
Damba Pete-Cusso 2 2 0 X
Damba Sosso 3 7 0 X X X X
Kangola Bengo 2 2 0 X
Kangola Kaiongo 3 4 0 X
Kangola Kangola 10 19 0 X X X X X X X
Kimbele Alto – Zaza 0 0 0
Kimbele Icoca 1 1 0 X X X
Kimbele Kimbele 4 7 0 X X X X X X
Kimbele Kuango 0 0 0
Kitexe Cambambe 2 2 0 X X
Kitexe Kifafa 4 5 0 X X
Kitexe Kitende 1 2 0 X X X
Kitexe Kitexe 8 16 0 X X X X X
Maquela do Zombo Beu 2 3 0 X X X
Maquela do Zombo Kibokolo 2 3 0 X X
Maquela do Zombo Kuilo Futa 1 2 0 X
Maquela do Zombo Maquela do Zombo 9 19 0 X X X X X X X
Maquela do Zombo Sakandika 1 2 0 X X
Milunga Makokola 5 8 0 X X X X
Milunga Makolu 2 2 0 X X X
Milunga Massau 1 1 0 X
Milunga Milunga 3 5 0 X X X
Mucaba Mucaba 3 4 0 X X X X X
Mucaba Uando 0 0 0
Negage Dimuka 3 6 0 X X
Negage Kisseke 3 10 0 X X
Negage Negage 2 5 0 X X X
Puri Puri 17 33 0 X X X X X X X
Sanza Pombo Alfândega 11 23 0 X X X X X
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
151


U
í
g
e
Non-
Impacted Recent Cultivated agricultural Local Economic
Municipio Comuna Communities SHAs Victims Roads Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
Sanza Pombo Cuilo 4 6 0 X
Sanza Pombo Pombo 0 0 0
Sanza Pombo Sanza Pombo 8 15 0 X X X X X
Sanza Pombo Uamba 0 0 0
Songo Kivuenga 0 0 0
Songo Songo 2 4 0 X X X X
Uíge Uíge 5 7 0 X X X X X
Total 167 297 1 7 32 13 22 9 16 6 15
152
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
153
Zaire


Z
a
i
r
e
MAp 49
MiNe-iMpaCTed
CoMMUNiTieS iN Zaire
PROVINCE SUMMARy
T
he LIS identified 65 mine-impacted communities in Zaire province, of which nine, or
14 percent, are medium-impact. There are no high-impact communities in Zaire. As
the map below shows, the impacted areas are in the northwest province of Soyo and the
northeast province of Mbanza Kongo. The estimated population living in the impacted
communities is 49,000. No recent victims were identified and very little mine action was
reported in the LIS.
The LIS identified 105 SHAs, with agriculture being the primary socioeconomic blockage.
Almost one-half of the SHAs are found in just five of the 20 comunas: Kelo, Soyo, Luvo,
Tomboco, and Noqui.
154
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
TAble 136
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Category Number of Communities Percentage Population Impacted
High 0 0% 0
Medium 9 13.8% 16,597
Low 56 86.2% 32,371
Total 65 100% 48,968
No recent victims were identified by the LIS in the province of Zaire.
TAble 137
NUMBer oF SHas, By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT
Roads Non-
Impact and Ways Cultivated agricultural Local
Category & Paths Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
High 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Medium 1 16 9 11 5 3 1 2
Low 3 58 3 29 1 5 1 2
Total 4 74 12 40 6 8 2 4
TAble 138
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT
Impact Number of Offcial Marking Village Victim
Category Communities Clearance and Survey Demining MRE Assistance
High 0 0 0 0 0 0
Medium 9 1 1 0 2 0
Low 57 5 4 5 8 1
Total 66 6 5 5 10 1
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
155


Z
a
i
r
e
MAp 50
LoCaTioN oF SHaS aNd
reCeNT viCTiMS iN Zaire
156
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – P R O F I L E S B Y P R O V I N C E
TAble 139
NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS, SHas, reCeNT viCTiMS, aNd BLoCKageS, By CoMUNa
Non-
Impacted Recent Cultivated agricultural Local Economic
Municipio Comuna Communities SHAs Victims Roads Land Pasture Land Water Housing Services Infrastructure
Kuimba Kanda 2 2 0 X X
Kuimba Kuimba 3 4 0 X X
Kuimba Luvaka 0 0 0
Kuimba Mbuela 2 4 0 X X X
Mbanza Kongo Kaluka 0 0 0
Mbanza Kongo Kiende 1 3 0 X X X
Mbanza Kongo Luvu 6 9 0 X X X X X X X
Mbanza Kongo Madimba 0 0 0
Mbanza Kongo Mbanza Kongo 4 6 0 X X X X
Mbanza Kongo Nkalambata 2 4 0 X X X
Nóqui Lufiko 0 0 0
Nóqui Mpala 0 0 0
Nóqui Nóqui 4 7 0 X X X
Nzeto Kindeji 1 1 0 X X
Nzeto Loje-Kibala 3 3 0 X X
Nzeto Mussera 3 5 0 X X X
Nzeto Nzeto 2 5 0 X X X X
Soyo Kelo 8 16 0 X X
Soyo Mangue Grande 1 1 0 X
Soyo Pedra de Feitiço 3 3 0 X X X
Soyo Soyo 8 12 0 X X X
Soyo Sumba 4 6 0 X X X
Tomboco Kinzau 2 2 0 X
Tomboco Kiximba 2 4 0 X X X X
Tomboco Tomboco 5 8 0 X X X X X
Total 66 105 0 3 19 9 14 4 6 2 3
A
n
n
e
x
e
s
A
n
n
e
x
e
s
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
159
Annex I—Key Participants
T
he Landmine Impact Survey in Angola was the product of collaborative efforts
involving the participation of the following Angolan governmental agencies,
non-governmental organizations, and the United Nations.
-
The National intersectoral Commission on demining and Humanitarian assistance (CNidaH)
will utilize the data for planning and coordination purposes. The IMSMA data
base with the LIS module was lodged at CNIDAH offices. SAC trained the data
entry staff, supported interim distribution of provisional results for earlier use,
and initiated discussions on how the LIS information could be used.
-
The Survey action Center (SaC) was responsible for the technical oversight and
overall implementation of the Angola Landmine Impact Survey. SAC established
an office in Luanda in June 2003 to provide overall coordination, technical exper-
tise, training and guidance, and monitoring on the survey methodology in the
field, as well as to supervise operational implementation, conduct data analysis,
and brief stakeholders. It held regular monthly meetings with the implementing
partners. SAC was responsible for drafting this report.
SURVEy IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS
The key to Landmine Impact Survey success is the collection of socioeconomic
impact data directly from affected communities. The government mine action entity
the National Institute of Demining, along with the NGOs HALO Trust, INTERSOS,
Mines Advisory Group, Norwegian People’s Aid, and the Santa Barbara Foundation,
conducted the fieldwork and in some cases applied co-funding to support the
fieldwork.
-
The Norwegian people’s aid (Npa) in Angola was established in response to a request
from the United Nations to help clear mines after the Lusaka Protocols were
signed in 1994. NPA responded quickly to the request and established its mine
action program in 1995. The NPA mine clearance activities developed from a
modest start in 1995 to a very complex and comprehensive program in 2007 with
a variety of capacities, such as manual demining, mechanical mine clearance,
mine detection dogs, explosive ordnance disposal, and survey. The building of
national capacity has been important for NPA since the start of the program, and
in 2007 human resources are NPA’s strongest assets.
160
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – A N N E x E S
In July 2001, the government of Angola established the Intersectoral
Commission for Demining and Humanitarian Assistance (CNIDAH) to regulate
and coordinate humanitarian mine action. NPA is committed to working with
the government of Angola and CNIDAH to negotiate, plan, and implement
assistance in order to support the consolidation and expansion of a quality
national capability to take over from existing international entities. In addition,
all planning regarding the development of NPA’s humanitarian mine action
strategy for the upcoming years will include activities related to the provision
of technical assistance to the government and the transfer of responsibility to
national authorities.
-
The Mines advisory group (Mag) has been working in Angola since 1994, clearing
landmines and unexploded ordnances (UXOs). The end of the war in 2002 and
the dramatic increase in access and security have allowed MAG to strengthen
its program.
MAG has 12 Mine Action Teams, 4 Rapid Response Units, 5 Community Liaison
Teams, and 4 Mechanical Support Units conducting vegetation clearance,
excavation, area reduction, and quality assurance. It also has a dedicated Road
Threat Risk Reduction Team. This range of operational units ensures that MAG is
able to adopt a variety of techniques and respond quickly and effectively to the
threat from these remnants of conflict in Moxico and Lunda Sul provinces. The
key beneficiaries of MAG’s work include IDPs and refugees, as well as vulner-
able rural communities and other non-government organizations seeking to
implement wider humanitarian and development projects.
-
The HaLo Trust began its Angolan mine action program in Bié in 1994, in
support of the general humanitarian aid effort. In 1996 HALO Trust estab-
lished an operational base in Huambo and in 1998 in Benguela. Based on a
rapid assessment of the worst mine- and UXO-affected areas, high-priority
clearance sites were determined and operations began. From 1998 to 2002
the Planalto security situation deteriorated, resulting in a large increase in
the number of IDPs settling close to the cities of Kuito and Huambo. This is
where HALO concentrated its clearance efforts in minefields adjacent to the
IDP camps in order to reduce casualties from landmine incidents.
After the ceasefire in 2002 HALO underwent a major expansion of its program
and increased its staff from 300 to 1,000. New operational bases were estab-
lished in Mavinga and Menongue in Kuando Kubango province.
In 2005–2006 the priorities for HALO have been completing the LIS, opening
road access, and deploying large numbers of deminers in its four areas of opera-
tions. As of September 2006 HALO has the following assets:
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
161
•62xmanualdeminingteams(7demininglaneseach)
•8xmechanicalsupportunits
•4xmechanicalRoadThreatReductionsystems(RTR)
•8xcombinedteams(survey/roadassessment/marking/MRE/EOD)
-
The Santa Barbara Foundation (SBF) is based in Bonn, Germany, and has been
conducting mine action activities in central Angola since 1997 without interrup-
tion. The foundation’s activities have included MRE, survey, clearance, marking,
and EOD. It has focused on populated areas, farmland, roads, bridges, and air
strips. Accidents have been absent from SBF operations. SBF’s representative
office in Angola is in Luanda.
-
iNTerSoS Mine Action in Angola began in 1999 and focused on serving the
needs of IDPs and returnees. Operational bases were first established in
Lubango and Matala, where large concentrations of displaced people had
congregated. The first project was to clear the Matala–Dongo road (parallel
to the destroyed and mined railroad Camino de Mocamedes). In Micossi
the mined area surrounding schools was cleared and in Umpata (Lubango)
INTERSOS teams performed stockpile destruction. Activities then expanded
to Kuando Kubango in 2000, where clearance was undertaken in Marcolino
(Menongue).
INTERSOS also conducted MRE in partnership with Club de Jovens and
supported the creation in Kuando Kubango of the only center for prosthetics
and rehabilitation of landmine victims in the province. The Center – funded with
grants from the EC and with Italian cooperation, as well as private contribu-
tions – developed in partnership with the local NGO Mbwembwa. INTERSOS
trained local personnel for rehabilitation activities, prostheses production, and
vocational skills to facilitate the reintegration of people with disabilities into
productive activities. Capacity-building has been an integral part of its mine
action and humanitarian aid programs in Angola. In addition to supporting the
Club de Jovens and Mbwembwa, INTERSOS helped build the humanitarian
demining capacity of AJOSAPA (Associacao de Jovens Sapatores), a national
NGO based in Lubango.
INTERSOS closed its mine action program in Angola in 2006.
-
The National institute of demining (iNad), a public institute under the Council of
Ministers, is responsible for conducting studies related to mine action and for
preparing and conducting mine clearance projects, including post-clearance and
MRE. INAD also provides technical assistance and conducts evaluations. INAD’s
capacity expanded greatly during 2006, and it now has nearly 2,000 operational
staff located throughout the country.
162
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – A N N E x E S
UNITED NATIONS
-
The United Nations development program (UNdp) provides technical assistance to
enhance the establishment and structure of CNIDAH as the national body
responsible for policy making and coordination of a national mine action
program. UNDP served as the LIS main point of contact for the UN system. It
also provided capacity-building training to the database staff and facilitated the
funding for surveying Bengo and Cabinda provinces.
-
The United Nations Mine action Service (UNMaS) provided a quality assurance monitor
to observe all aspects of the survey process. In June 2007 UNMAS convened a
UN Certification Committee to review the entire survey process and provide UN
certification to the survey.
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
163
Annex II—Methodology
T
he LIS in Angola followed the same methodology as applied in all of the
Landmine Impact Surveys in other countries with surveys either completed or
ongoing since 1999. The survey is guided by 10 protocols established by the Survey
Working Group. The protocols are available on the Survey Action Center website at
www.sac-na.org.
ADVANCE SURVEy MISSION
SAC conducted an Advance Survey Mission (ASM) in October 2002. Two follow-up
visits were conducted; the first in December 2002 for meetings with the imple-
menting NGOs and the second in March 2003 to examine the issue of how many
communities in Angola might be affected by landmines and to begin the process of
signing the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with CNIDAH.
The ASM and follow-up visits came to the following conclusions:
-
The nature of the survey and of the country made it especially difficult to
estimate the scope, time, and cost of the survey.
-
The data from previous surveys conducted in Angola, such as the NPA general
survey conducted in 1995–1998, was not reliable for LIS purposes given the
different nature of the information and the changes in the country since that
time.
-
The question of IDPs and returning refugees and their level of knowledge of
their home areas would be problematic.
-
The rainy season would have a significant impact on the survey.
-
The mine action NGOs active in Angola would implement the survey if they
were adequately funded for the task.
-
The national transportation infrastructure, including road conditions and limited
travel by air, could cause logistical bottlenecks and, ultimately, delays.
-
The survey would take at least two years to complete.
-
The national mine action authority would provide support, although at the time
of the ASM it was unclear what government organization would take on this
responsibility. Soon after the mission, however, it became clear that CNIDAH
would fill this role.
-
Sufficient data sources were available to start the survey.
-
It was not possible to determine the potential number of mine-affected commu-
nities in the country by reviewing from the national level.
In June 2003 SAC established a survey coordination office in Luanda.
164
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – A N N E x E S
PHASES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE LIS
The LIS in Angola was divided into four phases.
Phase 1: Establish operational survey capacity.
SAC signs contracts with implementing partners (HALO
Trust, National Demining Institute [INAD], INTERSOS,
Mines Advisory Group [MAG], Norwegian People’s Aid
[NPA], and Santa Barbara Foundation).
Implementing partners establish field offices and
recruit staff. SAC and NGOs purchase equipment. NGOs
collect preliminary information on suspected communi-
ties. SAC briefs key stakeholders.
Phase 2: Conduct training, pre-test, and pilot test.
SAC and NGOs develop questionnaire based on protocol for data requirements. SAC
and NGOs train senior staff and survey teams. SAC defines sample frame for false
negative sampling (FNS), based on the FNS protocol. NGOs conduct pilot test and
adjust operational plan as necessary.
Phase 3: Collect data.
Survey teams from each implementing partner conduct preliminary opinion collec-
tions to identify the communities suspected of being in the vicinity of landmines. All
communities on the “suspected communities” list are visited.
Survey teams at each community meeting ask if there are other communities in
the area that may be affected by landmines and are not yet on the survey team lists.
All additional communities identified are visited.
Survey teams use lists of SHAs recorded by
NPA surveys in 1995–1998 to ensure that all previ-
ously identified SHAs and nearby communities are
included in the LIS.
A representative sample of non-suspected
communities is visited, and when a mine-affected
community is found (a false negative), it is surveyed
along with all other communities within a range of
five kilometers.
When communities cannot be visited because
the road has been mined or the bridge has
been broken or for other reasons, the reason is
documented.
Survey supervisors carry out comprehensive quality control of all completed
questionnaires based on a quality control checklist, and when errors are found the
questionnaires are returned to the field for immediate correction.
CoMMUNiTy MappiNg
iN KwaNZa SUL
SorTiNg ForMS
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
165
Phase 4: Enter and analyze data, and produce, certify and publish report
Implementing partners send completed questionnaires to SAC (and, after June 2005,
to CNIDAH) for data entry. LIS database closes after quality assurance. SAC analyzes
data and drafts final report. Government of Angola reviews report. Government of
Angola requests UN certification of the survey.
FALSE NEGATIVE SAMPLING
The LIS is a census of all mine-impacted communities in the country where it is
conducted. False negative sampling (FNS) is carried out in regions that local infor-
mants claim are free from landmines. Communities are then chosen for FNS from the
pool of communities that are considered to have no impact, i.e., they are “negative.”
A “false negative,” therefore, is a community believed to be free of landmines/UXOs
that turns out to be contaminated. Wherever a false negative was discovered, all
other unsuspected communities within five kilometers of it were also visited. Any
of these communities that were discovered to be impacted were categorized as
impacted by landmines/UXOs, and the five-kilometer radius was extended from
the newly found impacted community. This process was continued until no new
impacted communities were found. Globally, less than five percent of the communi-
ties in the FNS pool were found to be impacted.
IMPLEMENTING PARTNER
OPERATIONAL AREAS
Map 51 shows the survey’s operational
areas for the six implementing partners.
NPA: Kwanza Norte, Kwanza
Sul, Malanje, Uíge, Zaire
INAD: Cabinda, Luanda,
Lunda Norte
MAG: Lunda Sul, Moxico
HALO Trust: Benguela, Bié, Huambo,
Kuando Kubango
INTERSOS: Namibe, Huíla
SBF: Bengo, Kunene
MAp 51
area oF SUrvey
operaTioN oF
LiS parTNerS
166
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – A N N E x E S
ISSUES OF METHODOLOGy ADDRESSED
SHAs affecting more than one community
LIS teams in two different communities sometimes identified the same SHA as
having an impact on more than one community. This is a valid situation, for which
IMSMA does not provide
much flexibility. In such cases,
the SHA was assigned to a
unique community as required
by IMSMA, and the second
community was recorded in
the otherwise unused field in
the database. The SHA was
considered in the scoring of only
the one community to which it
was assigned. The procedure
was applied by some but not all
operators. However, when the
SHA was recorded, it was still possible to identify, for prioritization purposes, which
ones affect more than one community.
SHAs not claimed by any community
LIS teams sometimes learned of SHAs that were not claimed by any community. Due
to the inability of IMSMA to record SHAs not associated with communities, these
SHAs were assigned to a nearby community (although in some cases located many
kilometers away) in order not to lose the information. This is important because the
CNIDAH database is meant to support all mine action requirements that may arise,
and this information will become relevant at such time as there are development or
resettlement projects in that area.
Rigorous visual inspection of SHAs
The LIS implementing partners conducted visual inspection according to both
the old and new SWG protocols. HALO Trust demonstrated that application of
the revised visual inspection protocols effectively reduces the estimated size of
SHAs. While this requires additional equipment and training, the costs are not
high and there is no significant effect on the length of time required to survey each
community. The resulting SHAs are more accurately defined but will require further
technical survey and planning for appropriate treatment of the respective areas.
CoMMUNiTy iNTerview
iN MaLaNje
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
167
Annex III—Project Timeline
OVERALL SURVEy TIMELINE
-
october 2002 to March 2003 – Advance Survey Mission (three missions)
-
december 2002 to September 2003 – Equipment procured
-
june to october 2003 – SAC established office
-
September to october 2004 – Task assessment planning (TAP), in Huambo province,
conducted by the Development Workshop (DW)
-
September 2004 – Strategic planning intervention, conducted by
Cranfield University
-
april 2004 to May 2007 – Data collection
-
july 2004 to july 2007 – Data entry into IMSMA database
-
april to july 2007 – SAC drafts LIS final report
-
june 2007 – United Nations certifies survey
-
october 2007 – CNIDAH/SAC finalize report
-
december 2007 – Final report printed and distributed
IMPLEMENTING PARTNER TIMELINES
Halo Trust
-
august 2003 – Signed contract with SAC
-
September 2003 – Established field office
-
december 2003 – Senior staff trained, pre-test given
-
February to March 2004 – Interviewers trained
-
March to july 2004 – Pilot test, instrument & ops plan revised
-
april to july 2004 – Data collection in Huambo province
-
july 2004 to january 2005 – Data collection in Benguela province
-
November 2004 to april 2005 – Data collection in Bié province
-
june to august 2005 – Data collection in Kuando Kubango province
Norwegian People’s Aid
-
September 2003 – Signed contract with SAC
-
September 2003 – Established field office
-
december 2003 – Senior staff trained, pre-test given
Npa CaMp iN MaLaNje
168
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – A N N E x E S
-
january to March 2004 – Interviewers trained
-
april to july 2004 – Pilot test, instrument & ops plan revised
-
june to october 2004 – Data collection in Malanje province
-
october 2004 to january 2005 – Data collection in Kwanza Sul province
-
january to March 2005 – Data collection in Kwanza Norte province
-
February to May 2006 – Data collection in Zaire province
-
May 2006 to February 2007 – Data collection in Uíge province
Mines Advisory Group
-
january 2004 – Signed contract with SAC
-
april 2004 – Established field office
-
april 2004 – Senior staff trained, pre-test given
-
May 2004 – Interviewers trained
-
june to july 2004 – Pilot test, instrument & ops plan revised
-
june 2004 to February 2006 – Data collection in Moxico province
-
april 2005 to March 2006 – Data collection in Lunda Sul province
INTERSOS
-
january 2004 – Signed contract with SAC
-
april 2004 – Established field office
-
april 2004 – Senior staff trained, pre-test given
-
May 2004 – Interviewers trained
-
june to july 2004 – Pilot test, instrument & ops plan revised
-
june 2004 to March 2005 – Data collection in Huíla province
-
october 2004 to august 2005 – Data collection in Namibe province
Santa Barbara
-
january 2004 – Signed contract with SAC
-
april 2004 – Established field office
-
april 2004 – Senior staff trained, pre-test given
-
May 2004 – Interviewers trained
-
june 2004 – Pilot test, instrument & ops plan revised
-
august 2004 to March 2005 – Data collection in Kunene province
-
october 2006 to February 2007 – Data collection in Bengo province
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
169
INAD
-
august 2004 – Signed contract with SAC
-
august 2004 – Established field office
-
july 2004 – Senior staff trained, pre-test given
-
july 2004 – Interviewers trained
-
july 2004 – Pilot test, instrument & ops plan revised
-
September 2004 to May 2005 – Data collection in Lunda Norte province
-
March to May 2005 – Data collection in Luanda province
-
March to May 2007 – Data collection in Cabinda province
TraNSporTiNg Spare
TireS To THe SUrvey
TeaMS iN Uíge
CHaLLeNgiNg road
CoNdiTioNS dUriNg
THe raiNy SeaSoN
170
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – A N N E x E S
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
171
Annex IV—National Mine Action
Strategic Plan 2006–2011
T
he following extract contains the Goals and Objectives of the National Mine
Action Strategic Plan 2006–2011, adopted by the Council of Ministers on 6
September 2006.
Goal 1 Signifcantly reduce the risk to impacted
communities and at-risk groups by 2011
Objective 1.1 Reduce to zero the number of high-impact communities.
Objective 1.2 Reduce by 50 percent the number of medium-impact communities.
Objective 1.3 Mark all remaining SHAs, using community-based and operator
resources.
Objective 1.4 Reduce number of victims to virtually zero by 2011.
Objective 1.5 Refocus MRE on impacted communities and at-risk groups as identi-
fied in the LIS and accident data.
Goal 2 Landmine/ERW survivors and persons with disabilities receive
medical care within the national health system and have
access to assistance in reintegrating into community life
Objective 2.1 Strategic direction and coordination for victim assistance (medical
care and reintegration) is provided by the CNIDAH Subcommission
for Assistance and Social Reintegration.
Objective 2.2 Operational direction for medical care is undertaken by MINSA.
Objective 2.3 Operational direction for victim reintegration is undertaken by
MINARS.
Objective 2.4 Landmine/ERW survivors receive medical care within the national
health system as provided for persons with disabilities.
Objective 2.5 Landmine/ERW survivors receive assistance and reintegration
support from MINARS, MINSA, MAPESS, Ministry of Defense,
Ministry Antigos Combatantes, Veterans de Guerra, and Ministry of
Education.
Objective 2.6 CNIDAH establishes a national database of victims to support
planning and reporting.
Objective 2.7 Landmine/ERW survivors’ access to transport for victim assistance is
improved.
Objective 2.8 A landmine survivors’ network is established to empower individuals
and communities affected by landmines to recover from trauma,
reclaim their lives, and fulfill their rights;
172
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – A N N E x E S
Goal 3 The Angola mine action program supports national
infrastructure investment and reconstruction
Objective 3.1 All major national infrastructure investment and reconstruction
projects are assessed for mine action requirements.
Objective 3.2 Funding for mine action in support of national development projects
is included within the project by the responsible government ministry
and/or donor, on the advice of CNIDAH.
Objective 3.3 CNIDAH engages stakeholders in national infrastructure investment
and reconstruction in order to develop a list of priorities for mine
action support.
Objective 3.4 Roads needed for national reconstruction and rehabilitation will be
mine-safe.
Goal 4 Fully establish a national mine action capability
that is sustainable by national resources after
the end of major international assistance
Objective 4.1 By 2007, CNIDAH is fully executing its role as the national mine action
authority.
Objective 4.2 By 2007, CED is fully executing its responsibility to coordinate the
demining operations of INAD, FAA, and GRN.
Objective 4.3 By 2007, INAD, FAA, and GRN have been established and resourced
to undertake national demining operations.
Objective 4.4 By the end of 2006, CNIDAH establishes a national mine action
planning and reporting framework that supports national and provin-
cial requirements. The national planning and reporting framework
will be embedded in mine action in Angola by 2008.
Objective 4.5 Provincial mine action operations are effectively coordinated at the
provincial government level.
Goal 5 Establish a world-class mine action program in Angola
Objective 5.1 Angola has made significant progress in meeting its Ottawa Treaty
responsibilities (recognizing the size of the problem in Angola, the
funding available, and the level of international support).
Objective 5.2 LIS data guides mine action operations in Angola.
Objective 5.3 Area reduction procedures are used to minimize the size of SHAs and
to focus clearance operations on contaminated land.
Objective 5.4 The stockpile destruction project is complete.
Objective 5.5 National legislation for mine action has been approved by the govern-
ment of Angola.
Objective 5.6 Demining operations are conducted in accordance with humanitarian
mine clearance best practices.
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
173
Annex V—
Scoring and Classifcation
S
coring and classifying mine-affected communities according to the severity of
impacts is a central element of the Landmine Impact Survey (LIS). A standard-
ized impact scoring mechanism has been developed in order to provide a general
assessment according to the severity of the impacts.
IMPACT SCORING ELEMENTS
The scoring system to categorize community impact takes into account the
following three characteristics of the community:
-
The types of ordnance reported
-
The types of livelihood and institutional areas to which mines are
blocking access
-
The number of recent victims (within prior two years)
WEIGHTS BUDGET
The indicators and weights for contamination types and recent victims are endorsed
by the Survey Working Group. The scoring weights for munitions are fixed. Two
impact points are awarded if the community reports the presence of mines in one or
more associated SHAs. The number of mines, the population, and the estimated area
(size) of the SHA are not factors. Another impact point is awarded if the community
reports the presence of widespread (battle-area) UXOs in one or more associated
SHAs. The amount of UXOs and the estimated area of the SHA are not factors;
however, the impact point is only awarded if there is significant UXO presence, and
not for small deposits or individual UXO items. Such cases requiring “spot clearance”
are reported to CNIDAH or removed by the implementing partner. They do not, on
their own, contribute to LIS impact scoring.
SAC and the implementing partners assessed the variety of socioeconomic
blockages in Angola, recognized the risks and threats that roads pose in rural
Angola, and assigned two points to roads and paths blocked by landmines. The eight
other socioeconomic blockages are assigned one point each, for a total of 10 points
for blockages. These weights are awarded only if the specific blockage exists in
one or more of the SHAs—but only once per community. The National Intersectoral
Commission for Demining and Humanitarian Assistance (CNIDAH) approved the
weights for calculating the impact scores for the LIS in Angola.
-
Roads and paths blocked (2 points)
-
Housing blocked (1 point)
174
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – A N N E x E S
-
Other infrastructure blocked (1 point)
-
Fixed pasture blocked (1 point)
-
Access to drinking water blocked (1 point)
-
Access to other water blocked (1 point)
-
Irrigated cropland blocked (1 point)
-
Rain-fed cropland blocked (1 point)
-
Nonagricultural land blocked (1 point)
The third scoring component involves points awarded if the community has had
“recent victims,” defined as people killed or injured by mines or UXOs in one of the
SHAs in the previous 24 months. Unlike the munitions and socioeconomic impact
blockage components, which provide either a fixed number of points or none, recent
victims award two points each, with no maximum. For example, if there are three
recent victims, six points will be awarded.
All data that contribute to the community score are collected at and linked to
SHAs. However, the community score is calculated for the collective community.
It is important to note that the score is indifferent to the population or territory
of the community and considers neither the number of distinct SHAs nor their
surface area nor their proximity to the center of the community. The indicators only
determine whether a certain type of livelihood or institutional area is blocked by
landmines (or contaminated with unexploded munitions). They do not indicate how
much of it is blocked or what affect the blockage has had on the community. For
example, the LIS determines what the socioeconomic blockages are in each commu-
nity but it does not assess exactly how the blocked area has affected the community.
This can be determined during post-survey follow-up in each community. In other
words, the existence of a problem is the criterion, not a threshold measured by size,
value, population directly affected, or number of alternatives. Similarly, in the area of
the scoring that deals with type of munitions, the scoring looks only at the presence
of generic landmines and of UXOs, not at numbers laid, subtype, age, or origin. The
Survey Working Group adopted this system for purposes of validity and reliability on
a consensus basis.
IMPACT CATEGORy BOUNDS AND CATEGORIZATION
The survey assigns four impact categories – “no known mine problem,” “low
impact,” “medium impact,” and “high impact” – to the following specified ranges of
impact score:
Impact Score Level of Impact
0 No known mine problem
1–5 Low
6–10 Medium
11 or more High
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
175
Annex VI—
Estimation of Prevalence of
Mine-Affected Communities
Lawrence H. Moulton, Ph.D. / 13-September-2007
o
f the 4,384 communities suspected of being impacted by landmine/UXO during
preliminary opinion collection (POC), 1,755 were found by survey to have no
landmine/UXO contamination, 1,927 were impacted by landmine/UXO, and 702
communities were determined inaccessible, as presented in the Figura beBaixo.
A group of 19,120 communities were identified by POC as not being suspected
of having landmine/UXO contamination and from this group 2,389 (12.5%) were
selected for evaluation in accordance with predetermined false negative sampling
(FNS) procedures. If any sampled community was found to be affected, neighboring
communities were also investigated according to LIS protocol.
ESTIMATION 1
This estimation procedure assumes that the strategy of going to neighboring
communities is equivalent to the full procedure of investigating all communities in
an area in which a sampled ‘not suspected’ community was found to be affected.
Alternatively stated, it is assumed that because of an expected strong spatial correla-
tion, this procedure would have found virtually all affected
communities because of the small chance of having isolated
affected communities being randomly (or even haphazardly)
distributed throughout a district.
There were 702 communities deemed ‘inaccessible.’
Under the assumption that the inaccessibility was due
to factors unrelated to mine prevalence, the estimated
proportion (prevalence) of affected communities among
the 23,504 communities in Angola is simply (1,927+61) /
(23,504-702)= 0.087, or 8.7%. If, however, the inaccessibility
was because these communities, or the routes leading to
them, were affected by landmines, the prevalence estimate
is (702+1,927+61)/23,504 = 0.114, or 11.4%. Under the above
assumptions and classical sampling theory, these estimates
have very little variance associated with them, as the only
uncertainty comes with imputation of a prevalence (either 0%
or 100%) to the 702 inaccessible communities.
SUMMary
Prevalence
Affected communities / all communities
Estimation 1: 8.7%
Inaccessible all impacted: 11.4%

Estimation 2: 9.7%
Inaccessible all impacted: 12.7%
Identifcation rate
Detected/all impacted communities
Best estimate: 87.2%
Inaccessible all impacted: 90.2%
176
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – A N N E x E S
ESTIMATION 2
This estimation approach is carried out under the much milder assumption that the
sampled, investigated communities were representative of the non-sampled (and
non-suspected) communities in the given district. This results in a “worst-case”
scenario, in which we apply the proportion of the sampled communities that are
affected to the number of non-sampled communities to estimate the total affected
communities in a district.
Let N

= SN
h
be the total number of non-suspected communities from which the
samples are drawn, with N
h
the number in the k
th
district. The proportion of affected
communities in a sample of n
h
in a district is given by p
h
= a
h
/ n
h
, and the proportion
of affected communities in all the districts, according to the classic formula for strati-
fied sampling (Cochran, Sampling Techniques, Thi rd Ed. , 1977; Wi l ey, New
York; p.107) is p
st
= N
-1
S
h
N
h
p
h
.
Applying the above formulae, we get p
st
= 0.0185, which we apply to the total
number of unsuspected communities, 19,120, to get an expected 354 affected
communities, of which 61 (17%) have been identified through the false negative
sampling and the subsequent search of neighboring communities. Since 61 of these
were found during the LIS, the expected number of non-identified impacted commu-
nities is 354 – 61 = 293.
The overall estimated prevalence of affected communities among the 23,504 is
therefore 100% x (1927+354)/23504=9.7%, or 100% x (1927+354+702)/23504=12.7% if
the “inaccessible” communities were impacted. For both of these calculations, we
have assumed these inaccessible communities to have been among the Suspected.
The identification rate of all impacted communities in Angola is estimated as 100%
x (1927+61)/(1927+354)=87.2% or 100% x (1927+61+702)/(1927+354+702) = 90.2%,
depending on whether the “inaccessible” communities are considered not impacted
or impacted, respectively...
COMMENTS
We have not calculated 95% confidence intervals for our prevalence and identifi-
cation estimates, as that would lend a perhaps false sense of accuracy to these
numbers. In fact, we have made certain assumptions regarding the nature of the
communities that may incur greater discrepancies than just the sampling error
inherent in the false negative sampling process. There was insufficient information
on the survey processes to be certain the “inaccessible” communities were among
the Suspected; some or all may have been among the Not Suspected, and then
possibly identified as inaccessible only during the clean-up phase around discovered
False Negative communities. In addition, those communities found during the
clean-up phase to be impacted may have been classified as True Positives, instead
of False Negatives. Thus, depending on the actual impact status of the inaccessible
communities, there could be a dozen different configurations of the data. We have
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
177
selected a couple scenarios we feel to be most likely, including the assumption that
all of the inaccessibility of communities was due to their being impacted or blocked
by landmines.
As expected, the prevalence of impacted communities is relatively Alto, on the
magnitude of 1 in 10. The extensive survey efforts, however, have identified around 9
in 10 of all impacted communities.
All Communities
Ìdentified During the Survey
23,504
Suspected Ìmpacted
4,384
PreIiminary
Opinion
CoIIection
FieId
Survey
Findings
False Positives
1,755
Ìnaccessible
702
True Positives
1,927
Selected for FNS
2,389
Not Suspected
Ìmpacted
19,120
True Negatives
2,328
False Negatives
61
Ìmpacted
Communities
1,988
178
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – A N N E x E S
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
179
Annex VII—
Administrative Structures
T
he Landmine Impact Survey in Angola was a CNIDAH and SAC partnership with
the government mine action entity National Institute of Demining (INAD); HALO
Trust, INTERSOS, Mines Advisory Group (MAG), Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA),
and Santa Barbara Foundation (SBF) were implementing partners conducting the
fieldwork.
From June 2003 to June 2005 the SAC Coordination Team in Luanda provided
overall coordination, technical expertise, training and guidance, and monitoring on
the survey methodology in the field, and also supervised operational implementa-
tion, conducted data analysis, and briefed stakeholders. After funding unexpectedly
expired in June 2005, SAC closed its operations in Angola, and in July 2005 CNIDAH
took over the LIS coordination and database function for the remainder of the survey,
with the support of UNDP. In July 2006, with funding from the German government,
SAC assigned a technical advisor who would oversee the completion of the survey in
mid-2007.
UN QUALITy ASSURANCE
United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS) Quality Assurance Monitor (QAM)
Hemi Morete conducted five monitoring missions from 2003 to 2006. The QAM
monitored and documented the project’s progress and the quality of its data, in
accordance with Protocol 10: Certification.
180
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – A N N E x E S
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
181
Annex VIII—List of
Inaccessible Comunas
Province Municipio Comuna
Bengo Bula Atumba Kiaje
Kuando Kubango Rivungo Chipundo
Lunda Norte Kuilo Kaluango
Lunda Norte Kuilo Kuilo
Lunda Norte Lubalo Luangue
Lunda Norte Lubalo Lubalo
Lunda Norte Lubalo Muvulage
Lunda Norte Xi – Muteba Kitapa
Malanje Kangandala Mbembo
Malanje Kirima Karima
Malanje Kirima Sautari
Malanje Lukembo Dombo
Malanje Lukembo Kapunda
Malanje Lukembo Kunga – Palanca
Malanje Lukembo Lukembo
Malanje Lukembo Rimba
Moxico Luxazes Muii
Namibe Timbua Baia dos Tigres
Uíge Bembe Lukunga
Uíge Damba Lemboa
182
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – A N N E x E S
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
183
Annex IX—Abbreviations
Abbreviations
AP Antipersonnel
ASM Advance Survey Mission
AT Antitank
CNIDAH National Intersectoral Commission for Demining
and Humanitarian Assistance
EOD Explosive Ordnance Destruction
FNS False Negative Sampling
GPS Global Positioning System
IDPs Internally Displaced Persons
IMSMA Information Management System for Mine Action
INAD National Institute of Demining
LIS Landmine Impact Survey
MAG Mines Advisory Group
MINARS Ministry of Social Welfare and Reintegration
MoU MemorandumofUnderstanding
MRE Mine Risk Education
NGO Nongovernmental Organization
NPA Norwegian People’s Aid
POC Preliminary Opinion Collection
QAM Quality Assurance Monitor
SAC Survey Action Center
SHA Suspected Hazard Area
SWG Survey Working Group
(continued on next page)
184
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – A N N E x E S
Abbreviations (continued)
UNDP UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgram
UNICEF UnitedNationsChildren’sEmergencyFund
UNMAS UnitedNationsMineActionService
UNOCHA UnitedNationsOfficefortheCoordinationof
Humanitarian Affairs
UNOPS UnitedNationsOfficeforProjectServices
UXO UnexplodedOrdnance
LOCAL TERMS USED
Two local terms are used in the report to describe the administrative boundaries in
the provinces.
Municipio is the highest administrative unit in each province.
Comuna is the administrative unit below municipio.
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
185
Annex X—Finances
T
he LIS was supported by funds from seven donors. A total of $1,473,000 of this
amount went towards the procurement of equipment used to conduct the LIS. In
addition to the above, the government of Angola, including in particular CNIDAH and
INAD, provided significant in-kind contributions to the cost and conduct of the LIS:
SUrvey BUdgeT aNd FUNdiNg
Donor Total
U.S. Department of State $2,400,100
European Commission $2,073,105
Government of Germany $975,000
Government of Norway $620,000
Government of Canada $560,000
Government of Italy $124,958
Government of Ireland $25,000
Total $6,778,163
186
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – A N N E x E S
L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A
187
Annex XI—Photography Credits
Page Caption Photo Credit
9 HALO Trust surveyor crossing a bridge to reach a HALO Trust
village in Benguela
9 HALO Trust community interview in Benguela province Mike Kendellen
23 NPA conducting community interview in Kwanza Sul province NPA
24 HALO Trust community interview in Kuando Kubango HALO Trust
26 A Village in Kwanza Sul NPA
30 A PPM2 AP mine found in a SHA in Huambo province HALO Trust
31 HALO Trust conducting visual inspection Mike Kendellen
32 HALO Trust Survey Officer mapping in Kuito HALO Trust
34 One of many TM57 AT mines found in Cuito Cuanavale, HALO Trust
Kuando Kubango province
34 Improvised Explosive Device on trip wire in Ganda, HALO Trust
Benguela province
50 Pasture and agricultural land in Kwanza Sul province NPA
51 Road in Benguela province Mike Kendellen
51 The NPA survey team driving on the national highway NPA
inUigeprovince
52 Road in Malanje province Mike Kendellen
55 UXOsite NPA
79 Desert with antelope near Iona in Namibe province InterSOS
162 Community mapping in Kwanza Sul province NPA
162 Sorting forms NPA
163 NPA conducting a community interview in Malanje Tom
Haythornthwaite
165 NPA camp in Malanje province NPA
167 TransportingsparetirestothesurveyteamsinUigeprovince NPA
167 Challenging road conditions during the rainy season NPA
188
R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – A N N E x E S

L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A

i

.

................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 57 Update of National Mine Action Database (May 2007) ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 135 Moxico ...................................................................................... 17 Survey Results & Findings Scope of the Landmine Problem ..................Table of Contents Foreword ............................................. 53 Consequences for Mine Action ...................................... 139 Namibe .... 91 Cabinda ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 111 Kwanza Norte ................... 143 Uíge ............................................................ 153 L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 1 .................................... 99 Huíla .......................................... 45 Mine Action Activities ...............127 Lunda Sul........................... 115 Kwanza Sul .................................................................................................................................................................................. 103 Kuando Kubango .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 75 Profiles By Province Bengo ................................................................................................................... 119 Luanda .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................123 Lunda Norte ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 23 Victims and Survivors ...................................................... 35 Impact on Communities ..........................................................................................................................i Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................................................... 83 Benguela ............................................................................................................................................... 131 Malanje...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 95 Huambo ............................................................................................... 7 Background of the Landmine Impact Survey Process .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 147 Zaire ................................................. 107 Kunene ...................................................................................................... 87 Bié ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

.. 73 Results of Implementing the LIS – Reflections of an Operational Partner (Mines Advisory Group) .............................................. 163 Annex III—Project Timeline ....................................................... 187 Case Studies........................................................ by Province ...................................................................................................................................................................... 78 Figures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Impacted Communities.................................................. by Gender ......................................................... 27 Number of SHAs per Impacted Community .................. 167 Annex IV—National Mine Action Strategic Plan 2006–2011................. 185 Annex XI—Photography Credits ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 33 National Mine Action Strategic Plan 2006–2011 Goals ............................................................ 175 Annex VII—Administrative Structures ......Annexes Annex I—Key Participants ................ 39 Distribution of Impact Scores ........... 61 Community Prioritization of Landmine Problem .............................................................................................. 38 Type of Wounds Suffered by Mine Incident Survivors.. 171 Annex V—Scoring and Classification . Figures.......... 29 Mine Victims........... By An LIS Operational Partner (Intersos) .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 45 Communities with Recent Incidents and Victims..... by Impact ................................................ 76 Reflections On The Survey........... 179 Annex VIII—List of Inaccessible Comunas............................................ 159 Annex II—Methodology ................................ 57 CNIDAH Preliminary Guidelines for Use of LIS Results for Provincial Planning.......................................................................................................................................... 47 2 R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S ............ 183 Annex X—Finances ........... by Gender ................ 173 Annex VI—Estimation of Prevalence of Mine-Affected Communities ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Lessons Learned for LIS: Importance of Rigorous Visual Inspection ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. by Age and Gender ..... in the Framework of the National Mine Action Strategic Plan (Summary in Annex IV) ................................................... Maps & Tables Case Studies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 In-Country Mine Action NGOs as Survey Implementing Partners ............................... 35 Recent Victims........................................ 181 Annex IX—Abbreviations....................

.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 100 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Huambo ........................................ 135 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Malanje ................................................................................................................. 97 Mine-Impacted Communities in Huambo .................................................... 95 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Cabinda .........................................................................................................................................................................123 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Luanda .......125 Mine-Impacted Communities in Lunda Norte ................................................................ 137 Mine-Impacted Communities in Moxico ..................................................... 140 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Moxico ............................................................. 121 Mine-Impacted Communities in Luanda ..... 41 Roads and Suspected Hazard Areas ............ 71 Hypothetical Polling Places ...................................................................................................................................... 143 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Namibe ................................................................................... 131 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Lunda Sul ............................... 149 Mine-Impacted Communities in Zaire ........................................... 88 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Benguela.................................... Maps & Tables Maps 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Impacted Communities ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 108 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Kuando Kubango ..... 113 Mine-Impacted Communities in Kwanza Norte ......... 70 Locations of Landmine Victims and Orthopedic Centers .................................................................................................................................................................. 29 Geographical Distribution of Recent Victims .Case Studies................ 104 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Huíla ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 101 Mine-Impacted Communities in Huíla................................................................................................ 112 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Kunene ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... May 2007 .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 145 Mine-Impacted Communities in Uíge ......... 133 Mine-Impacted Communities in Malanje .................................... 85 Mine-Impacted Communities in Benguela ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 84 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Bengo .. 2004 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................116 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Kwanza Norte .................................................................................. 109 Mine-Impacted Communities in Kunene ......8 Roads and Suspected Hazard Areas ......................................................................................................................... 52 Hypothetical Electric Grid and SHAs ............................................................................................................................................................................. Figures...... 92 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Bié ..................................117 Mine-Impacted Communities in Kwanza Sul .............................................................................................. 77 Mine-Impacted Communities in Bengo ........................................................................................................... 10 Overview of Angola .................................................................................................. 155 Area of Survey Operation of LIS Partners ............................................................................................................................................. 153 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Zaire ...................................................................................................................................................... 89 Mine-Impacted Communities in Bié ................. 28 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Impacted Communities .............................................................................................................. 93 Mine-Impacted Communities in Cabinda ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Impacted Communities ............................... 127 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Lunda Norte ................................. 141 Mine-Impacted Communities in Namibe.................................................................................... 76 Impacted Communities in Huambo Province..................................................... 119 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Kwanza Sul ....................... 20 Communities Surveyed and Impact Identified ......................................................................................................................................................... 148 Location of SHAs and Recent Victims in Uíge .......................... 36 Distribution of Recent Victims in Impacted Areas ........................................................................................... 105 Mine-Impacted Communities in Kuando Kubango .................................................................................129 Mine-Impacted Communities in Lunda Sul ................. 72 Impacted Communities in Huambo Province..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 165 L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 3 ............................................................................................................................................................................................

... by Blockage Type ........................................................ by Ground Profile .......................... Recent Victims.......................... 89 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities............................................................ 43 Impact Category Summary .................................................................... 86 Benguela 46 47 48 49 50 51 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations........ by Level of Impact ............. 49 Communities Reporting Blockages......................... SHAs................................................................................................................................................................................ and SHAs..... by Impact Level ............. 66 Communities with At Least Two or At Least Four Mine Incidents................................... 31 Average SHA Area Determined by Each Survey Partner ................. by Province................................................. by Munitions Type ....... by Gender and Occupation ................................................. by Comuna ....... 30 SHAs With and Without Area Estimates ................................. by Settlement Type ..................................... Populations................................................ by Province...................................................................... by Gender ............................................................................................................................. 68 Blocked Health Facilities.................................... 26 Impacted Communities and Populations............ 40 Frequency of Recent Victims in Impacted Communities......................................... 23 Impacted Communities and Populations................................................................................................................................................ by Level of Impact ............. 65 Communities with Blockage of Housing...... 90 4 R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S ............................................................................................................................................ 43 Proximity of SHAs to the Community and Frequency of Victims .......................................................... by Province ..... and SHAs with Victims................ 55 MRE Priority Rankings by MRE Tasking Tool.............................................................. 87 Distribution of Recent Victims..... 84 Activity at the Time of Incident..................... by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact .................................................................. 69 Blocked Education Facilities................................................................................................ and SHAs with Victims................................................................................................................... 46 Impact by Blockage (Without Victims) .......................................................................................... by Province .................................................. 69 Blocked Irrigation...... 83 Distribution of Recent Victims...... 50 Mine Action Activities in Impacted Communities ........ 66 Number of Recent Victims per Community............................and Medium-Impact Communities...................... 63 Individual Resource Blockages to Prioritize Impacted Communities .......................................................................................................... 40 SHAs with Victims....................................... as of May 2007 ............................................ 25 Impacted Comunas and Communities........................................................................................ 87 Activity at the Time of Incident....................................... 89 Number of Impacted Communities.......... 32 Estimated Total Area and Area Reduction with Visual Inspection ........ by Gender .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. by Level of Impact ......................................................................... Incidents................................................................................ Figures... 85 Number of Impacted Communities..................... 30 Number of Impacted Communities and SHAs....................................................... 42 Communities................ 38 Recent Victims............................... by Province .....Case Studies............................................................................... 65 Communities with More Than Three or Six Recent Victims .............................................................................................................................................................. 39 Post-Incident Occupation of Mine Incident Survivors. 47 Inaccessible Comunas ................................................................. by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact . 32 SHAs............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... by Province ............................................................................................ by Province....................................................................................................................................................... by Level of Impact ..................................................................... by Level of Impact .. 69 Update of Impacted Communities........................................................ 34 Recent Victims by Province ......................................................................... 84 Number of SHAs.... 27 Number of SHAs per Community.......................... by Province .. by Comuna ........... 34 Impacted Communities and SHAs.................... by Province ..................................... and Blockages............... by Gender ............................ Incidents.... Recent Victims.................................................................... by Level of Impact........................................... and Blockages..... 37 Activity of Victims at Time of Incident .... 67 SHAs with Victims............ 25 Number of High......................... 88 Number of SHAs............................................................... by Level of Impact ................ 45 Impact Score and Classification of All Impacted Communities ............................. 48 Percentage of Communities Reporting Blocked Access ............................................................................................... 75 Bengo 40 41 42 43 44 45 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations............................................................................................................................................................................................... SHAs.. 85 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities..... by Province.................. by Number of Recent Incidents and Impact Category . by Impact Category ................................................................................... by Province................................. Maps & Tables Tables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Impacted Communities......................................................... 64 Communities with Blockage of Drinking Water...

Tables (continued)
Bié
52 53 54 55 56 57 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact ................................................ 91 Distribution of Recent Victims, Incidents, and SHAs with Victims, by Level of Impact ................................. 92 Activity at the Time of Incident, by Gender .................................................................................................................... 92 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ..................................................................... 93 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ..................................... 93 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna .............................. 94

Cabinda
58 59 60 61 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact ................................................ 96 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ..................................................................... 96 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ..................................... 96 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna .............................. 97

Huambo
62 63 64 65 66 67 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact ................................................ 99 Distribution of Recent Victims, Incidents, and SHAs with Victims, by Level of Impact ............................... 100 Activity at the Time of Incident, by Gender .................................................................................................................. 100 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ................................................................... 101 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ................................... 101 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna ............................ 102

Huíla
68 69 70 71 72 73 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact .............................................. 103 Distribution of Recent Victims, Incidents, and SHAs with Victims, by Level of Impact ............................... 104 Activity at the Time of Incident, by Gender .................................................................................................................. 104 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ................................................................... 105 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ................................... 105 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna ............................ 106

Kuando Kubango
74 75 76 77 78 79 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact .............................................. 107 Distribution of Recent Victims, Incidents, and SHAs with Victims, by Level of Impact ............................... 108 Activity at the Time of Incident, by Gender .................................................................................................................. 108 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ................................................................... 109 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ................................... 109 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna ............................ 110

Kunene
80 81 82 83 84 85 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact ...............................................111 Distribution of Recent Victims, Incidents, and SHAs with Victims, by Level of Impact ............................... 112 Activity at the Time of Incident, by Gender .................................................................................................................. 112 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ................................................................... 113 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ................................... 113 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna .............................114

Kwanza Norte
86 87 88 89 90 91 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact ...............................................115 Distribution of Recent Victims, Incidents, and SHAs with Victims, by Level of Impact ................................116 Activity at the Time of Incident, by Gender ...................................................................................................................116 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ....................................................................117 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ....................................117 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna ............................ 118

Kwanza Sul
92 93 94 95 96 97 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact ..............................................120 Distribution of Recent Victims, Incidents, and SHAs with Victims, by Level of Impact ...............................120 Activity at the Time of Incident, by Gender ..................................................................................................................120 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ...................................................................120 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ................................... 121 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna ............................ 122

L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A

5

Tables (continued)
Luanda
98 99 100 101 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact .............................................. 124 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ................................................................... 124 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ................................... 124 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna ............................ 126

Lunda Norte
102 103 104 105 106 107 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact ..............................................128 Distribution of Recent Victims, Incidents, and SHAs with Victims, by Level of Impact ...............................128 Activity at the Time of Incident, by Gender ..................................................................................................................128 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ...................................................................128 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ...................................129 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna ............................ 130

Lunda Sul
108 109 110 111 112 113 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact .............................................. 132 Distribution of Recent Victims, Incidents, and SHAs with Victims, by Level of Impact ............................... 132 Activity at the Time of Incident, by Gender .................................................................................................................. 132 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ................................................................... 132 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ................................... 133 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna ............................ 134

Malanje
114 115 116 117 118 119 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact .............................................. 136 Distribution of Recent Victims, Incidents, and SHAs with Victims, by Level of Impact ............................... 136 Activity at the Time of Incident, by Gender .................................................................................................................. 136 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ................................................................... 136 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ................................... 137 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna ............................ 137

Moxico
120 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact .............................................. 139 121 Distribution of Recent Victims, Incidents, and SHAs with Victims, by Level of Impact ............................... 140 122 Activity at the Time of Incident, by Gender .................................................................................................................. 140 123 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ................................................................... 141 124 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ................................... 141 125 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna ............................ 142

Namibe
126 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact .............................................. 144 127 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ................................................................... 144 128 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ................................... 144 129 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna ............................ 145

Uíge
130 131 132 133 134 135 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact .............................................. 147 Distribution of Recent Victims, Incidents, and SHAs with Victims, by Level of Impact ............................... 148 Activity at the Time of Incident, by Gender .................................................................................................................. 148 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ................................................................... 149 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ................................... 149 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna ............................ 150

Zaire
136 137 138 139 Number of Impacted Communities and Their Populations, by Level of Impact .............................................. 154 Number of SHAs, by Socioeconomic Blockage and Level of Impact ................................................................... 154 Number of Impacted Communities with Mine Action Activities, by Level of Impact ................................... 154 Number of Impacted Communities, SHAs, Recent Victims, and Blockages, by Comuna ............................ 156

6

R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S

Executive Summary

T

he Angola Landmine Impact Survey (LIS), for which the fieldwork was conducted from April 2004 through May 2007, identified 1,988 mine-impacted communities

and 3,293 suspected hazardous areas (SHAs). It is estimated that 8 percent of the 23,504 communities of Angola are impacted by mines. The LIS identified a total of 341 people killed or injured by mines/UXO during the 24 months preceding the fieldwork in each province. An estimated 2.4 million people, or 17 percent of the national population, live in mine-impacted communities. Of the 1,988 impacted communities, 2 percent were categorized as high impact, with another 23 percent categorized as medium impact. The global averages from other Landmine Impact Surveys for high and medium impact are approximately 10 percent and 30 percent, respectively. Further analysis could determine the cause of the lower-than-expected number of high- and medium-impact communities, although it appears likely that it reflects the positive results of past mine action, community learning, and adaptation since the time when the mines were laid, as well as the relatively low pressure on agricultural land due to the comparatively low density of the rural population in Angola.

SUMMary oF THe LaNdMiNe iMpaCT SUrvey reSULTS Impacted Communities Province
Moxico Bié Kuando Kubango Uíge Kwanza Sul Huambo Benguela Kunene Malanje Bengo Lunda Sul Huíla Zaire Kwanza Norte Lunda Norte Cabinda Namibe Luanda TOTAL Percentage of Total
Total Number High Impact Medium Impact Low Impact

290 282 171 171 169 153 127 126 88 74 73 72 66 64 30 27 3 2 1,988 100%

15 1 1 0 6 2 4 0 4 0 1 1 0 3 2 0 0 0 40 2%

107 60 33 29 33 35 17 7 38 15 31 9 12 22 5 0 1 1 455 23%

168 221 137 142 130 116 106 119 46 59 41 62 54 39 23 27 2 1 1,493 75%

L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A

7

This was a complete countrywide survey. Overall. the LIS reduced the suspected affected area from an ill-defined “30 percent of the national territory” to a very conservatively estimated combined SHA total of less than 1 percent of the national territory.988 impacted communities.000 people (of whom 65 percent were men and 35 percent women) took part in community interviews in the 1.000 took part in interviews in roughly 4.000 communities that were determined to not be impacted. A total of 28. an additional 10. MAp 1 iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS 8 Republic of AngolA – ExECUTIVE SUMMARY . The LIS rechecked the information contained in the previous national minefield database developed by NPA over the period from 1995 to 1998. with all but 19 of the 556 comunas visited and 383 of them found to be impacted.

Malanje and Kwanza Norte. Three-fourths of the victims were male. The most prevalent resource blockages are rain-fed cropland and nonagricultural rural land. Mine risk education (MRE) has been conducted in fully 62 percent of all high-impact communities and 37 percent of all impacted communities. they account for only 35 percent of all impacted communities. Roughly 5 percent of the male victims were reported to be conducting informal village demining when the incident occurred. While the preceding five provinces account for 80 percent of high-impact communities. The LIS pilot tested the revised Survey Working Group (SWG) protocol for more rigorous visual inspection. Slightly more than 75 percent of mine victims were between the ages of 15 and 44. Fewer than 10 percent of the recent victims were under 15 years of age. official mine clearance has occurred in 50 percent of high-impact communities and 21 percent of all mine-affected communities. analysis and project planning and led to several conclusions relevant to mine action: - The survey recorded 341 recent victims. in 173 communities. and an additional 40 percent are found in the four provinces of Kwanza Sul. of whom 168 were fatalities of mine/UXO incidents within the two years preceding the field survey. which is somewhat below the global average of 80 percent.and mediumimpact communities. Similarly. one-third of informal village demining was conducted in medium-impact communities and two-thirds in low-impact communities.The survey data afford extensive opportunities for research. The LIS confirmed the extensive mine action activities that have occurred throughout the country. While there are high. HaLo TrUST CoMMUNiTy iNTerview iN BeNgUeLa HaLo TrUST SUrveyor CroSSiNg a Bridge To reaCH a viLLage iN BeNgUeLa - L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 9 . Informal village demining was reported in 8 percent of all mine-affected communities. although the majority of all mine action activities have been in low-impact communities. There have been proportionately more mine action activities in high. producing a more precise estimate of SHAs.or medium-impact communities in all 18 provinces. Benguela. nearly 40 percent of high-impact communities are found in a single province (Moxico). More than 50 percent of the female victims were engaged in gathering or agriculture at the time of the incident.

health centers. irrigated land. identifying particular communities with blocked schools.. Transportation linkages were widely disrupted by the long civil war. for example. For example. The LIS found that certain blockages are strongly associated with higher-impact communities.MAp 2 The LIS data indicate that SHAs in close proximity to communities do not have a higher likelihood of producing victims. targeting all drinking water blockages would direct roadS aNd SUSpeCTed HaZard areaS 10 Republic of AngolA – ExECUTIVE SUMMARY . Blockages identified by the LIS can be a useful input for planning. The LIS identified a significant number of blockages affecting vehicle and pedestrian travel as illustrated in Map 2 below. etc. although travel by the survey teams was interrupted more by poor road surfaces and the lack of bridges to cross waterways than by mined roads. which should be taken into consideration as part of broader policies rebuilding different sectors.

Germany and the E. Determining how much of this land should be cleared in order to increase food productivity in the country requires a thorough examination of the law on land rights and a cost-benefit analysis comparing clearance costs with future economic benefits. CNIDAH has provided guidelines for the implementation of the National Mine Action Strategy in the context of each province. BACKGROUND AND PROJECT OVERVIEW The Landmine Impact Survey in Angola began with a SAC Advance Survey Mission in October 2002. INTERSOS. - - The National Mine Action Strategy 2006–2011 was designed on the basis of interim results covering 12 provinces and sets goals of resolving 100 percent of high-impact communities and 50 percent of medium-impact communities within its time frame. L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 11 . which provided ready access to the interim data as the LIS was completed in individual provinces. Agricultural land was the most reported blockage. This LIS report provides greater focus and detail regarding the landmine situation in each province to support provincial planning. Canada. SAC opened an office in Luanda to coordinate the LIS. the discussions included agreements in principle with several in-country operators to conduct the LIS. followed by agreements with Mines Advisory Group. This has been promoted by CNIDAH.S. following agreement with the government to conduct the survey with initial funding from the U. SAC prepared and CNIDAH widely circulated two interim reports providing the key data: one in August 2005 on the 10 provinces completed as of May 2005 and the other in October 2006 on the 15 provinces completed as of September 2006. Santa Barbara Foundation and the National Demining Institute in 2004.C. In June 2003. In Angola. During this mission.or medium-impact communities only 35 percent of the time. Formal agreements were signed during the second half of 2003 with HALO Trust and Norwegian People’s Aid.or medium-impact communities 80 percent of the time. while targeting all rain-fed agriculture would lead to high. provincial authorities are responsible for annual operational planning.. Provincial authorities – responsible in Angola for development of annual mine action operational plans – are using the LIS to identify mine-affected communities requiring mine action as part of development plans as well as to prioritize the humanitarian response. Mine action operators and donors are using the results of the LIS to cross-check the selection of tasks to confirm the expected impact of their activities.activities to high. The results of the LIS have already been incorporated into planning and tasking.

UNDP assisted with funding for the database advisor. Seventy-five percent of the impacted communities and a like percentage of SHAs and recent victims are found in just eight of the country’s 18 provinces. SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM The LIS identified 1. and the implementing partners searched for additional direct funding. CNIDAH decided to adopt the SWG default scores. Kuando 12 Republic of AngolA – ExECUTIVE SUMMARY .504 communities in Angola.6 million living in high.or medium-impact communities. in response to the CNIDAH request that SAC return. Impacted communities are not equally distributed throughout the country.988 landmine/UXO-impacted communities in 383 of Angola’s comunas. field activities were once again underway. In mid-2006. Using this ranking system. By August 2005. and activities were subject to periodic review by an UNMAS/UNOPS-supplied quality assurance monitor. IMPACT ON COMMUNITIES The scoring mechanism developed by the Survey Working Group categorizes the communities by their degree of impact. and with funding from Germany. blocked access to resources and the type of munitions contaminating the community. Angola was found to contain 40 high-impact communities. It is estimated that approximately 17 percent of all citizens are living in mine-impacted communities. CNIDAH assumed responsibility for continuing the overall management of the LIS and the development of the database. Sixty percent of impacted communities have a single suspected hazardous area. SAC provided a part-time advisor to CNIDAH for overall guidance and completion of the LIS. but at a slower pace. The scoring system is driven by three elements: the number of victims. The LIS was initially projected to cost about $6 million and be completed by early 2006. LIS implementation was interrupted when SAC faced an unexpected financing shortfall in May 2005. Bié. SAC had to close its office as a result and was unable to contract further with the implementing partners.4 million people live in landmine/UXO-impacted communities. Governments may modify this system within parameters established by the SWG. with a small adjustment to reflect the severe disruption of transportation network by combining the two separate blockages of roadways and pathways into a single blockage worth two points. Thus the scoring system was responsive to national concerns while remaining within the accepted international norm. 455 medium-impact communities and 1. An estimated 2. These impacted communities represent 8 percent of the 23. and 85 percent have one or two SHAs.SAC and the various partners conducted the LIS in accordance with the principles and operating protocols established by the Survey Working Group. The interruption in funding caused a delay in completion and an increase in the overall cost of the survey. with 0.493 low-impact communities.

DONOR ATTENTION TO HIGH. Four provinces have an unduly high number of incidents and recent victims.988 impacted communities in Angola. with at least six recent victims in each community.and medium-impact communities. noted by 42 percent of impacted communities. Analysis of the LIS data indicates that only four high-impact communities would have scored 11 points or more if they had had no victims.AND MEDIUM-IMPACT COMMUNITIES The Angolan National Mine Action Strategy set the goal of resolving the landmine problems of 100 percent of high-impact and 50 percent of medium-impact communities by 2011. Moxico and Uíge are the most heavily impacted provinces. one community with only one suspected hazardous area has had 23 separate incidents resulting in 17 victims over a 24-month period. however. Kwanza Sul. Bié.Kubango. 86 percent of female victims are between 15 and 44 years old. 173 of the 1. Overall. Although all provinces are mine affected. These are extraordinary numbers for one community. MINE VICTIMS The survey identified 341 persons who had come to harm or death due to a mine incident in the 24 months preceding the survey. Nearly 75 percent of all recent victims are in the five provinces of Moxico. The two most frequent activities at the time of the incident were traveling and gathering. resulting in a higher than usual group of “unknowns. the provinces with the fewest mine-affected communities are Luanda. Malanje. A further breakdown of the data reveals an exceptionally high number of incidents and victims in some communities. Blockages of roads were identified by 23 percent of impacted communities. Namibe and Cabinda. This argues for international donor support for the resolution of landmine problems of all high. reported incidents that resulted in victims in the last 24 months. which was reported in 61 percent of the impacted communities.” Seventy-five percent of all recent victims are male. blockage of irrigated land was noted by 5 percent. Recent incidents took place in 169 of the 1. L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 13 . and 75 percent of those are between the ages of 15 and 44 years old. or fewer than 10 percent. This mirrors other data sources that indicate the number of people injured or killed by landmines in Angola has rapidly declined since the end of the conflict in 2002. while drinking water was identified by 7 percent. Malanje and Lunda Norte.988 impacted communities. In Lunda Norte. and that the presence of SHAs and blockages is very similar among high. Many of those killed while traveling were from outside the community and were not known to the local population. Kwanza Sul. IMPACT ON ECONOMIC SECTORS The most commonly reported economic blockage was rain-fed agriculture. Nonagricultural rural land was the second-most-commonly reported blockage.and mediumimpact communities.

but when it confirmed them it also linked them to individual communities. although in this case the information included much more detail than the simple suspicion of contamination. 80 to 90 percent smaller than those provided by the old approach. The LIS results have established new. and the history of landmine/UXO incidents and victims. One of the survey partners (HALO Trust) applied the revised protocol. 14 were in Lunda Norte and Malanje. although. priority setting and operational tasking. and of most other areas within an additional decade. The pilot resulted in more accurate area estimates that are. 14 Republic of AngolA – ExECUTIVE SUMMARY . This was replaced by new information that can be used for long-term planning. the lack of roads and the lack of bridges hindered movement. supported by a community interview that inquired about the socioeconomic blockages. More often. INACCESSIBLE COMMUNITIES Access was better than anticipated during the planning stages. Of the 19 that were not accessible. The resulting area for further work is now estimated to be small enough to permit resolution of all high. after the LIS had begun. The database was used as an element of “expert opinion” to be confirmed in the survey. Landmine contamination on roads was not the major cause of inaccessibility. updated benchmarks that can be used for national and provincial planning and on the basis of which progress and success can now be measured. approximately xx percent of the database was discounted as being out of date and no longer valid.and medium-impact communities in less than 10 years.UPDATE OF EXISTING MINEFIELD DATABASE One of the tasks carried out during the LIS was the validation of the existing national minefield database compiled by NPA beginning in 1995. based on the experience of the LIS in other areas of Angola. The LIS has successfully converted the individual mine site data in the old national database into community data that provide a clearer picture of the true extent of the impact of landmines on Angolan communities. the location of the minefields. without extension or delay in the survey time. it is likely that fewer than 50 percent of the inaccessible communities are impacted by landmines. The LIS not only validated the previous minefields. if current rates of clearance continue. PILOT TEST OF SWG PROTOCOL FOR VISUAL INSPECTION The LIS piloted a much more rigorous visual inspection protocol approved by the SWG in November 2004. This provides a standard for the expectations of the first stage of area reduction that would occur whenever a survey team would return to plan operational work. on average. Over the course of the threeyear fieldwork period. while the others used the traditional approach. The number of mineimpacted communities in the 19 inaccessible comunas is unknown. The survey teams were able to visit all mine-suspected communities in all but 19 of the 557 comunas.

including communities newly categorized as impacted owing to recent victims or new blockages. A monitoring system would also ensure that the database remains consistently maintained. This information should be readily useable by other sectors to ensure their own plans address the landmine problem when it would be an obstacle to their success. An ongoing monitoring process with regular visits to impacted communities would maintain the accuracy and integrity of the LIS over the long term. systematic planning and reporting to donors. schools and health posts can also move forward. Maintaining the database will ensure a baseline for CNIDAH. careful planning to open or build new power lines. etc. health centers. a more comprehensible description of the landmine problem. roads. and the establishment of a post-LIS monitoring system that will capture both humanitarian and development mine action activities as well as incorporate new problems that may be identified to use for measuring progress and impact.and mediumimpact communities are some of the opportunities afforded Angola as a result of the LIS. support to reconstruction and development. which in turn would allow CNIDAH to undertake regular analysis and monitoring to ensure that its program is being targeted effectively. Specifically. it would be beneficial that CNIDAH bring such information proactively to the attention of the other sectors. By maintaining the critical two-year window of information that drives community scoring. irrigation canals. donors and the wider mine action community to measure progress by the mine action program. At the same time. L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 15 .CONSEQUENCES FOR MINE ACTION The results of the LIS afford an examination of the consequences for mine action in Angola. roads. A newly updated database. and a national goal to resolve the landmine impact on high. support to landmine survivors. One of the concerns of all the partners involved in the LIS was to ensure that it would be useful to actors outside as well as within the mine action community. CNIDAH and the provincial authorities would be able to base their annual and long-term planning on current and up-to-date information. The survey findings inform the government’s national mine action strategy and make it possible to plan mine action activities from both humanitarian and development perspectives. A separate tool to prioritize communities for mine risk education is already being used. Priorities can be updated on an ongoing basis to ensure that high-impact communities are kept at the top of the agenda. the LIS provided data on the basis of which CNIDAH designed and the Council of Ministers adopted a national mine action strategic plan that encompasses clear focus on reduction of impact. bridges. The LIS has identified specific communities in each province that suffer from socioeconomic blockages that could impede sector development plans: blocked irrigated land. primary schools. housing. protecting the initial investment in the LIS and ensuring that mine action actors have access to current. reliable information for as long as the mine action program operates.

the United Nations and donors geo-referenced data that will improve their planning and form the basis of their priority settings. Ireland. FUNDING The final cost estimate for the impact survey in Angola was US$6. the government of Ireland through HALO Trust. systematic review of all suspected contamination has better defined the magnitude of the landmine problem in Angola and revealed it to be a problem that can be largely resolved within a realistic planning horizon of one to two decades at current levels of effort. The survey also provides the national authorities. clearing roads. the data from the LIS have transformed the unknown in these areas into information and knowledge. through the United Nations Mine Action Service Voluntary Trust Fund for Mine Action provided funding. NGO or the United Nations is improving agriculture.300 square kilometers of suspected hazardous areas logged in the CNIDAH database at the end of the survey. fencing and MRE. through UNDP. Canada and/or Germany. widows and other vulnerable groups. clearance.8 million. building schools and health clinics.CONCLUSION The LIS in Angola has produced three major findings: first. conducting mine risk education. landmines impact 8 percent of the more than 23. Italy.000 communities in Angola. with a properly focused program of technical survey. landmine contamination is spread throughout the country. Canada and Germany. and third. This report is not a substitute for a national plan. the government of Norway to NPA. the government of Italy and the European Commission (EC). which should significantly reduce the roughly 1. 16 Republic of AngolA – ExECUTIVE SUMMARY . Whether the priority or particular interest of a donor. and the government of Liechtenstein. constructive action to the development of Angola and to end the threat of landmines to its people. the European Community. with mine-affected communities in all provinces. government ministry. Liechtenstein. through SAC. provincial. The data from the LIS provides a tool to use for national and provincial planning. through HALO Trust and MAG. marking. but a limited number of provinces concentrate the majority of the highand medium-impact communities and recent victims. The survey data can be used to set priorities at the national. municipal and community level. The governments of the United States. NOTE The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of the Survey Action Center and CNIDAH and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the United Nations or the governments of the United States. ensuring access to water. or assisting landmine survivors. second. Norway. The challenge now is to use this knowledge to bring about positive. the government of the United States.

regional. With the conclusion of the Landmine Impact Survey in Angola. it is not a listing of minefields – rather. and all data is tied to clearly specified geo-referenced locations. the unit of measure for the landmine problem has been shifted from the number of mines or square meters of contaminated territory. it is not a sample – the LIS is an inventory of all known impacted communities. The LIS provides for the first time a clear definition of the extent of the problem: the number of impacted communities and the number of SHAs affecting those communities. Second. Third. material. The LIS is the initial step in the identification of mine/ERW areas. The next step is targeted area reduction and local cancellation work in the impacted communities identified by the LIS. The data collected during the LIS includes the following: L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 17 .” To fulfill this vision. First. donors. and global levels. donors. impact from landmine contamination is now categorized from the province to the community level. with the LIS taking as its unit of measure communities impacted by landmines. national authorities. and implementing agencies – with a common dataset – one which it is hoped will also prove to be of value to development agencies. as identified by the communities under threat. it is a record of all known Suspected Hazard Areas (SHAs). virtually all the information in the LIS is primary information gathered at the community level from those who live with the threat of landmines in their daily lives. This data is different from pre-survey data in three significant ways. a methodology is employed with the goal of the complete enumeration of every SHA in every impacted community. Landmine Impact Surveys are executed across the globe to meet the rigorous standard established by the Survey Working Group (SWG). First. and financial resources supporting humanitarian mine action at the national. There are two things that the LIS is not. and mine action implementers. The overall LIS vision is to “facilitate the prioritizing of human.Background of the Landmine Impact Survey Process g rowing out of the wide collaborative efforts that led to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and the Mine Ban Treaty. Landmine Impact Surveys provide the three major partners of mine action – national authorities. Second. Landmine Impact Surveys (LIS) are executed to meet the needs of the international humanitarian mine action community.

Access to other water blocked 7. education. community Community reference point and GPS coordinates Name. municipio. Access to drinking water blocked 6. and gender of each recent victim Number of landmine/UXO survivors living in the community Name. if any. Fixed pasture blocked 5. Housing blocked 2. Irrigated cropland blocked 8. health. Nonagricultural land blocked (various types of rural land use) 18 Republic of AngolA – ExECUTIVE SUMMARY .DESCRIPTION OF KEy INFORMATION COLLECTED By THE LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEy Community Background Unique ID of province. and age of participants in community interview Type of settlement Facilities: Transport. comuna. gender. age at time of accident. if any. and survey designation of SHA where accident happened Killed or wounded? Occupation at time of accident and current occupation. infrastructure Current population Main economic base of community Past Mine Action History of armed conflict in the community Mine/UXO awareness provided in the last 24 months Marking/survey carried out in the last 24 months Clearance carried out in the last 24 months Landmine Victims Old victims: Number of people killed by mine/UXO before 24 months ago Old victims: Number of people injured by mine/UXO before 24 months ago Recent victims: Number of people killed by mine/UXO in the last 24 months Recent victims: Number of people injured by mine/UXO in the last 24 months Name. Rain-fed cropland blocked 9. if living Activity when the accident happened Wounds received as a result of accident Description of victim assistance given during the last 24 months Suspected Hazard Area Name. and survey designation of SHA Coordinates and estimated size of SHA Digital photo of sketch map of SHA Contamination type (mine and/or UXO) Terrain: Vegetation type and landscape type Socioeconomic blockages 1. Roads blocked (various type of roads and paths) 3. Other infrastructure blocked (various types of infrastructure) 4.

and socioeconomic impact experienced by local communities. and to use these results to set priorities. the data from the LIS has transformed the unknown in these areas into information and knowledge. It does not relieve national authorities or mine action professionals of their collective responsibility to gain a full understanding of the survey results and information from other sources such as national development plans. and other vulnerable groups. conducting mine risk education (MRE). approximate location. building schools and health clinics. In-Country Mine Action NGOs as Survey Implementing Partners p rior to October 2002. The data from the LIS provides a tool for national and provincial planning. and end-state objectives. SAC sought the input and expressions of interest among the mine action operators regarding cooperation in implementing the LIS. When the LIS was being planned. when analyzed. From the beginning the five international NGOs and the Angolan National Demining Institute (INAD) were actively engaged in the survey process. defines the landmine problem in terms of scale. supporting management decision making at all levels. a nongovernmental organization (NGO). This report is not a substitute for a national plan. are intended to be descriptive in nature. and over the five-year period of the survey their interest and enthusiasm never waned. clearing roads. they made immediate use of the LIS results for their own activities. ensuring access to water. fostering the development of national strategies and operational plans with well-defined immediate. infrastructure. type. municipal. mobilize funding. when the LIS began planning. The survey data can be used to set priorities at the national. intermediate. The challenge now is to use this knowledge to bring about positive. Impact surveys improve the quality of information available. This approach was an attempt to minimize possible conflict of interest and bias based on previous experience in the country. They brought considerable knowledge of how to operate in the country. The idea was to build on existing capacities and knowledge of the landmine situation in the provinces where these mine action operators worked. hazard. widows. and allocate mine action resources in the most effective and rational manner. constructive action in the development of Angola and to end the threat of landmines to its people. provincial. all surveys had been conducted by organizations that were not previously operating in the country.This data. a government ministry. or assisting landmine survivors. and community level. or the United Nations is improving agriculture. stored in the Information Management System for Mine Action (IMSMA) database held in Luanda at the CNIDAH headquarters. Whether the priority or particular interest of a donor. and they remained in the country and able to continue the survey even when the core survey funding was unexpectedly cut short L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 19 . The findings and information presented in this report. providing a comprehensive picture of the nature of the mine and UXO threat experienced by communities in Angola.

however. The true value and nature of the impacts. These are based on best practices in the fields of social science research and mine action. impact surveys are supported by both internal and external quality-control mechanisms. and the six implementing partners.. procedures. the Survey Action Center. readers and end users of the data should make a concentrated effort to comprehend all aspects of the landmine problem and then develop plans to address the problem. MAp 3 overview oF aNgoLa 20 Republic of AngolA – ExECUTIVE SUMMARY . To ensure confidence in the results. instead. cannot be ascertained by a quick tallying of colored dots on a map. Landmine Impact Surveys make a concentrated effort to ensure conformity of methods. and processes. The questionnaire developed for use in Angola was a collective effort of CNIDAH.As a global initiative with a stated goal of standardizing information across countries. All Landmine Impact Surveys measure and score the impact on communities in a uniform manner.

SurveyResults&Findings .

SurveyResults&Findings .

Moxico and Bié.376. Using the Survey Working Group Protocol Eight: Impact Scoring. Table 1 below shows that the LIS categorized 40 communities (2 percent) as high-impact. with Kwanza Sul having slightly more high. In the next grouping. aNd SHas. represent 30 percent of all impacted communities.087 2.and medium-impact communities. The LIS estimates that 2.293 SHAs associated with the impacted communities.717 1.376. It should be noted that although the medium-impact communities represent 23 percent of all impacted communities. As Table 2 (page 25) shows. Kwanza Sul.293 3% 33% 64% 100% 59. The Angolan National Mine Action Strategic Plan 2006–2011 has established that high. each with roughly the same number of impacted communities (approximately 150–170). Map 4 on next page shows the communities surveyed and the impact identified. with a combined 572 impacted communities. This represents between 15 and 20 percent of the people in Angola. popULaTioNS.742 598. There are 3. they contain 33 percent of all SHAs.068 3% 25% 72% 100% L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 23 .493 (75 percent) as low-impact. All 18 provinces in Angola are impacted by landmines. Uíge. They are followed by Kuando Kubango. and 1. adopted by CNIDAH as the basis to categorize impacted communities. although Benguela has three times more highand medium-impact communities than Kunene.493 1. and Huambo. Benguela and Kunene each have the same number of impacted communities (126 and 127). Table 3 (page 25) which provinces have the most high. and the 183 highand medium-impact communities in the two provinces represent 38 percent of all high.717.609 2. and the percentage Npa CoNdUCTiNg CoMMUNiTy iNTerview iN KwaNZa SUL Impact Category High Medium Low Total TAble 1 iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS.988 2% 23% 75% 100% 86 1.and medium-impact communities are a priority. Moxico and Bié provinces experience greater impact than the other provinces.988 communities in all 18 provinces as having been impacted by landmines.120 3.Scope of the Landmine Problem NUMBER OF COMMUNITIES IMPACTED The LIS identified 1.and medium-impact communities in the country.068 people are living in the impacted communities. By iMpaCT CaTegory Communities Number Percentage Number SHAs Percentage Population Number Percentage 40 455 1.and medium-impact communities than the others. 455 (23 percent) as medium-impact. but not all have the same levels of impact.

and medium-impact communities. Kwanza Norte 24 R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S . Malanje has the highest percentage of high. In this regard.MAp 4 CoMMUNiTieS SUrveyed aNd iMpaCT ideNTiFied in each compared to the total number of impacted communities. with more than 48 percent of HaLo TrUST CoMMUNiTy iNTerview iN KUaNdo KUBaNgo impacted communities in the province categorized as high or medium. Lunda Sul and Moxico also have more than 40 percent of their impacted communities as high or medium.

560 8.970 393.388 81.858 267.358 114.376.373 139.988 100% High 15 1 1 0 6 2 4 0 4 0 1 1 0 3 2 0 0 0 40 2% Medium 107 60 33 29 33 35 17 7 38 15 31 9 12 22 5 0 1 1 455 23% Low 168 221 137 142 130 116 106 119 46 59 41 62 54 39 23 27 2 1 1.030 177.521 48. By proviNCe Province Moxico Bié Kuando Kubango Uíge Kwanza Sul Huambo Benguela Kunene Malanje Bengo Lunda Sul Huíla Zaire Kwanza Norte Lunda Norte Cabinda Namibe Luanda Total Percentage of Total Total 290 282 171 171 169 153 127 126 88 74 73 72 66 64 30 27 3 2 1.833 66.888 11.728 134.968 108.872 80. By proviNCe Province Moxico Bié Malanje Kwanza Sul Huambo Kuando Kubango Lunda Sul Uíge Kwanza Norte Benguela Bengo Zaire Huíla Kunene Lunda Norte Luanda Namibe Cabinda Total Total 290 282 88 169 153 171 73 171 64 127 74 66 72 126 30 2 3 27 1.537 2.696 6.TAble 2 iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd popULaTioNS.988 High and Medium Impact 122 61 42 39 37 34 32 29 25 21 15 12 10 7 7 1 1 0 495 High/Medium Impact as Percentage of Total 42% 22% 48% 23% 24% 20% 44% 17% 39% 17% 20% 18% 14% 6% 23% 50% 33% 0% 25% L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 25 .aNd MediUM-iMpaCT CoMMUNiTieS.700 322.052 30.068 TAble 3 NUMBer oF HigH.736 211.493 75% Population 170.

825 2. Kuando Kubango. a total of 17 are located in the four provinces of Kwanza Sul.059 735 394 420 291 23. Malanje. Bié.4 percent of all comunas and 5 percent of impacted comunas) were inaccessible to the LIS survey teams. of the 556 comunas (the smallest territorial administrative unit above the community). By proviNCe Comuna Province Bié Uíge Malanje Benguela Huambo Kwanza Sul Kuando Kubango Moxico Kwanza Norte Bengo Huíla Kunene Zaire Lunda Norte Lunda Sul Cabinda Namibe Luanda Total Total number Impacted Impact-free Impacted Total number Communities Impacted Percentage of Comm. Impacted communities are located throughout the national territory. in all 18 provinces and in 388.489 282 171 88 127 153 169 171 290 64 74 72 126 66 30 73 27 3 2 1.807 2. since 19 comunas (equal to 3. and Kwanza Norte. 15 (38 percent) are located in Moxico. or 69 percent.676 815 540 1. and the remaining eight are located in the six provinces of Huambo.868 1. as described in Table 4 above. Benguela.TAble 4 iMpaCTed CoMUNaS aNd CoMMUNiTieS.997 886 1. 26 R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S . which is 25 percent. The 1.863 426 741 1. a viLLage iN KwaNZa SUL 1 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF IMPACTED COMMUNITIES Of the 40 high-impact communities.208 1. Lunda Norte. These four provinces exceed the average for Angola.988 impacted communities represent 8 percent of the total number of communities nationally.938 1. The other nine provinces do not 1 The actual number of comunas with impacted communities is probably slightly higher. impacted 39 48 55 36 37 36 31 30 31 33 37 20 24 26 14 12 14 33 556 37 37 32 30 29 29 28 26 21 20 19 19 19 17 12 8 3 2 388 2 13 12 6 8 7 3 3 10 13 18 1 5 6 2 4 11 31 155 0 1 8 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 13 2. and Huíla. Lunda Sul.988 10% 8% 5% 7% 5% 8% 19% 17% 8% 14% 4% 30% 9% 3% 10% 15% 1% 1% 8% follows with 39 percent.

498 9. Huambo. More detail is provided in the Province Profiles section. Figure 1 above and Map 5 on page 28 show the distribution of impacted communities in Angola.002 6. All provinces have medium-impact communities with the exception of Cabinda.055 434 794 733 1. with the greatest number in Moxico (107) and Bié (60).593 457 2.195 L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 27 .515 272.376.068 Mean Population 837 794 1.287 11.895 5. Kuando Kubango. TAble 5 iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd popULaTioNS. each with between 31 and 38 medium-impact communities.775 505.392 564.figuRe 1 iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS. By SeTTLeMeNT Type Impacted Communities 1.185 343 298 100 22 18 15 6 1 1.549 14. Kwanza Sul. By proviNCe have any high-impact communities. followed by the five provinces of Malanje. and Lunda Sul.099 457 1.988 Settlement Type Compact community Dispersed Community Suburban Urban Temporary Community Other Unknown IDP Refugee Camp Total Population 991.

Table 5 on page 27 illustrates the variety of settlements impacted by landmines.000 communities. Map 6 on next page illustrates the distribution and location of the SHAs in impacted communities. or 8 percent. Seven of the impacted communities were identified as internally displaced person (IDP) or refugee camps. these four provinces contain one-half of the SHAs in Angola. are impacted by landmines. Of these. SUSPECTED HAZARD AREAS (SHAs) The LIS identified 3.195 people per impacted community. 1. or 30 percent of all SHAs in the country.988 impacted communities in the 18 provinces of Angola. When the number of SHAs in Uíge and Kuando Kubango are added to the totals from Moxico and Bié.MAp 5 iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS Angola comprises more than 23.376.988. resulting in an average of 1.293 SHAs in the 1.068 people live in the impacted communities. Table 6 on page 30 shows that Moxico and Bié have a combined 965 SHAs. 28 R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S . An estimated 2.

MAp 6 LoCaTioN oF SHas aNd reCeNT viCTiMS iN iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS figuRe 2 NUMBer oF SHas per iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTy L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 29 .

2% 0 2 0 2 0. TAble 7 NUMBer oF SHas per CoMMUNiTy.66.5% 1. By proviNCe Impacted Communities Province Moxico Bié Kuando Kubango Uíge Kwanza Sul Huambo Benguela Kunene Malanje Bengo Lunda Sul Huíla Zaire Kwanza Norte Lunda Norte Cabinda Namibe Luanda Total Number Percentage Number SHAs Percentage 290 282 171 171 169 153 127 126 88 74 73 72 66 64 30 27 3 2 1. ranging from one to ten.TAble 6 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd SHas.1% 0 0 0 0 0% 0 1 0 1 0. Further investigation is required in the 40 impacted communities with five or more SHAs (Table 7) to better understand the impact of this situation.4% 0. reporting only one SHA. which is consistent with the global norm determined by other Landmine Impact Surveys.037 1.2% 0.169 communities. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Number of SHAs in Each Community Impact Category High Medium Low Total Percent of Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total 40 455 1.988 15% 14% 9% 9% 9% 8% 6% 6% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 1.1% 100% 522 443 325 312 269 206 190 160 165 116 151 108 106 125 45 37 11 2 3. or 1.1% 0.493 1.7% 0 3 1 4 0.293 16% 13% 10% 9% 8% 6% 6% 5% 5% 4% 5% 3% 3% 4% 1. The average number of SHAs per impacted community is 1. with 59 percent.4% 1.05% 30 R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S .3% 0.1% 100% a ppM2 ap MiNe iN aN SHa iN HUaMBo proviNCe Figure 2 and Table 7 show the number of SHAs per impacted community.988 100% 16 116 1.169 59% 14 160 348 522 26% 3 112 66 181 9% 4 43 29 76 4% 1 12 6 19 1% 2 6 6 14 0.

293 Rigorous Visual Inspection The Survey Working Group LIS Protocols require that during the community interview SHAs identified by the community should be verified through a visual inspection from a safe viewing point. The LIS in Angola. LIS survey teams usually estimate the extent of contaminated area of the SHAs.617 (79%) Without Area Estimate 10 204 483 699 (21%) Total SHAs 86 1. High Medium Low Total TAble 8 SHas wiTH aNd wiTHoUT area eSTiMaTeS With Area Estimate 76 883 1. The average SHA size measured by the more precise HALO Trust measurements was about one-sixth of the overall average size. and Kuando Kubango) 2 Since HALO Trust accounts for one-third of all SHAs. One of the most common metrics used in planning is the amount of mineaffected area. providing its survey staff with appropriate training and equipment. Huambo. one might suspect that it subdivided larger SHAs into multiple smaller ones. Bié. However. equipment. or teams. has resulted in smaller area estimates for SHAs. Table 8 provides a summary of the information collected for each category of impacted community. while the remaining implementing partners conducted their work under the old protocol. 2 HaLo TrUST CoNdUCTiNg viSUaL iNSpeCTioN While the LIS was underway. through a very rigorous visual verification methodology applied by HALO Trust. providing Angola with a more accurate picture of the minecontaminated area in the HALO Trust–surveyed provinces.087 2.120 3. although the quantity of suspected land cleared or remaining does not measure the impact removed or remaining. the area estimates of the SHAs have provided results that led to disagreements over the actual extent of the landmine problem in terms of the suspected hazard area. whether they be funds. review of the LIS data indicates that the average number of SHAs per community identified by HALO Trust does not differ significantly from those of the other implementing partners. along with where and how to allocate resources. the UNMAS Quality Assurance Monitor wrote the following: “HALO’s decision to apply additional effort in determining the size of SHAs has provided these four provinces (Benguela. The end result was a significant improvement in the LIS process. which suggests that it did not identify multiple SHAs where other partners would have reported only one. Table 9 indicates the results. and an estimate of the size of the SHA should be determined. and about one-ninth of the other partners average sizes. As the revised protocol was adopted after the beginning of the LIS. Such estimates were made in about 80 percent of the cases in Angola. In some Landmine Impact Surveys prior to the one in Angola. HALO Trust volunteered to test the new protocol in Angola. in November 2004 the SWG adopted a revised and more stringent protocol for visual inspection of SHAs. Because of this problem. L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 31 .657 2.Extent of Suspect Area Many factors and data elements are considered during the planning process.

based on the revised visual inspection protocol as conducted by HALO Trust and applying a more conservative reduction to only one-fifth of the original estimate. and SAC have used this reduction (85 percent) to more accurately estimate a realistic size of the problem nationally. The accuracy of the SHA sizes is demonstrated by the relatively small SHAs in the HALO provinces – an average of 46.05 0. UNDP. HaLo TrUST SUrvey oFFiCer MappiNg iN KUiTo Table 10 presents the extrapolation of the LIS-estimated SHA area.” average SHa area deTerMiNed By eaCH SUrvey parTNer Operator INAD MAG INTERSOS NPA SBF Subtotal HALO Trust Total SHA 81 676 119 977 276 2.TAble 9 with very accurate data with which to plan and conduct clearance and follow-on activities.23 0.164 3.62 0.129 1. These figures suggest that.44 0.05 sq km) compared to 433.31 0. the total area remaining for further area reduction and clearance or other treatment will be eSTiMaTed ToTaL area aNd area redUCTioN wiTH viSUaL iNSpeCTioN Community Impact Level High Medium Low Total Estimated Total SHA Area (sq km) 40 388 811 1.3 CNIDAH. The results of the more precise SHA survey provide an upper estimate of current suspect hazardous area and a realistic estimate of the area to be treated. This reduced figure has been key to the realistic planning described in Angola’s National Strategic Mine Action Plan. following the systematic and more precise estimation of each SHA’s area at the beginning of operational TAble 10 planning for each task.000m2 (0.43 sq km) across the country as a whole.239 Estimated Area on Basis of Revised Protocol VI (sq km) 8 78 162 248 32 R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S .293 Average Area (sq km) 0.49 0.000 m2 (0.44 0.

cutting firewood. before they had dispersed to attend to daily chores such as plowing fields and tending to crops. which then very accurately calculates the actual area within the boundaries of the recorded SHA. whilst the use of compass and measuring tape is not difficult or new to technical surveying. In particular. Lessons Learned for LIS: Importance of Rigorous Visual Inspection Referring to the use of the revised visual inspection protocol. going to school). prismatic compasses. During the morning session it was then possible to ascertain which individuals had best knowledge of the SHA. in the case of children. the use of laser range finders makes the process far easier and quicker and safer. HALO firmly believed that by tapping their additional skills greater value would be added to the end product. the more experienced HALO teams were tasked to conduct precise visual inspection and report the results on the IMSMA Level 2 survey forms. resultant polygon maps can be checked using simple software such as Map Maker (www. The equipment needed is relatively inexpensive. This was mainly because community visits were arranged for early morning when most villagers were at home (i. Of greatest significance was the ability to more accurately map and record the physical boundaries of the SHAs by using modern equipment such as GPS.approximately 250 square kilometers. and they were asked to accompany the surveyors for a closer reconnaissance later in the day. and 86 square kilometers for high. This is unfortunate since the size of the suspected mineaffected areas is one of the most important pieces of information required for planning future activities. The fear that this extra requirement would slow down the progress of the survey never materialized. and laser range finders to draw polygon maps. Importantly. and being light and portable it did little to hinder the survey or the teams. HALO Trust says that the new SWG protocol “is probably the most significant improvement to the LIS output. watching over cattle.com). or. Previous Landmine Impact Survey estimates of the size of the affected area have significantly inflated the size of the problem.e.mapmaker. Thus the HALO surveyors were able to use much of the remaining day to confirm many more technical details normally required by mine clearance operators before clearance operation can commence..and medium-impact communities combined. On return to base locations.” L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 33 . concurrent to conducting the normal LIS community survey. From the outset of the survey HALO made the decision to dedicate experienced mine clearance surveyors to the survey. including less than 10 square kilometers for high-impact communities.

988 Number of SHAs 455 424 144 64 1.326 3. UXO AT & UXO Subtotal Unmixed AP Only AT Only UXO Only Subtotal Unknown Total Number of Communities 310 288 108 47 753 968 172 20 1. AT. As indicated in Table 11.028 178 3. KUaNdo KUBaNgo proviNCe ied oN Trip wire. By groUNd proFiLe SHAs Ground Profile Gully Hills Other Mountainous Flat Total Number Percentage Trees Tall Grass Short Grass Bushes 8 303 297 359 2.700 289 39 2.160 75 1.293 Percent of Estimated Area 9% 22% 7% 4% 42% 48% 1% 1% 50% 8% 100% 34 R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S . oNe oF MaNy TM57 aT MiNeS iN CUiTo CUaNavaLe. as reflected in Table 12.400 4 115 133 166 1. By MUNiTioNS Type Ordnance Type Mixed AP & AT AP & UXO AP. Vegetation Type Other SHas. BeNgUeLa proviNCe TAble 12 iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd SHas.25% 9% 9% 11% 71% 100% 0 5 3 10 58 76 4 173 128 179 916 1.723. The number of SHAs reported to have AT mines is 952 and the number reported to have AP mines is 2.GROUND PROFILE AND ORDNANCE CLASS OF CONTAMINATED LAND Ground Profile in Impacted Communities The LIS provides information on the profile of the suspected contaminated land in impacted communities. nearly three-fourths of the known contaminated land is TAble 11 flat and covered with low growth.293 0.293 1. gaNda.711 0 4 1 2 22 29 0 6 32 2 37 77 Contaminated Land by Ordnance Class The LIS results indicate that 58 percent of impacted communities (and 62 percent of SHAs) have only a single type of ordnance.087 1.

where the rate is closer to 60 percent and sometimes as high as 70 percent. or 68 percent. More recent victims were identified in Moxico than in any other province. By geNder Map 7 shows the geographical distribution of the recent victims identified during the LIS. or 23 percent. When discarding the unknown fate of 14 of the recent victims. L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 35 . the number of injured and the number killed are the same. were female. The fatality rate for the female and male casualties was essentially the same. the gender is unknown among 9 percent of the recent victims.Victims and Survivors VICTIMS OF MINE INCIDENTS Figure 3 below shows that of the 341 casualties. The survivor rate of 50 percent is lower than in most other mine-affected countries. 232. figuRe 3 MiNe viCTiMS. were male and 79.

one-third of the recent victims identified during the LIS are in Moxico province. only two recent victims were reported. Kwanza Sul. In 2002 Uíge was reporting more casualties from landmine accidents 36 R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S . meaning that one-half of the casualties have occurred in just two provinces. and Benguela have between 20 and 30 recent victims. Malanje. and is also a reflection of the survey’s timing. Lunda Norte. This low number of recent victims in Uíge represents the trend in recent victims throughout Angola. These six provinces contain 80 percent of the recent victims identified in the LIS. Seventeen percent of the recent victims are in Bié. Despite a relatively large number of impacted communities and SHAs in Uíge.MAp 7 geograpHiCaL diSTriBUTioN oF reCeNT viCTiMS As Map 7 and Table 13 indicate.

a higher portion of the recent victims aged 30–44 are women. L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 37 . The four provinces of Namibe. The fact that these activities are usually performed by women may largely account for why the casualty rate among females aged 30–44 is 35 percent. Compared with other countries. Province Moxico Bié Kwanza Sul Malanje Lunda Norte TAble 13 reCeNT viCTiMS By proviNCe Recent Victims Number Percentage 111 58 30 26 25 20 18 15 13 7 7 7 2 2 0 0 0 0 341 33% 17% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% DEMOGRAPHy OF RECENT VICTIMS The age and gender breakdown of recent victims as identified by the LIS is close to the global norm for landmine casualties.than all but two other provinces. Table 14 details the activities that victims were engaged in at the time of their landmine incident. Cabinda. and more than three-quarters of the recent victims were aged 15–44. and Zaire recorded no recent victims in the two years prior to the survey being conducted in the province. as is the case in 30 percent of the incidents. Five years later Uíge is on the opposite end. Luanda. or 11 percent. with nearly the least casualties of the provinces reporting recent victims. Figure 4 below shows that 39 of the recent victims. The next most common activities were collecting firewood and water and farming. were between 5 and 14 years of age. The most common activity at the time of the Benguela Kwanza Norte Huambo Huíla Lunda Sul Kunene Kuando Kubango Bengo Uíge Luanda Cabinda Zaire Namibe Total incident was traveling.

suffered by a majority of mine incident survivors both men and women. by gender. followed closely by “unknown” and farmers. 38 R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S . By age aNd geNder TAble 14 aCTiviTy oF viCTiMS aT TiMe oF iNCideNT Activity Traveling Collection Farming Other Unknown Household Work Hunting Unofficial Demining Playing Herding Tampering Fishing Total Male 59 36 21 30 21 6 15 12 10 11 7 4 232 Female 17 24 16 4 3 10 1 0 4 0 0 0 79 Unknown 25 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 30 Total 101 60 37 34 25 16 16 16 14 11 7 4 341 Percentage 30% 17% 11% 10% 7% 5% 5% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 100% Figure 5 shows that amputations are the most common injury. Table 15 indicates the occupation. of mine victims. the most common occupation is farmer. For women. The largest single category among men is military. for more than 50 percent of female mine victims.figuRe 4 reCeNT viCTiMS.

By geNder aNd oCCUpaTioN Occupation Farmer Unknown Soldier Student Household Worker Other Unemployed Hunter Trader Herder Office Worker Artisan Fisherman Grand Total Male 41 30 48 33 14 16 16 14 7 6 4 1 2 232 Female 42 7 1 4 14 1 0 1 7 0 0 2 0 79 Unknown 0 27 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 Total 83 64 52 37 28 17 16 15 14 6 4 3 2 341 Percentage 24% 19% 15% 11% 8% 5% 5% 4% 4% 2% 1% 1% 1% 100% Table 16 shows the change in job status among the landmine survivors. After the incident there are only 14 farmers among the 37. It is also worth noting that 12 of the 18 survivors who were in the military at the time of the incident are still in the military. While this denotes a movement away from farming as a result of their injuries it is interesting to note that 18 others became farmers after the incidents. Before the incidents among the survivors there were 37 farmers. By geNder TAble 15 reCeNT viCTiMS. Although the data is not L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 39 .figuRe 5 Type oF woUNdS SUFFered By MiNe iNCideNT SUrvivorS.

819 108 28 15 5 5 2 1 3 1 1 1.4% 1.05% 100. TAble 16 poST-iNCideNT oCCUpaTioN oF MiNe iNCideNT SUrvivorS.5% 5.25% 0.988 Percentage of All Impacted Communities 91.75% 0. By geNder Occupation Before the Incident Artisan Farmer Fisherman Herder House Worker Hunter Soldier Office Worker Student Trader Other Unknown TOTAL 2 1 1 2 2 32 2 1 2 11 2 12 2 14 2 6 1 5 2 3 2 Occupation After the Incident Artisan Farmer Fisherman Herder House Worker Hunter Soldier Office Worker Student Trader Other Unknown Total 2 37 1 2 14 1 1 1 4 2 1 11 1 1 12 1 4 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 14 39 2 4 1 1 1 13 1 11 5 18 3 19 3 7 18 125 TAble 17 FreqUeNCy oF reCeNT viCTiMS iN iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS Number of Recent Victims in the Community 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 11 16 17 Total Number of Communities of Recent Victims with This Number 1.complete in this area as many of the occupations of the survivors was not known at the time of interview the data is indicative that landmine injuries cause major shifts in employment status.15% 0.00% 40 R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S .05% 0.4% 0.05% 0.25% 0.10% 0.

The number of recent victims ranges from zero in the vast majority of cases to as high as 17 in one case. The LIS recorded a total of 341 recent victims in 173 SHAs in a total of 169 communities.MAp 8 diSTriBUTioN oF reCeNT viCTiMS iN iMpaCTed areaS RECENT VICTIMS PER SHA The number of recent victims is an important measure of the impact of landmines on the community. which indicate there were roughly 100 L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 41 . a single SHA produced the victims. In 98 percent of communities with victims. and since the LIS considers as recent victims those casualties of mine incidents within two years of the respective interview. Since the LIS fieldwork occurred over a three-year period. Ninety-one percent of impacted communities reported no recent victims. the LIS includes individual casualties from different times during the period of years 2002 to 2007. and largely determines which communities have high-impact. The number of victims is consistent with annual records compiled by CNIDAH. The full distribution is shown in Map 8 and Table 17 above.

The vast majority of low. and the remaining provinces have fewer than ten. while seven out of 40 high-impact communities had no recent incidents. as shown in Table 18. Malanje. TAble 18 SHas wiTH viCTiMS. Table 19 presents the distribution of recent incidents by impact category. Kwanza Sul. 42 R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S . There were recent victims in 15 of the 18 provinces. and one high-impact community had 23. By proviNCe SHAs with Victims Number Percentage Province Moxico Bié Malanje Huambo Kwanza Sul Benguela Kuando Kubango Huíla Lunda Norte Lunda Sul Kunene Kwanza Norte Bengo Uíge Luanda Cabinda Namibe Total Recent Victims Number Percentage 51 37 14 12 12 8 7 6 6 6 5 5 2 2 0 0 0 173 29% 21% 8% 7% 7% 5% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 100% 111 58 26 15 30 20 7 13 25 7 7 18 2 2 0 0 0 341 33% 17% 7% 4% 9% 6% 2% 4% 7% 2% 2% 5% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 100% The number of recent incidents is another important indicator of the impact and continuing threat of landmines in specific communities. with Moxico and Bié combined accounting for 50 percent of the total.and medium-impact communities have had no recent incidents. and Huambo have 12–14 SHAs with recent victims.new mine victims in 2005 and 125 in 2006.

Instead. One question raised was whether other dimensions of risk should be considered when assessing impact.120 1 2 3 4 5 0 15 L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 43 . Specifically.293 Total Victim 9 3 83 58 187 1 341 6 0 27 16 36 1 86 5 0 48 27 98 0 178 30 31 262 242 509 13 1087 3 1 32 27 84 1 148 64 50 464 444 1. and death. This is consistent with the results of a similar analysis conducted on the basis of the Afghanistan LIS. By NUMBer oF reCeNT iNCideNTS aNd iMpaCT CaTegory Impact Category High Medium Low Grand Total Communities. The LIS indicates that SHAs in close proximity to a community generally are not more likely to result in victims. While there may be good reasons to clear minefields in close proximity to settlements. by Number of Recent Incidents 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 23 Total 40 455 1.623 34 3. PROXIMITy AND RISK As the LIS was being carried out.807 10 88 28 126 6 19 3 28 5 5 1 11 4 2 0 6 4 2 0 6 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 Furthermore. it is also possible that members of a community would know well those SHAs in the immediate proximity and therefore would have adopted behaviors that reduce risk caused by such “environmental” hazards. there was rich discussion among the survey-implementing partners regarding the meaning of the impact score. the LIS indicates that victims of UXO incidents are more strongly associated with medium-impact communities.493 1. as indicated in Table 20.988 7 339 1. While this is an intuitively sensible conclusion.461 1. TAble 20 proxiMiTy oF SHas To THe CoMMUNiTy aNd FreqUeNCy oF viCTiMS High SHA Victim Distance Less than 50m 50–100m 100–500m 500–1000m More than 1000m Unknown Total Medium SHA Victim SHA Low Victim Total SHA 100 81 753 702 1. greater risk to the inhabitants does not seem to be one of them. it was suggested that SHAs in the immediate proximity of a community create higher risk of incident.TAble 19 CoMMUNiTieS.078 20 2. the LIS clearly shows that the risk at any distance depends primarily on the impact category of the community and that those SHAs more than one kilometer from the community appear to cause the greatest risk. injury. while victims who encountered antivehicle mines are most strongly associated with high-impact communities.

44 R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S .

and 11 or more points = high impact). indicating the number of impacted communities and SHAs associated with each community impact score. medium.493 1. Table 21 shows that 40 impacted communities (2 percent) were categorized as high-impact. 6–10 points = medium impact. The LIS identifies and categorizes the impact and assigns each surveyed community an impact score indicating relative severity. and high-impact scores. using a framework common to all Landmine Impact Surveys (0–5 points = low impact. figuRe 6 TAble 21 iMpaCT CaTegory SUMMary Impact Category High Medium Low Total Communities Number Percentage 40 455 1. medium-. and 1. followed by scores of diSTriBUTioN oF iMpaCT SCoreS L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 45 .Impact on Communities L andmines and UXOs adversely impact communities in a variety of ways. Figure 6 presents the distribution of low-. This score is based on three important factors: - The number of recent victims (within 24 months preceding the survey) The number of different types of socioeconomic and institutional blockages The nature of the munitions (landmines and/or UXOs) present Impact scores are used to classify communities’ impacts as low.493 (75 percent) as low-impact. The most frequent community impact score was 4. 455 (23 percent) as mediumimpact. or high.988 2% 23% 75% 100% RANGE OF IMPACT ON COMMUNITIES Community impact scores in Angola range from 1 to 38.

A score of 3 or 4 is most frequently the result of having one or two SHAs producing two socioeconomic blockages to community activities. 381. There were 689. The iMpaCT SCore aNd CLaSSiFiCaTioN oF aLL iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS Impact Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 22 26 27 28 37 38 Total Recent Incident 0 0 3 16 18 44 38 43 18 16 16 14 10 9 4 11 1 11 9 2 10 1 1 23 318 Recent Victim 0 0 0 1 14 36 39 37 19 17 20 21 13 9 8 15 6 11 9 11 11 11 16 17 341 community is in Lunda Norte where little mine action has occurred. Other communities reported only one or two incidents but with at least six recent victims. respectively. This community has only one SHA. the community with the highest impact score – 38 – has had 23 incidents over a 24-month period resulting in 17 recent victims. 46 R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S .450. The mean score is 4. which includes 73 percent of all impacted communities.88. These are all “low” impact scores. as show in Table 22 and illustrated in Figure 7. The table shows several communities with many incidents and recent victims as well as communities with few incidents but with a high number of victims. The figure shows that 12 impacted communities had scores of 16 to 38. These incidents occurred in 173 SHAs associated with 170 communities and produced 341 recent victims. the score most often received) was 4.. with these three scores. Most notably. The LIS recorded more than 30 mine incidents in which there were no injuries or fatalities.TAble 22 3 and then 5. for a combined total of 1. This community should be high priority for further investigation. Overall. and 380 communities.e. there were a total of 318 incidents reported during the two years preceding the LIS. All of these communities are categorized as high impact. The modal score (i. At the same time 16 communities with a score of 4 – the most frequently reported score – reported 15 incidents without victims.

and for high-impact communities without victims it is 5.figuRe 7 CoMMUNiTieS wiTH reCeNT iNCideNTS aNd viCTiMS.493 1. By iMpaCT COMMUNITy IMPACT SCORES WITH AND WITHOUT RECENT VICTIMS Since victims are such an important part of the LIS impact score.and even some low-impact communities is the number of recent victims. The number and extent of socioeconomic blockages are very similar in high. Arguably. for medium-impact it is 6. and are much greater than those in low-impact communities. it is worthwhile to consider the scores that would exist without victims.988 0 0 1 1 0 1 43 44 0 7 395 402 5 44 688 737 11 32 366 409 10 200 0 210 3 92 0 95 2 50 0 52 3 18 0 21 2 11 0 13 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 47 . The range of impact scores without considering recent victims is from 1 to 13. what distinguishes a high-impact community from a medium. The 50 medium-impact communities with impact scores of 9 or 10 are one incident away from being categorized as high-impact. The modal score for low-impact communities without victims is 4. as shown in Table 23. The narrow distinction between high and medium impact TAble 23 iMpaCT By BLoCKage (wiTHoUT viCTiMS) Impact Score (Without Victims) Impact High Medium Low Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Total 40 455 1. with only four communities having scores of 11 or higher (high-impact) without victims. in Angola.and medium-impact communities.

A limited number of communities suspected of being impacted were not covered by the LIS because the survey teams could not reach them or because the survey team was unable to find local inhabitants to interview. new communities formed since the LIS are not necessarily included in the original dataset. mainly lack of roads. no more and probably much less than 50 percent of the inaccessible communities may have been impacted. but the most commonly identified are blockage of economic activity (farming. health centers. They are located in 19 of the nation’s 557 comunas. listed by province in Table 24 below. and blockage of transit to other locations (roads. Based on LIS experience in Angola. More analysis regarding the number of recent victims and SHAs causing accidents can be found in the Consequences for Mine Action section under Priority to SHAs with Recent Victims.988 communities as having been impacted by landmines. trading). and in some cases landmine contamination. Table 25 below ranks resource type by the percentage of communi- 48 R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S . lack of bridges. iNaCCeSSiBLe CoMUNaS Total Comunas 33 36 39 12 37 37 31 20 31 36 33 26 14 55 30 14 48 25 557 Province Bengo Benguela Bié Cabinda Huambo Huíla Kuando Kubango Kunene Kwanza Norte Kwanza Sul Luanda Lunda Norte Lunda Sul Malanje Moxico Namibe Uíge Zaire Total Inaccessible Comunas 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 8 1 1 1 0 19 INACCESSIBLE COMMUNITIES The LIS identified 1. Blockages may be of many forms. housing). They should be surveyed and added to the national mine action database when conditions permit. paths). herding. The exact number of inaccessible communities is unknown. ECONOMIC BLOCKAGE IMPACTS Key informants in the impacted communities pointed to five major types of resources to which landmines and UXOs were blocking access: - Rain-fed cropland Nonagricultural rural land Pasture Roads Infrastructure The core insight underlying the landmine impact survey is that the landmine problem should be understood according to the impact on communities whose normal social and economic activities are blocked.and medium-impact communities to be resolved and why this report combines the two categories for the purpose of analysis.TAble 24 is one of the reasons why the National Mine Action Strategic Plan 2006–2011 prioritizes all cases of high. (In addition.) Inaccessibility was the product of several causes. Thus the LIS seeks to determine the social and economic resources with access blocked by landmines. schools. gathering. Of the 19 inaccessible comunas. 14 are in Lunda Norte and Malanje. blockage of access to basic services (water.

and these blockages affect the daily activities of the rural population.748 1. Nonagricultural land was the second most frequently reported blockage. each of these resources typically serves many more people and their significance is much greater than the comparison of frequency might suggest. Many communities report more than one type of blockage (as a result of which the individual blockages add up to more than the number of communities and SHAs. The most commonly reported economic blockage in impacted communities is rain-fed agriculture..585 154.203 945 529 396 216 188 176 139 53% 37% 29% 16% 12% 7% 6% 5% 4% The three most frequent blockages are to access of rain-fed agriculture. Malanje. Blocked roads are similarly a problem nationwide but are concentrated especially in Moxico.272 1. irrigated agricultural land. and surpass 100 percent). housing. and Uíge. with the majority of the population living in rural areas. and Huambo provinces. housing. TAble 25 perCeNTage oF CoMMUNiTieS reporTiNg BLoCKed aCCeSS Impacted Communities No. and public services.948 183.112 1. L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 49 .094. There is a significant although smaller number of blockages related to drinking water. while blocked roads are a problem especially in the interior.186 152.g. Blocked drinking water is a problem nationwide but is particularly concentrated in Moxico.595 331. and the continuing legacy of blocked transit routes interferes with the recovery and development of the country. and ways/paths were each reported in less than 10 percent of the SHAs. Lunda Sul.ties that reported blocked access to them. Bié. and pasture was third with 35 percent. Similarly. and pasture. Lunda Sul. as shown in Table 26. nonagricultural rural activities (e. Blockages of access to water.954 429. Kuando Kubango. Although the number of such blockages is smaller. % Population No. more than 53 percent of the SHAs are blocking rain-fed agriculture. Kwanza Sul.283 964.655. The next most frequent blockage affects roads. The importance of the different blockages varies among the provinces. gathering fuel and food). and blocked irrigated land is a problem primarily in Moxico. and Kwanza Norte. Transportation and movement were greatly restricted during the long period of conflict. with 61 percent of the impacted communities reporting such a blockage. Angola is an agricultural country.216 840 696 465 323 155 151 133 105 61% 42% 35% 23% 16% 8% 8% 7% 5% 1.448 173. Agricultural resources are blocked throughout the country. Types of Blockage Rain-Fed Agriculture Nonagricultural Land Pasture Roads Infrastructure Other Water Housing Drinking Water Irrigated Agriculture SHAs % 1.

maize.” Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA) found that landmines 50 R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S . In the LIS. Since the spread of peace in 2002. Angola was self-sufficient in food production and exported coffee.216 Province Moxico Bié Kuando Kubango Kwanza Sul Uíge Huambo Benguela Malanje Lunda Sul Kwanza Norte Kunene Huíla Zaire Bengo Lunda Norte Cabinda Luanda Namibe Total Irrigated Land 30 1 21 4 10 2 3 2 18 0 2 5 1 3 0 2 1 0 105 Nonagricultural Land 210 75 70 98 57 62 65 33 51 44 5 15 33 15 3 2 1 1 840 Pasture 79 85 95 55 23 58 75 30 30 17 76 46 10 7 4 3 1 2 696 Roads 71 105 36 16 66 53 19 38 9 4 12 8 11 12 2 2 0 1 465 Housing 39 10 12 7 25 1 5 10 12 4 2 6 8 5 2 3 0 0 151 Infrastructure 93 31 21 20 28 29 8 21 14 15 1 17 5 8 11 0 0 1 323 Other Water 30 2 9 11 9 4 1 24 19 15 2 6 4 11 7 0 1 0 155 Drinking Water 29 2 7 14 9 1 1 16 18 13 1 4 4 9 4 0 1 0 133 Total 745 501 379 334 320 305 256 230 221 157 157 135 124 119 53 37 6 5 4. with 66 percent of the impacted communities reporting blockage to agricultural land. In a 2005 study.TAble 26 CoMMUNiTieS reporTiNg BLoCKageS. By BLoCKage Type RainFed Land 164 190 108 109 93 95 79 56 50 45 56 28 48 49 20 25 1 0 1. and globalization has created more competitive export markets requiring new strategies and investments that have yet to materialize. Angola has struggled to regain its self-sufficiency in food production.084 paSTUre aNd agriCULTUraL LaNd iN KwaNZa SUL Agriculture in Angola Prior to the 40-year conflict. and beans. agricultural land (rain-fed and irrigated) was the most cited socioeconomic blockage. “Right to Land and Livelihood.

landmines are only one of several factors when considering food security and agricultural production. L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 51 . A program that includes clearing agricultural land should also include support to small farmers in the form of credit. it can identify many roads and road segments that are blocked. THe Npa SUrvey TeaM driviNg oN THe NaTioNaL HigHway iN Uíge 3 Paulo Filipe. The study concluded with the question of whether mine action can lead to more access to agricultural land and improved access to land – a complex social. and training. transportation. While the LIS is not designed as a road survey. and Sumbe Municipios. The LIS only identified agricultural land as a socioeconomic blockage. fertilizer.” NPA. tools. it did not identify the owners of the land or its potential use. interfering with local and national recovery as well as plans for elections and future development.hindered the expansion of land under communal use. irrigation systems. Amboim. roads. historical. What investments are being planned for fertilizers. technical assistance. However. energy. Small farmers have traditionally been the backbone of agricultural production in Angola. 2005. “The Right to Land and Livelihood: The Dynamics of Land Tenure Systems in Conda. and political issue that is beyond the scope of this report. page 9. road iN BeNgUeLa 3 Roads in Angola The lost ability to safely travel and transport goods has been one of the lasting effects of the long conflict in Angola. Blockage of roads and paths remains a major problem. and markets? Equally important is the land tenure law and assessing ownership of the land. Map 9 shows the SHAs that are within 25 meters of a road.

road iN MaLaNje MAp 9 roadS aNd SUSpeCTed HaZard areaS 52 R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S .

beginning in 1961 while the country was under Portuguese rule. after the Lusaka Protocol was signed. HALO Trust. and coordination functions. In 1994. based on the number of beneficiaries in the major orthopedic centers in the country and anecdotally supported by the numbers of amputees seen on the streets of Luanda and in the villages of rural Angola. and INTERSOS in 1999. The full extent of landmine contamination in the country has never really been known. until all hostilities ceased in 2002. Road accidents and general surveys by NPA from 1995 to 1998 were other indicators that the people of Angola were severely impacted by landmines. Nevertheless. Subsequently the UN supported the establishment of Angola’s national mine action center. the Angolan National Demining Institute (INAD). in the framework of its peacekeeping mission (UNAVEM III). CNIDAH assumed the lead role in planning. there was substantial evidence that thousands of people were being injured and killed by landmines. the UN supported the establishment of the Central Mine Action Office (CMAO) and the Demining Training Centre (ETAM). and Mines Advisory Group established mine action programs in Malanje. although estimates have placed Angola as one of the most mine-affected countries in the world. the National Institute for the Removal of Explosive Devices (INAROEE). these institutions have evolved L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 53 . Three more international NGOs established mine action programs in subsequent years – MgM in 1996. and Moxico. Landmines were used by all parties. Santa Barbara in 1997. Since 2004. including the various foreign interests involved when Cold War politics played a role in the conflict.Mine Action Activities HISTORy OF LANDMINES IN ANGOLA Angola was mired in conflict for more than 40 years. In 1995. Huambo. the international community and the United Nations launched a major program to minimize the landmine problem in Angola and to develop a national capacity for addressing the landmine problem in the long term. no one was sure what this meant in comparison to other mine-impacted countries. Norwegian People’s Aid. policy making. respectively. and INAD assumed an operational function. In November 2003 INAROEE was dissolved and transformed into a mine clearance organization. SUMMARy OF PAST MINE ACTION International NGOs were the first major mine action operators in Angola. in 1994. The conflict continued after independence in November 1975. Without accurate data.

MRE was the most commonly reported activity. planning. The first phase of this support has been the implementation of an ongoing project in support of CNIDAH at the central level. marking. These activities also reveal the magnitude of potential needs not yet met. or 62 percent. The LIS is intended to ensure that attention is focused 54 R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S . Handicap International established rehabilitation centers and mine risk education work in Huambo. These activities. with both significant national and international support and a national strategic plan with priorities guiding implementers and donors. and resources mobilization at the provincial level. Together with MRE this indicates that the mine action operators have targeted more than one-half of the high-impact communities. and the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation (VVAF) followed in 1995 with the provision of orthopedic services to landmine survivors and people with disabilities in Moxico province. The Executive Commission for Demining (CED) was established in 2005 to coordinate the new national demining capability. UNDP began its activities in support of the present-day institutions for mine action. ICRC continues to provide orthopedic components to organizations that produce prostheses. and quality assurance.and matured. Mine clearance was reported to have occurred in 20 of the 40 high-impact communities. Also in 2003. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) began a victims’ assistance program in Kuito and Huambo in the 1980s and from 1999 in Luanda. to be developed in the Armed Forces (FAA). INAD. mine clearance. and mine victim assistance – that have already taken place in impacted communities. As Table 27 shows. In 2007 the mine action program in Angola is robust and mature. with 37 percent of communities reporting it. although the majority of mine action efforts in all categories have been directed at low-impact communities. information management. are the foundation for future mine action programs. the LIS reported that a large amount of mine action activity occurred in the impacted communities. including 25 of the 40 highimpact communities. and Luanda provinces. LIS-REPORTED MINE ACTION IN IMPACTED COMMUNITIES From April 2004 to May 2007 the LIS gathered information about the nature of mine action activities – MRE. and INAD is responsible for demining operations and management of the mine clearance school. policy creation. Huíla. In 2004 and 2006 Handicap International and VVAF (now Veterans for America) handed the programs over to provincial and national authorities. fencing. Starting in 1994. Benguela. The second phase has been the development of a capacity for mine action coordination. CNIDAH is now focused on strategic coordination and planning. whether implemented by outside agencies or initiated locally. Attached as Annex I are the roles and responsibilities of each institution involved with the LIS. and the National Reconstruction Office (GRN). where they also produced orthopedic parts for making prosthesis. UNICEF has led programming in mine risk education (MRE) through local and international implementing partners.

and medium-impact communities. TAble 27 MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS iN iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS Mine Action Activities MRE Survey Official Clearance Informal Village Demining High (n=40) 25 11 20 1 Medium (n=455) 217 141 136 58 Low (n=1. which will normally prioritize response to high. as already reflected in the National Mine Action Strategy of Angola.as much as possible on where it will have the greatest result in relieving impact on communities.493) 494 242 257 95 Total (n=1.988) 736 394 413 154 Percent 37% 20% 21% 8% Uxo SiTe L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 55 .

56 R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S .

using community-based and mine action operator resources Reduce number of victims to virtually zero by 2011 Refocus MRE on impacted communities and at-risk groups as identified in the LIS and accident data The LIS also provides important data to support Goals 2 and 3. The goals of the Angolan National Mine Action Strategic Plan are in the box below.Consequences for Mine Action MINE ACTION STRATEGy One of the most important uses the LIS serves is as a tool to inform the development of a meaningful and achievable national mine action strategy. National Mine Action Strategic Plan 2006–2011 Goals Goal 1 Significantly reduce the risk to impacted communities and at-risk groups by 2011 Goal 2 Landmine/ERW survivors and persons with disabilities receive medical care within the national health system and have access to assistance in reintegrating into community life Goal 3 The Angola mine action program supports national infrastructure investment and reconstruction Goal 4 Fully establish a national mine action capability that is sustainable by national resources after the end of major international assistance Goal 5 Establish a world-class mine action program in Angola L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 57 . based on the preliminary results of the LIS in 15 provinces. and the complete goals and objectives are in Annex IV of this report. the Council of Ministers adopted just such a strategy on 6 September 2006. In the case of Angola. The LIS provides a clear quantitative baseline and measures for the first goal: Significantly reduce the risk to impacted communities and at-risk groups by 2011. The objectives for this goal include: - Reduce the number of high-impact communities to zero Reduce the number of medium-impact communities by 50 percent Mark all remaining SHAs.

and 1. This is not a ranking of priority. The National Mine Action Strategy 2006–2011 sets a goal of resolving all high-impact communities.493 as low-impact. This is consistent with the argument that international support for national mine action should continue at least until the resolution of conditions in all high. including particular plans for development of the area or region. 455 as mediumimpact. and under these assumptions the elimination of the entire contamination would require less than 25 years. Impact and Priority The LIS produces an impact ranking – high. and marking all low-impact communities. The LIS identified 2 percent of impacted communities as high-impact and 23 percent as medium-impact. although according to the National Mine Action Strategy of Angola it does imply priority for further investigation. Operations for the National Mine Action Strategy Impact does not necessarily imply priority for mine clearance.Based on the combined estimate of SHAs by all implementing partners. or low – for each mine-affected community.and medium-impact communities. Further surveys will reduce further the amount of land that actually requires physical clearance. Numerous factors determine the final priorities. resolving 50 percent of medium-impact communities.and medium-impact communities would require less than 10 years to complete. This is far below the one to two centuries often cited in the past as required to finish the job. In the case of Angola. only four communities would remain with a high-impact score. USE OF LIS FOR MINE ACTION PLANNING Development of a strategic plan produces goals and the requisite activities to achieve them. medium. However. In fact. the LIS impact categories were major criteria in determining the priorities of the National Strategic Mine Action Plan 2006–2011. The LIS classified 40 communities as high-impact.and medium-impact communities is whether or not the community had victims because a majority of the communities have the same number of blockages. which may also take into consideration many other factors known locally to be important. the overall concept of the Angola National Mine Action Strategy 2006–2011 appears to be quite reasonable. primarily the difference in Angola between high. if the recent victims were removed from the scoring system. reduced according to the results of the application of the revised visual inspection protocol as conducted by HALO Trust (described above). This implies that: 58 R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S . focused clearance of high. If annual combined clearance of all operators is maintained at 10 square kilometers per year.and medium-impact communities to be about 90 square kilometers. The national authorities estimate the size of the SHAs in high. but is an important element to be considered in setting mine action priorities.

Low-impact communities receive a different treatment. all low-impact communities should be surveyed and marked over the period of the National Strategy. and should supplement this with an assessment of the development potential of the community and the availability of necessary resources. However. This should be done with return visits to confirm blockages. Once a community has been selected for action. Rather.- All high-impact communities should be included in provincial operations plans at a rate that will resolve them all by the end of the period of the Strategic Plan. and in most cases it will involve area reduction. In some cases that will likely include mine clearance. In order for all mine danger in such communities to be resolved over a five-year period. However. since all provinces except Moxico (15) and Kwanza Sul (6) have fewer than five high-impact communities. A methodology such as the NPA Task Impact Assessment or the more community-oriented Task Assessment Planning approach – adapted as the Community-based Integrated Mine Action Planning (CIMAP) in Bosnia and Herzegovina – could be used. it does not necessarily mean they should be listed for mine clearance. The selection of which communities to address each year should be made according to provincial prioritization. and to determine what treatment is necessary to resolve the problem. If 50 percent of the medium-impact communities are to be resolved over a five-year period. Medium-impact communities should receive a similar treatment. Basing priorities on socioeconomic blockages rather than impact categories is discussed in more detail later in this section. a team should return to reconfirm the key information collected by the LIS regarding blockages and SHAs. roughly 20 percent should be resolved each year. this implies that about 10 percent should be resolved each year. although in some cases it may only be the systematic confirmation that the problem originally identified no longer exists. with a trained visual verification team properly equipped to determine the minimum polygon for the suspect area and to mark the resulting SHA. following the National Mine Action Strategy. It is of course possible that a community classified as low-impact by the LIS may - represent a higher priority for the provincial authorities and may require clearance because of resources for development of that community or the community’s relation to other development plans. L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 59 . it means that each should be visited by a survey team to reconfirm the impact and the SHA data. According to the National Strategy. a good practice guideline could be to resolve the problem in a least one community per year. This also implies the need to establish marking teams considerably beyond the current numbers. the National Strategy indicates that such cases should have a strong justification. normally not including mine clearance but rather focusing on marking and risk reduction through mine risk education. Which communities will be included in this 10 percent should be determined according to provincial prioritization and available resources.

Such information may be relevant in the future. to enable the database to measure progress against the goals of the national mine action strategy. There are multiple possible channels through which to obtain this information. it must continue to receive and incorporate new information. The resulting database provided a fresh starting point for the national mine action database. which will then be forwarded to CNIDAH for entry in the database. Specifically. the LIS considered and rechecked information in existing databases while also reaching many communities that previously were not in the mine action database. CNIDAH is responsible. the change is sudden and significant. This has provided CNIDAH with an update and a very comprehensive database. In addition to updating the LIS information. or others). one of the operator’s qualified survey teams may complete the LIS forms and forward them to the Provincial Operations Room and CNIDAH HQ. Information regarding the conduct of mine action activities should be prepared by the respective operator on the corresponding CNIDAH/IMSMA form and delivered to the CNIDAH Provincial Operations Room for follow-up by the Provincial Quality Assurance team (conducting such surveys is part of their role). but for each specific place that is freed of blockages or suffers an accident. while others will have to establish an appropriate quality-assurance mechanism. This is also the basis for issuance of minefield completion and acceptance reports. or isolated SHAs. For example. bridges.Monitoring and Surveillance to Maintain the National Mine Action Database The LIS systematically collected information about the impact of landmines on communities. which will send or request a survey team to follow up and complete the respective LIS form. it is important to recognize that the CNIDAH database. Information regarding new mine incidents should be checked and incorporated into the database promptly. Maintaining the flow of this information is essential in order to keep the quality of the CNIDAH database as the central reference point for mine action. this might include railroads. and new victims. and to provide updated information to potential end users. as the national mine action database. This new information may alter the impact scores of the respective communities. previously unrecorded impacted communities. Changes overall are relatively slow. Information regarding previously unknown mine-affected communities and hazards should be reported to the Provincial Operations Room (whether by the individual concerned. especially for national development projects such as electricity or road expansion as well as for new 60 R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S . for some. particularly information reflecting the progress of mine action activities. while also being sent to CNIDAH HQ. In order for the CNIDAH database to remain fully useful. police. it needs to be continuously updated with information as work advances or situations change. In the case of Angola. in which case the communities should receive the response appropriate to the higher level of impact. requires information regarding other hazardous areas that may be identified without regard to their impact on local communities. In cases where a mine action operator identifies a previously unrecorded impacted community.

number or percentage coverage per year. CNIDAH Preliminary Guidelines for Use of LIS Results for Provincial Planning. each task should include a quantifiable indicator (e. To ensure realism and greater chance of success.and medium-impact communities. • Report all progress. • Identify all LIS medium-impact communities in the province and include them in the annual and medium-term plans in order to eliminate all impact and minimize further risk in at least 50 percent of medium-impact communities within three to five years. since the current assets are likely to be insufficient for responding to all these factors as promptly as would be preferred. In other countries. Operational Considerations for Provincial Priorities and National Strategic Goals The tasks below represent some of the ways to identify and meet local priorities and national strategic goals. This should include prompt response to all new incidents with victims. particularly by conducting MRE to reduce risky behavior of population and by reconfirming blockages. Survey: Deploy specialized survey teams to determine more precise boundaries and area of SHAs. These tasks should be allocated as part of the annual provincial planning process. changes in situation. In such cases they were assigned to a community in order to integrate the data into the system.. bridges.settlements. in the Framework of the National Mine Action Strategic Plan (Summary in Annex IV) • Identify all LIS high-impact communities in the province and include them in the annual and medium-term plans in order to eliminate all impact and minimize further risk in all high-impact communities within two to three years. with priority to high. Implications regarding the number of teams and the amount of budgets should also be assessed and translated into realistic resource mobilization and growth plans. this area-reduction process has canceled from 50 percent to 95 percent of the initially reported SHAs. as appropriate. and access L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 61 . examples indicated below by “xx percent” with percentage to be determined at provincial level). and actions taken to CNIDAH Provincial Operations Room and CNIDAH HQ for incorporation into the CNIDAH database.g. Even during the LIS survey process. SHAs were sometimes identified that were distant from any population center. Identify blocked roads. Confirm blockage of community or development activity caused by SHAs and identify for clearance the portion of each SHA causing the blockage. • Identify all high- and medium-impact communities in the province and refocus annual and medium-term plans to address risk according to impact.

Give greater priority to clear blockages of resources without reasonable alternative.routes. Reporting: Ensure CNIDAH has accurate information reflecting changes in circumstances and mine action work completed since the LIS was carried out. With a methodology analogous to that used for LIS impact scoring. newly identified mine-affected communities or SHAs. Priority Setting: Give greater priority to clear blockages affecting more than one community.and medium-impact communities with an appropriate frequency in order to reduce risky behavior and reconfirm blockages. Identify all blocked water sources and clear xx percent blockages within one year. Give greater priority to clear blockages when the resources necessary to fully utilize the previously blocked activity are readily available (and lower priority to clear those blockages where significant additional resources must be obtained to reactivate the activity). the tool assigns points in order to arrive at a community score considering the following factors: 62 Size of population Level of impact according to the LIS SHAs marked or not Number of SHAs Number of socioeconomic blockages R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S . MRE) with the requirements identified. Identify all blocked community facilities (schools. Budgeting: Consider logistical costs and address other blockages clustered in the same area. markets) and remove xx percent blockages through area reduction or clearance within one year. health posts. MRE: Deploy MRE teams to all high. Reconcile the available mine action resources (clearance. and changes to previous information since the LIS. Marking: Mark portions of SHAs not blocking community or development activities (but clear small remaining areas and areas within 25 meters of a settlement). with priority to those routes without viable alternatives. irrigation. Submit quarterly progress reports and task completion reports to CNIDAH. MRE Tasking Tool CNIDAH and its MRE partners in Angola have developed a tool based on the LIS database to establish priorities for allocation of MRE tasks. and plan to open xx percent within two years. and consider the development of additional or different resources as may be appropriate. Investigate and provide updated reports to CNIDAH on all new mine incidents. power distribution) and clear blockages as part of each respective project. marking. Identify blockages interfering with national development projects (road network. Clearance: Clear portions of SHAs blocking community or development activities.

- Recent victims (in the last two years) Old victims (prior to the last two years) Type of explosive devices Applying the MRE tool to the LIS database classifies the impacted communities into MRE-High.988 SUPPORT TO ALTERNATIVE PRIORITIZATIONS Blocked Resources as Pilot Indicators to High-/Medium-Impact Communities Even without specific sector policies. More information on this tool is available from CNIDAH. high. which overlap to some extent with the community impact scores of the LIS.and medium-impact communities represent 25 percent of the total. while the MRE priority score is related to attention to modification of behavior in risky settings. since the LIS impact score is related to attention to resolution of socioeconomic blockages. Overall. It is to be expected that the two approaches produce somewhat different results.and mediumimpact communities. MRE-Medium. the provincial authorities or donors could target certain types of blockages which would focus resources into high. TAble 28 Mre prioriTy raNKiNgS By Mre TaSKiNg TooL. so random selection of a task from the full list of communities would result one-fourth of the time in a high.or medium-impact community. and MRE-Low priority communities. as reflected in Table 28. By proviNCe Province Moxico Bié Uíge Kuando Kubango Kwanza Sul Huambo Benguela Kunene Malanje Bengo Lunda Sul Huíla Zaire Kwanza Norte Lunda Norte Cabinda Namibe Luanda Grand Total MRE-High 118 59 26 28 30 37 27 20 22 6 33 12 14 20 6 1 1 1 461 MRE-Medium 111 126 94 84 75 64 47 81 38 29 34 36 35 30 16 16 2 0 918 MRE-Low 61 97 52 59 64 52 53 25 27 39 6 24 17 14 8 10 0 1 609 Total 290 282 172 171 169 153 127 126 87 74 73 72 66 64 30 27 3 2 1. A strong L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 63 .

and the implication of task selection focused on three such blockages is illustrated below. and fully 82 percent of these are high. On the other hand. Exact updated information. is available from CNIDAH centrally or through the Provincial Mine Action Operations Room. and a very strong indicator would increase it to 75 percent or more.216 840 696 465 323 151 133 105 Blockage Category Rain-fed Agricultural Non Agriculture Pasture Roads and Paths Infrastructure Housing Drinking Water Irrigated Land High & Medium-Impact Community 35% 42% 42% 35% 53% 56% 80% 55% Low-Impact Community 65% 58% 58% 65% 47% 44% 20% 45% A strategy focused on resolution of drinking water problems.or medium-impact communities (twice the average rate). only 39 percent of which are high. when checked against the LIS database. Thus. and is available in both electronic and paper format.and medium-impact communities. The association of blockage of major resource categories with high.and medium-impact communities is shown in Table 29. would identify a total of 151 communities for attention.pilot indicator should increase the likelihood of working in a high. when checked against the LIS database. when checked against the LIS database. would identify a total of 133 communities nationwide for attention. 64 R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S . distributed throughout the provinces as indicated in Table 30. clearance resources would still be effectively focused primarily on high. if tasking were based on some blockage types rather than on level of impact. a strategy focused on removing blockages to agricultural land. A strategy focused on removing blockages to housing.216 communities for attention. TAble 29 iNdividUaL reSoUrCe BLoCKageS To prioriTiZe iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS Communities Reporting this Blockage 1. including precise listing of the localities affected and sketch maps of the SHAs. would identify a total of 1.or medium-impact communities. and 57 percent of these are high. distributed throughout the provinces as indicated in Table 31.or medium-impact community to at least 50 percent.or medium-impact communities. depending on provincial priorities.

L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 65 .TAble 30 TAble 31 CoMMUNiTieS wiTH BLoCKage oF driNKiNg waTer. mine deaths and injuries present trauma to the community that is not simply hypothetical. By proviNCe Communities with Blockage of Drinking Water 29 18 16 14 13 9 9 7 4 4 4 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 133 CoMMUNiTieS wiTH BLoCKage oF HoUSiNg. the community impact of landmines and conflict can be extensive and should receive priority when needs are assessed. or in need of special social protection services. given the distribution of victims by impact category. By proviNCe Communities with Blockage of Housing 39 25 12 12 10 10 8 7 6 5 5 4 3 2 2 1 0 0 151 Province Moxico Lunda Sul Malanje Kwanza Sul Kwanza Norte Bengo Uíge Kuando Kubango Huíla Lunda Norte Zaire Bié Benguela Huambo Kunene Luanda Cabinda Namibe Total Province Moxico Uíge Kuando Kubango Lunda Sul Bié Malanje Zaire Kwanza Sul Huíla Bengo Benguela Kwanza Norte Cabinda Kunene Lunda Norte Huambo Luanda Namibe Grand Total Priority to Communities with Multiple Recent Victims In addition to the individual and social needs of the victims. Prioritizing communities with greater numbers of victims indirectly focuses greater attention on high-impact communities. widowed. Table 32 indicates the number of impacted communities in each province that would be prioritized under a policy to resolve first those communities with at least three or at least six recent victims. orphaned. In this regard provincial or national authorities might wish to prioritize those communities that have had multiple recent victims. as shown in Table 33. When a significant portion of a population is disabled.

988 TAble 33 NUMBer oF reCeNT viCTiMS per CoMMUNiTy. By iMpaCT LeveL Recent Victims 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 11 16 17 Total High 4 2 4 12 5 5 2 1 3 1 1 40 Medium 337 91 24 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 455 Low 1.493 Total 1.819 Total 290 282 172 171 169 153 127 126 87 74 73 72 66 64 30 27 3 2 1.478 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.988 66 R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S .819 108 28 15 5 5 2 1 3 1 1 1.TAble 32 CoMMUNiTieS wiTH More THaN THree or Six reCeNT viCTiMS Three or More Recent Victims 46 35 2 7 11 12 8 5 12 2 6 6 0 4 5 0 0 0 161 Province Moxico Bié Uíge Kuando Kubango Kwanza Sul Huambo Benguela Kunene Malanje Bengo Lunda Sul Huíla Zaire Kwanza Norte Lunda Norte Cabinda Namibe Luanda Total Six or More Recent Victims 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 8 No Recent Victims 240 246 170 164 157 141 119 121 75 72 67 66 66 59 24 27 3 2 1.

988 Priority to SHAs with Recent Victims The LIS indicates that only 173 SHAs. have produced recent victims overall. with less than 1 percent of SHAs in low-impact communities having produced victims. although there are major differences among impact categories.Priority to Communities with Multiple Mine Incidents Provincial authorities might wish to give priority to resolution of problems in those communities that have had multiple mine incidents. TAble 34 CoMMUNiTieS wiTH aT LeaST Two or aT LeaST FoUr MiNe iNCideNTS Two or More Incidents 42 34 5 0 16 12 10 7 9 0 11 7 0 7 5 0 0 0 165 Province Moxico Bié Kuando Kubango Uíge Kwanza Sul Huambo Benguela Kunene Malanje Bengo Lunda Sul Huíla Zaire Kwanza Norte Lunda Norte Cabinda Namibe Luanda Total Four or More Incidents 6 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 16 No Incidents 242 247 166 171 151 140 117 119 75 74 61 65 66 57 24 27 3 2 1. as shown in Table 35. Table 34 indicates the number of impacted communities in each province that would be prioritized by a policy to resolve first those communities with at least two or at least four mine incidents. compare to 11 percent of SHAs in medium-impact communities and nearly 45 percent of SHAs in high-impact communities. or 5 percent.807 Total 290 282 171 171 169 153 127 126 88 74 73 72 66 64 30 27 3 2 1. L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 67 .

The Ministry of Social Affairs and Reintegration (MINARS) may wish to identify land for possible resettlement of displaced population. The LIS indicates a total of 105 communities with blockage of irrigated land throughout the country but mainly concentrated in the provinces of Moxico. If the land were highly valued for housing. The irrigation reactivation program should incorporate the additional cost required for resolving any landmine blockages. indicating how the LIS data could be used.TAble 35 SHas wiTH viCTiMS Percentage of SHAs with Recent Victims in Impact Category 44% 11% 1% 5% Community Impact Category High Medium Low Total SHAs with Victims 38 120 15 173 Recent Victims 178 148 15 341 Use of LIS Data to Support Programs of Other Sectors The LIS results can be a powerful tool in support of planning activities for most sectors that are responsible for developing activities throughout the national territory. Lunda Sul. The LIS indicates a total of 25 communities with blockage of health facilities. distributed widely among provinces as indicated in Table 37. The health sector may consider a program for reactivating all health posts in the country. The national mine action database can be used to produced special reports targeted at different end users. A few examples follow. If the agriculture sector planned to reactivate all irrigated farmland. The health sector’s local health services reactivation plan should incorporate the added cost of mine action to resolve these blockages. The LIS database could provide a list of the primary schools that 68 R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S . The education sector could initiate a program to redevelop primary schools around the country. MINARS could develop a long list of possible resettlement locations. as shown in Table 36. or should seek an alternative. etc. the ministry is able to determine how many health posts are inactive and establish a budget based on the average cost of repair and operation. Through the network of provincial and local health workers. mine-free site for a new health facility. then perhaps it could be prioritized for future clearance. the agriculture ministry’s provincial departments could compile a list of all known irrigated farmland – for example. and then cross-check the LIS for whether the specific terrains it is considering have been identified as mine-affected and whether the resettled population will have to cross SHAs for access to water. and Uíge. by requesting that provincial or municipal agricultural officers submit a list of irrigated farmland that is not being used – and could check it against the LIS list of all irrigated land with landmine blockages. Kuando Kubango. In order to avoid settling people in or near SHAs. The LIS can provide a list of the health posts that are blocked by landmines. town market.

In addition. The old power pylons were often mined for protection. The education sector’s primary education reactivation program should incorporate the cost of mine action to resolve these blockages. The electric energy sector may have a program for the reactivation or extension of the power grid. The database indicates a total of 47 communities with blockage of local schools. distributed among provinces as indicated in Table 38. or should include the funds necessary to resolve those issues. By proviNCe Communities with Blocked Education Facilities 13 8 7 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 47 Province Moxico Malanje Uíge Bengo Benguela Huambo Huíla Kuando Kubango Kwanza Sul Lunda Norte Zaire Bié Kwanza Norte Lunda Sul Total L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 69 .are blocked by landmines. Province Moxico Kuando Kubango Lunda Sul Uíge Huíla Kwanza Sul Bengo Benguela Cabinda Huambo Kunene Malanje Bié Luanda Zaire Kwanza Norte Lunda Norte Namibe TAble 37 TAble 36 BLoCKed irrigaTioN. By proviNCe Communities with Blocked Irrigation 30 21 18 10 5 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 105 Total BLoCKed HeaLTH FaCiLiTieS. By proviNCe Communities with Blocked Health Facilities 6 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 TAble 38 Province Moxico Malanje Kwanza Norte Uíge Huíla Kuando Kubango Bengo Benguela Bié Huambo Kwanza Sul Cabinda Kunene Luanda Lunda Norte Lunda Sul Namibe Zaire Grand Total BLoCKed edUCaTioN FaCiLiTieS. provincial education department proposals of locations for new schools should be cross-checked with the LIS to ensure that the specific sites are neither on contaminated land nor require children to walk through hazardous areas.

as illustrated in Map 10.MAp 10 HypoTHeTiCaL eLeCTriC grid aNd SHas and the lines typically follow roadways and passes through areas that may have also been mined. The LIS can indicate where specific routes will cross hazardous areas. proposed routes should be compared to contamination maps in order to begin planning for mine action and perhaps even to inform the selection of routes. The health sector could develop a program to provide prostheses to all those requiring them. The electoral commission could check 70 R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S . including survivors of landmine accidents. and the planning should incorporate measures to reduce the need for mine action but also to budget for the costs of mine action required to resolve hazards along the power line route. when approximate routes are under consideration. The electoral commission might plan to provide sufficient polling places so that no voter needs to travel more than 5 kilometers to vote. The LIS database can indicate where landmine victims live in relation to the location of orthopedic service centers in order to inform the decision about where to expand services and how to alleviate difficulty of access. Thousands of polling places will be established throughout the country. During the early planning stages. as illustrated in Map 11. National elections are planned for 2008 and 2009. The LIS database can help identify those communities that are more than 5 kilometers from a polling station due to landmine-caused blockage of the more direct access roads as illustrated in Map 12.

MAp 11 LoCaTioNS oF LaNdMiNe viCTiMS aNd orTHopediC CeNTerS whether the proposed polling sites are being inadvertently located in contaminated areas. With this information. CNIDAH can facilitate this by providing reports tailored to different end users. in general the provincial authorities can use the LIS as a baseline to support comprehensive provincial development plans as well as sector planning efforts. or whether people would be required to cross contaminated areas to access these sites. In such cases. While the above examples illustrate how individual sectors might use the LIS to identify possible problems and ensure greater success of their plans. L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 71 . They can use the LIS to determine whether communities or areas included in provincial development plans are on the list of impacted communities. the provincial and sector authorities can plan for the necessary effort of removing particular obstacles. the electoral commission may seek prioritization of clearance of the respective areas. or may consider different or additional locations for polling stations.

MAp 12 HypoTHeTiCaL poLLiNg pLaCeS 72 R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S .

the results of the assessment are unclear about how much demining may be required to achieve the other priorities or if. water. Health posts 7. Agricultural inputs 2. over time. SAC contracted with Development Workshop (DW). Although demining is at the bottom of the list. Mine risk education 4. School buildings 6. The priorities in the 14 communities based on the DW assessment are the following (in descending order): 1. Further work by DW has led to the conclusion that residents of mine-affected communities may conceive of landmines as essentially one more environmental hazard they must face in their daily activities. Mine clearance The priorities can be summarized as food. a development NGO working in Angola since 1981 to conduct assessments of the landmine problem in relation to other concerns of the community.and medium-impact communities of Huambo Province. education. the communities have adjusted to living near mine-affected locations and have made the necessary adjustments. Water wells 5. and professionals including teachers and nurses. Basic food needs 3. L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 73 . health.Community Prioritization of Landmine Problem i n parallel with the LIS. including focus group meetings and mapping and drawing exercises for further elaboration on the views held by the participants. More in-depth assessments were conducted in four of the communities. traditional and religious leaders. In 2004. The assessment consisted of semi-structured interviews with the local administration. and protection from landmines. community planning assessments were conducted in 14 high.

74 R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S .

Update of National Mine Action Database (May 2007) T he LIS reports the data collected on the day that each community was visited and interviewed. Of the 164 communities receiving mine action after the LIS. the LIS provides the baseline from which progress can be measured.988 Progress Since LIS (Impact Free*) 1 8 1 0 0 65 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 82 Update as of May 2007 289 274 170 171 169 88 122 125 88 74 73 72 66 64 29 7 3 2 1. Hence. clearance or technical survey activities have taken place in 164 (or 8%) of the 1.886 * Note: “Impact Free” means all SHAs in the community have been cleared. The national mine action database is presented in Table 39 with updates as of May 2007.988 LIS-identified impacted communities. The table below will change monthly and should be updated and distributed on a regular basis in order to provide as accurate a picture as possible of the number of impacted communities in Angola. 41 received technical survey and marking. L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 75 . As of May 2007. clearance and technical surveys were underway and sometimes conducted in communities after the LIS data was collected. TAble 39 UpdaTe oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS. aS oF May 2007 Province Moxico Bié Kuando Kubango Uíge Kwanza Sul Huambo Benguela Kunene Malanje Bengo Lunda Sul Huíla Zaire Kwanza Norte Lunda Norte Cabinda Namibe Luanda Total Original LIS Findings 290 282 171 171 169 153 127 126 88 74 73 72 66 64 30 7 3 2 1. The database at CNIDAH is continually being updated as mine action continues. 41 had ongoing clearance projects as of May 2007. Throughout the 3-year time-span of LIS data collection. and 41 received mine clearance that has rendered them impact free.

Results of Implementing the LIS – Reflections of an Operational Partner (Mines Advisory Group) o ver the course of the LIS. 2004 One illustration of the threat reduction since the LIS can be found in the comparison of Maps 13 and 14 in Huambo Province. Since the LIS was conducted in Huambo in 2004.700 individuals. MAG Angola surveyed 363 localities in Moxico and Lunda Sul. 65 communities are now impact free through clearance activities. where HALO Trust has been operating since 1996. more importantly it gave MAG Angola a platform on which to build a con- 76 R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S . This brought MAG Angola into contact with 27. While the survey process helped create a platform against which a baseline set of data can operate.MAp 13 iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS iN HUaMBo proviNCe.606 families and 170.

remove. and destroy thousands of munitions and hundreds of landmines. The true benefit of the LIS – beyond the organization of data and information – is that it brought us into contact with hundreds of communities that had never before been given any kind of humanitarian mine action service.MAp 14 iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS iN HUaMBo proviNCe. May 2007 stituency that helped us process. neutralize.361 (all in high/medium LIS priority areas) • AP mines removed: 687 • AT mines removed: 45 • UXO / AXO removed: 49. MAG Angola was able to process these items last year in 2006: • Area cleared: 237. Because of data extrapolated from the LIS.459 L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 77 .

We agree to meet them. But the good news is that a large group of Himbas. tells us that the Himba will welcome us. By An LIS Operational Partner (Intersos) T he desert of Iona is unmistakably a desert. “interviews” as in more than one. who used to populate the Kaokoland. We already know from our other work in the area that we would have to meet not only the community living in Iona. One supervisor and a driver make the first contact with the comuna of Iona in the municipio of Tomba. There is a funeral in the nomadic community. After ten kilometers he succeeds and eventually everyone is rescued. or at least not in the morning of the funeral. so he doesn’t think it is appropriate to schedule an interview on the same day. But the official has bad news for us. The Himbas are the famous indigenous nomadic people with skin the color of mud or red dirt. “This place is isolated and landmines cannot make that much difference” – and so on. better supplied with tires and water.it is not even clear where exactly the roads lie . or maybe only 10. This means that a much larger representative group of Himbas will be here in just a few hours. Just after dark we reach our destination: the top of a beautiful hill covered by thousands of tiny imbundero plants. They confirm the presence of suspected hazard areas and then schedule a time and day to conduct the interview. The supervisor decides to walk in search of humans and communications to the outside world. This sounds exciting to us.” says one of us. which will last the whole day. We are cut off from communication and face an overwhelming hot sun. They are coming from Namibia and from the neighboring province of Kunene. tomorrow will be quick. We can see that maybe there are only 15 households in Iona. mountain-shaped rock defines one of the two sides of the saddle-like village area. Yes. We talk with him about arranging the interviews for the next day. but also nomads from the area. we return to Iona on the same road to conduct the survey. We are told the oldest and richest chief of his group has passed away. “Whatever. You hope you never really meet any of the starving antelopes running around. or is it eight. A few days later a larger group we try again and this time. who is also acting as our translator. the tribe of the dead chief. the area defined – disregarding political boundaries – by the south of Angola and the north of Namibia. But bad luck interferes and we experience two flat tires and a broken radio.and those who were contacted in the preliminary opinion collection (POC) could not say for certain where the mined areas are exactly. so there is no chance to complete our job tomorrow. A local administrator makes available for us a newly reconstructed house. A sharp peak of a high.Reflections On The Survey. It is vast and empty with an occasional wandering animal. The next day the official. There are no markings of any kind . We are then 78 R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S . and talk about their experience with landmines. It is September 2004 and the Intersos teams are performing POC and interviews in Namibe. We all agree and begin to write down our observations on the questionnaire. But we will have to wait until after the funeral. are gathering for the event.

They point in different directions. There is no clear reference point available. We wait in silence for our contact and the border police. too. but how can we draw a polygon when it is difficult to recognize any reference point? It is not only a matter of an accurate estimation of the length and width. We do not wait long. We see the men stand up with hands on their mouths. The map is odd. We seem to be treated as an unexpected and new delegation of some sort which adds to the solemnity of the occasion. guided by different trees and bushes. The SHA is unusual. like a mental simplification that does not really fit the intriguing reality of high and low scattered bushes. Things soon begin to look distinct for us as well. We don’t know what to make of it. As we are preparing to go we hear an animal cry from the bush. Slowly. The map they draw in the sand looks to us like an abstract juxtaposition. few hills. and the small ponds all around us. who speak the Himba language. The Himba know the contours.invited to join the funeral and make plans to attend. The funeral is unexpectedly short and suddenly we are scrambling to prepare for the interview. and the space takes on a sense of reality – as well as a sense of danger. But it wasn’t animals they were greeting. We need to know the locations of the landmines and the Himba agree to take us there. But the more they talk and draw signs on the ground and use gestures. With the help of the policeman. While we walk to the SHA. but really more of trying to understand the location of the line they probably see when looking in the direction they are pointing. Each time more people arrive we hear more unfamiliar cries. We go to an area where they tell us a landmine accident has occurred. the more we adopt a different sensitivity towards the surroundings. They say there is landmine contamination everywhere they walk in Iona but also further down close to the border with Namibia. with a clear vision of the space in which they move with their cattle. It is unlike any other map a community has drawn during the survey. Our contact organizes the interview and we begin. They were greeting other people from their tribe who were arriving for the funeral. Even though the Himba are gathering for a funeral they do not seem annoyed that on the same day somebody wants to talk with them about landmines. I sense we are all thinking of the recommendation from the protocol on visual verification: deSerT wiTH aNTeLope Near ioNa iN NaMiBe (Continued on next page) L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 79 . we begin seeing the area differently than when we arrived. to arrive. and running towards the animals while at the same time answering the animal cries with a similar song. we speak with the son of the dead chief.

we think about what we have seen. the place so vast. When they move the cattle while looking for water. neither mine risk education nor any organized mine clearance has ever taken place here. we wonder? And agriculture doesn’t fit for those whose livelihood is based on wandering. even worthy of a multiyear integrated program. the more it is clear that a program in this area would not only be about a national mine action and developmental strategy. What donor or government would assume the cost of clearing mines from the desert so the Himba can safely move each season in order to find food and water and raise their cattle? If it were even possible to count the direct beneficiaries. We can definitely classify some of the blockages they face – mostly land for pasture and roads. But shouldn’t we also include housing. do not follow too close. Do blocked roads even matter for the Himba? The main problem for them as far as I can tell is their habit of roaming the desert.” in which the traditional inhabitants move around in safe corridors and are involved in a sustainable tourism initiative to bring in the money that would make the effort of a selective clearance program worthwhile. especially those who have lived outside the logic of the long civil war. As we get in the car to leave early the next morning. I think. what would the per capita cost be? We talk among ourselves about building a “Park of Peace. but protecting minorities. post-conflict developing democracy. but the information is so minimal. Would the Himba just be happy to migrate along “cattle-snake-shaped-paths” in that beautiful forgotten area. eliminating borders and creating unlimited paths to the horizon? The more I think about our encounter with the Himba. The number of people is definitely small compared to the areas which might be contaminated by landmines. may be the most important criterion for making this area a priority for intervention. how do they know one of the animals will not step on a landmine? They try to avoid the places where they have found mines.stay behind the guide. Sometimes they just do it themselves not expecting anybody to come back to pick up the trash from a war they had not wished to fight in the first place. and the sandy ground so prone to change with winds that…. but do their travels take them along roads? We do not see any. the people so few. But how do we know if the guide is really stepping in safe spots if every step he takes seems the same as every other one? Of course. 80 R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A – S U R V E Y R E S U LT S A N D F I N D I N G S . And roads are blocked too. but would also be about the rights of minorities in a delicate. This could present an interesting demining scenario for sustainable development.

ProfilesByProvince .

ProfilesByProvince .

are medium-impact. The population living in these impacted communities is 80. The map below shows the mine-impacted communities to be in the northern half of the province. The most heavily impacted comuna is Kibaxe. There are no high-impact communities in Bengo. and nine reported that mine clearance had taken place. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 0 14 59 73 Percentage 0% 19% 81% 100% Population Impacted 0 12. TAble 40 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS. economic infrastructure. and water are the socioeconomic blockages in Kibaxe.493 80. Only two communities reported any landmine incidents.690 67. resulting in two recent victims. are mine-free. or 55 percent. are located in the three municipios of Dembos. Agricultural land. The six tables below provide a general description of the landmine problem in Bengo. Both recent victims were engaged in farming at the time of the incidents.183 L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 83 . or 33 percent. Over half of the impacted communities reported MRE activities occurred in the community.Bengo Bengo PROVINCE SUMMARy i n Bengo the LIS identified 73 mine-impacted communities with 115 associated SHAs. Dande. Of the 73 impacted communities. Fourteen of the 73 impacted communities. In Bengo. with 13 impacted communities and 18 SHAs. or 19 percent. and Nambuangongo. nonagricultural land. and 11 of the 33 comunas. agricultural land accounts for one-half of the socioeconomic blockages reported overall in the 73 impacted communities.173. 40.

MAp 15 MiNe-iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS iN BeNgo TAble 41 diSTriBUTioN oF reCeNT viCTiMS. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Recent Victims 0 2 0 2 Incidents 0 1 0 1 Communities with Victims 0 2 0 2 SHAs with Victims 0 2 0 2 TAble 42 aCTiviTy aT THe TiMe oF iNCideNT. By geNder Activity Tampering Collecting Water Traveling Other Playing Farming Household Work Unknown Total Female 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Male 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 84 Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE . aNd SHas wiTH viCTiMS. iNCideNTS.

By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT Roads and Ways & Paths 0 3 7 10 Impact Category High Medium Low Total Cultivated Land Pasture 0 13 47 60 0 2 8 10 Nonagricultural Land 0 8 12 20 Local Water Housing Services 0 9 6 15 0 1 4 5 0 1 1 2 Infrastructure 0 6 2 8 TAble 44 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS.Bengo Bengo ZAIRE Ambriz AMBRIZ MAp 16 UÍGE NAMBUANGONGO Muxaluando LoCaTioN oF SHaS aNd reCeNT viCTiMS iN BeNgo CaxitoDANDE Atlantic Ocean DEMBOS Quibaxe Bula Atu Pango Aluquem PANGO-ALUQUEM LUANDA Catete ICOLO E BENGO KWANZA NORTE 0 10 20 Muxima Kilometers 1:2.500.000 Legend Municipio capital Province capital Railway Primary road Other road Municipio boundary Province boundary Country boundary KISSAMA SHA Location SHA with recent victims SHA without recent victims Survey Status Impacted Comuna Non-Impacted Comuna Inaccessible Comuna KWANZA SUL TAble 43 NUMBer oF SHas. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 0 14 59 73 Official Clearance 0 2 9 11 Marking and Survey 0 2 4 6 Village Demining 0 1 0 1 Victim MRE 0 7 31 38 Assistance 0 2 0 2 L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 85 .

TAble 45 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS. reCeNT viCTiMS. SHas. By CoMUNa NonCultivated agricultural Roads Land Pasture Land X X X X X X X X X X Municipio Ambriz Ambriz Ambriz Bula Atumba Bula Atumba Dande Dande Dande Dande Dande Dembos Dembos Dembos Dembos Icolo e Bengo Icolo e Bengo Icolo e Bengo Icolo e Bengo Icolo e Bengo Kissama Kissama Kissama Kissama Kissama Nambuangongo Nambuangongo Nambuangongo Nambuangongo Nambuangongo Nambuangongo Nambuangongo Pango-Aluquém Pango-Aluquém Total Comuna Ambriz Bela Vista Tabi Bula Atumba Kiaje Impacted Communities SHAs 2 2 2 2 0 4 0 9 8 5 13 0 3 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 5 0 1 5 0 0 3 74 2 3 2 4 0 6 0 14 12 6 18 0 4 0 11 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 6 1 7 0 1 10 0 0 3 115 Recent Victims 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Water Housing Local Economic Services Infrastructure Barra do Dande Caxito Kikabo Mabubas Ucua Kibaxe Koxe Paredes Piri Bom Jesus Catete Kabiri Kakulo-Kahango Kassoneka Cabo Ledo Demba Chio Kixinje Mumbondo Muxima Gombe Kaje Kanakassala Kikunzo Kixico Muxaluando Zala Kazua Pango-Aluquém X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 4 18 5 10 9 4 2 6 86 Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE . aNd BLoCKageS.

Lobito. several mine action activities have occurred in the 127 impacted communities. Although 84 percent of the impacted communities are categorized as low–impact. aNd SHas wiTH viCTiMS. Additionally.5% 100% Population Impacted 2. Ganda.525 28. The majority of the impacted communities. The 17 percent of high.Benguela Benguela PROVINCE SUMMARy i n Benguela the LIS identified 127 mine-impacted communities. are located in Bocoio. with a population of 139. 12 were located in Ganda.736 TAble 47 diSTriBUTioN oF reCeNT viCTiMS.566 139.645 108. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Recent Victims 15 5 0 20 Incidents 3 7 1 11 Communities with Victims 4 4 0 8 SHAs with Victims 4 4 0 8 L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 87 . By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 4 17 106 127 Percentage 3. Based on the community interviews. 57 percent. with 41 percent reporting official clearance and MRE. and Balombo Bailundo. the landmine contamination is widespread in Benguela as all 10 municipios have impacted communities and 30 of the 36 comunas are impacted.736 living in these communities. TAble 46 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS. iNCideNTS. 11 percent of the SHAs are blocking roads and paths.4% 83.1% 13.and medium-impact communities is below the national average of 25 percent. Of the 20 recent victims in Benguela. Socioeconomic blockages of agriculture or pasture are reported in all but two of the 190 SHAs.

By geNder Activity Tampering Collecting Water Traveling Other Playing Farming Household Work Unknown Total Female 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Male 5 5 3 1 1 0 0 0 15 Unknown 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Total 9 6 3 1 1 0 0 0 20 88 Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE .MAp 17 MiNe-iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS iN BeNgUeLa TAble 48 aCTiviTy aT THe TiMe oF iNCideNT.

By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT Roads and Ways & Paths 0 5 16 21 Impact Category High Medium Low Total Cultivated Land Pasture 6 23 77 106 6 28 69 103 Nonagricultural Land 0 41 56 97 Local Water Housing Services 0 2 0 2 0 4 7 11 0 0 1 1 Infrastructure 0 11 22 33 TAble 50 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 4 17 106 127 Official Clearance 3 8 10 21 Marking and Survey 1 4 29 34 Village Demining 0 5 5 10 Victim MRE 1 9 22 32 Assistance 4 2 1 7 L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 89 .Benguela MAp 18 LoCaTioN oF SHaS aNd reCeNT viCTiMS iN BeNgUeLa TAble 49 NUMBer oF SHas.

SHas.TAble 51 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS. reCeNT viCTiMS. By CoMUNa NonCultivated agricultural Roads Land Pasture Land Municipio Baía Farta Baía Farta Baía Farta Baía Farta Balombo Balombo Balombo Balombo Benguela Bocoio Bocoio Bocoio Bocoio Bocoio Chongorói Chongorói Chongorói Cubal Cubal Cubal Cubal Ganda Ganda Ganda Ganda Ganda Kaimbambo Kaimbambo Kaimbambo Kaimbambo Kaimbambo Lobito Lobito Lobito Lobito Lobito Total Comuna Baía Farta Impacted Communities SHAs 0 0 1 0 3 3 6 3 2 6 2 4 2 5 0 10 1 8 1 1 2 11 4 1 14 1 3 6 1 4 0 11 0 6 2 3 127 0 0 2 0 5 3 9 3 2 6 5 9 3 10 0 15 1 11 1 1 3 14 5 1 21 2 6 13 1 8 0 12 0 8 2 8 190 Recent Victims 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 Water Housing Local Economic Services Infrastructure Dombe Grande Ekimina Kalahanga Balombo Chigongo Chindumbo Maka Mombolo Benguela Bocoio Chila Cubal do Lumbo Monte Belo Passe Bolonguela Chongorói Kamuine Cubal Iambala Kapupa Tumbulo Babaera Chikuma Ebanga Ganda Kaseke Kaiave Kaibambo Kanhamela Katengue Wyiagombe Biópio Egito – Praia Kanjala Katumbela Lobito X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 8 23 X X X 25 X X X 25 2 5 3 5 90 Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE . aNd BLoCKageS.

indicating a wide use of landmines throughout the province. with a population of 322. With the exception of Chinguar with 11 impacted communities and Andale with 62. of which 20 percent are high.5 per community. or 1. with MRE and survey and marking being the most common. pasture.8% 100% Population Impacted 3. Although 80 percent of the communities are categorized as low-impact. representing a significant level of socioeconomic blockage to agriculture. are important factors that warrant further research before determining priorities regarding the resolution of blocked agricultural land.970 living in these communities.Bié Bié PROVINCE SUMMARy B ié contains 282 mine-impacted communities.4% 19.970 L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 91 . Twelve percent of the impacted communities report clearance activities. One incident in Kuito resulted in 16 victims. the number of impacted communities in the remaining seven municipios ranges from 23 to 41.500 75.252 322. the LIS identified 443 SHAs. even though they have fewer impacted communities than other municipios. Based on the community interviews several types of mine action activities have occurred in Bié. All nine municipios have impacted communities. and agricultural input. as well as land tenure laws. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 1 56 225 282 Percentage 0.218 244.9% 79. and roads and paths. which accounts for all but 10 of the recent victims in Kuito. Development. Katakana and Kuito report the highest number of recent victims. crop yields.or medium-impact. TAble 52 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS.

By geNder Activity Tampering Collecting Water Traveling Other Playing Farming Household Work Unknown Total Female 1 6 5 1 1 1 0 0 15 Male 2 10 5 9 1 0 0 0 27 Unknown 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Total 19 16 10 10 2 1 0 0 58 92 Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE . iNCideNTS. aNd SHas wiTH viCTiMS.MAp 19 MiNe-iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS iN Bié TAble 53 diSTriBUTioN oF reCeNT viCTiMS. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Recent Victims 16 37 5 58 Incidents 1 38 5 44 Communities with Victims 1 30 5 36 SHAs with Victims 1 31 5 37 TAble 54 aCTiviTy aT THe TiMe oF iNCideNT.

By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT Roads and Ways & Paths 1 27 72 100 Impact Category High Medium Low Total Cultivated Land Pasture 1 84 188 273 0 41 72 113 Nonagricultural Land 0 41 56 89 Local Water Housing Services 0 0 2 2 0 4 1 5 0 2 1 3 Infrastructure 2 4 0 6 TAble 56 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 1 56 225 282 Official Clearance 0 14 22 36 Marking and Survey 1 18 51 70 Village Demining 0 4 3 7 Victim MRE 1 21 73 95 Assistance 0 19 11 30 L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 93 .Bié MAp 20 LoCaTioN oF SHaS aNd reCeNT viCTiMS iN Bié TAble 55 NUMBer oF SHas.

By CoMUNa NonCultivated agricultural Roads Land Pasture Land X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Municipio Andale Andulo Andulo Andulo Chinguar Chinguar Chinguar Chitembo Chitembo Chitembo Chitembo Chitembo Chitembo Kamakupa Kamakupa Kamakupa Kamakupa Kamakupa Katabola Katabola Katabola Katabola Katabola Kuemba Kuemba Kuemba Kuemba Kuito Kuito Kuito Kuito Kuito Kunhinga Kunhinga Nharea Nharea Nharea Nharea Nharea Total Comuna Andulo Chivaúlo Kalucinga Kassumbe Chinguar Kangote Kutato Chitembo Kachingues Malengue Mumbué Mutumbo Impacted Communities SHAs 30 12 14 6 4 5 2 15 2 1 9 2 4 16 5 4 3 3 3 7 0 10 5 12 4 7 0 6 2 16 11 7 5 22 2 1 6 3 16 282 40 25 22 8 4 5 2 22 3 1 13 2 6 20 8 5 4 4 3 10 0 15 7 24 6 9 0 14 6 26 28 20 6 42 2 2 6 4 19 443 Recent Victims 1 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 0 5 0 1 1 21 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 58 Water Housing X Local Economic Services Infrastructure Soma Kwanza Kamakupa Kwanza Ringoma Sto António da Muinha Umpulo Chipeta Chiuca Kaiuera Katabola Sande Kuemba Luando Munhango Sachinemuna Cambândua Chicala Kuito Kunje Trumba Belo Horizonte Kunhinga Dando Gamba Kaiei Lúbia Nharea X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 24 X X X X 27 2 8 1 13 X X X 27 X X 34 94 Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE . reCeNT viCTiMS. SHas.TAble 57 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS. aNd BLoCKageS.

MAp 21 MiNe-iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS iN CaBiNda L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 95 . In the 27 communities a total of 37 SHAs were identified. Cultivated land was the primary socio-economic blockage.Cabinda Cabinda PROVINCE SUMMARy i n Cabinda the LIS identified 27 mine impacted communities in 8 comunas covering a population of 11.696. All 27 communities are categorized as low impact and no recent victims were identified. No mine clearance or MRE were reported to have occurred in Cabinda.

By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 0 0 27 27 Percentage 0% 0% 100% 100% Population Impacted 0 0 11.696 11. By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT Roads and Ways & Paths 0 0 2 2 Impact Category High Medium Low Total Cultivated Land Pasture 0 0 25 25 0 0 3 3 Nonagricultural Land 0 0 2 2 Local Water Housing Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 Infrastructure 0 0 0 0 TAble 60 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS.TAble 58 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS.696 No recent victims were identified by the LIS in the province of Cabinda TAble 59 NUMBer oF SHas. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 0 0 27 27 Official Clearance 0 0 0 0 Marking and Survey 0 0 2 2 Village Demining 0 0 1 1 Victim MRE 0 0 0 0 Assistance 0 0 4 4 96 Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE .

Cabinda MAp 22 LoCaTioN oF SHaS aNd reCeNT viCTiMS iN CaBiNda TAble 61 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS. SHas. By CoMUNa NonCultivated agricultural Roads Land Pasture Land X X X X X X X X X X 2 25 X 3 2 0 3 0 0 X X X X X X X Municipio Cabinda Comuna Cabinda Malembo Tando Zinze Impacted Communities SHAs 5 4 5 2 1 2 4 4 27 6 5 8 2 2 2 6 6 37 Recent Victims 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water Housing Local Economic Services Infrastructure Belize Belize Minkonje Buco Zau Lândana Nekuto Kakongo Massabi Total L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 97 . aNd BLoCKageS. reCeNT viCTiMS.

98 Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE .

Ukuma. Based on the community interviews. There are 206 SHAs in Huambo. Socioeconomic blockages of agriculture and pasture are reported in 95 percent of the SHAs. Three years later in 2007 the impact has been greatly reduced and the people of Huambo are now living with much less risk than in recent memory. the highest percentage of all provinces in Angola for roads and paths. several types of mine action activities have occurred in the 153 impacted communities. greatly reducing the overall threat risk and impact in the province. with a reported 33 percent receiving MRE. Kaala. 28 percent of the SHAs are blocking roads and paths. Clearance and marking and survey were reported in 49 percent of the communities. A map showing an update of impact in Huambo has been previously presented on page 77. Huambo was considered one of the most impacted provinces in Angola. All of the 15 recent victims are located in 12 communities in Huambo. 51 percent of the impacted municipios are located in Bailundo. and ThicalaThilohanga.373 L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 99 . However. When the LIS was conducted in 2004. of which 35 are categorized as high. All 11 comunas have impacted com- munities. and Thicala-Thilohanga.Huambo Huambo PROVINCE SUMMARy i n Huambo province the LIS identified 153 mine-impacted communities. Since the LIS was conducted in Huambo from April to August 2004.and medium-impact. TAble 62 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS.6% 77. Huambo.823 189.1% 100% Population Impacted 3. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 2 33 118 153 Percentage 1. resulting in an impacted population of 267.379 267.3% 21.373.171 74. Additionally. HALO Trust has addressed SHAs in 65 communities.

By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Recent Victims 5 9 1 15 Incidents 3 15 2 20 Communities with Victims 2 9 1 12 SHAs with Victims 2 9 1 12 TAble 64 aCTiviTy aT THe TiMe oF iNCideNT. aNd SHas wiTH viCTiMS. iNCideNTS.MAp 23 MiNe-iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS iN HUaMBo TAble 63 diSTriBUTioN oF reCeNT viCTiMS. By geNder Activity Tampering Collecting Water Traveling Other Playing Farming Household Work Unknown Total Female 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Male 6 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 13 Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 7 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 15 100 Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE .

Huambo MAp 24 LoCaTioN oF SHaS aNd reCeNT viCTiMS iN HUaMBo TAble 65 NUMBer oF SHas. By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT Roads and Ways & Paths 1 10 46 57 Impact Category High Medium Low Total Cultivated Land Pasture 2 49 74 125 2 39 33 74 Nonagricultural Land 2 38 35 75 Local Water Housing Services 0 2 3 5 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 2 Infrastructure 1 15 16 32 TAble 66 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 2 33 118 153 Official Clearance 0 15 20 35 Marking and Survey 0 18 22 40 Village Demining 0 5 12 17 Victim MRE 1 17 33 51 Assistance 2 8 1 11 L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 101 .

reCeNT viCTiMS. By CoMUNa NonCultivated agricultural Roads Land Pasture Land X X X X X X X Municipio Bailundo Bailundo Bailundo Bailundo Bailundo Chinjenje Chinjenje Ekunha Ekunha Huambo Huambo Huambo Kaála Kaála Kaála Kaála Kachiungo Kachiungo Kachiungo Londuimbali Londuimbali Londuimbali Londuimbali Londuimbali Longonjo Longonjo Longonjo Longonjo Mungo Mungo Comuna Bailundo Bimbe Hengue Lunge Luvemba Chiaca Chinjenje Ekunha Tchipeio Chipipa Huambo Kalima Kaála Kalenga Katata Kuima Chinhama Chiumbo Kachiungo Alto – Uama Galanga Kumbila Londuimbali Ussoke Chilata Katabola Lépi Longonjo Kambuengo Mungo Impacted Communities SHAs 2 7 0 11 0 1 5 0 3 8 19 8 2 1 2 10 6 6 5 1 0 0 2 2 0 2 10 2 3 5 0 9 4 3 10 0 11 0 1 9 0 3 9 25 10 2 1 3 15 7 7 8 1 0 0 2 3 0 2 11 5 3 6 0 9 10 17 1 0 12 206 Recent Victims 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 15 Water Housing Local Economic Services Infrastructure X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Thicala-Thilohanga Hungulo Thicala-Thilohanga Mbave Thicala-Thilohanga Sambo X X X X X X X X X X X Thicala-Thilohanga Thicala Yhilohanga 10 Ukuma Ukuma Ukuma Total Kakoma Mundundo Ukuma 1 0 6 153 X X X 12 26 X 22 X 23 3 1 2 X 14 102 Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE . aNd BLoCKageS. SHas.TAble 67 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS.

4% 12. with a population of 180.565 67. TAble 68 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS. The main blockages involve agriculture and pasture.3% 86. The designation of this single high-impact community is the result of one incident with five recent victims. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 1 9 63 73 Percentage 1. or 47 percent of the total mine-impacted communities in Huíla.Huíla Huíla PROVINCE SUMMARy i n Huíla province the LIS identified 73 mine-impacted communities. Of the 73 impacted communities there is just one categorized as high-impact. The landmine problem in Huíla is centered on the two municipios of Jamba and Kuvango. with 13.603 people live in the impacted communities.858 81.3% 100% Population Impacted 180 13.7 percent categorized as high.and medium-impact. The 13 recent victims are located in four municipios. where there are 34 impacted communities.603 L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 103 . Approximately 81.

MAp 25 MiNe-iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS iN HUíLa TAble 69 diSTriBUTioN oF reCeNT viCTiMS. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Recent Victims 5 7 1 13 Incidents 1 6 4 11 Communities with Victims 1 4 1 6 SHAs with Victims 1 4 1 6 TAble 70 aCTiviTy aT THe TiMe oF iNCideNT. iNCideNTS. By geNder Activity Tampering Collecting Water Traveling Other Playing Farming Household Work Unknown Total Female 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 Male 5 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 6 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 13 104 Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE . aNd SHas wiTH viCTiMS.

Huíla MAp 26 LoCaTioN oF SHaS aNd reCeNT viCTiMS iN HUíLa TAble 71 NUMBer oF SHas. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 1 9 63 73 Official Clearance 1 4 23 28 Marking and Survey 0 4 22 26 Village Demining 0 0 3 3 Victim MRE 1 5 35 41 Assistance 0 2 5 7 L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 105 . By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT Roads and Ways & Paths 0 3 5 8 Impact Category High Medium Low Total Cultivated Land Pasture 0 8 30 38 3 15 45 63 Nonagricultural Land 0 1 14 15 Local Water Housing Services 2 6 4 12 0 0 7 7 0 0 2 2 Infrastructure 0 7 14 21 TAble 72 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS.

TAble 73 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS. reCeNT viCTiMS. aNd BLoCKageS. SHas. By CoMUNa NonCultivated agricultural Roads Land Pasture Land Municipio Chibia Chibia Chibia Chibia Chicomba Chicomba Chipindo Chipindo Gambos Gambos Humpata Jamba Jamba Jamba Kakonda Kakonda Kakonda Kakonda Kalukembe Kalukembe Kalukembe Kilengue Kilengue Kilengue Kuvango Kuvango Kuvango Lubango Lubango Lubango Lubango Lubango Lubango Matala Matala Matala Tchipungo Total Comuna Chibia Jau Impacted Communities SHAs 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2 0 8 0 0 0 7 1 15 1 3 1 3 1 1 4 0 0 6 3 26 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 11 0 3 109 Recent Victims 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 13 Water Housing Local Economic Services Infrastructure Kapunda Kavilongo 0 Kihita Chicomba Kutenda Bambi Chipindo Chiange Chimbemba Humpata Dongo Jamba Kassinga Gungue Kakonda Kusse Uaba Kalépi Kalukembe Ngola Dinde Impulo Kilengue Galangue Kuvango Vikungo Arimba Cacula Hoque Huíla Kilemba Lubango Kapelongo Matala Mulondo Tchipungo 0 4 1 0 5 0 0 0 6 1 11 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 0 0 5 3 13 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 8 0 2 73 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 3 15 X 17 X 8 4 5 2 X 10 106 Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE .

Menongue. and Kuito Kuanavale. The landmine problem is concentrated in the municipios of Mavinga.000 people live in these communities. Even though Kuando Kubango is an isolated and distant province. There are eight comunas with more than 10 impacted communities. Approximately 393. despite this highly concentrated number of impacted communities and associated SHAs.and medium-impact. some mine action activities were reported during the LIS. and 11 comunas with more than 10 SHAs.Kuando Kubango Kuando Kubango PROVINCE SUMMARy T he LIS identified 171 mine-impacted communities in Kuando Kubango. of which 18 percent are categorized as high. The most reported socioeconomic blockages involved agricultural and pasture land. The comuna of Menongue alone has 36 impacted communities and 56 SHAs.728 L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 107 . Forty-six impacted communities reported MRE and 20 reported clearance.727 306. the people living in the communities reported only one recent victim in the two-year period covering the survey in the province.001 393. TAble 74 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS. Associated with these impacted communities are 325 SHAs – more than any other province with the exception of Moxico and Bié. All but one of the recent victims were in comunas with few impacted communities and SHAs. Six recent victims were identified in six different impacted communities. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 0 30 141 171 Percentage 0% 18% 82% 100% Population Impacted 0 87. However.

MAp 27 MiNe-iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS iN KUaNdo KUBaNgo TAble 75 diSTriBUTioN oF reCeNT viCTiMS. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Recent Victims 0 5 1 6 Incidents 0 5 1 6 Communities with Victims 0 5 1 6 SHAs with Victims 0 5 1 6 TAble 76 aCTiviTy aT THe TiMe oF iNCideNT. iNCideNTS. By geNder Activity Tampering Collecting Water Traveling Other Playing Farming Household Work Unknown Total Female 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Male 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 108 Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE . aNd SHas wiTH viCTiMS.

By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 0 30 141 171 Official Clearance 0 8 12 20 Marking and Survey 0 11 39 50 Village Demining 0 1 4 5 Victim MRE 0 10 36 46 Assistance 0 6 6 12 L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 109 . By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT Roads and Ways & Paths 0 15 15 30 Impact Category High Medium Low Total Cultivated Land Pasture 0 58 142 200 0 53 102 155 Nonagricultural Land 0 38 72 110 Local Water Housing Services 0 4 6 10 0 0 7 7 0 0 2 2 Infrastructure 0 7 14 21 TAble 78 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS.Kuando Kubango MAp 28 LoCaTioN oF reCeNT viCTiMS iN KUaNdo KUBaNgo TAble 77 NUMBer oF SHas.

aNd BLoCKageS. By CoMUNa NonCultivated agricultural Roads Land Pasture Land X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Municipio Cuangar Cuangar Cuangar Dirico Dirico Dirico Kalai Kalai Kalai Kuchi Kuchi Kuchi Kuchi Kuito Kuanavale Kuito Kuanavale Kuito Kuanavale Kuito Kuanavale Mavinga Mavinga Mavinga Mavinga Menongue Menongue Menongue Menongue Nancova Nancova Rivungo Rivungo Rivungo Rivungo Total Comuna Bondo Cuangar Savate Dirico Mucusso Xamavera Kalai Maue Mavengue Chinguanja Kuchi Kutato Vissati Baixo Longa Impacted Communities SHAs 1 3 4 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 11 9 5 3 6 11 0 0 4 9 10 13 4 38 4 3 1 0 5 6 3 171 2 5 7 6 4 5 4 1 5 3 14 14 5 7 14 26 0 0 12 26 26 35 7 56 6 3 2 0 12 14 4 325 Recent Victims 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 Water Housing Local Economic Services Infrastructure Kuito Kuanavale Longa Lupiri Kunjamba/ Dima Kutuile Luengue Mavinga Kaiundo Kueio Menongue Missombo Nancova Rito Chipundo Luiana Neriquinha Rivungo X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 25 X X X 24 X X X 19 X 4 5 3 X X X X 13 110 Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE . SHas. reCeNT viCTiMS.TAble 79 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS.

Although agricultural land and pasture are affected by 95 percent of the 160 SHAs. the municipios of Kahama and Kuroka have fewer than 10 impacted communities and 60 percent of the impacted communities are located in Kuvalai and Kwanyama. while also considering land tenure laws.and medium-impact.202 211. Like most of the other provinces in Angola. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 0 7 119 126 Percentage 0% 6% 94% 100% Population Impacted 0 13. warrants further research in order to determine future priorities. Kunene has few recent victims compared to the number of SHAs. the impacted communities are distributed throughout the province.358 people living in these impacted communities. Roads and paths are affected by 13 SHAs. categorized as high. Although all municipios are impacted by landmines.358 L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 111 . or 8 percent of the total SHAs in Kunene.Kunene Kunene PROVINCE SUMMARy K unene has 126 mine-impacted communities with only seven. the actual impact on development and food production. TAble 80 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS. As the map below indicates.156 198. There are 211. or 6 percent.

By geNder Activity Tampering Collecting Water Traveling Other Playing Farming Household Work Unknown Total Female 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Male 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 7 Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 7 112 Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE . iNCideNTS. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Recent Victims 0 7 0 7 Incidents 0 4 4 8 Communities with Victims 0 5 0 5 SHAs with Victims 0 5 0 5 TAble 82 aCTiviTy aT THe TiMe oF iNCideNT.MAp 29 MiNe-iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS iN KUNeNe TAble 81 diSTriBUTioN oF reCeNT viCTiMS. aNd SHas wiTH viCTiMS.

Kunene MAp 30 LoCaTioN oF SHaS aNd reCeNT viCTiMS iN KUNeNe TAble 83 NUMBer oF SHas. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 0 7 119 126 Official Clearance 0 2 29 31 Marking and Survey 0 0 5 5 Village Demining 0 3 20 23 Victim MRE 0 2 37 39 Assistance 0 3 1 4 L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 113 . By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT Roads and Ways & Paths 0 3 10 13 Impact Category High Medium Low Total Cultivated Land Pasture 0 8 57 65 0 8 77 85 Nonagricultural Land 0 0 5 5 Local Water Housing Services 0 0 2 2 0 4 1 5 0 2 1 3 Infrastructure 2 4 0 6 TAble 84 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS.

SHas. aNd BLoCKageS. reCeNT viCTiMS. By CoMUNa NonCultivated agricultural Roads Land Pasture Land X X X Municipio Kahama Kahama Kuroka Kuroka Kuvelai Kuvelai Kuvelai Kuvelai Kwanyama Kwanyama Kwanyama Kwanyama Kwanyama Namakunde Namakunde Ombadja Ombadja Ombadja Ombadja Ombadja Total Comuna Kahama Otchinjau Chitado Onkokwa Kalonga Kuvati Kuvelai Mupa Evale Kafima Môngua Ondjiva Oximolo Namakunde Shiede Humbe Mukope Naulila Impacted Communities SHAs 6 0 6 0 9 5 11 11 6 13 5 6 9 6 11 1 1 10 8 0 7 0 10 6 12 15 7 15 7 6 10 6 15 1 1 16 5 13 160 Recent Victims 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 7 Water Housing Local Economic Services Infrastructure X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 8 15 X X X 16 X 4 2 1 0 2 X Ombala yo Mungu 4 Xangongo 6 126 114 Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE .TAble 85 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS.

with 61. 11 were female and were either tampering with ordnances or collecting water at the time of the mine accidents.074 108.052 L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 115 . but only 17 percent of the population living in the impacted communities resides in the high.052 people living in these communities. with 39 percent categorized as high. Socioeconomic blockages of agricultural and pasture land are the most reported types of blockage. There are 125 SHAs in Kwanza Norte. The LIS identified 18 recent victims in five impacted communities.293 90. in the high. Of the 18 recent victims. This is above the national average of 25 percent.7% 34. TAble 86 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS.and medium-impact communities.9% 100% Population Impacted 685 17. There are 108.4% 60.and medium-impact.Kwanza Norte Kwanza Norte PROVINCE SUMMARy i n Kwanza Norte the LIS identified 64 mine-impacted communities. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 3 22 39 64 Percentage 4.and medium-impact communities. or almost 50 percent.

aNd SHas wiTH viCTiMS. iNCideNTS. By geNder Activity Tampering Collecting Water Traveling Other Playing Farming Household Work Unknown Total Female 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Male 2 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 7 Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 9 4 3 1 1 0 0 0 18 116 Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE . By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Recent Victims 16 2 0 18 Incidents 5 3 1 9 Communities with Victims 3 2 0 5 SHAs with Victims 3 2 0 5 TAble 88 aCTiviTy aT THe TiMe oF iNCideNT.MAp 31 MiNe-iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS iN KwaNZa NorTe TAble 87 diSTriBUTioN oF reCeNT viCTiMS.

By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 3 22 39 64 Official Clearance 1 8 5 14 Marking and Survey 1 1 3 5 Village Demining 0 3 4 7 Victim MRE 2 14 25 41 Assistance 2 1 1 4 L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 117 . By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT Roads and Ways & Paths 0 5 16 21 Impact Category High Medium Low Total Cultivated Land Pasture 6 23 77 106 6 28 69 103 Nonagricultural Land 4 28 57 89 Local Water Housing Services 0 0 2 2 0 4 1 5 0 2 1 3 Infrastructure 2 4 0 6 TAble 90 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS.Kwanza Norte MAp 32 LoCaTioN oF SHaS aNd reCeNT viCTiMS iN KwaNZa NorTe TAble 89 NUMBer oF SHas.

SHas. reCeNT viCTiMS.TAble 91 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS. aNd BLoCKageS. By CoMUNa NonCultivated agricultural Roads Land Pasture Land X X X X X X X X X X X X Municipio Ambaca Ambaca Ambaca Ambaca Ambaca Banga Banga Banga Banga Bolongongo Bolongongo Bolongongo Golungo Alto Golungo Alto Golungo Alto Golungo Alto Kambambe Kambambe Kambambe Kambambe Kambambe Kazengo Kazengo Kiculungo Lukala Lukala Ngomguembo Ngomguembo Ngomguembo Samba Cajú Samba Cajú Total Comuna Bindo kamabatela Luinga Maúa Tango Aldeia Nova Banga Impacted Communities SHAs 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 2 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 0 8 6 15 5 19 7 24 2 2 5 0 0 3 10 1 125 Recent Victims 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 18 Water Housing X Local Economic Services Infrastructure X Kakulo Kabassa Kariamba Bolongongo Kikiemba Terreiro Cerca Golungo Alto Kambondo Kiluanje X X X X X X X X X X Danje – ia – Menha 4 Dondo Massangano 5 4 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X S_ Pedro da Kilemba2 Zenza do Itombe Kanhoca Ndalatando Kiculungo Kiangombe Lukala Camame Cavunga 5 2 14 2 1 4 0 0 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Kilombo dos Dembos3 Samba Cajú Samba Lukala 5 1 64 X X X X X X X X X 3 16 9 18 10 3 4 12 118 Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE .

or 23 percent. The map below shows that most of the landmine problem is in the eastern half of the province. The main socioeconomic blockages involve agriculture and pasture land.000 living in these communities. are categorized as high. and future use of the land is required before setting priorities. of which 39. and eight incidents indicate a high threat environment for the high-impact communities. like other provinces in Angola with landmines blocking agricultural land. land tenure laws.Kwanza Sul Kwanza Sul PROVINCE SUMMARy i n Kwanza Sul province the LIS identified 169 mine-impacted communities. Each of these victims is from a high-impact community. Only four other provinces have more SHAs. Almost three-quarters of the SHAs can be found in just 10 of the comunas. There are 269 SHAs in Kwanza Sul.or medium-impact. However. Five SHAs in five comunas are responsible for the 18 recent victims. There are approxi- mately 177. MAp 33 MiNe-iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS iN KwaNZa SUL L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 119 . more in-depth research on ownership.

By geNder Activity Tampering Collecting Water Traveling Other Playing Farming Household Work Unknown Total Female 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 Male 2 7 3 3 1 1 0 0 17 Unknown 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 Total 11 8 5 3 2 1 0 0 30 TAble 95 NUMBer oF SHas.858 TAble 93 diSTriBUTioN oF reCeNT viCTiMS.7% 76. iNCideNTS.4% 20.845 123. aNd SHas wiTH viCTiMS.TAble 92 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS. By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT Roads and Ways & Paths 0 9 8 17 Impact Category High Medium Low Total Cultivated Land Pasture 8 47 93 148 5 24 38 67 Nonagricultural Land 6 40 88 134 Local Water Housing Services 0 15 4 19 0 7 3 10 0 1 4 5 Infrastructure 1 11 8 20 120 Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE .100 40.9% 100% Population Impacted 13. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Recent Victims 16 2 0 18 Incidents 5 3 1 9 Communities with Victims 3 2 0 5 SHAs with Victims 3 2 0 5 TAble 94 aCTiviTy aT THe TiMe oF iNCideNT. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 4 35 130 169 Percentage 2.913 177.

By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 4 35 130 169 Official Clearance 3 5 22 30 Marking and Survey 1 7 19 27 0 4 8 12 Village Demining 3 11 34 48 Victim MRE 4 4 3 11 Assistance L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 121 .Kwanza Sul MAp 34 LoCaTioN oF SHaS aNd reCeNT viCTiMS iN KwaNZa SUL TAble 96 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS.

SHas.TAble 97 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS. reCeNT viCTiMS. aNd BLoCKageS. By CoMUNa NonCultivated agricultural Roads Land Pasture Land X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Municipio Amboim Amboim Ebo Ebo Ebo Kassongue Kassongue Kassongue Kassongue Kibala Kibala Kibala Kibala Kilenda Kilenda Konda Konda Libolo Libolo Libolo Libolo Mussende Mussende Mussende Porto Amboim Porto Amboim Seles Seles Seles Sumbe Sumbe Sumbe Sumbe Waco Kungo Waco Kungo Waco Kungo Total Comuna Assango Gabela Condé Ebo Kassanje Atóme Dumbi Kassongue Pambangala Kariango Kibala Lonhe Impacted Communities SHAs 8 12 9 17 4 0 2 6 4 4 13 0 1 21 0 3 2 1 7 4 3 1 4 1 1 0 0 1 5 1 0 4 0 22 3 5 169 12 15 18 28 4 0 2 7 6 5 28 0 1 28 0 11 4 1 8 4 3 1 8 2 2 0 0 1 11 1 0 6 0 35 5 12 269 Recent Victims 0 6 2 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 30 Water Housing X Local Economic Services Infrastructure X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Ndala Kachibo Kilenda Kirimbo Konda Kunjo Kabuta Kalulo Kissongo Munenga Kienha Mussende Sao Lucas Kapolo Porto Amboim Amboiva Botera Ucu – Seles Gangula Gungo Kikombo Sumbe Kissanga Kungo Sanga Waco Cungo X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 20 X X X 22 X X X X X 10 6 4 X 10 8 26 122 Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE .

The socioeconomic blockages involve agricultural land and water. The mine-impacted communities are in the municipios of Cacuaco and Viana. MAp 35 MiNe-iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS iN LUaNda L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 123 . is very small. The landmine problem. however.Luanda Luanda PROVINCE SUMMARy T he province of Luanda contains almost one-third of the population of Angola. According to the people in the communities. with only two impacted communities. each community has one SHA. some surveys and marking have occurred but no other mine action activities were reported.

TAble 98 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 0 1 1 2 Percentage 0% 50.0% 100% Population Impacted 0 8.537 No recent victims were identified by the LIS in the province of Luanda. By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT Roads and Ways & Paths 0 0 0 0 Impact Category High Medium Low Total Cultivated Land Pasture 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Nonagricultural Land 0 1 0 1 Local Water Housing Services 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Infrastructure 0 0 0 0 TAble 100 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS.077 460 8.0% 50. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 0 1 1 2 Official Clearance 0 0 0 0 Marking and Survey 0 1 1 2 Village Demining 0 0 0 0 Victim MRE 0 0 0 0 Assistance 0 0 0 0 124 Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE . TAble 99 NUMBer oF SHas.

Luanda MAp 36 LoCaTioN oF SHaS aNd reCeNT viCTiMS iN LUaNda L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 125 .

aNd BLoCKageS. By CoMUNa NonCultivated agricultural Roads Land Pasture Land X X X Municipio Cacuaco Cacuaco Cacuaco Cacuaco Cazenga Cazenga Ingombota Ingombota Ingombota Ingombota Ingombota Kilamba Kyaxi Kilamba Kyaxi Kilamba Kyaxi Kilamba Kyaxi Kilamba Kyaxi Kilamba Kyaxi Maianga Maianga Maianga Rangel Rangel Rangel Samba Samba Samba Samba Sambizanga Sambizanga Sambizanga Viana Viana Viana Total Comuna Cacuaco Funda Kifangondo Kikolo Cazenga Tala Hadi Ilha do Cabo Ingombota Kinanga Maculusso Impacted Communities SHAs 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 Recent Victims 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water Housing X Local Economic Services Infrastructure Patrice Lumumba Golfe Havemos de Voltar 0 Kamama Neves Bendinha Palanca Vila do Estoril Cassequel Maianga Prenda Marçal Rangel Terra Nova Benfica Futungo de Belas Mussulo Samba Bairro Operário N`gola Kilwanji Sambizanga Barra do Cuanza Calumbo Viana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 126 Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE .TAble 101 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS. SHas. reCeNT viCTiMS.

Instead. with the exception of Luanda and Namibe. Approximately 30. clearly indicates that most of them were on or near roads. MAp 37 MiNe-iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS iN LUNda NorTe L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 127 . did not report roads and paths as a blockage. however. or 25 percent. showing the locations of accidents. Almost two-thirds of the recent victims were traveling when the mine incident occurred.Lunda Norte Lunda Norte PROVINCE SUMMARy i n Lunda Norte province the LIS identified 28 mine-impacted communities. Lunda Norte is the only province in which roads and paths were not reported as a blockage. being categorized as high.600 people are living in the 28 impacted communities. The priorities for mine action need to be closely aligned with development plans for the province. agricultural land and water are the most reported blockages. with seven. Very little mine action activities have occurred in Lunda Norte compared to the other provinces. and thus it is not surprising that the map below.or medium-impact. The impacted communities.

399 19. iNCideNTS.9% 75. By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT Roads and Ways & Paths 0 0 0 0 Impact Category High Medium Low Total Cultivated Land Pasture 4 4 15 23 1 1 2 4 Nonagricultural Land 4 0 3 7 Local Water Housing Services 2 4 3 9 0 0 2 2 0 0 7 7 Infrastructure 0 3 6 9 128 Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE . By geNder Activity Tampering Collecting Water Traveling Other Playing Farming Household Work Unknown Total Female 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Male 16 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 24 Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 16 4 2 2 1 0 0 0 25 TAble 105 NUMBer oF SHas. aNd SHas wiTH viCTiMS.0% 100% Population Impacted 4.154 30. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Recent Victims 20 5 0 25 Incidents 26 6 0 32 Communities with Victims 2 4 0 6 SHAs with Victims 2 4 0 6 TAble 104 aCTiviTy aT THe TiMe oF iNCideNT.120 7.1% 17.TAble 102 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS.673 TAble 103 diSTriBUTioN oF reCeNT viCTiMS. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 2 5 21 28 Percentage 7.

Lunda Norte MAp 38 LoCaTioN oF SHaS aNd reCeNT viCTiMS iN LUNda NorTe TAble 106 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 2 5 21 28 Official Clearance 0 0 4 4 Marking and Survey 0 0 0 0 Village Demining 0 0 1 1 Victim MRE 0 0 3 3 Assistance 2 4 0 6 L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 129 .

aNd BLoCKageS. By CoMUNa NonCultivated agricultural Roads Land Pasture Land X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Municipio Chitato Chitato Chitato Kambulo Kambulo Kambulo Kambulo Kapenda Kamulemba Kapenda Kamulemba Kaungula Kaungula Kuango Kuango Kuilo Kuilo Lubalo Lubalo Lubalo Lukapa Lukapa Lukapa Lukapa Xá – Muteba Xá – Muteba Xá – Muteba Xá – Muteba Total Comuna Chitato Lóvua Luachimo Kachimo Kambulo Kanzar Luia Kapenda kamulemba Xinge Kamaxilo Kaungula Kuango Luremo Kaluango Kuilo Luangue Lubalo Muvulage Kamissombo Kapaia Lukapa Xa – Cassau Cassanje Iongo Kitapa Xá – Muteba Impacted Communities SHAs 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 0 2 1 1 4 5 3 4 Recent Victims 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 Water Housing Local Economic Services Infrastructure X 2 1 3 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 28 2 1 4 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 3 42 1 0 1 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 25 0 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 X 4 3 6 2 6 7 130 Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE . SHas.TAble 107 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS. reCeNT viCTiMS.

or 40 percent. with some clearance. of which.Lunda Sul Lunda Sul PROVINCE SUMMARy i n Lunda Sul province the LIS identified 75 mine-impacted communities. Much of the landmine contamination in the province is near Saurimo or on the road leading to Saurimo from Lunda Norte.360 living in these 30 communities. At the time of the landmine incidents. mine action activities have largely consisted of MRE and victim assistance. There is an estimated population of 28. Seven recent victims were recorded by the LIS. the victims were either collecting water or farming. 30. Based on the community interviews. MAp 39 MiNe-iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS iN LUNda SUL L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 131 .or medium-impact. are high. There are 155 SHAs in Lunda Sul.

By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT Roads and Ways & Paths 0 7 3 10 Impact Category High Medium Low Total Cultivated Land Pasture 0 52 32 84 0 33 14 47 Nonagricultural Land 0 47 33 80 Local Water Housing Services 0 26 2 28 0 8 7 15 0 1 0 1 Infrastructure 0 9 6 15 132 Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE .243 66.0% 100% Population Impacted 0 28. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Recent Victims 0 7 0 7 Incidents 0 14 2 16 Communities with Victims 0 6 0 6 SHAs with Victims 0 6 0 6 TAble 110 aCTiviTy aT THe TiMe oF iNCideNT. aNd SHas wiTH viCTiMS. By geNder Activity Tampering Collecting Water Traveling Other Playing Farming Household Work Unknown Total Female 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Male 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 7 TAble 111 NUMBer oF SHas.TAble 108 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS.0% 60. iNCideNTS.360 38. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 0 30 45 75 Percentage 0% 40.603 TAble 109 diSTriBUTioN oF reCeNT viCTiMS.

By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 0 30 45 75 Official Clearance 0 3 4 7 Marking and Survey 0 7 5 12 Village Demining 0 2 4 6 Victim MRE 0 22 23 45 Assistance 0 14 9 23 L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 133 .Lunda Sul MAp 40 LoCaTioN oF SHaS aNd reCeNT viCTiMS iN LUNda SUL TAble 112 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS.

reCeNT viCTiMS.TAble 113 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS. SHas. aNd BLoCKageS. By CoMUNa NonCultivated agricultural Roads Land Pasture Land X X X Municipio Dala Dala Dala Kakolo Kakolo Kakolo Kakolo Mukonda Mukonda Mukonda Mukonda Saurimo Saurimo Saurimo Total Comuna Dala Kazage Luma-Kassai Alto-Chikapa Kakolo Kukumbi Xassengue Chiluage Kassai-Sul Mukonda Murieje Impacted Communities SHAs 4 0 0 2 10 2 2 3 4 7 7 7 24 3 75 13 0 0 2 22 4 4 5 12 12 14 15 48 4 155 Recent Victims 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 7 Water Housing X Local Economic Services Infrastructure X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 5 X X X 11 X X X X 8 X X X X X X X X 12 X X X X Mona-Kimbundo Saurimo Sombo 8 9 1 10 134 Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE .

The 46 percent of high. Major socioeconomic blockages were reported for roads and paths. as well as agricultural land and water. with 24 impacted communities. The Malanje comuna is the most impacted.and medium- impact communities represents the highest ratio for one province in Angola. Eleven. of which 40. This is followed by Kangandala with 14 impacted communities.000 living in the impacted communities. were either high. MAp 41 MiNe-iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS iN MaLaNje L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 135 .Malanje Malanje PROVINCE SUMMARy i n Malanje province the LIS identified 87 mine-impacted communities. or 42 percent. There is an estimated population of 115. The LIS recorded 26 victims between 2002 and 2004.or medium-impact. There are 164 SHAs in Malanje. The two comunas together comprise 44 percent of all impacted communities in the province. A majority of the impacted communities are in the southern part of the province in the vicinity of Malanje. or 46 percent. of the recent victims were female. mine action activities have largely consisted of MRE and clearance. Based on the community interviews.

By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Recent Victims 15 8 3 26 Incidents 18 8 5 31 Communities with Victims 4 5 3 12 SHAs with Victims 6 5 3 14 TAble 116 aCTiviTy aT THe TiMe oF iNCideNT.670 63. iNCideNTS.0% 100% Population Impacted 18. By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT Roads and Ways & Paths 1 28 15 44 Impact Category High Medium Low Total Cultivated Land Pasture 10 53 27 90 0 37 7 44 Nonagricultural Land 3 28 15 46 Local Water Housing Services 2 31 8 41 0 9 3 12 0 11 2 13 Infrastructure 2 11 7 20 136 Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE .4% 54. aNd SHas wiTH viCTiMS.6% 41. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 4 36 47 87 Percentage 4.TAble 114 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS.202 114.770 32.642 TAble 115 diSTriBUTioN oF reCeNT viCTiMS. By geNder Activity Tampering Collecting Water Traveling Other Playing Farming Household Work Unknown Total Female 7 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 11 Male 1 3 5 4 1 1 0 0 15 Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 8 6 6 4 1 1 0 0 26 TAble 117 NUMBer oF SHas.

reCeNT viCTiMS. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 4 36 47 87 Official Clearance 0 14 9 23 Marking and Survey 0 13 1 14 Village Demining 0 3 6 9 Victim MRE 3 12 13 28 Assistance 3 2 2 7 TAble 119 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS. aNd BLoCKageS. By CoMUNa NonCultivated agricultural Roads Land Pasture Land Water Housing X X X X X X X Municipio Kahombo Kahombo Kahombo Kahombo Kakuso Kakuso Kakuso Kakuso Kakuso Kalandula Kalandula Comuna Banje – Angola Kahombo Kambo Micanda Kakuso Kizenga Lombe Pungo-Andongo Sokeko Kalandula Kateco -Kangola Impacted Communities SHAs 0 1 3 0 0 2 2 0 1 2 1 0 3 8 0 0 3 9 0 3 4 1 Recent Victims 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 0 Local Economic Services Infrastructure X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 137 .Malanje MAp 42 LoCaTioN oF SHaS aNd reCeNT viCTiMS iN MaLaNje TAble 118 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS. SHas.

Municipio Kalandula Kalandula Kalandula Comuna Kinje Kota Kuale Impacted Communities SHAs 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 17 2 0 0 5 1 3 0 0 4 6 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 7 4 6 24 9 0 0 4 0 3 1 0 4 6 6 164 Recent Victims 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 26 NonCultivated agricultural Roads Land Pasture Land Water Housing X X Local Economic Services Infrastructure Kambundi-Katembo Dumba Kabango Kambundi-Katembo Kambumdi – Katembo 0 Kambundi-Katembo Tala – Mungongo Kangandala Kangandala Kangandala Kangandala Kela Kela Kela Kela Kirima Kirima Kiuaba-Nzoji Kiuaba-Nzoji Kunda-iá-Baze Kunda-iá-Baze Kunda-iá-Baze Lukembo Lukembo Lukembo Lukembo Lukembo Lukembo Malanje Malanje Malanje Malanje Malanje Malanje Malanje Marimba Marimba Marimba Massango Massango Massango Mukari Mukari Mukari Mukari Total Kalamagia Kangandala Karibo Mbembo Bangalas Kela Moma Xandele Karima Sautari Kiuaba-Nzoji Mufuma Kunda-iá-Baze Lemba Milando Dombo Kapunda Kimbango Kunga – Palanca Lukembo Rimba Kambaxe Kambondo Kangando Kimambamba Kissele Malanje Ngola-Luije Kabombo Marimba Tembo – Aluma Chihuhu Cinguengue Massango Katala Kaxinga Mikixi Mukari 0 1 12 1 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 1 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 3 2 4 15 4 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 3 3 87 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 18 X X X 21 X X X 18 X 8 8 13 14 23 138 Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE .

Moxico and neighboring Lunda Sul reported the availability of victim assistance more than any other province.or medium-impact. or 41 percent. The LIS recorded 111 recent victims in Moxico in 50 of the impacted communities.2% 59. which has been assisting landmine survivors since 1997. This can be directly attributed to the orthopedic and rehabilitation center in Luena.421 81. The most common socioeconomic blockages are of agriculture and pasture.473 80. Not surprisingly. of which one-half are living in high. TAble 120 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS. of which 119.806 170. Luau has more impacted communities and SHAs than any other municipio in Moxico. The LIS data clearly indicates that Moxico is the most mine-affected province in Angola. are either high. Additionally. 18 percent of all communities in Moxico are impacted by landmines.8% 36. and victim assistance.Moxico Moxico PROVINCE SUMMARy T he LIS identified 290 mine-impacted communities in Moxico province. the rate for all of Angola is 8 percent.or medium-impact communities. There is an estimated population of 170. They account for 89 impacted communities and 160 SHAs. Mine action activities have consisted of relatively high numbers of interventions for mine clearance. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 14 105 171 290 Percentage 4. MRE.0% 100% Population Impacted 8. Luau and Luena are the most impacted comunas in Moxico.700 L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 139 .000 living in the impacted communities. or 17 percent.

iNCideNTS.MAp 43 MiNe-iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS iN MoxiCo TAble 121 diSTriBUTioN oF reCeNT viCTiMS. By geNder Activity Tampering Collecting water Traveling Other Playing Farming Household Work Unknown Total Female 7 1 9 1 4 5 0 0 27 Male 23 23 11 11 6 5 5 0 84 Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 30 24 20 12 10 10 5 0 111 140 Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE . aNd SHas wiTH viCTiMS. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Recent Victims 61 45 5 111 Incidents 53 40 8 101 Communities with Victims 12 33 5 50 SHAs with Victims 12 34 5 51 TAble 122 aCTiviTy aT THe TiMe oF iNCideNT.

By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 14 105 171 290 Official Clearance 9 48 75 132 Marking and Survey 6 43 34 83 Village Demining 0 17 19 36 Victim MRE 10 61 95 166 Assistance 9 25 11 45 L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 141 . By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT Roads and Ways & Paths 4 33 43 80 Impact Category High Medium Low Total Cultivated Land Pasture 17 132 109 258 7 73 26 106 Nonagricultural Land 20 155 137 312 Local Water Housing Services 4 32 6 42 8 37 8 53 4 11 2 17 Infrastructure 10 65 34 109 TAble 124 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS.Moxico MAp 44 LoCaTioN oF SHaS aNd reCeNT viCTiMS iN MoxiCo TAble 123 NUMBer oF SHas.

TAble 125 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS. By CoMUNa NonCultivated agricultural Roads Land Pasture Land X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Municipio Alto Zambeze Alto Zambeze Alto Zambeze Alto Zambeze Alto Zambeze Alto Zambeze Alto Zambeze Kamanongue Léua Léua Luakano Luakano Luau Comuna Alto Zambeze Kaianda Kalunda Kavungo Lóvua Impacted Communities SHAs 20 11 8 15 1 34 19 12 28 1 34 1 19 27 39 10 7 99 6 11 4 0 6 4 0 10 8 6 0 0 3 29 61 36 8 522 Recent Victims 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 26 10 12 0 4 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 15 1 0 0 0 1 3 20 6 0 111 Water Housing X X X X X X Local Economic Services Infrastructure X X X X X X Lumbala-Kakengue 15 Macondo Kamanongue Léua Liangongo Lago-Dilolo Luakano Luau 1 17 16 22 5 5 48 4 9 4 0 5 2 0 5 6 3 0 0 1 13 41 12 Lumbala-Nguimbo Chiume Lumbala-Nguimbo Lumbala-Nguimbo Lumbala-Nguimbo Lutembo Lumbala-Nguimbo Luvuei Lumbala-Nguimbo Mussuma Lumbala-Nguimbo Ninda Lumbala-Nguimbo Sessa Lumeje Kameia Luxazes Luxazes Luxazes Luxazes Luxazes Moxico Moxico Moxico Moxico Total Lumeje Kameia Kangamba Kangumbe Kassamba Muié Tempué Kangumbe Luena Lukusse X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16 X 24 X X X X 20 X X X X X 25 12 14 8 18 X X X X X X X X X X Lutuai ou Muangai 1 290 142 Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE . aNd BLoCKageS. SHas. reCeNT viCTiMS.

of which almost half are blocking roads and paths. It contains only three impacted communities affecting 6. including one comuna with seven SHAs. The LIS identified 11 SHAs.Namibe Namibe PROVINCE SUMMARy N amibe province has a small landmine problem. MAp 45 MiNe-iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS iN NaMiBe L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 143 . The LIS reported no recent victims in Namibe.560 people. The data indicates that investigation into alternatives to the mined roads is required to determine mine action priorities.

By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 0 1 2 3 Official Clearance 0 1 0 1 Marking and Survey 0 1 4 5 Village Demining 0 0 5 5 MRE 0 2 8 10 Victim Assistance 0 0 1 1 144 Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE . By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT Roads and Ways & Paths 0 5 0 5 Impact Category High Medium Low Total Cultivated Land Pasture 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 Nonagricultural Land 0 0 1 1 Local Water Housing Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Infrastructure 0 2 0 2 TAble 128 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS.0% 33.060 6.3% 66.500 3.560 No recent victims were identified by the LIS in the province of Namibe.TAble 126 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS. TAble 127 NUMBer oF SHas. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 0 1 2 3 Percentage 0.7% 100% Population Impacted 0 3.

aNd BLoCKageS. reCeNT viCTiMS. By CoMUNa NonCultivated agricultural Roads Land Pasture Land Municipio Bibala Bibala Bibala Bibala Kamukuio Kamukuio Kamukuio Namibe Namibe Namibe Tômbua Tômbua Virei Virei Total Comuna Bibala Kaitou Kapangombe Lola Chingo Kamukuio Mamué Bentiaba Lucira Namibe Impacted Communities SHAs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 7 0 0 11 Recent Victims 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water Housing Local Economic Services Infrastructure X X Baía dos Tigres Tâmbua Kainde Virei X X X 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 145 . SHas.Namibe MAp 46 LoCaTioN oF SHaS aNd reCeNT viCTiMS iN NaMiBe TAble 129 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS.

146

Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE

Uíge

Uíge
PROVINCE SUMMARy

i

n Uíge province the LIS identified 167 mine-impacted communities, of which 23 are medium-impact and 144 are low-impact. No communities in Uíge are categorized

as high-impact. This is largely the result of the communities reporting only two recent victims in 2005–2006, the two-year period for which recent victims were counted. The 14 percent of the combined high- and medium-impact communities is below the national average of 25 percent. However, the 297 SHAs identified in Uíge and the high number of communities reporting the need for orthopedic services indicates the true level of landmine contamination in the province. Although the very low number of recent victims indicates that the people of Uíge are at least avoiding mine accidents, in 2002 (prior to the LIS) Uíge recorded more victims than all but two other provinces in Angola. Comunas bordering the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Bengo, and Zaire are impact-free. The landmine problem is largely in central Uíge near the towns of Uíge and Sanza Pombo. However, Bungo comuna, in the municipio with the same name immediately northeast of the town of Uíge, contains more impacted communities than any other comuna in the province. Agricultural land, nonagricultural land, and roads and paths represent 70 percent of all reported socioeconomic blockages in the province. The landmine problem in Uíge is distributed unevenly among the comunas. There are 11 comunas with no impact from landmines, and 8 of the 50 comunas contain 53 percent of all impacted communities.

TAble 130

NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category
High Medium Low Total

Number of Communities
0 23 144 167

Percentage
0% 14% 86% 100%

Population Impacted
0 14,604 112,989 127,593

L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A

147

MAp 47

MiNe-iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS iN Uíge

TAble 131

diSTriBUTioN oF reCeNT viCTiMS, iNCideNTS, aNd SHas wiTH viCTiMS, By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category
High Medium Low Total

Recent Victims
0 1 0 1

Incidents
0 2 6 8

Communities with Victims
0 1 0 1

SHAs with Victims
0 1 0 1

TAble 132

aCTiviTy aT THe TiMe oF iNCideNT, By geNder Activity
Tampering Collecting Water Traveling Other Playing Farming Household Work Unknown Total

Female
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Male
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Unknown
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

148

Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE

By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 0 23 144 167 Official Clearance 0 1 12 13 Marking and Survey 0 5 8 13 Village Demining 0 4 6 10 Victim MRE 0 11 38 49 Assistance 0 1 2 3 L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 149 .Uíge MAp 48 LoCaTioN oF SHaS aNd reCeNT viCTiMS iN Uíge TAble 133 NUMBer oF SHas. By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT Roads and Ways & Paths 0 9 38 47 Impact Category High Medium Low Total Cultivated Land Pasture 0 43 106 149 0 10 15 25 Nonagricultural Land 0 23 39 62 Local Water Housing Services 0 11 6 17 0 12 18 30 0 5 4 9 Infrastructure 0 8 20 28 TAble 134 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS.

TAble 135

NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS, SHas, reCeNT viCTiMS, aNd BLoCKageS, By CoMUNa NonCultivated agricultural Roads Land Pasture Land Water
X

Municipio
Ambuíla Ambuíla Bembe Bembe Bembe Buengas Buengas Buengas Bungo Damba Damba Damba Damba Damba Kangola Kangola Kangola Kimbele Kimbele Kimbele Kimbele Kitexe Kitexe Kitexe Kitexe Maquela do Zombo Maquela do Zombo Maquela do Zombo Maquela do Zombo Maquela do Zombo Milunga Milunga Milunga Milunga Mucaba Mucaba Negage Negage Negage Puri Sanza Pombo

Comuna
Ambuíla Kipedro Bembe Lukunga Mabaia Buengas Buengas do Sul

Impacted Recent Communities SHAs Victims
1 0 5 0 4 3 4 0 18 8 0 0 2 3 2 3 10 0 1 4 0 2 4 1 8 2 2 1 2 0 8 0 5 3 5 0 36 13 0 0 2 7 2 4 19 0 1 7 0 2 5 2 16 3 3 2 19 2 8 2 1 5 4 0 6 10 5 33 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Local Economic Housing Services Infrastructure

X

X

X

X

X X X X

X X X

Kuilo Kambonzo Bungo Damba Kamatambo Lemboa Pete-Cusso Sosso Bengo Kaiongo Kangola Alto – Zaza Icoca Kimbele Kuango Cambambe Kifafa Kitende Kitexe Beu Kibokolo Kuilo Futa

X X

X X

X

X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X

X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

Maquela do Zombo 9 Sakandika Makokola Makolu Massau Milunga Mucaba Uando Dimuka Kisseke Negage Puri Alfândega 1 5 2 1 3 3 0 3 3 2 17 11

X

X

X

X X

X X

X

X

X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X

X

150

Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE

Uíge

Municipio
Sanza Pombo Sanza Pombo Sanza Pombo Sanza Pombo Songo Songo Uíge Total

Comuna
Cuilo Pombo Sanza Pombo Uamba Kivuenga Songo Uíge

Impacted Recent Communities SHAs Victims
4 0 8 0 0 2 5 167 6 0 15 0 0 4 7 297 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

NonCultivated agricultural Roads Land Pasture Land Water
X

Local Economic Housing Services Infrastructure

X

X

X

X

X

X X 7 32 X 13

X X 22 9

X X 16 6

X X 15

L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A

151

152

Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE

of which nine. Soyo. or 14 percent. The LIS identified 105 SHAs. There are no high-impact communities in Zaire.Zaire Zaire PROVINCE SUMMARy T he LIS identified 65 mine-impacted communities in Zaire province. MAp 49 MiNe-iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS iN Zaire L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 153 . The estimated population living in the impacted communities is 49.000. Luvo. Tomboco. No recent victims were identified and very little mine action was reported in the LIS. As the map below shows. with agriculture being the primary socioeconomic blockage. Almost one-half of the SHAs are found in just five of the 20 comunas: Kelo. and Noqui. the impacted areas are in the northwest province of Soyo and the northeast province of Mbanza Kongo. are medium-impact.

968 No recent victims were identified by the LIS in the province of Zaire.597 32. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 0 9 56 65 Percentage 0% 13. By LeveL oF iMpaCT Impact Category High Medium Low Total Number of Communities 0 9 57 66 Official Clearance 0 1 5 6 Marking and Survey 0 1 4 5 Village Demining 0 0 5 5 Victim MRE 0 2 8 10 Assistance 0 0 1 1 154 Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE .8% 86. TAble 137 NUMBer oF SHas.371 48.2% 100% Population Impacted 0 16. By SoCioeCoNoMiC BLoCKage aNd LeveL oF iMpaCT Roads and Ways & Paths 0 1 3 4 Impact Category High Medium Low Total Cultivated Land Pasture 0 16 58 74 0 9 3 12 Nonagricultural Land 0 11 29 40 Local Water Housing Services 0 5 1 6 0 3 5 8 0 1 1 2 Infrastructure 0 2 2 4 TAble 138 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS wiTH MiNe aCTioN aCTiviTieS.TAble 136 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS aNd THeir popULaTioNS.

Zaire MAp 50 LoCaTioN oF SHaS aNd reCeNT viCTiMS iN Zaire L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 155 .

reCeNT viCTiMS. SHas. aNd BLoCKageS.TAble 139 NUMBer oF iMpaCTed CoMMUNiTieS. By CoMUNa NonCultivated agricultural Roads Land Pasture Land X X X Municipio Kuimba Kuimba Kuimba Kuimba Mbanza Kongo Mbanza Kongo Mbanza Kongo Mbanza Kongo Mbanza Kongo Mbanza Kongo Nóqui Nóqui Nóqui Nzeto Nzeto Nzeto Nzeto Soyo Soyo Soyo Soyo Soyo Tomboco Tomboco Tomboco Total Comuna Kanda Kuimba Luvaka Mbuela Kaluka Kiende Luvu Madimba Impacted Communities SHAs 2 3 0 2 0 1 6 0 4 2 0 0 4 1 3 3 2 8 1 3 8 4 2 2 5 66 2 4 0 4 0 3 9 0 6 4 0 0 7 1 3 5 5 16 1 3 12 6 2 4 8 105 Recent Victims 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water Housing Local Economic Services Infrastructure X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Mbanza Kongo Nkalambata Lufiko Mpala Nóqui Kindeji Loje-Kibala Mussera Nzeto Kelo Mangue Grande Pedra de Feitiço Soyo Sumba Kinzau Kiximba Tomboco X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 3 19 X X 9 X X 14 4 X X 6 X 2 3 156 Republic of AngolA – PROFILES BY PROVINCE .

Annexes .

Annexes .

Annex I—Key Participants

T

he Landmine Impact Survey in Angola was the product of collaborative efforts involving the participation of the following Angolan governmental agencies,
The National intersectoral Commission on demining and Humanitarian assistance (CNidaH)

non-governmental organizations, and the United Nations.

-

will utilize the data for planning and coordination purposes. The IMSMA data base with the LIS module was lodged at CNIDAH offices. SAC trained the data entry staff, supported interim distribution of provisional results for earlier use, and initiated discussions on how the LIS information could be used.
The Survey action Center (SaC) was responsible for the technical oversight and

overall implementation of the Angola Landmine Impact Survey. SAC established an office in Luanda in June 2003 to provide overall coordination, technical expertise, training and guidance, and monitoring on the survey methodology in the field, as well as to supervise operational implementation, conduct data analysis, and brief stakeholders. It held regular monthly meetings with the implementing partners. SAC was responsible for drafting this report.

SURVEy IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS
The key to Landmine Impact Survey success is the collection of socioeconomic impact data directly from affected communities. The government mine action entity the National Institute of Demining, along with the NGOs HALO Trust, INTERSOS, Mines Advisory Group, Norwegian People’s Aid, and the Santa Barbara Foundation, conducted the fieldwork and in some cases applied co-funding to support the fieldwork.

-

The Norwegian people’s aid (Npa) in Angola was established in response to a request

from the United Nations to help clear mines after the Lusaka Protocols were signed in 1994. NPA responded quickly to the request and established its mine action program in 1995. The NPA mine clearance activities developed from a modest start in 1995 to a very complex and comprehensive program in 2007 with a variety of capacities, such as manual demining, mechanical mine clearance, mine detection dogs, explosive ordnance disposal, and survey. The building of national capacity has been important for NPA since the start of the program, and in 2007 human resources are NPA’s strongest assets.

L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A

159

In July 2001, the government of Angola established the Intersectoral Commission for Demining and Humanitarian Assistance (CNIDAH) to regulate and coordinate humanitarian mine action. NPA is committed to working with the government of Angola and CNIDAH to negotiate, plan, and implement assistance in order to support the consolidation and expansion of a quality national capability to take over from existing international entities. In addition, all planning regarding the development of NPA’s humanitarian mine action strategy for the upcoming years will include activities related to the provision of technical assistance to the government and the transfer of responsibility to national authorities.
The Mines advisory group (Mag) has been working in Angola since 1994, clearing

-

landmines and unexploded ordnances (UXOs). The end of the war in 2002 and the dramatic increase in access and security have allowed MAG to strengthen its program. MAG has 12 Mine Action Teams, 4 Rapid Response Units, 5 Community Liaison Teams, and 4 Mechanical Support Units conducting vegetation clearance, excavation, area reduction, and quality assurance. It also has a dedicated Road Threat Risk Reduction Team. This range of operational units ensures that MAG is able to adopt a variety of techniques and respond quickly and effectively to the threat from these remnants of conflict in Moxico and Lunda Sul provinces. The key beneficiaries of MAG’s work include IDPs and refugees, as well as vulnerable rural communities and other non-government organizations seeking to implement wider humanitarian and development projects.
The HaLo Trust began its Angolan mine action program in Bié in 1994, in

-

support of the general humanitarian aid effort. In 1996 HALO Trust established an operational base in Huambo and in 1998 in Benguela. Based on a rapid assessment of the worst mine- and UXO-affected areas, high-priority clearance sites were determined and operations began. From 1998 to 2002 the Planalto security situation deteriorated, resulting in a large increase in the number of IDPs settling close to the cities of Kuito and Huambo. This is where HALO concentrated its clearance efforts in minefields adjacent to the IDP camps in order to reduce casualties from landmine incidents. After the ceasefire in 2002 HALO underwent a major expansion of its program and increased its staff from 300 to 1,000. New operational bases were established in Mavinga and Menongue in Kuando Kubango province. In 2005–2006 the priorities for HALO have been completing the LIS, opening road access, and deploying large numbers of deminers in its four areas of operations. As of September 2006 HALO has the following assets:

160

Republic of AngolA – ANNExES

• 62 x manual demining teams (7 demining lanes each) • 8 x mechanical support units • 4 x mechanical Road Threat Reduction systems (RTR) • 8 x combined teams (survey/road assessment/marking/MRE/EOD)
The Santa Barbara Foundation (SBF) is based in Bonn, Germany, and has been

-

conducting mine action activities in central Angola since 1997 without interruption. The foundation’s activities have included MRE, survey, clearance, marking, and EOD. It has focused on populated areas, farmland, roads, bridges, and air strips. Accidents have been absent from SBF operations. SBF’s representative office in Angola is in Luanda.
iNTerSoS Mine Action in Angola began in 1999 and focused on serving the

-

needs of IDPs and returnees. Operational bases were first established in Lubango and Matala, where large concentrations of displaced people had congregated. The first project was to clear the Matala–Dongo road (parallel to the destroyed and mined railroad Camino de Mocamedes). In Micossi the mined area surrounding schools was cleared and in Umpata (Lubango) INTERSOS teams performed stockpile destruction. Activities then expanded to Kuando Kubango in 2000, where clearance was undertaken in Marcolino (Menongue). INTERSOS also conducted MRE in partnership with Club de Jovens and supported the creation in Kuando Kubango of the only center for prosthetics and rehabilitation of landmine victims in the province. The Center – funded with grants from the EC and with Italian cooperation, as well as private contributions – developed in partnership with the local NGO Mbwembwa. INTERSOS trained local personnel for rehabilitation activities, prostheses production, and vocational skills to facilitate the reintegration of people with disabilities into productive activities. Capacity-building has been an integral part of its mine action and humanitarian aid programs in Angola. In addition to supporting the Club de Jovens and Mbwembwa, INTERSOS helped build the humanitarian demining capacity of AJOSAPA (Associacao de Jovens Sapatores), a national NGO based in Lubango.

-

INTERSOS closed its mine action program in Angola in 2006.
The National institute of demining (iNad), a public institute under the Council of

Ministers, is responsible for conducting studies related to mine action and for preparing and conducting mine clearance projects, including post-clearance and MRE. INAD also provides technical assistance and conducts evaluations. INAD’s capacity expanded greatly during 2006, and it now has nearly 2,000 operational staff located throughout the country.

L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A

161

It also provided capacity-building training to the database staff and facilitated the funding for surveying Bengo and Cabinda provinces. In June 2007 UNMAS convened a UN Certification Committee to review the entire survey process and provide UN certification to the survey.UNITED NATIONS - The United Nations development program (UNdp) provides technical assistance to enhance the establishment and structure of CNIDAH as the national body responsible for policy making and coordination of a national mine action program. UNDP served as the LIS main point of contact for the UN system. The United Nations Mine action Service (UNMaS) provided a quality assurance monitor - to observe all aspects of the survey process. 162 Republic of AngolA – ANNExES .

The national transportation infrastructure. The protocols are available on the Survey Action Center website at www.org. the first in December 2002 for meetings with the implementing NGOs and the second in March 2003 to examine the issue of how many communities in Angola might be affected by landmines and to begin the process of signing the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with CNIDAH. The rainy season would have a significant impact on the survey. such as the NPA general survey conducted in 1995–1998.Annex II—Methodology T he LIS in Angola followed the same methodology as applied in all of the Landmine Impact Surveys in other countries with surveys either completed or ongoing since 1999. Sufficient data sources were available to start the survey. it became clear that CNIDAH would fill this role. In June 2003 SAC established a survey coordination office in Luanda. was not reliable for LIS purposes given the different nature of the information and the changes in the country since that time. The mine action NGOs active in Angola would implement the survey if they were adequately funded for the task. The ASM and follow-up visits came to the following conclusions: The nature of the survey and of the country made it especially difficult to estimate the scope. although at the time of the ASM it was unclear what government organization would take on this responsibility. could cause logistical bottlenecks and. Two follow-up visits were conducted. including road conditions and limited travel by air.sac-na. and cost of the survey. The survey is guided by 10 protocols established by the Survey Working Group. The national mine action authority would provide support. ADVANCE SURVEy MISSION SAC conducted an Advance Survey Mission (ASM) in October 2002. however. It was not possible to determine the potential number of mine-affected communities in the country by reviewing from the national level. The question of IDPs and returning refugees and their level of knowledge of their home areas would be problematic. Soon after the mission. delays. The survey would take at least two years to complete. time. - L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 163 . The data from previous surveys conducted in Angola. ultimately.

Survey teams from each implementing partner conduct preliminary opinion collections to identify the communities suspected of being in the vicinity of landmines. SAC and NGOs develop questionnaire based on protocol for data requirements. SAC signs contracts with implementing partners (HALO Trust. Implementing partners establish field offices and recruit staff. National Demining Institute [INAD]. 164 Republic of AngolA – ANNExES . Survey supervisors carry out comprehensive quality control of all completed questionnaires based on a quality control checklist. pre-test. Phase 1: Establish operational survey capacity. it is surveyed along with all other communities within a range of five kilometers.PHASES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE LIS The LIS in Angola was divided into four phases. NGOs conduct pilot test and adjust operational plan as necessary. based on the FNS protocol. A representative sample of non-suspected communities is visited. NGOs collect preliminary information on suspected communities. INTERSOS. Phase 3: Collect data. Mines Advisory Group [MAG]. SAC defines sample frame for false negative sampling (FNS). and when errors are found the questionnaires are returned to the field for immediate correction. and when a mine-affected community is found (a false negative). All additional communities identified are visited. and Santa Barbara Foundation). and pilot test. CoMMUNiTy MappiNg iN KwaNZa SUL Phase 2: Conduct training. the reason is SorTiNg ForMS documented. All communities on the “suspected communities” list are visited. Survey teams use lists of SHAs recorded by NPA surveys in 1995–1998 to ensure that all previously identified SHAs and nearby communities are included in the LIS. Norwegian People’s Aid [NPA]. SAC briefs key stakeholders. SAC and NGOs train senior staff and survey teams. SAC and NGOs purchase equipment. When communities cannot be visited because the road has been mined or the bridge has been broken or for other reasons. Survey teams at each community meeting ask if there are other communities in the area that may be affected by landmines and are not yet on the survey team lists.

SAC analyzes data and drafts final report. NPA: INAD: MAG: Kwanza Norte. Communities are then chosen for FNS from the pool of communities that are considered to have no impact. Uíge. Huíla Bengo. Government of Angola reviews report. Bié. certify and publish report Implementing partners send completed questionnaires to SAC (and. they are “negative. Luanda. to CNIDAH) for data entry. i. all other unsuspected communities within five kilometers of it were also visited. Government of Angola requests UN certification of the survey. Lunda Norte Lunda Sul. less than five percent of the communities in the FNS pool were found to be impacted. Moxico area oF SUrvey operaTioN oF LiS parTNerS HALO Trust: Benguela. False negative sampling (FNS) is carried out in regions that local informants claim are free from landmines. Globally.Phase 4: Enter and analyze data. This process was continued until no new impacted communities were found. and produce.e. Malanje. Kwanza Sul. and the five-kilometer radius was extended from the newly found impacted community. Any of these communities that were discovered to be impacted were categorized as impacted by landmines/UXOs. MAp 51 IMPLEMENTING PARTNER OPERATIONAL AREAS Map 51 shows the survey’s operational areas for the six implementing partners.. FALSE NEGATIVE SAMPLING The LIS is a census of all mine-impacted communities in the country where it is conducted. Huambo. LIS database closes after quality assurance. after June 2005.” therefore.” A “false negative. is a community believed to be free of landmines/UXOs that turns out to be contaminated. Zaire Cabinda. Kunene L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 165 . Kuando Kubango INTERSOS: SBF: Namibe. Wherever a false negative was discovered.

which ones affect more than one community. for prioritization purposes. HALO Trust demonstrated that application of the revised visual inspection protocols effectively reduces the estimated size of SHAs. While this requires additional equipment and training. the costs are not high and there is no significant effect on the length of time required to survey each community. 166 Republic of AngolA – ANNExES . In such cases. it was still possible to identify. the SHA was assigned to a unique community as required by IMSMA. The procedure was applied by some but not all operators. these SHAs were assigned to a nearby community (although in some cases located many kilometers away) in order not to lose the information. for which IMSMA does not provide much flexibility. when the SHA was recorded. Due to the inability of IMSMA to record SHAs not associated with communities. This is important because the CNIDAH database is meant to support all mine action requirements that may arise. However. SHAs not claimed by any community LIS teams sometimes learned of SHAs that were not claimed by any community. This is a valid situation. The resulting SHAs are more accurately defined but will require further technical survey and planning for appropriate treatment of the respective areas. and the second community was recorded in the otherwise unused field in the database. and this information will become relevant at such time as there are development or resettlement projects in that area. Rigorous visual inspection of SHAs The LIS implementing partners conducted visual inspection according to both the old and new SWG protocols.ISSUES OF METHODOLOGy ADDRESSED SHAs affecting more than one community LIS teams in two different communities sometimes identified the same SHA as having an impact on more than one community. The SHA was considered in the scoring of only CoMMUNiTy iNTerview iN MaLaNje the one community to which it was assigned.

conducted by the Development Workshop (DW) September 2004 – Strategic planning intervention.Annex III—Project Timeline OVERALL SURVEy TIMELINE - october 2002 to March 2003 – Advance Survey Mission (three missions) december 2002 to September 2003 – Equipment procured june to october 2003 – SAC established office September to october 2004 – Task assessment planning (TAP). in Huambo province. pre-test given February to March 2004 – Interviewers trained March to july 2004 – Pilot test. pre-test given L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 167 . instrument & ops plan revised april to july 2004 – Data collection in Huambo province july 2004 to january 2005 – Data collection in Benguela province November 2004 to april 2005 – Data collection in Bié province june to august 2005 – Data collection in Kuando Kubango province Npa CaMp iN MaLaNje Norwegian People’s Aid September 2003 – Signed contract with SAC September 2003 – Established field office december 2003 – Senior staff trained. conducted by Cranfield University april 2004 to May 2007 – Data collection july 2004 to july 2007 – Data entry into IMSMA database april to july 2007 – SAC drafts LIS final report june 2007 – United Nations certifies survey october 2007 – CNIDAH/SAC finalize report december 2007 – Final report printed and distributed IMPLEMENTING PARTNER TIMELINES Halo Trust august 2003 – Signed contract with SAC September 2003 – Established field office december 2003 – Senior staff trained.

instrument & ops plan revised june 2004 to March 2005 – Data collection in Huíla province october 2004 to august 2005 – Data collection in Namibe province Santa Barbara january 2004 – Signed contract with SAC april 2004 – Established field office april 2004 – Senior staff trained. pre-test given May 2004 – Interviewers trained june to july 2004 – Pilot test. instrument & ops plan revised june to october 2004 – Data collection in Malanje province october 2004 to january 2005 – Data collection in Kwanza Sul province january to March 2005 – Data collection in Kwanza Norte province February to May 2006 – Data collection in Zaire province May 2006 to February 2007 – Data collection in Uíge province Mines Advisory Group january 2004 – Signed contract with SAC april 2004 – Established field office april 2004 – Senior staff trained. pre-test given May 2004 – Interviewers trained june to july 2004 – Pilot test. instrument & ops plan revised august 2004 to March 2005 – Data collection in Kunene province october 2006 to February 2007 – Data collection in Bengo province Republic of AngolA – ANNExES .168 january to March 2004 – Interviewers trained april to july 2004 – Pilot test. instrument & ops plan revised june 2004 to February 2006 – Data collection in Moxico province april 2005 to March 2006 – Data collection in Lunda Sul province INTERSOS january 2004 – Signed contract with SAC april 2004 – Established field office april 2004 – Senior staff trained. pre-test given May 2004 – Interviewers trained june 2004 – Pilot test.

instrument & ops plan revised September 2004 to May 2005 – Data collection in Lunda Norte province March to May 2005 – Data collection in Luanda province March to May 2007 – Data collection in Cabinda province TraNSporTiNg Spare TireS To THe SUrvey TeaMS iN Uíge CHaLLeNgiNg road CoNdiTioNS dUriNg THe raiNy SeaSoN L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 169 .INAD - august 2004 – Signed contract with SAC august 2004 – Established field office july 2004 – Senior staff trained. pre-test given july 2004 – Interviewers trained july 2004 – Pilot test.

170 Republic of AngolA – ANNExES .

Landmine/ERW survivors receive assistance and reintegration support from MINARS.Annex IV—National Mine Action Strategic Plan 2006–2011 T he following extract contains the Goals and Objectives of the National Mine Action Strategic Plan 2006–2011. Goal 2 Landmine/ERW survivors and persons with disabilities receive medical care within the national health system and have access to assistance in reintegrating into community life Strategic direction and coordination for victim assistance (medical care and reintegration) is provided by the CNIDAH Subcommission for Assistance and Social Reintegration. Landmine/ERW survivors’ access to transport for victim assistance is improved. Ministry of Defense.8 CNIDAH establishes a national database of victims to support planning and reporting.3 Objective 2.2 Objective 2. Veterans de Guerra.1 Objective 1. Mark all remaining SHAs.7 Objective 2. Ministry Antigos Combatantes. Operational direction for victim reintegration is undertaken by MINARS. A landmine survivors’ network is established to empower individuals and communities affected by landmines to recover from trauma. Goal 1 Objective 1.4 Objective 2.3 Objective 1.1 Objective 2. MAPESS. Reduce number of victims to virtually zero by 2011. MINSA. reclaim their lives.4 Objective 1. and fulfill their rights. and Ministry of Education. L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 171 .5 Significantly reduce the risk to impacted communities and at-risk groups by 2011 Reduce to zero the number of high-impact communities.5 Operational direction for medical care is undertaken by MINSA. Reduce by 50 percent the number of medium-impact communities.6 Objective 2. Objective 2.2 Objective 1. Landmine/ERW survivors receive medical care within the national health system as provided for persons with disabilities. Refocus MRE on impacted communities and at-risk groups as identified in the LIS and accident data. using community-based and operator resources. Objective 2. adopted by the Council of Ministers on 6 September 2006.

and GRN. FAA.3 Objective 4. Goal 4 Fully establish a national mine action capability that is sustainable by national resources after the end of major international assistance By 2007.3 CNIDAH engages stakeholders in national infrastructure investment and reconstruction in order to develop a list of priorities for mine action support. on the advice of CNIDAH. and GRN have been established and resourced to undertake national demining operations. CNIDAH is fully executing its role as the national mine action authority. The national planning and reporting framework will be embedded in mine action in Angola by 2008. and the level of international support). INAD.5 Provincial mine action operations are effectively coordinated at the provincial government level. CED is fully executing its responsibility to coordinate the demining operations of INAD. By 2007. Funding for mine action in support of national development projects is included within the project by the responsible government ministry and/or donor.1 Establish a world-class mine action program in Angola Angola has made significant progress in meeting its Ottawa Treaty responsibilities (recognizing the size of the problem in Angola.4 Objective 5.2 The Angola mine action program supports national infrastructure investment and reconstruction All major national infrastructure investment and reconstruction projects are assessed for mine action requirements. Objective 3. By 2007.1 Objective 4.3 Objective 5. CNIDAH establishes a national mine action planning and reporting framework that supports national and provincial requirements.Goal 3 Objective 3. 172 Republic of AngolA – ANNExES . Objective 4.2 Objective 4. Area reduction procedures are used to minimize the size of SHAs and to focus clearance operations on contaminated land.1 Objective 3. National legislation for mine action has been approved by the government of Angola. Objective 5. Demining operations are conducted in accordance with humanitarian mine clearance best practices.4 Objective 4.2 Objective 5. FAA.6 LIS data guides mine action operations in Angola. the funding available.5 Objective 5. Goal 5 Objective 5. By the end of 2006. The stockpile destruction project is complete.4 Roads needed for national reconstruction and rehabilitation will be mine-safe. Objective 3.

The eight other socioeconomic blockages are assigned one point each. and the estimated area (size) of the SHA are not factors. Such cases requiring “spot clearance” are reported to CNIDAH or removed by the implementing partner. the impact point is only awarded if there is significant UXO presence. for a total of 10 points for blockages. recognized the risks and threats that roads pose in rural Angola. and not for small deposits or individual UXO items.Annex V— Scoring and Classification S coring and classifying mine-affected communities according to the severity of impacts is a central element of the Landmine Impact Survey (LIS). The number of mines. however. A standard- ized impact scoring mechanism has been developed in order to provide a general assessment according to the severity of the impacts. The National Intersectoral Commission for Demining and Humanitarian Assistance (CNIDAH) approved the weights for calculating the impact scores for the LIS in Angola. contribute to LIS impact scoring. Another impact point is awarded if the community reports the presence of widespread (battle-area) UXOs in one or more associated SHAs. They do not. These weights are awarded only if the specific blockage exists in one or more of the SHAs—but only once per community. - Roads and paths blocked (2 points) Housing blocked (1 point) L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 173 . IMPACT SCORING ELEMENTS The scoring system to categorize community impact takes into account the following three characteristics of the community: - The types of ordnance reported The types of livelihood and institutional areas to which mines are blocking access The number of recent victims (within prior two years) WEIGHTS BUDGET The indicators and weights for contamination types and recent victims are endorsed by the Survey Working Group. The amount of UXOs and the estimated area of the SHA are not factors. the population. on their own. and assigned two points to roads and paths blocked by landmines. Two impact points are awarded if the community reports the presence of mines in one or more associated SHAs. The scoring weights for munitions are fixed. SAC and the implementing partners assessed the variety of socioeconomic blockages in Angola.

” and “high impact” – to the following specified ranges of impact score: Impact Score Level of Impact 0 1–5 6–10 11 or more No known mine problem Low Medium High 174 Republic of AngolA – ANNExES .” “low impact. This can be determined during post-survey follow-up in each community. subtype. population directly affected. or origin. In other words. the LIS determines what the socioeconomic blockages are in each community but it does not assess exactly how the blocked area has affected the community. For example. six points will be awarded. which provide either a fixed number of points or none. the scoring looks only at the presence of generic landmines and of UXOs. All data that contribute to the community score are collected at and linked to SHAs. Similarly. value. However. recent victims award two points each. Unlike the munitions and socioeconomic impact blockage components. They do not indicate how much of it is blocked or what affect the blockage has had on the community. age. not a threshold measured by size. IMPACT CATEGORy BOUNDS AND CATEGORIZATION The survey assigns four impact categories – “no known mine problem. not at numbers laid. in the area of the scoring that deals with type of munitions.- Other infrastructure blocked (1 point) Fixed pasture blocked (1 point) Access to drinking water blocked (1 point) Access to other water blocked (1 point) Irrigated cropland blocked (1 point) Rain-fed cropland blocked (1 point) Nonagricultural land blocked (1 point) The third scoring component involves points awarded if the community has had “recent victims. or number of alternatives.” “medium impact. For example. with no maximum. The indicators only determine whether a certain type of livelihood or institutional area is blocked by landmines (or contaminated with unexploded munitions). the community score is calculated for the collective community. if there are three recent victims. The Survey Working Group adopted this system for purposes of validity and reliability on a consensus basis. the existence of a problem is the criterion. It is important to note that the score is indifferent to the population or territory of the community and considers neither the number of distinct SHAs nor their surface area nor their proximity to the center of the community.” defined as people killed or injured by mines or UXOs in one of the SHAs in the previous 24 months.

were affected by landmines. or the routes leading to them. There were 702 communities deemed ‘inaccessible. 1. the estimated proportion (prevalence) of affected communities among the 23.504 = 0.2% L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 175 . it is assumed that because of an expected strong spatial correlation.7% Identification rate Detected/all impacted communities Best estimate: Inaccessible all impacted: 87. Prevalence Affected communities / all communities Estimation 1: Inaccessible all impacted: 8. ESTIMATION 1 This estimation procedure assumes that the strategy of going to neighboring communities is equivalent to the full procedure of investigating all communities in an area in which a sampled ‘not suspected’ community was found to be affected.927+61)/23. this procedure would have found virtually all affected communities because of the small chance of having isolated affected communities being randomly (or even haphazardly) distributed throughout a district. as the only uncertainty comes with imputation of a prevalence (either 0% or 100%) to the 702 inaccessible communities.504 communities in Angola is simply (1.’ Under the assumption that the inaccessibility was due to factors unrelated to mine prevalence. the inaccessibility was because these communities. A group of 19. or 11. neighboring communities were also investigated according to LIS protocol.504-702)= 0. Alternatively stated.2% 90. these estimates have very little variance associated with them.087.755 were found by survey to have no landmine/UXO contamination.7% 11. or 8.384 communities suspected of being impacted by landmine/UXO during preliminary opinion collection (POC).114.120 communities were identified by POC as not being suspected of having landmine/UXO contamination and from this group 2. and 702 communities were determined inaccessible. 1.389 (12.927 were impacted by landmine/UXO. Moulton. If. however.7% 12.4% SUMMary Estimation 2: Inaccessible all impacted: 9.Annex VI— Estimation of Prevalence of Mine-Affected Communities o Lawrence H. the prevalence estimate is (702+1. If any sampled community was found to be affected.4%. Ph. as presented in the Figura beBaixo.7%.927+61) / (23. Under the above assumptions and classical sampling theory. / 13-September-2007 f the 4.D.5%) were selected for evaluation in accordance with predetermined false negative sampling (FNS) procedures.

according to the classic formula for stratified sampling (Cochran. p. we get pst = 0. 1977. some or all may have been among the Not Suspected. with Nh the number in the kth district. which we apply to the total number of unsuspected communities. those communities found during the clean-up phase to be impacted may have been classified as True Positives. as that would lend a perhaps false sense of accuracy to these numbers. and then possibly identified as inaccessible only during the clean-up phase around discovered False Negative communities. Applying the above formulae. The identification rate of all impacted communities in Angola is estimated as 100% x (1927+61)/(1927+354)=87.0185. In addition. 19.107) is pst = N-1S h Nh ph .. Since 61 of these were found during the LIS. New York. We have 176 Republic of AngolA – ANNExES . depending on whether the “inaccessible” communities are considered not impacted or impacted. investigated communities were representative of the non-sampled (and non-suspected) communities in the given district. Wiley. of which 61 (17%) have been identified through the false negative sampling and the subsequent search of neighboring communities. The overall estimated prevalence of affected communities among the 23. instead of False Negatives. Third Ed.2%.ESTIMATION 2 This estimation approach is carried out under the much milder assumption that the sampled. For both of these calculations..504 is therefore 100% x (1927+354)/23504=9. we have assumed these inaccessible communities to have been among the Suspected. Sampling Techniques. This results in a “worst-case” scenario. In fact. the expected number of non-identified impacted communities is 354 – 61 = 293. in which we apply the proportion of the sampled communities that are affected to the number of non-sampled communities to estimate the total affected communities in a district. There was insufficient information on the survey processes to be certain the “inaccessible” communities were among the Suspected.120.7% if the “inaccessible” communities were impacted. and the proportion of affected communities in all the districts. Thus.. respectively.2% or 100% x (1927+61+702)/(1927+354+702) = 90. Let N = SNh be the total number of non-suspected communities from which the samples are drawn. depending on the actual impact status of the inaccessible communities. to get an expected 354 affected communities. there could be a dozen different configurations of the data. or 100% x (1927+354+702)/23504=12. The proportion of affected communities in a sample of nh in a district is given by ph = ah / nh. COMMENTS We have not calculated 95% confidence intervals for our prevalence and identification estimates. we have made certain assumptions regarding the nature of the communities that may incur greater discrepancies than just the sampling error inherent in the false negative sampling process.7%.

the prevalence of impacted communities is relatively Alto. The extensive survey efforts.selected a couple scenarios we feel to be most likely. have identified around 9 in 10 of all impacted communities. L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 177 . on the magnitude of 1 in 10. however. As expected. including the assumption that all of the inaccessibility of communities was due to their being impacted or blocked by landmines.

178 Republic of AngolA – ANNExES .

and in July 2005 CNIDAH took over the LIS coordination and database function for the remainder of the survey. HALO Trust. UN QUALITy ASSURANCE United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS) Quality Assurance Monitor (QAM) Hemi Morete conducted five monitoring missions from 2003 to 2006. L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 179 . technical expertise. INTERSOS. Mines Advisory Group (MAG). From June 2003 to June 2005 the SAC Coordination Team in Luanda provided overall coordination. and briefed stakeholders. with the support of UNDP. with funding from the German government.Annex VII— Administrative Structures T he Landmine Impact Survey in Angola was a CNIDAH and SAC partnership with the government mine action entity National Institute of Demining (INAD). and also supervised operational implementation. training and guidance. The QAM monitored and documented the project’s progress and the quality of its data. Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA). SAC closed its operations in Angola. After funding unexpectedly expired in June 2005. and Santa Barbara Foundation (SBF) were implementing partners conducting the fieldwork. in accordance with Protocol 10: Certification. SAC assigned a technical advisor who would oversee the completion of the survey in mid-2007. In July 2006. and monitoring on the survey methodology in the field. conducted data analysis.

180 Republic of AngolA – ANNExES .

Annex VIII—List of Inaccessible Comunas Province Bengo Kuando Kubango Lunda Norte Lunda Norte Lunda Norte Lunda Norte Lunda Norte Lunda Norte Malanje Malanje Malanje Malanje Malanje Malanje Malanje Malanje Moxico Namibe Uíge Uíge Municipio Bula Atumba Rivungo Kuilo Kuilo Lubalo Lubalo Lubalo Xi – Muteba Kangandala Kirima Kirima Lukembo Lukembo Lukembo Lukembo Lukembo Luxazes Timbua Bembe Damba Comuna Kiaje Chipundo Kaluango Kuilo Luangue Lubalo Muvulage Kitapa Mbembo Karima Sautari Dombo Kapunda Kunga – Palanca Lukembo Rimba Muii Baia dos Tigres Lukunga Lemboa L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 181 .

182 Republic of AngolA – ANNExES .

Annex IX—Abbreviations Abbreviations AP ASM AT CNIDAH Antipersonnel Advance Survey Mission Antitank National Intersectoral Commission for Demining and Humanitarian Assistance EOD FNS GPS IDPs IMSMA INAD LIS MAG MINARS MoU MRE NGO NPA POC QAM SAC SHA SWG Explosive Ordnance Destruction False Negative Sampling Global Positioning System Internally Displaced Persons Information Management System for Mine Action National Institute of Demining Landmine Impact Survey Mines Advisory Group Ministry of Social Welfare and Reintegration Memorandum of Understanding Mine Risk Education Nongovernmental Organization Norwegian People’s Aid Preliminary Opinion Collection Quality Assurance Monitor Survey Action Center Suspected Hazard Area Survey Working Group (continued on next page) L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 183 .

Comuna is the administrative unit below municipio.Abbreviations (continued) UNDP UNICEF UNMAS UNOCHA United Nations Development Program United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund United Nations Mine Action Service United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs UNOPS UXO United Nations Office for Project Services Unexploded Ordnance LOCAL TERMS USED Two local terms are used in the report to describe the administrative boundaries in the provinces. Municipio is the highest administrative unit in each province. 184 Republic of AngolA – ANNExES .

958 $25. In addition to the above.163 L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 185 .000 $560. Department of State European Commission Government of Germany Government of Norway Government of Canada Government of Italy Government of Ireland Total Total $2.000 of this amount went towards the procurement of equipment used to conduct the LIS.000 $620.000 $124. provided significant in-kind contributions to the cost and conduct of the LIS: SUrvey BUdgeT aNd FUNdiNg Donor U.S.000 $6.778.073.Annex X—Finances T he LIS was supported by funds from seven donors. the government of Angola.473. including in particular CNIDAH and INAD.100 $2.105 $975. A total of $1.400.

186 Republic of AngolA – ANNExES .

Kuando Kubango province Improvised Explosive Device on trip wire in Ganda. Benguela province Pasture and agricultural land in Kwanza Sul province Road in Benguela province The NPA survey team driving on the national highway in Uige province Road in Malanje province UXO site Desert with antelope near Iona in Namibe province Community mapping in Kwanza Sul province Sorting forms NPA conducting a community interview in Malanje HALO Trust NPA HALO Trust Mike Kendellen HALO Trust HALO Trust 34 HALO Trust 50 51 51 52 55 79 162 162 163 NPA Mike Kendellen NPA Mike Kendellen NPA InterSOS NPA NPA Tom Haythornthwaite NPA NPA NPA 165 167 167 NPA camp in Malanje province Transporting spare tires to the survey teams in Uige province Challenging road conditions during the rainy season L A N D M I N E I M PA C T S U R V E Y – R e p u b l i c o f A n g o l A 187 .Annex XI—Photography Credits Page Caption 9 HALO Trust surveyor crossing a bridge to reach a village in Benguela HALO Trust community interview in Benguela province Photo Credit HALO Trust 9 23 24 26 30 31 32 34 Mike Kendellen NPA conducting community interview in Kwanza Sul province NPA HALO Trust community interview in Kuando Kubango A Village in Kwanza Sul A PPM2 AP mine found in a SHA in Huambo province HALO Trust conducting visual inspection HALO Trust Survey Officer mapping in Kuito One of many TM57 AT mines found in Cuito Cuanavale.

188 Republic of AngolA – ANNExES .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful