The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will be formalized later this year and serve as the guiding framework for development through 2030. United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has made the SDGs a cornerstone of his legacy and a tremendous amount of effort has gone into the drafting and design of the Goals. At present, there are 17 proposed Goals and some 169 indicators and Ban’s recent Synthesis report of the SDG process has re-affirmed the proposed goals and indicators (although Ban did try to simplify the presentation of the Goals by aligning them under six themes). The next major milestones in the SDG process are the High level thematic debate on implementation next month and the financing meeting in the Ethiopia capital, Addis Ababa, in July. After the Addis meeting, the Goals will likely be finalized and approved in September at the meeting of the United Nations General Assembly.
I have written previously about the opportunity that the Sustainable Development Goals posed for mine action and specifically landmine survivor assistance. With the stated aim of leaving no one behind, the Goals and indicators offer a framework for ensuring that everyone benefits from development. However, because the Goals are so broad, I fear that leaving some behind will be very possible. At this point in the negotiations, the Goals and indicators are relatively final, but the means to achieve the Goals are still to be decided; the Addis financing meeting should resolve much of the uncertainty.
One of the major criticisms of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs, which are the predecessor of the SDGs) was the absence of any mention of disability. Since 2000 when the MDGs went into effect, the international community negotiated the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the participants in the creation of the SDGs recognized the importance of specifically including disability and persons with disabilities in the SDG framework. Disability is mentioned in all three major documents released in the SDG process, the report of the High Level Panel of Eminent Persons (May 2013), the Open Working Group’s proposed Goals and indicators (August 2014), and the Secretary General’s Synthesis report (December 2014). A special session of the United Nations General Assembly also discussed the inclusion of persons with disability in development and made recommendations to the SDG process.
However, in reading and re-reading these three key documents, I felt that the importance of disability inclusive development was being lost. A content analysis of the documents suggests the same. I reviewed all three documents for mentions of major groups that had been highlighted for inclusion in the SDGs: Women & Gender, Youth and Children, Persons with Disability, and other Vulnerable persons. In the report of the High Level Panel of Eminent Persons, disability was mentioned once for every six mentions of women or gender. This ratio improved in the Open Working Group’s proposal where disability was mentioned once for every three mentions of women or gender. However, in the Synthesis report, disability is mentioned only once for nine mentions of women or gender. A similar pattern is seen when comparing disability to youth and children: disability receives one mention for every 7.5 mentions of youth and children in the High Level Panel’s report; one mention for every three mentions in the Open Working Group’s proposal; and only one mention for every eight in the Synthesis report. Persons in vulnerable situations consistently received a similar number of mentions as persons with disabilities.
Figure 1 shows the relative percentage of mentions of the four categories selected for content analysis in the three documents:
The chart shows that while the Open Working Group’s proposed Goals and indicators recognized the needs of persons with disabilities and persons in vulnerable situations, the High Level Panel focused more attention on youth and children and the Secretary General has focused more attention on women and gender.
The diminishing focus on disability is not just a measure of the number of mentions, but also the content of those mentions. The High Level Panel of Eminent Persons’ report, while featuring few mentions of disability, recognized the importance of disability in the proposed development framework and the Panel sought input from persons with disability, reporting:
People with disabilities also asked for an end to discrimination and for equal opportunity. They are looking for guarantees of minimum basic living standards.
The High Level Panel put persons with disability on the same level as gender and ethnicity when speaking about the importance of leaving no one behind:
The next development agenda must ensure that in the future neither income nor gender, nor ethnicity, nor disability, nor geography, will determine whether people live or die, whether a mother can give birth safely, or whether her child has a fair chance in life.
In contrast, Ban Ki Moon’s Synthesis report declared, “This is the century of women: we will not realize our full potential if half of humanity continues to be held back.” Ban’s report then added a series of other groups whose full potential has not been met: “We also need to include the poor, children, adolescents, youth, and the aged, as well as the unemployed, rural populations, slum dwellers, persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples, migrants, refugees and displaced persons, vulnerable groups and minorities.”
Ban tasks the development framework to “remove obstacles to full participation by persons with disabilities” and states that:
[The] strength of an economy must be measured by the degree to which it meets the needs of people, and on how sustainably and equitably it does so. We need inclusive growth, built on decent jobs, livelihoods and rising real incomes for all and measured in ways that go beyond GDP and account for human well-being, sustainability and equity. Ensuring that all people, including women, persons with disabilities, youth, aged, and migrants have decent employment, social protection, and access to financial services, will be a hallmark of our economic success.
The High Level Panel gave agency to persons with disabilities, and called for the inclusion of disabled peoples organizations in civil society discussions. The High Level Panel did not declare a “century of women.” Ban’s report focuses on women over other sectors of society, including persons with disability and talks about the role of the international community and the development framework for “removing obstacles” and “ensuring access” but did not discuss how to do so, especially in light of the discrimination persons with disability described to the High Level Panel.
The international community will meet in February and July to discuss the implementation and financing of the Sustainable Development Goals. However, with the Secretary General’s Synthesis report as the most recent overview document, the diminishing focus on disability worries me. There is a movement to create a Global Financing Facility for maternal and child health that will support the SDGs related to women’s and children’s health (World Bank) and the Addis financing meeting will presumably offer other financing mechanisms to achieve the Goals. Advocacy and activism is important to ensure that implementation measures and financing schemes proposed in the next few months are inclusive of persons with disability. I fear that efforts on behalf of women and children will take precedence over those for persons with disability (and as the Secretary General’s Synthesis report shows, women have a very strong champion). The disability community applauded the Open Working Group’s recommended goals and indicators for their inclusiveness, and now the community must mobilize to ensure that the financing and implementation measures agreed in Addis are similarly inclusive.
Michael P. Moore
January 5, 2015
moe (at) landminesinafrica (dot) org
In Mozambique, thousands of our fellow citizens who have been mutilated by [anti-personnel landmines] are waiting for the day when we shall have the conditions required for increasing assistance and effecting the social and economic reintegration to which they are entitled. It is within this framework that my Government, in close cooperation with friendly countries, drew up a national assistance strategy for landmines victims. As the document will be presented in the next few days, you will have the opportunity to undertake a detailed assessment of this multidisciplinary programme we have worked out. In fact, I hope to see this strategy encompass health, job promotion and social reintegration activities, for without these we cannot talk about adequate assistance to landmine victims.
Joaquim Alberto Chissano, President of the Republic of Mozambique
May 3, 1999 (Opening Ceremony of the First Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty)
Since coming into force in 1999, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (Convention or Mine Ban Treaty) has served as the framework for clearing millions of anti-personnel landmines, providing mine-risk education to citizens of dozens of mine-affected countries and providing survivor assistance to tens of thousands of survivors of landmine injuries. Mozambique hosted the first Meeting of States Parties to the Convention in 1999 and will soon, just as it is about to clear the last anti-personnel landmine from its territory, host the Third Review Conference of the Convention (the first Review Conference was held in Nairobi, Kenya in 2004; the second in Cartagena, Colombia in 2009). From June 29 to July 4, 2014, governments, civil society and landmine survivors will meet in Mozambique’s capitol, Maputo, to review progress towards the Mine Ban Treaty’s objectives and plot the way forward for the next five years (2014 – 2019).
Mozambique had once been considered one of the most mine-affected countries in the world. An estimated 2 million anti-personnel landmines polluted the country from decades of war beginning with the liberation struggle against Portugal through a brutal civil war that began shortly after independence in 1975 and lasted until a negotiated settlement in 1992. In 1999, President Chissano estimated that clearance of Mozambique’s landmines could take 160 years to complete. While the true number of landmines in Mozambique was much lower than the original estimates, the symbolic nature of clearing the minefields of a country like Mozambique is not to be overestimated. Mozambique will be an epic success story for the Mine Ban Treaty and held up as an example to other severely mine-affected countries like Afghanistan, Angola, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cambodia and Colombia as proof that the minefields can be cleared and the land returned to productive use. But there is a flip side to this success.
The government of Mozambique estimates that almost 11,000 people have been killed or injured by landmines. Of that total, the number of survivors is unknown, but historical data suggests that at least half of those casualties would be alive today. A survey conducted between 2009 and 2012 identified 1,500 landmine survivors in the three provinces of Maputo, Inhambane and Sofala (Mozambique has 10 provinces and the capitol, Maputo). For those landmine survivors, the heroic feat of landmine clearance is meaningless; it comes too late to help them. Landmine survivors, depending upon the nature of their injuries, require surgery, assistive devices, physical rehabilitation, economic support and psychosocial counseling. For this reason, one of the notable achievements of the Mine Ban Treaty was the inclusion of Article 6.3 which obligated states “in a position to do so” to provide support to landmine survivors.
This paper, “After the last mine is cleared: The future of landmine survivor assistance,” seeks to describe how that obligation has (or has not) been met in Mozambique after 20 years of international support for mine action in the country. This paper asks, “What is the future of survivor assistance?” now that we are able to envision a world free of landmines. With Mozambique as a case study for survivor assistance implementation, the goal is to spark conversations in advance of the Third Review Conference with an emphasis on the post-2015 development framework that is under discussion now.
 Final Report of the First Meeting of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines.
 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction.