General Information
- Commonly Used Terms and Definitions
- A Message from Assistant Secretary Jessica Lewis
- The United States’ Commitment to Conventional Weapons Destruction
- 1993–2023 Global Overview of the U.S. Conventional Weapons Destruction Program
- International Mine Action Standards
- Implementing Partners
- U.S. Conventional Weapons Destruction Funding
- Back to Main Menu
Commonly Used Terms and Definitions
Cluster Munitions Remnant Survey |
The application of all reasonable effort, through non-technical survey and technical survey procedures, to identify and define a confirmed hazardous area impacted by unexploded cluster munition remnants. |
Explosive Hazard |
Any object that could explode causing harm, including but not limited to explosive remnants of war, improvised explosive devices, landmines, ammunition, or unexploded ordnance. |
Explosive Ordnance Disposal |
The detection, identification, evaluation, render safe, recovery and disposal of explosive ordnance. |
Explosive Ordnance Disposal Call-out |
Investigation and disposal activity of suspected explosive ordnance(s). |
Explosive Ordnance Risk Education |
Activities which seek to reduce the risk of injury from mines or explosive remnants of war by raising awareness through public information dissemination, education, and training. |
Explosive Remnant of War |
Abandoned explosive ordnance and unexploded ordnance. |
Implementing Partner |
Organizations selected to implement specific grant agreements according to an agreed upon work plan. |
Improvised Explosive Device |
A device placed or fabricated in an improvised manner incorporating explosive material, destructive, lethal, noxious, incendiary, pyrotechnic materials or chemicals designed to destroy, disfigure, distract, or harass. They may incorporate military stores, but are normally devised from non-military components. |
Landmine |
An anti-personnel or anti-tank mine designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person and that will incapacitate, injure, or kill one or more persons or a mine designed to detonate by the presence, proximity or contact of a vehicle. |
Land Cleared |
A defined area cleared through the removal and/or destruction of all specified explosive ordnance hazards to a specified depth. |
Man-Portable Air Defense System (MANPADS) and Anti-Tank Guided Missiles (ATGM) |
MANPADS are shoulder-fired surface-to-air missile consisting of a guided missile enclosed in a launch tube, a reusable trigger mechanism (“gripstock”), and a single-use battery or battery-cooling unit. ATGMs are guided missiles primarily designed to destroy armored military vehicles. |
Physical Security and Stockpile Management |
Standards for arms and ammunition maintenance including monitoring of stockpiles, training of qualified experts, facility upgrades and maintenance, and long-term planning for infrastructure, resources, and procurement associated with arms and ammunition. |
Stockpile Management Training |
The training of personnel in physical security and stockpile management |
Small Arms Ammunition |
Cartridges ranging in size from .22 caliber through 30 millimeter that are intended for various types of handheld or mounted weapons including rifles, pistols, revolvers, machine guns, and shotguns. |
Small Arms and Light Weapons |
Man-portable weapons systems designed either for individual use, or by two or three persons serving as a crew. For example: handguns, grenades launchers, machine guns, etc. |
Survivor Assistance |
Aid, relief, and support provided to explosive ordnance survivors to reduce the immediate and long-term medical and psychological implications of their trauma. |
Battle Area Clearance |
The systematic and controlled clearance of hazardous areas where the hazards are known not to include mines. |
Handheld Standoff Mine Detection System |
A dual sensor, handheld mine detector that combines an electromagnetic induction sensor, ground penetrating radar, and sophisticated algorithms to detect landmines while rejecting most clutter, also known as false positives. |
Humanitarian Mine Action |
Clearance, risk education, survivor assistance, advocacy, and stockpile destruction of mines and explosive remnants of war by humanitarian organizations to restore peace and security at the community level. |
International Ammunition Technical Guidelines |
An internationally recognized frame of reference developed by the United Nations to achieve and demonstrate effective levels of safety and security of ammunition stockpiles. |
International Mine Action Standards |
The framework by which the Anti-personnel Mine Ban Convention and Convention on Cluster Munitions can be practically implemented. |
Unexploded Ordnance |
Explosive ordnance that has been primed, fuzed, armed, or otherwise prepared for use or used. It may have been fired, dropped, launched, or projected, yet it remains unexploded either through malfunction or design or for any other reason. This does not include landmines or stockpiled ammunition and explosives. |
Weapons and Ammunition Destruction |
The process of final conversion of weapons, ammunition and explosives into an inert state that can no longer function as designed. |
Battle Area Clearance |
The systematic and controlled clearance of hazardous areas where the hazards are known not to include mines. |
DOS NADR-CWD |
Department of State - Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining and Related Programs |
DOS Other |
Department of State - Other funding |
CDC |
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention |
DoD |
Department of Defense |
USAID |
U.S. Agency for International Development |
A Message from Assistant Secretary Jessica Lewis
It is incredibly rewarding for me to lead efforts to help reestablish safety, stability, security, and prosperity for many children, women, and men around the world through the U.S. Conventional Weapons Destruction Program. We are living in challenging and uncertain times as our adversaries and strategic competitors seek to upend global order and the values that the American people stand for. Despite the global conflicts and challenges we continue to face, the United States, through our conventional weapons destruction program, remains committed to supporting communities striving to recover from conflict to achieve security and prosperity.
In this year’s edition of To Walk the Earth in Safety, we highlight the many ways that U.S. conventional weapons destruction assistance promotes post-conflict recovery. For example, our humanitarian demining funding enhances food security by helping to revitalize agricultural fields in countries like Sri Lanka and Vietnam. This funding is especially critical in Sri Lanka where more than 6 million people—nearly 30 percent of the population—are currently food-insecure. In Vietnam, our commitment to promoting agricultural security is a key component to successful post-conflict recovery, even decades after war ended.
In Ukraine, Russia’s unlawful war and full-scale invasion has littered massive swaths of the country with landmines, unexploded ordnance, and improvised explosive devices. These explosive hazards exacerbate food insecurity by blocking access to farmland and impede restoration of damaged agricultural storage and processing facilities. Clearing landmines from Ukraine’s agricultural land is directly linked to global food security and is a prerequisite for Ukraine’s recovery. The United States has invested over $182 million since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to help the Government of Ukraine address this urgent humanitarian challenge. Our programs in Ukraine and around the world safely remove landmines and explosive remnants of war, helping displaced persons and refugees return home safely and facilitating economic security and prosperity.
Additionally, we have also seen how clearance of landmines and explosive remnants of war help revitalize historical and cultural areas, enabling families to return to post-conflict communities. For example, in Mosul, Iraq, the historic Old City was riddled with notoriously deadly improvised explosive devices from ISIS militants. With the help of U.S. conventional weapons destruction funding and other international donor assistance, critical parts of the Old City have been cleared, allowing internally displaced persons to return to their homes, and helping to promote stability and security for war-torn communities.
As a former teacher, I am particularly proud of our efforts to fund risk education to prevent and safeguard children from accidents as well as our funding for vocational training for mine survivors. For example, in Laos, we have funded explosive ordnance risk education via social media, radio, and print, and as part of secondary school curriculums. Additionally, in Zimbabwe, our funding has helped distribute risk education materials to schools in rural communities, simultaneously encouraging safe behavior around explosive hazards and improving literacy for more than 7,000 children. These programs not only save lives but improve education and livelihoods in post-conflict communities.
Beyond threats posed by landmines and unexploded ordnance, communities often face dangers from poorly secured government stockpiles of small arms, light weapons, and ammunition. Through our conventional weapons destruction assistance, we help destroy obsolete weapons stockpiles and safeguard weapons to prevent them from being acquired by criminal organizations, terrorists, and violent extremist groups. By limiting bad actors’ means to create further chaos and instability, we help save lives and provide safety and security to civilians.
Another critical element of U.S. conventional weapons destruction assistance involves supporting the responsible management of advanced conventional weapons, including man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) and anti-tank guided missiles. While these have legitimate military uses, when in the hands of violent non-state actors, they pose a risk to human safety, economic stability, and global security, especially in post-conflict recovery environments. In coordination with allies and international organizations, our assistance helps partner countries safely secure, manage, and destroy obsolete weapons and train their staff on how to recognize and interdict these weapons and their components.
Despite the global conflicts and challenges we continue to face, the U.S. Conventional Weapons Destruction Program continues to be a beacon of hope for many communities striving to recover from conflict. Our assistance detailed in this year’s To Walk the Earth in Safety report serves as a clear, tangible, and unmistakable symbol of the United States’ commitment to build a more safe, secure, and prosperous world and illustrates our steadfast effort to enable all people to walk the earth in safety.
The United States’ Commitment to Conventional Weapons Destruction
Some foreign governments’ stockpiles of aging, excess, poorly secured, and improperly maintained small arms, light weapons, and ammunition threaten peace and prosperity globally, and can even impact the United States’ own national security. When obtained by criminals and terrorists, all of these munitions, including advanced types such as man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS), fuel violence and instability. In the wrong hands, MANPADS even menace global aviation. Stockpiles of decrepit ammunition may explode suddenly, devastating nearby communities, crippling infrastructure, and polluting water and farmland. Landmines and unexploded ammunition kill and maim people decades after conflicts end. Since the 1990s, the United States has recognized and confronted all of these deadly legacies regardless of which country or non-state actors have generated these “hidden killers.” The U.S. goals are clear: protect innocent people, and help them regain safe access to their homes, fields, medical care, schools, business enterprises, and essential infrastructure such as water treatment plants. U.S. leadership in conventional weapons destruction supports peacebuilding, food security, and even climate resilience, creating stronger partners to help promote U.S. foreign policy objectives throughout the world.
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT’S COLLABORATIVE APPROACH: LEVERAGING AMERICAN TAX DOLLARS
The United States is the world’s top supporter of conventional weapons destruction, providing more than $5.09 billion in assistance to over 125 countries and areas since 1993. The Department of State, Department of Defense, and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) work with foreign governments, private companies, international organizations, and nongovernmental organizations to reduce excess small arms and light weapons, and ammunition stockpiles (including MANPADS), implement physical security and stockpile management, and conduct humanitarian mine action.
In fiscal year 2023, the Department of State invested more than $348 million* in conventional weapons destruction, and continued to lead the U.S. Interagency MANPADS Task Force, which coordinates MANPADS counter-diversion efforts by the Departments of State, Defense, Homeland Security, and other stakeholders. Through these coordinated efforts, the U.S. government helps partner nations eliminate excess MANPADS and better secure the systems they keep. In addition, the Department of Defense Humanitarian Demining Training Center trains deminers, ammunition handlers, and stockpile managers from partner countries. Additionally, the Department of Defense Humanitarian Demining Research and Development Program improves conventional weapons destruction technologies, increasing the efficiency and safety of humanitarian demining worldwide. USAID’s Leahy War Victims Fund assists survivors of encounters with landmines and explosive remnants of war.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE SUPPORT FOR CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS DESTRUCTION
The Department of State has managed more than 76 percent (more than $3.86 billion) of the United States’ contribution to conventional weapons destruction since 1993, with three objectives:
- Enhance U.S. and international security by destroying and safeguarding small arms and light weapons, including MANPADS, at risk of proliferation to criminals, terrorists, and other violent non-state actors.
- Improve stability and prosperity by clearing landmines and explosive remnants of war and returning land to productive use.
- Build trust and deepen relationships with key partners to speed achievement of broader U.S. foreign policy objectives.
Robust project performance standards, rigorous monitoring and evaluation, and a comprehensive planning process guide the Department of State’s Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement’s decisions and hold its implementing partners accountable for delivering results to the American people.
The measurable, tangible results that flow from the U.S. government’s commitment to conventional weapons destruction reinforce U.S. foreign policies, and these programs help protect the lives and livelihoods of civilians worldwide so they may safely remain and thrive in their own countries.
*Initial planned allocations
1993–2022 Global Overview of the U.S. Conventional Weapons Destruction Program
Countries with U.S. funded conventional weapons destruction activity in FY 2023:
- Afghanistan
- Angola
- Armenia
- Azerbaijan
- Cabo Verde
- Caribbean Region
- Benin
- Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Burkina Faso
- Burma
- Cambodia
- Chad
- Colombia
- Congo, DR
- Côte d'Ivoire
- Croatia
- Cyprus
- Ecuador
- Estonia
- Fiji
- Georgia
- Iraq
- Kazakhstan
- Kenya
- Kyrgyz Republic
- Laos
- Lebanon
- Libya
- Malawi
- Marshall Islands
- Mauritania
- Moldova
- Morocco
- Nepal
- Niger
- Pakistan
- Palau
- Papua New Guinea
- Peru
- Senegal
- Serbia
- Sierra Leone
- Slovakia
- Solomon Islands
- Somalia
- Sudan
- South Sudan
- Solomon Islands
- Sri Lanka
- Tanzania
- Tajikistan
- Thailand
- Timor-Leste
- Togo
- Uganda
- Ukraine
- Vietnam
- West Bank area
- Yemen
- Zimbabwe
Countries that received U.S. support in the past:
- Argentina
- Bahrain
- Belize
- Bolivia
- Bulgaria
- Central African Republic
- Chile
- Congo, Republic of
- Czechia
- Dominican Republic
- Egypt
- Equitorial Guinea
- Eritrea
- Ethiopia
- The Gambia
- Guinea
- Haiti
- Hungary
- India
- Jamaica
- Kiribati
- Lesotho
- Liberia
- Lithuania
- Mali
- Mexico
- Micronesia
- Nigeria
- Oman
- Paraguay
- Philippines
- Romania
- Sao Tome and Principe
- Slovakia
- Slovenia
- Surname
- Syria
- Tuvalu
- Uruguay
- Uzbekistan
Countries that are mine-impact free and received U.S. conventional weapons destruction support in FY 2023:
- Albania
- El Salvador
- Guatemala
- Guinea-Bissau
- Honduras
- Jordan
- Kosovo
- Montenegro
- North Macedonia
- Rwanda
Countries that are mine-impact free and received U.S. conventional weapons destruction support in the past:
- Burundi
- Costa Rica
- Djibouti
- Eswatini
- Mozambique
- Namibia
- Nicaragua
- Tunisia
Country |
Funding received since 1993 (dollars in thousands) |
Iraq |
$715,158 |
Afghanistan |
$579,057 |
Laos |
$391,392 |
Ukraine |
$263,565 |
Vietnam |
$234,750 |
Colombia |
$229,209 |
Cambodia |
$208,369 |
Angola |
$164,338 |
Bosnia and Herzegovina |
$139,915 |
Lebanon |
$102,891 |
Region |
Total by region since FY1993 (dollars in thousands) |
Africa |
$594,052 |
East Asia and Pacific |
$912,325 |
Europe |
$751,317 |
Middle East and North Africa |
$1,092,646 |
South and Central Asia |
$757,968 |
Western Hemisphere |
$333,295 |
Global/Multi-country |
$607,986 |
Total |
$5,093,010 |
International Mine Action Standards
The International Mine Action Standards (IMAS) is the framework that provides clear guidance and a standardized approach for conducting mine action activities to maximize safety, efficiency, and quality management. The IMAS framework was launched by the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS) in 2001, after a multi-year process that built on initial standards proposed by the humanitarian demining community in 1996.
The IMAS is not a legal instrument; it is a set of technical guidelines intended to inform and shape the development of an individual country’s national mine action standards and operating procedures. Nonetheless, it is widely accepted and used by nongovernmental organizations, governments, and donor countries. The Department of State’s Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement requires that all the work its implementing partners undertaken with U.S. funds meet the IMAS. The framework also clarifies the practical implementation of certain provisions of key disarmament conventions such as the Anti-personnel Mine Ban Convention and Convention on Cluster Munitions for States Parties.
UNMAS is responsible for the development and maintenance of the IMAS. Administration is provided by the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining, which maintains the IMAS website, and organizes both the IMAS Steering Group and the IMAS Review Board. The Steering Group is made up of UN-based entities, the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining, donor country representatives, and national mine action authority representatives to provide executive guidance and oversight of the Review Board. The Review Board is chaired by UNMAS and includes approximately 30 mine action organizations, including nongovernmental organizations, national mine action authorities, donor countries, and subject-matter experts. The Review Board meets on a regular basis to assess and revise current standards and consider new standards to ensure that the IMAS address the evolving needs of the mine action community.
The IMAS contain detailed technical information and operational guidance for implementing organizations and national authorities to perform tasks consistently. The standards include all facets of mine action, including establishing a national mine action program, survey and clearance, risk education, survivor assistance, and the myriad details that make up humanitarian mine action. The IMAS has expanded as the field has evolved, including standards on improvised explosive device disposal, environmental risk management, guidance for managing human remains, and others.
The IMAS is comprised of three types of documents: the Mine Action Standards, Technical Notes for Mine Action, and Test and Evaluation Protocols. The IMAS aims to promote a common and consistent approach to the conduct of mine action operations. It provides guidance, establish principles, and in some cases, define international specifications. Technical Notes are advisory documents that accompany or supplement IMAS, providing advice and information relevant to a specific IMAS or technical subject. In short, the IMAS outline what should be done and the Technical Notes describe how to do it. Test and Evaluation Protocols are technical requirements on topics such as competencies for explosive ordnance disposal and animal detection systems. To date the IMAS includes 47 Standards, 23 Technical Notes, and seven Test and Evaluation Protocols.
The IMAS is available online, and many are translated into various languages including Arabic, French, Korean, Persian, Russian, and Ukrainian.
Implementing Partners
Nongovernmental Organizations Headquartered in the United States
Catholic Relief Services (CRS), established in 1943, is the official overseas relief and development agency of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Catholic Relief Services works to reduce the risk of injury or death from unexploded ordnance in Vietnam through explosive ordnance risk education programs. http://crs.org
The Golden West Humanitarian Foundation (GWHF) is a U.S.-based nonprofit organization that provides explosive ordnance disposal and physical security and stockpile management consulting, International Mine Action Standards and International Ammunition Technical Guidelines compliant training, and technology to make humanitarian mine action safer, faster, and more cost effective. http://goldenwesthf.org
The Marshall Legacy Institute (MLI) is a Virginia-based nonprofit organization founded to help restore hope, alleviate suffering, and nurture stability in war-torn countries. Marshall Legacy Institute has established indigenous programs in 15 mine-affected countries. http://marshall-legacy.org
Momentum Wheels for Humanity is a California nonprofit founded in 2007 that helps people with mobility impairments maximize their independence and quality of life by building and strengthening rehabilitation services, including assistive technologies. https://momentum4humanity.org
PeaceTrees Vietnam is a Seattle-based nongovernmental organization founded in 1995 as a grassroots effort to bring peace, friendship, and renewal to the people of Quang Tri Province, Vietnam through explosive hazard clearance, explosive ordnance risk education, survivor assistance, scholarships to landmine survivors and their families, and community restoration projects. http://peacetreesvietnam.org
The Polus Center for Social and Economic Development, established in 1979, is a Massachusetts-based nonprofit, nongovernmental organization that partners with public and private foundations to address the impact of mines and unexploded ordnance around the world. http://poluscenter.org
World Education, Inc., (WEI) a Massachusetts-based nonprofit organization, was founded in 1951 to meet the needs of the educationally disadvantaged and supports survivor assistance, explosive ordnance risk education, and disability inclusion in Laos. http://worlded.org
International and Foreign Nongovernmental Organizations
Accessibility Organization for Afghan Disabled (AOAD) is a nonprofit and nonpolitical nongovernmental organization founded in 2007 in Kabul as a peer-support, advocate organization for persons with disabilities and their immediate family. https://aoad-af.page.tl/Home.htm
Afghan Technical Consultants, was established in 1989 to reduce civilian casualties and enable land release through detection, clearance, and explosive ordnance risk education.
APOPO, established in 1995, is a registered Belgian nongovernmental organization and U.S. nonprofit that trains sub-Saharan African pouched rats and mine detection dogs to help detect landmines. https://www.apopo.org/en
Arcangeles Foundation is a nonprofit working to improve the living conditions of vulnerable populations in Colombia to achieve social inclusion and to ensure an inclusive and sustainable world for future generations. https://arcangeles.org
The Colombian Campaign Against Landmines (CCCM) monitors fulfillment of the Ottawa Convention on behalf of the Colombian Government, compiles reports each year for the Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor, and supports survivor assistance and explosive ordnance risk education. https://colombiasinminas.org
Conflict Armament Research (CAR), established in 2011, works toward understanding the landscape of illicit weapon flows and mitigating the supply of conventional arms to unauthorized users, including insurgent and terrorist forces. https://www.conflictarm.com
DanChurchAid (DCA), an independent ecumenical humanitarian organization based in Copenhagen, Denmark, provides humanitarian assistance and mine action programs combining explosive ordnance risk education, mine clearance, and community-development. http://dca.dk
The Danish Refugee Council’s (DRC) Humanitarian Disarmament and Peacebuilding unit is a nonprofit and nongovernmental organization working to protect and provide long-lasting solutions to communities affected by war and armed conflict. https://www.drc.ngo
Delvon Assistance for Social Harmony (DASH) is a Sri Lankan humanitarian demining organization founded in 2010 to increase the safety and security of people living in mine-affected areas by clearing explosive hazards. https://www.facebook.com/p/Delvon-Assistance-For-Social-Harmony-DASH-100064502060186
The Demining Agency for Afghanistan (DAFA) was formed in 1990 to clear all hazardous and mine-contaminated areas in Afghanistan prioritizing clearance for road reconstruction, local governmen,t-sponsored construction plans, and disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration. sattar_dafa@yahoo.ca or dafafinance@yahoo.com
Fondation suisse de déminage (FSD) is a Swiss humanitarian organization founded in 1997 that locates and destroys explosive hazards, strengthens local capacities, conducts awareness-raising campaigns, and provides support to victims of accidental explosions. FSD has conducted operations in over 30 countries, including Ukraine, Iraq, and Afghanistan. https://fsd.ch/en/
Free Fields Foundation is a neutral, nonprofit, humanitarian mine action organization founded in 2012 and based in Tripoli, Libya, to conduct explosive ordnance risk education, non-technical survey, explosive ordnance disposal, and battle area clearance. https://freefields.org
The HALO Trust’s (HALO) mission is to protect lives and restore livelihoods for those affected by conflict by clearing explosive hazards to create safe and secure environments in vulnerable communities. https://www.halotrust.org
Humanity & Inclusion (HI) works with persons with disabilities and other vulnerable populations in situations resulting from conflict by clearing explosive hazards from civilian areas, providing explosive ordnance risk education programs, and rendering assistance to the injured. https://www.hi-us.org
Information Management and Mine Action Programs (iMMAP) is an international nonprofit nongovernmental organization that provides targeted data collection, analysis, and information management support to partners responding to complex humanitarian and development challenges. http://immap.org
The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) is a coalition of nongovernmental organizations whose stated objective is a world free of anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions, where mine and cluster munitions survivors see their rights respected and can lead fulfilling lives. http://www.icbl.org/en-gb/home.aspx
ITF Enhancing Human Security is a humanitarian nonprofit organization established by the Republic of Slovenia in 1998 to focus on humanitarian demining, conventional weapons destruction, and other forms of post-conflict assistance. http://itf.si
MAG (Mines Advisory Group) is a humanitarian organization working in countries affected by conflict and insecurity to clear explosive hazards, implement conventional weapons stockpile management and destruction programs, provide explosive ordnance risk education, and offer capacity-building support. http://maginternational.org
The Mine Clearance Planning Agency (MCPA) is an Afghan nongovernmental organization founded in 1990 specializing in manual, mechanical, and mine detection dog clearance, explosive ordnance disposal, explosive ordnance risk education, training, and management information systems for mine action. hajiattqullah@gmail.com
The Mine Detection Center (MDC), established in 1989, clears contaminated land and safely destroy explosive hazards in Afghanistan. https://mdcafghan.org
The Mine Detection Dog Center (MDDC) in Bosnia and Herzegovina trains handlers, trainers, and dogs to detect landmines, explosives, narcotics, and conduct search and rescue operations. It also provides explosive ordnance risk education and mine survivor assistance. http://www.mddc.ba/
Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA) a Norwegian nongovernmental organization founded in 1939, has implemented mine action programs in more than 40 countries and territories for over 20 years. http://npaid.org
The Organization for Mine Clearance and Afghan Rehabilitation was established in 1990 to teach Afghan refugees and internally displaced Afghans about the dangers of explosive hazards and has since expanded to include mine clearance, battle area clearance, explosive ordnance disposal, and working with mine detection dogs. https://omar.org.af/
Results 4 Development is a global nonprofit founded in 2008 that supports local change agents—government officials, civil society leaders, and social innovators—to drive reforms and engage in continuous improvement. https://r4d.org
Spirit of Soccer (SOS), founded in 1996, is a UK- and U.S.-registered nonprofit that uses soccer/football skills clinics and tournaments to educate children about the dangers posed by explosive hazards in conflict and post-conflict regions. http://spiritofsoccer.org
Government and International Organizations
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) physical rehabilitation capacity was established in 1983 to improve in low- and middle-income countries by maintaining and increasing access to quality and sustainable services. https://www.icrc.org/en
NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) is NATO’s integrated logistics and services provider agency implementing the NATO Partnership for Peace Trust Fund in Ukraine, and has worked on physical security and stockpile management and conventional weapons destruction programs in numerous countries. https://www.nspa.nato.int
The Organization of American States (OAS) was established in 1948 to encourage sustainable peace, justice, solidarity, collaboration, integrity, and independence among the nations of the Americas. The OAS supports a regional approach to demining programs in the Western Hemisphere and executes conventional weapons destruction programs too. https://www.oas.org/en/topics/demining.asp
The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is a regional security organization with 57 participating states in Europe, Central Asia, and North America, which provides a forum for political dialogue and decision-making in the fields of early warning, conflict prevention, crisis management, and post-conflict rehabilitation. http://osce.org
The Regional Centre on Small Arms in the Great Lakes Region, Horn of Africa, and Bordering States (RECSA) was established in June 2005 to build the capacity of its 15 African member countries and coordinate and monitor implementation of the Nairobi Protocol signed in April 2004 to mitigate small arms and light weapons proliferation in the Great Lakes region, Horn of Africa, and bordering states. http://recsasec.org
The Tajikistan National Mine Action Center (TNMAC), established in January 2014, is a state institution under the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan that coordinates all mine action-related projects in that country. muhabbat.ibrohimzoda@tnmac.gov.tj
The United Nations Development Program/Southeastern and Eastern Europe Clearinghouse for the Control of Small Arms and Light Weapons (UNDP/SEESAC) works to strengthen the capacities of national and regional stakeholders to control and reduce the proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons, advance gender equality, and facilitate regional cooperation. https://www.seesac.org
The United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS), established in 1997 by the UN General Assembly under the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Office of Rule of Law and Security Institutions manages the Inter-Agency Coordination Group on Mine Action, which brings together working-level representatives of 12 UN organizations involved in mine action to set priorities among UN participants. UNMAS establishes and manages mine action coordination centers in countries and territories as part of peacekeeping operations. http://www.mineaction.org/unmas
United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) was established in 1973 to advance sustainable infrastructure, procurement, project management, human resources, and financial management services practices in development, humanitarian, and peacebuilding contexts in challenging environments. https://www.unops.org
The World Health Organization (WHO) is a specialized United Nations agency responsible for international public health. WHO’s mandate includes advocating for universal healthcare, monitoring public health risks, coordinating responses to health emergencies, and promoting human health and well-being. https://www.who.int
Academic Institutions
The Center for International Stabilization and Recovery (CISR), at James Madison University, established in 1996, supports information exchange within the conventional weapons destruction community through its website and the publication of the U.S. Department of State’s annual report, To Walk the Earth in Safety, and CISR’s The Journal of Conventional Weapons Destruction, in addition to conducting international mine action and capacity building projects. https://www.jmu.edu/cisr
The Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) formed in 1998 supports the improvement of mine action by working with national authorities, mine action organizations, and other partners to do their jobs better by furthering knowledge, promoting norms and standards, and developing capacity. http://gichd.org
Johns Hopkins University-Bloomberg School of Public Health, based in Baltimore, Maryland and founded in 1916, works with communities and populations to identify the causes of disease and disability, and implement large-scale solutions. https://www.jhsph.edu
Small Arms Survey (SAS), based at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, Switzerland, serves as the principal international source of public information on all aspects of small arms and armed violence. http://smallarmssurvey.org
Contractor
Tetra Tech is a leading provider of consulting and engineering services for projects worldwide. With 20,000 associates working together, Tetra Tech delivers clear solutions to complex problems in water, environment, infrastructure, resource management, energy, international development, and munitions response. https://www.tetratech.com/en/markets/international-development/services/stabilization/munitions-response
United States Conventional Weapons Destruction Funding
From 1993 through 2022, the United States contributed more than $4.6 billion for conventional weapons destruction programs in more than 120 countries or areas. The following charts provide a consolidated view of the United States’ funding for conventional weapons destruction globally. Budget figures for fiscal year 2021 (October 1, 2020–September 30, 2021) and prior years reflect actual allocations, while budget figures for fiscal year 2022 (October 1, 2021–September 30, 2022) reflect, with a few exceptions, initial planned allocations. The 23rd edition of To Walk the Earth in Safety will include updated figures for fiscal year 2022 that reflect the final allocations.
Abbreviation |
Definition |
A: U.S. supported activity in FY23 B: Received U.S. support in the past C: Mine-impact* free & U.S. supported activity in FY23 D: Mine-impact* free with past U.S. support *For purposes of this document, countries denoted as mine impact free are countries that are free from the dangers of landmines to the general population but not necessarily free from all land mines.
|
|
DOS NADR-CWD |
Department Of State - Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs |
DOS Other |
Department Of State - Other Funding |
CDC |
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention |
DoD |
Department of Defense |
USAID |
U.S. Agency for International Development |
1993-2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | Grand Total | |
*Global Multi-Country | |||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 225,397 | 8,450 | 25,253 | 39,703 | 298,803 |
2DOS Other | 1,450 | 1,450 | |||
3CDC | 18,653 | 18,653 | |||
4DoD | 211,211 | 1,117 | 200 | 9,313 | 221,841 |
5USAID | 136,246 | 9,123 | 10,717 | 9,883 | 165,969 |
*Global Multi-Country Total | 592,957 | 18,690 | 36,170 | 58,899 | 706,716 |
Afghanistan | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 455,391 | 20,000 | 15,000 | 5,000 | 495,391 |
2DOS Other | 20,000 | 20,000 | |||
3CDC | 1,800 | 1,800 | |||
4DoD | 9,636 | 330 | 193 | 260 | 10,419 |
5USAID | 51,447 | 51,447 | |||
Afghanistan Total | 538,274 | 20,330 | 15,193 | 5,260 | 579,057 |
Albania | |||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 44,247 | 750 | 500 | 500 | 45,997 |
4DoD | 4,443 | 663 | 3,380 | 2,657 | 11,143 |
5USAID | 1,389 | 1,389 | |||
Albania Total | 50,079 | 1,413 | 3,880 | 3,157 | 58,529 |
Angola | |||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 124,604 | 4,000 | 8,500 | 5,500 | 142,604 |
2DOS Other | 3,170 | 3,170 | |||
3CDC | 150 | 150 | |||
4DoD | 9,456 | 172 | 145 | 290 | 10,063 |
5USAID | 8,351 | 8,351 | |||
Angola Total | 145,731 | 4,172 | 8,645 | 5,790 | 164,338 |
Argentina | |||||
4DoD | 579 | 579 | |||
Argentina Total | 579 | 579 | |||
Armenia | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 4,292 | 4,292 | |||
2DOS Other | 3,000 | 3,000 | |||
4DoD | 3,768 | 3,768 | |||
5USAID | 3,145 | 3,145 | |||
Armenia Total | 14,205 | 14,205 | |||
Azerbaijan | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 22,642 | 500 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 27,142 |
2DOS Other | 1,100 | 1,100 | |||
4DoD | 7,229 | 2,225 | 280 | 9,734 | |
Azerbaijan Total | 30,971 | 500 | 4,225 | 2,280 | 37,976 |
Bahrain | - | ||||
4DoD | 10 | 10 | |||
Bahrain Total | 10 | 10 | |||
Belize | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 300 | 300 | |||
Belize Total | 300 | 300 | |||
Benin | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 562 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 2,062 |
4DoD | 14 | 14 | |||
Benin Total | 576 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 2,076 |
Bosnia & Herzegovina | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 94,455 | 4,400 | 5,850 | 5,250 | 109,955 |
2DOS Other | 1,000 | 1,000 | |||
3CDC | 3,210 | 3,210 | |||
4DoD | 5,143 | 22 | 15 | 70 | 5,250 |
5USAID | 20,500 | 20,500 | |||
Bosnia & Herzegovina Total | 124,308 | 4,422 | 5,865 | 5,320 | 139,915 |
Bulgaria | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 12,479 | 300 | 12,779 | ||
4DoD | 51 | 51 | |||
Bulgaria Total | 12,530 | 300 | 12,830 | ||
Burkina Faso | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 3,941 | 1,500 | 1,500 | 500 | 7,441 |
Burkina Faso Total | 3,941 | 1,500 | 1,500 | 500 | 7,441 |
Burma (Myanmar) | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 2,835 | 2,835 | |||
2DOS Other | 850 | 850 | |||
5USAID | 5,350 | 500 | 5,850 | ||
Burma (Myanmar) Total | 9,035 | 500 | 9,535 | ||
Burundi | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 1,935 | 1,935 | |||
4DoD | 1,436 | 1,436 | |||
Burundi Total | 3,371 | 3,371 | |||
Cabo Verde | - | ||||
4DoD | - | 39 | 39 | ||
Cabo Verde Total | - | 39 | 39 | ||
Cambodia | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 122,747 | 9,000 | 12,000 | 12,000 | 155,747 |
2DOS Other | 4,943 | 4,943 | |||
3CDC | 100 | 100 | |||
4DoD | 29,149 | 1,361 | 515 | 1,470 | 32,495 |
5USAID | 15,084 | 15,084 | |||
Cambodia Total | 172,023 | 10,361 | 12,515 | 13,470 | 208,369 |
Caribbean Region | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 750 | 750 | |||
2DOS Other | 1,100 | 1,100 | |||
Caribbean Region Total | 1,850 | 1,850 | |||
Central African Republic | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 1,009 | 1,009 | |||
Central African Republic Total | 1,009 | 1,009 | |||
Chad | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 13,556 | 1,000 | 1,000 | 1,000 | 16,556 |
4DoD | 5,190 | 5,190 | |||
Chad Total | 18,746 | 1,000 | 1,000 | 1,000 | 21,746 |
Chile | - | ||||
4DoD | 3,450 | 3,450 | |||
Chile Total | 3,450 | 3,450 | |||
Colombia | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 122,599 | 21,000 | 21,000 | 21,000 | 185,599 |
3CDC | 450 | 450 | |||
4DoD | 12,559 | 37 | 1,087 | 110 | 13,793 |
5USAID | 24,367 | 500 | 2,500 | 2,000 | 29,367 |
Colombia Total | 159,975 | 21,537 | 24,587 | 23,110 | 229,209 |
Congo, DRC | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 27,334 | 3,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 34,334 |
4DoD | 1,083 | 1,083 | |||
5USAID | 7,597 | 7,597 | |||
Congo, DRC Total | 36,014 | 3,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 43,014 |
Congo, Republic of the | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 1,320 | 1,320 | |||
4DoD | 1,519 | 1,519 | |||
Congo, Republic of the Total | 2,839 | 2,839 | |||
Croatia | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 40,728 | 1,200 | 41,928 | ||
4DoD | 1,461 | 1,013 | 1,005 | 1,128 | 4,607 |
Croatia Total | 42,189 | 2,213 | 1,005 | 1,128 | 46,535 |
Cyprus | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 260 | 260 | |||
4DoD | 361 | 25 | 25 | 411 | |
Cyprus Total | 621 | 25 | 25 | 671 | |
Czech Republic | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 600 | 600 | |||
Czech Republic Total | 600 | 600 | |||
Djibouti | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 1,900 | 1,900 | |||
4DoD | 1,172 | 1,172 | |||
Djibouti Total | 3,072 | 3,072 | |||
Dominican Republic | - | ||||
5USAID | 500 | 500 | |||
Dominican Republic Total | 500 | 500 | |||
Ecuador | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 7,525 | 2,000 | 1,500 | 1,000 | 12,025 |
4DoD | 3,791 | 1,207 | 91 | 5,089 | |
Ecuador Total | 11,316 | 3,207 | 1,591 | 1,000 | 17,114 |
Egypt | - | ||||
4DoD | 718 | 718 | |||
Egypt Total | 718 | 718 | |||
El Salvador | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 1,688 | 1,688 | |||
3CDC | 2,840 | 2,840 | |||
5USAID | 2,300 | 2,300 | |||
El Salvador Total | 6,828 | 6,828 | |||
Eritrea | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 11,623 | 11,623 | |||
2DOS Other | 1,560 | 1,560 | |||
3CDC | 450 | 450 | |||
4DoD | 4,485 | 4,485 | |||
Eritrea Total | 18,118 | 18,118 | |||
Estonia | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 2,499 | 2,499 | |||
4DoD | 2,717 | 704 | 154 | 3,575 | |
Estonia Total | 5,216 | 704 | 154 | 6,074 | |
Eswatini | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 439 | 439 | |||
4DoD | 836 | 836 | |||
Eswatini Total | 1,275 | 1,275 | |||
Ethiopia | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 3,545 | 3,545 | |||
2DOS Other | 1,500 | 1,500 | |||
3CDC | 2,846 | 2,846 | |||
4DoD | 3,984 | 3,984 | |||
5USAID | 3,882 | 3,882 | |||
Ethiopia Total | 15,757 | 15,757 | |||
Fiji | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 370 | 1,330 | 1,700 | ||
Fiji Total | 370 | 1,330 | 1,700 | ||
Georgia | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 31,405 | 0 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 35,405 |
2DOS Other | 2,644 | 2,644 | |||
4DoD | 4,596 | 1,980 | 3,875 | 3,295 | 13,746 |
5USAID | 4,500 | 4,500 | |||
Georgia Total | 43,145 | 1,980 | 5,875 | 5,295 | 56,295 |
Guatemala | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 900 | 900 | |||
Guatemala Total | 900 | 900 | |||
Guinea | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 1,103 | 1,103 | |||
Guinea Total | 1,103 | 1,103 | |||
Guinea-Bissau | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 8,537 | 300 | 500 | 9,337 | |
4DoD | 1,444 | 1,444 | |||
Guinea-Bissau Total | 9,981 | 300 | 500 | 10,781 | |
Haiti | - | ||||
5USAID | 3,500 | 3,500 | |||
Haiti Total | 3,500 | 3,500 | |||
Honduras | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 1,464 | 1,464 | |||
Honduras Total | 1,464 | 1,464 | |||
Hungary | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 350 | 350 | |||
Hungary Total | 350 | 350 | |||
India | - | ||||
5USAID | 300 | 300 | |||
India Total | 300 | 300 | |||
Iraq | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 490,151 | 38,150 | 40,000 | 40,000 | 608,301 |
2DOS Other | 992 | 992 | |||
3CDC | 450 | 450 | |||
4DoD | 105,552 | 130 | 253 | 480 | 106,415 |
Iraq Total | 597,145 | 38,280 | 40,253 | 40,480 | 716,158 |
Jordan | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 23,636 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 24,836 |
2DOS Other | 300 | 300 | |||
3CDC | 2,968 | 2,968 | |||
4DoD | 2,418 | 2,418 | |||
Jordan Total | 29,322 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 30,522 |
Kazakhstan | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 2,795 | 4,018 | 2,500 | 9,313 | |
4DoD | 588 | 91 | 298 | 977 | |
Kazakhstan Total | 3,383 | 4,109 | 2,798 | 10,290 | |
Kenya | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 1,482 | 1,482 | |||
4DoD | 1,155 | 1,155 | |||
5USAID | 400 | 400 | |||
Kenya Total | 3,037 | 3,037 | |||
Kosovo | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 19,725 | 1,000 | 800 | 21,525 | |
4DoD | 5,471 | 497 | 720 | 1,092 | 7,780 |
5USAID | 17,472 | 17,472 | |||
Kosovo Total | 42,668 | 1,497 | 1,520 | 1,092 | 46,777 |
Kyrgyzstan | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 3,785 | 2,000 | 2,500 | 2,000 | 10,285 |
4DoD | 7 | 7 | |||
Kyrgyzstan Total | 3,792 | 2,000 | 2,500 | 2,000 | 10,292 |
Laos | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 241,864 | 40,000 | 45,000 | 36,000 | 362,864 |
2DOS Other | 750 | 750 | |||
4DoD | 7,053 | 4 | 7,057 | ||
5USAID | 20,721 | 20,721 | |||
Laos Total | 270,388 | 40,000 | 45,004 | 36,000 | 391,392 |
Lebanon | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 60,999 | 8,000 | 6,000 | 6,000 | 80,999 |
2DOS Other | 2,000 | 2,000 | |||
4DoD | 9,368 | 324 | 85 | 265 | 10,042 |
5USAID | 9,850 | 9,850 | |||
Lebanon Total | 82,217 | 8,324 | 6,085 | 6,265 | 102,891 |
Lesotho | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 15 | 15 | |||
Lesotho Total | 15 | 15 | |||
Liberia | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 360 | 360 | |||
3CDC | 150 | 150 | |||
5USAID | 4,429 | 4,429 | |||
Liberia Total | 4,939 | 4,939 | |||
Libya | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 32,000 | 2,000 | 4,200 | 3,500 | 41,700 |
2DOS Other | 19,575 | 19,575 | |||
4DoD | - | 340 | 340 | ||
Libya Total | 51,575 | 2,000 | 4,200 | 3,840 | 61,615 |
Lithuania | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 500 | 500 | |||
Lithuania Total | 500 | 500 | |||
Malawi | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 1,630 | 1,300 | 500 | 3,430 | |
Malawi Total | 1,630 | 1,300 | 500 | 3,430 | |
Mali | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 4,950 | 0 | 0 | 4,950 | |
4DoD | 462 | 462 | |||
Mali Total | 5,412 | 0 | 0 | 5,412 | |
Marshall Islands | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 2,009 | 1,700 | 3,709 | ||
Marshall Islands Total | 2,009 | 1,700 | 3,709 | ||
Mauritania | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 4,195 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 5,695 |
4DoD | 4,410 | 4,410 | |||
Mauritania Total | 8,605 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 10,105 |
Mexico | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 775 | 775 | |||
Mexico Total | 775 | 775 | |||
Moldova | - | ||||
4DoD | 4,405 | 2,189 | 1,420 | 2,771 | 10,785 |
Moldova Total | 4,405 | 2,189 | 1,420 | 2,771 | 10,785 |
Montenegro | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 10,599 | 1,700 | 12,299 | ||
4DoD | 1,927 | 1,927 | |||
Montenegro Total | 12,526 | 1,700 | 14,226 | ||
Morocco | - | ||||
4DoD | 678 | 164 | 1,154 | 36 | 2,032 |
Morocco Total | 678 | 164 | 1,154 | 36 | 2,032 |
Mozambique | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 34,782 | 1,000 | 500 | 36,282 | |
2DOS Other | 1,600 | 1,600 | |||
3CDC | 2,100 | 2,100 | |||
4DoD | 13,376 | 17 | 13,393 | ||
5USAID | 4,533 | 4,533 | |||
Mozambique Total | 56,391 | 1,000 | 517 | 57,908 | |
Namibia | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 3,351 | 3,351 | |||
2DOS Other | 670 | 670 | |||
4DoD | 5,494 | 5,494 | |||
Namibia Total | 9,515 | 9,515 | |||
Nepal | - | ||||
4DoD | 237 | 237 | |||
5USAID | 6,699 | 1,587 | 8,286 | ||
Nepal Total | 6,936 | 1,587 | 8,523 | ||
Nicaragua | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 4,081 | 4,081 | |||
4DoD | 200 | 200 | |||
Nicaragua Total | 4,281 | 4,281 | |||
Niger | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 5,693 | 1,000 | 1,000 | 1,000 | 8,693 |
4DoD | 328 | 328 | |||
Niger Total | 6,021 | 1,000 | 1,000 | 1,000 | 9,021 |
Nigeria | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 1,449 | 1,449 | |||
4DoD | 691 | 691 | |||
Nigeria Total | 2,140 | 2,140 | |||
North Macedonia | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 1,998 | 1,998 | |||
4DoD | 693 | 357 | 479 | 578 | 2,107 |
North Macedonia Total | 2,691 | 357 | 479 | 578 | 4,105 |
Northern Triangle | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 2,500 | 3,000 | 2,000 | 5,000 | 12,500 |
Northern Triangle Total | 2,500 | 3,000 | 2,000 | 5,000 | 12,500 |
Oman | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 1,785 | 1,785 | |||
4DoD | 2,553 | 2,553 | |||
Oman Total | 4,338 | 4,338 | |||
Pakistan | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 832 | 832 | |||
Pakistan Total | 832 | 832 | |||
Palau | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 5,111 | 820 | 380 | 60 | 6,371 |
4DoD | 216 | 73 | 115 | 115 | 519 |
Palau Total | 5,327 | 893 | 495 | 175 | 6,890 |
West Bank/Gaza Strip | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 6,088 | 1,000 | 1,000 | 1,000 | 9,088 |
4DoD | 280 | 13 | 14 | 3 | 310 |
West Bank/Gaza Strip Total | 6,368 | 1,013 | 1,014 | 1,003 | 9,398 |
Papua New Guinea | - | ||||
4DoD | - | 12 | 20 | 32 | |
Papua New Guinea Total | - | 12 | 20 | 32 | |
Paraguay | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 200 | 895 | 1,095 | ||
Paraguay Total | 200 | 895 | 1,095 | ||
Peru | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 18,006 | 1,000 | 1,605 | 2,000 | 22,611 |
4DoD | 12,129 | 1,515 | 21 | 584 | 14,249 |
5USAID | 1,000 | 1,000 | |||
Peru Total | 31,135 | 2,515 | 1,626 | 2,584 | 37,860 |
Philippines | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 920 | 920 | |||
4DoD | 553 | 553 | |||
5USAID | 1,550 | 1,550 | |||
Philippines Total | 3,023 | 3,023 | |||
Romania | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 2,369 | 2,369 | |||
4DoD | 150 | 150 | |||
Romania Total | 2,519 | 2,519 | |||
Rwanda | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 4,203 | 4,203 | |||
2DOS Other | 700 | 700 | |||
4DoD | 7,790 | 7,790 | |||
5USAID | 1,500 | 1,000 | 505 | 1,095 | 4,100 |
Rwanda Total | 14,193 | 1,000 | 505 | 1,095 | 16,793 |
Sao Tome/Principe | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 50 | 50 | |||
Sao Tome/Principe Total | 50 | 50 | |||
Senegal | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 4,755 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 6,255 |
2DOS Other | 260 | 260 | |||
4DoD | 2,107 | 988 | 56 | 92 | 3,243 |
5USAID | 500 | 500 | |||
Senegal Total | 7,622 | 1,488 | 556 | 592 | 10,258 |
Serbia | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 23,230 | 1,000 | 1,000 | 1,000 | 26,230 |
4DoD | 310 | 294 | 430 | 140 | 1,174 |
Serbia Total | 23,540 | 1,294 | 1,430 | 1,140 | 27,404 |
Serbia & Montenegro | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 5,646 | 5,646 | |||
Serbia & Montenegro Total | 5,646 | 5,646 | |||
Sierra Leone | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 147 | 147 | |||
4DoD | - | 0 | 39 | 608 | 647 |
5USAID | 1,593 | 1,593 | |||
Sierra Leone Total | 1,740 | 0 | 39 | 608 | 2,387 |
Slovak Republic | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 1,000 | 1,000 | |||
Slovak Republic Total | 1,000 | 1,000 | |||
Slovenia | - | ||||
4DoD | 270 | 270 | |||
Slovenia Total | 270 | 270 | |||
Solomon Islands | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 4,688 | 1,000 | 5,688 | ||
2DOS Other | - | 2,500 | 2,500 | ||
4DoD | 2,190 | 63 | 910 | 3,163 | |
Solomon Islands Total | 6,878 | 1,063 | 3,410 | 11,351 | |
Somalia | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 33,050 | 4,000 | 4,000 | 4,000 | 45,050 |
Somalia Total | 33,050 | 4,000 | 4,000 | 4,000 | 45,050 |
South Sudan | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 16,135 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 22,135 |
4DoD | 826 | 826 | |||
South Sudan Total | 16,961 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 22,961 |
Sri Lanka | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 65,341 | 8,000 | 8,500 | 7,000 | 88,841 |
2DOS Other | 122 | 122 | |||
3CDC | 175 | 175 | |||
4DoD | 4,502 | 308 | 25 | 1,170 | 6,005 |
5USAID | 11,225 | 11,225 | |||
Sri Lanka Total | 81,365 | 8,308 | 8,525 | 8,170 | 106,368 |
Sudan | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 24,427 | 24,427 | |||
Sudan Total | 24,427 | 24,427 | |||
Sudan1 | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 3,450 | 1,000 | 1,000 | 5,450 | |
Sudan1 Total | 3,450 | 1,000 | 1,000 | 5,450 | |
Suriname | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 390 | 390 | |||
Suriname Total | 390 | 390 | |||
Syria | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 86,060 | 7,000 | 8,500 | 101,560 | |
4DoD | 10 | 10 | |||
Syria Total | 86,070 | 7,000 | 8,500 | 101,570 | |
Tajikistan | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 22,983 | 3,300 | 3,310 | 2,500 | 32,093 |
4DoD | 3,309 | 862 | 112 | 691 | 4,974 |
5USAID | 2,880 | 2,880 | |||
Tajikistan Total | 29,172 | 4,162 | 3,422 | 3,191 | 39,947 |
Tanzania | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 16 | 16 | |||
4DoD | 920 | 920 | |||
5USAID | 1,700 | 1,700 | |||
Tanzania Total | 2,636 | 2,636 | |||
Thailand | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 4,190 | 4,190 | |||
4DoD | 15,448 | 1,443 | 2,448 | 1,667 | 21,006 |
Thailand Total | 19,638 | 1,443 | 2,448 | 1,667 | 25,196 |
Timor-Leste | - | ||||
4DoD | - | 22 | 344 | 101 | 467 |
Timor-Leste Total | - | 22 | 344 | 101 | 467 |
Togo | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 32 | 32 | |||
Togo Total | 32 | 32 | |||
Tunisia | - | ||||
4DoD | 1,383 | 1,383 | |||
Tunisia Total | 1,383 | 1,383 | |||
Uganda | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 56 | 56 | |||
4DoD | 207 | 207 | |||
5USAID | 1,000 | 1,000 | |||
Uganda Total | 1,263 | 1,263 | |||
Ukraine | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 57,067 | 10,397 | 71,000 | 90,000 | 228,464 |
2DOS Other | 1,155 | 2,684 | 18,690 | 0 | 22,529 |
4DoD | 7,090 | 717 | 786 | 22 | 8,615 |
5USAID | 3,957 | 3,957 | |||
Ukraine Total | 69,269 | 13,798 | 90,476 | 90,022 | 263,565 |
Uruguay | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 200 | 200 | |||
Uruguay Total | 200 | 200 | |||
Uzbekistan | - | ||||
4DoD | 99 | 99 | |||
Uzbekistan Total | 99 | 99 | |||
Vietnam | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 131,480 | 18,200 | 21,620 | 25,000 | 196,300 |
3CDC | 1,848 | 1,848 | |||
4DoD | 6,205 | 1,387 | 1,268 | 943 | 9,803 |
5USAID | 26,799 | 26,799 | |||
Vietnam Total | 166,332 | 19,587 | 22,888 | 25,943 | 234,750 |
Yemen | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 44,355 | 4,000 | 4,875 | 3,000 | 56,230 |
4DoD | 4,846 | 4,846 | |||
Yemen Total | 49,201 | 4,000 | 4,875 | 3,000 | 61,076 |
Zambia | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 2,050 | 2,050 | |||
4DoD | 437 | 2,082 | 2,519 | ||
Zambia Total | 2,487 | 2,082 | 4,569 | ||
Zimbabwe | - | ||||
1DOS NADR - CWD | 19,684 | 1,500 | 3,000 | 2,500 | 26,684 |
4DoD | 4,337 | 185 | 253 | 55 | 4,830 |
Zimbabwe Total | 24,021 | 1,685 | 3,253 | 2,555 | 31,514 |
Grand Total | 4,031,718 | 270,261 | 392,770 | 398,261 | 5,093,010 |
Footnotes for funding history charts:
- In FY19, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras began receiving funding as a region.
- Serbia and Montenegro split into two countries in 2007.
- The “Sudan and South Sudan” budget line reflects the total funding for Sudan until 2011, when the country split into Sudan and South Sudan. The separate funding lines for “Sudan” and "South Sudan” reflect their respective separate funding totals since 2011.
- DOS - Other includes a variety of DOS funding sources.
DoD funds include OHDACA, the Research Development Test and Evaluation fund, the Humanitarian Assistance - Excess Property Program and the Iraq Relief and Construction fund. All U.S. Central Command demining-centric activities for FY10 were conducted with Theater Security Cooperation funding, not funding from U.S. OHDACA.