An effective national C-IED response cannot be assessed solely by the capabilities it possesses, the devices it neutralizes, or the networks it disrupts. Its broader purpose is to prevent and reduce harm from IED threats. Beyond their immediate effects, IEDs cause death and injury, contribute to displacement and insecurity, restrict mobility and humanitarian access, disrupt livelihoods and essential services, and generate longer-term psychosocial and socio-economic impacts (UNSG, 2024, p. 2).
A human-centred approach therefore broadens the understanding of what defines an effective C-IED response. Preventing attacks and disrupting those responsible remain central objectives, but reducing harm also requires focusing on affected populations and the consequences of IED use. Victim assistance is one part of this response. Drawing on its experience in applying the UNIDIR C-IED CMM SAT in West Africa, the Survey suggested making victim assistance a distinct component of the C-IED response and subsequently incorporated this approach into its assessment in Kenya (Small Arms Survey, 2024b, p. 4; 2025a, pp. 16–17). More recent Survey work has framed such assistance as extending from emergency trauma care to rehabilitation, psychosocial support, socio-economic inclusion, and longer-term recovery (Wild and Amoroso, 2024).
IED threats are not experienced uniformly. Gender, age, disability, socio-economic status, and other factors shape exposure to risk, consequences, access to protection and assistance, and participation in decision-making. Gender-responsive and, ideally, intersectional analysis can therefore strengthen understanding of both the threat and its impacts. The Survey’s work has highlighted the value of meaningful participation of women and other underrepresented groups in threat analysis, planning, and policy development (Small Arms Survey, 2024a, pp. 10–11).
Affected communities provide knowledge unavailable through formal security structures, including insights into local insecurity, changes in the operating environment, population exposure, and the everyday consequences of IED use. Appropriate community engagement can therefore strengthen threat understanding, awareness, reporting, preparedness, and prevention. Trust-building is important: Survey assessments have found that weak relations between communities and security forces can hinder outreach and reporting, while sustained community engagement can help build trust, improve reporting, and strengthen responses to IED threats (Small Arms Survey, 2025a, p. 12).
A human-centred approach should not transfer responsibility for security to communities or blur the roles of security, humanitarian, and civilian actors. Rather, it seeks to ensure that C-IED analysis and decision-making consider how threats affect different populations, as well as to create appropriate channels to enable relevant knowledge and experience to inform responses.
Putting people at the centre complements rather than replaces the technical, operational, and governance dimensions of C-IED. It broadens the measure of effectiveness to include reducing harm, supporting recovery, and strengthening the legitimacy and responsiveness of national action (Small Arms Survey, 2026). Yet some consequences of IED use, and some conditions that enable threats to persist, extend beyond the remit of C-IED institutions. This raises the question of how C-IED can connect with wider humanitarian, development, peacebuilding, governance, and arms control efforts, while preserving—and avoiding an indefinite expansion of—its distinct mandates and remit.
| < PREVIOUS | NEXT > |