States Parties 161 States Not Party 36
LANDMINE MONITOR FACT SHEETPrepared by Norwegian Peoples Aid
For the May 2003 Meeting of the Intersessional Standing Committee on Mine Clearance, Mine Risk Education and Mine Action Technologies of the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty
The ICBL Mine Action Working Group (MAWG) has at various times raised the issue of Article 5 reporting and the inadequate information on status and progress made in relation to clearance of mined areas and status of mine action programs. Hence, as a result of this concern the MAWG calls for standardization and greater detail in Article 7 reports when reporting on Article 5. The reporting should include information on total funding for mine action by donors and recipients, data on impact and size of suspected mine infested areas, and a clear definition and registration of area cleared or otherwise discharged of suspicion. MAWG continues to call for the development of strategic mine action plans with defined priorities and priority setting methodologies by national authorities and other mine action actors. Furthermore, the timeframe for strategic plans should be consistent with the 10-year deadline in the Mine Ban Treaty.
As of 13 May 2003 the following mine affected State Parties have reported on Article 5 in their transparency report [2]:
Mine Affected State Party
Article 7(no. of reports submitted)
Form C(report on location of mined areas)
Form F(report on status of MA programs)
Form G(report on clearance since entered into force)
Mine Clearance deadlines
[1] According to postings on http://disarmament.un.org/MineBan.nsf as of 13 May 2003. Internal deviations in the reporting, among them the reporting on Falkland Malvinas and Djibouti included in the UK, Argentina and French reports, and recent updates on mine affected areas in the Venezuela report affects the total number of mine affected countries.[2] The information can be found at http://disarmament.un.org/MineBan.nsf