3MSP Daily Update 3

(Thursday 20 September 2001 Managua - Nicaragua)

Third Meeting of States Parties, 19 September 2001 Managua, Nicaragua

1. General status and operation of the treaty The discussion in plenary touched on all of the ICBL’s concerns, raised numerous times since the First Meeting in Maputo, about aspects of the status and operation of the treaty.

Article 1: the ICBL reiterated the need for agreement on how the term “assist” is interpreted in the treaty. There was some positive reaction to this, specifically from the Netherlands, and it was recommended that the standing committee seeks clarification on this and reaches a common understanding in the coming period. This is a step forward since the issue is now on the agenda for future discussion.

Joint operations: ICBL has raised concerns about State Party involvement in joint operations when mines are used by a non-State Party in the context of NATO and also in situations in Africa where States Parties are allied with rebel groups that use mines. Zimbabwe commented that they have no control over allies in joint operations.

Antitank mines with anti-handling devices/sensitive fuses: discussion on this was disappointing, with France, Germany, Japan and the UK making general comments suggesting that the Mine Ban Treaty does not include these kinds of weapons.

Article 3: there was discussion on the numbers of mines to be retained for training or development purposes and there is now widespread recognition that the minimum numbers of mines need to be retained and that these should run into the 100’s or 1000’s but not into tens of thousands.

Article 7 (transparency reports): Vertic made a presentation on their reporting guide, which drew praise in later discussion.

Article 8 (compliance article): the ICBL delegation is encouraged by the serious way in which States Parties are addressing concerns about compliance. A number of governments spoke about “operationalising” article 8 and have looked at what it means to have a fact-finding mission. Also some governments have spoken about steps to deal with compliance that fall short of an article 8 mission.

In addition, Burundi made a general statement on compliance and reiterated their invitation of an international mission to look at ongoing allegations of use and indicated that they are largely complying with the treaty and intend to ratify soon.

Article 9: the ICRC made a presentation on their information kit for national legislation.

Institutional issues: there was discussion on the role of the coordinating committee, the intersessional work program and the proposal for the establishment of an intersessional support committee. The proposals for boosting capacity, particularly for the intersessional work program, were carried though there were concerns voiced by a few governments (particularly Brazil) about the importance of the coordinating committee working in a transparent and inclusive way. The ICBL continues to press for an active role by the coordinating committee, recognising that together with the standing committees, it plays an important role in moving the process forward.

The new co-rapporteurs in standing committees are:

• General status and operation: Austria and Peru
• Victim assistance: France and Colombia
• Mine clearance: Belgium and Kenya
• Stockpile destruction: Switzerland and Romania

The discussion ended with opportunity for states parties to make a declaration about article 5 (which would involve lodging a request for an extension of the deadline for mine clearance in mine affected areas), and for lodging an article 8 enquiry (to investigate possible non-compliance by a States Party). States Parties did not take up either issue however.

2. Stock destruction
Amongst other announcements:

• Italy reported that it has made substantial progress in its stock destruction progress and now has 1 million mines left to destroy (out of its initial stock of 7 million).
• Belarus spoke of the need for political and other support from other governments in its program to destroy its 4.5 million mines (including difficult to destroy PFM mines). They again stated that once they had received this backing they would join the treaty.

3. Mine clearance standing committee
Sara Sekkenes delivered a statement on behalf of the ICBL Mine Action Working Group and underlined the shift of focus “from a very minefield focused or related activity to an increased focus on the effects of the minefield on the affected community”. She went on to say that humanitarian mine action is not “a stand-alone activity” and that its future is dependant on the ability of various actors to produce “more impact-related results with far better cost and security implications”. She emphasised the importance of mine clearance and mine action to be orientated towards the needs of communities and concluded with a call for continued funding of mine action and mine clearance from States Parties. Steinar Essen spoke on the need to focus on technology from the field that is already proven and usable instead of high-tech research and development. Bob Eaton also addressed the meeting regarding the Global Impact Survey, noting that now that we have information regarding the actual problem, it is up to donors to make strategic decisions regarding mine action funding.

The Geneva Centre for Demining and Norway supported the ICBL’s statement.

4. Informal lobbying meetings
A number of governments were lobbied informally by campaigners, including Bulgaria, Romania and Yugoslavia.