Intersessional Daily Update 1

(Tuesday 13 May 2003 Geneva, Switzerland) Standing Committee Meetings (12 – 16 May 2003)
The opening day of the Standing Committee week was divided into two parts: the President’s consultations on developing a process to prepare for the First Review Conference of 2004 in the morning and the first part of the Standing Committee on the General Status and Operation of the Convention in the afternoon (and to be continued on Friday).

President’s consultations

Ambassador Jean Lint, President of the Fourth Meeting of States Parties, had circulated a document “Preparing for the Convention’s First Review Conference - Update on the President’s Consultations” April 24, and this document was used as a basis for discussion.

The first item, the date and duration of the conference, included the proposal that the Review Conference be similar to a Meeting of States Parties, or five days, and the proposed dates were 29 November – 3 December 2004, ending on the anniversary of the opening for signature of the Treaty. Ambassador Lint noted “it’s always good to have some symbolism in meetings,” and the date and duration were agreed.

Regarding the venue, Ambassador Lint reminded the participants that Canada, Norway, Austria, Germany and more recently Kenya had expressed interest in hosting the Review Conference. He indicated that in his consultations many expressed support for the Kenyan offer, given “logical reasons” why this important meeting should be held in Africa, the most mine-affected continent in the world, 20 States Parties in Africa are affected by antipersonnel mines (AP), “as a continent Africa has been exceptionally strong in acceptance of the norm established by the Convention and from the outset Africa has been at the forefront of efforts to rid the world of AP mines.” Austria, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Senegal, South Africa, Angola, Thailand, and Japan expressed support, appreciation for the way the President conducted consultations, welcomed the “pertinent proposal” for Kenya to serve as the venue and indicated their willingness to work closely with Kenya, the governments of Africa and all States Parties to ensure a successful Conference. Jody Williams, on behalf of the ICBL, also commended other countries who offered to serve as a venue and noted the significance of holding the Review Conference in Africa, which “seems to bring us back to the beginning, as our First Meeting of States Parties was in Africa (and) the role of countries in Africa can’t be highly enough commended. The ICBL will do its utmost to support the Review Conference and make it have as high profile as it should have.” Kenya expressed appreciation to all who expressed support and indicated it is “delighted and greatly honored that the Kenyan offer to host has been accepted.”

Ambassador Lint indicated that views have been expressed that the “nationality of the President should be de-linked from the country within which the Review Conference would be held” but indicated we would not discuss candidates here. After a brief discussion Ambassador Lint indicated their was acceptance and agreement for the “balance of affected countries and donors” inherent in this proposal. Other officers (such as the Vice-President, Secretary-General and Executive Secretary were discussed. After a brief discussion on the level of participation, during which Italy, Kenya, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Canada spoke, Ambassador Lint said that it appeared the participation should be at “the highest possible level” rather than “a high level” but that it would be simply a proposal for Bangkok, but premature to engage in more today.

There was then a discussion for the preparatory process, including dates for meetings, two meetings of one to two days each, to be held immediately after the two sets of Standing Committee meetings in 2004 (9-12 February and 14-18 June). It was agreed the meetings will be held in the United Nations facilities in Geneva, with formal documentation provided by the UN and the President-designate will be responsible for them. It was agreed that all states, ICBL, ICRC and other relevant organizations will be welcomed and encouraged to participate. The mandate of the preparatory meetings was discussed and agreed and the morning session closed.

The Standing Committee meeting was opened officially with remarks by the President of the Fourth Meeting of States Parties, Ambassador Jean Lint, and the Director of the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining, Ambassador Martin Dahinden. Notes to Meeting Participants including an annotated agenda is available at http://www.gichd.ch/pdf/mbc/SC_may03/Draft%20Revised%20Program%205MSP.pdf

Standing Committee on General Status and Operation of the Convention

Presentations and discussions in this session focused on: an overview of implementation, universalisation and mobilising resources. Ambassador Lint of Belgium began the discussion with an overview of developments on the president’s action programme. He noted the overall progress, including the successful destruction of stocks by States Parties with the March 1 deadline, the submission of more initial Article 7 transparency reports (now 111 received to date) and the recent ratification and accession by Sao Tome et Principe and Timor Leste. These, amongst other issues have contributed to the tremendous progress that is being made and the success story that the treaty has become, he said.

In her opening remarks to the conference Jody Williams, ICBL Ambassador, echoed these observations about the continued success of the treaty and underlined its importance “in the context of what is happening in the world”. “What we’ve accomplished is a symbol to people that when we work together we can make a difference…The landmine treaty is about helping survivors and helping countries with a mine problem to deal with this…but we’ve done even more than that. We have also accomplished a different way of looking at human security”, said Williams.

The discussion that followed on universalisation focussed initially on the role of parliamentarians in promoting worldwide acceptance of the treaty. Paddy Torsney, a Canadian Member of Parliament, reported on the outcome of the activities during the Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting in Santiago, Chile, in April. She spoke about the importance of tapping into parliamentary networks; the range of activities that can be usefully undertaken by parliamentarians at home such as engaging finance committees on funding for mine action or raising awareness through outreach in their communities; plus the opportunity presented by bilateral parliamentary groups (eg. Canada-Japan) or other institutions such as Commonwealth parliamentarians or women parliamentarians. There were additions from the floor, including by Landmine Action and Mines Action Canada who noted that parliamentarians have an important role to play with their peers both in non-signatory and signatory countries, on universalisation as well as implementation issues.

There were also statements from a number of States not Parties which are taking positive steps towards joining the treaty (including Greece and Turkey, Lithuania, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea) followed by a report on the work of the Human Security Network.

The discussion on mobilising resources to achieve the Convention’s humanitarian aims included inputs from the Organization of American States, the World Bank, the UN Mine Action Service and a number of donor and mine affected countries. The speaker from the World Bank provided background information on how the Bank works and noted that for their applications to be successful, mine affected countries need to demonstrate the economic impact of antipersonnel mines and explain how mine action will help economic recovery. Any monies borrowed will need to be repaid, he said, so for some countries a World Bank loan for the purposes of mine action should be seen as a last resort.

Norway, in its update on its review of funding and assistance, noted that funding for mine action has been constant and that in 2002 funding exceeded $300 million for the first time. Mine action funding goes beyond the traditional donor base, because it includes countries that are not usually donors plus mine affected countries which contribute funds themselves, however it needs to broaden further.