Author/Origin:
Wenche Brenden wenche@icbl.org |
|
(Tuesday 22 June 2004
Geneva, Switzerland)
Standing Committee on Mine Clearance, Mine Risk Education (MRE) and Mine Action Technologies
Co-Chairs - Cambodia & Japan
Co-Rapporteurs - Algeria & Sweden
The Standing Committee on Mine Clearance, Mine Risk Education and Related Technologies took place over one and a half days: on Monday afternoon and the whole day Tuesday.
ICBL presentations:
Key discussions
No substantive discussions, but instead presentations on the importance of all mine-affected countries reporting on their "4
P's" (Problem, Plans, Progress and Priorities) before the Review Conference.
On Tuesday 17 countries presented information on their problems, plans, progress and priorities as they relate to mine action.
|
Cambodia
|
Honduras
|
Guatemala
|
|
Nicaragua
|
Peru
|
Ecuador
|
|
Colombia
|
Djibouti
|
Sudan
|
|
Burundi
|
Malawi
|
Albania
|
|
Tunisia
|
France
|
Congo RO
|
|
Nigeria
|
Chad
|
|
On Monday 13 countries made presentations
|
Afghanistan
|
Thailand
|
Senegal
|
|
Eritrea
|
Maritania
|
Zambia
|
|
Bosnia & Herzegovina
|
Rwanda
|
Tajikistan
|
|
Algeria
|
Mozambique
|
Jordan
|
|
Namibia
|
|
|
Highlights for the ICBL:
- Improved and more comprehensive reporting, the "4P" approach, has contributed
to increased and more structured and constructive reporting from mine affected
countries.
- Increased reporting on links between mine action and humanitarian issues and
integration of mine action into social-economical development plans.
- Increased reference to target groups really affected by the presence
of mines, mine-affected communities are slowy being humanised.
- All reported on development of national mine action strategy plans.
- Almost all reported on Mine Risk Education (MRE) as an important component of their Mine Action Programmes.
- Djibouti and Honduras state that they have met their clearance deadlines in
Art. 5 (paragraph 1, destroy all mines in mined areas within 10 years) and
thereby join Costa Rica as countries who have fully met their obligations as
pertains to Article 5 of the MBT.
Concern for the ICBL:
- Increase of countries that report on inadequate capacity to meet their obligations
with regard to their clearance deadlines.
- Less targeted reporting on clear priorities for assistance.
- Use of terms "mine-safe" and "mine impact-free" which by definition will not be in line with the convention particularly if this means not meeting the 2009 or
subsequent 10-year deadlines.
Quote of the day
“Let there be no mistake, all mine-affected State Parties are obliged
to clear all mined areas...Only mine-free is acceptable”.
Ambassador Kongstad, Norway