Intervention on views of the ICBL on the state of implementation of Article 5

(Monday 21 June 2004 Geneva, Switzerland) Standing Committee on Mine Clearance, Mine Awareness and Related Technologies of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on their Destruction

Delivered on behalf of the Mine Action Working Group of the ICBL

Co - Chairs, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I again would wish to thank the Co-chairs for the opportunity to express ICBL’s view on issues related to the state of implementation as regards to Article 5 and will focus on some points for consideration in the run-up towards the Review Conference later this year.

Operators within the coalition of the ICBL urges State Parties to the Convention to emphasise the sustainability as well as the impact of measures in the implementation of mine action activities.

Sustainability:

In that while neither Article 5 nor Article 6 afford rights to any individual concerned by the menace of mines; their main objective remains people impacted by the presence of mines.

Therefore mine affected states and states in the position to support mine action must reaffirm their obligation toward the Convention and responsibilities toward mine affected people and communities.

Mine affected State Parties must continue to report plans, priorities, progress and problems and, nationally, they must include priorities in relevant development plans ensuring a multisectoral coordination and priority setting framework for mine action.

State Parties in a position to do so, must continue to fund initiated particular problems, if possible with multi-year funding, until it is solved or substantiated arguments are presented to why the residual problem can realistically be dealt with by existing national resources.

Impact:

In that mine affected State Parties must develop national capacities for mine clearance as the only way to fulfil their obligations of no AP mines left in the ground, whatever impact, as the text of the Convention unambiguously requires.

This would imply that every effort of technical survey and area reduction must be followed by the necessary mine risk education and clearance to rid the suspected grounds of all risk – and hence comply with the obligations of the Convention.

Extending the 10-year deadline must be an exception and carefully scrutinized on a case-by-case basis when that time comes.

State Parties must demonstrate good faith efforts to meet their respective 10-year deadlines through concrete plans and a realistic implementation of targeted activities.

In conclusion, the focus on sustainability of Article 5 and impact of our mutual efforts must be guaranteed to:

1. ensure the obligations of the Convention relative to deadlines set by Article 5 of the Convention as pertains to mine clearance,
2. decrease the number of new mine victims,
3. ensure that affected population’s priorities are addressed in any given mine-affected country’s activities, and
4. to support the socio-economic development in mine-affected countries,
5. ensure that everything possible in terms of mine action, including survey, mine marking and clearance, has been done by the ten year deadline, providing mine-affected countries with appropriate information and data to present the remaining mine problem in a constructive way.

Thank You.