Update on Mine Risk Education, June 2004

(Tuesday 22 June 2004 Geneva, Switzerland) Statement by the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and the United Nations Children’s Fund, on Mine Risk Education, at the Standing Committee on Mine Clearance, Mine Risk Education and Mine Action Technologies, Geneva, 22 June 2004

The following statement has been prepared by UNICEF and the ICBL, as co-conveners of the International Mine Risk Education Working Group.

2004 represents an important year for the Mine Ban Treaty and the implementation of Mine Risk Education programmes around the world. It is five years since entry into force of the Treaty and the half-way mark of the 10 year programme of work dedicated to achieving a world free of landmines. Such a year provides us an opportunity to reflect on our work to date and to consider our plans for the future. It is on this subject that we wish to share a few reflections concerning mine risk education in the lead up to the review conference later in the year.

So where are we now?

Thanks principally to the Landmine Monitor Report we know that about 5 million people were the direct recipients of mine risk education programmes in 2002. This does not include the millions more who may have received indirect briefings via the mass media.

We know that MRE programmes are undertaken in 36 of all of the mine-affected countries, and we have a good idea of the number of agencies implementing MRE around the world. In addition, a growing number of States Parties report MRE activities in their Article 7 Reports as well as in this forum. At a global level we have a relatively good understanding of what types of MRE are being undertaken, whether a mass media campaign, public education or community liaison.

Thanks again to the Landmine Monitor we know which countries do not receive MRE. And unfortunately there remain a few countries which were identified as urgently requiring MRE but which have not over the last five years developed significant programmes, including, Myanmar, Chad, Georgia, India, Iran, Nepal and Somalia. Nonetheless, UNICEF along with the Nepalese Campaign to Ban Landmines and a range of partners has begun undertaking an assessment of needs in Nepal, and with Handicap International UNICEF is beginning work in Somalia. In Myanmar, Georgia and India also, the national campaigns of the ICBL have been initiating MRE activities. More generally, ICRC programmes have expanded over the years, especially in relation to supporting Red Cross & Red Crescent societies. In 1999 the ICRC supported 8 country programmes and in 2004 28. While UNICEF programmes have grown from around 16 in 1999 to 35 in 2004 with emphasis on working with national partners.

We do not know however what global funds are committed to MRE. While we are aware that in general mine action funds have increased over the last five years (with the exception of 2001) we are not aware if some of this has lead to an increase in MRE funding or what proportion of resources may have been committed to integrated mine action.

Nonetheless, over the last five years there have been many advancements in the field of MRE and principally these relate to the professionalisation and diversification of the sector, as well as vast improvements in terms of our understanding of the nature and conditions of mine-risk and impact. When analysing the contribution of MRE to reducing risk, we have learnt that we should measure the rate of mine casualties in a systematic and ongoing fashion while also measuring the extent to which MRE has promoted positive behavioural change. In many countries we have adjusted our messages from those which simply teach people basic mine recognition skills and warning messages, in the expectation that they will avoid mines, to implementing detailed qualitative surveys which uncover primary factors that contribute to landmine accidents and risk-taking such as poverty, displacement and social exclusion. Relatively our understanding of behaviour leading to accidents and the contribution of MRE to promoting safer behaviour is far more advanced and, on a country by country basis, can be more clearly articulated and addressed.

As part of that understanding, we believe MRE has demonstrated in many countries that reducing risk is not something which can necessarily be achieved by MRE or mine clearance alone – it requires a comprehensive and integrated approach that includes marking, clearance, victim assistance, community mobilisation and liaison. Integrated mine action is an approach for which MRE has been a principal advocate.

Integrated mine action has been implemented as far as possible in mine action programmes in Cambodia, Bosnia & Herzegovina and Sri Lanka. And efforts to institutionalise the idea of integrated mine action have been made in the MRE component of the International Mine Action Standards, in addition to MRE studies and guidelines developed by the ICRC, Handicap International and GICHD among many others. But while a lot has been done in the MRE community to promote and achieve integration at a theoretical and programmatic level, in 2004 it remains a challenge to many national authorities and many clearance organisations to ensure the practical application of integrated mine action.

The gap between the theory and practice of integration is shown up in the fact that few affected countries prioritise or even undertake marking on the basis of the priorities of mine-affected communities. For those who work in MRE, marking is an essential component of risk-reduction and education. How could we even hope to achieve some element of risk reduction if the bulk of a population cannot even tell which is a dangerous area and which is not. Despite this it remains true that marking is often viewed as the sole function of clearance and area survey teams, and is often only undertaken when a clearance team is about to begin work on a task or is already clearing an area. Such an approach makes marking as slow and laborious as mine clearance, has little link or value to the work being done in MRE to teach people about marking signs, and does not meet the needs and priorities of communities who at a minimum have a right to be informed about the location of dangerous areas through marking signs. The link between MRE and clearance has yet to be fully explored and a great deal of work is needed to ensure adequate marking programmes.

Over the last five years we have witnessed many positive developments in MRE. In terms of standardisation and our understanding of the nature of mine impact and strategies to mitigate risk we are years ahead of the initial programmes which focussed on the provision of basic warning messages. Despite this a lot still needs to be done to ensure that the needs and priorities of affected communities are kept at the forefront of all our discussions and plans, and that integrated mine action becomes more than an aspiration.

In closing we should make the point : the mine problem is here to stay for some years yet and to meet the needs a long-term commitment to MRE is required. Relatively speaking, MRE is cost effective and can reach large numbers of people in a short time. Future thinking in MRE will however require a more strategic approach in more countries, whereby MRE will need to be mainstreamed to ensure its sustainability. This will come through the inclusion of MRE in the school syllabus, into injury surveillance and public health planning, and by integrating MRE processes in community organisations and structures along with mine clearance. In the lead up to the Nairobi Summit such ideas will need to be taken into serious consideration in addition to measuring the resources that MRE will require in the longer term.

Thank You