Article 5 Deadline Extension Process: Clearance Obligation’s Credibility at Stake

How will the extension requests be dealt with?

The treaty says that the decision on each request will be made by a majority of States Parties present and voting at the MSP, and the ICBL is pushing those deciding states to take their role very seriously.

Due in part to pressure from the ICBL, States Parties have come up with a process that is intended to make sure extension requests are well-prepared and not “rubber-stamped,” or given an easy approval. It was decided that the current MSP President plus Standing Committee co-chairs and co-rapporteurs will provide an analysis of the requests to the other States Parties to help them make their decision, and that requests must be submitted nine months before the MSP. Extension requests have to be made public, and the so-called “analyzing group” can go back to the state with questions and requests for more information. A template was agreed to help requesting statesprovide all the information required by the treaty and necessary for an informed discussion and decision.

Are any other actors involved in the process to analyze extension requests?

States Parties agreed that the analysis group “should, where appropriate, draw on expert mine clearance, legal and diplomatic advice” when going through the requests. After a long and reportedly tense debate, the ICBL and the ICRC were invited by the group to give their views on requests submitted as of 30 April, apparently the only experts consulted so far.

What does the ICBL think about the extension requests that have been submitted?

The requests so far varied widely in quality. Some, like Jordan’s, clearly showed thereasons why an extension was needed and how they would work towards completion in the requested extension period. Others, such as Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela clearly asked for much more time than it should take if the political will were there to get the job done as soon as possible. Some states, such as Thailand and Zimbabwe, still do not have a clear picture of the size of the remaining problem or a plan on how to raise the large amount of money it will take to finish the job.

What are the next steps in the process?

The analyzing group is going to prepare its analyses and conclusions in a series of meetings this summer, with plans to finish them by September. The ICBL will also put out a set of critiques and recommendations in early fall based on data collected by Landmine Monitor for its 2008 Report.

How will the ICBL judge the success or failure of this process?

We will consider this process successful if requesting states used the opportunity to do serious planning on the work and resources needed to finish demining, if there is a real discussion over the content of these requests by all other States Parties, and if those states that ask for more time than they would realistically need are granted a shorter deadline than they ask for.