Mine Action Statement by NPA

Chairs, ladies and gentlemen,

As you all recall; the Nairobi Action Plan calls upon all of us to " ensure that assistance in mine action is based on adequate surveys, needs analysis and cost effective approaches", (Action #42). My purpose here today is to bring an operator’s perspective to this commitment.

Cost-effectiveness in the traditional sense of the word has many aspects and can be displayed in many ways. Several practical examples of this have been presented at various occasions revolving around issues like co-ordination, toolboxes, complementarity of methods, technologies etc. I will attempt not to prod any further down these lanes today.

What we need to do is to ask some pretty tough questions at this stage. And, at the same time, we all need to prepare ourselves for some constructive critic and self-criticism, a rather normal, but unpleasant outcome of a session of lessons learnt. A natural outset for these tough questions would be articulated if we recalled the objectives we set for ourselves in the pursuit of mine action in the late 80’s and early 1990’s, long before the Convention came to be.

Already then we talked about implementing mine clearance operations in support of the creation and development of sustainable national structures and operations, capable of solving the landmine problem themselves. The Convention then pushed through, as a groundbreaking framework for the establishment of such set-ups, and fundraising was time consuming but not necessarily very hard.

Around the same time, we made huge efforts to develop a technical framework for mine action to make it as safe, secure and all encompassing as possible in the wake of internationally recognised advanced quality management mechanisms a la ISO 9000, etc. Our intentions back then were good , but as most prescribed medicines, it had side effects and negative impact on our ability to obtain the overall objective of effectively ridding the world of mines. With the benefit of this hindsight, it is paramount that we collectively ask ourselves now;

- Why is mine action still more characterised by the provision of externally managed too complex and thus pacifying mechanisms for mine action rather than assisting in the creation of nationally adaptable and appropriate sustainable measures to solve the problem?

- Why is it so difficult, even sometimes with good impact and technical data at hand, to establish national mine action plans aimed at meeting the obligations of Article 5? National plans where national authorities` initiative leads to the full participation and commitment of UN, NGOs and donors in the making, implementation and support of that plan? And the ability to see it through?

- Why are international organisations still implementing large-scale mine action operations when we all said we would build national capacity and ensure national ownership?

- Why is not formal demobilisation processes that puts thousands of former combatants into work in the minefields undertaken in support of national planning and implementation of national efforts? And why are not more regular army units involved in post conflict clearance as part of a well structured national plan?

- Why is there still a growing division between UN and NGO perspectives on Mine Action both at national and international level, despite hard attempts from both sides to find common ground on coordination and planning of mine action? And why are not governments of mine-affected countries more visible in this development of better practices at country level?

Based on this, it would be fair to say that the level of accomplishment compared to the input of resources is just not justifiable and the implementation of mine action activities is now effectively taking place outside of centrally managed bureaucracies. The established structures and mechanisms have proven inefficient and inadequate and now needs to be challenged in order to render the higher output needed to meet looming Article 5 deadlines.

If we are to meet the obligations of Article 5 we, (national authorities in affected states, UN, NGOs,-all of us involved in solving the problem of AP landmines), needs to seriously change our approach.

Well, we do not have all the answers to how to achieve a new paradigm for mine action, but we think that peer pressure, active donor engagement and goal orientation needs to be communicated to all mine action operators and to mine affected countries in order to obtain national ownership and effective planning and cooperation to get the job done.

In order to achieve this, a donor should ensure that these optimal conditions are in place prior to granting funds. With the current trend of shifting project and program support to that of budget and sector support, it should also be a fundamental requirement that mine action is elaborated upon in national development plans and poverty reduction strategies (PRSPs).

Failure to do this will leave any national potential budget line for mine action at Zero and all activities will continue to need external funding. Any sound investor looking for the return of a successful implementation of the Convention would try to ensure good management, articulated objectives and a plan for the implementation of activities to reach the goals. Deviation reports along the way are also common in responsible management and good governance.

Similarly; mine affected countries should draft national plans taking into account the obligations set in the Convention. However, some mine affected countries with national plans have unfortunately already placed the goal pin beyond the outer perimeter of Article 5 deadlines, articulating achievement levels lesser than those bound by the Convention. Fortunately the goals for every individual mine affected country is spelled out in the text of Article 5 and binding through the ratification or accession to the Treaty so necessary corrections of timelines are easily insertable in any national plans.

So, realistic national plans faithful to these obligations should be a clear responsibility of the State Parties. Operators, donors and other relevant stakeholders should take part in the development of these plans to ensure implementation and commitment to national plans.

Practically speaking, a flexible and dynamic locally elaborated operational work plan should thereafter balance the tasks within the timeframe and resources available, clearing those mined areas impeding safety, free circulation and development as a matter of priority and classify those that in the meantime can do with perimeter marking to render a safe environment in mine affected areas until January and February 2009 when also these mined areas have to be neutralized for those 22 State parties meeting their Article 5 deadline in March 2009.

This sounds easy and fairly logic, but generally speaking, it simply hasn’t been done to the extent needed in order to claim victory in 2009. We need your attention and assistance to fundamentally correct these things now.