States Parties 161 States Not Party 36
ICBL Statement on Extension Requests 7th Meeting of the States PartiesInformal Session, 20 September 2006
As we have been saying since Zagreb, the ICBL believes that all States Parties - requesting and deciding - will benefit from having a review of the requests ahead of States Parties' decision. The information that states must provide with their extension request is quite complex. It has to be in order to give a full picture of past and planned mine clearance work. So there needs to be a process that can put all these facts and figures into the national context and allow deciding states to make good, informed decisions. Requesting states will also benefit by having an opportunity to look closely at how their current mine action operations are performing and to explain what will be required by way of national resources and international assistance to complete the clearance process. The proposals in front of this MSP will satisfy this need without - as some States Parties have expressed concern about - extending or amending the treaty in any way.
The ICBL has also been calling for guidelines, or a template, for states to use in order to help them make a complete request with all the information required by the treaty. We think the template proposed by Canada provides a useful document for states to use as a basis for their requests. It calls for information that will show why the SP could not meet its deadline and how it plans to finish Article 5 obligations in good faith and in a timely manner. Quite simply the template will make requesting states parties take the request process very seriously because of the effort they will need to make to fill out the proposed questions. But again, to put the large amount of detail in context, the proposed forms would need to be supplemented with the state's national mine clearance plan (through completion) and analyzed by people familiar with their situation. The large amount of facts and figures cannot stand on their own.
ICBL's mine operator organizations believe that the template could use a few adjustments to reduce repetition and limit extraneous information. But we hope that an initial version could be approved at this meeting and that changes could be considered at future ISC or MSP meetings. States Parties need to have a document in hand to begin preparing their requests long before late December 2007/early January when the first requests will need to be submitted. Waiting until the 8MSP - in November 2007 - to agree on a template will be too late!
Whatever the format chosen by States Parties, the ICBL will also be monitoring the implementation of the request process to ensure that the highest standards are kept by all parties. As we have said in the past, we believe that a meaningful extension request process is critical to protecting the integrity of all of Article 5 and that protection of this article is a collective responsibility. We therefore intend to play our part in making sure it is done right.
In the end, a decision on the proposed process and a template will create a win-win situation. Requesting states will have an opportunity to look closely at how their current mine action operations are performing and to explain what will be required by way of national resources and international assistance to complete the clearance process. And deciding States Parties will have the support they need to make an informed decision on this critical treaty article. We look forward to speaking about this issue more during the Wednesday afternoon session.
