Author(s):
Site Admin <webmaster2@icbl.org> .
Thursday 23 June 2011
Article 5 deadline: 1 February 2012
Extension period requested: 3 years initial request (1 February 2015)
Clarification sought on the Extension Request
Eritrea's extension request would benefit from a number of clarifications and additional information, as outlined below.
Past accomplishments and challenges
Eritrea's explanation for the departure of NGOs and the resultant lack of international support lacks details and warrants further explanation since it is a key reason for Eritrea's need for an extension. For example, the request states that the work of foreign organizations was inefficient, not in line with national policy, and lacking in coordination. But the newly established Eritrean mine action authorities should have been able to foster and maintain such cooperation and compliance, as is done in so many states with international mine action operators. In addition, the request shows a considerable amount of survey and clearance work accomplished by such actors, so the reason for the dissatisfaction is not clear. Could more information be provided on why NGO operators and UN technical support left?
It would also be useful if Eritrea could provide clarity on the number of communities and suspected hazardous areas cleared from 2001-2010 in relation to the number identified by the Landmine Impact Survey (LIS). Eritrea should also explain why the amount of clearance by the Eritrean Demining Authority (EDA) in 2010 was so much smaller than the average clearance from 2005-09? In addition, why did funding from the Eritrean government drop by two-thirds between 2005 and 2010?
Current estimate of contamination
While the extension request is for an interim period designed to allow Eritrea to develop a clearer picture of the remaining estimated contamination, further details on the present situation would help States Parties to assess the plans for the extension period as well as progress to date. For example, it would be useful to have a current amount of estimated suspected hazardous areas with AP mine contamination, even if further survey work needs to be done to refine this estimate. Eritrea should also clarify what kinds of survey have taken place, if any, since the LIS to reduce the amount of suspected areas.
Work Plan for 2011-15
Eritrea should provide more detailed information on its work plan for the extension period, including the amount of land it expects to release through clearance and other means during the extension period. In particular, it should describe when and where it plans to conduct further non-technical and technical survey during the extension period, including those areas that were not included in the LIS. It would be useful to know on what basis they predict that surveying will result in 50% area reduction during the extension period.
In terms of resource mobilization, it is also unclear how Eritrea plans to raise the $3.5 million through 2015 from external sources when the amount raised in 2009 was $400,000 through UNDP and $4.8 million from 2001-2009. It would also be useful to know if the government approved the planned budget increases for salaries in the next five years.
Conclusions and recommendations
Eritrea's request is still missing several pieces of information needed to assess its progress to date as well as the amount of time requested. In terms of past progress and challenges, Eritrea should provide more information on reasons for the departure of international NGOs and experts and the impact this had on survey, clearance, and resource mobilization in past years.
Despite the delays in determining the scope of contamination and conducting clearance, it is positive that Eritrea is seeking an interim extension to get better clarity and develop a solid work plan for completion. But the lack of information in the request on the number and size of remaining Suspected Hazardous Areas, past survey productivity, as well as a clear time-table for the extension period makes it difficult to assess the request. Such information should be clarified in a new version of the request. Significantly, the request implies that the survey would be finished in 2012, so it is unclear why a second request could not be presented in 2013 rather than waiting until the following year.
Eritrea should present more information on its resource mobilization strategy, including how specifically it plans to increase foreign contributions. Eritrea admits that without "significant external support" it will take much longer to complete the national mine clearing program than was planned initially. Given this observation and the need for Eritrea to respect its Article 5 obligation to clear all known mined areas "as soon as possible," Eritrea should reconsider working with international mine action operators or other experts on both survey and clearance. Such external support could also help bring in international financial resources and could increase Eritrea's ability to conduct survey and clearance in the most efficient manner possible.
Please click on the PDF icon above to download a copy of the ICBL's response to Eritrea's extension request.
Click here to visit the official site of the Intersessionals and read the full text of Eritrea's extension request.
