Author(s):
Site Admin <webmaster2@icbl.org> .
Monday 11 June 2012
Download the critique
Key Issues
1. The request should include operational plans for all key areas of activities, with timelines and benchmarks
2. The resource mobilization plan beyond 2013 is unclear
3. It is difficult to assess the request as it stands
As a clear picture of the remaining contamination in Angola is still lacking, it is positive that Angola is requesting an interim period to get a better estimate of contamination and to sort out database issues.
However, while the extension request presents what must be done, it does not include enough information on how this will be done. It lacks detailed plans and quantifiable targets in all areas of activities for the extension period, as well as information on resource mobilization.
The ICBL believes that much more information needs to be provided or clarified before States Parties can complete their assessment of the request. We encourage States Parties to work with Angola on providing such additional information, and on reassessing the time requested to ensure it constitutes the minimum time needed to carry out the stated activities. It would appear that three years would be sufficient if enough national resources are mobilized.
Database
The lack of a functioning national mine action database is one of the most protracted problems in the mine action program in Angola. Despite years of international technical assistance, huge quantities of data from surveys, trained data entry personnel, the provision of computer equipment, and the establishment of provincial CNIDAH offices to facilitate data management, Angola has frequently been unable to accurately report its annual achievements or to state its remaining problem in quantifiable terms such as the number and estimated size of suspected hazardous areas.
While the extension request presents steps that should be taken to update the database and correct internal discrepancies, it does not include any target dates for completing any of these steps. Nor does it specify what management, policy and personnel changes have been or will be adopted to ensure the database will be accurate and maintained for the duration of the mine action programme.
Non-Technical Survey
The “non-technical research project” is expected to take two years and has started in 2011. The request should present a work plan by year and by operator, and include information such as the number of teams, number of vehicles (given the challenging geographical area to cover), number of surveys per week, reporting process, and quality assurance. The plan should also include time for entering the survey data into the national database, and then analyzing it along with new clearance completion reports. Information on how many communities will be visited is especially important in order to assess whether the project is realistic and solid, and whether the expected timeframe will be met. Results of survey activities so far should also be presented.
Mapping, Certification and Confirmation Project
This project is depicted as a complement to the non-technical survey, and will last three years starting in 2013. Its three phases include (1) the mapping and confirmation of areas cleared in 2011, (2) the mapping and confirmation of non-technical survey results, and (3) the mapping and confirmation of areas cleared from 2005-2010. Despite a projected cost of over 5.4 million USD (twice as much as the projected cost for the non-technical survey), the extension request does not present any operational plans nor any benchmarks and annual targets. It is also not clear why the project cannot be undertaken earlier, simultaneously to non-technical survey.
Clearance
It is positive that clearance is planned to continue during the extension period, and that Angola expresses the will to adopt land release techniques to accelerate the process. An amended request should present what role technical survey will play in the determination of the remaining landmine contamination problem in Angola.
Resource Mobilization
Angola has allocated significant national funding to mine action and is also one of the largest recipients of international mine action funding. While the request includes projections of costs for non-technical survey, mapping project and demining, it does not specify whether the government has committed to continue funding at high levels throughout the extension period, and does not present a plan for resource mobilization from international donors beyond 2013. The resource mobilization strategy should factor in that foreign assistance is apparently declining based on an assessment of Angola’s own capacity to fund mine action.
Conclusions and recommendations
The request reflects Angola’s numerous shortcomings in terms of management. Not only does it demonstrate that after so many years it is still not possible to quantify what has been achieved and what remains to be done, but it also fails to put forward a clear and comprehensive plan for the extension period.
The ICBL believes that the current request does not provide sufficient information for States Parties to conduct a proper assessment, and that Angola should submit a revised request with a much more comprehensive plan for the extension period. The submission of an amended extension request in the coming months would allow Angola to develop a more detailed survey plan and better explain how it intends to work during the interim period. It would also give Angola time to update its assessment of funding commitments from both the government of Angola and international donors and to determine how they will support any operational plan. The ICBL also strongly encourages Angola to reexamine the amount of time requested, as the planned activities could probably be done in a shorter timeframe.
