ICBL Critique of United Kingdom's Article 5 Deadline Extension Request

November 2008

Summary of the Extension Request

Duration of the proposed extension: 10 years.
Reasons for the proposed extension: Environmental concerns and the costs of clearance are said to be delaying the initiation of clearance operations.
Humanitarian, social, economic, and environmental implications of the extension: Minimal.
Other relevant information: A feasibility study of clearance was conducted in 2007.

A. Duration of the proposed extension

The United Kingdom (UK) is seeking an extension of 10 years to its 1 March 2009 deadline for implementation of its clearance obligations under Article 5. The UK has effective control of the islands and asserts full sovereignty over them. The request includes a detailed description of the problem, but no operational plan or even a date to begin demining operations.

B. Reasons for the proposed extension

The Falkland Islands is affected by more than 20,000 landmines in 117 mined areas over more than 13km2 left from the conflict with Argentina in 1982.[1] This includes four suspected hazardous areas amounting to almost 5.8 km2, which "probably have no mines but there are still suspicions. Implementation would be in the form of confidence-building measures, and some proportional sampling for which trials would still be required to ensure the measures were completely effective."[2]
Not a single mined area has been cleared since operations were brought to a premature following the end of the conflict due to injuries to several deminers, although a few hundred mines have been destroyed by explosive ordnance disposal personnel after the mines came to the surface because of the movement of soil.[3] According to the UK, the reason for the extension is a "difficult political backdrop," given the sovereignty dispute over the islands. It also refers to the "significant environmental, technical and geographical challenges that these mined areas present for any de-mining operation."[4] The feasibility study (see below) concluded that work would be possible for 10 months of each year, but that due to winds all year round, "the ability to use dogs was unlikely."[5]
A joint UK-Argentine feasibility study, the plan for which was first announced in 2001, was completed in October 2007. The extremely long delay in conducting the study is not explained in the extension request. The feasibility study "highlighted the environmental and remediation challenges, the climatic constraints and the limitations of the existing local infrastructure." It recommended a two-year trial to assess the suitability of various mine clearance equipment and techniques, as well as the environmental impact of each of the clearance options. It also recommended an examination of the range of options of peat remediation appropriate for each clearance technique. "Cranfield University concluded that the clearance of mines from all mined areas would be challenging, but technically possible and estimated that the task would take a minimum of 10 years subject to the outcome of the trial."[6]

C. Humanitarian, social, economic, and environmental implications of the extension

The humanitarian, social and economic implications of the extension are minimal.[7] The affected areas are marked and fenced in accordance with the International Mine Action Standards and no human casualties have been recorded since the end of clearance operations following the armed conflict with Argentina. According to the UK, there are "no negative implications if an extension were granted."[8]
However, the example set for other States Parties is a major concern. If any state is allowed to ignore clear legal obligations on the basis the work is challenging or its humanitarian or developmental implications are minimal, other mine-affected States Parties may believe that they may also avoid fulfilling their treaty obligation "as soon as possible," especially in the case of mines laid along borders or around sensitive installations.
The UK also notes that the Falkland Islands Government has made clear they would "have to pay close attention to the environmental implications of complete clearance," and that the Falkland islanders "would prefer the money to be spent on removing landmines from needier parts of the world."[9] Of course, this is not a justification for delay. The UK adhered to the Mine Ban Treaty knowing and accepting the obligation to clear the Falkland Islands.

D. Other relevant information

In May 2006, the British NGO Landmine Action stated that "there is no way that the UK will now be able to meet its obligation to destroy all of the landmines in these identified areas. Given the long history of inaction on this it is very hard to see that the UK has worked in good faith towards this legal obligation… Unless it takes radical action to resolve this problem, the UK should not be granted an extension to its Article 5 deadline and should be held to be in breach of the Convention when the current deadline is reached."[10]

E. Conclusions and recommendations

Although technically challenging, clearance of the affected areas is feasible. It is therefore extremely disappointing that the UK has yet to even start clearing mined areas on the Falkland Islands. Moreover, no date has been set, even in the Extension Request, for the initiation of demining operations, let alone their completion. The UK has not developed a budget, nor has it identified the internal source of funds. The request gives no indication whatsoever that the UK intends to remove the mines from the Falkland Islands during the 10-year requested extension period or any time thereafter. Such poor faith in implementing this core treaty obligation is clearly at odds with the duty to remove antipersonnel landmines "as soon as possible."
An approval of the UK's request as currently drafted would effectively allow it to circumvent its obligations under Article 5 through the treaty's extension request provision. The UK must set a date for the initiation of demining operations and begin clearance before the expiry of its 2009 deadline. If it does so, a one-year extension should be granted to assess progress, with a further period then requested by the UK as necessary. If it does not, the request should be turned down.

[1] Article 5 deadline Extension Request, 30 May 2008, p. 2.
[2] Article 5 deadline Extension Request, 30 May 2008, p. 13.
[3] See, for example, UN, Final Report, First Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction,
Nairobi, 29 November-3 December 2004, APLC/CONF/2004/5, p. 66.
[4] Letter from Simon Manley, Director, Defence and Strategic Threats, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 30 May 2008.
[5] Article 5 deadline Extension Request, 30 May 2008, p. 19.
[6] Article 5 deadline Extension Request, 30 May 2008, p. 3.
[7] According to the Article 5 deadline Extension Request, 30 May 2008, pp. 2 and 20, the humanitarian impact would be "negligible."
[8]Letter from Simon Manley, Director, Defence and Strategic Threats, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 30 May 2008.
[9] Article 5 deadline Extension Request, 30 May 2008, p. 3.
[10] Statement by Richard Moyes, Policy and Research Manager, Landmine Action, 10 May 2006. See, also, Landmine Monitor Report 2007, p. 722.