Author(s):
Site Admin <webmaster2@icbl.org> .
Monday 11 June 2012
Download the critique
Key Issues
1. If Zimbabwe proceeds with a greater sense of urgency, this should be the last interim request it needs
2. More information is needed on the status of agreements with international partners
3. Zimbabwe should submit a revised request that includes detailed survey and clearance plans that it expects to develop in the coming months
Zimbabwe is seeking a third interim extension period in order to finally develop a solid understanding of its remaining mine contamination. Unlike the two previous requests, this time Zimbabwe appears to be in a position to benefit from the international assistance needed to achieve this interim goal as long as arrangements are quickly finalized and work begins soon. Yet a number of points in the request need further clarification and elaboration, which we would encourage Zimbabwe to incorporate into a revised version of the request.
Clarification sought on the Extension Request
Past Progress and Remaining Contamination
Zimbabwe reports that clearance has been carried out with national resources during the extension period. The request states that 297.4km2 has been cleared to date by National Mine Clearance Unit, but this figure represents all clearance since the beginning of operations. It would be useful to know how much land has been cleared on an annual basis during the past two extension periods.
The extension request states that after further clearance and analysis of past survey data, the estimated remaining amount of land contaminated with AP mines is 199.72km2. The request does not make it clear, however, if this area includes the 15km2 that was not cleared to international standards and which must be cleared again. The request also seems to imply that it excludes 8.8km2 of land along the border with Mozambique over which ownership is “shared.” But the request does not specify what arrangements it has made with Mozambique to ensure the area is cleared. Clarification on these points would be useful.
In addition, the request says that half of the remaining estimated contamination could probably be released through survey. But the current estimate has already been reduced significantly based on a revised estimate of the breadth of the minefields. Zimbabwe should give more explanation about how it has made this assumption.
Survey and Clearance Plans
Zimbabwe has actively sought to obtain the international support it needs in order to conduct a reliable survey of its contaminated areas during the extension period and to conduct some clearance as well. But the work plan as currently submitted is not comprehensive and should be revised to include greater detail of planned operations. For example, the plan gives no starting or ending date for various survey and clearance tasks, though it states all survey will be done “within 12 months.” If this can be read to mean that all survey will take place in the first year, what are the plans for the second year? Currently the only activity clearly planned over a longer period is to develop national standards and move the Zimbabwe Mine Action Center (ZIMAC) out of its current location. It would be useful to have greater clarity on how much, if any, clearance is also planned during this period by the military engineers and/or international operators.
The details of survey and clearance plans may not yet be available since the extension request states that Zimbabwe will undertake in the coming months discussions on such plans with its international partners. In order to bring greater detail and clarity to the request, Zimbabwe should ensure such plans are developed soon and submit such plans to States Parties for consideration as part of its request.
Resource Mobilization
While Zimbabwe has often cited problems in obtaining international cooperation and support, it is positive that arrangements with three international partners – the ICRC, NPA and HALO – seem to be lined up for the extension period. Indeed, the success of the request depends in large part on whether these organizations will be in a position to provide the expected support in a timely manner. Zimbabwe should be encouraged to show more clearly where it stands in finalizing agreements with these proposed partners since information from at least one of the organizations shows that the administrative work is not proceeding very quickly. Again, the request does not provide information on when these actors, especially the clearance organizations, are due to begin work and precisely how long the work should take.
In addition, the request should provide more information on the concrete steps Zimbabwe has taken to seek international support from governments. Some sanctions appear to be easing recently, and in any case many did not target humanitarian work, such as demining. It would be useful to know if Zimbabwe has tried again to approach donor states, and if so, what has been their reaction? ZIMAC should also provide more information on whether they are certain to have enough funding to complete the work planned in the next two years, including funds that would go through NPA and HALO Trust.
Finally, as the $800,000 in national funding planned for 2012 represents an increase over past years, Zimbabwe should detail whether such funds for 2012 and future years have been committed to by the government.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Although it is regrettable that Zimbabwe has not been able to make much progress during its first two Article 5 extensions, it is generally positive that Zimbabwe keeps asking for short amounts of time to clarify the extent of current contamination. The ICBL hopes and expects that this will be the last interim extension that Zimbabwe will need to request given that international assistance from three key partners appears to be forthcoming. If the arrangements with the ICRC, NPA, and HALO Trust are swiftly finalized, Zimbabwe should finally be able to meet the goals laid out in its extension request and produce a concrete plan for finishing Article 5 obligations. We strongly recommend that Zimbabwe take all necessary measures to quickly arrange for its international partners to begin work, as we understand is already the case for the ICRC.
A number of points of clarification should be submitted by Zimbabwe in a revised version of its request. Most importantly, detailed survey plans and major clearance plans, currently being discussed with partners, are needed for States Parties to properly assess the request. Zimbabwe should finish them as planned in the next few months, and then submit them to SPs for consideration as part of its request.
