Intersessional Daily Update 3

Author/Origin: Janecke Wille janecke@icbl.org

(Wednesday 14 May 2003 Geneva, Switzerland) Standing Committee on Mine Clearance, Mine Risk Education and Mine Action Technologies

Co-Chairs: Belgium and Kenya
Co-Rapporteurs: Cambodia and Japan

General overview of the status of implementation

The Co-Chair started the day with a general overview of progress within the treaty on mine clearance, mine risk education, and mine action technologies. The focus was on the need to develop national plans, identify the financial and technical needs and develop techniques to measure progress. In addition, State Parties were urged to act promptly and take note that the ten-year deadline for mine clearance will be reached for many countries in 2009. There is an urgent need for concrete actions in order to implement Article 5 of the Mine Ban Treaty.

The Co-Chairs noted that a total of 45 State Parties have either reported mined areas in their Article 7 or have not yet done so but are assumed to be mine affected. In order for the State Parties to better report on the extent of the mine problem, efforts to comply with Article 5 and the challenges remaining in the period before the ten-year deadline, the Co-Chairs introduced the “4P” approach and encouraged mine affected State Parties to adopt it in their reporting. The 4P approach is:

Problem: What is the extent of mined areas? What is the humanitarian impact of these areas: are they considered to be high impact, medium impact or low impact? What methods were used to assess these areas?

Plans: Is there a national plan developed on how to clear the mined areas? What are the objectives of this plan, how are the objectives related to the Article 5 obligations? Is the plan related to a national development plan or a poverty reduction strategy? Are there plans for the use of the cleared land? What are the capacities involved in mine action?

Progress: Do the national mine action plans note how progress can be measured? What areas have been cleared? How much has been cleared, in both square meters and number of mines? To what extent have the communities benefited from the clearance? How and to what degree is the communities benefiting from mine risk education?

Priorities: What are the priorities for outside assistance?

By using this 4P approach, mine affected State Parties will have the essential information and all State Parties will be in a position to better assess the collective challenges that remain. (For more information on the 4P approach see this background document: http://www.gichd.ch/pdf/mbc/SC_may03/SCMC%20Co-Chairs%20Notes.pdf )

The Co-Chair continued by giving a picture of the status of mine affected State Parties in relation to reporting on Article 5. A total of 37 State Parties have reported mined areas in their Article 7 transparency reports. Of these, 23 have a deadline for mine clearance in 2009. A further eight State Parties have not yet submitted Article 7 but are assumed to be mine affected.

Sara Sekkenes gave a presentation on behalf of the ICBL Mine Action Working Group. She gave an update on the Landmine Monitor Article 5 factsheet, noting especially the four countries that have not reported on mined areas in their Article 7 but are considered by Landmine Monitor to be mine affected (Bangladesh, El Salvador, Hungary, and the Philippines). Sekkenes urged mine affected State Parties to continue using the 4P approach. She underlined the importance of the “P” for Plans: planning instruments are needed at all levels in a country, including at a local level. Sekkenes also urged State Parties to include more information on Mine Risk Education in the reports.

Stan Brabant, speaking on behalf of the Mine Risk Education Working Group of the ICBL, reported on progress made on Mine Risk Education. In his presentation of some preliminary findings from the Landmine Monitor report 2003, Brabant noted two positive trends related to MRE: firstly the growing number of MRE programs in the field and secondly, the quality of the MRE programs including important areas such as needs assessment, integrated with other mine action activities, and the degree of external evaluations. However, Brabant also made note of some negative developments. There is an urgent and important need for MRE programs in a number of countries. Especially important is the need for MRE in countries such as Burma, Georgia, India, Iran, Nepal, and Somalia. Brabant encouraged all mine affected State Parties to report on the existence and the need for MRE programs in their Article 7 transparency reports.

Updates from mine affected State Parties on the status of implementation

A total of 16 mine affected State Parties made presentations to the Standing Committee on the status of their mine problem. Additionally, a total of five mine affected States not party to the Mine Ban Treaty presented information on mine action activities in their respective countries. (DRC, Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Croatia, Afghanistan, Guatemala, Ecuador, Macedonia, Nicaragua, Peru, Tajikistan, Sri Lanka, Iraq (presented by UNMAS), Turkey, Malawi, Sudan, Cyprus, and Thailand.)

Some of the countries used the 4P approach when making their presentations and detailed notes were received from countries such as DRC, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sri Lanka, and Turkey.

A focus on cooperation and assistance between mine affected State Parties

UNDP started this session by highlighting the importance of cooperation and assistance among mine affected countries and presented UNDP’s involvement in the promotion of cooperation. Assistance and cooperation among mine-affected countries is a high priority within UNDP, with a special focus this year. This commitment is reflected in the UN strategy for mine action. Through cooperation, mine-affected countries can exchange information and lessons learned. Potential areas of cooperation include the exchange of technical material, sharing trials research and training facilities, pooling technical equipment and sharing experiences and expertise on approaches. UNDP ended the session by giving a brief presentation of their Mine Action Exchange (MAX) program.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) gave a short presentation on the subject. Norway was pleased to learn that the Co-Chairs are highlighting cooperation among mine affected countries and noted the need to explore ways to further develop cooperation (as discussed in their non-paper to the Fourth Meeting of State Parties). In this regard mine affected State Parties have responded to a questionnaire sent out last year and there is now much more information on this issue. Examples were given of Yemen’s discussions with Lebanon and African countries willingness to learn from experience in Chad. Yemen acknowledged the fact that cooperation should increase and as they have received a request from Lebanon on assistance there is still a need for a third party in the process, a donor country.

Updates from those in position to do so regarding assistance and cooperation

Germany started by giving a presentation on a Landmine Documentation, Information and Training Center in Germany. The International Peace Research Institute in Oslo (PRIO) presented their program on Assistance to Mine Affected Communities focusing on Humanitarian Mine Action and Peace Building. During his presentation Kristian Berg Harpviken addressed the issues of donor policies, opportunities and challenges. Italy gave an update on mine action assistance since February 2003. Japan noted that while their five year commitment to mine action is ending this year, they will continue to support mine action. Japan is aware that donor countries must redouble their efforts and there is a need for new policies to meet the many and new challenges faced today. The government of Japan will base their future foreign assistance program within the framework of human security. Mine action will play a big part in this new policy and the main recipients will be non-governmental organizations. Belgium informed the standing committee about the foreign demining training center in Belgium where the first course is currently underway. Geneva International Center for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) gave an update on the Information Management System for Mine Action (IMSMA) (version 3 and implemented in 29 different programs), the International Mine Action Standards (IMAS) and research activities. UNICEF gave a short update on activities.

Survey on Progress made and ongoing work in mine action technologies

The final session of the day introduced a study on Mine Action technologies, problems and recommendations. The findings of the study focused on the donor community, the end-users and the technology developers. The donors have a key role in supporting new technologies, the end-users must be more proactive and both the donors and the technology need to understand the end-users real needs. Developers need to go to the field to understand the real working environments. View the presentation. (PDF) A study on Standardizing Metal Detector Testing was also presented.

Thailand, Sweden and South Africa spoke of developments on technology and mine clearance equipment in each country respectively.

Closing remarks by the Co-Chair again focused on the advances made in relation to Article 5 of the Mine Ban Treaty and the challenges remaining in order to meet the ten-year deadline in 2009. Mine affected State Parties should use all available opportunities to communicate matters related to mine action activities, including the intersessional Standing Committees and the Meetings of State Parties. Approximately half of the mine affected State Parties have presented their problems, plans, progress and priorities so far this year. It is essential to continue to hear the voice of mine affected State Parties and the Co-Chairs recommend that the next Co-Chairs, Japan and Cambodia, continue to suggest the 4P format for reports and presentations.