MRE Statement 15/06/2005

Thank you for, once more, giving to the ICBL the opportunity to speak on progress in the field of mine risk education (MRE).

The last 24 hours have been encouraging in terms of MRE: we counted 20 countries that reported on MRE in their presentations; in particular Guatemala, Tajikistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Rwanda, Sudan, Uganda and Yemen provided detailed reports on MRE. We think that it is important, not just for the sake of having MRE on the agenda, but because we strongly believe that the integration of MRE with other mine action activities such as clearance, marking and survey is key to ensuring that mine-affected communities receive the assistance they need, as soon as possible.

For the first time, Landmine Monitor produced a fact sheet on MRE. The fact sheet recalls the treaty language related to MRE, as well as what the Nairobi Action Plan says about MRE. It also looks at MRE reporting in accordance with Article 7. In past years, we have seen progress in that respect and we thought that it was important to document such progress, but also to look at what could be improved. I am grateful to my colleague Andy Wheatley who has been putting this fact sheet together and encourage those willing to provide comments to speak to him directly.

As already mentioned, the Nairobi Action Plan states that “The 49 States Parties that have reported mined areas under their jurisdiction or control, where they have not yet done so, will do their utmost to: (…)

Action #20: Significantly reduce risks to populations and hence reduce the number of new mine victims, hence leading us closer to the aim of zero new victims, including by prioritising clearance of areas with highest human impact, providing mine risk education and by increasing efforts to perimeter-mark, monitor and protect mined areas awaiting clearance in order to ensure the effective exclusion by civilians, as required by Article 5 (2).“

This action point is extremely important in our view, because it highlights the need to further integrate MRE into broader mine action activities, in particular clearance, marking and survey. It is worth mentioning that the definition of MRE includes Community Liaison, a process of support to both communities and organizations before, during and after clearance. Landmine Monitor recorded indicators of this growing integration in 11 mine-affected States Parties (Afghanistan, [1] Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Croatia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Sudan and Uganda) and in 3 non-States Parties: Iraq, Lebanon and Sri Lanka. Such integration generally resulted in a better response to the requests for clearance and marking put forward by mine-affected communities (as Cambodia reported this morning for instance).

Landmine Monitor also recorded integration of MRE in the school curriculum in 15 countries, including 8 States Parties: Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Eritrea, Estonia, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique and Uganda. Such integration of MRE in the school curriculum is key to ensuring some kind of sustainability of MRE. We also start finding indicators of MRE integration into injury surveillance and public health planning, in some countries. This should also be encouraged.

On another front, at the Nairobi Summit, the ICBL raised concerns about the accreditation process for MRE as provided in the International Mine Action Standards. Since then, UNICEF opened the discussion with the ICBL and MRE practitioners about accreditation procedures. We welcome such move. Our main concern is to ensure that effective MRE actually reaches mine-affected communities and does not get lost in bureaucratic procedures. We hope that such concerns shall be addressed in the discussion.

If we now look at Article 7 reporting, a close look at Article 7 reports submitted this year indicates strong variations in detail and content of reports. In many cases reporting has only included information on minefield marking, and has not included information concerning public information and educational activities aimed at reducing civilian exposure to mine risk. We would like to encourage states to include more information on MRE in their Form I. Suggestions for the type of information to include in Article 7 report are included in the Landmine Monitor MRE fact sheet.

So in short, we are doing progress in the field of MRE, quality-wise but also in terms of the number of people who received MRE in recent years, in particular if we look at the way MRE (or “mine awareness” as it was then called) was conducted 5 or 6 years ago. We believe that such progress is getting mine action closer to mine-affected communities’ needs. This is key to ensure that the treaty has concrete results on the ground, in mine-affected communities.

Thank you.

[1] Not in all MRE programs though. See Landmine Monitor Report 2004, p.80.