Standing Committee Meetings Update 2

1. ICBL

Steven Olejas (DCA), co chair of the Mine Action Working Group was one of two expert respondents asked to react to the presentation of plans, priorities, progress and problems made by States Parties. Per Nergaard, on behalf of Norwegian People’s Aid gave a presentation on cost effectiveness. Per reviewed the role of all stakeholders in mine action including mine affected as well as donor countries, mine action authorities, operators and mine affected communities. He challenged the current structures and organisations of mine action as cost effectiveness and goal orientation have to be increased and emphasised in order to meet article 5 deadlines. Stan Brabant (HI), co-chair of the Mine Risk Education Sub Working Group, reported on encouraging progress in the field of Mine Risk Education. He called on mine-affected States to further integrate MRE into broader mine action activities, in particular clearance, marking and survey andpresented the first ever Landmine Monitor Fact sheet on this issue.

37 States Parties presented their Plans, Priorities, Progress and Problems.

2. Issues of concern

• 1 or 2 countries indicated an increase in the number of casualties due to downscaled MRE activities and lack of funds for MRE.
• A number of countries raised the issue of IMAS and if they have reduced productivity. Linked to this is the issue of village/community demining which arises out of the frustration of the slow pace of progress.
• Some States asked for assistance and funds in order to reach the goals of the convention within the ten year timeframe. They included Cambodia, Colombia, Guinea Bissau, Jordan, Rwanda, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Yemen, Zimbabwe.
• Chile raised difficulties they face in the quality assurance process, particularly to verify land cleared by the military and asked for assistance.
• Cyprus brought its political conflict with Turkey into its presentation on mine action which provoked a response from Turkey and took valuable time from other presentations.

3. Highlights

• Several countries rejected the idea that “mine safe” represented compliance with Article 5. They stressed the obligation must be respected in full.
• A number of States Parties confirmed they would meet the 10 year deadline for mine clearance: Chile, Cyprus, France, Jordan, Nicaragua, Peru, Turkey, Venezuela.
• It was stated that the World Bank now considers funding Mine Action as part of development programs.
• The increased number of presentations of National Mine Action plans as a direct result of the implementation of Action 19 of the Nairobi Action Plan
• Several countries confirm that MRE is an effective tool to reduce direct mine-victims
• Some States Parties in South America demonstrated more transparency and openness to talk about clearance undertaken by military and some of the challenges they are now facing regarding these areas.

4. Quote of the day

”We can only be mine-safe if mine-free”. Delegation from Croatia

Mine Action Statement by NPA

MRE Statement