Printed from: www.icbl.org/Treaty/MBT/Annual-Meetings/7MSP/Old/mineclearance
Delivered by Tamar Gabelnick, Treaty Implementation Director
Geneva, 19 September 2006
Mme President, distinguished delegates. We have been spending a good deal of time over the past year discussing the matter of Article 5 extension requests, which we all agree is important for the proper implementation of this article. Indeed, we feel it is critical to have agreement this week on a process and template for eventual extension requests. Waiting until the 8th Meeting of the States Parties will be too late! But the ICBL is pleased to hear today’s discussion return to the most significant part of Article 5 – the requirement for States Parties to destroy all AP mines in all mined areas “as soon as possible” but no later than 10 years after becoming a state party. It is on this fundamental requirement that we need to focus our energy over the coming years.
We have seen some positive developments in this regard. Thanks to the hard work of the deminers themselves, national and international demining organizations, and with the support of both mine-affected and donor States Parties – the 2006 Landmine Monitor Report found that 12 States Parties were on track to meet their 2009 or 2010 deadline: Albania, Ecuador, France, Jordan, Malawi, Nicaragua, Peru, Rwanda, Swaziland, Tunisia, Uganda, and Venezuela. We were delighted to hear that an additional state that we had put in this category – the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – has declared that it finished its obligations 2.5 years ahead of its deadline. We were also pleased that this completion was announced in a formal and clear manner, along the lines of a proposed standard completion declaration that we hope will be adopted at the end of this week.
In addition, the Landmine Monitor found that more than 740 km2 of suspected land was released in 2005, more than any other year since modern demining began in the late 1980s. Much of this increase was due to more use of area reduction and cancellation techniques, which, when used judiciously, can help focus scarce resources on areas that are known to contain AP mines. Indeed, 55% of the 2005 figure was released after area reduction rather than mine or battlefield clearance. States Parties with Article 5 obligations may be able to learn from the experiences of Afghanistan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cambodia, and Yemen, which together reduced 525 km2 of suspected land in 2005. The 2006 Landmine Monitor also describes several positive examples of national ownership and good governance of mine action, including the ability to effectively mobilize resources, that have contributed to a number of states’ progress on Article 5 implementation.
On the other hand, the Landmine Monitor found that at least 13 of the states with 2009/10 deadlines – Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Chad, Croatia, Denmark, Mozambique, Niger, Senegal, Tajikistan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, Yemen, and Zimbabwe – do not appear to be on track to meet their 10-year deadlines. Some of these states simply have too large a burden to finish within 10 years. But some need to put more time and energy into mobilizing the necessary resources and using them more efficiently.
Indeed, at least five states – France, Niger, Swaziland, Venezuela, and the United Kingdom - have undertaken little or no clearance since becoming a state party. It is hard to argue that this constitutes acting “as soon as possible.” Two of these states certainly had the financial resources to dedicate to this work.
Finally, we respectfully disagree with two of the countries named by the co-chairs as having finished their Article 5 obligations. First, Landmine Monitor research has shed doubt on whether Honduras has finished its obligations, and we will be seeking clarification on some issues related to that. Second, Djibouti has not made a formal declaration of full compliance with Article 5 and should not yet be considered to have completed Article 5 obligations. The Landmine Monitor has created fact sheets on all states with 2009/2010 deadlines to explain the conclusions we’ve just described.
We regret to end on a low note, but it is important for us not just to note progress over the past years, but to be honest on the work that remains to be done.
And now I turn the microphone to Stan Brabant, the chair of ICBL’s Mine Risk Education sub-Working Group. Thank you very much for your attention.