| <BANNING ANTIPERSONNEL MINES | MINE RISK EDUCATION> |
With the approaching five-year anniversary of the negotiation and signing of the Mine Ban Treaty, it is useful to note the broad developments that have occurred in the field of humanitarian mine action. Indeed, mine clearance has evolved over the past decade from a strictly military activity to a more sophisticated and systematic humanitarian and developmental initiative. This has occurred in the wake of the establishment of pioneering humanitarian mine action (HMA) programs in Afghanistan, Cambodia, and northern Iraq (Iraqi Kurdistan). Survey and assessment, mine risk education, and survivor assistance activities are becoming more integrated with humanitarian mine clearance programs as HMA’s focus has progressively become more community-oriented. Greater emphasis is now placed on alleviating the impact of the presence of mines and unexploded ordnance (UXO) on communities. Socio-economic factors are increasingly taken into consideration during the processes that allocate resources, plan, and implement mine action operations.[58]
Some key developments in the evolution of HMA over the past decade include:
The number of humanitarian NGOs engaged in HMA, originally just a handful, has more than tripled over the past decade. At the same time, more and more responsibility for HMA is being placed on national bodies, through the creation of national mine action centers (MACs). This shows a higher level of commitment and active involvement in the landmine issue. Increasingly, commercial practitioners are operating in accordance with humanitarian priorities as demanded by donors and the affected countries.
Increased coordination at the national, regional and global level has developed over the past decade. The Inter-Agency Coordination Group on Mine Action (IAGG) meets monthly as the coordinating mechanism for United Nations entities engaged in HMA, while this group of agencies together with key partners such as the ICBL forms the Steering Committee on Mine Action (SCMA). The Mine Action Support Group (MASG) brings together major donors to optimize existing tools for resource mobilization.
The biannual meetings of the Mine Ban Treaty Standing Committee for Mine Clearance, Mine Awareness, and Mine Clearance Technologies have increased opportunities for interaction among various HMA actors, especially government representatives of mine-affected countries. In 2002, the Standing Committee recognized that coordination among various actors and transparency of activities could be further enhanced by examining mine action programs in major mine-affected countries. The January 2002 meeting included a session on Afghanistan, which was followed by a session on Mozambique in May 2002. Many actors have taken advantage of regular Mine Ban Treaty meetings to hold informal discussions, using the facilities available at the Geneva International Center for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD).
Emergency mine action was required in 2001 and 2002 in a number of places, most notably Afghanistan. Concurrently, an Emergency Response Plan (ERP) is under development by the UN Mine Action Service (UNMAS) in collaboration with other UN mine action partners. The ERP was developed as a response to two recent humanitarian emergencies – Kosovo in 1999 and Eritrea in 2000 -- and the goal is to develop a system that will allow the international community to respond “in a timely and affective manner to the mine action components of humanitarian and peacekeeping emergencies. The ERP will address the immediate mine action priorities of a humanitarian emergency and will not attempt to plan beyond this stage of an operation.”[59] In addition, the U.S. has sponsored the creation of a “Quick Reaction Demining Force,” based in Mozambique.
As HMA expands and evolves, the need for more practitioners equipped with professional management skills becomes even more urgent. The UNDP is coordinating efforts in management training as well as establishing staff exchanges between the various national MACs, as part of its capacity-building mandate. At the same time, more attention is being paid to thematic research into new and developing areas of HMA, as recorded by recent GICHD studies into socio-economic aspects of HMA.
A positive development in the field application of mine action technologies is the increased use of the "toolbox" concept by mine action practitioners. The toolbox concept provides for the use of a range of methods such as manual, mechanical, and mine detection dogs in mine clearance activities, depending on what is most suitable in the area needing clearance. One example is area reduction where mechanical means and dogs are used in order to verify areas and set boundaries of the areas where manual deminers are required. An obvious result of this is the increased speed of mine clearance operations, which means more cost-effective clearance operations, and land handed over to the civilian population in shorter time.
The development of International Mine Action Standards has resulted in greater safety and efficiency by providing guidance, establishing principles, and also in some cases, by defining international requirements and specifications.
There is now an increased appreciation and acceptance among donors of key developments in HMA. This is demonstrated by higher demands and by more rigid and diversified requirements on the output and return of their financial contributions to mine action. More and more governments are increasingly concerned with and involved in the program design and objective setting of mine clearance. Both donor countries and mine-affected countries are reviewing and renewing strategies and policies for program support.
Over a decade of operational experience has stimulated the need to collect and evaluate activities to ensure that objectives are being met. Country program evaluations published in the past year include “Willing to Listen: An Evaluation of the United Nations Mine Action Program in Kosovo” by the Praxis Group, and the World Bank’s “Socio-economic Impact of Mine Action in Afghanistan; a Cost-Benefit Analysis.” These types of evaluations are taking place along side internal assessments by NGOs like DanChurch Aid (in Kosovo), Handicap International (in Ethiopia), Handicap International Belgium (in Afghanistan), and Norwegian People’s Aid (in Angola and Mozambique).
Despite these positive developments over the past decade, it remains to be seen whether the HMA community will be able to complete the task at hand and meet its goal of a mine-free world. This daunting challenge is perhaps even more difficult than that faced by the ban movement with respect to universalization of the treaty.
At the 2002 Standing Committee meetings the ICBL’s Mine Action Working Group (MAWG) drew the attention of States Parties to the capacity of mine-affected States Parties to meet the ten-year obligation to clear emplaced mines stipulated by Article 5 of the Mine Ban Treaty. As of 31 July 2002, 47 of the 125 States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty were mine-affected and would need to comply with Article 5. As the first deadline for some states of 2009 draws nearer, the MAWG said it was important to acknowledge this deadline and redouble efforts by addressing the need for: realistic and appropriate funding to mine action; more and appropriate information for decision-making, priority setting and tasking in humanitarian mine clearance operations; and, national strategic mine action plans.
An examination of statistical clearance outputs and funding levels over the past five years makes it quite evident that a number of States Parties will not be able to meet the Article 5 obligation to clear emplaced antipersonnel mines. An extension of up to ten years can be requested in cases where the clearance deadlines are not met, and Article 6 (International Cooperation and Assistance) stipulates the right of each State Party to seek cooperation and assistance from other States Parties “in a position to do so.” The request for an extension must contain a detailed explanation of the reasons for the proposed extension, including: preparation and status of work conducted under national demining programs; financial and technical means available to the State Party for clearance and destruction of all antipersonnel mines; and, circumstances that impede the ability of the State Party to destroy all antipersonnel mines in mined areas. A request for an extension must be approved by a majority of States Parties present at the Meeting of States Parties or the Review Conference at which the request is presented. An extension may be renewed.
Landmine Monitor finds that 90 countries are affected with mines and unexploded ordnance (UXO).[60] In addition, Landmine Monitor lists eleven other areas (noted in italics in the chart) that are not internationally recognized states, but which Landmine Monitor researches and reports on because of their particular mine-affected status. Antipersonnel mines are often found in combination with antivehicle mines and UXO in many of these countries. A handful of these countries suffer solely from the legacy of the explosive remnants of war (ERW) dating back to conflicts in the first half of the last century. The enduring threat of landmines and UXO in these countries still puts the civilian population at risk.
The scope and knowledge of the mine problem varies greatly from country-to-country. Surveys and assessments are necessary tools in systematically establishing both the location of suspected mined areas and the impact mines have on civilians and their daily lives.
Landmine Impact Surveys (LIS) enable donors, national authorities, and clearance organizations to prioritize mine clearance based on humanitarian aspects and cost efficiency.[61] The Survey Action Center (SAC) serves as a coordination organization for most LIS operations.[62] SAC and its contracted implementing partners are currently engaged in or planning for LIS in Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Somalia (Somaliland). The Mines Advisory Group (MAG) and the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation (VVAF) are engaged in an LIS in Lebanon, and VVAF is awaiting approval from the government of Vietnam to undertake an LIS there. In 2000 and 2001, Landmine Impact Surveys were completed in Cambodia, Chad, Mozambique, Thailand, and Yemen, as well as a modified Level One Impact Survey in Kosovo.
Other general surveys and assessments are underway in several countries. These surveys are conducted by a number of actors including NGOs, international organizations, national demining offices, and military organizations, often in combination. Landmine Monitor Report 2001 counted some kind of survey or assessment activity in 30 countries in the year 2000. This total has increased to 34 in 2001 and the first half of 2002. Survey or assessment activities have taken place in the following countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Chad, Croatia, Ecuador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Iran, Jordan, Laos, Lebanon, Macedonia FYR, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Somalia, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Uganda, Ukraine, Vietnam, FR Yugoslavia, and Zimbabwe, as well as in Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Iraq (Iraqi Kurdistan), and Somaliland.
Landmine Monitor Report 2001 listed eleven assessments conducted by the United Nations Mine Action Service between May 2000 and May 2001. Since May 2001, new UNMAS assessments have been reported in Cyprus, Mauritania, and Sudan.
The Information Management System for Mine Action (IMSMA) combines a relational database with a geographical information system (GIS) and provides mine action managers with up-to-date information on affected areas, sites of operation, mine casualties and other relevant information. In 2001, IMSMA was installed in twenty-two countries including: Albania, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Chad, Cyprus, Ecuador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Estonia, Lebanon, Macedonia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Peru, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Thailand, and Yemen, as well as Kosovo, Northern Ossetia (Russia), and Somaliland. In the half of 2002, the GICHD established its first Regional Support Centre in Managua, Nicaragua in order to assist IMSMA users throughout Latin America.
In comparison, Landmine Monitor reported IMSMA installments in a total of thirteen mine action programs in 2000. Between January and April 2002 new IMSMA programs were installed in Colombia, DR Congo, Guatemala and Sudan.
In September 2001, UNMAS launched its E-MINE system (Electronic Mine Information Network), a website for up-to-date mine-related data developed as support to global mine action efforts. E-MINE was further developed throughout 2002, building on a large number of databases, information systems and websites.
A total of 31 of the 47 mine-affected States Parties had submitted transparency reports as required under Article 7 of the Mine Ban Treaty as of 31 July 2002. Forms C, F and G of the Article 7 report format all relate to reporting on mine action. States Parties use Form C of the Article 7 reporting format to report on the location of mined areas in their territory. From a review of submitted reports, Landmine Monitor found that three countries (El Salvador, Kenya and Uganda) did not report important information on the location of mined areas. Several States Parties, including Yemen, have attached their LIS findings to Form C.
One reason for the inconsistent use of Form C could be the limited number of assessments and surveys undertaken. Only nine of the mine-affected countries have had any kind of assessment or survey carried out, which would shed some light on the extent and characteristics of the country’s landmine problem and facilitate reporting.
Some form of mine clearance was reported to have taken place in 2001 and the first half of 2002 in 74 countries and ten other areas. This includes mine clearance for humanitarian, economic, or military purposes. No mine clearance of any type was noted in 2001 in sixteen mine-affected countries: Armenia, China, Cuba, Iraq (excluding northern Iraq), Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Mongolia, Nepal, Niger, North Korea, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, Somalia (excluding Somaliland), Swaziland, and Uganda.
New information on mine clearance in FR Yugoslavia was received. Three countries that reportedly had clearance operations in 2000, reported no activities in 2001: Bangladesh, Namibia, and Pakistan.
In the case of Kosovo, the internationally coordinated Mine Action Center ceased operations at the end of 2001 after declaring that the clearance of known mine-affected areas was concluded to international accepted standards. Small-scale clearance continues and there is an indigenous capacity to clear any mines and UXO subsequently discovered.
In many cases, the only mine clearance recorded in this reporting period involved the military and other entities, such as explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) units of national police, responding to emergencies necessitating the clearance of landmines or UXO. The military undertook mine clearance operations in Djibouti, Kenya, Senegal, Yugoslavia, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. In Uzbekistan, there are unconfirmed reports of limited clearance by the Uzbek Army, however, there are no plans for clearance of its mines on the Tajik border. In Sri Lanka, the military and rebel forces conducted mine clearance with training from international NGOs and assistance from elements of the U.S. “Quick Reaction Demining Force” based in Mozambique. Some countries during this reporting period conducted mine clearance operations to facilitate military operations. Limited military mine clearance for tactical purposes was noted in Chechnya, Colombia, India, and the Philippines.
International or national NGOs are operating in twenty-four countries or regions: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Chad, Costa Rica, Croatia, DR Congo, Eritrea, Guatemala, Honduras, Laos, Lebanon, Macedonia FYR, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Sudan, and Vietnam, as well as Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, northern Iraq (Iraqi Kurdistan), and Somaliland. New humanitarian mine clearance programs by NGOs commenced in Albania and Macedonia FYR.
While not the sole indicator of progress in humanitarian mine action, the amount of land cleared in 2001 in some key mine-affected countries includes the following:
In spite of the presence of national demining bodies with planning and coordinating mandates in other countries it proved difficult to obtain accurate numbers on both surveyed and cleared land in 2001. In several instances, the amount of cleared land reported by national mine action centers differed significantly from those provided by the various mine clearance organizations. In some cases, the statistics reported by the national body conflicted with other figures provided by the same body.
In Angola the national demining institute INAROEE reported three different figures, all taken from its annual report “Mine Accidents and Survey Report 2001,” which indicates the total amount of cleared land in 2001 was either 2.48 million square meters, 3.06 million square meters, or 6.5 million square meters. The total amount of cleared land in 2001 reported to Landmine Monitor by major operators in Angola was 6.8 million square meters.
In Mozambique, the National Institute for Demining reported clearance in 2001 of 12.41 million square meters in one instance, and 7.88 million square meters in another. This contrasts with the 8.88 million square meters total calculated by Landmine Monitor from reports by various field-based operators.
Article 7’s Form F is used to report on the status of any mine action program relevant to the mine-affected country. In the reporting period, eight mine-affected States Parties did not include any information on the status of mine action programs or activities (Denmark, El Salvador, Guatemala, Kenya, the Philippines, Rwanda, Tajikistan, and Uganda). Form G should contain information of the clearance of emplaced mines from mined areas after entry into force, but eleven of the 31 mine-affected States Parties reporting did not include information on clearance in their Article 7 reports (Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Kenya, Mauritania, the Philippines, Rwanda, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia.).
In 2001 and the first half of 2002, incidents during clearance operations or in training exercises caused casualties among deminers in: Abkhazia, Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Colombia, Croatia, Eritrea, Estonia, Greece, Jordan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and Yemen. There were unconfirmed reports of demining casualties in several other countries.
At best, in the absence of information, any national-level planning and coordination of mine action activities becomes ad hoc. Only in the cases of Croatia, Mozambique, and Yemen have survey information, other relevant landmine data and socio-economic information led to the development of a national strategic mine action plan, outlining the landmine problem, priorities, capacities, and needs. Efforts to integrate survey data into national plans are ongoing in Cambodia, Chad, and Thailand. SAC is developing a mechanism to integrate strategic planning with national bodies into all future socio-economic impact surveys.
In order to be able to report on both mined areas and on plans for destruction of antipersonnel mines in mined areas, there is a clear need for surveys and assessments to identify the scale and location of the problem. More and improved coordination by national authorities within the country is necessary, including the mandate to plan and prioritize mine clearance.
A total of 40 countries and areas reported a body for national-level coordination activities in 2001 and early 2002. That represents an increase of 5 countries since 2000. In some mine/UXO-affected countries the establishment of a mine action center (MAC) is announced, but it takes time for the MAC to become operational. In some cases the military dominate the MAC, for example in Egypt and Jordan.
A total of 27 countries and areas reported some kind of a mine action plan. This is an increase from the 20 countries and regions that reported last year. New plans were reported in Angola, DR Congo, and Guinea-Bissau, among others.
The UN Development Programme was active in supporting and developing national mine action coordination or planning capacities in the following mine-affected countries in 2001: Albania, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Chad, Croatia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Laos, Lebanon, Mozambique, Somalia (Somaliland), Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Yemen.
The Standing Committee meetings in January and May 2002 recognized a growing understanding of the importance of establishing closer links between the research and development community and field practitioners. Landmine Monitor has identified various research and development projects in a number of countries, but has found it difficult to ascertain the use or results of these projects in the field by mine action practitioners. Various R&D projects are described in the country reports of the donor nations (as well as the EC), and in some cases in the country report where projects are being tested.
| <BANNING ANTIPERSONNEL MINES | MINE RISK EDUCATION> |
[58] Funding for mine action programs is not addressed in this overview. See the individual country studies in this report, and for an overview see the Executive Summary of the Landmine Monitor Report 2002.
[59] See statement by the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS) at the Standing Committee on Mine Clearance, Mine Awareness and Mine Action Technologies, Geneva, 29 January 2002 at http://www.gichd.ch/pdf/mbc/SC_jan02/speeches_mcl/Barber_MC.pdf.
[60] This is the same number as recorded last year. However, Hungary has been added because of increased information about the extent of contamination from World War II UXO and mines, and Tanzania has been dropped as evidence indicates the mine problem is limited to the Burundi side of the border.
[61] Landmine Impact Surveys were earlier described as Level One Impact Surveys. Level Two technical surveys verify the presence of mines and establish the outer perimeter of minefields to facilitate the marking of danger areas. These types of surveys also gather other relevant data for the technical planning of mine clearance operations.
[62] See SAC contribution to the Appendices of this report.
[63] National Demining Commission (Comisión Nacional del Desminado, CNAD).
[64] National Interministerial Commission on Antipersonnel Mine Action (Comisión Nacional Intersectorial para la Acción contra las Minas Antipersonal).
[65] Programa de Asistencia al Desminado en Centroamérica, (PADCA).
