Humanitarian Mine Action refers to activities aimed at significantly reducing or completely eliminating the threat and impact of landmines and unexploded ordnance (UXO) upon civilians and their livelihoods. This is achieved through minefield survey and marking, mine clearance, and mine risk education. To increase efficiency and effectiveness, an increasingly important aspect of mine action is priority setting and planning.
The number of mine-affected countries reporting organized mine clearance operations continued to increase in 2002 and 2003, as did the reported areas of mine-affected land that were cleared of landmines and UXO. Peace agreements and cease-fires in Angola, Sri Lanka, and Sudan enabled the expansion of mine action activities. Two more mine-affected countries joined the Mine Ban Treaty, including Afghanistan, one of the world’s most mine and UXO contaminated countries. Transparency reporting by mine-affected States Parties increased, as did participation by these countries in key meetings of the Mine Ban Treaty. Landmine impact surveys continued in key mine-affected countries. More generally, survey and assessments of the problem became more common. These activities helped in the development of clearance priorities and strategic national clearance plans. The number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) engaged in mine action increased, both internationally and nationally. Coordination systems for mine action were established in a number of countries during the reporting period.
Massive amounts of mine action funding and assistance in 2002 and 2003 were devoted to Afghanistan and Iraq. Some saw this as a disproportionate amount of resources, to the detriment of other mine-affected countries and areas. In July 2002, mine clearance in Eritrea was set back considerably when the government disbanded its existing coordinating bodies, closed the national mine action NGO, and expelled most international mine action NGOs.
Many States Parties are beginning to approach the mid-point for the ten-year deadline for clearance of all mined areas, as required by Article 5 of the Mine Ban Treaty. The first deadline will be 1 March 2009, for 14 of the first States Parties to the treaty. Another 11 countries have deadlines later in 2009 and eight have deadlines in 2010.[28] Increased attention is being paid to these and other States Parties to assist them in reaching their goal.
Some States Parties have confused the former “2010” demining policy goal of the United States government with the ten-year treaty-mandated deadline. Others have set clearance goals that stretch past their treaty-mandated deadline. Elsewhere, there has not even been an acknowledgment of the problem, let alone the treaty deadline.
It is instructive to look at the status of the 14 States Parties with the first deadlines in March 2009: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Denmark, Djibouti, Honduras, FYR Macedonia, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Peru, Senegal, United Kingdom (Falklands/Malvinas), Yemen and Zimbabwe. Mine clearance is underway in most, but not all of these countries.
Article 5 of the Mine Ban Treaty requires “destruction of all anti-personnel mines in mined areas....” (emphasis added). The ICBL and many others have for years used the term “mine-free” to describe the central goal of eradication of antipersonnel landmines. Increasingly, other terms are being used to describe the objective, such as “mine-safe,” “risk-free,” and “impact-free.” In the coming years, these terms need to be discussed more thoroughly, and there needs to be a better articulation of precisely what the objective means, as the international community continues to grapple with a solution to the landmine problem.
Landmine Monitor Report 2003 has identified 82 countries that are affected by the presence of uncleared landmines and unexploded ordnance. In addition, Landmine Monitor identifies nine 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.[29]
Bold: Non-States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty
Landmine Monitor has removed nine countries from last year’s total of 90 countries, and added one. Costa Rica declared itself mine-free in December 2002. The Republic of Congo was removed from the list, as no known mined areas were reported in the country, although its border with Angola may be mine-affected. In El Salvador, Estonia, Hungary, Kenya, Latvia, Lithuania, and Mongolia the problem is predominately, in some cases exclusively, due to UXO, and very limited in its impact on the civilian population, with very few or no casualties recorded in 2001, 2002 or 2003. There is still a need for explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) in these countries.
Venezuela was added to the list of mine-affected countries after it acknowledged in its initial Article 7 report that it has 1,063 antipersonnel mines emplaced in six locations.
Over half (45) of the 82 mine-affected countries are States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty, including two that joined the treaty in the reporting period (Afghanistan and Cyprus). Bangladesh stated in its Article 7 Report that “No known mined areas exist within the territory of Bangladesh.”[30] However, landmines are found along a 208-kilometer-long area of the border with Burma, in Chittagong Hill Tracts. The Philippines also indicated in its Article 7 Report that it is not mine-affected, but it has stated that improvised mines, booby-traps, and other explosive devices used by insurgent groups are cleared by army ordnance and demolition teams.[31] Landmine Monitor has reported that new mines are laid each year and there are new casualties each year.
There is still a lack of knowledge in many mine-affected countries as to the extent of the landmine problem, including credible, detailed information as to the exact location of mined areas. In a number of non-signatory countries with no humanitarian mine action programs, there is very little publicly available information on the extent of the mine problem. This is the case, for example, in Burma, India, Iran, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan.
The extent of the landmine problem, including the location and impact of mined areas, must be known in order to develop strategic mine action plans. Various forms of landmine surveys or assessments are generally utilized to assess the landmine problem.
A Landmine Impact Survey (LIS) is designed to look at the impact of landmines on communities in order to help authorities develop strategic plans to reduce impact. The Survey Working Group is the coordinating body for most LIS operations, with the Survey Action Center (SAC) as the executing agency.
Landmine Impact Surveys were completed in Cambodia, Chad, Mozambique, Thailand, and Yemen in 2000 and 2001, and a modified survey was carried out in Kosovo. UNOPS reports that it completed an LIS in northern Iraq in 2002. LIS began in Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Lebanon, and Somaliland in 2002. All are due for completion in 2003, except Eritrea, due in 2004. LIS got underway in Afghanistan and Angola in 2003. In Vietnam, the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation (VVAF) plans to start an LIS in 2003. The Democratic Republic of Congo, Georgia, Somalia (Puntland), and Sudan are under consideration for LIS.
In 2002 and early 2003, Landmine Monitor recorded other general surveys and assessments of the mine problem in 32 countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Chad, Colombia, Croatia, DR Congo, Ecuador, Georgia, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Peru, Rwanda, Serbia and Montenegro, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Tunisia, Uganda, Vietnam, and Yemen, as well as Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh. In many instances, surveys preceded clearance operations, while others represent an initial assessment or survey to gain a better picture of the problem from which to plan a response.
Among the notable survey and assessment developments in 2002 and 2003 are the following. HALO Trust surveyed three former Soviet army military bases in Georgia in June 2002. In Armenia, deminers conducted a survey in one of the most mine-affected regions in the country. In Iraq, UN Office for Project Services (UNOPS), the Mines Advisory Group (MAG), VVAF, and MineTech are conducting emergency surveys/assessments. In Tunisia, MAG conducted an assessment of the country’s landmine problem in December 2002, while UN Mine Action Service (UNMAS) undertook an assessment mission there in January 2003. In 2002, UNMAS also conducted an assessment mission to Mauritania and a technical mission to Cyprus. In Vietnam, several local surveys were conducted by the Canadian company Hatfield Consultants, in partnership with an office of Vietnam’s Ministry of Health.
The Information Management System for Mine Action (IMSMA) assists mine action programs with data collection and mapping of information collected on affected areas, mine clearance, mine casualties and other relevant information. According to the Geneva International Center for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD), IMSMA has been installed in 29 countries, including Albania, Armenia, Chile, Colombia, Cyprus, DR Congo, Guatemala, Honduras, Sudan, and Zambia in 2002. Version 3 of IMSMA became available in 2003.
A total of 38 of the 45 mine-affected States Parties had submitted transparency reports as required under Article 7 of the Mine Ban Treaty, as of 31 July 2002. Angola, Eritrea, Liberia, Namibia, and Sierra Leone are late submitting their initial Article 7 reports. Article 7 reports for Afghanistan and Cyprus are not due yet.
Some form of mine clearance was reported to have taken place in 2002 and the first half of 2003 in 63 countries identified as mine-affected.[32] There is humanitarian mine clearance underway in at least 35 countries and instances of limited mine clearance in 32 countries. No mine clearance was recorded in 16 mine-affected countries.
Humanitarian mine clearance by international, national, and non-governmental actors was underway in at least 35 countries in 2002 and 2003. This includes 24 States Parties: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Chad, Costa Rica, Croatia, Djibouti, DR Congo, Ecuador, Eritrea, Guinea-Bissau, Guatemala, Honduras, Jordan, FYR Macedonia, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Peru, Rwanda, Thailand, and Yemen. It also includes 11 non-States Parties: Azerbaijan, Ethiopia, Greece, Iran, Iraq, Laos, Lebanon, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, and Vietnam. There are also humanitarian mine clearance programs in Abkhazia, Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Somaliland.
Transparent reporting on developments relating to demining is essential for efficient deployment of resources to high priority areas. Inconsistent reporting makes it difficult to identify the accumulated land cleared and returned to communities. There are often significant differences in the mine clearance figures provided in a country’s Article 7 report, provided by the national coordination body, and provided by various demining NGOs. Landmine Monitor had particular difficulty in obtaining comprehensive and consistent figures for clearance in 2002 in Afghanistan, Angola, Chad, Guinea-Bissau, and Mozambique.
In some instances, international non-governmental organizations were primarily responsible for the humanitarian mine clearance, in cooperation with local authorities. In 2002, NGOs increased their demining activities in a number of countries, most notably in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Sri Lanka. Major international demining NGOs include DanChurchAid (DCA), the Danish Demining Group (DDG), the HALO Trust (HALO), Mines Advisory Group (MAG), Norwegian People's Aid (NPA), and Swiss Foundation for Mine Action (FSD).
Indigenous or national non-governmental demining organizations operated in a number of countries in 2002.
In a number of countries, humanitarian mine clearance is carried out by a combination of NGOs and national army or police deminers.
National armies and police conduct mine clearance in a number of countries. In almost all of the following instances, the clearance could be viewed as humanitarian, but more information is required, especially on quality assurance procedures.
The Mine Action Program (AICMA) of the OAS works with national armies in Central and South America.
Limited mine clearance was underway in at least 32 countries in 2002 and 2003, including ten States Parties (Colombia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Namibia, the Philippines, Serbia and Montenegro, Tajikistan, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe) and 22 non-States Parties (Armenia, Belarus, Burma, Burundi, China, Egypt, Georgia, India, Israel, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Morocco, Nepal, North Korea, Oman, Poland, Russia, South Korea, Turkey, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan), as well as in Chechnya, Taiwan and Western Sahara.
Limited clearance by military and other entities, such as explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) units of national police responding to emergencies necessitating the clearance of landmines or UXO, was recorded in Belarus, Czech Republic, Georgia, Kuwait, Moldova, Oman, Poland, Russia, and Ukraine.
Some countries during this reporting period conducted mine clearance operations to facilitate military operations. Limited military mine clearance for tactical purposes was noted in Burma, Burundi, Russia (Chechnya), Colombia, Nepal, Philippines, Uganda, and Uzbekistan.
Limited mine clearance to maintain minefields was noted in Cyprus and Israel.
In addition, clearance initiatives conducted or implemented by villagers or mine-affected communities were recorded in countries including Afghanistan, Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, Laos, Nicaragua, and Pakistan. In Cambodia and Laos, governmental mine action agencies requested such initiatives be banned.
No mine clearance of any type was noted in 2002 in 16 mine-affected countries, including 12 States Parties (Algeria, Bangladesh, Chile, Denmark, Liberia, Malawi, Niger, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tunisia, and Venezuela) and four non-States Parties (Cuba, Libya, Somalia, and Syria), as well as Palestine and the Falkland/Malvinas (UK).
Planning for humanitarian mine clearance is underway in States Parties Algeria, Chile, Niger, Tunisia, and Venezuela.
The UN Mine Action Service continued its emergency response programs in Eritrea, FYR Macedonia and South Lebanon in 2002. It also established new emergency coordinating programs in DR Congo and Sudan. UNMAS also took responsibility for coordinating the UN Mine Action Program in Afghanistan, and for coordinating the UN response to the emergency in Iraq. The US Quick Reaction Demining Force, based in Mozambique, was deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sri Lanka, and Sudan during 2002 and 2003.
In 2002 and 2003, increased attention was paid to the development aspect of mine action, instead of viewing it as just an emergency and humanitarian aid activity. Donors and mine-affected countries are acknowledging that mine action activities must be part of other rehabilitation and long-term efforts, and that these activities must dictate much of the priority setting within humanitarian mine clearance.
In this reporting period, there has been increased focus and attention paid to planning and coordination needs. Most donor countries are now emphasizing the need for mine-affected countries to develop a strategic mine action plan focusing on priorities for clearance, and to accurately document overall progress. Without information from surveys, planning systems, and a well-structured coordination body, mine-affected countries and donor countries will continue to experience a lack of accuracy in mine action data. This in turn leads to difficulties in measuring effectiveness and efficiency of mine action activities.
Landmine Monitor 2003 noted some form of coordination and planning body in place in 37 of the 82 mine-affected countries: Afghanistan, Angola, Albania, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Djibouti, DR Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea Bissau, Honduras, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Laos, Lebanon, Macedonia, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Peru, Rwanda, Serbia and Montenegro, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Thailand, Tajikistan, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. There are also such bodies in Abkhazia, Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh, Palestine, and Somaliland.
Some coordination developments in the reporting period include:
National mine action plans are important planning tools to help meet clearance deadlines for mine-affected States Parties. National mine action plans can also help ensure that clearance benefits the most heavily impacted mine-affected populations and supports the national socio-economic development of the country. A mine action plan also enhances transparency with donors, and provides a base for accountability with the mine-affected communities.
During this reporting period, Landmine Monitor recorded a national mine action plan in 22 countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Ecuador, Egypt, Guinea Bissau, Jordan, Laos, Lebanon, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Senegal, Sudan, Thailand, Zimbabwe, and Yemen. A number of countries were in the process of drafting and approving plans.
Some planning developments in the reporting period include:
The Standing Committee on Mine Clearance, Mine Risk Education and Related Technologies met in February and May 2003. Belgium and Kenya acted as co-chairs. Cambodia and Japan were co-rapporteurs; they will become co-chairs in September 2003. During the 2003 meetings, the Committee focused on developments in and activities of mine-affected States Parties. At the February 2003 meeting, seventeen States Parties provided updates on mine action implementation plans and progress. In May 2003, sixteen State Parties made presentations.[33] Four mine-affected countries that have not joined the Mine Ban Treaty also presented on mine action activities: Iraq (presented by UNMAS), Sri Lanka, Sudan, and Turkey. Documents presented at the Standing Committees are available at www.gichd.ch.
In May 2003, a new “tool” was introduced to assist mine-affected States Parties in reporting on their activities. The “4P” approach, developed by the Implementation Support Unit (ISU), calls for reporting on Problems, Plans, Progress, and Priorities. The Committee co-chairs hope that the 4P approach will improve efforts to measure mine action progress and to identify challenges, especially as the States Parties increasingly focus on the need for compliance with the ten-year deadline for mine clearance.
The ICBL Mine Action Working Group (MAWG), chaired by NPA, presented at both the February and May Standing Committee meetings. The MAWG stressed the importance of participation by mine-affected States Parties in the intersessional work program. In addition, MAWG underlined the continued need for transparency in reporting on mine action results. MAWG highlighted the ten-year timeframe for complete clearance of all mined areas and the importance of effectively measuring progress and assessing remaining challenges.
The Steering Committee on Mine Action (SCMA), chaired by UNMAS with participation from various demining NGOs, the UN, International Committee of the Red Cross, and others, met three times during 2002 to discuss issues of priorities in mine action, country developments (in Afghanistan, Angola, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam, as well as Chechnya), and the establishment of the Rapid Response initiative. The SCMA formed an ad-hoc task force to investigate growing differences between the UN and mine action NGOs in the field. UNMAS also chaired the UN Inter-Agency Coordination Group on Mine Action, an internal UN group that met monthly during 2002 to coordinate UN mine action response.
The UN Mine Action strategy was updated in July 2003 after consultations within the mine action community, and with mine-affected and donor governments. Among other items, the revised strategy reflects technical and methodological developments, the increased involvement of mine-affected countries in planning, coordinating and executing humanitarian mine action programs, and the important role of mine-affected communities themselves.
A major issue relating to mine action coordination during this reporting period was the importance of integrating a country’s mine action plan into a Development Plan or Poverty Reduction Strategy Plan. Landmine Monitor notes that five countries are reporting mine clearance activities and mine action plans as components of the country’s Development or Poverty Reduction Strategy Plan: Cambodia, Chad, Mauritania, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe.
According to the United Nations Development Program, it is providing assistance for the management of mine action programs in 23 countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Chad, Colombia, Croatia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea Bissau, Iran, Jordan, Laos, Lebanon, Mozambique, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tajikistan, Ukraine, and Yemen. The UNDP has also continued to develop and expand its Mine Action Exchange program (MAX), which facilitates the exchange of expertise, information, technology and facilities among mine-affected country programs. In 2002, program participants came from Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Croatia and Mozambique, and in 2003, there are plans to expand the program to include Cambodia, Yemen and other countries.
The International Mine Action Standards (IMAS) are guidelines for mine action activities aimed at helping practitioners and authorities monitor and conduct mine action activities in accordance with internationally set standards and safety levels. It is also hoped that the IMAS will constitute the basis for any national mine action standards and standard operating procedures used by mine action operators. The review board on IMAS met in January 2003 to review how the international standards have been adopted and adapted as national standards. Currently, the mine action community has endorsed 27 standards and another five are under discussion. The IMAS can be viewed online at www.mineactionstandards.org.
The Geneva International Center for Humanitarian Demining issued several mine action studies in 2002 on topics including socio-economic approaches to mine action, Mine Risk Education, mine action and mechanical demining equipment, metal detectors, and Explosive Remnants of War.
In September 2002, UNMAS released an interactive CD-ROM containing numerous important mine action and advocacy-related documents. In 2002, UNMAS strengthened and expanded its Electronic Mine Information Network (E-MINE), available at www.mineaction.org. The stockpile destruction database developed by Canada was integrated into E-MINE.
The Mine Action Support Group (MASG), the New York-based group of mine action donor governments, met almost every month during 2002 and 2003. The Permanent Mission of Belgium to the UN chaired the MASG in 2002, while the Permanent Mission of Germany was chair in 2003. In 2002, the MASG received briefings from mine action teams from countries including Afghanistan, Angola, Eritrea and Sudan, as well as UNICEF, UNDP and UNMAS. It initiated field visits by donors to programs in Cambodia and Laos in 2002 and the Balkans in 2003. The MASG issues a monthly newsletter detailing minutes of its meetings, donor activities, and highlights from mine action programs.
An informal Resource Mobilization Contact Group was established during the Fourth Meeting of States Parties in September 2002, with Norway as chair. The group is tasked with exploring all possible avenues for mobilizing resources to achieve the humanitarian aim of the Mine Ban Treaty. The group focuses on resource mobilization among traditional donors, multilateral agencies and development banks, mine-affected States Parties, other mine-affected states and non-traditional state donors, as well as the private sector. In May 2003, the group looked at how mine action can be seen as both a humanitarian and a development activity, providing opportunities for flexible financing. Mine-affected States Parties were encouraged to integrate national mine action plans with the country’s Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy Plan.
Landmine Monitor Report 2003 notes various research and development (R&D) projects by donor countries and mine-affected countries. As in previous years, it is often difficult to demonstrate the impact these projects have in the field.
In May 2003, Belgium presented a paper on mine action technologies, problems and recommendations, which identified collaboration between end-users, donors and technology experts as the major need in the R&D field. The paper acknowledges that the R&D community must improve the manner in which real needs are addressed, as opposed to assumed or presumed needs.
In 2002, Croatia established a Test and Evaluation Center and invited interested states and actors to use its services. In cooperation with Sweden and the GICHD, the Croatian Mine Action Center has taken responsibility for establishing standards for testing of demining machines and techniques. In 2002, nine machines and 86 mine detection dogs were tested in Croatia.
In South Africa, a study is being undertaken to establish an integrated regional capability linked to national programs and activities. The study examines mine detection dog capability, electronic and mechanical equipment, and technologies that support mine survivors.
[28] Those with deadlines later in 2009 include Chad, Ecuador, Guatemala, Jordan, Malawi, Nicaragua, Niger, Swaziland, Thailand, Uganda and Venezuela. Those with 2010 deadlines include Argentina, Cambodia, Czech Republic, Rwanda, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Liberia, and the Philippines.
[29] Northern Iraq is no longer being reported separately from the rest of Iraq.
[30] Bangladesh, Article 7 Report, Form C, 29 April 2003.
[31] Philippines, Article 7 Report, Form C, 14 May 2003.
[32] This includes Costa Rica, which declared itself mine-free in December 2002.
[33] Among those presenting at the meetings were: Afghanistan, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Chad, DR Congo, Republic of Congo, Croatia, Cyprus, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Jordan, FYR Macedonia, Malawi, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Peru, Rwanda, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, and Zambia.