In response to some news items
Media Quotes/UN
This statement is in response to some news items and other
publications recently published. Please read and distribute as
widely as possible.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
ICBL Mine Action Working Group
I trust that you are well aware that the International Campaign to Ban
Landmines is continuing its efforts to ensure achieving a true
landmine ban worldwide. ICBL is working to achieve this aim through
universalization, ratification and improvement of the Ottawa treaty as
well as other appropriate international conventions such as Protocol
II of the CCW. The ICBL is also focussing with increased emphasis on
mine action and victim assistance initiatives to ensure effectiveness
and practicability of these vital operations. The ICBL mine action
working group is, therefore, closely monitoring any development in the
mine action field. (Do we need this introduction or not? Comments)
The ICBL mine action working group is very concerned with issuance of
wrong or unfounded statements and information by the so called
landmine experts. Some statements quoted in the Reuters article of
8/6/98 titled "losing Battle Against Landmines" is a matter of great
concern to us. In this article members of the United Nations are
quoted saying:
"With to day's methods, we are just losing ground -- more mines
are being laid than being lifted"
What is the base for such claims. Can we establish this. Where are the
figures and how are they gathered. This quote may refer to an old
statement appeared in the UN documents in 1995, which was saying that
20 mines are laid for each mine cleared. Members of ICBL have
questioned this figure at that time as the base for this statement has
never been made public. We believe it is just an estimate.
The other widely used figure is " a mine can be bought for as little
as $ 3 and cost up to $1,000 to defuse"
What are we trying to prove with the above statement. Not much, we
blieve.
There are a number of factual and technical problems with the above
statement.
-First of all deminers are not defusing mines. They are
destroying them in situ unless circumstances dictate otherwise i.e
mine is under the bridge etc. Destruction of mines is much safer then
defusing and it finishes the mine once and for all.
-Secondly, mine lovers may argue that the high tech mines are not
as cheap $ 3. They cost much more then the famous $1,000 defusing
cost.
-Thirdly, mine clearance in most of the countries such as
Afghanistan does not cost $ 1,000 to clear a mine. The experience has
proven that ti cost less then $ 250 to clear a mine.
This issue is, however, not relevant as humanitarian mine
clearance is not about removing and defusing mines. It is to make the
land safe from the threat of mines and return the land to communities
for productive use.
Therefore, we should be talking about the number of square meters of
land and how much it costs to clear. For instance, in Afghanistan it
costs less the US Cents 60 ($0.6) to clear a square meter of land from
the threat of mines.
By clearing land from the threat of mines crop production is
increased, transportation and other costs come down, refugees can
return to their homes who would depend to aid and outside support in
the refugee camps, implementation of rehabilitation and development
projects are facilitated and employment opportunities are created.
More importantly many precious lives and limbs are saved. Mine
clearance, therefore, is not a cost but an investment.
The other wrong and widely misused figure is that it will take
thousands of years to clear the mines. As a matter of fact in some
areas mines may stay for many years in the ground.
The aim of humanitarian mine clearance is not to take every
individual mine out of the ground. The aim, however, is to allow
affected communities to resume normal productive life with out the
threat of landmines. It means that those mines and mined areas would
be cleared that pose risk to people and create obstacle for safe use
of land. Therefore, mined areas are prioritized. Mined areas that are
urgently needed by communities would be cleared as first priority.
Mines on top of hills or in deserts may not pose serious risk to
communities and may not affect economic activities. Therefore, if
those mines remain in the ground for some time, it will not hurt much.
Afghanistan is one of the worst mine affected countries in the world.
It represents a good example for the amount of time that it will take
to clear mined areas. Based on reliable surveys, there are a total of
about 860 square kilometers of mined areas in Afghanistan in more than
1,500 villages. Out of this about 465 square kilometers has been
classified as areas of high priority for clearance. Clearance of this
area would allow local communities to resume safe productive life.
The Mine Action Programme for Afghanistan has so far cleared about 150
square kilometer of the high priority areas. The Programme mainly
employs manual clearance method with the support of mine detection
dogs and simple machines such as back hoes etc. If the funding level
remains the same, it is estimated that all remaining high priority
areas will be cleared by the year 2009. Even if it is planned to
clear all mined areas in Afghanistan (high and low priority areas) it
will take less than 20 years with the current level of resources made
available to the Afghan Programme.
therefore, it is not a question of thousands of years. With current
level of funding it is a problem of years. If the funding is
increased, landmines could be cleared sooner.
The other question is of the method of mine clearance and technology.
It is agreed that technology has resulted to revolutionary changes in
the way we do business on daily basis. Ir will be naive to rule out
the importance of technology in mine clearance. After all every tool a
deminer uses is the product of technology. However, in most cases
people for and against sophisticated technological solutions go to
extremes. One side claim it is not possible to overcome the task of
mine clearance without the tool(s) I am planning to develop for you.
On the other extreme it is said that all technological R&D projects
related to mine clearance equipment are a total waste of money.
The reality is that it is not possible to do it with out appropriate,
practical and affordable technologies. There are some good and
practical R&D projects closely coordinated with the field.
At the same time there are a number of expensive and imaginative R&D
projects which are a matter of concern. Such projects may be driven by
political, commercial and military interests rather then purely
humanitarian interests. Such projects should be reviewed based on the
humanitarian needs, afford ability by and sustainability at the place
of use. The landmine problem is of a very diverse nature. It is
impossible to design a peace of equipment in a lab or based on limited
field simulation and expect it to be useable for a wide range of mined
areas. Landmine contamination is like a disease caused by a
transfigure able virus. It is extremely difficult to invent a medicine
for such viruses. People are talking about the "tool box approach".
We appeal lets not make this tool box so expensive and so huge, with
several hundreds of heavy and complicated tools, that will make it
impossible to be carried to the minefields for use.
The technology is there. It works. It has proven its effectiveness.
This is deminers with reliable mine detectors, mine detection dogs and
simple and affordable machines. Again Afghanistan is a good example.
With the use of these resources more than 32% of the total high
priority mined areas or 17% of the total known mined areas in
Afghanistan has been cleared. As mentioned earlier, it is expected
that all high priority mined areas in Afghanistan will be cleared by
the year 2009 using the same technology. The point to be made here is
lets work to improve these proven technologies instead of spending
millions of dollars on some thing that may or may not work.
The other important feature of this method of clearance is that the
investment is largely used in the mine affected communities rather
then in the labs and commercial firms in industrialized countries.
This method is affordable and more importantly sustainable in the mine
affected communities even when the international presence/support
ends. It creates employment which in turn helps in peace building as
economic situation of the communities will improve and they would not
have to join military groups to earn their living. The Afghan Mine
Action Programme employs more than 4,000 locals. Most of these
deminers would have otherwise been forced to join military groups to
satisfy their financial needs.
Therefore, comments such as "With to day's methods, we are just
losing the ground" can not be justified.
ICBL Working Group on Mine Action
For details contact:
Sayed Aqa
Chair of the ICBL Mine Action Working Group
email: mcpa-at-mcpa-afg-sdnpk-undp-org
