Responses to post 2004 Questionnaire

(Thursday 07 August 2003 ) Responses received and analyzed from the internal ICBL.

The results from the post 2004 questionnaire have been fed into an Excel sheet and are here presented in various charts. It can be downloaded as a PDF file or viewed online (some browsers might have problems with this).

The views and intents expressed in the answers to this questionnaire are only intended for internal ICBL use and should not be taken for official ICBL policy or views. They will be used as a basis for discussion and decisions to be taken during the General Meeting.

Some sample responses

Q: Is it still enjoyable and challenging? Is it difficult to remain involved? How so?

A: “No, it is still exciting, there is always something new”

“We need new ways to keep it interesting and new”

“Yes, it is still enjoyable and challenging, just frustrating because I want to do more, get more involved, and just can’t, due to other commitments.”

“Of course it is! I never do a job I don’t like to do!

“We are just starting to see good results, too. Now we are taken more seriously, we are credible, people believe it is a serious problem. We like to do something useful, something real, for our country and our neighbors, for increasing mutual understanding in our region.”

“It gets more interesting and challenging every year! We have to change strategy, concentrate on impacts of new use, incorporate best practices as we have more experience in the field...countries without much happening have to change strategy as we do when we have new problems, like in DRC and Iraq.”

“It is up and down, it’s hard when we see little progress, like no long term support for victims, as we are still lacking that.”

“Not at all difficult to remain engaged. It is a way to re-engage all actors, on core issues, it is a respected platform for peace, for us to be listened to...It is a joy to come to ICBL meetings, to participate. ICBL takes care of its people, it’s focus is uplifting.”

“Now it is easier than before, they know us. It is necessary to continue in the context of my country. It is challenging that we have to fulfill many responsibilities, but we still lack resources.”

“We have learned a lot, it is incredible. We are now stronger, more experienced than ever before. ICBL is not only about landmines, but it demands ethics. People in my country can see poverty, they cannot see landmines. But they can’t limit their view to our borders, landmines demands another level of ethics, this is why I am in ICBL and I can’t find any justification to stop now!”

“The question of mines doesn’t interest the media and population any more. It becomes difficult to organize something. The challenge in [our country] is over: we signed, we ratified, we destroyed our stockpiles, we have no minefields.”

“It is challenging... It is difficult to combine LM/campaign activities with other obligations.”

“We had a slow start in our region, now they know the value of LM and ICBL, it has been difficult, now we are starting to see the fruits of our work.”

“It is satisfying when we see progress!”

Q: Do we need ICBL post 2004?

A: “Why not? Why should ICBL stop? If you think we’ve finished our job, why? We still have mines, we are far from our universalization and implementation objectives. We [national campaign] exist because the ICBL exists. We are important because we’re in the network.”

“Yes, the battle to eliminate landmines is still ongoing.”

“Now’s the time it is needed the most. The easy part is over.”

“I love this work, we must continue, of course we need it, the problem is not over, especially in Asia, we should target Asia. If we had not continued this treaty would have died in the beginning, as long as the problem is not over, we cannot stop.”

“We have still not achieved our goal.”

“Yes, ICBL must go on and not stop until we achieve our aim, universalisation and implementation and a mine-free world”

“We still need an umbrella, it helps us to overcome national and regional challenges. We could have less central coordination and expand regional role in coordination, a facilitator, but something is still needed.”

“Yes, there are still many places with numerous problems. We should focus on problem countries and regions, develop a strategy based on where the problem remains.”

“Yes, but maybe we should change its shape and focus more on the regional aspect. We should focus on affected regions and non-signatories, and countries in conflict.”

“Yes, we still need it, it would be a pity to leave the work undone. There are still many key countries outside the norm, they will not move without pressure, and campaigners in those countries need support. The States Parties will not pressure the non-signatories without pressure from us. The umbrella is helpful and impressive, it lends us credibility in our countries.”

“The problem will not stop after 2004. Progress has been difficult in our region for different reasons, it is very important to show we are not alone, to say that ICBL supports us and our activities, to say we are part of an international network strengthens our work in our country, and has unifying effects in our region...We still need a global effort to keep the momentum.”

“I think the ICBL is ‘dead’. ICBL didn’t take the different opportunities to work on the reality in the field, which are not only AP mines, but also AV mines, cluster bombs and other users like NSAs.”

“We need a more strategic ICBL. Challenges remain.”

“Yes, there needs to be something, there is still work to be done. This initiative is about more than what it’s about, it is key for modeling behavior for the future and how we deal with problems in the future...without it governments might move back to the old way of doing business which would be a shame. It took a long time to invent something else and at this stage in the treaty process we need to ensure it doesn’t lose its dynamism.”

Q: What are the goals for ICBL post 2004?

A: “Universalization, focus on nonsignatories or they won’t join.”

“The same, we must succeed!”

“We should focus on problem areas and regions”

“We should return to the people and not neglect the treaty but not have it the main focus.”

“We should target two regions, FSU and MENA, and have a regional approach.”

“If it is only to have USA and China on board, no [need] to have an ICBL. They will not sign and everybody knows it.”

“We should focus on affected regions and countries in conflict and develop an Islamic point of view.”

“Move forward the humanitarian goals of the treaty and represent or cause to be represented the views of the many from the south.”

“We should integrate a peacebuilding component in our goals.”

“We still have the same goals, though some evolve, some we keep, victim assistance for all, in the framework of disability, mine risk education and mine action in the perspective of development work, post-conflict reconstruction and post clearance development.”

“2009 deadlines, to keep the pressure so countries live up to their commitments.”

“The same:

• Universalization of the Mine Ban Treaty
• Compliance with provisions in the Treaty
• Increased and sustained resources commitments for mine clearance, mine awareness, victim assistance and stockpile destruction
• Firm establishment of the norm, of an international standard of behavior.”

Q: What are the activities for the ICBL post 2004?

A: “It depends what comes out of the Review Conference.”

“It’s good to be present at the MSPs but we could think carefully who is relevant, it is not necessary for all to go, it could be more focused and strategic.”

“We need to strategize differently, and deal with each country differently...we should focus more on regional and other fora, in relevant countries.”

“We should not focus just on APMs as defined by the treaty but expand to other mines, return to a more generic definition of mines and cover other things, expand the focus on the treaty.”

“We should have fewer meetings and use some resources for supporting efforts in countries.”

“We should do a 5 year review of the LM and more effort campaigning based on this 5 year review, what we have achieved, what remains to be done.”

“We should have regional workshops and reinforce the capacity of NGOs in specific target countries and regions. We should build up work in states party countries near non-states parties which are in conflict.”

“We should work in a more cost-efficient way and cut back on the expensive meetings and concentrate on a few key countries, affected countries and non-states parties. We should go back to the grassroots and support campaigns in those countries, and keep a simple, loose coordination overall.”

“We should go more often to the field and less often to international meetings. We should continue to go to MSPs, for example, so our voice is there, though reduce the number of people and the number of other meetings.”

“We should be very strategic about where we have international or regional meetings, where we can be most effective, and where are local or national campaigns are doing best in certain aspects.”

“As long as there are needs in those areas we should continue activities in those areas.”

Q: What aspects should be prioritized?

A: “More mine action and victim assistance than before.”

“Universalization and compliance, both.”

“We should focus more on thematic concerns, and related issues like clusters, AT mines.”

“We should put more focus on banning and lobbying, we should focus on the big countries still outside the treaty, USA, Russia, China and regions like the Middle East.”

“We should focus more on regional mechanisms and strengthen our regional profiles.”

“We should integrate these aspects more in a post-war development framework and think in a larger mode.”

“All of them are still important.”

Q: Who should fund such activities?

A: “The same donors.”

“We should knock on every door.”

“Governments created this mess, they should pay for all of its cleanup.”

“We should diversify funding sources and integrate into development funds.”

“We should tap into some UN funding.”

“We should find ways of seeking direct funding on the ground, of helping national campaigns seek direct funding, to do the work in their countries.”

“We should focus on funding for mine action and victim assistance and keep donors interested by linking to other issues.”

Q: Is a coordinating role needed?

A: “Yes but we should strengthen coordination through other means, thematic or regional.”

“Yes, think globally but act locally!”

“Yes, we still need an umbrella, a focus point, a center of the spider web.”

“Yes, we still need coordination, we need stronger coordination.”

“It depends on the results of this process and what is decided, what goals and activities people decide to focus on. Maybe a looser coordination or a regional coordination...it depends on the agreements we make about the future to see what coordinating role we need.”

“Perhaps a secretariat, focusing on problem areas - look to see what we can do with focusing more attention on those areas.”

“A structure is required, doesn’t matter which, if the experience of CC members is there and they don’t mind continuing, though fresh ideas is ok, experience is also vital.”

“We should facilitate national campaigns, funding support, guidance, decentralize coordination but keep an umbrella, ICBL shouldn’t go away!”

“It depends, some country campaigns may need more international coordination, some regions, while others may not.”

“It is an internationally recognized trademark, we can’t just stop, it is important for people in their countries to have this support and coordination. But we can decentralize some, perhaps have coordinators for certain regions, like FSU and MENA. We should listen more to the field and their needs. The CC does not need to meet so often. But it is still necessary to have some kind of coordination.”

“Yes but we should have more of a global face, but keep structures. We should have more regional coordination, and more initiative of/with local campaigns, targeted from outside, don’t wait for the people in a country to come to the ICBL.”

“We still need loose coordination, but it could diminish, we could work more by ourselves after 04, and urge donors to fund local NGOs more.”

“Some international coordination is good but not so many people, maybe a few on mine affected countries.”

“We still need it but it could take a different form, focus on key countries, mine-affected ones, producers, users, countries in conflict. Maybe fewer people, less representation, but still need some coordination.”

“We still need continued coordination, and the structure is successful. Maybe more people could be involved, regionally.”

“It depends on the results of the Review Conference.”

“Perhaps we could have regional level focal points.”

Q: Do you wish to remain engaged and work on the landmine issue post – 2004?

A: “Yes, we must continue until we reach our goal”

“Yes for sure, we have new energy. We want to remain engaged and will dedicate human resources as much as we can.”

“We will remain active in mine-related things, in advocating for victims, but not the campaign for the sake of the campaign, but for the goals.

Q: Would you/your organization dedicate resources (financial, human)?

“We are willing to continue offering human resources, as we have been.”

“As long as there is a need...for engaging in this work, we will do it.”

Q: Do you have any comments on this post – 2004 ICBL planning process?

The ICBL has remained strong by its focus on one issue, if it is desirable to expand, to clusters and UXO then it must be clear why ICBL is becoming more actively engaged and a policy document stating why should be circulated.”

“If the ICBL expands to work on ERW/clusters as it has been strict regarding its mandate thus far, it would have to be in consultation and fit whatever exists already on ERW/clusters”

“You are doing a marvelous job, you help us stand on our land.”

“The question is doing prejudice, we lose hope if we think it is finished!”

“I think the ICBL made a huge and remarkable work before 1997. Since this date the glory and the money changed totally the spirit of some of the leaders and progressively the force of ICBL is decreasing.”