Conference Report: Understanding the Ottawa Convention

(Friday 20 July 2001 ) Report on the seminar held in Warsaw, Poland 18-19 June 2001

On June 18 and 19, 19 countries met in Warsaw Poland for a seminar organised jointly by Poland and Canada entitled " Understanding the Ottawa Convention". Countries represented were Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Estonia, Finland, France, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Russia, Sweden , the United Kingdom and Ukraine, as well as representatives from the European Commission, NATO and representatives of the ICRC, UNMAS, GICHD and ICBL/Landmine Monitor researchers.

The aim of the seminar was to provide an opportunity to countries from the region which have not ratified or acceded to the Convention to meet with States Parties and others relevant actors in the field of mine action ( such as ICRC, UNMAS or ICBL and Landmine Monitor) to exchange their views on the implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty (MBT).

A first conclusion would be to say that the seminar was satisfying in the sense that the number of countries who attended was quite significant ; in the sense also that questions/discussions which followed each presentations were very pragmatic and so were the presentations.

But it has to be said that no major progress was registered, except the announcement by the Czech Republic that it has completed its stockpile destruction. It was much more of an educational seminar to focus on the regional level and try to have these countries share their experience, express their concerns, listen to all measures taken by some of their neighbours, or other States, in order to comply with the Convention or to move closer to ratification.

After the opening remarks made by Poland and Canada ; the seminar began with an overview of the Mine Ban Treaty through my presentation on the "philosophy of the Convention" and the presentation of the legal framework and obligations of the Ottawa Convention, by Isabelle Daoust from the ICRC. Then we heard about Poland's impressive experience in clearing mines and remnants of war, practically without interruption from 1945 till 1989, clearing more than 100 millions mines and uxo (77 millions cleared between 1945 and 1956).

Alexander Verbeek, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Netherlands, explained then the initiative on Explosive and Remnants of War and the different proposals which were going to be presented during the next CCW Review Conference. It was clearly stated, also by the ICRC, that the real aim with this initiative was to develop approaches to meet the humanitarian consequences of the use of all weapons concerned, not to ban these weapons.

The presence of militaries ( including Lt General Mc Bride from Canada, Lt Gal Gard from VVAF, Brigadier Blagden from GICHD) has been extremely well received and helpful with a lot of delegations. These militaries addressed very sensitive issues for these countries such as the historical use of APMs, the "military utility" of landmines, and the question of alternatives. In this regard, many of the participants framed the question of joining the MBT in terms of acquiring military alternatives to AP mines. We (ICBL & LM) tried to answer by pointing to political alternatives, and were supported by GICHD, the Canadian delegation and others.

Ian Doucet, LM Coordinator for Europe opened the "Implementing the Convention" session with Statistics on Ratification and implementation, including an overview on stockpile destruction and article 7 reports. Then UNMAS presented the role of the United Nations and Paul Ellis from the British Ministry of Defence spoke about the importance and implementation of article 7 and 8.

Among the critical issues addressed during the seminar were the question of Stockpile destruction and the cost of implementing the Convention.

On Stockpile destruction, Ross Glasgow, from the Canadian joint delegation to NATO, made a very concrete presentation on the Euro- Atlantic Partnership Council Trust Fund for Stockpile Destruction, giving the example of Albania as the first successful operation undertaken in this context. During the same session, Mr Trabalik from the Czech Republic also announced that his country just completed the destruction of its stockpile.

The question of the costs related to the implementation of the Convention was addressed by many speakers including Canada, Netherlands and the UK. One of the conclusions was that compared to other treaties such as CFE, CTBT etc.. the implementation of the MBT is certainly one of the "cheapest" ones; and even recognising that it has a cost, it is certainly possible to find some assistance to reduce it, provided that the needed country is ready to ratify or accede to the Convention.
 
It was pointed out many times that this Treaty, and the Process as a whole, is open and that every country is welcome to attend the Intersessionnal Standing Committees where all of these issues are discussed.

The presence of LM researchers and the European Coordinator was very important and helpful, and the relationship established by LM researchers for Poland and Czech Republic, Belarus and Ukraine with the authorities enabled them to better understand and recognise the work of ICBL and LM to which each of these countries paid tribute.
 
If you want to have more details on presentation or debate, please do not hesitate to contact me.

This report has been prepared by Sylvie Brigot with the help of Ian Doucet.