ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF LANDMINES

Claudio Torres Nachón, --DASSUR

Introduction

This chapter attempts to address some environmental aspects and impacts of antipersonnel landmines (APMs) in the global environment, with a strong emphasis on Africa. The impact of landmines goes further than the killing and maiming of civilians and military well after conflicts are over. Landmines affect many components of the global biosphere. This document recognizes the broader spectrum of unexploded ordnance (UXOs) but due to subject matter objectives our research was limited to antipersonnel landmines. Article 2(1) of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (1997 Mine Ban Treaty), defines: "Anti-personnel mine" means a mine designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person and that will incapacitate, injure or kill one or more persons. Mines designed to be detonated by the presence, proximity or contact of a vehicle as opposed to a person, that are equipped with anti-handling devices, are not considered anti-personnel mines as a result of being so equipped." [1] Historically, landmines have been widely used in a number conflicts in many regions of the world since the end of World War II. According to Geoffrey Best, "...it may be said that mines became for the 1970´s and 1980´s what napalm had been for the 1950´s and 1960´s; the weapon whose careless and indiscriminate uses have inflicted the most cruel and extensive injuries on civilians...[I]n scale and persistence, mines make up a giant problem and scandal.[2] Africa in particular has been severely contaminated with such indiscriminate explosive devices. Other regions of the world as South East Asia, Central and South America and diverse zones throughout Asia are heavily mined as well. Among the many problems attached to the use of landmines are those related to its impact on the natural environment and its components. Being silent, indiscriminate patient killers, landmines remain active long after conflicts are gone. Its victims are not limited to human beings, landmines have killed and maimed large numbers of specimens of wildlife and domestic species worldwide. In that logic, landmines set in motion a series of events leading to environmental degradation in the forms of soil degradation, deforestation, pollution of water resources with heavy metals and possibly altering entire species' populations by degrading habitats and altering food chains. In other matters, landmines turn already difficult tasks for conservation into almost impossible missions, as is the case of APMs contamination of natural protected areas. In general, taking in consideration the prevalent socio-economic conditions of most of the seriously affected countries, it can be said that APMs represents a tremendous challenge for both, international organizations and local governments. It has been widely recognized that "... AP mines have long-lasting social, economic, and environmental implications." [3]

As an unfortunate reality, global environmental aspects of landmines have not been studied to detail. Obvious preference has been given to channeling must of the funds available to humanitarian demining, victim assistance and landmines awareness programs. Many sad stories can be told on the way landmines transform the lives of thousands of people, mostly civilians, in many cases children and elders, every year, but that is not the objective of this chapter. In any case, a great effort by international organizations, non-governmental organizations and local governments has taken place over the last decade to eliminate such malevolous plague. Much is still to be done.

In our view, the international humanitarian landmine crisis should be understood as an ancillary element of the current international environmental crisis. That is, the global environmental crisis is accentuated by the presence of landmines. In the following pages we will try to present and evaluate certain direct and indirect environmental impact of landmines in an attempt to call on the attention of decision makers on landmines humanitarian and environmental organizations to properly generate policy, establish priorities and allocate funds as necessary to conduct a complete global environmental impact assessment of landmines. In fact, such an assessment would follow the recent advances of environmental organizations and agencies as UNEP/UNCHS' Balkans Task Force (BTF) to assess environmental damages caused by the military conflict in Yugoslavia. Ideally, environmental assessments of war should depart from regional influence onto assessing environmental impacts of specific weapons, as landmines.

By doing so, the movement for a universal ban on the weapon would greatly expand and fortify by solidly calling the attention of international and local environmental groups. According to Phillip Weller from the Worlwide Fund for Nature -WWF-, "...it is essential to conduct an environmental assessment of war activities. [...] Both the short term impacts and potential long term impacts need to be addressed. A successful reconstruction and redevelopment strategy requires that there be such assessment."[4 ] It is particularly important that organizations as WWF, traditionally involved into conservation, are actively aware of negative environmental impacts of armed conflict. Other groups have established specific programs, as may be the case of Green Cross International's Environmental Legacy of War Project, founded by Mikhail Gorbachev in 1993.

1. Factual Environmental Issues

1.1 The international landmine crisis and the environment

APMs are an insidious characteristic of war, past or present, internal or international. Landmines are a specially insidious weapon since even after conflicts are over, they remain active, silently waiting for any step to detonate them. As former UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Gali explains, "[a]fter troops withdraw, land mines remain in the ground as brutal reminders that successful peace-building and development are still beyond the horizon."[5] Common estimates consider the number of landmines planted on the earth around 110 million. As well, an even larger number of landmines are kept in stockpile, such number may exceed 250 million landmines.[6] An economic reality, a single landmine can cost anywhere from US$3.00 to US$75.00, in contrast, the cost of removing a single mine may range anywhere between US$350.00 to over US$1,000.00[7], or even more, depending on the demining circumstances. It is not the same to clean up a flat, accesible minefield than to clean up a mined mountainous border. Even though landmines are now banned by international treaty and customary law, landmines are still openly available. A 1998 report on landmines in Senegal states that "one can find landmines, including near-undetectable plastic varieties, on sale in markets for around CFAfr1,500 ($2.75) each, next to the chickens and dried fish".[8] To some armies, the utility of landmines reside on its low price and availability, "[i]n practice, however, they are used to demoralize the adversary, terrify and control civilian populations, and overburden the adversary's support systems and resources."[9] Landmines then, are weapons of social terror.

According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), some 24,000 people are killed or maimed by landmines every year.[10] In reality, no one knows for sure the exact figure or the exact spectrum of the problem. Many accidents involving landmines are never reported. Environmentally speaking, in Angola, for example, "humans are not the only victims of land mines. Dr. Foster ...has personally seen a herds of cows blown up while crossing a road, and then parts of the cows raining down. They probably saved his life. He also knows of elephants and other wildlife being maimed or destroyed in this way".[11] According to Anna Richardson, "Thousands of animals such as antelopes and elephant fell prey to landmines, hunters and hungry soldiers during Angola's long and bitter war."[12] Although Angola is a signatory of the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, landmines have continued to be used by both Angolan government and UNITA rebels[13], such actions severely condemned by the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and the international community.

As presented above, the international landmine crisis goes well beyond classical humanitarian, anthropocentric approaches. Its impact on the natural environment is ever growing and unfortunately, not yet fully assessed. In general terms, environmental impacts of APMs can roughly be categorized as direct or indirect.

DIRECT IMPACTS OF LANDMINES ON THE ENVIRONMENT. By direct environmental impact we refer to those effects, alterations and disruptions caused to the natural environment and/or its components at the moment and specific location of the blast of an landmine.

INDIRECT IMPACTS OF LANDMINES ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Indirect environmental impact of landmines are those effects, alterations and disruptions that may take place at differentiated spatial and temporal scheme from an original location or explosion of a landmine.

From a temporal spectrum indirect impacts may be continuous and/or delayed at a short, medium or long term. By continuos impacts we refer to those landmine related physico-chemical effects which degrade, pollute or transform in any ecologically sensitive perspective those environmental elements interacting with the device. i.e. Decomposition or corrosion of the landmine's case, may produce a prolonged leaking of toxic heavy metals typically present in a landmine, as mercury and lead. Delayed impacts are those negatively affecting the environment and it components at a later time in a single, recognizable event. i.e. Certain methods of mine clearance may produce such impacts.

Short term effects generally include the physical destruction of close range vegetation and killing/injuring of wildlife. Medium term impacts may include a deterioration on soil composition preventing cultivation lands to return to levels of agricultural production prior to a landmine explosion. Long term impacts include the persistence and bioaccumulation of certain toxic substances freed into the site of the blast as mercury and lead, both present on most landmines. It is open to discussion how to classify impacts which are specially difficult to assess and quantify. A probable influence into global warming by depletion and enhanced human pressure over natural carbon dioxide sinks as forest presents an enormous task for scientists. As entire populations may not be able to return to their villages or cultivation lands, in occasion they are forced to find new land to settle. To better comprehend the issue, let us remember some basic principles of environmentalism: first, nature knows best; second, everything must go somewhere; and third, but not last, everything is connected to everything else. Therefore, even if such impact on global warming happens to be minimal, it should be properly addressed as an innovative way to reflex on the nature and ends of armed conflict. When considering the wide array of environmental impacts it can be said that, "landmines may be the most widespread, lethal, and long-lasting form of pollution we have yet encountered"[14]

1.2 Landmines in Africa

1.2.1 Most affected countries

Since World War II, landmines have been extensively used in Africa during armed conflict. Wars of national liberation in Southern Africa during the last quarter of the XX century left millions of landmines and other unexploded ordnance (UXOs) condemning future generations to suffer the burden of such insidious high-explosive devices. Intergenerational responsibility was not taken into consideration whatsoever. Although many regions of the world are heavily mined, "[i]t is generally accepted that Africa is the most heavily mined continent. Severely affected countries include Angola, Mozambique, Somalia (and Somaliland), Sudan, Eritrea, and Ethiopia. Others include Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Zambia, Chad, Namibia, Burundi, Uganda, DR Congo, Mauritania, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, Congo-Brazzaville, Djibouti, Malawi, Niger, South Africa and Swaziland."[15] Going into deeper detail, "...Southern Africa is probably the most heavily mined region in the world, with Mozambique and Angola listed by the United Nations as among the most mine - contaminated countries. [16] According to Noel Stott, from the South African Campaign to Ban Landmines, "an estimated 20 million mines lie buried in the soils of southern Africa, many unmapped and unmarked." [17] Landmines were widely used by most fractions to conflicts in both, Angola and Mozambique. As mentioned above, reports of continued use of landmines in Angola, a signatory to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, darkens the hopes to universally ban the weapon in the region. For Alex Vines, an specialist on humanitarian demining in the region, "Southern Africa is the most mine affected region in the world."[18]

1.2.2 Social/Economic dimensions of the problem

Social and economic consequences of landmines are tremendous. They impose a multidimensional burden on the countries affected by landmines. In the words of UN Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, "Not only do theses abominable weapons lie buried in silence and in their millions, waiting to kill or maim innocent women and children; but the presence -or even the fear of the presence- of a single landmine can prevent the cultivation of an entire field, rob a village of its livelihood, place yet another obstacle on a country's road to reconstruction and development."[19] In many mine-infested countries, the return to a peaceful way of living faces tremendous challenges. Humanitarian demining costs are elevated and in most cases drains vital funds from other badly needed investments for reconstruction. As well, large surfaces of land can not be cultivated According to a report from the US Department of State, " [a] more relevant measure of the problem, however, is not the number of landmines per country, but the number of square kilometers of productive land rendered unusable by the presence or suspected presence of landmines or other unexploded ordnance (UXO)."[20] . In Libya, it is estimated that about 8.49% of its arable land is contaminated by landmines.[21] A larger surface may not be cultivated because of solely fear to landmines. In other spheres, landmines are in most cases laid near vital infra-structure installations as bridges, electrical towers, water and sewage treatment plants, hospitals and roads. Unless landmines are removed and destroyed from all these sites, they "will pose huge ancillary social costs; create vast numbers of internally displaced persons (IDPs); impede economic recovery, prolonging the need for international assistance: prevent the delivery of government services; serve as physical obstacles to unity and reconstruction; create conditions for the spread of disease, as well as inflicting injuries, ending lives; and encourage continued militarization of post-conflict societies."[22] Therefore, uncleared landmines may affect pacification efforts and compromise the environmental and food security of mine affected countries. Policy makers for funding of humanitarian demining assistance should, accordingly, consider at least the above mentioned factors while deciding how to allocate funds in post conflict master recovery planning. Poor decision-making may in fact prove disastrous and counter productive in determined scenarios. As well, environmental and human settlements assessments may serve "...as a management tool for the international community as an integrated part of the needs assessment requirements in the overall emergency humanitarian effort in war-torn areas".[23] A report of the First Meeting of the Standing Committee of Experts on Mine Clearance of the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, recognized that "...simple measures of effectiveness of clearance -such as numbers of mines removed or destroyed, or the area of land cleared- had their uses but do not provide adequate measures of benefit to the communities affected or of impact on development. Hence there is a need for socio-economic indicators, which shall include humanitarian and environmental concerns."[24]

1.3 Environmental impacts of landmines in Africa

1.3.1 Landmines, biodiversity and natural protected areas.

In certain cases "there is a repetitive geographical coincidence between mine-affected zones and biodiversity hotspots. Such coincidence is acutely present in diverse regions of the planet."[25] By degrading habitats, impacting population species, altering food's chain, and placing additional pressure on biodiversity hotspots, landmines pose a considerable risk to pristine ecosystems throughout the world. To make things worse, valuable income from wildlife tourism has been deteriorated as many natural protected areas, including national parks, are contaminated with landmines. The danger of landmines may be extended to tourists as well. In Africa such coincidence is strong as showed in the following table:

Table 1. Landmines, biodiversity and natural protected areas in Africa.

Table 2. Other regions of the world.

* Biodiversity Data Sourcebook; World Conservation Monitoring Centre; World Conservation Press ©1994

** Landmine Monitor Report1999; published by the ICBL; Human Rights Watch © 1999

*** www.atlapedia.com/online/country-index.htm; © 1997

Landmines have taken a deadly toll on biodiversity in Africa and other places of the planet. Numerous wildlife and domestic animals casualties have been reported. Considering the difficulties to properly assess the exact number of fauna killed or maimed by landmines, it is not adventurous to consider those figures as a fraction of the actual direct impact of landmines on biodiversity. Indirect impacts on wildlife are even farther to assess. From North to South, testimonies account for the killing and suffering of fauna. In Libya for example "...Minefields have claimed the lives of an estimated 75,000 camels, 36,250 sheep, 12,500 goats and 1,250 cattle."[26] In southern Africa the situation is delicate as the region is host to a wide spectrum of biodiversity. In Zimbabwe, according to Lt. Col. Martin Rupiya, "...every village near Chiredzi has lost at least one animal to land mines... In the Gonarezhou National Park, elephants and buffaloes have had to be killed after they were injured by land mines." [27 ] In neighboring Mozambique "Mines reportedly have killed more than 100 elephants..." [28] Another avenue for direct impact on wildlife may be the intentional use of landmines as a technique for poaching wildlife. Landmine-poaching presents the ultimate distortion of this insidious weapon. It is used as a simple and effective mechanism for killing wildlife. Cases of landmine-poaching of highly endangered species as tigers have been reported in Burma and other South East Asia locations. A single bowl of tiger penis soup, an alleged aphrodisiac delicacy, may cost up US$500.00 in Japan. Returning to Africa, "people of the village of Mulondo in southern Angola took anti-tank mines from a mine-belt surrounding their village and planted them into the traditional elephant migration paths of the Mupa National Park. As elephants flee strictly straight ahead, the whole herd was massacred here..."[29] There are as well unconfirmed reports of UNITA rebels use of landmines to kill elephants to procure their valuable ivory tusks to buy weapons. From another perspective, it is necessary to reflect on the impact of landmines on domestic species. In impoverished, less developed countries of Africa, to own cattle means much as they serve many cultural, social and economic values. Losing a cow means much more than losing a source of protein.

1.3.2 Landmines and natural protected areas management

To effectively manage a declared natural protected area is a difficult task under any circumstances. To do so in some landmine-infested African regions has been proven extremely difficult at present conditions. The presence, or suspected presence, of landmines, represents an obstacle to achieve In-Situ conservation goals, as expressed in Article 8 of the 1992 UN Convention on Biological Diversity.[30] A number of African mine-affected countries have ratified such convention: Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Egypt, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Eritrea, Rwanda, Senegal and the Democratic Republic of Congo, among others. Unfortunately, many natural protected areas have become, or worst, have always been, "paper parks", that is, natural protected areas which exists mostly in name only[31] and where effective management is minimal or unexistant. Such situation presents a complicated panorama for those worried about effective implementation of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) in developing and less developed countries as "...more often than not such paper parks are under threat or are already experiencing damage."[32]

How to implement international environmental law? How to enforce national environmental legislation on protected areas in countries undergoing present, or past, armed conflict? How to advance conservation goals where already short national and international funds tend to go to other urgently needed social necessities? War is a beast of many faces constantly threatening environmental conservation. For many, war is reality, while environmental conservation, an ideal. In Ethiopia, according to Dr. Tsegay Wolde-Georgis, "...must of the fighting is done in areas that are strategic, such as mountains, rivers and forests. Unfortunately, these are also the areas where wildlife lives. When there is fighting all animals are confused, scared and leave the area. Most of them either migrate to neighboring countries or die in the new inhospitable environment."[33] In a number of cases, natural protected areas in Africa have been mined during conflict. In Rwanda, "... areas which are being demined are parts of the Kagera National Park currently being used to resettle thousands of returning refugees from Uganda who fled anti-Tutsi pogroms by the majority Hutu population in the early 1960s."[34] In Mozambique Scott Nathanson, a Disarmament Campaign organizer, writes that elephants in the Gorongoza national game park " have been maimed because of anti-personnel landmines or killed because of anti-tank mines."[35] As well, according to Alda Salomao, "Large areas of the country were affected by the armed conflicts and one of the major problems in addressing the landmines issue is that there are no accurate records as to the exact locations were these mines were planted. If one considers that one of the largest national parks, the "Parque da Gorongoza" was almost completely destroyed by military actions, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that it is possible that landmines were planted in the area. The animals that were protected in this park were indiscriminately hunted to feed the soldiers and mines might have been used for this purpose. This park is protected under the CITES convention and under the national legislation."[36] Such a description of the situation in Mozambique illustrates how complex a task is to restore, conserve and manage natural protected areas affected by war and contaminated by landmines in the region. Mozambique's neighboring country suffers a similar situation: "In Zimbabwe, [...] wildlife also suffer. The Hwange and Gonarezhou national game parks have reported many mine incidents involving wildlife and there have been several cases of buffalo wounded by landmines attacking people living near the game parks. Without fencing, there has been considerable triggering of mines in remote areas by game animals. Many hundreds of elephants were killed towards the end of the Rhodesian war by mines. An elephant would wander into the minefield and initiate an explosion, and once wounded it would stagger into other mines, setting off further explosions." [37]

Adding to the already tragic incidental killing of elephants by the hundreds, reportedly, landmines have been used by poachers to purposely kill elephants in Mupa National Park in Angola.[38 ] Sometimes in an effort to procure their valuable ivory tusks[39] to buy new weapons.

Even plans to improve transboundary parks have been negatively influenced by landmines in southern Africa. Fortunately, recent announcements indicated the formal intention of Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe "to consolidate plans for what could become the biggest Transfrontier Conservation Area in the world. ...The newly protected area will encompass roughly 100,000 square kilometers."[40] One of the objectives of the transfrontier project is to clear minefields spread around those areas.[41] According to a UN report: "Wildlife is threatened by mines because the planned Mozambican extension to the Kruger Park requires mine clearance. Elephants have been found maimed by AP mines and killed by AT mines."[42]

1.3.3 Landmines and soil pollution

Being planted on the surface of the land, or just beneath its surface, landmines most direct impact is over soil quality and composition. Soil may be affected by the explosion of the weapon or by leaking of toxic substances from a landmine after a period of time in which it is affected by corrosion if it is made of metals, or by decomposition if it is made of wood or other degradable materials. "Any of the three varieties of high explosive-weapons (blast, fragmentation, or general purpose) may be extremely dangerous (fatal) for soldiers and/or civilians and may also cause local disturbance of soil. The fragmentation effects can be more severe in some ecosystems than in others, especially in forests where fragments implanted in trees could open a way to invasion of micro-organisms. After a prolonged period, consequences of the corrosion of fragments and the release of various alloying elements, such as iron, manganese, chromium, zinc, copper, etc., start to show. Mercury is also appearing as pollutant after utilization of high-explosive weapons. In agricultural regions the toxic elements can easily penetrate the human food chain."[43] Therefore, as toxic elements penetrate the soil, processes of bioaccumulation may start and reach humans in on way or another. As well, those toxics may raise to the atmosphere and travel long distances and finally pollute other habitats in distant regions of the world. This process of long distance transboundary pollution of chemicals leaked by landmines has not been studied to detail. Again, it is necessary to produce accurate data on the amount of toxics released by landmines.

1.3.4 Landmines and water pollution

It is generally accepted that the use of landmines has been concentrated not only on the battlefield, but in and around civilian populations and basic infrastructure. Sewage and water treatment facilities have been targeted in many African locations. As well, unconfirmed reports of use of landmines as a method for fishing in places as the Tanganika Lake in Tanzania, may suggest that such technique could be in use elsewhere, polluting water with heavy metals and possibly altering chemical composition of sediments. Additionally, landmines may be removed from its original location by heavy rain, floods and other meteorological phenomena, travelling downstream to more stable water bodies as lagoons, lakes, and estuarine ecosystems.

1.3.5 Other impacts

Landmines may cause a number of unregistered impacts on the environment and its components. Most of the reports on wildlife impacted by landmines tend to focus on certain charismatic species, i.e. tigers, elephants, camels. It would be a sensible gap not to give proper attention to other lesser known species that may play a fundamental role on the food chain in a given habitat. By altering these populations, the existing equilibrium of these species and their habitats may be placed under additional pressure.[44]

An issue of controversy is the use of dogs and other animals for detecting landmines. Animal rights organizations have protested against using dogs for mine detection as they consider such practice as cruel. According to Stephen Wells, Director of Education, "the Animal Legal Defense Fund strongly opposes the use of dogs to detect and explode mines...Animals have no place in human wars."[45] On the other hand, some favor its use because of its accuracy and reliability. According to a Norwegian humanitarian deminer, "...dogs will be trained to detect mines left over from Angola's civil war because they are more efficient, faster and less expensive than electronic detectors..."[46] In any case, animals are affected, either as intentional or incidental victims of landmines. As well, other species have been trained to conduct mine detection as bees or more recently, rats. On the other side, a more informal detection technique has been used in some mine infested areas where humanitarian demining has not been conducted. Having to deal with landmines on their own, displaced villagers have used domestic animals as pigs, sheep or cattle as living, untrained, detectors as the only alternative to return to farms, villages and cultivation lands after conflict. The cost of such practice is significant as detection may equal the killing of the animal.

2. War, Landmines and International Environmental Law

2.1 War from an International Environmental Law Perspective

2.1.1 The 1992 Rio Declaration

The following trio of Principles of the Rio Declaration may be applicable to our study:

Principle 24

Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development. States

shall therefore respect international law providing protection for the

environment in times of armed conflict and cooperate in its further

development, as necessary.

Principle 24 of the 1992 Rio Declaration[47] serves as an ideal point of departure to comment on the relation of war and international environmental law. Principle 24 seems to be aimed to States engaged in war. It makes no specific mention of whether war is intestine or international, therefore, it may be interpreted to comprehend both possibilities. Principle 24 is rich in its content, in our view, it is composed of three intellective modules.

Ø Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development. This opening sentence establishes an international consensus of war being a direct and immediately destructive of any sustainable development efforts and achievements. In such logic, it may be understood to negatively condemn war in general.

Ø States shall therefore respect international law providing protection for the environment in times of armed conflict. This second sentence is specially interesting as it establishes a recommendation to States engaged in armed conflict to obey what we may call International Humanitarian Environmental Law, i.e. some environment related dispositions and contents on major humanitarian conventions. Part 3 of this Chapter will explore such issue. In an historical scenario, drafters may have been influenced by the nefastus environmental impacts of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Although, environmental impacts of war were studied and legally addressed since well before such confrontation. [48] The importance of this sentence resides on the recognition of specific dispositions of international law to protect the environment during armed conflict, and its call to obedience.

Ø [States shall] cooperate in its further development, as necessary. The final sentence of Principle 24 is progressive on its nature, as it calls for further development of International Humanitarian Environmental Law (IHEL) in as much as necessary. It is implicitly recognized that present disposition of IHEL may not be as clear, adequate or enforceable as it may be desirable. In a world of constant, never ending armed conflicts, environmental consequences of war are not to be forgiven nor forgotten by international law. Recent developments of International Criminal Law may provide with institutional fora to better address those impacts. Part 3 of this paper will explore the possibilities of the not yet in force, International Criminal Court and its Rome Statue. In other spheres, the upcoming First Meeting of the parties to Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons[49] may address certain environmental considerations of the use of antipersonnel landmines.

Principle 25

Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and

indivisible.

In a complementary statement Principle 25 states an ideal cohesion of three social variables: a peaceful society in which social and economic development are well balanced within a framework of environmentally sound processes. Therefore, it seems like Principle 25 indeed establishes a special way of understanding sustainable development for post-conflict societies. Principle 25 establishes at a policy level two conditions on the mixture of such components: They are interdependent as they are indivisible. In our context, as Alda Salomao, a Mozambican environmental lawyer at the recently created (December 1994) Ministry for Coordination of Environmental Affairs of Mozambique, states:

"The Republic of Mozambique was the stage of two major armed conflicts which, put together last for 26 years. The First was the war of liberation against the Portuguese colonial regime, and lasted from 1964 to 1974. The second war was a confrontation between the Government of Mozambique and RENAMO, which started around 1977 and lasted until 1992. During these wars, a large number of landmines, including anti-personnel landmines, were planted in the territory. Since 1992, the year of termination of the second war, 54.016 mines were deactivated, of which 53.624 were anti-personnel mines. It is estimated that there are currently between 250.000 and 500.000 anti-personnel landmines in the Mozambican territory. The total number of mines existing in the national territory is about 2 million." [50]

Ms. Salomao continues, " No studies have yet been undertaken with the aim of assessing the impact of landmines on environmental components. [...] Despite the lack of studies on the environmental impacts of landmines, public political statements have been made by government officials, namely the minister for Coordination of Environmental Affairs, Dr. Bernardo Ferraz, recognizing the landmines as environmental hazards. The Government of Mozambique considers that landmines constitute the worst form of environmental pollution, not only because they kill and mutilate people, but also because they prevent people from having access to natural resources, neither to use them nor to protect them."[51] In such scenario, even when peace has seemly arrive to Mozambique, without proper environmental protection and restoration, sustainable development still looks afar. To be able to comprehensively advance towards sustainable development, landmines affected post-conflict governments must start by conducting studies on medium and long term social, economic and environmental consequences and effects of war and landmines in particular. Only by clearly assessing the environmental state of the territory, considering landmines as a highly toxic, long term pollutant, may governments develop effective social sustainable development policies and better allocate scarce resources.

Principle 26

States shall resolve all their environmental disputes peacefully and by

appropriate means in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

Principle 26 represents the recognition of a need to promote international environmental security. The language used in Principle 26 is stringent enough to make clear that environmental security issues may in the future be cathaliystic for global stability. An OECD report[52] attempts a definition of the term "environmental security" as that disciple that "address national security issues and threats of military action that are caused entirely or partly by environmental problems."[53] In our view, such definition includes a very slippery notion, namely, national security issues, as it may vary from one country to another. In addition, it fails to provide with an international, global environmental perspective. Unfortunately, space limitations deprive from further analysis of the topic. Immediately, the report identifies some issues in which the environment may play a role into international security, namely:

* Transboundary environmental issues as problems for external relations;

* Environmental degradation as a cause of regional conflict;

* Destruction of global ecosystems that precipitate interstate conflict;

* Environmental issues in international law;

* Environmental degradation caused by military activity;

* Ecological consequences of conflict;

* Destruction of the environment as an instrument of war.

Such listing is enunciative of an array of situations that may originate or evolve from or into international environmental disputes. We may add:

* Internal social polarization/conflicts over land tenure;

* Increased pressure over natural resources related to forced migration by armed conflict;

* Depletion and/or discovery of new strategic energy resources in developing countries vulnerable to internal social conflict;

* Environmental refugees caused by global environmental issues;

* Public health security threats from bio-technologically engineered species, including alimentary security.

Some of them may apply to certain scenarios in Africa, some may not. Interesting is the question of whether Principle 26 may be applicable as a policy tool for intestine confrontations in which environmental implications are either ancillary or axxis to the dilemma in case. It seems obvious to recognize that most of the recent and ongoing armed conflicts in Africa are intestine in origin or at least have an intestine component involved in the conflict. Going back to general observations, it may be said that the importance of Principle 26 resides in its projection from present to future environmental disputes and its universal mandate.

In conclusion, Principles 24, 25 and 26 of the 1992 Rio Declaration seems to attempt to cover in differentiated temporal spheres the convergence of armed conflict, international security and the environment. Principle 24 condemns war as destructive of sustainable development; Principle 25 establishes fundamental policy for environmentally sound sustainable development in post-conflict situations; finally, Principle 26 recognizes potential environmental instability and sets a non-binding mandate towards pacific resolution of international environmental disputes.

3 Landmines and International Humanitarian Law: Looking for Green

This section attempts to identify and comment on certain environmental provisions contained in selected international humanitarian law conventions as applicable to landmines. We will focus our attention on three legal instruments: the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions; the Protocol II on Landmines of the 1980 Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) ; and the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty.

Also known as the law of war, or the law of armed conflict, international humanitarian law is defined as follows by the International Committee of the Red Cross, "International humanitarian law [IHL] forms a major part of public international law and comprises the rules which, in times of armed conflict, seek to protect persons who are not or are no longer taking part in the hostilities, and to restrict the methods and means of warfare employed." [54] Specific to our study is the last component of the mentioned definition in regard to restrictions on methods and means of conducting war. The election of the kind of weapons to be used in armed confrontation is not unlimited as we will see in a few paragraphs. The technological achievements of the XX century provided military commanders with a choice of previously unimagined powerful weapons to choose from to conduct war. Many of these weapons may bring along terrific environmental casualties and costs that may add to post-conflict recovery efforts. In the words of Geoffrey Best, "[t]otally new in contemporary IHL is specific reference to environmental damage, which includes what many would prefer to call ecological damage." [55] Since ancient times, the environment and its natural resources have been the origin and theater of many armed conflicts. In the second half of the twenty century, such ecological damage was launched into environmental mega-damage with the employment of nuclear weapons for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Afterwards, the war in Vietnam witnessed the massive use of super aggressive herbicides and defoliants, as the infamous agent orange, which devastated a large percentage of Vietnam's vegetation, with severe public health consequences for both, soldiers and civilians exposed. Even atmospheric events were targeted for modification to create cloudy conditions for safer bombing conditions. "The 1970´s therefore not surprisingly witnessed the arrival upon the IHL agenda of the prevention of environmental megadamage..." [56] Basically the efforts to address environmental issues on warfare were condensed in a couple of instruments. The 1977 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques[57], which in general prohibited the use of the environment as a weapon of war. [58] Second, and relevant to our study, is the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

3.1 The 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions

Born as an answer to the general notion that the Geneva law needed to be updated to keep up with new challenges present in post-World War II, the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Convention (AP1), explicitly mentions environmental issues of armed conflict in general. To analyze the use of antipersonnel landmines through its light presents a complicated task. "Landmine use is problematic with respect to the environment under at least two rules codified in Protocol I: article 35(3)´s proscription against means of warfare which "are intended or may be expected to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment," and article 55(1)´s prohibition against means of warfare that "are intended or may be expected to cause damage to the natural environment and thereby to prejudice the health or survival of the population." [59] Under Section I of Additional Protocol I, Article 35 enlists three basic rules which provide with basic principles of modern warfare. We will focus only in that related specifically to the environment. Article 35 (3) of Protocol I, establishes that: "[i]t is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment."[60] As suggested throughout this paper, extensive use of landmines may cause widespread, long-term and/or severe damage to the environment. It is problematic to advance in prohibiting the use of landmines under this precept because the notions of widespread, long-term and severe damage are elusive. When is an environmental damage severe? When is an environmental damage sufficiently prolonged in time as to be considered as long-term environmental damage? What are the parameters to quantify an environmental damage caused by landmines as widespread? Severe denotes a notion of determining the qualitative toxicity of the damage. Long-term calls for an undetermined, open to interpretation, temporality of the damage. Widespread suggests that the damage must cover the integrity of a quantitatively large and determined area.

In top of all the obstacles which are to surge in trying to determine the above mentioned issues, is the condition to have all of those components in the same situation for it to be prohibited. Again, to prohibit the use of landmines under Article 35 (3) of AP1, it would necessary to prove that its use would or may be expected to cause a geographically widespread, severely toxic environmental damage which is to last for a long period of time, probably in the decades to come. Temporality would not represent a major problem as it is precisely an essential characteristics of landmines, as they can remain active after many years and decades after conflict is over. It is on the remaining two notions where problems reside, and of course in the overall condition to meet all three to be prohibited.

On its part Article 55 (1) of AP1 states that :" Care shall be taken in warfare to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term and severe damage. This protection includes a prohibition of the use of methods or means of warfare which are intended or may be expected to cause such damage to the natural environment and thereby to prejudice the health or survival of the population." The problems for interpreting this mandate are similar to those of Article 35(3) and its main difference is that Article 55(1) relates the environmental damage with the conditions of civil population.

3.2 Protocol II on Landmines of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons-CCW and 1996 Amended Protocol II

The Preamble of the 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (CCW), basically repeats the language of prohibition of severe, long-term, and widespread environmental damage of AP1's. Protocol II has been severely criticized as it does not prohibit the use of landmines and only regulates certain aspects of its use. At the negotiations of Protocol II, "...scant attention was paid to the environmental consequences of landmine use."[61]

1996 Amended protocol

In 1996, Landmines Protocol II was amended in an attempt to advance on a ban on the use of landmines. To many, not much was achieved. A critical view comes from 1997 Nobel Peace Laureate, Jody Williams, "[t]his protocol should be recognized for what it is: an agreement on limited, and often ignored, restrictions on antipersonnel mines for those nations which continue to reject the demand of the rest of the world to totally ban the weapon."[62] Environment wise, Amended Protocol II, remained the same as Protocol II, with no other specific environmental provision but its relation to the Preamble of CCW as mentioned above.

3.3 The Ottawa Process and the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty

3.3.1 The Ottawa Process and the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty

Opened for signature on 3 December 1997, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, popularly known as the Ottawa Convention, has been signed by 137 countries and ratified by 90 as of 23 December 1999. Entering into force in record time on March 1, 1999, the Ottawa Convention represents a cornerstone in what Canadian Foreign Affairs Ministry Lloyd Axworthy called the democratization of multilateralism. In the words of Jessica Mathews: "The end of the Cold War brought no mere adjustments among states but a novel redistribution of power among states, markets, and civil society."[63] Conducted outside the usual UN Conference on Disarmament (CD), negotiations to ban the use, production, transfer and stockpile of landmines and mandate its destruction, were fast, simpler and under tremendous influence of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL). Canada, Norway, Ireland and Austria, among other governments, provided political leadership in establishing a novel partnership between governments and civil society to produce an international convention. It is known as the Ottawa Process as it was launched at a meeting in 1996 in Ottawa, in such meeting "...Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister challenged the international community to negotiate and sign a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines by December 1997".[64] Again, in the core of the Ottawa process was the overwhelming participation of the international civil society under the organization of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. In 1997, the ICBL was laurated with the Nobel Peace Prize.

3.3.2 Environmental issues at the Ottawa Convention as applicable to Africa

The 1997 Mine Ban Treaty makes two explicit references to environmental issues:

3.3.2.1 Environmental implications of extension requests under Article 5(4)(c)

Article 5(4)(c) states that "States Parties may request an extension of the deadline for completing the destruction of such landmines to a Meeting of States Parties. Such request of deadlines extensions shall containing the humanitarian, social, economic and environmental implications of the extension". By such reference to environmental implications, the strategic importance of environmental issues is underlined in the international humanitarian strategy to universally ban and destroy landmines. On the other hand, such provisions opens up a possibility for fraudulent States to use the environment to escape from their immediate obligations of destruction within the established 10 years period of planted landmines on territories under its jurisdiction or control as stated in Article 5(1) of the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. In short, environmental issues may represent both a positive or a negative tool for the effective implementation of the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty and the global eradication of landmines. Nevertheless, such environmental allegations may be valid and legitimate as to request an extension on the compliance with the general obligation above mentioned. As such, it is an indispensable, delicate and urgent task to develop and establish a Working Group on Environmental Aspects of the Landmine Crisis and the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty to compile, evaluate, classify, and analyze information related to past, present, and potential impacts of the landmine crisis on the environment for the territories of States Parties and Non-Parties to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, since ecosystems, rivers, underground waters, marine currents, species and all other elements of the environment recognize no political borders and legal situations of transboundary pollution may occur, directly or indirectly caused by the international landmine crisis.

3.3.2.2 Environmental measures observed for antipersonnel landmines under Article 7(1)(f)

On the other hand, Article 7 of the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty establishes a series of transparency measures for the States to comply with. Article 7(1)(f) states that the States Parties shall inform the UN Secretary General, no later than 180 days after the entry into force of the Convention of the "situation of the programs for the destruction of antipersonnel landmines, in conformity with Article 4 and 5, including the applicable environmental norms observed". It will be interesting to analyze the implementation of such duty. Such disposition is somehow vague, as it does not refers explicitly to domestic or international environmental laws, environmental standards or environmental impact assessment regimes.

Reports on environmental norms observed, are to be analyzed by the Committee of Environmental Aspects of ICBL, and by State Parties to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty at intersessional meetings and during the annually held Conferences of the Parties. To compile and analyze implementation and observance of environmental norms as reported to the UN Secretary General during the destruction of stockpiled and planted landmines may provide with elements needed to enhance a current of discussion of environmental issues of landmines and may open a path for the recommendation of a Minimum Environmental Standard (MES) for the destruction of antipersonnel landmines. Harmonizing environmental standards for APMs destruction will serve the goal of minimizing negative environmental impacts that may be caused during destruction. A report from the Standing Committee of Experts on Mine Clearance called for "...a complete review of international standards applicable to mine clearance and its techniques."[65] Such review is to take place by the time the Second Meeting of State Parties to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty takes place in September 2000 in Geneva. This process may open the way to consider the implementation of the above mentioned Minimum Environmental Standards.

As of 8 May 2000, only four African States have submitted Article 7 Reports to the Secretary General of the United Nations: Benin, Senegal, South Africa and Swaziland. Article 7 Report from Benin contains no specifics under environmental standards observed during destruction of either stockpile and planted landmines as Benin does not have a landmine problem.[66] Article 7 report from Senegal was submitted on 1 September 1999 and it declares that no applicable environmental standards were observed in relation to destruction of stockpiled APMs. On the other hand, Senegal declares that in compliance with the mandate of destruction of APMs in mined areas (Article 5) one environmental standards was observed: a total prohibition to cut down trees in demining operations.[67] On its part, South Africa, while destroying its APMs stockpile declared on its 1 September 1999 Report, that full environmental impact studies were conducted for the destruction of stockpiled APMs.[68] Finally, Swaziland, does not present any information under environmental standards observed during destruction of stockpile or planted landmines.

In general, it may not be excessive to say that the overall performance of African states in relation to reporting applicable environmental standards for destruction of stockpiled and planted APMs leaves much to improve. First, the fact that only four States Parties have fulfilled their transparency measures obligation under Article 7 of the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty shows how implementation of even the simplest mandates may be problematic for many less developed States Parties to the Convention. Worrysome as well, is the material indication that in the case of Senegal, the only applicable environmental measure for destruction of APMs in mined areas was a ban on cutting down trees. Left unattended were many environmentally sensitive aspects of destruction which may impact the environment negatively, as atmospheric emissions during incineration which may produce dioxins, apart from the ever present carbon dioxide. Some States have in fact prepared detailed reports on environmental standards applicable to destruction of landmines which contain an array of environmental norms observed during destruction. In our view, Article 7 request to report on environmental standards is itself an implicit call to observe at least a minimum degree of environmental consciousness while fulfilling the destruction mandates of the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. As a start, it must be made clear how many African countries are obliged by its environmental laws to undergo environmental assessment evaluations before approving destruction of landmines, either stockpiled or planted. We do not expect to find explicit reference to such activities on the existing environmental laws in Africa, but at least to find out whether military activities are subject to EIAs in one instance or another.

4. Final policy recommendations

Our first and overall recommendation resides on the need for a global environmental impact assessment of landmines, Africa being the first region to assess. Be it for assessing its impact on wildlife or to evaluate atmospheric emissions by destruction of stockpile, environmental impact assessments are essential to advance in humanitarian demining in Africa and elsewhere as a pre-requisite for redevelopment after war.

Second, specific attention should be paid to the advances of the Study on the Use of Socio-Economic Analysis in Planning and Evaluating Mine Action Programmes undertaken by the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining.[69] As it is to include environmental indicators, environmentalists should try to participate at every level possible in the development and follow-up of such study as it will serve as a cornerstone for humanitarian demining policy makers in the aftermath of the Second Meeting of the State Parties to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty to be held in Geneva on September 2000.

Third, multilateral, environmental and humanitarian demining organizations should work together with countries Party to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty towards the development and ultimate establishment of a Minimum Environmental Standard (MES) for the destruction of antipersonnel landmines. A first step should be the detailed sharing of specific environmental measuring and mitigation techniques used during destruction of stockpile and planted landmines between technologically advanced and developing or less developed countries.

Fourth, in countries where the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty has not been signed or ratified, it may probe effective to follow a strategy consisting on distributing this and other publications on environmental impacts of landmines to national environmental organizations in order to get them on board for advocacy goals for signature, ratification and/or effective implementation of the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. By doing so, environmental organizations may become part of national campaigns and use their influence to advance in the goal of universal ban of landmines.

[1] Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, opened for signature on 3 December 1997 (Mine Ban Treaty), entered into force on 1 March 1999.

[2] Geoffrey Best, War and Law Since 1945, (Great Britain, 1994), at 299.

[3] Maxwell A. Cameron et al., "To Walk Without Fear", in Maxwell A. Cameron et al., "To walk without fear: The Global movement to Ban Landmines", (Canada, 1998), 1, at 5.

[4] Interview, "Landmines and the Environment" between Mr. Philip Weller and Claudio Torres Nachón, 3 December 1999. Mr. Philip Weller is Director for WWF's Danube Carpathian Programme and Head of WWF's scientific delegation to assess environmental impacts of war in Yugoslavia. Mr. Weller can be reached at Philip.Weller@wwf.at.

[5] Boutros Boutros - Ghali, "The Land Mine Crisis: A Humanitarian Disaster", 73:5 Foreign Affairs (September / October 1994), 8, at 9.

[6] Landmine Monitor Report 1999, at 11.

[7] The Arms Projects of Human Rights Watch & Physicians for Human Rights, Landmines: A Deadly Legacy, (U.S.A. 1993), at 251.

[8] African Topics, Issue 23-24, May-July 1998 at 22.

[9] Maxwell A. Cameron et al., "To walk without fear" in Maxwell A. Cameron et al., "To walk without fear: The Global movement to Ban Landmines", (Canada, 1998), 1, at 4.

[10] International Committee of the Red Cross, ICRC Overview 1998, Landmines Must be Stopped, Geneva, May 1998 at 16.

[11] See <http://www.pgs.ca/pages/lm/stfoster.html>

[12] See Richardson, Anna. War-ravaged Angola Looks for Missing Wildlife, Luanda, April 29 1998, Reuters at <http://members.aol.com/adrcnet/marmamnews/98042901.html>

[13] International Campaign To Ban Landmines, Nations Refusing To Ban Landmines Meet Again, ICBL Press Release, Geneva, 14 December 1999 at 3.

[14] Statement of the United Nations Secretary-General. Assistance in mine clearance' 49th Session, Item 22 of the Agenda A/49/357, 6 September 1994, p. 2.

[15] Executive Summary Landmine Monitor 1999 at <http://www.icbl.org/lm/1999/english/exec/Execweb1-06.htm#P787_110915>

[16] Kristian Harpviken, "Landmines in Southern Africa: Regional Initiatives for Clearance and Control", Contemporary Security Policy 18, 1 (Apr. 1997). As cited in Maxwell A. Cameron et al., "To walk without fear: The Global movement to Ban Landmines", (Canada, 1998), at 68. n. 1.

[17] Noel Stott, "The South African Campaign" in Maxwell A. Cameron et al., "To walk without fear: The Global movement to Ban Landmines", (Canada, 1998), 68, at 68.

[18] Alex Vines, "The crisis of anti - personnel landmines" in Maxwell A. Cameron et al., "To walk without fear: The Global movement to Ban Landmines", (Canada, 1998), 118, at 125.

[19] United Nations, LANDMINES A SPECIAL ISSUE, A Review of United Nations Activities in Mine Action, April 1999 at 3.

[20] USDOS, Hidden Killers: The Global Landmine Crisis, Report Released by the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Office of humanitarian Demining Programs, Washington,DC, September 1998 at 5.

[21] Westing et al., 1985, `Appendix 8. Explosive remnants of conventional war: A report to UNEP' in Explosive Remnants of War: Mitigating the Environmental Effects, ed. Westing, A.H., SIPRI & UNEP / Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 117 - 136. [First published as part of UNGA Document No. A / 38 / 383 (19 October 1983), pp. 6 - 28], as cited in "Towards Ottawa and beyond:De-Mining the Region. The Environmental Impacts" by Bruce Gray, International House, University of Sydney, July 1997 at 17.

[22] See Hidden Killers, supra note 9 at 9.

[23] Töpfer, Klaus. Foreword to UNEP-UNCHS, The Kosovo Conflict: Consequences for the Environment and Human Settlements, Switzerland, 1999 at 3.

[24] Report of the First Meeting of the Standing Committee of Experts on Mine Clearance, Geneva, 13-15 September 1999, Summary and Action Points, issued by the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining, at 5.

[25] Torres Nachón, Claudio, "Environmental Aspects of the International Landmine Crisis and the 1997 Ottawa Convention" (An introduction to the Global Project on Environmental Aspects of Landmines -GEAL- of the Center for Environmental Law and Economic Integration of the South, A.C.) DASSUR-Mexico 1999. [Originally presented at the Fist meeting of the Parties of the 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction celebrated in Maputo, Mozambique on May 1999) at <http://members.xoom.com/dassur/envir.html>

[26] See <http://www.un.org/Depts/Landmine/country/libyanar.htm>

[27] Roberts, Adam, M. et al. Landmines: Animal Casualties of the Underground War, <http://fn2.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/~puppydog/aa-art.htm>.

[28] Idem.

[29] See <http://www.mgm.org/>

[30] Convention on Biological Diversity, U.N. Doc. DPI/130/7, June 2, 1992, reprinted in 31 I.L.M. 818 (1992).

[31] See Dudley et al. Effectiveness of Forest Protected Areas, A Paper for the IFF intersessional meeting on forest protected areas, San Juan Puerto Rico, March 15-19,1999.

[32] Idem at 1.

[33] Interview, Landmines, with Dr. Tsegay Wolde-Georgis, Ethiopian Embassy in the United States of America, 29 November 1999. Mr. Tsegay Wolde-Georgis can be reached at <tsegay@Tidalwave.net>

[34] UN Country Report, Rwanda, <http://www.un.org/Depts/Landmine/country/rwanda.htm>

[35] See supra note 27.

[36] Interview "Environmental Impact of Landmines in Mozambique" between Ms. Alda Salomao and Claudio Torres Nachón, 16 November 1999. Ms. Salomao is presently conducting graduate studies on international environmental law at the Washington College of Law, The American University in Washington, DC. Ms. Salomao can be reached at aldadriano@aol.com.

[37] HRW, Still Killing: Landmines in Southern Africa, 159. As cited in Maxwell A. Cameron et al., "To walk without fear: The Global movement to Ban Landmines", (Canada, 1998), at 130. n. 43.

[38] "Hunted Elephants", Dumbo Internet page of MGM Stiftung Menschen gegen Minen Web site (includes photograph): http://www.dsk.de/mgm. As cited in Maxwell A. Cameron et al., "To walk without fear: The Global movement to Ban Landmines", (Canada, 1998), at 130. n. 45.

[39] See Torres Nachón, supra note 25.

[40] See Environmental News Service, World's Largest Transborder Conservation Area <http://ens.lycos.com/ens/may2000/2000L-05-05-02.html>

[41] Idem.

[42] See <http://www.un.org/Depts/Landmine/country/mozambiq.htm>

[43] Orehovec, Z., Music, S., Palinkas, L., Miko, S., Ristic, M., Bokan, S. Danger Of Land Mines, Unexploded Shells, And Environmental Consequences Of The Recent War On The Territory Of The Republic Of Croatia, presented at the First International Conference on Addressing Environmental Consequences of War, held in Washington, D.C., from June 10-12, 1998. at 1.

[44] See Torres Nachón, supra note 25.

[45] Interview with Stephen Wells, Landmines and Dogs, 10 January 2000. Mr. Wells is Director of Education of the Animal Legal Defense Fund. Mr. Wells can be reached at <info@aldf.org>

[46] See <http://www.un.org/Depts/Landmine/country/angola.htm>

[47] Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 31 I.L.M. 874 (1992).

[48] See the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (done at New York, 10 December 1976; entered into force 5 October 1978); 31U.S.T.333, T.I.A.S. No. 9614, reprinted in 16 I.L.M. 88 (1977).

[49] Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby Traps and Other Devices (Landmines Protocol II); U.NG.A. Doc. A/Conf.95/15 and Corr.1-5; reprinted in 19 I.L.M. 1534 (1980).

[50] See Salomao, supra note 36.

[51] Idem.

[52] OECD. The Economics of Environmental Security: Introduction, ENV/EPOC/GEEI(98)3/FINAL, 2 February 1999.

[53] Idem at 4.

[54] International Committee of the Red Cross, What is International Humanitarian Law? At <http://www.icrc.org/icrceng.nsf/c1256212004ce24e4125621200524882/df04f8960406de304125662800340676?OpenDocument>

[55] See Best, supra note 2 at 286.

[56] Idem.

[57] UNGA RES. 31/72, TIAS 9614, at <http://www.tufts.edu/fletcher/multi/texts/BH700.txt>

[58] See Best, supra note 2 at 287.

[59] Article 54(2) of Protocol I also may be applicable in some cases. It states in pertinent part: "It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population...." Thus, destroying fields of crops to prevent the enemy using it for cover is permissible, but destroying them to prevent the enemy from consuming the crops is forbidden." ICRC Commentary on the 1977 Additional Protocols, p. 655. The ICRC summarizes the gist of Article 54(2): "....the meaning is clear: the objects indicated must be respected in order to guarantee the survival of the population, unless....military necessity requires that they be attacked, destroyed, removed or rendered useless." Ibid., p. 656. As cited in The arms project of Human Rights Watch, Landmines, a Deadly Legacy, ( U.S.A., 1993), at 310. n. 123.

[60] Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949, and Related to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 12 December 1977, 1125 U.NT.S., 6 U.S.T. 3516. Article 35(3).

[61] See Landmines, supra note 7 at 273.

[62] International Campaign To Ban Landmines, Nations Refusing To Ban Landmines Meet Again, ICBL Press Release, Geneva, 14 December 1999 at 1.

[63] Mathews, Jessica. Power Shift, Foreign Affairs, January-February 1997, Volume 76, Number 1 at 50.

[64] Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade of Canada, Seeds of Terror, Seeds of Hope: 1998-1999 Report on the Canadian Landmine Fund

[65] Report of the First Meeting of the Standing Committee of Experts on Mine Clearance, Geneva, 13-15 September 1999, Summary and Action Points, issued by the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining, at 4.

[66] See <http://www.gichd.ch/docs/studies/index.htm>

[67] See <http://www.gichd.ch/docs/studies/index.htm>

[68] Idem.

[69] See the Terms of Reference for the study on GICHD web site at <http://www.gichd.ch/docs/studies/index.htm>

---

Page actions: > Translate page > Monitor page > Print page > Recommend this page to a friend!

E-mail: Webmaster: Webversion/Compilation © International Campaign to Ban Landmines - www.icbl.org Read our Copyright Policy and Privacy/Spam policy www.icbl.org/resources/document/lm_environment.php3 Page Last Modified: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 09:13 GMT