Non-governmental organizations and the United
Nations have been involved in mine clearance since the late 1980s, emerging over
the last decade as key actors in efforts to reduce the threat landmines pose to
innocent civilians throughout the word. This has led to a new concept:
humanitarian mine action, which is an integrated approach to removing
landmines from the ground and reducing their disastrous impact on mine-affected
communities. Nobody knows how many mines there are in the ground, and that
number is not very relevant, despite the attention given to the issue. What is
relevant is how many people are affected by the presence of mines, which are
obstacles to post-conflict reconstruction and socio-economic re-development.
The Mine Ban Treaty and Mine Action
The Mine Ban Treaty is more than simply a ban on
antipersonnel landmines. It obligates each state party to clear all mined areas
within its jurisdiction or control within a ten-year period. A mined area is
defined as “an area which is dangerous due to the presence or the
suspected presence of mines.” This definition includes areas which are
suspected of being mined. This is an important provision, because the mere
suspicion that an area is mined can often have the same effect as if it actually
were mined, rendering it useless. Recognizing that it is likely not possible to
clear the worst affected areas within this period, the treaty contains a
provision that parties may apply for an extension of up to ten years, and
renewals if necessary.
Article 6 on International Cooperation and Assistance states the right of
each party to seek and receive assistance to the extent possible. It obligates
states parties to share and exchange knowledge, equipment and technology, and
those with the means to do so, are called upon to provide assistance for mine
clearance and other mine action programs. This article implies a responsibility
of the international community to provide funding and support for mine action
programs in mine-affected countries with limited resources. The implementation
of Article 6 will thus be crucial for the success of the Mine Ban Treaty, as it
is through this mechanism that funds for Mine Action will be secured.
By providing an action-oriented, scheduled, legal framework for international
co-operation on Mine Action, the Mine Ban Treaty represents a breakthrough in
the struggle against landmines. Apart from the many obvious operational
challenges that remain in removing the mines from the ground, the implementation
of the Mine Ban Treaty is the main challenge for the mine action community in
the coming years. From a mine-action-perspective, implementation and follow-up
to the Treaty present an opportunity to bring the landmine crisis under control
during the next decade, a major step towards the realization of a mine-free
world.
At the same time, implicit in the challenge is the pull between providing
humanitarian assistance while at the same time supporting the Treaty. When
governments violate their Treaty obligations, what impact – morally if not
legally – does this violation have in regard to Article 6? Does the
international community provide mine action assistance, in effect sanctioning
the violation of the Treaty, or does it withhold Article 6 assistance from
treaty violators and thus penalize the civilian population? Obviously, this is
a dilemma the international community must address.
The Numbers Issue
Landmines are a global problem, but the exact magnitude of the problem is
difficult to measure. Nobody knows how many mines are in the ground, nor how
many people are mine-affected, nor how large the areas are that could be
considered “mine infested.” At the same time, there has been a
misconception that baseline data on the scope, impact and size of the problem is
available to develop rational, concerted demining efforts. Unfortunately, this
is not the case.
Over the last four decades, large numbers of mines have been used in various
conflicts in much of the world. The majority of these mines were randomly laid,
with limited tactical rationale, and often deployed simply to terrorize and
demoralize local populations. In such circumstances, mines can be found
everywhere; in fields, in urban areas, along rivers, in orchards, surrounding
villages and on transport routes. Contrary to common belief, mines are as often
as not found in no predictable patterns, minefield maps are mostly non-existent
or too old or inaccurate to use, and local awareness of the location of
minefields is often poor.
This knowledge gap has resulted in debate over the number of landmines in the
ground, with estimates varying from 60 million to 200 million mines. These
numbers, in official government and United Nations documents, were an early
attempt to try to put contours on a situation many were just beginning to
grapple with. These “facts” repeated and reprinted became
“reality,” but now the international community is making a concerted
effort to collect more accurate information to reshape the picture.
From the perspective of mine action, the actual number of mines in the ground
is not as important as, for example, the number minefields and size and type of
areas affected, and the number of people affected. In this context, debate over
the number of mines in the ground is not all that relevant to the demining task
at hand. At the same time, some concept of a total figure is important to give
contours to the problem, and therefore, is useful to address. What is certain is
that nobody knows an exact number of mines in the ground, and that uncertainty
is actually a part of the problem.
A point of departure for any analysis of the number of mines in the ground is
to recognize that the numbers will never be anything but estimates. With the
expansion of mine action programs in mine affected areas around the world, along
with more comprehensive survey methods, it is likely that these estimates will
become more accurate over time. Until now the best working estimate can be
found in the U.S. State Department’s 1998 report, Hidden
Killers.[14] Case studies of 12
heavily affected countries, and updated information, led to a revised estimate
of number of mines in the ground for each of the 12 countries (both a high and
low estimate). From that number, a percentage was calculated to show the
difference between the UN estimates and those in Hidden Killers. This
formula gives a low estimate of approximately 59.7 million mines and a high
estimate of approximately 69.4 million mines in the
ground.[15]
These estimates represent a striking downward estimate of the global landmine
contamination, from 80-110 million to about 60-70 million. One reason for this
is more knowledge about the situation in the field, leading to reduced numbers.
For example, the estimated number of mines in Kuwait after the Gulf War was
approximately 7 million mines. In late 1995, after the termination of the major
mine clearance programs, the total turned out to be 1.7 million
mines.[16] Egypt has been presented
as the most heavily mine infested country in the world, with an estimated 23
million mines. A survey undertaken indicated that apparently all munitions in
Egypt had been designated as “mines.” Further analysis of
historical records showed that it was possible that around 1.5 million mines had
been laid in Egypt’s Western Desert, where the survey was conducted, with
another estimated half million mines along Egypt’s eastern borders. This
gives a more conservative estimate of about 2 million, not 23 million, mines in
Egyptian soil. The accuracy of either assessment cannot be confirmed, but the
difference is striking.[17]
Numbers and the Real Impact
As discussed above, the actual number of mines in
the ground does not necessarily determine the impact on a population. A far more
important question is the number of people affected by the landmine
threat in their daily lives. For most people living in mine affected areas, the
mere suspicion that an area is mined can render it useless. In 1996 Norwegian
People’s Aid cleared a village in Mozambique, after it had been abandoned
by the entire population of around 10,000 villagers due to alleged mine
infestation. After three months of work, the deminers found four mines. Four
mines had denied access to land and caused the migration of 10,000 people
The lives directly affected is also a horrific measure. The Landmine Monitor
country reports indicate a decrease in the number of landmine victims in
Afghanistan, Bosnia, Cambodia, Croatia, Eritrea, Mozambique and Somaliland over
the past years. However, it is too early and data is too inconclusive to
conclude that this decrease represents a global trend.
Focusing on mines alone is also an inaccurate indicator because this excludes
unexploded ordnance (UXOs). Unexploded munitions, grenades and bombs often are
an even larger problem than mines in areas where heavy and continuous fighting
has occurred. Probably as many as 10 per cent of explosives used in armed
conflicts do not explode, and these UXOs must be handled like mines,
complicating the demining process. Demining agencies normally encounter a larger
number of UXOs than mines in mine clearance operations and if these weapons were
to be included with mines in global estimates, the level of global contamination
would be hard to contemplate.
As for land denied by the presence of landmines, because of insufficient
surveys of mined areas, there are no global estimates. Based on a recent,
comprehensive survey in Afghanistan by the non-governmental organization Mine
Clearance Planning Agency, there are around 860 square kilometers of mined areas
affecting more than 1,500 villages. Of these mined areas 465 square kilometers
have been classified as areas of high priority for clearance. These figures may
or may not be exemplary of other mine affected areas. Clearly, surveys
comparable to those in Afghanistan must be carried out in other heavily
contaminated countries. But an equally more important question is how many
people are affected in their daily lives by these mined areas?
Humanitarian Mine Action: Features And Principles
Humanitarian mine action is a comprehensive,
structured approach to deal with mine and UXO contamination, including survey
assessment, mine clearance, mine awareness, and victim assistance. These
activities are carried out to reduce the threat posed by landmines to
individuals and communities in mine infested areas, as well as to assist mine
victims. Humanitarian mine action should work to create indigenous capacity in
mine affected communities, because it is part of their long-term
development.
Mine action includes four complementary parts: Different levels of survey,
assessments and marking; mine clearance; mine awareness; and victim assistance.
These four parts are complementary, but together they constitute both the
necessary and sufficient requirements for a successful mine action strategy. A
mine action project cycle can be divided into three phases, and all three must
be fulfilled to ensure that the overall objectives of the programs are reached.
These phases are: Pre-mine-clearance--identifying beneficiaries and clarifying
all legal and entitlement aspects; mine clearance which starts after all issues
in the first phase are resolved; and finally the post-mine clearance phase to
ensure that the initial objectives of the project have been reached.
Mines represent a fundamental obstacle to the development of war torn
societies and must be understood in a larger developmental context. In any
humanitarian mine clearance operation, questions must be asked such as: What
areas should be prioritized in order to help war torn societies on their road to
sustainable development? Who will benefit from the mine clearance? What will
happen to the cleared areas after demining is completed? For NGOs working in
humanitarian mine action, the activities involved are not just about getting the
mines out of the ground, but about doing so in a manner which facilitates
post-conflict socio-economic development.
Three NGOs -- Handicap International, Mines Advisory Group and Norwegian
People’s Aid -- represent a substantial part of the world’s
humanitarian demining capacity. These agencies currently employ around 4,000
local experts in mine survey, mine marking, mine clearance and mine risk
education programs in 20 heavily affected countries. Together the agencies have
formulated a joint statement of principles to guide further work and development
of methods related to humanitarian mine action. These principles include the
following:
- the need for objective analysis of the requirements of affected
communities, and the structuring and conduct of operations to meet these
requirements;
- the need to take account of cultural sensitivities;
a need for a responsible approach to the welfare of personnel employed by
these agencies involved in mine action;
- a commitment to the continued development of existing methods and to
continued improvement of quality;
- a realistic and objective approach to new mine clearance technologies and
methods;
- the need to avoid impractical, “quick-fix solutions;” and
- the need to support the principle of transfer of capacity to the affected
communities.[18]
In general, from the perspective of these three NGOs, these principles
outline the fundamentals of humanitarian mine action. They advocate an approach
which emphasizes the appropriate sequencing of assistance to the affected
communities, based on the generation of solid baseline data before projects are
implemented. The reality is that too often this sequence is not followed. Mine
action programs that focus on emergency situations sometimes end up trying to
gather basic information for preplanning long after work has already started.
Ideally, baseline data should be the result of a level one survey which picks up
where an assessment missions ends, and seeks to get an overview of the situation
before large scale mine awareness and mine clearance activities are initiated.
Commercial Contracting And Humanitarian Mine Clearance
There is a fundamental distinction between military
and humanitarian mine clearance. In principle, military units can clear mines to
the same standards as humanitarian mine clearance agencies. However, as one
commentator put it, mine clearance can be quick or it can be thorough - it
cannot be both.[19] The United
Nations international humanitarian standard clearance rate is 99.6 percent of
mines cleared. The UN standard was established to facilitate commercial
contracting.[20]
Humanitarian mine clearance is a relatively new approach to the problem of
landmine infestation that dates from mine clearance operations in Afghanistan
and in Kuwait after the Gulf
War.[21] Humanitarian mine clearance
is evolving with respect to the actors involved and methods and technology used,
but remains characterized by its aim of clearing all the mines in a minefield.
The 99.6 per cent standard is not sufficient for humanitarian deminers because
it leaves four mines in the ground for every one thousand cleared. Humanitarian
mine clearance therefore operates with quite different parameters than that of
commercial operators and the military, with minefields cleared to humanitarian
standards and with security for deminers.
In principle, commercial contractors can work to the same standards as
humanitarian agencies. It is a question of priorities: commercial contractors
run the risk of making the same priorities as military units, prioritizing time
over clearance rate, in order to increase profit. Humanitarian mine clearance
agencies acknowledge the current need for commercial contractors, because the
humanitarian mine clearance capacity is still not sufficiently developed to
undertake mine clearance in many heavily infested areas. Commercial contractors
can undertake mine clearance missions in areas where humanitarian agencies do
not have capacity to clear specific areas.
What is needed, is a better regime to control and evaluate the quality of
commercial mine clearance operations. The standard for the mine action community
is described in the International Standards for Humanitarian Mine Clearance and
should be adhered to by any organization or contractor involved in such
clearance operations.[22] These
standards do not include most of the methods used by commercial contractors,
such as mechanical mine clearance and the use of dogs. Additional steps to
ensure the quality of implementation include the adoption of principles similar
to those of MAG, NPA, and HI as stated in UN’s policy document “Mine
Action and Effective
Coordination.”[23]
In terms of cost-effectiveness in operations, it is instructive to compare
the Kuwaiti experience (the most comprehensive commercial demining operation to
date) with that of Afghanistan. The cost of mine clearance in Kuwait was
$961,538 per square kilometer ($700 million/728Km²). It involved 4,000
expatriate deminers, 84 of whom were killed during the operation.. Uncleared
mines were found during quality assurance inspections, and now large areas are
being resurveyed and may need to be
recleared.[24] The Mine Action
Program for Afghanistan (MAPA), currently employs around 4,000 individuals. The
vast majority are local staff, which means that a considerable indigenous mine
action capacity has been developed. Approximately $90.1 million has been spent
for mine clearance in Afghanistan since the start of the program in 1990. Around
145 square kilometers have been cleared in this period or $621,889 per square
kilometer, or $339,649 less per Km² than in Kuwait.
Funding For Humanitarian Mine Action
The issue of funding for humanitarian mine action is
complex, but one thing is certain; humanitarian mine action programs are
underfunded, and often funding choices do not support the long-term integrated
approach needed in sustainable humanitarian mine action. Some major donors, like
the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, favor private and
commercial enterprises in their contracting of humanitarian projects, either for
political reasons or for alleged higher cost-efficiency. Already some key mine
action NGOs, like the British MAG, are reporting the possible closure of
programs due to lack of funds. Others are facing obstacles created by short-term
funding priorities of donors, and highly detailed requirements on the use of the
funds.
Another “numbers issue” in the movement to eliminate landmines is
trying to determine exactly how much money has been spent on mine action over
the last decade. During the signing of the Mine Ban Treaty in Ottawa in December
1997, a total figure of US$500 million was pledged by various donors for mine
action. The pledges were welcome – but they also were broad and
unspecified, making them hard to track. There are increasing efforts to clearly
map out where funds are going, and how much has been spent, and for what
specific purposes. The research for this report is one such attempt, and the
ongoing Landmine Monitor process will be an important tool in the years to come.
But in attempting to compile – and understand the implications of –
the figures, it is very clear that more transparency and standardization of
reporting is essential.
One report prepared for the UN Mine Action Support Group showing bilateral
donor mine action support as of mid-November 1998 lists donor figures for
countries, projects funded and amounts. The total committed adds up to roughly
US$430 million for mine action, but since the entries are not time-specific, and
some are aggregate figures for several fiscal years, a complete understanding of
the funding picture is distorted. Additionally, descriptions of projects funded
are broad and unclear and do not provide criteria for any real analysis.
A Canadian Government report notes that ten donor countries have started 98
new mine action programs in 25 countries in the past 12 months, with no more
detail.[25] On their website, the
UN Voluntary Trust Fund indicates that US$49 million have been pledged and spent
for mine action programs for the 4-year period between 1994-1998 The U.S.
reports that it alone has gone from $10 million for mine action programs in five
countries in 1993 to $92 million for 21 countries in 1998; but as many of the
programs are military-to-military demining training it is unclear how much of
the money actually goes to lifting mines out of the ground.
In short, the picture is confusing. With no common understanding for
transparent reporting on funds for mine action, it is difficult to impossible to
monitor the reality of funding for mine action programs. Without transparent
reporting it becomes difficult at best to measure progress. As this is an
important aspect of the implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty, these issues must
be addressed. So that data collected can generate measurable and comparable
figures, reporting of funds for mine action should be transparent. At a
minimum, such reporting should specify donor country/agency, recipient country,
project description, implementing agency, and funding period; reports should
also indicate what percentage of the funds actually apply to in-country
programs.
There has been an increase in funding for humanitarian mine action programs
after the Mine Ban Treaty, more donors are involved, and more funds are provided
for the continuation of already existing programs, and for initiating new
projects.
However, it is clear that the current funding is still insufficient. One
suggestion to increase mine action support is that countries donate one per cent
of their defense budgets for mine action projects. Between 1988 and 1998, the
global annual average for defense spending was U.S.$74
billion.[26] One percent of that
figure would provide U.S.$740 million for mine action annually. With such a
commitment, the problem could truly be resolved in years, not decades.
Technology, Research and Development, Funding and Humanitarian Mine
Clearance
The technology and methodologies available today for
detecting and destroying landmines do not differ much from post-W.W.II reality.
Available tools make mine clearance time-consuming and by many measures
“inefficient.” With the heightened awareness of the mine problem,
many research and development projects have begun to compete for R&D monies
pledged. But the “mantra” of humanitarian mine clearers is that any
new technology must make demining “safer, faster, cheaper” and
currently there are a number of efforts to find the ultimate solution to the
problem. To date, none of the proposed hi-tech solutions have found their way
into the field, although a few are promising.
There are a number of expensive and imaginative R&D projects which have
raised some concerns in the humanitarian mine clearance community as they appear
to be driven by interests other than humanitarian concerns. Hi-tech projects and
solutions must be evaluated based on humanitarian needs, affordability and
sustainability. The wide range of terrain in which mine action takes places
makes it very difficult to design equipment in a laboratory or on the basis of
limited field trials. It is highly likely that these devices, when ready for the
field, will only be useable as an additional asset to the existing “tool
box” of manual, mechanical and mine dog detection and clearance.
Humanitarian mine clearance agencies support the development of new
technologies as long as these efforts do not divert funds from the ongoing mine
action efforts. There should be donor transparency concerning investments in
R&D for humanitarian mine action purposes, both in terms of the amounts
spent and the guiding principles for their spending. Greater effort at
co-ordination is needed to avoid duplication of R&D efforts and to ensure
that humanitarian end-user requirements are being considered. In fact, in order
to improve the effectiveness of their efforts, the R&D community should
actively seek out and listen to the advice of the end users. Above all, the main
focus must be on improving current methods in tandem with efforts to further
develop and enforce the principles for humanitarian demining.
Lack of baseline data
As already discussed, there is too little
information on the location of dangerous areas and minefields. For the
international community to respond to this crisis in a rapid and cost-effective
manner, a primary objective must be to acquire solid baseline data for the
planning and implementation of humanitarian mine action. The baseline is
normally established through different levels of mine surveys. To date, few of
the most affected countries have been adequately surveyed. There are many
reasons why this important first step has not been taken. First, many of the
agencies involved in humanitarian mine action were initially undertaking
emergency demining for refugee repatriation and other short-term objectives. The
need for surveys has emerged as operations have entered longer-term commitments.
Second, as a demining activity, surveys are not as easily understood or
supported by the donors, compared to the very concrete activity of removing
landmines.
As the work of humanitarian mine action has developed over the last few
years, the need for coordinated surveys has become clear. In 1997, a group of
NGOs met in Brussels to share experiences and establish proper methods and
survey formats in order to get better baseline data for mine action operations.
The result of this meeting was the establishment of the Global Level 1 Survey
Working Group. This NGO initiative is one of the most important recent
contributions to the future efforts in mine action world wide. (See Global
Landmine Survey Program report in the appendices).
Challenges For Humanitarian Mine Action
Mine action is a new field which has had to respond
to emergency aid issues, issues of individual rights and the demands of long
term development. Great strides have been made, yet despite much forward
movement, mine action efforts have come under recent criticism. Questions have
been raised about the effectiveness of the resources spent in producing concrete
and measurable results in the affected
communities.[27] However, the lack
of pre-existing data on the scope, size and impact of the problem have made it
difficult to establish parameters for the measurement of the effectiveness of
mine action. Considerable work remains to be done in order to create generally
accepted measures of success; and efforts need to continue to explain to the
international community generally, and to the donor community in particular, why
mine action is a long-term commitment.
There are a number of reasons for this present shortage of the so called
socio-economic indicators. One is the relative youth of co-ordinated mine
action efforts and the difficulties of translating how the mine-problem really
affects people and communities world-wide into “measurables.” The
lack of baseline data has been a major factor and trying to calculate comparable
figures across countries make such determinations that much more difficult.
Other reasons for the lack of result parameters can be related to the fact that
involved actors so far have been reluctant to use economic variables as a
measurement of success in fear of putting a price on people’s lives and
limbs.
Furthermore; there are significant practical problems in trying to measure
effects of demining. Comparisons between various demining operations is
particularly difficult. For example, two teams clearing the same amount of
square meters, but working under different conditions will inevitably produce
different results. For these reasons, several complementary measurements of
success should be used when evaluating the effectiveness of humanitarian
demining.
In the history of mine action only one study of the socio-economic impact of
mine action operations has been made: the Mine Clearance Planning Agency (MCPA)
study in Afghanistan from October
1998.[28] In the near future, the
mine-action community must take necessary measures for producing more studies
like the Afghan study. Donors will require better indicators to measure the
effect of mine-action programs, linked more closely to long-term development
programs. Establishing fixed variables to serve this purpose is a complex
process and should involve social scientists, economists and other academics in
co-operation with the mine action community. This process is crucial to maintain
future donor support and -interest in humanitarian mine action. Currently there
is some activity and co-operation in this field between various NGOs involved in
humanitarian work.
Mine Awareness
Mine awareness involves information programs to
reduce the threat of landmines to affected communities. Through various
educational mechanisms that focus on changing risk behaviour, and creating
knowledge of safety measures, mine awareness seeks to reduce the number of
landmine victims. Mine awareness is needed in mine affected areas, prior and
parallel to demining programs. In heavily mined countries, demining can take
years to complete. The local population must learn how to live their daily lives
in mine and UXO infested areas until the threat is
removed.[29]
There are some common elements noticeable in mine affected communities
throughout the world but more significant are the differences. This means that
all mine awareness campaigns have some common elements, but each campaign must
be adapted to local needs, culture and traditions. Fieldwork must precede
development of any mine awareness campaign, in order to adapt the content and
form of messages to the needs of the local population. After conducting
fieldwork and gathering information about behavior and victims in a given area,
mine awareness messages can be tailored to the area and target group in
question. While specific content might vary, universal points in any mine
awareness campaign must include knowledge of the threat; means of protecting
yourself and others from the threat; and how to react if you unknowingly enter a
mined area.[30]
The dominant method for mine awareness is through direct contact with
affected communities. This normally means training of local trainers who visit
different communities where they conduct courses in refugee camps, villages,
schools or in any other place where people can be gathered to participate in
training. Normally materials include dummy mines and UXOs, posters with mine
awareness messages and illustrations, leaflets, brochures, photographs, audio
tapes, videos. Furthermore, mine awareness messages can be incorporated in
theater performances, dance or games in which the target group can actively
participate. The methods to be used in a specific mine infested area must be
decided after fieldwork (needs-assessment), and various approaches should
normally be tested on a part of the target group before a full scale mine
awareness campaign is implemented.
Although the above mentioned steps remain the core activities, access to mass
media is in most cases crucial for dispersing mine awareness messages. One way
of doing this is by using posters with mine awareness messages along major
transportation routes or handing out mine awareness brochures or leaflets to
mine affected communities. Television and radio spots can also be used with
success. Mass media has the advantage of reaching out to a vast number of
people, at relatively low costs, but none of the mass media approaches combined
can replace direct mine awareness courses in content and output with respect to
learning. Mass media can best function as a support to a community based
approach.
Several indicators can be used to measure the success of a mine awareness
campaign. As is the case for mine clearance, the factors involved are normally
efficiency of the mine awareness campaign in the disposition of funds and how
they are spent, planning, training of instructors and implementation of
information strategies. Information on program implementation is often gathered
and submitted as a measure of success. More critical measures should be to what
extent have people changed behavior patterns as a result of mine awareness,
i.e., are target groups avoiding high-risk behavior, incorporating mine
awareness messages they have learned in their daily lives, fluctuations in
accident and injury rates. For accuracy in monitoring and evaluation, it is
important to take into account other factors which may contribute to
fluctuations in casualty statistics. The movement of refugees and internally
displaced persons, security initiatives, ongoing demining, and the need for
people to work the land during planting or harvest seasons influence mine
accident rates, as does the level of mine awareness achieved by a population
regardless of the presence or absence of an awareness program. If examined
carefully and objectively, casualty rates can particularly provide important
evidence of the overall effectiveness of a program.
[14]U.S. Department of State,
Hidden Killers: the Global Demining Crisis, (Washington D.C.: U.S.
Department of State Publication 190575, 1998); see also UN Landmine Database:
www.un.org/Depts/Landmines/
[15]The percentage was arrived at
by taking the difference, in turn, between the UN estimate and the Hidden
Killers 1998 low and high estimates, then averaging the sum of these two and
taking the result as a percentage of the UN estimate. The Hidden Killers
derived a 30 percent reduction in the number of landmines from the UN estimate,
by averaging the percentage difference for the 12 countries. It should be noted
that this flat 30 percent factor is hardly a factor that is accepted in the mine
action community.
[16]Eddie Banks,
Brassey’s Essential Guide to Anti Personnel Landmines, (London:
Brassey’s,1997), p. 6.
[17]Colin King, (ed.)
Jane’s Mines and Mine Clearance,(Surrey: Jane’s Information
Group Limited, Third edition, 1998-99),p. 13.
[18]Handicap International, Mines
Advisory Group and Norwegian People’s Aid, Portfolio of Mine-related
Projects 1998-.
[19]Mike Croll, The History of
Landmines (Great Britain: Leo Cooper Barnsley, 1998), p. 92.
[20]Don Hubert, “The
Challenge of Humanitarian Demining”, in Cameron, Maxwell A. et al To
Walk Without Fear. The Global Movement to Ban Landmines, (Toronto:Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 315.
[21]Patrick Blagden, “The
Evolution of Mine Clearance Operations Since 1991,” in Barlow, Dennis
et al., Humanitarian Demining Information Center. James Madison University,
Sustainable Humanitarian Demining: Trends, Techniques & Technologies,
(Verona, Virginia: Mid Valley Press, 1997).
[22]United Nations
International Standards for Humanitarian Mine Clearance Operations, (New
York: Mine Clearance Policy Unit, DHA, United Nations).
[27]“It’s Not a
Pretty Picture,” Newsweek, International Issue, 8. March 1999.
[28]United Nations Mine Action
Program for Afghanistan, Socio-Economic Impact Study of Mine Action
Operations Afghanistan, Interim Report by Mine Clearance Planning Agency,
October 1998.
[29]An important point of
departure for a mine awareness program, is to define the most common causes of
mine accidents in the area in question. For a comprehensive list, see UNICEF,
International Guidelines for Mine Awareness Education, Final Draft, 26
January 1999. This much-needed initiative by UNICEF seeks to explore some common
elements that need to be addressed in order to do a mine awareness campaign. A
problem has been that mine awareness campaigns have often been poorly structured
and ad hoc, not involving mine affected communities themselves in the
awareness process. See also the UNICEF activity report in the appendix.
About Us
Our Research Products