Humanitarian
Mine Action (HMA) was developed as a response to the concern about the impact of
landmines on people and communities. HMA works to minimize that impact –
both as a threat to life and limb and as an impediment to post-conflict
reconstruction and development. HMA activities include survey and assessment;
marking, mapping and clearing of mines; mine awareness; and quality
assurance.[25] HMA practitioners
prefer to not focus on the number of mines removed and square meters of land
cleared as the sole – or even most meaningful – measure of progress,
as such figures often give little real feel for the impact of mine action on
communities.
HMA is not only about removing mines, but involves a focus on
the civilians living with mines. HMA programs emphasize priority setting based
on civilian needs and with humanitarian development as a final goal. In the year
2000, there was increased attention to the development aspect of mine action
through studies by the UN and NGOs; there were also more assessments of mined
areas, and more evaluations of clearance operations. The result is an
improvement of the techniques necessary to address the humanitarian imperative
and make mine action operations more cost-efficient.
In this regard, mine
action NGOs such as Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA) and Mines Advisory Group
(MAG) are attempting to develop methods to be able to prioritize different
minefields, through “Task Impact Assessment.” NPA is developing
procedures to conduct such assessments and task selection procedures where the
objective is to meet the needs of a target group. Through Task Impact Assessment
procedures the aim is to ensure priority setting in order to facilitate and
support post-demining activities to improve living conditions for the target
group.
Another significant measure of progress in 2000 is the conclusion of
the groundbreaking Landmine Impact Survey in Yemen. The survey was completed in
July 2000 and the Yemeni government is already receiving funding from various
countries to help develop a national mine action plan.
The information in
this section is based upon data collected by Landmine Monitor researchers for
Landmine Monitor Report 2001; various UN documents and reports;
information from mine action agencies; media reports; and findings from
Landmine Monitor Reports 1999 and 2000.
Landmine Problem
Landmine Monitor finds that 90 countries in the
world are affected by landmines or unexploded ordnance (UXO). In the past year,
Bulgaria has completed clearance of its landmines and thus been removed from the
affected list; Slovenia has clarified its status as mine-free and also been
removed from the affected list. New mine laying in FYR Macedonia and Uzbekistan
has resulted in their being classified as mine-affected. Also, a new survey
carried out in El Salvador, which had previously declared itself mine-free, has
identified 53 mine and UXO affected sites in that
country.[26]
Landmine/UXO Problem in the World Today
Africa
Americas
Asia-Pacific
Europe/ Central Asia
Middle East/
North Africa
Angola
Chile
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Burundi
Colombia
Bangladesh
Armenia
Egypt
Chad
Costa Rica
Burma
Azerbaijan
Iran
Congo-Brazz.
Cuba
Cambodia
Belarus
Iraq
DR Congo
Ecuador
China
Bosnia & Herz.
Israel
Djibouti
El Salvador
India
Croatia
Jordan
Eritrea
Guatemala
North Korea
Cyprus
Kuwait
Ethiopia
Honduras
South Korea
Czech Republic
Lebanon
Guinea-Bissau
Nicaragua
Laos
Denmark
Libya
Kenya
Peru
Mongolia
Estonia
Morocco
Liberia
Falkland/Malvinas
Nepal
Georgia
Oman
Malawi
Pakistan
Greece
Syria
Mauritania
Philippines
Kyrgyzstan
Tunisia
Mozambique
Sri Lanka
Latvia
Yemen
Namibia
Thailand
Lithuania
Golan Heights
Niger
Vietnam
FYR Macedonia
Northern Iraq
Rwanda
Taiwan
Moldova
Palestine
Senegal
Poland
Western Sahara
Sierra Leone
Russia
Somalia
Tajikistan
Sudan
Turkey
Swaziland
Ukraine
Tanzania
Uzbekistan
Uganda
Yugoslavia
Zambia
Abkhazia
Zimbabwe
Chechnya
Somaliland
Kosovo
Nagorno-Karabakh
In addition to these countries, Landmine Monitor also monitors and
reports on eleven regions because of their mine-affected status: Abkhazia,
Chechnya, Falkland/Malvinas, Golan Heights, Northern Iraq (Iraqi Kurdistan),
Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh, Palestine, Somaliland, Taiwan and Western Sahara.
Impact Survey and Assessment
From country to country, there is a huge difference
in the levels of contamination and also how mines affect development. The
recognition that different countries are affected in different ways and degrees
helps guide the appropriate response in terms of HMA. In order to evaluate the
urgency of need for humanitarian mine action operations, it is important to
determine the degree to which mines represent a problem in each mine-affected
country.
One way of measuring the need for humanitarian mine action is
through a Landmine Impact Survey, a method for assessing a country’s
landmine problem, which has been developed by the Survey Working Group. Through
systematic gathering of information to gauge the social and economic impact that
landmines have on communities, the survey will lead to a prioritization of
community needs and help inform the allocation of mine action resources.
Additionally, the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS) undertakes
assessment missions in various countries to evaluate the scope and impact of
landmines, and to recommend appropriate responses.
In total, 30 countries as
well as Abkhazia and Kosovo have undergone landmine assessments and/or surveys
since 1997. These assessments have included missions by UNMAS and other
concerned UN agencies and departments, surveys conducted by NGOs and local
agencies, and Landmine Impact Surveys conducted by the Survey Action Center
(SAC).
Landmine Impact Surveys have been completed in Yemen (reported in
Landmine Monitor Report 2000), Thailand, Chad and Mozambique. In Yemen,
SAC subcontracted Mine Clearance Planning Agency (Afghanistan) to implement the
survey. In Thailand, SAC subcontracted Norwegian People’s Aid to
implement the survey in cooperation with the Thailand Mine Action Center (TMAC).
In Chad, SAC subcontracted Handicap International to implement the survey. In
Mozambique, the Canadian government directly funded the Canadian International
Demining Corps to conduct the survey. In Kosovo, SAC conducted a modified
Landmine Impact Survey.
In Afghanistan, SAC, MCPA, the Mine Action Program
for Afghanistan, Cranfield University’s Mine Action Management Program and
the Geneva International Center for Humanitarian Demining have begun work on a
Landmine Impact Survey. In Nicaragua, the OAS has begun introducing the
Information Management System for Mine Action (IMSMA) in order to collect
information on mine-affected areas, and SAC is in the process of conducting a
landmine impact analysis, in cooperation with the OAS. SAC and VVAF are
conducting a Landmine Impact Survey of Vietnam.
In countries such as
Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Lebanon and Somalia, advance survey missions
have been conducted and in these countries there are plans to follow up with
Landmine Impact Surveys in near future. MAG has conducted an assessment mission
to Uganda. In Western Sahara there is a plan for a level one survey conduced
jointly by NPA and Medico International. Also in Ethiopia and Eritrea there are
discussions of undertaking Landmine Impact Surveys. Additionally, HI and SAC are
exploring involvement in Senegal and Guinea Bissau.
UNMAS is, among other
things, responsible for assessments and monitoring of the global landmine
threat. In 2000/2001 UNMAS has carried out assessment or fact-finding missions
to Belarus, Chad, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia/Abkhazia, Lebanon,
Nicaragua, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka and Zambia. As a natural follow-up after
assessment missions, level one surveys are planned for the countries to identify
the location and impact of mines and mine suspected areas.
Some countries
remain in conflict, making assessments difficult if not impossible. For
example: in Angola three provinces are partly without access due to the security
situation; Chechnya continues to experience intense fighting, making assessment
impossible; in Colombia, guerrilla groups control significant territory, and
continue to use antipersonnel mines extensively; in Burma there are no reliable
numbers of the mines planted or about the amount of land affected because of the
situation in the country.
Mine Clearance
In mine-affected countries, the response to the
problem varies. There may be a variety of responses, or combination thereof,
including humanitarian mine clearance, clearance by military or civil defense
forces, as well as commercially-oriented operations. In some cases one can also
find civilian clearance, which presents a significant risk for the individual,
but many times is the result of basic survival needs. This is especially the
case in Cambodia where civilian clearing is widespread and, first and foremost,
due to basic needs for livelihood.
The International Mine Action Standards
(IMAS) have been developed to improve safety and efficiency in mine action by
providing guidance, by establishing principles and, in some cases, by defining
international requirements and specifications. NGOs involved in mine clearance
have commonly been in the forefront of developing a comprehensive understanding
of demining, including, for example, the use of the term “Mine
Action” opposed to mine clearance, involving affected populations in
decision-making and intended civilian use of cleared land, as formulated in the
NGO-created “Bad Honnef
Guidelines.”[27] Various
forms of impact assessments are increasingly valued as useful tools for
analyzing community needs in order to set priorities for clearance as well as
for post-demining evaluation.
In some countries the military conducts
mine clearance with military objectives in mind, or clears minor areas with
little impact on civilians. However, in other countries, the military carries
out clearance operations based on national strategic goals and with positive
impact on the civilians in the country. UN policy on the military role is:
“To ensure its neutrality, the United Nations has determined that
training or support for mine action will not, in principle, be provided to the
militaries of mine-contaminated countries in such circumstances. However, the
United Nations is prepared to support Government mine action programmes which
include collaborative arrangements with the militaries when such arrangements
are clearly defined and when the overall responsibility for coordinating mine
action and setting priorities for mine action rests with the national/local
civilian authorities.”[28]
In Thailand, the army has cooperated constructively and positively with NPA
and is undertaking clearance based on results of the Landmine Impact Survey. In
Latin America, the military conducts mine clearance with coordination and
surpervision from the OAS AIMCA program and with training and certification from
the IADB Mission for Mine Clearance in Central America (MARMINCA).
During
2000 and early 2001, mine clearance operations were carried out in 76 countries
and regions: Abkhazia, Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Belarus, Burma Myanmar, Cambodia, Chad,
Chechnya, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Djibouti, DRC, Ecuador,
Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Estonia, Georgia, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea Bissau,
Honduras, India, Iraqi Kurdistan, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Kenya, Kosovo,
Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lao PDR, Liberia, Libya, Lithuania, FYR Macedonia,
Mauritania, Moldova, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nagorno-Karabakh, Namibia, Nepal,
Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Russia, Rwanda, Senegal,
Somaliland, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Swaziland, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Thailand,
Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, Vietnam, Western Sahara, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia,
and Zimbabwe.
This number includes all kinds of clearance – landmine
clearance, clearance of UXO, sporadic clearance, clearance for military
purposes. Compared with last year’s Landmine Monitor reporting, there are
three more countries that have reported some kind of clearance, including the DR
Congo, where Handicap International (Belgium) started a mine clearance program
in March 2001, Guinea Bissau, and Kyrgyzstan.
Humanitarian Mine Action is
clearance for humanitarian needs; civilians are the beneficiaries of the
clearance programs. Such HMA operations can be undertaken by NGOs, as in
Afghanistan, or by the army as in Thailand, or through a UN agency in support of
national capacities, most commonly, by UNDP and UNOPS. UNOPS serves as an
executing agency for both UNMAS and UNDP, operating today in 13 countries. One
example is Azerbaijan where UNDP is financing the Azerbaijan Mine Action
Program, together with the government. In Northern Iraq/Iraqi Kurdistan UNOPS
has managed the northern Iraq Mine Action Program since 1997.
In 2000 and
early 2001, thirty-four countries and regions have reported some kind of HMA
program, including Abkhazia, Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan, Angola, Bosnia
and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Chad, Costa Rica, Croatia, DR Congo, Ecuador,
Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Guinea Bissau, Honduras, Iraqi Kurdistan, Jordan,
Kosovo, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Moldova, Mozambique, Nagorno-Karabakh, Namibia,
Nicaragua, Rwanda, Somaliland, Sudan, Thailand, Vietnam, and Yemen.
This is
a decrease in the number of HMA programs reported last year and there are
various reasons for this. Sri Lanka had a UN Mine Action program, however, it
was suspended in April 2000 and then shut down the following month, due to
conflict. In Zimbabwe, there are now mainly commercial operations underway. In
Taiwan, mine clearance is currently going primarily for commercial needs.
Some results of the clearance operations in major humanitarian clearance
programs are given below, as an indicator of land released for post-demining
use. Although the number of items cleared and disposed gives very little
evidence of the qualitative results of HMA, it is an indication of the level of
contamination and also important data for the technical planning and
requirements of mine clearance operations.
Afghanistan: A total of 24
million square meters of mined and suspected mined land were cleared in 2000 and
in addition some 80 million m² of former battle areas were cleared of UXO
and other ammunition. A total of 13,542 antipersonnel mines, 636 antitank mines,
and 298,828 UXO were destroyed.
Cambodia: Some 32 million m² of
land containing 22,613 AT mines, 856 AP mines, and 61,589 various kinds of UXO
were cleared from previously suspected and confirmed contaminated lands, now
providing among other things, additional safe land for cultivation which in
Cambodia is a scarce resource.
Bosnia and Herzegovina: In BiH 1.7
million m² were declared to be mine-free, and 635 AP mines, 48 AT mines,
and 511 UXO were destroyed. Although Bosnia and Herzegovina has many
high-density minefields, one major problem is the low-density minefields
suspected to contain randomly-laid “nuisance” mines. Unfortunately,
these areas also have to be cleared, whether they are found to contain mines or
not.
Croatia: In 2000, the military and civil defense together with
national commercial companies under the supervision, coordination and tendering
of the Croatian Mine Action Center (CROMAC) cleared 9.8 million m², of
1,173 antipersonnel mines, 710 antitank mines and 789 UXO.
Mozambique:
In 2000, the area of land cleared was 5 million square meters, including over
317 kilometers of road. A total of 6,679 mines and 993 UXO were cleared and
destroyed.
Angola: In 2000, INAROEE reported that 1,335 AP mines,
fifty-one antitank mines and 75,017 UXOs were destroyed.
Kosovo: In
Kosovo the planned clearance activities for 2000 were exceeded. In 2000, 19.4
million square meters of land were cleared, including 10,713 AP mines, 3,920 AT
mines, 3,729 cluster bomblets (CBUs), and 9,643 UXO. UNMACC plans to complete
clearance of all known minefields and surface CBU by the end of 2001.
Coordination of Mine Action and Transparency
A national body responsible for mine action and
related issues is a prerequisite for coordination of mine action. An increasing
number of countries are developing Mine Action Centers (MACs), either within a
military framework or with varying degrees of civilian input. In 35 of the
mine-affected countries and regions today, one can find some body responsible
for coordination and implementation of mine action programs: Abkhazia,
Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia,
Chad, Costa Rica, Croatia, Djibouti – inaugurated in 2001, Ecuador,
Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Jordan,
Kosovo, Laos, Lebanon, Mauritania, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Pakistan,
Rwanda, Somaliland, Sudan, Thailand, Ukraine, Yemen, and Zambia.
In all but
five of these the body has a civilian structure and represents a mine action
center under some social or civilian ministries. In Estonia, Namibia, Pakistan,
Sudan, and Zambia, one can find military or a combined military/governmental
body responsible for mine clearance.
In the mine-affected countries and
regions where there are no coordinating bodies, this may imply either that there
is no clearance going on in the country or that clearance is conducted by the
military whenever there is a need for such an operation. In the Americas region,
the main institution for humanitarian demining operations is the OAS through its
AMICA program for coordinating operations, with assistance from the IADB
MARMINCA mission for training and certification activities. In Vietnam, a plan
for creating an agency has yet not been approved by the government. In the DR
Congo, UNMAS has recommended the establishment of a Mine Action Cell as a part
of the headquarters of MONUC (Mission de l’Organisation des Nations Unies
au Congo).
The degree to which civilian-structured centers are purely
civilian with priorities based on civilian and humanitarian needs is not clear,
and there remains a lack of transparency within some bodies – both related
to the prioritization process and impact assessments post-clearance. A
precondition for a mine action center based on humanitarian needs should be that
the center has a civilian structure and that the priorities for clearance are
based on humanitarian and development-oriented needs for people at large whether
at a national macro level or in line with community-based approaches.
A
national Mine Action Center is often supported through UNDP, which has been
active in supporting mine action centers based on the concept of local capacity
building. In 2000, UNDP reported being involved in such work in 15 countries and
regions, including Albania, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Chad,
Croatia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Laos, Lebanon, Mozambique,
Somalia/Somaliland, Thailand, and Yemen. In Angola, UNDP had to close down its
support program in August 2000 due to lack of funding. UNDP is responsible for
the development phase of the MAC after the cessation of a conflict or transition
from the emergency phase and normalization is taking place with transformation
to more development-oriented environments. During such emergencies or in
peacekeeping environments, UNMAS has primary responsibility for the initiation
and support of mine action activities, often in partnership with other relevant
agencies and departments. Examples of this include Kosovo and Eritrea, where
the mine action centers are under UNMAS auspices, and staffed by UNOPS.
Mine Action Planning and Priority Setting
Mine-affected countries and regions with a
formalized mine action plan with priorities developed and coordinated by mine
action centers, or indications of the on-going development of such mine action
plans, include: Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Cambodia, Chad, Costa Rica, Croatia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, South Korea,
Kosovo, Laos, Mauritania, Mozambique, Rwanda, Thailand, Ukraine, and Yemen.
In Yemen, the National Demining Commission developed a strategic national
plan and associated computer planning tool with a Survey Utilization Team
consisting of SAC, Mine Clearance Planning Agency, and Cranfield
University’s MAMP;
In Thailand, TMAC will develop a five-year Plan on Humanitarian Mine Action,
based on the results from the Impact Survey carried out during 2000/2001;
In Afghanistan, mine action plans are prepared by UN Mine Action Center for
Afghanistan (MACA) and five UN Regional Mine Action Centers (RMAC) with input
from all mine action NGOs and in consultation with UN agencies.
In Laos, UXO Lao is responsible for the national mine action program;
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Mine Action Centers report that clearance is
prioritized in relation to the return of refugees and IDPs, and to support
reconstruction of housing and related activities for economic sustainability,
such as the expansion of agricultural and grazing lands, infrastructure and
common areas.
Post-clearance Development and Land Use
There is still a great need for more and improved
information on post-clearance use of land. The lack of significant data is
largely due to the fact that it is a relatively new field within mine action.
However, as it is related to priorities for clearance, and the allocation and
efficient use of mine action resources, the need for such information continues
to grow. The procedures for post-demining assessments should ideally lie within
the mandate of mine action centers. Such procedures should contribute to
determining clearance conducted by NGOs and other agencies, but should be
developed and elaborated by all concerned parties, including beneficiaries,
operators, national MACs and donors in order to obtain transparency regarding
both the use of resources and appropriate post-clearance land use.
Priorities
for clearance can be decisive in what happens to areas after they have been
cleared. There is a need for transparent procedures for both prioritization and
for ensuring that cleared land is handed over to those stated as the intended
beneficiaries of HMA. Areas should be assessed both before and after clearance
in order to determine if clearance has met the HMA objectives of improving
living conditions and ensuring positive development in mined-affected areas.
Some examples of post-clearance evaluation activities follow.
In May 2001,
UNDP and GICHD published “A Study of Socio-Economic Approaches to Mine
Action.” The study focuses on the humanitarian imperative in mine action,
emphasizing that “all potential useful outputs of mine action”
should be considered, and not just the number of square meters cleared or mines
and UXO destroyed.[29] With case
studies from Kosovo, Laos and Mozambique, the report gives examples of three
different settings in which clearance operations take place – the
emergency, transition and development phases. The objective of the report was to
“identify social and economic analytical tools by which mine action
programs can be more effectively planned, managed and
evaluated.”[30]
In
Afghanistan, a study was conducted in order to measure the social and economic
impact of mines and mine action. This study reported substantial economic
benefits due to clearance in several areas. Afghanistan is also one of few
countries to date conducting post-clearance survey in areas demined measuring
both the social and the economic impact of clearance operations.
In Namibia,
there are no procedures to ensure that cleared land improves the situation for
those most in need. However, according to Namibia-based US Ambassador, Jeffrey
Bader, the local communities will benefit from clearance and the demining
project in Namibia has provided 1 million square meters of land for civilian
use.
In Azerbaijan, there are reports of how civilians benefit from
clearance operations. In the Fusili area covering about 40% of the country,
55,000 inhabitants returned to the district after clearance took place. Houses
have been rebuilt, schools opened, and many of the district’s roads
reported demined as well as rebuilt.
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, there are
still no clear procedures in order to ensure that cleared land benefits intended
target groups, but according to the set up of the two entity MACs and the BiH
MAC, it will generally be the municipality who will decide how to allocate the
cleared areas and also be responsible for priorities.
In Cambodia, a study on
the land cleared by CMAC shows that, in general, land has been distributed to
those needing it the most. HMA priority setting is linked to methods for
property claims and the establishment of landownership at the municipal as well
as regional level. After clearance there has been a significantly increased
sense of security as well as the ability for people to cultivate the land. The
Land Use Planning Unit was created to coordinate different actors in the process
of land use planning at the district level. Those involved include the
provincial departments of Rural Development, demining agencies, district
governors, the military, police, and NGOs.
Research and Development
Research and development (R&D) programs are
also a central part of the mine action initiatives. In order to eradicate the
landmine problem there is a need for continued improvement of techniques,
methods and procedures for mine clearance operations.
At the Second Meeting
of State Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty, it was recommended that measures should
be taken in order to enhance the testing and evaluation of mine clearance
equipment. On 17 July 2000, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the
European Commission, Canada, the United States, Belgium, the United Kingdom, the
Netherlands and Sweden in order to establish an International Test and
Evaluation Program (ITEP). The objectives of ITEP are to promote the development
of new technologies for humanitarian demining and to share information among
different actors.
Belgium is involved in several projects related to mine
clearance technology. In 2000, its support for R&D on new mine detection and
clearance technologies amounted to US$1,275,697. One of the projects that came
to an end in 2000 was the Airborne Minefield Detection Pilot Project coordinated
by the European Commission, several EU states and other organizations. The
results were not satisfactory and the project was criticized by many, both in
terms of financial costs and feasibility for mine detection. Another project in
Belgium is “PARADISE,” focusing on tools for demining based on
satellite images. There are plans for evaluation missions of the project in
Mozambique and Laos.
Denmark is another country involved in a number of
research and development programs. Apart from chairing the Inter-Nordic working
group for mine clearance equipment, and participating in the NATO engineer
working party, the main Danish initiative is the Nordic Demining Research
Forum.
In Croatia, CROMAC has several projects involving research and
development. A site has been established for testing new methods of mine
detection. The project, financed by the European Commission and managed by
CROMAC’s deputy director, has tested 29 metal detectors. CROMAC also ran
tests on several demining machines in 2000, including the Guzzler demining
machine, Oracle, Hydrema–Weimar, a MFV–1000 flail machine, and the
KMMCS–Kerber machine. The testing of the MV-3 machine – a three-ton
remotely controlled flail – began in December and was to be completed by
the end of January 2001.
In Cambodia several demining techniques have been
tested and used in demining operations. Demining machines such as the Finnish
flailing machines (SISU RA-14 DS) and the APS Command Vehicle (SISU XA-180), as
well as the locally produced Tempest machine have been used in various areas
with different results, also with increasing expectations for mechanically-run
demining operations. Cambodia receives funding and technical assistance for the
different test projects from the UNDP Trust Fund, Finland, Japan, and the
Swedish Armed Forces, among others.
South Africa is becoming a leader in the
mine clearance equipment field and continues to be involved in several R&D
projects, with Mechem as the major mine action technology company. Mechem is
also involved in several joint research programs with the US government,
including comparative testing of the Mechem Explosive and Drug Detection System
(MEDDS) and the “Fido” detection system. A closely related vapor
detecting system is the REST, also originating from the MEDDS, which is
currently used by NPA in Angola.
The Intersessional Standing Committee for Mine Clearance and Related
Technologies
The Standing Committee for Mine Clearance and
Related Technologies met in December 2000 and May 2001 in Geneva, Switzerland.
The Co-Chairs were Netherlands and Peru while Germany and Yemen acted as
Co-Rapporteurs. The main themes since the SMSP have been the completion of the
International Mine Action Standards (IMAS) developed by UNMAS; how to improve
measures of impact and benefit of mine clearance operations; the coordination
and planning of operations; and technologies for mine action.
Several
outcomes from previous discussions were presented at the meeting in May 2001.
These included the Information Management System for Mine Action (IMSMA)
currently used in thirteen mine action programs around the world. Moreover, the
UNDP’s “Study of Socio-Economic Approaches to Mine Action” was
presented with brief contributions from UNDP, the International Peace Research
Institute, Oslo (PRIO), and the Survey Action Center (SAC). Under the agenda
item on coordination, planning and prioritization at the May 2001 meeting,
presentations were concentrated around the IMAS and this Landmine Monitor
Report 2001, to be distributed at the Third Meeting of State Parties in
Nicaragua.
Funding for Mine Clearance
There are still many difficulties in tracking mine
action funding numbers, but according to available information, Landmine Monitor
estimates that mine action funding from 17 key donors in 2000 totaled about
US$221 million, compared to about $202 million in 1999. This continues the
upward trend since 1993. Landmine Monitor estimates that since 1993, a total of
more than $1 billion has been spent on global mine action.
Still, in 2000, a
number of mine action programs experienced serious problems, even crises, in
funding. A key problem is a lack of long-term commitments from the donor
countries.
Afghanistan experienced a decrease in funding from $21.9 million in 1999 to
$16.9 million in 2000. A severe shortage of funds in 2000 led to the laying off
of a number of clearance teams.
In Angola, some mine clearance organizations have struggled with reduced
funding, erratic funding and/or donor reluctance to commit long-term in Angola.
A number of organizations had to suspend programs in 2000 or 2001 due to lack of
funding.
Funding shortfalls in 2000 and 2001 have put the existence of the Bosnia and
Herzegovina Mine Action Center at risk. Short-term funding was announced in
April that will maintain the MAC structure until September 2001.
In Cambodia, nearly all demining operations were suspended in October 2000
due to funding problems.
Some positive developments in mine
action funding are reflected in Lebanon where the United Arab Emirates pledged
US$50 million for demining and reconstruction in South Lebanon, and in Kosovo,
which received US$32 million in mine action funding in 2000.
[25] More broadly, the five
pillars of mine action include mine survey/marking/clearance; mine awareness;
mine victim assistance; stockpile destruction; and mine ban
advocacy.
[26] Poland, which has
a serious UXO and mine problem left over from World War II, was inadvertently
left off of last year’s list of affected
countries.
[27] See:
http://www.icbl.org/lm/2000/report/LMWeb-61.html
[28]
“United Nations Mine Action and The Use of the Military,” at:
htpp://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/mine/military.html.
[29]
“A Study of Socio-Economic Approaches to Mine Action,” UNDP and
GICHD, Geneva, 2001, p. 3.
[30]
Ibid, p. 12.