+   *    +     +     
About Us 
The Issues 
Our Research Products 
Order Publications 
Multimedia 
Press Room 
Resources for Monitor Researchers 
ARCHIVES HOME PAGE 
    >
 
Table of Contents
Country Reports
France , Landmine Monitor Report 2004

France

Key developments since May 2003: In 2003, France provided mine action funding of $2.5 million, a significant decrease from 2002. In June 2004, France reported that it was assessing how best to clear mines from the French military site at La Doudah in Djibouti. In March 2004, CNEMA held a meeting on implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty, which was attended by representatives of 31 countries and five NGOs. France has continued to oppose discussions on mines with sensitive fuzes and antihandling devices in the context of the Mine Ban Treaty, and has questioned efforts to reach conclusions on this and other matters of interpretation and implementation at the Review Conference.

Key developments since 1999: France became a State Party on 1 March 1999. National implementing legislation, which includes penal sanctions, was previously enacted on 8 July 1998. France completed destruction of its stockpile of 1.4 million antipersonnel mines on 20 December 1999. In January 1999, France created the position of Ambassador for Mine Action, and CNEMA, the National Commission for the Elimination of Antipersonnel Mines, became operational in June 1999. France has played a prominent role in promoting universalization and implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty, with a special focus on compliance issues. It has been actively involved in the intersessional process. From May 1999 to September 2000, it was co-chair of the Standing Committee on Technologies for Mine Clearance. It served as co-rapporteur and then co-chair of the Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and Socio-Economic Reintegration from September 2001 to September 2003. It has promoted multilingualism in the intersessional process. France has been prominent among the States Parties opposed to the effort to reach a common understanding on Article 2 and antivehicle mines with sensitive fuzes. From 1999 to 2002, France provided about $10.9 million in mine action funding, excluding expenditures on research and development. This total included about $650,000 in funding for mine victim assistance.

Mine Ban Policy

France signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 3 December 1997 and ratified it on 23 July 1998, becoming a State Party on 1 March 1999.[1] National implementing legislation, which includes penal sanctions, was enacted on 8 July 1998.[2] In January 1999, France created the position of Ambassador for Mine Action, appointing Samuel Le Caruyer de Beauvais, who was replaced on 1 November 2002 by Gérard Chesnel. France is one of only a few States with a high level official specifically designated for mine action.

France has played a prominent role in promoting universalization and implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty, with a special focus on compliance issues. It has been actively involved in the intersessional process. From May 1999 to September 2000, it was co-chair of the Standing Committee on Technologies for Mine Clearance. It served as co-rapporteur and then co-chair of the Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and Socio-Economic Reintegration from September 2001 to September 2003. France described its objectives for this Standing Committee as giving mine-affected and donor countries the opportunity to put forward their needs and priorities in advance of the Review Conference, in order to gain a detailed picture of needs and capacities.[3] For the future, France favors “international recognition of individual victims’ rights,”[4] and notes that “victim assistance will certainly benefit from a more important place than before within the action plan that the European Commission is currently elaborating, in liaison with member States.”[5]

In concert with other States Parties (notably Belgium and Canada), France has promoted multilingualism in the intersessional process, and believes that this has increased the participation of delegations from mine-affected countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America.[6]

France submitted its annual Article 7 transparency report for calendar year 2003 on 11 May 2004. This included the voluntary Form J giving details of mine action assistance. France has previously submitted five Article 7 reports.[7]

CNEMA

On 12–13 March 2004, the Commission Nationale pour l’Elimination des Mines Anti-personnel (CNEMA, the National Commission for the Elimination of Antipersonnel Mines) held a meeting on implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty, which was attended by representatives of 31 countries and five NGOs. The meeting focused on national mine action structures and planning.[8]

CNEMA was created by the national implementation law of 1998, and became operational in June 1999. It includes NGOs, and has the legal mandate to ensure full implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty, including assistance to mine action projects and mine victims in other countries.[9] Its mandate expired on 8 June 2002 and was renewed in October 2002 for another three years, with the same membership and presidency.[10] CNEMA operated under the auspices of the Prime Minister’s office until 2004, when it was transferred to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.[11]

The first CNEMA report, for 1999, was presented to the Prime Minister in July 2000. The second report, for 2000, was presented in December 2001. The third report for 2001–2002, presented to the Prime Minister in August 2003, reviewed French participation in universalization and implementation of the treaty, mines retained under Article 3 of the treaty, and antivehicle mines with sensitive fuzes or antihandling devices.[12] There was no response from the government to the issues raised.[13]

Compliance Initiatives

France has given priority to compliance matters, facilitating dialogue and cooperative steps between States Parties. In 2003, Ambassador Chesnel said that the aim was to convince States Parties, in the context of the Review Conference but without re-opening the treaty text, of the practical measures that could be taken in order to ensure compliance with the treaty.[14] Brigitte Stern, President of CNEMA, proposed in September 2003 that discussion on Article 8 proceed.[15] In February 2004, CNEMA was reported as regretting the lack of input on this issue from States Parties.[16]

France has supported the Landmine Monitor initiative of the ICBL, and hosted a global researchers’ meeting in Paris in April 2002. The Ambassador for Mine Action described the Landmine Monitor as “an irreplaceable reference book.”[17]

Universalization Initiatives

In February 2004, Ambassador Chesnel confirmed that France takes every opportunity to encourage States not party to the treaty to accede or ratify. He works in collaboration with ICBL-France to achieve this.[18] In 2003, France used bilateral contacts with Laos (September), the United States (November), and the Baltic States (November), to promote the treaty, in addition to contacts undertaken on behalf of the European Union before the Fifth Meeting of States Parties.[19] France has also continued to promote active participation of all States in the Standing Committee process.[20] In February 2001, France and Canada co-organized the Pan-African Seminar on universalization and implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty, in Bamako, Mali.

In the UN Security Council on 13 November 2003, France promoted the Mine Ban Treaty as “a mobilization tool for mine action at all levels” and called on all countries with a major role in peacekeeping to accede to the treaty as soon as possible.[21] At the Conference on Disarmament (CD) on 26 February 2004, France said that the Mine Ban Treaty was a milestone in the history of disarmament because it was prompted by humanitarian considerations. It said the treaty opened the way to a permanent solution, and the world must continue to strengthen the ban on mines. The French delegation noted that 24 of the 65 member States of the CD were not yet States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty, and some had major stockpiles of antipersonnel mines.[22]

In December 2003, France voted in favor of UN General Assembly Resolution 58/53, which calls for universalization and implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty. France has voted in favor of similar resolutions in previous years.

ICBL Issues of Concern

France has participated in the extensive States Parties discussions regarding interpretation and implementation of Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Mine Ban Treaty. France has been particularly outspoken on the issue of antivehicle mines with sensitive fuzes and antihandling devices; it has been one of a handful of States to oppose strongly any consideration of the matter in the Mine Ban Treaty context. At the Fifth Meeting of States Parties in September 2003, States Parties agreed to continue discussions on these Articles, with a view to reaching understandings by the Review Conference. At the Standing Committee meetings in June 2004, France questioned the need to discuss the meaning of Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the treaty, and questioned the status of any conclusions on these issues that might be reached at the Review Conference. It stated that efforts to reach conclusions ran counter to universalization of the treaty, and also implied that some States Parties carry out activities prohibited by the treaty.[23] The French national positions on these issues are noted below.

Joint Military Operations, Transit and “Assist”

When Parliament ratified the Mine Ban Treaty, the Minister of Defense stated that “the planned or actual use of antipersonnel mines in any military operation by its military personnel will also be banned, and France will refuse to agree to rules of engagement in any military operation calling for the use of antipersonnel mines.”[24] A directive to this effect was issued to French military forces on 12 November 1998, to which Ambassador Chesnel referred at the Standing Committee meetings in February 2003.[25] The Army Chief of Staff directive states that French soldiers must not at any time participate in planning or training activities involving the use of antipersonnel mines, accept rules of engagement that include use of antipersonnel mines, or “transfer, stockpile, or authorize antipersonnel mines on national territory.”[26] The Ministries of Defense and Foreign Affairs confirmed in April 2004 that national legislation and the military directive of November 1998 prohibit transfer of antipersonnel mines for any purpose except as permitted by Article 3 of the treaty.[27]

Antivehicle Mines with Sensitive Fuzes and Antihandling Devices

France has consistently taken the position at annual meetings of States Parties and during the intersessional process that antivehicle mines are dealt with, and should continue to be dealt with, only by the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW), and not the Mine Ban Treaty. At the Fifth Meeting of States Parties in September 2003, France claimed that this is the position of the majority of States Parties,[28] even though at the meeting only three States Parties publicly expressed that view. The delegation stated that the treaty “clearly establishes a definition of antipersonnel landmines based on the design and use of these weapons (and not on their potential effects).”[2][29] France stated that the objective of all should be the more efficient and universal implementation of the Treaty, and not revision of its goals.[30] In February 2004, France’s Mine Action Ambassador criticized “the proposal by the ICRC aimed at dealing with the issue of antivehicle mines within the scope of the Ottawa Convention. Such a step would lead to implicitly recognize the treaty’s competence regarding antivehicle mines and would work in a way incompatible with the definitions clearly expressed in Article 2.”[31] At the Fourth Meeting, in September 2002, France said that only weapons created from the outset as dual purpose – both antivehicle and antipersonnel – could be considered to fall with the Mine Ban Treaty.[32]

The issue of antivehicle mines which may function also as antipersonnel mines was first raised by NGOs and some legislators in France when the national legislation was under discussion in 1998. In May 2000 the Ministry of Defense responded to NGO inquiries by listing French mines with sensitive fuzes and antihandling devices. It listed those which had previously been destroyed, those never put into production, and three types of mines currently stockpiled (HPD F2, MIACAH F1, and MIAC Disp F1).[33] However, in its 2000 report, CNEMA identified six types of French antivehicle mine that may function as antipersonnel mines.[34]

CNEMA recommended physical adaptation of the ACPR F1 mine to prevent its use in anti-demining mode. There was no official response to this recommendation.[35] Subsequently, in its 2001–2002 report, CNEMA repeated this recommendation and added that measures should be taken to ensure that the fuzing of HPD F2, HPD F3 and MI AC Disp F1 mines is not activated by the unintentional presence of a person. It also noted that one of the six types (MIACAH F1) had been withdrawn from service in 2001.[36]

In February 2004, the Mine Action Ambassador stated that CNEMA’s remit is limited to antipersonnel mines as defined in the Mine Ban Treaty and that the treaty does not cover antivehicle mines.[37] Therefore, he said, the government did not respond to CNEMA on these points.[38] Following withdrawal of the MIACAH F2 due to corrosion, a project by France and Belgium to replace the fuzing of these mines proved unsuccessful, and a call for tenders was published in the Bulletin Officiel on 28 January 2004. The MIACAH F2 will be returned to service when the new fuzing is achieved.[39]

In March 2003, HI presented a report to parliamentarians, detailing the antipersonnel characteristics of these mines.[40] Following this report, parliamentarians addressed several questions to government on the issues raised. The government answered that the classification as antipersonnel mines by HI of certain mines designed for antivehicle use is incompatible with Article 2 of the Mine Ban Treaty. For France, “mines designed for antitank use are unambiguously excluded from the implementation scope” of the treaty.[41] France has supported proposals on antivehicle mines made by the US and Denmark in the CCW.[42] France also has said that in response to concerns about the reliability of sensitive fuzes, the Army has been committed for years to limiting the duration of activity of the mines it could use.[43]

CCW

France is a State Party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons and its Amended Protocol II. It attended the Fifth Annual Conference of States Parties to the Protocol in November 2003, as in previous years. It submitted an annual report in accordance to the Article 13 of the Protocol on 11 October 2003, as in previous years. France supported the establishment of a Governmental Group of Experts to study the issue of explosive remnants of war, which resulted in agreement on a new CCW protocol in November 2003. Ambassador Chesnel said that France considers this to be a priority issue.[44]

Production and Transfer

France was previously a major producer and exporter of antipersonnel mines. Production was prohibited in 1995.[45] An independent study identified two companies which had produced ten types of antipersonnel mine, and several mine-related systems.[46] France’s Article 7 report noted that, following the 1995 moratorium on production, manufacturers “progressively converted” their production facilities.[47] Export was prohibited in 1993.[48] In May 2000, the Minister of Defense stated that permission for export of components which could be used in the production of antipersonnel mines would be refused.[49] Countries in which French antipersonnel mines have reportedly been found include Algeria, Angola, Iraq, on the Kuwait/Saudi Arabia border, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Nigeria, Somalia, and Syria.[50]

Stockpiling and Destruction

France possessed a stockpile of 1,402,086 antipersonnel mines, composed of four main types. Between 1996 and 1999, 1,098,281 mines were destroyed, and after entry into force another 299,266 mines were destroyed (for a total of 1,397,547). Completion of stockpile destruction was achieved on 20 December 1999, one year in advance of the deadline set by national legislation, and far in advance of the 1 March 2003 treaty deadline.[51]

France confirmed in 2003 that it does not possess Claymore-type directional fragmentation munitions.[52]

Mines Retained Under Article 3

At the end of 2003, France retained 4,466 antipersonnel mines for training and development purposes, as permitted by Article 3 of the treaty.[53] A total of 13 mines were destroyed in the course of 2003 in testing and research activities,[54] and 17 foreign antipersonnel mines (nine Z1 Claymore-types from Egypt and eight PPM P2s from “Yougoslavie”) were acquired. At the end of 2002, France retained 4,462 antipersonnel mines. [55]

National legislation set the maximum number of antipersonnel mines to be retained as 5,000.[56] After completion of stockpile destruction in December 1999, France retained 4,539 mines.[57] Mines have been consumed every year since 2000, and additional mines were acquired in 2002 and 2003: 17 mines consumed in 2000, 47 mines consumed in 2001, 23 mines consumed in 2002 (when six new mines were obtained), and 11 mines consumed in 2003 (when 15 foreign mines were obtained).[58] France’s Article 7 reports have not noted the specific purposes or tasks for which the mines have been used, but details on use of retained mines is sent to CNEMA each year and provided to the Landmine Monitor researcher.[59] The Ministry of Defense said the mines are needed for research and development in clearance, training, and testing of equipment.[60] Asked why this quantity is retained, Ambassador Chesnel said that although recent use for research purposes has been low, the future need may be higher. He said France may need to purchase foreign landmines for research purposes in the future, as in 2002 and 2003.[61]

Mine Action Funding and Assistance

In 2003, France provided approximately €2,217,000 ($2.51 million) in mine action funding and assistance.[62] This is a significant decrease from funding of €3,779,996 in 2002. The Ambassador for Mine Action explained that much of the budgeted expenditure in 2003 was frozen and postponed to 2004. He said that the government was aware of the decrease and hoped that the economic situation would allow improvement in future years.[63]

These totals do not include research and development and in-kind assistance provided by the Ministry of Defense. A comprehensive figure for French funding is not included in the Article 7 report for 2003, which gives narrative details of mine action funding and assistance. Funding was distributed to seven countries and two organizations in 2003:

  • Angola: €460,000 ($520,490) consisting of €260,000 to the HALO for emergency mine clearance and €200,000 to HI for mine risk education (MRE) in Huambo province[64]
  • Benin: €755,000 ($854,283) contribution to the Ouidah training center (including €200,000 for training of deminers from Africa, Lebanon and Venezuela[65]  
  • Cambodia: €465,000 ($526,148) consisting of €425,000 to the UNDP for mine clearance and training, and €40,000 to HI for training of local staff 
  • Croatia: €124,000 ($140,306) consisting of €100,000 to CROMAC for mine clearance and €24,000 for the victim assistance center in Rovinj
  • Guinea-Bissau: €106,000 ($119,939) to HI for mine risk education (in 2004)
  • Kosovo: €83,000 ($93,915) to the International Trust Fund for Demining and Mine Victims Assistance (ITF) for mine clearance training by HI[66]
  • Senegal: €114,000 ($128,991) to HI for MRE in Casamance.[67]  

In addition, France provided €60,000 to Handicap International for its “Campaign for a Mine-Free World,” and €50,000 to the ICBL for the Landmine Monitor Report 2003. CNEMA’s budget of €135,000 in 2003 is not included in the total funding above.[68]

For 2004, mine action funding is also planned for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Croatia, Laos, Mozambique, Sudan and Sri Lanka.[69] For 2005, France has budgeted $1 million for mine clearance in Angola as part of a larger development grant.[70]

In the five-year period 1999–2003, France provided mine action funding totaling about $10.9 million, excluding expenditure on mine-related research and development (1999: $908,000, 2000: $1.17 million, 2001: $2.7 million, 2002: $3.6 million, 2003: $2.5 million).[71] Due to variations in presentation of the data in previous years and change of national currency to the euro, this can only be an approximation. The UN Mine Action Service records French contributions as totaling $6.35 million in 1999–2002.[72] These totals are substantially less than funding provided by many other European States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty. At least 13 countries have received French mine action funding, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Lebanon, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Slovenia and Somalia, in addition to those funded in 2003.

Out of the total funding in 1999–2003, about $657,906 was allocated to victim assistance projects (2000: $213,980, 2001: $95,829, 2002: $320,941, 2003: $27,156).[73] In 2003, the French Red Cross did not contribute to mine action. In 2002, it made a contribution of €100,000 to victim assistance projects in Afghanistan.[74]

The Ministry of Defense provides mine action assistance in the form of training for mine clearance and mine risk education, and the creation of demining units. At the Ecole Supérieure et d’Application du Génie (ESAG), in Angers, about 50 foreign military personnel received mine clearance training in 2003. ESAG also carried out training in Senegal in 2003 and prepared for training in Venezuela in 2004. In 2003, at the Ouidah training center in Benin, French military personnel trained 80 deminers from Africa in mine clearance techniques.[75] French military personnel participating in missions in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chad, Djibouti, and Kosovo during 2003 also carried out mine clearance operations.[76]

Funding Policy and Structures

French mine action policy was described in March 2001 as favoring the strengthening of local and national capacities and creating conditions for the return to normal economic and social life. Mine action is considered as an element of development and a means of reinforcing the sovereignty of the mine-affected countries. In a change of position, the French Ambassador for Mine Action declared in 2004 that non-party States would also be funded, so that their populations “would not be doubly penalized;” previously States Parties and signatories were strongly favored for French funding. In 2004, France was planning to fund Laos and Sri Lanka.[77]

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs funds humanitarian mine clearance projects, mine risk education and victim assistance. Three departments are involved, and include a Fonds de Solidarité Prioritaire (FSP, Fund for Priority Solidarity) on mine action.[78] The FSP was originally created as the Fund for Aid for Cooperation in 1999, endowed with FF20 million ($2.85 million) for the period January 2000–December 2002.[79] In 2002, it was renewed for another year with €3 million ($2.85 million).[80] However, in 2003, €600,000 of this FSP was postponed to 2004 with the intention of starting a new FSP if these funds were unspent by 30 June 2004. The FSP was due to be audited by the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining in late 2004. According to Ambassador Chesnel, “It is necessary before the start of a new FSP.”[81]

There were also FSPs for Angola (€3 million, announced in July 2002) and Mozambique (€1,174,467, announced in March 2002). Expenditure on Mozambique was postponed from 2003 to 2004,[82] and the FSP for Angola has been postponed to 2006. Until then, a general one-year FSD (Fonds Social de Développement) of €3 million for Angola will be launched in 2005, with about $1 million devoted to humanitarian mine clearance.[83]

Research and Development

Three research and development (R&D) projects were reported by France in 2003. The Pegase Instrumentation Mine Picker project, first reported in 2002, was scheduled for evaluation during 2004. The Anonymate V2 project for a flexible protective boot, also first reported in 2002, received an initial evaluation in 2003, with final evaluation planned for 2005. The Sydera joint project with Germany, for a combined mine detection and destruction system, was initiated in 2003.[84]

Landmine/UXO Problem

At the Standing Committee Meetings in June 2004, France reported that it was assessing how best to clear mines from the French military site at La Doudah in Djibouti. Flooding and landslides had buried some of the mines deeply, so traditional clearance methods were not effective. Once the appropriate methods have been identified, France believes that clearance should be completed quickly, and within the treaty deadline of 1 March 2009. France intends to announce a timetable for the clearance operation at the Review Conference in November 2004.[85]

Mines and unexploded ordnance (UXO) from World Wars I and II are occasionally found in France.[86] During 2003, clearance of UXO that necessitated evacuation of local populations occurred in April near Lens in the west of France, in September in Brest (also in the west), and in October/November in Strasbourg in the east and in a northern village.[87] World War II weapons were found in two rivers in 2003.[88] In April 2004, 12 antipersonnel landmines from World War II were discovered on a beach at Saint-Trojan.[89] In August 2004, two antipersonnel mines from World War II were discovered on a beach at La Torche (on the Atlantic coast).[90]

Landmine Casualties

In 2003, no mine or UXO casualties were recorded by the DCSSA (Central Direction of the Health Service of the Armies).[91] It was reported that one French national was killed in Chad on 13 November 2003 when a nine-ton stockpile of antipersonnel mines detonated. The cause of the explosion was unknown.[92] In June 2004, two French peacekeepers were injured by an antipersonnel mine in Afghanistan.[93]

There have been French mine casualties in previous years: in 2002, two soldiers were injured by mines in Afghanistan, and in 2001 a French soldier in Bosnia and Herzegovina was killed.[94] The Minister of Defense informed HI in 2001 that mine clearance operations have caused nine deaths and tens of injuries to French soldiers in the last ten years.[95]

The Ministry of Defense has identified a total of 265 mine survivors (civilian and military) living in France, including 250 people in the Paris area from Algeria, Africa, the Balkans, Cambodia, Lebanon and from the Gulf war of 1991, and eight people in the Lyon area from Cambodia and Vietnam. They are entitled to the usual health services. Military mine survivors also receive a pension.[96]

NGO Activities

Handicap International, added mine action to its work program in 1992 and by 2003 was involved in mine action in fourteen countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kosovo, Mozambique, Russia (Chechnya), Senegal, Somaliland, and Thailand.[97]

In March 2003, to mark the anniversary of entry into force of the Mine Ban Treaty, HI presented a report to parliamentarians drawing attention to the low level of governmental funding of mine action, particularly of victim assistance, and to the antipersonnel characteristics of some French antivehicle mines.[98] Following this report, 13 parliamentary questions were addressed to government on the issues raised. In August, HI launched a petition urging all the States, and France in particular, to provide more funding of mine clearance; the petition was signed by 47,000 people. On 4 October, HI organized its ninth shoe pyramid event in 30 cities, to maintain public awareness of the mine issue.

In August 2003, HI was one of five mine action NGOs convening the NGO Perspective on the Debris of War. The NGO Perspective’s aim is to improve the effectiveness of mine action and to represent the view that many mine action programs are unnecessarily costly and complicated, with the result that “under the current circumstances the obligations of the Ottawa Treaty cannot be met.”[99]

In 2003, HI broadened its campaign from antipersonnel mines to include cluster munitions and other UXO. It focused on the Iraqi situation, with numerous press conferences and the release in August 2003 of “Report on cluster munitions systems.” HI is a member of the Cluster Munition Coalition, launched in November 2003.

HI has led the “Campaign for a mine free world” in France since 1992. Since then, more than a million people have signed HI petitions. HI started organizing the shoe pyramid event in 1994, as an annual public mobilization day against landmines. Since 1998, HI has organized each year in Paris the “Courir Ensemble” (“Running together”) race, which is made up of able-bodied and disabled runners. As well as providing research for Landmine Monitor, HI published global reports on victim assistance in 2001 and 2002. HI is member of CNEMA.


[1] France took early steps toward a ban on antipersonnel mines. In 1993, it was the second country in the world to announce a moratorium on the export of antipersonnel landmines. In September 1995, it announced a ban on production and trade. In October 1996, France announced that it would ban the use of antipersonnel mines, unless French soldiers were in danger. Still, France did not fully embrace the Ottawa Process until the Brussels Conference in June 1997, when it became a strong supporter and a member of the expanded core group of like-minded countries. See Landmine Monitor Report 1999, pp. 585–586.
[2] Law No. 98-564, Journal Officiel, 8 July 1998. This implementing legislation was passed unanimously, at the same time as ratification. The law set 31 December 2000 as the deadline for destruction of France’s stockpile of antipersonnel mines, authorized retention of a maximum of 5,000 mines under Article 3 of the treaty, and applied penal sanctions for violations. It applies to French overseas territories and the collective territory of Mayotte. The law entered into force on 1 March 1999. Two further measures were introduced: Décret 99-357 pour l’application de l’article 7 de la loi du 8 juillet 1998, and Directive du Chef d’état-major des Armées relative aux mine antipersonnel, 12 novembre 1998.
[3] Intervention by France, Fifth Meeting of States Parties, Bangkok, 15–19 September 2003; letters from Chesnel, Ambassador for Mine Action, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 31 March 2003 and 17 February 2004.
[4] Answer by Ministry of Foreign Affairs to a parliamentary question, 2 June 2003: “La France suit avec beaucoup d’attention la réflexion menée...s’agissant de la création d’un mécanisme international spécifique de reconnaissance des droits individuels des victimes.”
[5] Letter from Amb. Gérard Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 17 February 2004: “l’assistance aux victimes devrait également jouir d’une place plus importante que par le passé dans le plan d’action que la Commission Européenne est en train d’élaborer en liaison avec les Etats membres.”
[6] Letter from Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 31 March 2003.
[7] See Article 7 reports submitted: 11 May 2004, report dated 30 April 2004 (for calendar year 2003); 30 April 2003 (for calendar year 2002); 30 April 2002 (for calendar year 2001); 11 June 2001 (for the period 1 April 2000–1March 2001); 3 May 2000 (for the period 1 August 1999–31 March 2000); 26 August 1999 (for the period 1 March–31 July 1999).
[8] CNEMA, Colloque international des structures nationales chargées de la lutte contre les mines antipersonnel, Paris, 12–13 March 2004.
[9] See Landmine Monitor Report 1999, pp. 587–588.
[10] Letter from Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin to Brigitte Stern, President of CNEMA, 14 October 2002.
[11] Letter from Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 17 February 2004.
[12] CNEMA, “Rapport 2001–2002,” 2003. For details of the 1999 and 2000 reports and recommendations, see Landmine Monitor Report 2001, p. 687, and Landmine Monitor Report 2002, pp. 260–261.
[13] Interview with Amb. Gérard Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 17 February 2004. See later in this report for CNEMA recommendations on antivehicle mines with antipersonnel characteristics.
[14] Letter from Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 31 March 2003.
[15] Intervention by Brigitte Stern, CNEMA, Fifth Meeting of States Parties, 15-19 September 2003.
[16] Letter from Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 17 February 2004.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid. For previous universalization initiatives, see Landmine Monitor Report 2001, pp. 689–690, Landmine Monitor Report 2002, pp. 261–262, and Landmine Monitor Report 2003, p. 257.
[19] Letter from Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 17 February 2004.
[20] Answer to a parliamentary question, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Journal Officiel, 8 May 2003, p. 1538.
[21] UN Security Council, “Action against mines dynamic component of peacekeeping operations, Under-Secretary-General tells Security Council,” 13 November 2003.
[22] “Conference on Disarmament hears statements in fifth anniversary of Mine-Ban Convention,” M2 Presswire, 26 February 2004.
[23] Intervention by France, Standing Committee on General Status and Operation of the Convention, Geneva, 25 June 2004. France raised similar concerns at the 9 February 2004 Standing Committee meeting.
[24] Speech by Minister of Defense, Parliamentary Debate, Journal Officiel, 25 June 1998, pp. 5402–5403.
[25] Intervention by France, Standing Committee on General Status and Operation of the Convention, Geneva, 7 February 2003. See also Landmine Monitor Report 2002, p. 265.
[26] See Landmine Monitor Report 2002, p. 265.
[27] Fax from Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 22 April 2004. A similar statement was made in May 2000: Letter from Christian Lechervy, Ministry of Defense, 15 May 2000.
[28] Intervention by France, Fifth Meeting of States Parties, 15–19 September 2003.
[2]9 Ibid: “La France rappelle que le Traité d’Ottawa établit clairement une définition des mines antipersonnel fondée sur la conception et la destination de ces armes (et non sur leurs effets potentiels)”.
[29] Intervention by France, Fifth Meeting of States Parties, 15–19 September 2003: “La France rappelle que le Traité d’Ottawa établit clairement une définition des mines antipersonnel fondée sur la conception et la destination de ces armes (et non sur leurs effets potentiels)”.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Letter from Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 17 February 2004: “la proposition du CICR visait à traiter de la question des mines antichar dans l’enceinte de la Convention d’Ottawa. Une telle démarche aurait conduit à reconnaître implicitement la compétence de cette enceinte vis-à-vis des mines antichar et à s’engager dans une voie incompatible avec les dispositions clairement énoncées par l’article 2.”
[32] Intervention by France, Fourth Meeting of States Parties, Geneva, 16–20 September 2002.
[33] See Landmine Monitor Report 2000, pp. 636–638.
[34] CNEMA, “Rapport 2000,” 2001, pp. 15–23.
[35] For the Mine Action Ambassador’s response to similar criticisms by HI, see Landmine Monitor Report 2001, p. 601.
[36] CNEMA, “Rapport 2001–2002,” 2003. The reason for the withdrawal of the MIACAH F1 is not reported.
[37] Ibid., pp. 54–55.
[38] Letter from Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 17 February 2004.
[39] Ibid.
[40] “HI et l’action contre les mines: théorie, pratique et revendications d’HI,” March 2003.
[41] Letter from Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 17 February 2004: “les mines conçues pour un emploi antichar sont sans ambiguïté exclues du champ d’application de la Convention.”
[42] Ibid.
[43] Ibid.
[44] Ibid, 31 March 2003.
[45] In April 2004, Amb. Chesnel declared that the last production of antipersonnel mines took place in 1987. (Fax from Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 22 April 2004.) In 1999, CNEMA contacted the two companies directly. SAE Alsetex replied that it had ceased production in 1982 and converted its facilities in 1995. Giat Industries (which purchased the Belgian PRB company in 1990) stated that it had never produced antipersonnel mines and had no production facilities. Giat’s reply has not been satisfactorily explained. In March 2001, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that Giat “does not deny” having produced antipersonnel mines. (See Landmine Monitor Report 2000, p. 636, and Landmine Monitor Report 2001, p. 690).
[46] See Landmine Monitor Report 1999, pp. 590–596, for details on past production.
[47] Article 7 Report, Form E, 11 May 2004.
[48] See Landmine Monitor Report 1999, pp. 596-598, for details on past export. The Minister of Defense stated in 1998 that export of antipersonnel mines ceased in 1986; however, there is documentation showing authorization of export of antipersonnel mines to Rwanda in 1992.
[49] See Landmine Monitor Report 2000, p. 636.
[50] See Landmine Monitor Report 1999, pp. 597–598.
[51] Article 7 Report, Form F, 3 May 2000, and see Landmine Monitor Report 2000, pp. 638–639. The total stockpile of 1,402,086 is calculated from subtotals given in the Article 7 report. The four types were: Models 51M55/54, F1, 59 and 61.
[52] Interview with Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 21 March 2003.
[53] Article 7 Report, Form D, 11 May 2004. The total of 4,466 retained at the end of 2003 consisted of 4,250 French antipersonnel mines (1,348 Model 51M55 and Model 54M58; 1,260 Model F1; 1,612 Model 59; 30 Model 61), and 216 foreign antipersonnel mines of 22 types.
[54] Letter from Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 17 February 2004, and fax, 22 April 2004.
[55] Article 7 Report, Form D, 30 April 2003.
[56] Law 98-564, Article 3, 8 July 1998.
[57] Article 7 Report, Form D, 3 May 2000.
[58] Letter from Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 17 February 2004, and see: CNEMA, “Rapport 2001–2002,” 2003.
[59] Fax from Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 22 April 2004.
[60] Interview with Arnaud d’Aboville, Capitaine de Frégate, Ministry of Defense, 24 April 2003.
[61] Letters from Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 31 March 2003 and 17 February 2004.
[62] Article 7 Report, Form D, 11 May 2004; emails from Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1 March and 10 June 2004. France informed the Resource Mobilization Contact Group that its mine action funding in 2003 totaled $2,388,597. “A review of resources to achieve the Convention’s Aims,” Norway, Coordinator of the Resource Mobilization Contact Group, 25 June 2004. Exchange rate for 2003 of €1 = $1.1315, used throughout this report. US Federal Reserve, “List of Exchange Rates (Annual),” 2 January 2004.
[63] Interview with Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 17 February 2004.
[64] The funding of €260,000 to HALO Trust for emergency mine clearance was part of the 2002 budget, but expended in 2003. Interview with Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Paris, 14 April 2004.
[65] The Ouidah training center was inaugurated in April 2003.
[66] The ITF reported receiving from France $92,088 in 2003 for HI training and supervision of the Kosovo Protection Corps. ITF, “Annual Report 2003,” p. 17.
[67] Article 7 Report, Form D, 11 May 2004; emails from Amb. Gerard Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1 March and 10 June 2004.
[68] Email from Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 20 February 2004.
[69] Letter from and interview with Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Paris, 17 February 2004.
[70] “France to fund mine-clearing in Angola,” Agence France-Presse, 8 June 2004; email from Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 10 June 2004. The Angolan funding was first announced in July 2002, but frozen. Email from Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 20 February 2004.
[71] Data taken from previous Landmine Monitor reports, with US$ amounts at exchange rates used in each year. Historical funding is not reported here in national currency, because in some years France has reported funding only in US$.
[72] “Multi-year Donor Report: France,” Mine Action Investments database, accessed at www.mineaction.org on 18 June 2004 (data for 2003 not recorded).
[73] Data taken from previous Landmine Monitor reports, with US$ amounts at exchange rates used in each year. No funding of mine victim assistance projects in 1999 has been identified.
[74] Statement of France, Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and Socio-Economic Reintegration, Geneva, 13 May 2003.
[75] Article 7 Report, Form J, 11 May 2004, p. 2.
[76] CCW Amended Protocol II Article 13 Report, Form E, 6 October 2003.
[77] Interview with Amb. Gerard Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 17 February 2004. For previous policy, see Landmine Monitor Report 2001, pp. 692–693, and Landmine Monitor Report 2002, p. 265.
[78] Statement of France, Standing Committee on Victim Assistance, 13 May 2003. For details of the three departments, see Landmine Monitor Report 2003, pp. 261–262.
[79] See Landmine Monitor Report 2000, p. 640.
[80] Letter from Samuel Le Caruyer de Beauvais, Ambassador for Mine Action, 27 March 2002.
[81] Email from Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 10 June 2004.
[82] Interview with Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 17 February 2004, and email from Amb. Chesnel, 20 February 2004.
[83] Email from Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 17 June 2004.
[84] Letters from Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 31 March 2003 and 17 February 2004, and Article 7 Report, Form J, 30 April 2004 (for calendar year 2003).
[85] Intervention by France, Standing Committee on Mine Clearance, Mine Risk Education and Mine Action Technologies, Geneva, 22 June 2004.
[86] Article 7 Report, Form C, 11 May 2004.
[87] “9 000 habitants évacués pour un déminage,” Le Figaro (daily newspaper), 28 April 2003; “Un quartier strasbourgeois sera évacué fin octobre pour cause de déminage,” Agence France-Presse, 6 October 2003; “Déminage en cours à Brest après l’évacuation de 5 500 personnes,” Agence France-Presse, 26 October 2003; “Un village evacuée,” Le Figaro, 10 November 2003.
[88] “Découverte d’armes de la dernière guerre dans une rivière de l’Essonne,” Agence France-Presse, 27 August 2003; “Découverte et neutralisation de 178 obus allemands dans l'Eure,” Agence France-Presse, 29 August 2003.
[89] “Des mines sur la plage,” Sud Ouest (newspaper), 24 April 2004.
[90] “Une mine désamorcée à la Torche,” Ouest France (newspaper), 20 August 2004.
[91] Letter from Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 17 February 2004.
[92] “Six démineurs tués dans l’explosion de mines antipersonnel au Tchad,” Associated Press, 17 November 2003.
[93] “Two French peacekeepers injured by landmine in Afghanistan,” Agence France-Presse, 29 June 2004.
[94] “Mine Blast Kills French Soldier,” The Independent (British daily newspaper), 5 April 2001; letter from Amb. Samuel Le Caruyer de Beauvais, 27 March 2002.
[95] Letter from Alain Richard, Minister of Defense, 17 December 2001.
[96] Email from Amb. Chesnel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 14 April 2004.
[97] For details, see reports for these countries in this edition of Landmine Monitor Report.
[98] “Handicap International et l’action contre les mines: théorie, pratique et revendications d’HI,” March 2003.
[99] Statement by the NGO Perspective on the Debris of War, Lyon, France, 28 August 2003.