mine action: main achievements since the adoption of the ap

© GICHDSlide 115 October 2009Stephan Husy

Mine Action: Main achievements since the adoption of the AP Mine Ban Convention and recommendations for the EU

European Parliament, Sub-Committee on Security and Defence (SEDE), Brussels15 October 2009

Stephan Husy, Director, GICHD


GICHD, an expert organization

• Independent, impartial and neutral organization founded in 1998 under Swiss law

• Mandate in 2001 to host the APMBC Implementation Support Unit (ISU) • Council of Foundation: 20 members, incl. President Dr. Barbara Haering

- EU in CoF through EC representative (Nov. 2009)- 8 Members States from the EU

• Advisory Board: 16 members representing the partners• Staff: 54 (including 8 trainees and JPOs)

- Direction: 4 - Operations: 26 (including 2 secondments from France and Germany)- ISU: 9- Support (conferences, communication, sponsorship programmes): 8- Administration: 7


EU – GICHD Cooperation

1. Agreement (Dec. 2005) between the European Commission and the GICHD to assess EC-funded mine action in six regions: Africa, Caucasus / Central Asia, Latin America, Asia-Pacific, Middle East, Europe

The evaluations, which include recommendations, will be posted in the Research and Evaluation Reports database on the GICHD website.

2. EU Joint Action (EU JA) adopted by Ministers, 28 June 2008 to promote universalization and support implementation of the APMBC

Technical implementation carried out by the ISU/GICHD: - up to 6 regional conferences

- up to 25 targeted technical assistance visits to Sates Parties


The Global Landmine ProblemMore than 70 states, as well as six territories, are believed to be mine-affected.

Source: Landmine Monitor Report 2008


Development of the normative framework: IHLAnti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention (APMBC): 156 States Parties

Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW): 110 States Parties- Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices (AP II) : 93 States Parties

- Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War (Protocol V): 60 States Parties

Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM): 100 signatures, 21 ratifications (entry into force after 30 ratifications)


An end, for all people for all time,

to the suffering caused by

AP mines.

Entry into force

Look forward five years

A plan to address

remaining challenges

Progress made,

challenges that remain

Review five years

2004 2014

The Cartagena SummitA major event


• Redouble efforts to end the suffering and casualties caused by APL.

• Communicate progress made and refocus on the remaining challenges.

• Emphasize the needs of women, men, boys and girls who have fallen victim.

• Reinvigorate national implementation and enhance national ownership.

• Promote the Convention’s norm of no use.

• Do all of the above at a high level.

Vice President of ColombiaMinister of European Affairs of Belgium

Minister of Defence of Tanzania

Minister of Disarmament and Arms Control of New Zealand

The Cartagena Summit: An Opportunity


Achievements since 1999 and challenges

a total of 83 States Parties have destroyed more than 42 million APL…

… but the obligation to destroy stockpiled APL remains relevant for 5 States Parties (Belarus, Greece, Turkey, Ukraine, Kuwait)

12 State Parties declared completion of mine clearance operations…

… but already 19 States Parties were unable to meet their initial mine clearance deadlines and requested an extension

Approximately 1,100km2 of mined area and 2,100km2 of battle areas have been cleared…

… but over 70 countries/territories are still mine-affected and the extent of the contamination remains unclear

The number of new casualties is decreasing…

… but survivors need lifelong assistance


International Funding

Mine Action funding 1997 – 2007:

•Overall contribution: € 2.45 billion•EU contribution (European Community and EU Member States bilateral assistance) exceeded € 1.5 billion


Actors of International Cooperation

• Mine affected countries or their executive organs (national mine action authorities or centers)

• Donor countries and their agencies• International organizations: UN,

ICRC, GICHD• International and national NGOs• Commercial companies• Military


Development of national capacities• Development of national mine action strategies and

integration of mine action into national development programmes

• Increase in mine action funding from host countries• Greater availability of data from

sources such as mine action plans and extension requests

• Integration of victim assistance intonational health systems

• Numerous evaluations conducted to generate lessons learnt for future mine action projects


Information ManagementDevelopment of IMSMA(used by ca. 50 mine action programmes)

•Better knowledge ofsize and location of contaminated areas•Storage of relevant information in one central database per country•Improved local capacity for planning (accountability / transparency)•Improved coordination between mine action operators and national authorities


Development of the concept “land release”

• Reduces suspectedhazardous areas

• Increases efficiency

• Reduces deminingcosts


Land release process

Suspected Hazardous AreaSuspected Hazardous Area

Confirmed Hazardous AreaConfirmed Hazardous AreaNo Evidence of an explosive hazard No Evidence of an explosive hazard

ClearanceClearance

Technical Survey Technical Survey

Non-Technical Survey Non-Technical Survey

Land releasedLand released

No evidence of an explosive hazard

No evidence of an explosive hazard Defined Hazardous AreaDefined Hazardous Area


Land release in Mozambique

2000 – 2002 2008 – 2009

Landmine Impact Survey (LIS)

558km2

of SHA12km2

of SHA

2000 - 2008

8 years of clearance

498km2

of SHA

Clearance of 60km2

12km2

of SHA

1 year of application of land release

concept

Release of 486km2

Application of the Land release concept (survey and improving

information)


Clearance

• Improvement in trainingand accreditation of minedogs

• Rigid testing of demining machines

• Varieties of mechanical assetsavailable on the market


Cost-effectiveness Area Clearance(Peacekeeping Operations)

$ 0$ 5

$ 10$ 15$ 20$ 25$ 30$ 35$ 40$ 45$ 50

Best Case Worst Case

Cos

t per

sq.

met

re

Military

Civilian

GICHD, Evaluation of the UNMEE Mine Action Coordination Centre, Aug 2005


EC Mine Action Strategy up to 2007

Mine Action Strategies 2002-2004, then 2005-2007• To reduce the threat posed by APL & UXO• To build national capacity in affected countries

Strategies supported by:• APL thematic budget line (€ 45 million for 2002-04; € 60 million for

2005-07)• Small units dedicated to mine action in Brussels (RELEX &

EuropeAid)• Clear criteria for support• Ambitious targets (€ 105 million total EC funfind for 2002-04; € 120

million for 2005-07)

Strategies largely successful & targets met


Guidelines on European Community Mine Action 2008 – 2013

• Reforms to EU aid system in 2006 eliminated APL thematic budget line

• Concern that “…the passive reliance on integrating mine action into development…may result in excessively diminishing EC financial commitments in the field.” (cover note of the Guidelines)

• New guidelines issued, covering stages in the project cycle• Criteria include:

– Humanitarian & development need– Coherence/complementarity with broader assistance programme– Capability & commitment of national authorities– Possibility for cross-border programmes

• Sound document, but doesn’t compensate for loss of dedicated funds & HQ personnel


Findings on EC Support for Mine Action• System worked well when EC had Mine Action Strategy &

thematic budget line in place (i.e. until 2007)• Problems didn’t appear in initial stage of deconcentration:

• dedicated mine action funds transferred to delegations• many delegates showed creativity in finding mechanisms for

additional support to mine action• Regional and sub-regional EC programmes offer potential

to support mine action, but have rarely been used for:• inherently regional mine action problems (e.g. Southern

Caucasus)• to garner economies of scale for addressing needs of

modestly contaminated countries (e.g. Southern Africa)


Observations on Current EC Aid Programming & Delivery System

• Addresses the needs of heavily contaminated countries that have significant EC country envelopes (e.g. Afghanistan; Angola)

• Often fails to provide adequate mine action support to:• modestly-impacted countries (e.g. Mozambique)• heavily contaminated countries with modest financial envelopes (e.g.

Cambodia)• No mechanism for EC support to international activities (sponsorship

to international meetings; Landmine Monitor; specialised training)• Inadequate recognition of Convention on Cluster Munitions• Loss of thematic budget line accompanied by a reduction in HQ staff

focussing on mine action – limited expertise to support delegations• No mechanism to support global or regional initiatives in strategic

fashion (e.g. mine-impact free Southern Africa)


Recommendations for the EUEC Programming• EC should continue significant funding to mine action• With no dedicated funds & limited expertise at HQ…

• be selective in which countries & projects to prioritise• contribute, where possible, to joint programmes (with other

donors) and/or common mechanisms (e.g. UN agencies)• seek better monitoring and evaluations of national mine action

programmes (rather than individual projects), through joint/ common approaches where possible

• More coherent & strategic approach would require:• more mine action expertise in Brussels • funds available to HQ staff for programming with a global

perspective


Recommendations for the EU:Operational supportStockpile destruction• To continue to provide assistance to

Belarus and Ukraine• To support destruction by new States Parties

Mine Clearance• To use donor leverage to insist on clarity with respect to challenge• Better allocation of resources • To encourage the implementation of the land release concept• To support completion (i.e. by those committed to finishing the

job)


Recommendations for the EU:Capacity-buildingStrengthen national institutions•Greater weight to fostering national ownership and the development of local capacities

• Political level: promote a consistent and sustainable approach to mine action (e.g. reflected in a strategy & financing plan)

• Operational level: advise and assist the elaboration of action plans & incorporation of best practice

•Capacity to promote linkages between mine action & development

Evaluations/research •Follow-up on evaluations and implement recommendations •Support further research to increase both operational efficiency & developmental effectiveness of mine action


Cartagena Summit: Possible EU/EC commitments• (EC): A commitment to work with Belarus and Ukraine

to finish the job of stockpile destruction • (EC): Announcement of a renewal of a thematic budget

line for mine action• (EC): Clarify that funds will be provided to those who:

- Have a clear idea of what remains- Have a realistic but not unambitious plan to

complete clearance- Have national plan to support survivors in the

context of broader disability action & human rights

• (Presidency): Announcement of a new Joint Action to support the application of the Cartagena Action Plan

• (Poland and Finland): Announcement of timelines for accession and steps to be taken along the way


www.gichd.org

mine action: main achievements since the adoption of the ap

Documents