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.[22] 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 also involves a focus
on the civilians living with mines. HMA programs emphasize priority setting
based on civilian needs, 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 has been
an improvement of the techniques necessary to address the humanitarian
imperative and to make mine action operations more cost-efficient.
Another
significant measure of progress is the conclusion of the groundbreaking Landmine
Impact Survey in Yemen in July 2000; 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 Problem
Click to enlarge
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.[23]
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 in 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.
Landmine Impact Surveys have been completed in Yemen, Thailand, Chad and
Mozambique.
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 (MCPA,
Afghanistan) to implement the survey. In Thailand, SAC subcontracted Norwegian
People’s Aid (NPA) to implement the survey in cooperation with the
Thailand Mine Action Center (TMAC). In Chad, SAC subcontracted Handicap
International (HI) 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 Organization of American States. SAC and the Vietnam
Veterans of America Foundation are conducting a Landmine Impact Survey of
Vietnam. The first comprehensive national survey is being conducted in Cambodia
in a joint project of the Cambodian Mine Action Center and the Canadian
governments aid agency.
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. The
Mines Advisory Group (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 is little reliable information
on mines planted or land affected because of the conflict situation in the
country.
Mine Clearance
In
mine-affected countries, there may be a variety of responses to the problem, or
a combination of responses, 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.
During 2000 and early 2001, mine clearance operations were
carried out in 76 countries and regions, including humanitarian mine action programs in 34.
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.” 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.”[24]
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 supervision
from the OAS AIMCA program and with training and certification from the
Inter-American Defense Board 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,
DR Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Estonia, Georgia, Greece,
Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, India, northern Iraq, Iran, Israel, Jordan,
Kenya, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Laos, Liberia, Libya, Lithuania, FYR
Macedonia, Mauritania, Moldova, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nagorno-Karabakh, Namibia,
Nepal, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Russia, Rwanda, Senegal,
Somaliland, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Thailand,
Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, Vietnam, Western Sahara, Yemen, FR 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 Iraq Mine Action Program since 1997.
In 2000 and early 2001,
34 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, northern Iraq, 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
square meters 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 square meteres 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 square meters
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 square meters 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 antipersonnel 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, MCPA, 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.
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.
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.[25] 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.”[26]
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 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.
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 have been
the completion of the International Mine Action Standards 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
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. Under the agenda item on
coordination, planning and prioritization at the May 2001 meeting, presentations
were concentrated around the IMAS and the initial findings of Landmine
Monitor Report 2001.
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 in 2000 totaled about US$224 million, compared to about $205 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$33 million in mine action funding in 2000.
[22] More broadly, the five
pillars of mine action include mine survey/marking/clearance; mine awareness;
mine victim assistance; stockpile destruction; and mine ban
advocacy.
[23] 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.
[24] “United
Nations Mine Action and The Use of the Military,” at:
htpp://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/mine/military.html.
[25]
“A Study of Socio-Economic Approaches to Mine Action,” UNDP and
GICHD, Geneva, 2001, p. 3.
[26]
Ibid, p. 12.
About Us
Our Research Products
