Fifth Meeting of States Parties

About this Report

This report covers the activities of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) during the Fifth Meeting of States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti- Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (5MSP), held 15-19 September 2003 in Bangkok, Thailand.

Over 650 people from 119 countries participated in the Fifth Meeting of States Parties, including 87 States Parties, 4 States that recently ratified or acceded to the Treaty, but for which it had not yet entered into force, 9 Treaty signatories and 19 non-signatory states. In addition, 19 delegations participated including the European Commission, Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining, International Campaign to Ban Landmines, International Committee of the Red Cross, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Organization of American States, UN entities, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and other International Organization representatives.

International Campaign to Ban Landmines participation in the Fifth Meeting of States Parties would not have been possible without generous support from:

• European Commission • Government of Australia • Government of Canada • Government of New Zealand • Government of Norway • International Campaign to Ban Landmines and member campaigns and organizations • Landmine Monitor and Landmine Monitor Report 2003 Donors • RF Foundation • Individuals

We would like to extend our sincerest gratitude to the eleven member organizations of the Thailand Campaign to Ban Landmines for all their hard work and support organizing our participation in this meeting:

• Asian Disaster Preparedness Center • Association of the Physically Handicapped of Thailand • Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace • Catholic Office for Emergency Relief and Refugees • Council of Disabled People of Thailand • Disabled People’s International Asia Pacific • General Chatichai Choonhavan Foundation • Handicap International- Thailand • Jesuit Refugee Service Asia Pacific • Nonviolence International South East Asia • Prosthetic Foundation of Thailand

Our successful participation in this meeting would not have been possible without the incredible work of Siriporn (Tai) Thongtrakul, Emilie Ketudat, Fr. Vichai Phokthavi, Siriphen (Ah) Limsirikul, Nuchanad (Juju) Sirichayaporn, Loren and Lenka Persi, Saroj Ruangsakulraj, Suthikiet (Sunny) Sopanik, Duangkamol (Ing) Ponchamni, Sushira (Oun) Chonhenchob, Kep Phokthavi, Tawatchai Hoonghual (Ung), Sirinrat (Dao) Tesvisarn and Yeshua Moser- Puangsuwan. Thank you also to ICBL staff for their hard work: Elizabeth Bernstein, Sylvie Brigot, Jackie Hansen, Knell Knudsen, Susan Walker and Sue Wixley.

The ICBL Coordinator, the ICBL Project Officer, ICBL Interns and Human Rights Watch compiled this report.

November 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ICBL Overview and Assessment of the Fifth Meeting of States Parties ______1 ICBL Activities at the Fifth Meeting of States Parties ______5

Media ICBL Media Release on Landmine Monitor 2003 Findings ______13 Thai Campaign to Ban Landmines Press Release (English) ______16 Thai Campaign to Ban Landmines Press Release (Thai) ______18 ICBL Media Release on the opening of the 5MSP ______22 Angelina Jolie Statement ______24 Schedule of Media Events ______25 ICBL Participant Biographies ______29 Quotes, Story Ideas and Angles ______32 Media Coverage Overview ______35 Selected Media Articles ______36 Thai Survivor Profiles ______47 Cambodian Survivor Profiles ______50

Resource Materials What are the ICBL, Mine Ban Treaty and 5MSP? ______53 ICBL Schedule of 5MSP Events ______56 Landmine Monitor Major Findings ______58 Landmine Monitor Key Developments ______61 Review of Landmine Monitor Release Events and Activities ______74 ICBL Quarterly Landmine Update ______82 Ratification Update ______92

ICBL Statements to the 5MSP ICBL Ambassador Jody Williams Opening Address ______95 ICBL Statement to the 5MSP ______99 Working Group on Victim Assistance Statement ______109 Raising the Voices Statement ______111 Disability Convention Update ______114 Handicap International Belgium Statement ______115 Handicap International France Statement ______120 Working Group on Victim Assistance Report on Activities at the 5MSP ______123 Mine Action Working Group Statement ______125 Landmine Action Statement ______129 Mine Risk Education Sub-Working Group Statement ______131 ICBL Interventions on Articles 1,2,3,7,8, Compliance and Stockpile Destruction______132 Geneva Call Statement ______138 Non-State Actors Working Group Lessons Learned Report ______140

5MSP Final Documents ______144

Participants Final List of Participants ______213 ICBL List of Participants ______257 Overview and Assessmentof the Fifth Meeting of States Parties

Written by StephenGoose (Human Rights Watch), Head ofICBL Delegation

The Fifth Meeting of StatesParties (5MSP) to the 1997Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personne/Mines and On Their Destruction (Mine Ban Treaty) was one of the most productive and successfulannual meetingsto date. This was true both becauseof the work done in the formal sessionsand becauseof the importantdiscussions and activitiescarried out on the margins,outside of the conferenceroom. The governmentof Thailand and the Thai Campaign to Ban Landmineswere superbhosts for diplomatsand NGOs alike. The power and addedvalue of holding Meetingsof StatesParties in a mine-affectedcountry were demonstratedonce again,as had beenthe casein Mozambiquein 1999and Nicaragua in 2001.

The Meeting was characterizedby the positive senseof commonpurpose, cooperative spirit, dedication to inclusivity, and genuine partnership between governments, internationalinstitutions and NGOs that have beenthe hallmarksof the Ottawa Process, the Mine Ban Treaty IntersessionalWork Programme,and pastMeetings of StatesParties. At a time of great turmoil internationally,the Meeting was a welcome reminder that multilateralism,with a meaningfulrole for civil society,can and doeswork.

The level of participationin the Meeting was excellent,indicating the on-going priority attachedto this issue by governmentsand NGOs. A total of 118 countriesattended, the second most for a Meeting of StatesParties (after Genevalast year). More than 200 representativesof non-governmentalorganizations from 65 countriesattended, the largest ICBL NGO delegationever. The breadthof participants-diplomats, campaigners,U.N. personnel,and, most notably, significant numbersof mine action practitioners, people from the field, and landminesurvivors-made it clear that the Mine Ban Treaty hasindeed becomethe frameworkfor addressingall aspectsof the antipersonnelmine problem.

A large number(28) of non-StatesParties participated, a sign of the continuing spreadof the internationalnorm rejecting antipersonnelmines. Notably, elevennon-States Parties from Asia took part, an encouraging developmentin a region with relatively low adherenceto the Mine Ban Treaty. These included Bhutan, Brunei, China, Indonesia, Laos, Mongolia, Myanmar (Burma), Palau, Singapore,Sri Lanka, and Vietnam. The Middle East/North Africa, another region with few States Parties, was also well represented,with Egypt, Kuwait, Libya, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates participating. Notable absenteeswere India, Pakistan,Russia, and the United States.

The annualMeetings of StatesParties have often servedto spur new ratifications and accessionsto the Mine Ban Treaty, either in the lead-up to the meeting, during the proceedings,or soon thereafter. The 5MSP proved to be no different, with Belarus accedingin early September,Serbia and Montenegro accedingduring the meeting, and Greece,Turkey, Sudanand Burundijoining later in Septemberand October. Theseare all very important additionsto the ranks of StatesParties; all are mine-affected,some have

1 used antipersonnelmines in the recent past, some have very large stockpiles of antipersonnelmines. As of late October,there were 141 StatesParties to the Mine Ban Treaty, and an additionalnine signatories,which must still ratify. Elevencountries have joined thus far in 2003, comparedto eightin all of2002.

During the generalexchange of views, therewere manystrong statementsby governments emphasizingongoing commitmentto the Mine Ban Treaty and to the eradicationof antipersonnelmines, and detailingthe manyactivities they have beenengaged in over the past year to that end. As reflected in the speeches,and as documentedin the ICBL's LandmineMonitor Report 2003, the level of interest and action remainssubstantial, and the level of progresson nearlyevery front remainsvery impressive.

The ICBL was particularly pleasedto hear reports from Chile, Republic of Congo (Brazzaville)and Kenya that they had completeddestruction of their antipersonnelmine stockpilesshortly before the 5MSP. All three finishedfar aheadof their treaty-mandated deadlines(Chile by March 2006, Congo by November2005, and Kenya by July 2005). Tunisia, which was not presentat the 5MSP, later confirmed that it completedstockpile destructionin early September. The first four-year deadlinesfor stockpile destruction were reachedon 1 March 2003 for 45 StatesParties, with deadlinesreached for additional StatesParties in the subsequentmonths. Every StateParty to date hasreported that it has complied with this important obligation,a truly remarkableachievement in the life of the Convention. The one notableexception is the caseof Turkmenistan(see below).

The key documentsto emerge from the Meeting-the Bangkok Declaration,the Final Report, and the President'sAction Programme-are all strong documentsthat improve upon the good efforts of previous years. The Final Report includes several important recommendationsthat deserveto be highlighted: .The Meeting called upon States Parties to renew their commitmentto ensure sustainabilityof resourcesnecessary to implementthe treaty~ .The Meeting called upon StatesParties needingassistance with mine clearance, meetingthe needsof landminevictims, or stockpile destructionto ensurethat prior to the First Review Conferenceplans are in place consistent with the treaty deadlines~ .The Meeting called upon States Parties to share information and views, particularly with respect to articles 1, 2, and 3, with a view to developing understandingsby the First ReviewConference.

The importance of the first two recommendations cannot be overstated, if we are to succeed in fully implementing the Convention and delivering on the promise of the Convention. Sustained political will, backed by resource commitments and concrete practical efforts, on the part of all States Parties, will be necessary if crucial deadlines for stockpile destruction and mine clearance, as well as the needs of victims, are to be met. With the first mine clearance deadlines quickly approaching in 2009, it is crucial that national plans are put in place now, and present. and future needs are clearly identified and addressed.

2 With regard to the latter recommendation,the ICBL haslong called for StatesParties to reach commonunderstandings on issuesrelated to thosearticles. For Article 1, the issueis interpretationof the prohibition on "assisting"with a bannedact, particularly in the context of joint military operations with a non-State Party that uses antipersonnelmines, transit of antipersonnelmines across State Party territory, and foreign stockpiling of antipersonnelmines in a StateParty. For Article 2, the issueis application of the Mine Ban Treaty to antivehicle mines with sensitive fuzes or sensitiveantihandling devices. For Article 3, the issue is the appropriatenumber of mines that may be retainedto be consistentwith the treaty's requirementto keep no more than the "minimum number absolutelynecessary" for training or development purposes.

The Bangkok Declarationincludes new languagepromoted by the ICBL on the issue of Non-State Actors (NSAs). StatesParties not only call on all NSAs to stop using antipersonnelmines, but also "welcomethe efforts of non-governmentalorganizations, the InternationalCommittee of the Red Crossand the United Nationsin engagingnon- state actors on a ban on antipersonnelmines and expressour appreciationfor the work of theseorganizations and our desirethat individualStates Parties that are in a position to do so facilitate this work." In general,the importanceand necessityof engaging NSAs was given much more prominencein this Meeting of StatesParties than ever before.

StatesParties also fonnally decidedto hold the First ReviewConference at the United Nations facilities in Nairobi, Kenya from 29 November to 3 December2004, and agreedto designateAmbassador Wolfgang Petritschof Austria as the Presidentof the Review Conference. The ICBL warmly welcomedthese decisions. The ICBL has said that the First ReviewConference should be a very high profile, watershedevent in the life of the Mine Ban Treaty; it must be used not so muchto review the past five yearsas to ensurepolitical and financialcommitments-and concrete,results oriented planning-for the following five years. There were very fruitful discussionsabout the Review Conferencethroughout the Meeting of StatesParties, and in the Final Report, the Meeting urged participationat the highestpossible level in a high level segmentat the endof the ReviewConference.

The ICBL was encouragedthat the Fifth Meeting of StatesParties had a powerful focus on landrnine survivors-in no small part becauseso many survivors were presentand activelyparticipating in the work of the conference. The closing remarks of Thailand'sMinister of ForeignAffairs noted, "The meetinghas also highlightedthe plight of mine victims and mine survivors. We have stressedthe urgent need to increase resource mobilization for mine action, including particularly for victim assistance.We havereiterated the fact that mine action is not only a humanitarian,but a developmentissue It needsto be addressedwithin the context of nationalsocial and economicdevelopment."

In addition to describingthe very positive and successfulresults of the 5MSP, as outlined above,the ICBL expressedsome of its disappointmentswith the Meeting in

3 the closing press conference held jointly with representativesfrom the governments of Thailand, Kenya and Austria, as well as the International Committee of the Red Cross. These included: .States Parties were practically silent on the serious compliance issue concerning State Party Turkmenistan. Turkmenistan reported that it completed stockpile destruction in advance of its 1 April 2003 deadline, but that it intends to retain 69,200 antipersonnel mines for training purposes. This number is far outside of the norm, is clearly not "the minimum number absolutely necessary," and could constitute an operational stockpile. Thus, Turkmenistan would appear to be in violation of both Article 3 (for retaining an excessive number of mines for training) and Article 4 (for not destroying its full stockpile by the deadline). The ICBL urged that this problem be urgently addressed, so that Turkmenistan understandsits obligations and completes its stockpile destruction. .States Parties, with the exception of Canada, did not condemn recent and ongoing mine use by countries like Burma (Myanmar) and Russia. If States Parties are serious about upholding an international norm against the antipersonnel mine, they must speak up loudly and consistently against those who continue to use the weapon. .While there were many positive statements about renewed political commitment, not a single State Party announced a new financial commitment for mine action.

Finally, despitethe successof the Meeting and the progressmade to date in banning antipersonnelmines, there was widespreadrecognition that there is still a great deal left io be done, and urgently. The Foreign Minister's closing remarks expresseda view clearly sharedby governmentdelegates and the ICBL: "However muchwe have accomplished...we simply cannotafford to be complacent. In the period leading up to the First ReviewConference in Nairobi next year, we must work harder. We must be responsive. We mustbe pro-active.We must be innovative. And, most important of all, we must work together."

4 Preparation

In preparation for the 5MSP, the ICBL issued an Action Alert, in July, called "Hold Hands Against Mines in Asia" targeting antipersonnel mines users and producers in seven countries in Asia: China, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Singapore and Vietnam. All were encouraged to urge these countries to take a step towards the Mine Ban Treaty in the lead-up to the 5MSP. ICBL staff sent a memo to all national campaigns suggesting priorities and main messagesfor lobbying prior to the 5MSP. Those campaigners traveling to Bangkok were contacted individually and particularly encouraged to meet with their government representatives beforehand and thereby actively contribute to the preparation of their country's participation in the 5MSP. On behalf of the Cambodian and Thai Campaigns to Ban Landmines ICBL Ambassador Tun Channareth and Wiboonrat Chanchoo wrote letters to Foreign Ministers of Asian non-States Parties urging them to participate fully in the 5MSP and attend the field trip. "Come to Bangkok and share information on steps your country is taking to addressthe landrnine problem, " they urged. The ICBL also sent letters to Foreign Ministers highlighting issues of concern to the ICBL and urging all to do all they could to ensure a successful5MSP.

A webpage www.icbl.orgL5msn was created grouping official, ICBL and media documents, as well as a section "5MSP -what you can do" to engage campaigners and the public in contacting Asian governments outside the Convention to urge them to use this opportunity to embracethe worldwide ban on antipersonnelmines.

LandmineMonitor Report 2003: Towarda Mine-Free World was launchedworldwide on 9 September.Events to releasethe annualreport this year took place in sixteencountries, in additionto mediawork by campaignersin anotherfifteen countries.Reports and related documentswere also distributedto all 5MSPparticipants.

Lobbyin;~

206 ICBL campaignersand researchersrepresenting 65 countries participated in the 5MSP, the largest group of campaignersto date at a Meeting of States Parties. An orientationmeeting was held Sundayprior to the meeting. ICBL Working Group chairs led discussionson messages,objectives and priorities for the week. Throughoutthe week, campaignersparticipated in morning briefings where they provided substantialreports on their lobbying efforts as well as plannedupcoming participation in the meeting and side events. ICBL members reported on their meetings with at least 70 governmental delegationsto the 5MSP, including a numberof non-statesparties and signatorystates, such as Burundi, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, Grc~ece,Indonesia, Kuwait, Libya, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Poland, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Serbia and Montenegro, Singapore,Sri Lanka, Sudan,and Turkey. Campaignersalso discussedevents and plans for the comingyear with their governmentcolleagues.

5 Media

The Meeting of StatesParties in Bangkokreceived exceptional media coveragein local, international, print and electronicmedia (see full report on Media Coverage).The ICBL mounted a range of activitiesto attract media attentionand coverage.We issueda press advisory beforehandand a press statementfor the opening ( 15 September,"Asia lags behind in landmine ban"). The ICBL's media kit for the 5MSP was available online (http://www.icbl.org/5msp/mediakit/)and in hard copyin Englishand Thai.

The launch of LandmineMonitor Report2003: Towarda Mine-Free World worldwide on 9 September,and in Bangkok on 10 September,helped to boost interestin the landmine issueand the meetingitself. Many colourful activitiesof the Thai campaignin the months leading up to the conferencealso helped to lay the groundwork with the local media particularly. The ICBL also worked on the three pressconferences that took place during the SMSP. The first two took were scheduledfor the openingday of the conference.The first focused on the LandmineMonitor Report2003 andthe secondlooked at expectationsfor the week and was addressedby Thailand'sForeign Minister and Presidentof the 5MSP, Sukakiart Sathirathai,4MSP PresidentAmbassador Jean Lint of Belgium, Peter Herby (ICRC) and ICBL's Ambassadorand 1997 Nobel Peace Prize Co-Laureate, Jody Williams. The closing press conference,on 19 September,featured Dr Sorajak Kasemsuvan,Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs of Thailand, AmbassadorWolfgang Petritsch,the President- Designateof the 2004 Review Conference,Stephen Tarus, AssistantMinister for Kenya, which will host the ReviewConference, Peter Herby (ICRC) and StephenGoose, Head of ICBL's SMSPDelegationand Chief Editor of the LandmineMonitor.

This year, there was also a focus on facilitating more media work by country campaigners themselves.They were encouragedto contacttheir mediabefore they left for Bangkok and come armed with updatedmedia contact lists. Campaignersreported on their successesat the ICBL's daily briefingsand sharedideas on possibleangles to pitch to the media.

Statements As at previous Meetings of States Parties, the ICBL issued statementsand made interventionsthroughout the meeting.Jody Williams, ICBL Ambassadorand 1997Nobel PeacePrize Co-Laureate,addressed the SMSP'sopening session.She noted, "One of the hallmarksof the Mine Ban Treatyis the Ottawa Process-that alternativemodel of a new diplomacy-is also currentlyunder threat. Becauseit is being threatened,in my view it is even more important that we redoubleour efforts to make certain that the tremendous progress we have seen already in the short life of this international treaty continues unabated." Chair of the ICBL Treaty Working Group and Head of Delegation, StephenGoose, deliveredthe ICBL' s statementto the SMSPduring the GeneralExchange of Views on Wednesday,17 September."Nearly every indicator of progressis positive, including the fact that twenty StatesParties have reported completionof destructionof their stockpiles

6 of antipersonnelmines in the past year." However, noting that huge challengesremain, Goose went on to highlight "major issueareas that are essentialto any assessmentof the healthof the mineban movement.First, StateParty compliancewith the Mine Ban Treaty; second,global use of antipersonnelmines; and third, the status of universalizationof the Mine Ban Treatyand the ban noml" drawing on the findingsof LandmineMonitor Report 2003. GenevaCall madea statementhighlighting the importanceof engagingnon-state actors in the ban on antipersonnelmines. During the review of the generalstatus and operationof the Convention,the ICBL spoke on mobilizingresources, as well as on mattersrelated to Articles 1, 2 and 3. The ICBL also made two interventionsduring the discussionon mattersrelated to Complianceconcerns.

During infomIal discussionson victim assistanceand socio-economicreintegration the ICBL Working Group on Victim Assistance(WGV A) presentedan overviewof the status of victim assistanceon a global scale.The overviewwas basedon a study conductedby LSN in which the informationfrom three yearsof LandmineMonitor reports was usedto grade 69 mine-affectedcountries along six victim assistanceindicators. A representative of Raisingthe Voices,Zohra Qudsia,presented the work of the participantsfrom Asia this year. HandicapInternational's Phillip Cogganmade a presentationon the SoutheastAsian regionalproject. ShereeB~ey reported on a studyof victim assistanceinitiatives in South East Europe and highlighted key issuesfor the region: accessto affordable health care, improvementin existing servicesand facilities, capacitybuilding, awarenessraising and establishmentof effectivewelfare systems.Margaret Arach, co-chair of the WGV A, gave an update on the recent UN Ad Hoc Committee Meeting on developmentof a new international Conventionto Protect and Promote the Rights of Personswith Disabilities that took place in New York in June2003. The purposeof the updatewas to encourage StatesParties to take interest and give supportto the conventionas it clearly links with article 6.3 of the Mine Ban Convention.

During informal discussionson mine clearance,mine risk educationand mine action technologiesthe ICBL Mine Action Working Groun (MAWG) and Mine Risk Education (MRE) sub-groupprovided updates on implementation.Sara Sekkenes, MA WG Co-Chair, highlighted"achievements and progressin striving to meet obligationsof the Convention as regards to Article 5," as well as challengesahead, including "findings noting the apparentrisk that a number of countries will have difficulties in meeting deadlinesfor mine clearance,a deadlinethat 14 StateParties reachin March 2009." MAWG Co-Chair, Shohab Hakimi, provided examples from Afghanistan. MRE sub-group Co-Chair, HabboubaAoun, then highlighted positive trends in MRE as well as future challenges. Landmine Action UK addressed"Mine action and peacebuilding:exploring the agenda" and informed the meeting of a researchproject that FAFO, LMA and PRIO intend to undertakeover the nexttwo yearson this importanttopic "in orderto improvemine action at both policy and field levels." During the informal consultations on stockpile destruction,ICBL also spokeon the statusof implementation.

7 Side Events

Field Trip to Mine-Affec1edCommunities

Two groups of ICBL carllpaignerstraveled to the mine-affectedprovinces of Chanthaburi and Sa Kaeo along the border with Cambodiaon a 13 Septemberfield visit organizedby the ThailandCampaign to Ban Landmines.

One group of campaignerstraveled by bus to Chanthaburi vvhere they received a briefing on the locallandmine sitllation from membersof the Chanthaburi-Trad Border Prevention Force. In Pong Namron District campaigners met with the district head and later visited mine-affected areas and the Thailand Mine Action Center (TMAC) Humanitarian Mine Action Unit Two' s mar~jng and demining program. Participants later met with landmine survivors and visited a prosthetic workshop in Nong Kok Village.

The second group of ICBL members traveled to Sao Kaeo province, also along the Thai- Cambodian border. Suthikiet Sopanik, director of the General Chatichai Choonhavan Foundation, led campaigners through the mine-affected communities of Khok Sabaeng and Nong Ian, where they met with local community leaders and landmine survivors. Participants then visited the Japan Alliance for Humanitarian Demining Support's mine clearance operation at 1:he Sadok Gok Thorn Ancient Sanctuary in Khok Soong and received a mine action briefing and demonstration from local staff.

"Looking Back, Lookillg Forward" Workshop on LessonsLearned in Engaging NOD- State Acton in a Mine Ban

Approximately 60 mine ban campaigners shared experiencc~sin engaging anned non-state actors (NSAs) in a landmine ban on 13 September. l'he ICBL's Non-State Actors Working Group and Geneva Call co-hosted the full-day wolrkshop in Bangkok. In addition to campaigners,researchers from the GICHD, ICRC and Landmine Monitor contributed to the discussions. The wc,rkshop aimed to draw lessons learrled over the past seven years of initiatives to engage NSAs by securing commitments and cooperation in mine action and victim assistance(see S1JmmaryReport.)

Interfaith prayer senrlce: for a mine-freeworld

The Thailand CampaigJllto Ban Landmines (TCBL) orgaIJlizedan interfaith prayer service on 14 Septemberwith 'the theme of "Hold Hands and Heal the World." Approximately 50 campaigners from all faiths participated in this event, held outside under trees in a shady area of Bangkok. Sister Denise Coghlan of the Cambodia Campaign to Ban Landmines and TCBL's Father Vichai Phokthavi offered Catholic prayers. Campaigners read from Buddhist scripture and the Koran, as well as offered I)rayers and blessings in several languages, Panel Discussion: "The Landmine Ban in tbe Gulf: CbaUengesand Possibilities"

8 Approximately30 deleJgatesfrom the 5MSPattended the ICBL's lunchtimepanel discussionon 17 Septelmber:"The LandmineBan in the Gulf: Challengesand Possibilities."

Landmine Monitor r~~searcheron Syria, GhassanShaJ~our, chaired the forum and introduced the three p,anelists:Haji Khalil Dokhanchi(Landmine Monitor researcheron Iran) who exploreda regional approachto PersianGulf Statesaccession to the Mine Ban Treaty, HabboubaAoun (campaignerand LandmineMonitor researcher)who provided a case study on Lebanonand Erik Tollefson (Norwegian :PeoplesAid) who spoke about clearanceefforts in Iraqt.

Commentsfrom the floor includedideas on how to appro,a.chthe Arab Leagueand points about the importanceof framingthe landmineissue as a humanitarianconcern rather than a securityissue. It was noted that manyGulf Statesare alreadygenerous donors for mine action in the region and beyondand that this may provide a basis on which to approach themto join the treaty.

Panel Discussion: "EolgagingNon-State Actors in a Lsoldmine Ban"

Efforts amongstates, armed non-state actors, country campaignsand NGOs to put a stop to mine use and provide mine clearanceand victim as:sistancein conflict areas were discussedat the Public Briefing of the ICBL Non-State Actors Working Group and GenevaCall on "Eng~~g Armed Non-StateActors (NS1~)in a LandmineBan" held 16 September2003 on the occasionof the 5MSP. Sixty-onecampaigners, media practitioners and governmentrepre~;entatives, including membersof the European Commission,the Organization of American States, and several governrnent delegationsattended the briefing.

Panelistsat the forum were Miriam Coronel Ferrer (ICBL NSA Working Group chair), Elisabeth Reusse-Decr.~(Geneva Call president), Soliman Santos (Geneva Call and Philippine CBL), ChwldraharanPararajasingham (Tamil Rehabilitation Organization - TRO), Waleed Elbw;hir (Sudan CBL), Yehsua Moser-Puangsuan(Nonviolence International),Purna ShovaChitrakar (Nepal CBL) and AJvaroJimenez Millan (Colombia CBL).

Panelists highlighted progress in NSA-related work, including states parties' recognition of its importance as :reflected in past Declarations of Meetings of State Parties in Nicaragua and Geneva, and ground-level efforts at engage:ment,including securing signed Geneva Call Deeds of~ Commitment from non-state actors in Asia, Africa and Latin America. ChandraharanPararajasingham discussed the berLefitsand methods employed in the extensive joint mine clearing operations being conducted in Sri Lanka by the government, the TRO and the international community. The Sudanese experience, meanwhile, showed how engagement work even during conflict can contribute to the peace process.

9 Report launch: "Crossing the Divide -Landmines, Villagers and Organizations"

On 18 Septemberthe International Peace ResearchInstittlte, Oslo (pRIO), Handicap International Belgium (RIB) and UNICEF launched "Crossingthe Divide -Landmines, Villagers and Organizations,"a report by Ruth Bottomley. About 100 people attended, including representativesof donor countriesand other governments,ICBL members,UN agencies,as well asjournalists.

Crossing the Divide looks at the issue of village demining in Cambodia. The main message of the report is that the presence of village deminers forces us to acknowledge that, rather than being passive victims, communities affected by landmines are in fact active subjects, dealing "lith their own local situations on their own terms. All over the world, in countries affectc~ by conflict, men and women are forced to develop strategies to combat the threat of landmines and unexploded ordnance on their own. Drawing on more than a year of field research and an analysis of develo!pmentinterventions, risk and livelihood strategies, Cro.~singthe Divide examines both thc~phenomenon of villagers in Cambodia who take landrnine clearance into their own hands and the relationship between their efforts and the brolader mine action programme of 1the international community: While their activities often sit uncomfortably with the interventions of humanitarian mine action, village deminers demonstrate a clear understanding of the nature of the threats confronting them and the limitationS and benefits of the work they undertake. Crossing the Divide explores the methods, priorities and motivations of these people in an effort to better explain the nature: of the threat of landmines as perceived by people living in contaminated areas. The questions asked in this study contaiJl1lessonsthat are relevant for all mine action practitioners, donor organizations and mine..affected countries, and have implications for the vet;'Y way in which mine action programmes are organized and prioritized. The full report: is available at http://www. prio.no/publications/publication.asp?PublicationIl>=4686 Oaiming the Future -the Impact of UXO and Landmin~~ on Lao PDR

On 15 Septemberat the lUnitedNations ConferenceCenter, the ICBL Australia Network and the Australian GoveJrnmentheld a public event to launlch"Claiming the Future- the Impact of UXO and Landrnines in Lao DPR," a book and associatedexhibition of photographs by AustraUlanphotographer John Rodsted. Mr. Peter Shannon of the Australian Government,Patricia Pak Poy and John Rodsted of the ICBL Australia Network and H.E. Mr. P!l1ongsavathBoupha of the Governmentof Lao PDR spoke at the opening. Throughoutthe 5MSPparticipants, including the Royal Thai Princessand HRH PrincessAstrid andPrince Lorenz of Belgiumvisited thle exhibition.

The book and photo E~xhibition succeeded in raising a'wareness of the struggle of communities to Lao PDR to retrieve their land and rebuild 1theircommunities in the wake of the heavy fighting in Lao PDR from 1964-1973.

A numberof partnersinc:luding U:XO-Lao, ICBL AustraliaNetwork, CaritasAustralia and the AUSAID worked tog!etherto makethe book and exhibitionpossible.

10 The Perfect Survivor

On 16 September, "The Perfect Survivor," an art and photography exhibition by Italian artist Laura Morelli anld photographer Giovanni Diffidenti, was opened in the foyer of the World Trade Centre, a popular Bangkok shopping mall. The exhibition included photographs of landmine survivors from Afghanistan, Angola, Nicaragua and other mine- affected countries. The photographs were complemented by the presence of a mechanized school chair that "wal1<:ed"around the exhibition. The chair struggled to move and slowly limped around the exhibition, symbolizing the challenges that landmine survivors face in overcoming their injuric~sand resuming normal and product:ive lives.

Italian Ambassador Stc~hano Starace Janfol1~ ICBL Ambassador Jody Williams, Deputy Chainnan of the Central Pattana Public Company Mr. AJ.1ekSithiprasasan~ ICBL youth campaigners, Ms. Laura Morelli and Mr. Giovanni Diffidenti made presentations at the opening. Then chair was turned on and began "walking" around the foyer, signaling the opening of the instal1a~tion.Bangkok shoppers in this busy area were able to visit the exhibition while it was at the World Trade Centre from 15-:Z1 September2003.

Exhibit on Non-State Actors

The Geneva Call exhit)it on non-state amled actors (NSAs) at the 5MSP builds upon a growing recognition ~nthin the international mine action community -affected states, donors, practitioners, policy analysts and decision makers -that involvement of NSAs is necessary for true univ4~salizationof the AP mine ban nonn. The fundamental question on this issue is 'what CaI11be done to influence amled groups to respect this international humanitarian norm?' Attempts to inform NSAs about their obligations under international humanitarian law, initially perceived with suspicion and skepticism, are increasingly recognized by States a:svaluable contributions to the mine ban norm. The exhibit aims to promote discussion on this very important issue while pre:;enting in a sensitive, visual and thought provoking InaI1lDerthe considerations, challenges and rewards of persuading NSAs to respect and to upho:ld a ban on antipersonnel mines and to facilitate humanitarian mine action in areas where they are active. The exhibit is comprised of a series of interchangeablepanels of text and images. Geneva Call's ,exhibitis believed to be the first ever addressingthe issue ofNSAs, in any context.

Yooth Participation ill the 5MSP

Five young people frODtlCambodia, Canada, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, and Uruguay participated in the ICBL' s "Interna1ional Youth Capacity Building in Mine Action Seminar" held from 12-21 September 2003 in Bangkok, Thailand, in conjunction with the 5MSP and ICBL General Meeting. The 18-21 year old participants were chosen because of their active participation in natiomJ campaign activities. They came to Bangkok to strengthen their advocacy skills and bec;omemore fully integrated into the ICBLs' international advocacy efforts.

11 The youth participants took part in a series of workshops facilitated by ICBL campaign members on topics including lobbying techniques, interacting with the media and organizing public events. Each youth was paired with an experienced campaign mentor. They participated in all SMSP and General Meeting events together with their mentor. This provided a supporti've environment for the youth to observe and participate in lobby meetings and other advocacy activities.

The youth group put the:irexcellent advocacy skills into practice at the opening of "The Perfect Survivor" art and!photography exhibition. They issueda joint statementabout the importance of survivor 8lSsistance.At the end of the seminarthey also prepareda press statement about their plarticipationin the seminar to circulate to local media upon returning home.

12 EMBARGOED UNTIL 09:00 GMT, TUESDAY 9 SEPTEMBER 2003

GLOBAL LANDMINE USE DECREASES, BUT MINE BAN CAMPAIGN CAUTIONS AGAINST COMPLACENCY

(9 September 2003). Global use of antipersonnel mines fell dramatically in the past year, while funding for mine clearance increased 30 percent, according to the latest annual report by the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL).

"We are making tremendous strides in getting rid of antipersonnel landmines and in saving lives and limbs in every region of the world," said ICBL Ambassador Jody Williams, who shared the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize with the ICBL. "However, there is no room for complacency. Some countries still refuse to abide by the new international standard rejecting antipersonnel mines. Mines are still being laid and the number of mine victims around the world increases every day."

According to the 826-page Landmine Monitor Report 2003, more than 52 million stockpiled antipersonnel mines have been destroyed by 69 countries, including four million in the past year, the number of countries producing the weapon has decreased from more than fifty to 15, and there have been no significant exports of antipersonnel mines since the mid-1990s. Mine clearance and other mine action programs have expanded, and there are fewer new mine casualties annually than in the past.

There are now 136 countries that have ratified or acceded to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, which prohibits use, production, trade and stockpiling of antipersonnel mines, and requires destruction of mines in the ground within ten years. Ten countries ratified or acceded since the last annual report, including Afghanistan, one of the most heavily mined nations in the world. Belarus is the most recent to join, on 3 September 2003. Belarus has a stockpile of more than 4 million antipersonnel mines, the sixth biggest in the world. In addition to the 136, another 12 countries have signed but not yet ratified the treaty.

"The number of governments and rebel groups using antipersonnel mines has continued to decrease," said Mary Wareham of Human Rights Watch, the Global Coordinator for the Landmine Monitor initiative. "There are currently only two governments-Myanmar and Russia- planting antipersonnel mines on a regular basis." In this Landmine Monitor reporting period (since May 2002), at least six governments used antipersonnel mines, all non-signatories to the ban treaty: India, Iraq, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Pakistan, and Russia. Although Saddam Hussein's forces laid mines in many locations before and during the conflict, United States and coalition forces apparently did not use antipersonnel mines in Iraq.

Use by six governments represents a decrease from nine governments identified in Landmine Monitor Report 2002 and 13 governments in Landmine Monitor Report 2001. Likewise, armed opposition groups used antipersonnel mines in eleven countries in this reporting period, compared to fourteen countries in the previous year.

Among Mine Ban Treaty States Parties, the ICBL is most concerned about Turkmenistan, which has indicated its intent to keep 69,200 antipersonnel mines for "training." The ICBL believes this number is unacceptably high and likely illegal, since the treaty allows retention only of the "minimum number absolutely necessary" for training and development purposes. Most states choosing to retain training mines are keeping only hundreds or a few thousand.

After stagnating in 2001, funding for mine action (mine clearance, mine risk education, mine survivor assistance) in 2002 totaled some $309 million, a 30 percent increase from the previous year. Mine action funding has totaled over $1.7 billion since 1992, including $1.2 billion since the Mine Ban Treaty was opened for signature in 1997.

"More than two-thirds of the 2002 funding increase went to a single country, Afghanistan," said Sara Sekkenes of Norwegian People's Aid, Co-Chair of the ICBL Mine Action Working Group. "Unfortunately, current progress reports clearly show that even greater increases in mine action funding, as well as higher cost-efficiency, will be needed to enable States Parties to meet their mine clearance deadlines and cope fully with the global landmine problem."

According to Landmine Monitor, 82 countries are mine-affected, including 45 States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty. Under the treaty, mine-affected States Parties have ten years to remove emplaced mines. Costa Rica declared itself mine-free in December 2002, nearly seven years before its deadline. In 2002, no mine clearance was recorded in 16 of the affected countries and no mine risk education activities were recorded in 25 countries.

In 2002 and through June 2003, there were new landmine casualties reported in 65 countries; the majority (41) of these countries were at peace, not war. Only 15 percent of reported casualties in 2002 were identified as military personnel.

"The reported landmine casualty rate declined in 2002 in the majority of mine-affected countries, but mines continue to claim too many victims," said Sheree Bailey of Handicap International Belgium, Landmine Monitor's Victim Assistance Research Coordinator. "As the number of mine survivors continues to grow in every region of the world, in many mine-affected countries the assistance available for their rehabilitation and reintegration into society is hopelessly inadequate."

Landmine Monitor Report 2003: Toward a Mine-Free World is the fifth annual report by the ICBL. On Monday, 15 September, the ICBL will present the report to diplomats attending the Fifth Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty in Bangkok, Thailand, a mine-affected State Party.

The Landmine Monitor initiative is coordinated by a "Core Group" of five ICBL organizations. Human Rights Watch is the lead organization and others include Handicap International Belgium, Kenya Coalition Against Landmines, Mines Action Canada, and Norwegian People's Aid. A total of 110 Landmine Monitor researchers in 90 countries systematically collected and analyzed information from a wide variety of sources for this comprehensive report. This unique civil society initiative constitutes the first time that non-governmental organizations have come together in a sustained, coordinated and systematic way to monitor and report on the implementation of an international disarmament or humanitarian law treaty.

The full Landmine Monitor report and related documents are available online now in various languages. Please email [email protected] for the password. From 09:00 GMT on 9 September the report will be available online at www.icbl.org/lm/2003

For more information or to schedule an interview, contact: Sue Wixley, ICBL, in Bangkok at +66 (0)5 164-2679 Mary Wareham, Human Rights Watch, in Washington DC at +1 (202) 612-4356 or +1 (202) 352-2968 Email. [email protected]

# # #

Embargoed until 9 September 2003

The Road is Long Thailand Stepping Ahead Says Landmine Research The annual report on the global landmine situation shows a year of action in Thailand

(Bangkok) At 8pm on Wednesday 9 September 2003, at the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand the Thailand Campaign to Ban Landmines will launch this year's comprehensive summary of the global landmine situation, the Landmine Monitor Report. The launch comes only days before Thailand hosts the biggest event on the international landmine action calendar, the Fifth Meeting of States Parties conference.

This year's report shows that Thailand has maintained its role as a region leader in landmine issues. Highlights from the country's annual report include the significant news that Thailand completed the destruction of its stockpile of antipersonnel mines during the year. During the reporting period 368,351 square meters of land were cleared of the deadly and indiscriminate sentinels. During the reporting period Thailand's National Mine Action Committee met for the first time, in another step forward. Chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, The National Mine Action Committee is authorized to stipulate policy, supervise operations and advise the government.

"During the reporting period cooperation between non-governmental organisations and government bodies involved in landmine issues has been thriving. For example, a long list of Thai non-government groups including the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center, the Disabled Peoples International, the General Chatichai Choonhavan Foundation, Handicap International- Thailand, and the Thailand Campaign to Ban Landmines were asked to join a committee on strategic planning chaired by the Thailand Mine Action Center (TMAC)." said Ms. Siriphen Limsirikul, Thailand Landmine Monitor researcher from the Thailand Campaign to Ban Landmines

Thailand signed the Mine Ban Treaty (also referred to as the Ottawa Convention) prohibiting the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of antipersonnel landmines on 3 December 1997, and the treaty entered into force in Thailand on 1 May 1999. Last year a number of countries already in the Mine Ban Treaty, mostly from the Asia-Pacific region, formed the Bangkok Regional Action Group (BRAG) with the aim of promoting landmine ban initiatives in the region in the lead up to the Fifth Meeting of States Parties. Earlier this year at a meeting of the Conference on Disarmament, Thailand invited all countries to the Fifth Meeting of States Parties noting that it will be held in Asia for the first time. The Fifth Meeting of States Parties conference will take place in the UNCC building in Bangkok on 15-19 September 2003.

The final report of the Thailand Landmine Impact Survey (2001) arrived in Thailand during the 2003 Landmine Monitor reporting period. The Impact Survey found that the total area contaminated by mines covered more than 2,556,000,000 square meters in 27 provinces along the Cambodia, Laos, Burma, and Malaysia borders. Altogether 531 Thai communities were reported as being landmine affected. Most of the mined areas are no longer marked, and the military only possesses maps of some mined areas. Many civilians continue to take high risks in their daily lives as they enter known mined areas to gather subsistence food, collect firewood, and farm. Alternative job opportunities in these border areas remain very few, and consequently the pressure to use the land is high.

"The report of the destruction of the last of the stockpiled Royal Thai Government's antipersonnel landmines is a victory for everyone and is indicative of the advances being made. The information in this year's Landmine Monitor demonstrates that progress in the clearance of landmines from the ground is ongoing. However it is also apparent that we need decisive action on a guaranteed time frame for a landmine free Thailand." Emilie Ketudat fellow Landmine Monitor researcher and Thailand Campaign to ban Landmines Coordinator said of the implications arising from the report's launch.

At the Foreign Corespondents Club launch Landmine Monitor researchers from Thailand and Burma will give presentations on the current situation and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines Coordinator will discuss the successes, and challenges which remain, in achieving a global landmine ban.

# # #

MEDIA CONTACTS: • Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan, Thailand Campaign to Ban Landmines, Mobile 06.892.3317 • Sue Wixley, International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Mobile 05.164.2679

PRESS STATEMENT

Asia lags behind on landmine ban

(Bangkok, Thailand, 15 September 2003) Campaigners have urged States Parties to the treaty that prohibits antipersonnel mines to do their utmost to stop use, production and stockpiling of the weapon in the Asia-Pacific region.

”We’ve made headway in other parts of the world, but Asia is lagging behind in tackling the landmine problem,” said Jody Williams, who received the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize together with the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL).

The campaign is in Bangkok for the Fifth Meeting of States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (or Mine Ban Treaty).

An ICBL delegation of 250 plus campaigners, deminers, researchers and landmine survivors from 70 countries will be lobbying States Parties this week to renew their financial and political commitment to build a mine-free world.

The event, hosted by the Thai government and convened under the auspices of the United Nations, is the fifth annual meeting on the implementation of the 1997 treaty and the last formal gathering before a major treaty milestone, the Review Conference, scheduled for December 2004 in Nairobi, Kenya.

“We call on States Parties to go all-out to promote the Mine Ban Treaty in this mine-ravaged region, ” said Tun Channareth, Cambodian landmine survivor and ICBL Ambassador. “More can, and should, be done,” he added.

There has been an overall reduction worldwide of government use of landmines, according to the ICBL’s fifth annual report, Landmine Monitor Report 2003, which was released on 9 September.

Since May 2002, at least 6 governments have used antipersonnel mines, down from 9 and 13 in 2001 and 2000 respectively. Similarly, fewer armed opposition groups are now laying mines: 11 groups compared with at least 14 in the last reporting period.

A disproportionate number of users are in Asia. The campaign has fingered the governments of India, Pakistan, Nepal and Myanmar (Burma) for using antipersonnel mines and rebel groups in Burma, India, Nepal and the Philippines.

More than a third of Asian countries are mine-polluted, including some of the most mine- contaminated countries in the world, such as Afghanistan and Cambodia. Last year, 14 of the 15 mine-affected countries in the region suffered casualties due to mines and unexploded ordnance.

Reports indicate that since May 2002 at least 3,000 people in Asia fell victim to the weapon, although the actual number is likely to be at least double this. 25 percent of the reported casualties were children.

Despite the enormous mine problem in the region, less than half its member countries have banned landmines. In Asia there are 17 States Parties to the treaty and a further five signatories. The following Asian countries have joined the treaty: Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, Brunei (a signatory) Cambodia, Cook Islands (a signatory) Fiji, Indonesia (a signatory), Japan, Kiribati, Marshall Islands (a signatory), Malaysia, Maldives, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Philippines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Thailand, Timor-Leste and Vanuatu (a signatory).

The 18 non-States Parties in Asia are: Bhutan, Burma/Myanmar, China, India, Korea (North), Korea (South), Laos, Micronesia, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vietnam.

The ICBL remains concerned about ongoing mine production, particularly in Asia. Nepal recently admitted that it has produced antipersonnel mines, an addition to the list of mainly Asian producers, which includes China, India, Myanmar, North Korea, South Korea, Pakistan, Singapore and Vietnam. (Other, non-Asian producers are: Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Russia and the United States.)

Asia is home to great numbers of antipersonnel mines: China keeps the world’s largest stock of some 110 million antipersonnel mines and India and Pakistan, with the fifth and sixth largest stockpiles, hold an estimated 6 million and 4-5 million respectively.

Despite this gloomy picture, the campaign pointed to some positive developments in Asia, including: • Recent accessions by Afghanistan, a heavily mined country, and Timor-Leste; • An apparent cessation of mine use in Sri Lanka by the government and the LTTE; • Humanitarian mine clearance underway in States Parties Afghanistan, Cambodia and Thailand and in non-States Parties Laos, Sri Lanka and Vietnam; • Moratoria on exports, or statements to that effect by all producers, except Myanmar and North Korea; • The drying up of trade in Asia and worldwide; • Japan and Thailand completely destroying their stockpiled mines; • States Parties in the region contributing generously to mine action: Japan’s contribution in 2002 totalled US$49.4million, Australia donated US$8.7 million and New Zealand’s support is valued at more than NZ$3 million.

For more information or to schedule an interview please contact: Sue Wixley (ICBL media officer): + 66 (0) 5 164 2679 or [email protected].

Fifth Meeting of States Parties ICBL-TCBL Coordinating Office

51/1 Sedsiri Road, Phyathai, Bangkok 10400 Thailand Tel: (66-2) 271-2924 Mobile Phone: (66-6) 094 8173 1997 Nobel Peace Prize Co-Laureate Fax: (66-2) 619-6670 E-mail: [email protected] www.icbl.org/5msp

Schedule of Media Events at the Fifth Meeting of States Parties

Tuesday, 9 September

Launch of global Landmine Monitor Report 2003 Press conferences and briefings, amongst other events, to release the International Campaign to Ban Landmine’s (ICBL) fifth report, see: www.icbl.org/lm/2003 and http://www.icbl.org/ /news/2003/390.php

Sunday, 14 September

07h00 – 18h00 Field trip to demining site The Thailand Mine Action Centre (TMAC) is hosting a visit to a demonstration demining site. Please contact Major General Gitti Suksomstarn to book a place: [email protected] or [email protected], fax: + 66 2 905 1685. Venue: TMAC site, Baan Nong Ya Kaew, Sa Kaew Province

11h00 – 12h00 Interfaith prayer service: for a mine-free world ‘Hold hands and heal the world’ is the theme of this spiritual event. It will include readings from Buddhist scripture, the Koran and the Bible, followed by prayers and blessings in several languages. Venue: Xavier Hall, 12 Rajavithi Road, Victory Monument, Phyathai District, Bangkok

Monday, 15 September

09h00 – 09h45 Photo Opportunity Jody Williams (Nobel Peace Prize co-laureate and ICBL Amassador), Tun Channareth and Song Kosal (ICBL Ambassadors and landmine survivors) will meet other landmine survivors from the Asia-Pacific region at the Buddhist temple across the road from the conference venue. Venue: Wat Mongkut -- next to United Nations Conference Centre (UNCC) - “ESCAP Building”, Rajadamnern Nok Avenue, Bangkok

10h00 – 11h00 ICBL Media Briefing: Landmine Monitor Report 2003 Stephen Goose (Editor-in-Chief of Landmine Monitor Report 2003 and head of ICBL delegation) outlines the key findings from the global report released the previous week (on 9 September 2003) and which will be presented formally at the Fifth Meeting of States Parties. Venue: Press Theatre, ground floor, UNCC “ESCAP Building”, Rajadamnern Nok Avenue, Bangkok

11h00 – 12h00 Fifth Meeting of States Parties: Opening Ceremony The opening ceremony for the conference will include speeches by Princess Princess Galyani Vadhana Krom Luang Naradhiwas Rajanagarindra of Thailand, Princess Astrid of Belgium, Deputy Prime Minister of Thailand General Chavalit Yongjayudh and ICBL Ambassador Jody Williams. Also, there will be stories and traditional music by landmine survivors and disabled people. Venue: UNCC, “ESCAP Building”, Rajadamnern Nok Avenue, Bangkok

12h00 – 13h00 Media Briefing: Opening of the Fifth Meeting Jody Williams (Nobel Peace Prize co-laureate, ICBL Ambassador) and a representative from the Government of Thailand Ministry of Foreign Affairs will address the media, talking about the agenda for the Meeting of States Parties and their expectations for the week. Venue: Press Theatre, ground floor, UNCC “ESCAP Building”, Rajadamnern Nok Avenue, Bangkok

14h00 - 17h00 Fifth Meeting of States Parties The official meeting will begin. Venue: UNCC, “ESCAP Building”, Rajadamnern Nok Avenue, Bangkok

Tuesday, 16 September

09h00 - 12h00 Fifth Meeting of States Parties: General Exchange of Views Venue: UNCC, “ESCAP Building”, Rajadamnern Nok Avenue, Bangkok

14h00 - 17h00 Fifth Meeting of States Parties: General Exchange of Views Venue: UNCC, “ESCAP Building”, Rajadamnern Nok Avenue, Bangkok

Wednesday, 17 September

09h00 - 12h00 Fifth Meeting of States Parties: General Exchange of Views Article 7 and Article 9 Venue: UNCC, “ESCAP Building”, Rajadamnern Nok Avenue, Bangkok

14h00 - 17h00 Fifth Meeting of States Parties: Review of the General Status and Operation of the Convention Venue: UNCC, “ESCAP Building”, Rajadamnern Nok Avenue, Bangkok

Thursday, 18 September

09h00 - 12h00 Fifth Meeting of States Parties: Informal Consultations on Victim Assistance Venue: UNCC, “ESCAP Building”, Rajadamnern Nok Avenue, Bangkok

12h00 Book launch briefing: "Crossing the Divide" Handicap International Belgium, the International Peace Institute, Oslo (Prio) and the UNICEF launch a book about village demining. Venue: UNCC, “ESCAP Building”, Rajadamnern Nok Avenue, Bangkok

14h00 - 17h00 Fifth Meeting of States Parties: Informal Consultations on Mine Clearance and Related Activities Venue: UNCC, “ESCAP Building”, Rajadamnern Nok Avenue, Bangkok

Friday, 19 September

09h00 - 12h00 Fifth Meeting of States Parties: Informal Consultations on Stockpile Destruction Venue: UNCC, “ESCAP Building”, Rajadamnern Nok Avenue, Bangkok

14h00 - 17h00 Fifth Meeting of States Parties: matters concerning the First Review Conference, Adoption of Final Documents Venue: UNCC, “ESCAP Building”, Rajadamnern Nok Avenue, Bangkok

17h00 (or immediately after final session) Media Briefing: Closing of the Fifth Meeting of States Parties Press briefing to report on the week’s proceedings and look ahead to the Review Conference of 2004. Speakers: Jody Williams (Nobel Peace Prize co-laureate, ICBL Ambassador) and a representative from the Government of Thailand Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Venue: UNCC, “ESCAP Building”, Rajadamnern Nok Avenue, Bangkok

Throughout the week:

Art exhibition: the perfect survivor This art installation consists of a robotic chair that walks on two legs, responding to people and objects it senses, and 12 photographs suspended in amongst the audience. Italian artist Laura Morelli created the artwork with photographer Giovanni Diffidenti and roboticist Riccardo Cassinis. Venue: first floor, Isetan Entrance, Central World Plaza (World Trade Center) shopping complex, Rajprasong, Bangkok (16-21 September)

Photo exhibition and book launch: Claiming the Future - the Impact of UXO and Landmines on Lao PDR This is organised by the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) and the ICBL Australian Network. Photographs by John Rodsted and all with the cooperation of UXO-Lao. The book launch takes place on Monday 15 September, 12:45. Venue: first floor, UNCC, “ESCAP Building”, Rajadamnern Nok Avenue, Bangkok

Interviews: with ICBL ambassadors, landmine survivors, campaigners, deminers and researchers from around the world. To arrange interviews write to: [email protected] or call Sue Wixley (ICBL Advocacy and Communications Officer): + 66 (0) 5 164 2679. Fifth Meeting of States Parties ICBL-TCBL Coordinating Office

Biographies

They come from over 50 countries and all have interesting stories and perspectives on the landmine issue. The ICBL will have 120 representatives of our global network in Bangkok, including landmine survivors, deminers and campaigners. Interviews can be arranged in various languages: English, French, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Thai, Khmer, Japanese, Arabic, Portuguese and more.

To request an interview please write to [email protected] or contact Sue Wixley (ICBL Media Officer): + 66 (0) 5 164 2679.

Here is a sampling of biographies of our representatives at the Fifth Meeting of States Parties:

Habbouba Aoun Aoun coordinates the Landmines Resource Centre in Beirut and does the Landmine Monitor report on the Lebanon. She speaks Arabic, English and French.

Charlie Avendãno Coordinator of Landmine Monitor research in the America’s region, Avendãno works for Mines Action Canada. He speaks English and Spanish.

Simona Beltrami As Coordinator of the Italian Campaign to Ban Landmines, Beltrami helped organise the global Landmine Monitor Report meeting in Rome (April 2003) and has been lobbying during the Italian presidency of the European Union. She speaks Italian, English and Spanish.

Liz Bernstein ICBL’s Coordinator since 1998 and currently based in Washington D.C, Bernstein has lived and worked in Cambodia, Thailand and Mozambique. She speaks English, French, Khmer and Thai.

Sylvie Brigot ICBL’s Government Relations Officer, Brigot has worked on the landmine issue since 1994. She speaks French and English.

Tun Channareth A landmine survivor and activist from Cambodia, Tun Channareth received the Nobel Peace prize on behalf of the ICBL in 1997. He is one of the ICBL’s Ambassadors.

Purna Shova Chitrakar Chitrakar has coordinated NGO efforts to ban mines in Nepal since 1995. In June 2003 she met with Nepalese armed opposition groups, and others, to persuade them to give up landmines.

Roman Dolgov Dolgov provides the Landmine Monitor research for Russia and countries of Central Asia and speaks English and Russian.

Bob Eaton Having worked on the landmine/UXO issue since 1980 (when he developed programmes in northern Laos), Eaton is now director of the Survey Action Center that has conducted Landmine Impact Surveys in Afghanistan, Angola, Bosnia- Herzegovina, Ethiopia, Thailand and Yemen, amongst other places.

Stephen Goose Editor-in-chief of the ICBL’s Landmine Monitor report and head of the ICBL’s delegation in Bangkok.

Mohammed Shohab Hakimi Hakimi is the director of the Mine Dog Centre (MDC) in Afghanistan. The MDC has demining programmes in different parts of the country, trains deminers and mine dog handlers and raises and trains mine dogs.

Song Kosal Kosal lost her leg as a small girl in Battambang Cambodia. She has campaigned against landmines since the age of 12 and in 1997 launched the Youth Against War Campaign. Kosal is currently an ICBL Ambassador.

Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan Moser-Puangsuwan is Southeast Asia Regional Coordinator of Nonviolence International, advisor to the Mine Action Centre of Thailand and provides Landmine Monitor research on Burma (Myanmar). He is an active member of the Thai Campaign to Ban Landmines that is hosting the ICBL’s visit for the Fifth Meeting of States Parties. Margaret Arach Orech A landmine survivor from Uganda, Orech coordinates the ICBL’s working group on victim assistance and works on victim assistance programmes in Uganda.

Yukie Osa Osa works for one of the ICBL’s members in Japan, Association to Aid Refugees, and has set up landmine projects in Cambodia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, travelled to Afghanistan and does the Landmine Monitor report for China.

Sara Sekkenes Sekkenes works for Norwegian Peoples Aid and chairs the ICBL’s working group on mine action. She has worked on NPA's demining projects in Angola and the Balkans.

Susan Walker Walker is the ICBL’s Intersessional Programme Officer. She has loved and worked in Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam and speaks English, French and Thai.

Mary Wareham Global coordinator of Landmine Monitor, Wareham was previously coordinator of the U.S. Campaign to Ban Landmines and the New Zealand Campaign.

Jody Williams Founding coordinator of the ICBL and now ICBL Ambassador, Williams was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize with the ICBL in 1997. She is one of only ten women to have received the prize and only the third woman in the United States. Fifth Meeting of States Parties ICBL-TCBL Coordinating Office

Quotes, story ideas and angles

Quotes

“A mine has taken my future.” Mao Sopheap, 16 years old

“We must rid the world of the scourge of these agents of death and destruction.” Boutros Boutros Ghali

“The devastation wreaked by landmines is not only horrendous but immoral.” Desmond Tutu

“Plant your mines in your own garden - we are full already in Cambodia.” Sav Yeoung

“I abhor mines.” Colin Powell

“A weapon with outrageous, traumatic effects.” Pope John Paul

“There can be no peace with mines.” Maha Ghosananda

“Together we have given the world the possibility of one day living on a truly mine-free planet.” Jody Williams

“Not only do these abominable weapons lie buried in silence and in their millions waiting to kill or maim innocent women and children; but the presence or even the fear of the presence of a single landmine can prevent the cultivation of an entire field, rob a whole village of its livelihood, place yet another obstacle on a country’s road to reconstruction and development.” Kofi Annan

“People can be protected if the treaty is signed and it will be effective only if it is ratified. War is so revolting!” Nicholas and Clement (ICBL website visitors book) “In ratifying the Ottawa treaty, a country accepts that mines are no longer legitimate weapons to be used either in peacetime or in war. There are no exceptions to this rule.” International Committee of the Red Cross

“I want a world where every child has a chance to wear two shoes… When I buy shoes, I have to hide one shoe because the empty shoe reminds me of my missing leg and the horror of landmines.” Song Kosal

Story ideas/angles

• Thai/regional angle: This important diplomatic conference hosted by the Government of Thailand will help tackle the problem of antipersonnel mines that affects Thailand and more than a third of the countries in the region. Asia-Pacific region is a ‘bad neighbourhood’ as far as the mine issue goes. Antipersonnel mines are still being used (e.g., in Nepal and Burma), there are severely affected countries in this region (e.g., Afghanistan and Cambodia) and also, it is home to more producers than anywhere else. For more information: see Landmine Monitor Report 2003 (the Executive Summary has a useful regional overview) from 9 September: www.icbl.org/lm/2003. Interviews available with campaigners, researchers and landmine survivors from the region.

• Personal stories: Interview one of the 120 representatives of the ICBL’s global network who will be in Bangkok including landmine survivors, deminers and campaigners. They come from over 50 countries and all have interesting stories and perspectives on the mine issue. Interviews can be arranged in various languages: English, French, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Thai, Khmer, Japanese, Arabic, Portuguese and more. Please write to [email protected] or contact Sue Wixley (ICBL media officer): + 66 (0) 5 164 2679. Also, see the biographies in this Media Kit.

• This is a good news story: A successful multilateral treaty has achieved a great deal in just five years: 50 million mines destroyed, vast areas of land cleared, de facto global ban on trade, fewer new victims in some countries, cessation of use e.g., Angola, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, overall drop in use, increase in funding in the past year. Speak to Jody Williams (Nobel Peace Prize laureate), Stephen Goose (editor-in-chief of Landmine Monitor), or other experts from every region, on what has been achieved so far.

• Armed opposition groups using mines are a big part of the mine problem worldwide and in Asia e.g. Burma, Laos, Nepal. Although non- state actors cannot sign the treaty (since it is open to governments only), they can unilaterally declare an end to use, stockpiling of antipersonnel mines etc., and make a commitment to a mine-free future. Speak to ICBL experts who have lobbied armed opposition groups to reject antipersonnel mines.

• The work continues: In Bangkok, governments and civil society organisations are working together to deal with the aftermath of wars and ensure that one fall-out of conflict, antipersonnel mines, is eradicated for future generations. Meanwhile, conflicts rage in other parts of the region and world, and the landmine community tries to comes to terms with the Baghdad bombing and targeting of deminers in places like Iraq and Afghanistan…

• Landmines, still there in peacetime, e.g., in Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia and dealing with them is increasingly done in the context of poverty reduction. Of the countries that experience landmine casualties worldwide, the majority are not at war. This threatens the lives and limbs of ordinary people and also their livelihoods. Landmines slow economic development and reconstruction. For this reason mine clearance programmes are increasingly being carried out as part of a national plan for development and reconstruction. Talk to experts involved in mine action work in the field and also landmine survivors.

• Other angles include a focus on specific countries: e.g., new States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty Belarus which joined on 3 September 2003, a very significant development as they stockpile 4.5 million mines and with neighbouring Russia, a non-signatory. Or countries where mines are still being used and landmine casualties have increased, e.g., Colombia, Nepal. Or the U.S.A. for its continued refusal to issue a policy on the weapon, decrease in mine clearance funding. Three dozen mine casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Media Coverage Overview

The Meeting of States Parties in Bangkok received exceptional media coverage in local, international, print and electronic media.

The ICBL mounted a range of activities to attract media attention and cover'age.We issueda pressadvisory beforehand and a pressstatement for the opening(15 September, "Asia lags behind in landmineban"). The ICBL' s media kit for the 5MSP was available online (http://www.icbl.org/5msp/mediakit/)and in hard copy in Englishand Thai.

The launch of Landmine Monitor Report 2003: Toward a Mine-Free World wlDrldwide on 9 September, and in Bangkok on 10 September, helped to boost interest in the landmine issue and the meeting itself Many colourful activities of the Thai cmlpaign in the months leading up to the conference also helped to lay the groundwork with the local media particularly.

The ICBL also worked on the three pressconferences that took place during the 5MSP. The first two took were scheduledfor the opening day of the conference.1rhe first focusedon the LandmineMonitor Report2003 andthe secondlooked at expectationsfor the week and was addressedby Thailand'sForeign Minister and Presidentof the 5MSP, Sukakiart Sathirathai,4MSP PresidentAmbassador Jean Lint of Belgium, Petf:r Herby (ICRC) and ICBL's Ambassadorand 1997 Nobel Peace Prize Co-Laureat.e,Jody Williams. The closing press conference, on 19 September, featured Dr Sorajak Kasemsuvan,Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs of Thailand, Ambassador~r oIfgang Petritsch, the President-Designateof the 2004 Review Conference, Stephen Tams, Assistant Minister for Kenya, which will host the Review Conference,Peter Herby (ICRC) and StephenGoose, Head of ICBL' s 5MSP Delegationand Chief Editor of the LandmineMonitor.

This year, there was also a focus on facilitating more media work by country campaigners themselves. They were encouraged to contact their media before 1theyleft for Bangkok and come armed with updated media contact lists. Once the conference was underway, campaigners contacted media sources back home -e.g., Famiglie Cristiana (an Italian weekly), Times of India and Diana (a Baltic newspaper) -to share information on the progress of the week and encourage them to run reports. Also, some campaigners are professional journalists and filed their own stories, e.g., the JI~epalese campaigner who works for the Kathmandu Post. Campaigners reported on their S11ccesses at the ICBL' s daily briefmgs and sharedideas on possible anglesto pitch to the media.

Some media sourcesran several different stories. For example, Reuters and Agence France-Presseboth did four pieceson the conference;Thai and regionalnewspapers The Bangkok Post and Nation coverednews articles throughoutthe week plus a profile, art reviewand editorial comment.

Highlights in the electronic media included a lO-minute documentaryon The Nation Channel (Thai television) and an interview with Jody Williams on 'East Asia Today' (radio programme of BBC World Service radio). The BBC featured the COlllerence severaltimes on its televisionprogramme' Asia Today' and on severallanguage services

35 of the World Service.There were also reports on severalweb sites, including those of the BBC, New York Timesand Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

The following sourcescarried reports:

AgenceFrance Presse Postimees(Estonian newspaper) Asahi Shimbun Radio France International Asia Times Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty AssociatedPress Radio Netherlands AustralianBroadcasting Corporation Radio of Thailand Bangkok Post Reuters BBC website Star TV (Asia) BBC World ServiceRadio Swissinfo BBC World television Thai Daily Digest Bloombergnews Thai News Service ChristianScience Monitor The Hindu Diana (Latvian newspaper) The Nation (Kenya) DKCU FM (Canada) The Nation (Thailand) Dom radio (GerD1any) The Nation Channel (Thai television) FamiglieCristiana (Italian weekly The Times of India magazine) Time Magazine- Asia ICRC website UN radio (Arabic and Russian language) ITAR-TASS Voice International ( Australian) KathmanduPost Voice of America Kyodo News Washington Times M2 Presswire Xinhua Mainicbi (Japanesenewspaper) Yomiuri Shimbun Matichon (Thai newspaper) Zenit (Catholic news agency) New York Times(web site and print)

Examples of coverage

BBCWEBSITE

Asia pressed on landmine banrnlAILAND) BANGKOK, Th~iland, 15 September2003 (BBC)- htl!J:llnews.bbc.co. uk/go/nr/fr/-/l/hi/world/asia-oacific/31 09352.stm

Heavily-mined countries in Asia will be the focus of a major landmine onference in Th~iland.

Delegatesfrom 148 countriessigned up to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty have escendedon the Thai capital Bangkokfor the week-longmeeting.

Nearly half of the 46 nationsyet to sign the treaty are in Asia and include someof the world's biggest landmine producers and stockpilers, as well as the most heavily mined countries.

"We've made headwayin other parts of the world, but Asia is lagging behind in tac~ the landmineproblem," said lady Williams of the InternationalCampaign to Ban Landmines(ICBL).

36 At least 3.000 casualtiesof mines in Asia were recordedfrom May 2002. although analysts believethe actual numberis likely to be at leastdouble.

Afghanistanand Cambodia-two of the world's most heavily-minedcountries, and both signedup to the treaty -suffered 1,200and 834casualties respectively.

Pressure

Landminesare being used by both sides in the conflicts in Nepal and Burma, and by India and Pakistan,says the ICBL.

Non-treaty Asian countries Bhutan, Bumta, China, India, North and South Korea, Laos, Micronesia, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vietnam, SouthKorea, China and Singaporeare amongthose singled out as major mine producersand stockpilers.

"Last year, India and Pakistanhave done someof the heaviestmine laying in recentyears," said ICBL official SusanWalker.

China has the world's largest stockpile of landmines,110 million, according to the recently- publishedLandmine Monitor Report2003.

Delegateswill be called upon to put pressureon thoseAsian countriesyet .tosign up to the treaty, also knownas the OttawaConvention.

Tun Channareth,Cambodian Iandmine survivor and ICBL ambassador,urged the treaty's supportersto pressthe caseto non-signatories.

"More can.and should,be done,"he added.

() BBC MMIll

BANGKOKPOST-OUTLOOK

Spirit of survival. ExmBmON: Artists pay tribute to resilienceof landminevictims (THAaAND ) BANGKOK, Thailand, 19 September2003 (BangkokPost)- By Kanokpom Chanasongkram

When an instantblast blows off your legs, your life will neverbe the same.

Despite the traumatic experience, survivors of landmines manage to demonstrate great resilience by carrying on with their lives. \1:1;

To convey the reality of landminevictims and to raise awarenessabout the global 1andmine situation, "The PerfectSurvivor" exhibition is now on display until September21 at the Central World Plaza shopping centre (formerly the World Trade Centre), first floor Isetan entrance.

PresentOOby the Italian Campaign to Ban Landmines, this contemporary art exhibition accompaniesthe Fifth Meetingof StatesParties to the Mine Ban Treaty (5MSP), held in Bangkok from September15-19.

37 "The Perfect Survivor" is actuallya combinationof two projects:"The Survivor Project" initiated by artist Laura Morelli and "The Perfect SoldierProject" establishedby freelancephotographer GiovanniDiffidenti.

It all started about 10 yearsago when Diffidenti beganto documentthe lives of landminevictims.

"The documentationstarted in Cambodiaand then I travelled to countries around the world including the USA to gatherstories of peoplewho survivedthe impact. It seemsthat minesdon't makeany distinctionwhether you are a powerfulnation or not," saidDiffidenti.

During his travels, he would return to Italy from time to time and transfer his experienceto Morelli, a conten1poraryartist who bad her own way of looking at things. From Diffidenti's descriptiveaccounts and with the help of roboticist RiccardoCassinis, Morelli createda walking chair called the Survivoras a representativeoflandmine survivors.

"When I first saw the chair walk, it rentindedme of a landmine survivor coming out of an ordlopaediccentre with prostheticlegs. The chair expressedthe physicaldifficulty he was having, as well as the emotions, showing all his fear and anxiety. Amazingly, the chair had all the elementsthat reflectedthe behaviourof a landminesurvivor," recalledDiffidenti.

"The Survivor chair projectsa passageof time when landminevictims are strugglingto get back to life but with the memoriesof what has happenedto them. Each part has its own symbolic value. For example I used a typical school chair to relate that children often fall prey to landmines. I know that the chair is not pleasing to the eyes but it reminds us about the consequencesof landmines;and I only hope that the Survivor chair will make us stop to think aboutwhat we can do to eradicatelandmines," said Morelli.

Moving on two legs, the Survivor chair displayshuman-like behaviours that range from quietly walking when no one is aroundto quickly trying to escapefrom fast-movingobjects. In extreme and unmanageablesituations, suchas being trappedin a deadend, the chair stops and emits an acousticsignal as if it werecrying for help.

Besides interacting with the Survivor chair, visitors to the exhibit can view large suspended photographstaken by Diffidenti. These positiveimages reflect stories from the dozenoountries wherehe encounteredthe creativityand spirit involvedin survivingwith a disability.

Both Diffidenti and Morelli believethat art is a powerful communicationtool to campaignagainst landminesbecause the public voice maynot be loud enoughto makea difference.

Today is the last day of the 5MSP. Before this meeting, 136 countriesincluding Tba11and,have ratified the Ottawa Treaty, and agretXIto ban the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of antipersonnellandmines.

Even though the whole world is moving away nom using landmines,some of the biggest global powersincluding Uncle Samhave not signedthe treaty.

Hopefully, by the end of the Bangkok conferencethere will be significantchanges that will save the world from the tragediesof landmines.

BANGKOK POST. EDITORIAL

EDITORIAL -Legacy of deathmust be uprooted(1HAILAND) BANGKOK, Thailand,20 September2003 (BangkokPost)-

One of the most feared fragrnentationdevices used during the Vietnam War was the "Bouncing Betty" landmine, or, in military tenninology, the Ml6AI boundinganti-personnel mine. It is buried undergroundand when steppedon it becomesanned. Once the pressure is released, nothing happensfor about three secondsand then it launchesa canisterof explosive upwards which detonatesand spraysdeadly shrapnel at chestheight or lower. This time lag must s=m like an eternityto the victim who knows he or sheis aboutto be horribly maimedor killed.

In 1975, whenthe United Statesfinally withdrew from Vietnam,Cambodia and Laos, the legacy of death and destructionspread inadvertently through the huge quantity of landminesleft behind by the combatants.These are no longerneeded for warfare in Cambodiaor Vietnam and many of thesehorrific devicesof deathare still being sold 011the black market and ending up with Karen rebel groups or in Bunnesegovernment hands. In Cambodiaand our easternprovinces there are also frequentmaimings and deathsas landminesburied by soldiersduring long-forgottenwars c]ajm civilian lives.

The Ottawa Convention,signed by 121 govermnentsin December1997, is designedto'put a stop to all this. Its goal is to prohibit the use, stockpiling,production and transfer of anti-personnel landminesand, to date, a total of 148 countrieshave joined the convention,with 136 of them ratifying the pact. ThJil3J1dwas the first country in SoutheastAsia to sign the agreement.Those in the region that have not yet signedare Laos, Vietnam, Singaporeand Bunna. Indonesiaand Brunei have promised to do so. Major powers that are not signatoriesare the United States, China, India and Russia.The agreementcalled for nationsto begin eradicatinglandmines within a 10-yearperiod and Thailand set a fine exampleby destroyingits stockpilesix days aheadof last April's dl:'~d1jne.

Over 600 delegatesfrom the treaty's signatoriesand observersfrom other non-signatorycountries including Chinahave spent the past week in Bangkok,planning strategy and rallying support.It is the first tin1ethe annualevent bas beenheld in Asia and there was a good reasonfor the choice.

Despitea dramaticdrop in the use of anti-personnelmines globally last year and the destruction of an averageof over 10,000mines per day worldwide, Asia standsout as the continentmost badly affectai by landmines.More than 90% of the countriesof the Americas, almost 90% of Africa and more than 80% of Europeanstates have joined the treaty, but only 40% of Asian states are members. This is a major cause for concern and one which prompted the Thaksin administrationto issue an appeal for greater regional cooperationin eradicatingthis menace.

Unicef is particularly concernedbecause anti-personnel mines affect the daily lives of millions of children in East Asia and the Pacific. A report just releasedcites a survey carried out in one provinceof Vietnam showingthat one-thirdof all deathscaused by mineswere amongyouth or children, and half of all non-fatal mine injuries involved young people. The report urges the universalratification of the Mine Ban Treaty, including provisionsfor internationalassistance to mine-affectedcountries. Mines kill an estimated20,000 people in the world every year, with an

39 additional 10,000 being maimed and disabled. ~ are children, 85% of whom die from their wounds.

We have played our part in: cleaningup our own backyard.Now we must insist that othersclean up theirs.

mE NAllON (KENYA)

KenyaDestroys Its StockoJ: Landmines (KENYA) NAIROBI, Kenya,20 September2003 (TheNation)-

Kenya has destroyooits entire stock of anti-personnellandmines, two years ahead of its own rl~dline.

National Securityassistant minister StephenTaros said the country completedthe destructionof 35,774 mines stock last month in "controlled and enviromnentallyfriendly detonation", The country had set July I, 2005, as the date by which it intendedto have destroyedall its mine

stockpiles. I He askedother countriesto follow Kenya'sexample. Mr Taros was addressinga conferenceon landmineeradication in Bangkok,Thai)and, yesterday.

He called for financial help for countrieswith anti-personnelmines so that they could join others in eradicatingthem.

A note from the Foreign Affairs ministry, which Mr Taros quoted, showed that Kenya bad demonstratrocommi1ment to the eradicationof the weapons.

A good exampleis the country's military participationin the current deminingactivities on the Ethiopian-Eritreaborder under a UnitedNations peace-keeping force.

The report also shows that Kenya submits timely and regular annual progress reports on the matter. The ~ is attendedby delegationsfrom 136 countrieswhich are party to the conventionon prohibition of use, stockpilingand productionof anti-personnelmines and landminesof October 5, 1996.The conventionoutlawed the useof the weapons.

The minesban treaty OttawaDeclaration came into force in December,1997. It bas beenratified and accededto by 136state parts acrossthe World.

Kenya signedthe minesban treaty on December5th ratified it on January23th 200land it entered to force on July I of the sameyear.

CopyrightThe Nation.

REUTERS

40 Anti-mine conferencetargets hold-out countries (1HAlLAND) BANGKOK, Thailand, 19 September2003 (Reuters)- By Darren Schuettler

A global anti-mine conference ended on Friday with renewed calls for nations such as China and the United States to ban the deadly weaponsthat kill or maim 20,000 people a year.

Campaignerswere disappointedno new stateshad signed up for d1e1997 Mine Ban Treaty after a week-longmeeting of more than 130member countries in Bangkok.

Poorer membersfrom Asia and Africa also pleaded for more aid to clear millions of mines littering their countrysides.

"Usually we get a numberof countriescoming on board, but we haven't seen it this time. We were also looking for strongerfinancial commitments,"Sue Wixley, a spokeswomanfor the InternationalCampaign to Ban Landmines(ICBL), told Reuters.

Asia is home to some of the world's most mine-infestedcountries -especially Afghanistanand Cambodia-and its biggestproducers and stockpilers.

China, with the world's largest arsenalat 110 million anti-personnelnrines, said on Friday it agreedwith thehumanitarian goals of the treaty, but rejectedan outright ban. IIAs a defensiveweapon, landmines are one of the means for states to defendthemselves and resist foreign invasion," Fu Cong, a seniorofficial of ChinaIS Arms Control and Disannament Department,told the meeting.

Fu was the first high-level Chineseofficial to attend the annual meetiO1~on the treaty -which bansthe use,production, stockpiling and tradeof anti-personnelmines.

"He made someof the right noises,but the argumentthat landminesarle a necessarydefensive weaponis outdated.This is far outweighedby the cost to human being:~and the social cost to conununities,"Wixley said.

AFRICA IN SPOTLIGHTNEXT YEAR

Forty-sevencountries anned with 200 million anti-personnelmines -inCl\Jlding big powersChina, the United Statesand Russia-are underpressure to join the pact beforethe first major review of thetreaty next year in Kenya.

Money was themain issuefor African delegationsin Bangkok.

Most echoedthe view of Angola's chief of de-mining who said his ~Ih-strapped government neededmore aid to meet the treaty'starget for destroyingall mines in the ground 10 years after a countryratifies the pact.

Angola, a fonner Cold War battlegroundand amongthe world's most heavily-minOOcountries, is spending$16 million onmine clearancethis year.

Luandaalso receivesaid and equipmentfrom severalcountries, including China, but officials say it's not enough.

41 "My governmentalone cannot deal with the scourgeof mines,"Andre Pitta, the head of Angola's de-miningagency, told the conferencethis week.

"Producersshould at a minimumprovide more assistanceto thosecountries suffering from these weapons,"he added.

Of the 18 Asian countriesoutside the treaty, China, India, Pakistan,Nonn and SouthKorea and Singaporeare majormine producers, the ICBL said in its 2003 report.

The United States,which reservesthe right to produceanti-personnellaJJldmines but hasn't since 1997, has cut funding for internationalmine action programmesin recentyears, but remainsthe biggestsingle donor.

CHRISTIAN SCIENCEMONITOR

Mine effort bearingfruit (1HAlLAND) BANGKOK, Thailand,25 September2003 (ChristianScience Monitor)- By SimonMontIake

AN INTERNA nONAL pact signed in 1997 designed to clear land mines ilSstarting to show some results, with a few major exceptions.

As internationalgrass-roots campaigns go, it ranks amongthe most su~:essfulof modemtimes. The InternationalCampaign to Ban Landmines(ICBL) struck gold in December1997 when 122 nations agreedto stop using a weaponthat killed or maimedan estimaU:d24,000 peoplea year, mostlycivilians. But six years after the signingof the Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty, namedfor the CaM.diancapital where the accord was inked, activists are finding their path blocked b:ffa number of powerful countries,including the United Statesand Russia, that want to keep ian([ mines in their arsenals.

Many of the holdoutsare in Asia, wheremost land minesare manufacturoo.China has the largest stockpile, estimatedat 110 million around half the world's total hol~ and North and South Korea sit upon one of the world's most-fortifiedborders. Warring parties in Nepal, Bunna and Kashmir continueto plantmines.

So has a campaign fed by the global ide.alismof the 1990s run out of stearn?

Not according to activists gatheredat last week's meeting of Ottawa signatoriesin Bangkok. Measured by the number of nations joining 148 have now signed aIld 136 have ratified the campaignmay be slowing,but the treaty itself is bearingfruit.

Fewer am1iesare producing or pJantingmines, and more money is J~oingto demine conflict zones,with fewer lives lost or impaired as a result, say observers.Aid moneyallocated to landmine clearanceand assistingsurvivors rose 30 percentlast year to $30~>million. A big chunkof that went to M:gbanistan,among the world's most heavily mined countries,which recentlyjoined the Ottawatreaty .

42 Experts say it will take at least a decadeto demineAfgbalDistan. Returning to their Jandtafter years of conflict, at least 10 Afghansare killed or injured by mineseach day, and clearancework is beinghampered by attackson aid agencies.

Nonetheless,at least six countrieshave used land minesover the past year, including Iraqi :forces during the U.S.-ledinvasion. (Iraq is alreadyheavily mined iirom past conflicts). This is, ho,vever, half the numberreported two yearsago, part of a steadyfall sincethe mid-l 990s.

Tensions over Kashmir last year led India and Pakistan to Pilant more mines along their borders. Both countries say they demined the border region after the JlOlitical temperature cooled, altI10Ugh experts say this is often poorly executed. Another hot Spo1:is Burma. where both the military government and anned rebels sow land mines.

China, like many nations resistingthe ban, says its mi1itar:'r'imperatives must take precedence, though a Chineseenvoy, Fu Cong, told the Bangkokmeeting that China was "working in the same direction as all states present here. ...Although CI!rinais not a party to the Ottawa Convention,we endorseand shareits objective."

Somelisteners took comfort in this statement,noting that Chinano longerexports land minesand has in recentyears sponsored demining efforts in severalcounJnes.

"I take heart in seeinghow countriesare respondingto international pressure.China sent an observer(to Bangkok)and this is a sign of progress,"said Jody Williams, a U.S. activis1:who sharedthe 1997Nobel PeacePrize with other ICBL members.

Copyright SeattleTimes Company,All Rights Reserved.Y'ou must get pennissionbefon~ you reproduceany part oftbis material. Copyright (c) 2003 Bell & Howell Infonnation and Learning Company.All rights reserved.

Profile of one of the Thai Landmine Survivors selected to speak at the Opening Ceremony of the Fifth Meeting of States Parties (to the Mine Ban Treaty), Bangkok Thailand 15 –19 September 2003

Telling the Story of Thawee Khemprapha

“Like most of the provinces close to the Thai-Cambodian border, my home in Sakaeo is amongst the most heavily mined areas in Thailand. Until such time as this land can be cleared of anti-personnel landmines our communities are not safe. This is why we must tell the stories of people who have survived an encounter with a landmine: to remind the world there is still work to be done and we cannot stop now. This is why I am telling my story,” said Thawee Khemprapha.

A 40 year old father of four, who lives in Khao Look Chang Village in Tapraya District, Thawee has been selected to tell his story to the distinguished guests attending the Opening Ceremony of the Fifth Meeting of States Parties (to the Mine Ban Treaty) taking place in Bangkok on 15 September.

Thawee will also participate in the Raising the Voices programme established under the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and Landmine Survivors Network, for Asian survivors taking place before and during the 5MSP.

This is his story:

“I was a young man of twenty-one, collecting firewood in the bushes about two kilometers from the center of our village, when I stepped on a M14 landmine. Both of my legs and arms were injured but my left leg was the worst: the mine completely shattered the bone and flesh. My two brothers, one older and one younger, were with me.

Realising the risk to them of other landmines in the area I told them to stay away and go for help.

In the face of the pain, I managed to drag myself to a safe area while I waited. I was eventually taken to Aranyaprathet Hospital where I spent two and a half months. My left leg was amputated below the knee and my other injuries were treated. I now live with a prosthetic leg and the other scars remain.

Thankfully the hospital did not charge for my care and treatment. However, the cost to my family of visiting the hospital rapidly mounted to 16000 Baht (US$360).

Having been born was a disabled right arm, the landmine incident left me with multiple disabilities. I felt my confidence had been shattered along with my leg and I have often wondered how one person could suffer so much loss. Still, I was determined to prove that I could support myself and not become a burden on others.

Prior to losing my leg I worked installing electrical lines, a job that was not suitable afterwards. I enlisted the help of some young neighbours and taught them the skills necessary to complete the work under my supervisions so we could share the earnings. I now teach students in several mobile courses for the provincial non-formal education center.

With my disabilities, I did not think the happiness of married life would ever be possible but I was fortunate to meet a woman who loves me and who I love. We now have four children.

My experiences have shown me that disability can lead to feelings of isolation. This is why I have been pleased to support a network of landmine survivors in Sa Kaeo province. We have worked on income generation activities with the support of the Thai Campaign to Ban Landmines as well as providing friendship and support to each other.

I believe networks such as this have an important role in advocating the rights of disabled people to schooling and employment. Working together we can find solutions to the challenges we face.

Now, I also work in village communities with the District Administration Organization (DAO) and as a provincial health volunteer. It was a great honour for me to be elected to the DAO by my fellow villagers, enabling my participation in a range of development projects. Without the rehabilitation support I have received, and the renewed confidence it has brought me, it would not be possible to do this work.

I hope others will be spared the suffering I have witnessed for myself since that fateful day in 1984. This is why I lend my support to the Thai Campaign to Ban Landmines and the international efforts to ban anti-personnel and mines. They are cruel, destructive weapons and it will be a good day when people can live on their land without facing the risk of injury from them. And so, we survivors Raise our Voices to remind the world … the good work cannot stop now.”

For further information please contact:

Miss Siriphen Limsirikul Survivor Assistance Programme Officer Thailand Campaign to Ban Landmines Tel: 02 279-1817; Fax 02 271 3632 email: [email protected] OR [email protected]

Profile of one of the Thai Landmine Survivors selected to speak at the Opening Ceremony of the Fifth Meeting of States Parties (to the Mine Ban Treaty), Bangkok Thailand 15 –19 September 2003

The accident half her lifetime ago … a landmine survivor raises her voice

At age 34, Prakaikul Thepnork recalls the event that took place half her lifetime ago … and altered her life path forever. While the immediate agony of that moment has now dulled, she lives with permanent scars and a memory that won’t fade.

Prakaikul says, “Despite the misfortune of losing a limb to landmines I am determined to do what I can to support others and prevent similar accidents from happening in the future. This can only happen if all anti-personnel landmines are removed from the soil so Thai people can tend their land without facing the risk. While it can be painful to look back, I hope that sharing my story will add to international efforts to make the world safer and that is why I am pleased to be selected to participate in the Opening Ceremony for the Fifth Meeting of States Parties in Bangkok on 15 September 2003.”

“Following the Opening Ceremony presented by the Royal Thai Government and Thai non-government organizations, I will have a chance together with 24 other landmine survivors from the Asian region to attend the meeting and to learn from others experiences as part of a programme called Raising the Voices,” Prakaikul further explained.

This is Prakaikul’s story:

“Without any knowledge that our tapioca fields were littered with landmines, my family and I went about our usual work tending the fields and removing tapioca roots at the end of harvest, in February 1987. At that time, conflict in Cambodia had seen many people driven across the border into the Sisaket, Surin and Sakaeo provinces and it was this migration of people and Cambodia’s conflict that resulted in the land being heavily mined.

As I returned to work in the early afternoon following lunch, aged just 17, I tripped on a wire triggering a landmine. The anti-personnel landmine blew off my left foot and I was left lying on the ground in excruciating pain. It is a moment that is difficult to describe.

I wished I could die. But while family members sought help from a nearby military base, I thought of my mother’s face and I wanted to see her before I died. I took the cloth that had been on my head and tied it above my knee to slow the bleeding.

It was a long four hours before I finally reached the provincial hospital and received some anaesthetic. I had remained conscious throughout that ordeal. Eventually, following surgery, I discovered my leg had been amputated above the knee. Thankfully the hospital did not charge for this care.

Of course, the prospect of living life with this disability, as a burden on my family and a useless person was devastating.

After two months of treatment I was mobile, but only with the help of crutches. Thankfully, eight months on, I was introduced to Handicap International and received a prosthetic leg. This took some getting used to and because the muscles in my stump kept shrinking in those early years I had to have two or three different prosthetic legs. Adjusting to these false legs and accessing the medical and rehabilitation services I required was no easy thing.

It was a 240 km round trip to get a new leg and I had to spend a week getting used to the leg before I was allowed to return home.

Of course, losing a limb has an immediate impact on a person’s ability to work and I found the prosthetic legs and spare parts were not durable enough for work in the fields. Eventually I sought work in Bangkok and was lucky to work in the central office of a cleaning company, training new cleaners in the use of electric cleaning equipment. I later left that job to return to Sisaket and marry my husband Ophart. Ophart is a landmine survivor too, so we face the challenges of disability together, including the challenge of parenting two small children with both of us on a prosthetic leg.

Since 1997, when negotiations on the Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty concluded and governments started signing this important Treaty, my husband Ophart and I have been involved in efforts to educate people about the threat of anti-personnel landmines. We wish for landmine survivors and their family members to have a better quality of life, security, and honest occupations that free them from being a burden on society. This can only happen with full acceptance and support for persons with disabilities.

So, with the support of the Thai Campaign to Ban Landmines, Handicap International and others, we hope our experiences will demonstrate the need for continued action on the part of governments and non-governmental organizations. Let’s make it a mine-free world,” concludes Prakaikul.

For further information please contact:

Miss Siriphen Limsirikul Survivor Assistance Programme Officer Thailand Campaign to Ban Landmines Tel: (02) 279-1817 ; Fax 02 273632 Email: [email protected] OR [email protected]

The Story of DUCH SOPHAT

I am Sophat and 16 years old. I went to the forest with my younger and older brothers to collect wild vegetable to sell. On the way home, my young brother (12 years old) stepped on a landmine and the blast catapulted a stone that hit my left eye. Surprisingly the blast did not injure my younger brother. We decided to take another way home. We thought it was safer. We walked in row with my elder brother in the middle, and my younger brother in front and I myself was at the back. We just walked for 10m from the place where the first accident took place, and my older brother (18 years old) stepped on a landmine which was bigger than the first one. This accident killed him right away, injured my left leg, and killed my younger brother as well. I was so terrified because my two brothers were both dead. Within an hour I lost my one eye and one foot by two landmine accidents on April 4, 2002.

The Story of NHAN EUM

I am Mrs. Nhan Eum, born on June 3, 1967, living in Mkak village, Mkak commune, Sereisophon district, Banteay Meanchey province, Cambodia. I am a single parent with two sons (12 and 9 years old). My husband left me for another woman when I was pregnant of my youngest son. I make a living by making banana cake, and earn 30-40 bahts a day (less than $1).

We, my villagers and I, go to the forest with five tractors to collect firewood for selling. One day we in a group rode on the trailer pulled by the tractor to the forest, 25 km away from our village. My tractor driven by my brother-in-law stepped on the anti-tank mine and the blast of it destroyed my both legs instantly and slightly injured the back of my brother-in-law. This mine accident happened to me at 9:00 am on February 2 2002. Imagine the two carts in front of us did pass the same place where the anti-tank mine was! Nothing happened to them, but me and my brother in law. I did not know that the forest was mine affected area because there was no mine sign at all, and I had gone to the forest twice before.

I was brought to the district health center (20 km away) by my fellow villagers to get the first aid, and then the ambulance brought me to the provincial hospital (39 km away) for further treatment. Because my legs were badly injured, they had to be amputated below knees. I stayed in the hospital for 34 days. The whole medical treatment costed 15,000 bahts ($350): 2000 bahts ($46) for surgery, 5400 bahts ($125), and 7600 bahts for other treatment. It was big amount of money for me. To pay the bill, I had no choice but to sell 1,5 ha of my 2,5 ha of rice field given by my parents. The accident costed me a lot: two legs and 1,5 ha of rice field. Life has been so different since then, and much harder.

I want to send my sons to school, and pursue their study as high as possible. I want to raise pigs to finance their study. So far, there are 6 mine victims (5 men, 1 woman) in my village, who are at the age of 30 to 40 years.

I am very happy to be invited to the meeting on mine ban in Bangkok. It is a chance to see another country. Since my amputation, I have practically been confined to my house, with a wheelchair and prosthetic legs. I hope I can meet other handicapped from different countries to share our sad experiences, and to appeal to the world to ban landmines from the earth. I beg the de-mining team to clear the place where I got the accident and in all mine affected areas.

The Story of YAN LAY

I am Yan Lay, born on July 20, 1963 and live in Tuol Prasat village, Poipet commune, OChrov district, Banteay Meanchey province, Cambodia, close to the Thai-Cambodian border. My husband, 52 years old and I have 10 children, 5 boys, 5 girls. I attended the school up to grade 3.

We earn the living by collecting firewood with 20-40 bahts a day (less than $1). I stepped on a landmine at 9.30 AM on February 25, 2003. After collecting the firewood with my husband and four other villagers. I was 200 m away from my house. At that time I was three month pregnant. The blast destroyed my both legs, and tossed my body one meter high up before falling down on my bottoms. I was brought by motorbike to the district health center in Poipet for first aid. The health center charged me 300 bahts ($8), but we could not afford to pay it because we are so poor. Luckily an international NGO car passed by and brought me to the provincial hospital in Mongkul Borey, 57 km from Poipet. At 12.00 I arrived at the hospital, but the doctors did not treat me right away because we could not pay the charge of 5300 bahts ($123) for the amputation.

One and half hour later, they amputated my both legs below knees after my husband promised them to pay the bill. He tried to borrow money from the neighbors, and was able to collect 3300 bahts only ($80). I stay in the hospital for 17 days. Even though my wound had not been healed completely, I went home because I was not happy with the treatment. On August 7, 2003, I delivered a healthy boy baby, which my husband gave him a name Nhim Meun.

Despite of the difficulties as a double amputee in taking care of the baby, I am happy to go to Bangkok to participate in the conference by sharing my personal sad story as a landmine victim to other people in the world, and to listen to the other people's story.

In my village there are 7 landmine victims: 3 double amputees and 4 single amputees, who are from 18 to 49 years old. I hope CMAC (Cambodia Mine Action Center) can help de-mine the place nearby my village, so that no more people become the mine victims. As for my better future, I want to study tailoring to help my husband to earn money for the family.

Fifth Meeting of States Parties ICBL-TCBL Coordinating Office

51/1 Sedsiri Road, Phyathai, Bangkok 10400 Thailand Tel: (66-2) 271-2924 Mobile Phone: (66-6) 094 8173 1997 Nobel Peace Prize Co-Laureate

Fax: (66-2) 619-6670 E-mail: [email protected] www.icbl.org/5msp

What is the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL)?

The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) is an extensive network of organisations working to eliminate antipersonnel landmines.

About 1,400 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in over 90 countries support the campaign. It calls for a comprehensive ban on antipersonnel mines: a ban on the use, production, stockpiling, sale, transfer or export of antipersonnel landmines.

Aims

We advocate for:

• The promotion of the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty: we urge States Parties to fully implement the agreement and non-members to join the treaty and adhere to the emerging international norm against antipersonnel mines

• Increased resources for landmine victim rehabilitation and assistance

• Increased resources for humanitarian demining and mine risk education programmes

History The campaign won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997, together with its then coordinator, Jody Williams. The Norwegian Nobel Committee applauded the campaign for changing a ban from "a vision to a feasible reality" and recognized it as a model for disarmament and peace.

Much has been achieved since six organisations came together in 1992 to launch the ICBL. Still, the ICBL remains committed to maximising the global political momentum it helped create. "We will continue to work diligently… [towards] our goal of a world free of mines, where all survivors can live in dignity" (Jody Williams, September 2002).

Currently, the ICBL has six staff members. Its coordinating committee has representatives from 13 member organisations. The ICBL’s broad-ranging members include: human rights, humanitarian, children, peace, disability, mine action, development, religious, medical and women's groups.

• Brief history of ICBL: http://www.icbl.org/info/history.html • Jody Williams, ICBL Ambassador, co-Nobel Peace Prize laureate: http://www.icbl.org/amb/williams/.

What is the Mine Ban Treaty?

The Mine Ban Treaty is the international agreement that bans antipersonnel landmines. It is sometimes called the Ottawa Convention and its official title is: the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction.

The treaty is the most comprehensive international instrument for ridding the world of the scourge of mines. It deals with everything from mine use, production and trade, to victim assistance, mine clearance and stockpile destruction.

Who has joined?

147 states have joined the treaty. Of these, 135 have ratified or acceded and are full States Parties. While a further 12 states are signatories, having signed but not yet ratified the treaty.

In Asia there are 17 States Parties to the treaty: Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Fiji, Japan, Kiribati, Malaysia, Maldives, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Philippines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Thailand and Timor-Leste.

There are five Asian signatories: Brunei, Cook Islands, Indonesia, Marshall Islands and Vanuatu.

Who hasn’t joined?

47 countries remain outside the treaty altogether, including: China, Egypt, Finland, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia and the United States.

In Asia there are 18 non-signatories: Bhutan, Burma/Myanmar, China, India, Korea (North), Korea (South), Laos, Micronesia, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vietnam.

Birth of the treaty

In December 1997 a total of 122 governments signed the treaty in Ottawa, Canada. In September the following year, Burkina Faso was the 40 th country to ratify, triggering entry into force six months later. Thus, in March 1999 the treaty became binding under international law, and did so quicker than any treaty of its kind. Today, the treaty is still open for ratification by signatories and accession by those that did not sign by March 1999.

• Treaty text, reports, meetings: http://www.icbl.org/treaty/

What is the Fifth Meeting of States Parties?

The United Nations will convene the fifth annual meeting of member states of the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty in Bangkok, Thailand, from 15 to 19 September 2003.

Approximately 600 delegates are expected. They will be representing governments, non-governmental organisations, international organisations and UN agencies.

The International Campaign to Ban Landmines participants in Bangkok – a diverse group of 120 survivors, deminers and campaigners – will be hosted by the Thai Campaign to Ban Landmines.

Why it’s important

The Meeting of States Parties is the key event of the year for everyone involved in the landmine issue.

For States Parties it is an opportunity to focus on progress and plans for the full universalisation and implementation of the treaty. This is significant because the Mine Ban Treaty is now in its fifth year and preparation is underway for the all- important Review Conference in 2004.

For civil society it is a rallying point. It brings renewed focus to the campaign and allows us to continue our engagement with states about the ban. Our messages for the meeting will include:

• A call on States Parties to make political and financial commitments to finish the job of building a mine-free world • An appeal to mine-affected States Parties to establish national plans to implement the treaty provisions on victim assistance, mine action and stockpile destruction • A challenge to States Parties to work vigorously to promote the treaty and push for an end to use and production of antipersonnel mines

Asia Appeal

The ICBL issued an Asia Appeal in anticipation of the Bangkok meeting, calling for concerted efforts to universalise the treaty in the region. Activists worldwide lobbied China, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Singapore and Vietnam as part of this campaign (see: http://www.icbl.org/news/2003/355.php and http://www.icbl.org/news/2002/250.php).

We hope the Fifth Meeting of States Parties will highlight the mine problem here, since antipersonnel mines pollute more than a third of all the countries in Asia. Some are severely mine-contaminated e.g. Afghanistan and Cambodia. Yet, less than half the region has banned mines. Also, Asia is home to more landmine producers than anywhere else.

ICBL Participation in the 5MSP Schedule of Events & Schedule of ICBL Events around 5MSP including the ICBL General Meeting

Day Saturday, 13 Sunday, 14 Monday, 15 Tuesday, 16 Morning 06:00-19:00/06:00-20:00 11:00-12:00 10:00-11:00 08:00-09:00 TCBL Field Trip (leaves Interfaith Service (Xavier Hall) Landmine Monitor Press Briefing ICBL Briefing (UNCC Conference from the Suan Dusit Palace (UNCC Press Theatre) Room 3) Hotel) 11:00-12:00 09:00-12:00 08:30-19:30 5MSP Opening Ceremony (UNCC 5MSP General exchange of views Looking Back, Looking ESCAP Hall) (UNCC ESCAP Hall) Forward: Workshop on 09:00-12:00 engaging Non-State Actors ICBL Per Diem Distribution (ICBL in a Landmine Ban (Suan Accounting Office UNCC Room Dusit Palace Hotel, 2030) Kumarika Room) Lunch 12:00-14:00 12:00-14:00 Adopt a Minefield (UNCC Meeting ICBL Briefing: Armed Non-State Room D) Actors (UNCC Conference Room 12:45 3) Australian Network of the ICBL book launch "Claiming the Future" (First Floor Exhibits Area) 12:00-15:00 ICBL Per Diem Distribution (ICBL Accounting Office UNCC Room 2030)

Afternoon 15:00-17:00 14:00-17:00 14:00-17:00 ICBL Briefing (Suan Dusit 5MSP opens (UNCC ESCAP) 5MSP General Exchange of Palace Hotel, Grand Hall) Views (UNCC ESCAP Hall)

Evening 17:00 17:00 Reception hosted by the Thai Reception hosted by The Thai Ministry of Defence (Siam City Ministry of Foreign Affairs Hotel, Kamoltip Room) (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) 20:00-22 :00 ICBL NSA Working Group Meeting (Suan Dusit Palace Hotel, Kumarika Room)

Day Wednesday, 17 Thursday, 18 Friday, 19 Saturday, 20 Sunday, 21 Morning 08:00-09:00 08:00-09:00 08:00-09:00 09:00-18:00 09:00-18:00 ICBL Briefing (UNCC ICBL Briefing (UNCC ICBL Briefing (UNCC ICBL General ICBL General Conference Room 3) Conference Room 3) Conference Room 3) Meeting (Suan Dusit Meeting (Suan Dusit 09:00-12:00 09:00-12:00 09:00-14:00 Palace Hotel, Grand Palace Hotel, Grand 5MSP General 5MSP Informal Consultations: ICBL Meeting: Mine Risk Hall) Hall) Exchange of Views Victim Assistance (UNCC Education Working Group Article 7 & Article 9 ESCAP Hall) (UNCC Meeting Room D) (UNCC ESCAP Hall) 09:00-11:00 09:00-12:00 11:00-12:00 ICBL Travel Reimbursements 5MSP Informal GICHD "Guide to Mine (ICBL Accounting Office UNCC Consultations: Stockpile Action" book launch Room 2030) Destruction (UNCC (UNCC Press Theatre) ESCAP Hall) 11:00-12:00 ICBL Youth Against War Meeting(UNCC Meeting Room B) Lunch 12:00-14:00 12:00-13:00 12:00-14:00 ICBL panel discussion: HI Belgium/PRIO/UNICEF ICBL Meeting: Asia Pacific "The Landmine Ban in book launch briefing "Crossing Working Group (UNCC the Gulf: Challenges the Divide" (UNCC Meeting Meeting Room A) and Possibilities Room A) 12:00-13:00 (UNCC Meeting Room GICHD study briefing: the A) role of the military in mine action (UNCC Meeting Room B) Afternoon 14:00-17:00 14:00-17:00 14:00-17:00 5MSP review of the 5MSP Informal Consultations: 5MSP matters concerning general status and Mine Clearance and related the First Review operation of the activities (UNCC ESCAP Hall) Conference; Adoption of Convention (UNCC final Documents (UNCC ESCAP Hall) ESCAP Hall)

Evening 17:00-19:00 17:00 19:15-21:15 GICHD reception Documentary Film Meeting on General Meeting (UNCC Ground Floor) Landmines (UNCC) Final Dinner and 17:00- 19:00 Cruise (Riverside HI/ICBL briefing: Progress in Cruise II) Victim Assistance (UNCC Meeting Room A)

Venue Locations

• United Nations Conference • The Suan Dusit Palace Hotel- Centre (UNCC)- Rajadamnern 295 Ratchasima Road, Dusit, Nok Avenue Bangkok 10200, Bagkok 10300, Thailand Thailand Tel: 02 241 57-71 to 80 Tel: 02 288 1140

• Xavier Hall – 12 Rajavithi Road, • Ministry of Foreign Affairs- 443 • Siam City Hotel 477 Sri Ayudhya Victory Monument, Phyathai Sri Ayudhya Road Bangkok Road Bangkok 10400 Bangkok District, Bangkok 10400 10400 Thailand 10400 Thailand Tel: 02 246 0074, 02 246 1445-6 Tel: 02 247 0130

LANDMINE MONITOR REPORT 2003: Toward a Mine-Free World www.icbl.org/lm/2003

MAJOR FINDINGS

It is abundantly clear from the wealth of information in Landmine Monitor Report 2003 that the Mine Ban Treaty and the ban movement more generally are making tremendous strides in eradicating antipersonnel landmines and in saving lives and limbs in every region of the world. Significant challenges remain, however.

The reporting period for Landmine Monitor Report 2003 is May 2002 to May 2003. Editors have where possible added important information that arrived in June and July 2003. Statistics for mine action and landmine casualties are usually given for calendar year 2002.

+WIDESPREAD INTERNATIONAL REJECTION OF ANTIPERSONNEL MINES As of 31 July 2003, a total of 134 countries were States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty, and another 13 had signed but not yet ratified, constituting more than three-quarters of the world’s nations. Since the last Landmine Monitor report, nine countries joined the treaty including Afghanistan and Cyprus, which are both mine-affected. A number of other governments took significant steps toward joining and were poised to ratify or accede.

-UNIVERSALIZATION CHALLENGES Forty-seven countries, with a combined stockpile of some 200 million antipersonnel mines, remain outside of the Mine Ban Treaty. They include three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, Russia, and the United States), most of the Middle East, most of the former Soviet republics, and many Asian states.

+FEWER GOVERNMENTS USING ANTIPERSONNEL MINES In this reporting period (since May 2002), at least six governments used antipersonnel mines, compared to at least nine governments in Landmine Monitor Report 2002 and at least 13 governments in Landmine Monitor Report 2001. As of July 2003, only two governments—Myanmar and Russia—were using antipersonnel mines on a regular basis. Government forces in Afghanistan, Angola, and Sri Lanka used antipersonnel mines in the previous reporting period, but not the current period. Like Afghanistan, Angola is now party to the Mine Ban Treaty.

-POSSIBLE ANTIPERSONNEL MINE USE BY MINE BAN TREATY SIGNATORIES Landmine Monitor cannot definitively conclude that any of the 13 signatory governments used antipersonnel mines in this reporting period, but it has received ever-more compelling reports of use of antipersonnel mines by the Burundi Army. There are also serious allegations of use by government forces in Sudan. Both governments deny any mine-laying.

-NEW AND CONTINUED USE BY GOVERNMENTS The only government to be added to the list of mine users was Iraq, as Saddam Hussein’s forces used antipersonnel mines in the lead-up to and during the 2003 conflict in Iraq. The governments of India, Pakistan, Nepal and Russia have all acknowledged using antipersonnel mines in this reporting period. It is also clear that government forces in Myanmar (Burma) continued to lay mines. There have been credible reports of use by Georgia, but the government denies it.

+FEWER NON-STATE ACTORS USING ANTIPERSONNEL MINES Opposition groups are reported to have used antipersonnel mines in at least eleven countries: Burma, Burundi, Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Georgia (Abkhazian forces), India, Nepal, Philippines, Russia (Chechen forces), Somalia, and Sudan. This compares to reports of use by non-state actors in at least fourteen countries in the previous reporting period.

+COMMITMENTS BY NON-STATE ACTORS In the reporting period, two groups in Iraqi Kurdistan and 15 factions in Somalia signed the Geneva Call Deed of Commitment for non-state actors, agreeing to implement a comprehensive ban on antipersonnel mines.

+DECREASED PRODUCTION At least 36 nations have ceased production of antipersonnel mines, including thirty States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty, and six non-signatories (Finland, Greece, Israel, Poland, Serbia and Montenegro, and Turkey). Taiwan has also stopped production. In several countries that have not formally stopped, there appears to have been no production for a number of years, such as in the US (since 1997), South Korea, and Egypt. Russia stated that for the past eight years, it has not produced its most common blast mine (PMN series) or its scatterable PFM-1 “Butterfly” mines.

MAJOR FINDINGS 1 LANDMINE MONITOR REPORT 2003: Toward a Mine-Free World www.icbl.org/lm/2003

-ONGOING PRODUCTION Landmine Monitor identifies fifteen countries as producers of antipersonnel mines, although it is not known how many were actively producing mines in this reporting period. Nepal for the first time admitted that it has produced antipersonnel mines, making it the first addition to the ranks of the producers since Landmine Monitor reporting started in 1999.

+DE FACTO GLOBAL BAN ON TRADE IN ANTIPERSONNEL MINE Global trade in antipersonnel mines has dwindled to a very low level of illicit trafficking and unacknowledged trade. There were no confirmed instances of antipersonnel mine transfers, as the de facto global ban on trade held tight. Several countries outside the Mine Ban Treaty formally extended or reconfirmed their moratoria on exports of antipersonnel mines, including Belarus, China, Israel, Poland, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Turkey and the US.

+MILLIONS OF STOCKPILED ANTIPERSONNEL MINES DESTROYED Some four million stockpiled antipersonnel mines have been destroyed since the last Landmine Monitor report, bringing the total to more than 50 million in recent years. Another eighteen Mine Ban Treaty States Parties have reported completing destruction of their stockpiles, destroying almost 10.8 million mines: Brazil, Chad, Croatia, Djibouti, El Salvador, Italy, Japan, Jordan, FYR Macedonia, Moldova, Mozambique, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Portugal, Slovenia, Thailand, Turkmenistan, and Uganda. Another twelve States Parties are in the process of destroying their stockpiles. With one notable exception, it appears States Parties are meeting their respective four- year deadlines for destruction of stockpiled antipersonnel mines that began on 1 March 2003.

-THE CASE OF TURKMENISTAN Turkmenistan reported that it completed its stockpile destruction by its 1 March 2003 deadline, destroying almost 700,000 mines in an eighteen-month period. However, it also reported that it plans to retain 69,200 mines for training. The ICBL believes that 69,200 mines is an unacceptable, and likely illegal, number as it is obviously not the “minimum number absolutely necessary,” as required by the treaty. The ICBL has expressed its view that retention of such a number of mines in fact means that Turkmenistan did not fully destroy its stocks, and is therefore in violation of a core treaty obligation.

+STOCKPILE DESTRUCTION BY NON-STATES PARTIES Russia reported for the first time that it destroyed more than 16.8 million stockpiled antipersonnel mines between 1996 and 2002, including 638,427 in 2002. It had previously reported destruction of about 1 million antipersonnel mines. Ukraine, a Mine Ban Treaty signatory, completed the destruction of nearly 405,000 mines between July 2002 and May 2003. As a signal of its support for the Mine Ban Treaty, non-signatory Belarus destroyed 22,963 PMN-2 antipersonnel mines in 2002.

-MILLIONS OF MINES STOCKPILED BY NON-STATES PARTIES Landmine Monitor estimates that there are approximately 200-215 million antipersonnel mines currently stockpiled by 78 countries. Non-signatories account for all but about 10 million of those mines, including China (estimated 110 million), Russia (estimated 50 million), US (10.4 million), Pakistan (estimated 6 million), India (estimated 4-5 million), Belarus (4.5 million), and South Korea (2 million).

-FAILURE TO MEET TRANSPARENCY REPORTING REQUIREMENT Fifteen States Parties have not submitted their initial transparency measures reports as required by Article 7 of the Mine Ban Treaty, including Angola, Eritrea, Guinea, Liberia, Namibia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Suriname. These states have also not officially declared the presence or absence of antipersonnel mine stockpiles, and their compliance with the destruction requirement.

+VOLUNTARY TRANSPARENCY REPORTING BY NON-STATES PARTIES In this reporting period, Latvia and Poland submitted voluntary Article 7 transparency reports, each revealing details of their antipersonnel mine stockpiles. Greece also provided stockpile information publicly for the first time. These steps followed the examples set by Belarus, Lithuania and Ukraine.

+INCREASED MINE ACTION DONATIONS Mine action funding has totaled over $1.7 billion since 1992, including $1.2 billion since the Mine Ban Treaty was opened for signature in 1997. For 2002, Landmine Monitor has identified $309 million in mine action funding by more than 23 donors, a 30 percent increase from the previous year. In 2001, Landmine Monitor reported that global

MAJOR FINDINGS 2 LANDMINE MONITOR REPORT 2003: Toward a Mine-Free World www.icbl.org/lm/2003 mine action funding had stagnated. Donors that increased their mine action contributions in 2002 included Japan ($49.4 million spent), European Commission ($38.7 million), Norway ($25.2 million), Germany ($19.4 million), and the Netherlands ($16 million). Australia, Austria, Belgium, France, Italy, and Switzerland also recorded increases. Non-States Parties Greece and China also increased assistance significantly. One donor—Japan—is responsible for well over half of the increase in mine action donations in 2002.

-DONOR DECREASES IN MINE ACTION FUNDING Mine action funding fell for four of the biggest donors: the United States (down $5.5 million); Denmark (down $3.8 million); Sweden (down $2.6 million); and the United Kingdom (down $1.4 million).

+INCREASES IN FUNDING RECEIVED Among the mine-affected countries, the biggest increases in mine action funding in 2002 were registered in Afghanistan ($50 million increase), Vietnam ($12 million), Angola ($7.7 million), Cambodia ($6.3 million), and Sri Lanka (about $5.5 million). Among the major recipients, no significant decreases were reported except where expected in Kosovo.

-MORE FUNDING NEEDED More than two-thirds of the 2002 funding increase went to a single country, Afghanistan. Even greater increases in mine action funding will be needed in the future to cope fully with the global landmine problem and to enable Mine Ban Treaty States Parties to meet their ten-year deadlines for mine clearance.

+EXPANDING MINE ACTION PROGRAMS The number of mine-affected countries reporting organized mine clearance operations increased in 2002, and there were substantial increases in the amount of land cleared in many countries. Landmine Monitor recorded humanitarian mine clearance in at least 35 countries and instances of limited mine clearance in 32 countries. Costa Rica declared itself mine-free in December 2002. Peace agreements and cease-fires in Angola, Sri Lanka, and Sudan enabled the expansion of mine action activities. Landmine Monitor recorded mine risk education programs in 36 countries in 2002 and 2003.

-STILL TOO MANY MINE-AFFECTED COUNTRIES Landmine Monitor research identifies 82 countries that are affected to some degree by landmines and/or unexploded ordnance, of which 45 are States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty. No mine clearance was recorded in 16 of the affected countries and no mine risk education activities were recorded in 25 countries.

+FEWER NEW MINE VICTIMS IN SOME COUNTRIES The reported landmine casualty rate declined in 2002 in the majority of mine-affected countries. Where an increase was reported in 2002 this generally appears to be due to population movements within affected areas (Cambodia), or to a new or expanded conflict (India and Palestine). In other mine-affected countries, the increase appears to be largely the result of improved data collection: Burma, Chad, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Republic of Korea, Pakistan, and Thailand. It is likely that there are between 15,000 and 20,000 new landmine casualties each year, a significant reduction in the long-standing and commonly cited estimate of 26,000 new casualties each year. However, the lack of reliable reporting in some countries, and the underreporting of casualties in many countries, must be acknowledged.

-CONTINUED CASUALTIES MEANS MORE MINE VICTIMS NEEDING ASSISTANCE In 2002 and through June 2003, there were new landmine casualties reported in 65 countries; the majority (41) of these countries were at peace, not war. Only 15 percent of reported casualties in 2002 were identified as military personnel. In 2002, the greatest number of reported new casualties were found in: Chechnya (5,695 casualties recorded), Afghanistan (1,286), Cambodia (834), Colombia (530), India (523), Iraq (457), Angola (287), Chad (200), Nepal (177), Vietnam (166), Sri Lanka (142), Burundi (114), Burma/Myanmar (114), and Pakistan (111). Significant numbers (over 50) of new casualties were also recorded in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Laos, Palestine, Senegal, Somalia, and Sudan.

-INADEQUATE ASSISTANCE TO LANDMINE SURVIVORS In many mine-affected countries the assistance available to address the needs of survivors is inadequate and it would appear that additional outside assistance is needed in providing for the care and rehabilitation of mine survivors. In this reporting period, Landmine Monitor has identified at least 48 mine-affected countries where one or more aspects of assistance are reportedly inadequate to meet the needs of mine survivors.

MAJOR FINDINGS 3 LANDMINE MONITOR REPORT 2003: Toward a Mine-Free World www.icbl.org/lm/2003

KEY DEVELOPMENTS SINCE MAY 2002

STATES PARTIES

AFGHANISTAN: Afghanistan acceded to the Mine Ban Treaty on 11 September 2002. Since the war and dramatic political and military changes in late 2001 and early 2002, mine action activities have expanded greatly. Mine action funding for Afghanistan for 2002 totaled approximately US$64 million, more than four times the 2001 total. Mine action agencies surveyed approximately 25.4 square kilometers of mined land and 92.6 square kilometers of former battlefield area in 2002. They cleared 22.5 square kilometers of mined land and 88.6 square kilometers of battlefield areas, destroying 36,761 antipersonnel mines, 2,769 antivehicle mines, and 873,234 items of UXO. The UN temporarily halted demining operations in eastern and southern provinces due to a series of attacks on demining staff and other humanitarian aid workers that began in April 2003. In 2002, more than 3.4 million civilians, including returning refugees and displaced persons, received mine risk education. The ICRC recorded 1,286 new landmine/UXO casualties in 2002, although it is believed that many casualties are not reported.

ALBANIA: More than seven million square meters of land was declared mine free in 2002, through impact survey, technical survey, and clearance. Some $2.7 million was spent on mine action in Albania in 2002. A National Mine Action Plan for 2003-2005 has been formulated. In August 2002, a workshop was held to review and revise the mine risk education strategy in Albania. Albania ratified CCW Amended Protocol II on 28 August 2002.

ALGERIA: Algeria submitted its initial Article 7 report on 1 May 2003, declaring a stockpile of 165,080 antipersonnel mines. Algeria intends to retain 15,030 mines for training and research, one of the highest totals for any State Party. Algeria estimates that more than 3 million mines are planted on its territory. Algeria accuses “terrorists” of continuing to use improvised mines.

ANGOLA: Angola ratified the Mine Ban Treaty on 5 July 2002. Mine action funding for Angola in 2002 totaled approximately $21.2 million, a very significant increase from 2001. The National Inter-Sectoral Commission on Demining and Humanitarian Assistance is taking over coordination of mine action activities. INAROEE is being restructured as the National Institute for Demining. During 2002 and the first quarter of 2003, mine action NGOs reported clearing more than 2.8 million square meters of land, surveying more than 7.8 million square meters of land, and destroying more than 5,000 mines and 13,000 UXO. INAROEE reported that 543,713 people received mine risk education in 2002 and 287 new landmine/UXO casualties were recorded in 2002, compared to 673 casualties in 2001. However, non-governmental and UN sources insisted that the number of landmine incidents increased dramatically during 2002 and early 2003.

ARGENTINA: In 2002, a total of 8,004 antipersonnel mines were removed from stockpiles and rendered inert or transformed into antivehicle mine fuzes. In June 2003, the OAS and Argentina signed an agreement for cooperation and technical assistance for stockpile destruction. Argentina plans to destroy its remaining stockpile of about 90,000 antipersonnel mines between June and December 2003.

AUSTRALIA: In FY 2002/3, Australia estimates spending A$14.5 million (US$8.7 million) on mine action activities, an increase from the previous year. In September 2002, Australia was named co-rapporteur of the Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and Socio-Economic Reintegration.

AUSTRIA: Austria has served as co-chair of the Standing Committee on the General Status and Operation of the Convention since September 2002. Austria has continued to play a key role in promoting universalization and full implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty. Austrian funding for mine action in 2002 more than doubled to €2.06 million (US$1.96 million), including €1.27 million for Afghanistan.

BANGLADESH: Bangladesh submitted its initial Article 7 transparency report on 28 August 2002 and its annual update on 29 April 2003. Bangladesh for the first time reported a stockpile of 204,227 antipersonnel mines, and indicated it will retain 15,000 antipersonnel mines for training. National implementation legislation is being prepared. Bangladesh is expected to become co-rapporteur of the Standing Committee on Stockpile Destruction in September 2003. No new mine casualties were reported in 2002 or early 2003.

KEY DEVELOPMENTS 1 LANDMINE MONITOR REPORT 2003: Toward a Mine-Free World www.icbl.org/lm/2003

BELGIUM: Belgium continued to play a key role in promoting universalization and full implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty. Belgian Ambassador Jean Lint served as President of the Fourth Meeting of States Parties and Chair of the Coordinating Committee from September 2002 to September 2003. Belgium also served as co-chair of the Standing Committee on Mine Clearance from September 2002 to September 2003. On 12-13 November 2002, Belgium hosted a seminar in Brussels for African countries on transparency reporting under Article 7 of the treaty. Belgium contributed €4.7 million (US$4.5 million) to mine action in 2002, including research and development, a significant increase from 2001.

BENIN: On 25 April 2003, a regional mine clearance training center for ECOWAS member states, built with the assistance of France, was opened in Ouidah.

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA: A national Landmine Impact Survey began in October 2002 and is due to be completed in December 2003. In May 2003, the area suspected to be contaminated by mines and unexploded ordnance was estimated at more than 2,000 square kilometers. The Council of Ministers in April 2003 approved a demining strategy for BiH for 2002 to 2010, which has the objective of freeing BiH from the threat of mines and UXO by 2010. Six million square meters of land was cleared in 2002. Weapons caches containing landmines continue to be uncovered in BiH. In 2002, landmine/UXO incidents killed 26 civilians and injured 46 others, a decrease from the 87 casualties in 2001.

BRAZIL: Brazil completed destruction of its stockpiled mines in January 2003, months ahead of the treaty-mandated deadline of 31 October 2003.

CAMBODIA: In 2002, a total of 34.7 million square meters of land was cleared, including 41,030 antipersonnel mines. In 2002, 834 new mine and UXO casualties were reported, a small increase from 2001. In September 2002, Cambodia became co-rapporteur of the Standing Committee on Mine Clearance, Mine Risk Education and Mine Action Technologies. In March 2003, Cambodia hosted a regional seminar “Building a Co-operative Future for Mine Action in South East Asia.”

CAMEROON: Cameroon ratified the Mine Ban Treaty on 19 September 2002 and became a State Party on 1 March 2003.

CANADA: Canada continued to play a key leadership role in promoting universalization and full implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty. On 29 November 2002, the Canadian Landmine Fund was renewed, with C$72 million to be spent over the next five years. Canada provided C$24.3 million (US$16.4 million) to mine action activities during its 2002/2003 fiscal year. Canada sponsored regional meetings to promote the Mine Ban Treaty in Afghanistan, Armenia, Croatia, and Ukraine. Canada supported stockpile destruction in Chad, Mozambique, Romania, Ukraine and Yemen.

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC: The Central African Republic acceded to the Mine Ban Treaty on 8 November 2002 and became a State Party on 1 May 2003. Antivehicle landmines were reportedly used in October 2002 by opposition forces during an attempted military coup. Those opposition forces subsequently seized power in March 2003. The new government denies use of mines and has reaffirmed its adherence to the Mine Ban Treaty.

CHAD: Chad completed destruction of its stockpile of 4,490 antipersonnel landmines, and decided to retain no mines for training. Chad has developed a “National Strategic Plan to Fight Mines and UXO: 2002-2015.” The German NGO HELP reports clearing 1,935,000 square meters of land in 2002, destroying 2,970 mines and 6,904 UXO. The Military Hospital in N'djamena registered 200 new mine casualties in 2002, of which 54 were civilians.

CHILE: As of May 2003, Chile had destroyed 201,446 stockpiled antipersonnel mines and was on track for completion by August 2003. Chile revised downward the number of antipersonnel mines it will retain for training and development to 6,245 mines. Chile submitted its initial Article 7 Report on 5 September 2002 and an updated report on 30 April 2003. The Article 7 Report contains previously unreported information on a mined area in Region V, the densely populated central region of the country. Chile’s National Demining Commission was officially constituted on 19 August 2002 and completed its National Demining Plan on 10 January 2003. Demining is expected to commence in 2004.

KEY DEVELOPMENTS 2 LANDMINE MONITOR REPORT 2003: Toward a Mine-Free World www.icbl.org/lm/2003

COLOMBIA: The use of mines by guerrilla and paramilitary forces has increased considerably. The government reported 638 incidents of mine use in 2002. All but two of the country’s 32 departments are now mine-affected. The number of reported casualties to mines and unexploded ordnance more than doubled from 216 in 2001 to 530 in 2002. Another 151 new casualties were recorded between January and 15 April 2003. A National Mine Action Plan was approved on 27 February 2003. In March 2003, Colombia and the Organization of American States signed an Agreement on Cooperation and Technical Assistance for mine action. No systematic humanitarian demining is underway, but mine risk education activities are expanding. Colombia’s national implementation legislation, Law 759, came into effect on 25 July 2002. Colombia began its stockpile destruction program in June 2003 and plans to complete it in February 2005. Colombia has served as co-chair of the Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and Socioeconomic Reintegration since September 2002. A United Nations report released in February 2003 contains a serious allegation of use of antipersonnel landmines by the Colombian Army. The Colombian government has indicated only command- detonated Claymore mines, permissible under the Mine Ban Treaty, were used.

COMOROS: Comoros acceded to the Mine Ban Treaty on 19 September 2002 and became a State Party on 1 March 2003.

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO: The Democratic Republic of Congo acceded to the Mine Ban Treaty on 2 May 2002. A National Commission to Fight Antipersonnel Mines was created on 6 May 2002. The DRC submitted its initial Article 7 transparency report on 30 April 2003. It identified 165 mined or suspected mined areas in 11 provinces. Handicap International Belgium conducted several preliminary landmine surveys and emergency assessment missions. Between June 2001 and April 2003, HIB cleared 25,756 square meters of land in Kisangani and surrounding areas. Limited mine clearance has been also been conducted by militaries and MONUC. In 2002 and 2003, HIB destroyed about 1,660 antipersonnel mines stockpiled by rebel forces. There has been ongoing, and apparently increased, use of antipersonnel mines by a number of rebel groups in 2002 and 2003.

REPUBLIC OF CONGO: The Republic of Congo submitted its first Article 7 Report on 12 September 2002 and an annual update on 30 April 2003. It reports a stockpile of 5,090 mines, of which 372 will be retained for training. The Republic of Congo hosted a workshop on the Implementation of the Ottawa Convention and Mine Action in the DRC and in the Republic of Congo, in Brazzaville on 7 and 8 May 2003. Draft implementation legislation is under consideration.

COSTA RICA: Costa Rica was declared mine-free on 10 December 2002, nearly seven years prior to its treaty deadline.

CROATIA: Destruction of Croatia’s stockpile of 199,003 antipersonnel mines was completed in October 2002. In 2002, Croatia returned 60.4 square kilometers of land to the community through clearance and survey. Croatia reports mine action expenditures of KN342 million (US$44 million) in 2002, nearly 50 percent more than in 2001. In May 2003, Croatia expressed its intention to be mine-free by March 2009. In 2002, the CROMAC database recorded 29 new casualties. Croatia served as co-chair of the Standing Committee on Stockpile Destruction until September 2002, and has served as co-rapporteur of the Standing Committee on Victim Assistance since that time. Croatia became a party to CCW Amended Protocol II on 25 October 2002.

CYPRUS: Cyprus ratified the Mine Ban Treaty on 17 January 2003 and became a State Party on 1 July 2003. Cyprus has reported a stockpile of 48,615 antipersonnel mines. Mine clearance operations are ongoing in a number of areas close to the buffer zone and plans for demining inside the zone have been announced.

CZECH REPUBLIC: In May 2003, at an arms fair in Brno, the Czech company Policske Strojirny reportedly displayed and offered for sale Horizont PD-Mi-PK antivehicle mines in tripwire-activation mode. The ICBL believes such mines are prohibited by the Mine Ban Treaty. The Czech Republic has decided to withdraw from stockpiles “old-fashioned antivehicle mines” and replace them by “newer, less dangerous devices.”

DENMARK: Mine action funding in 2002 totaled DKK 83.5 million (US$10.6 million), which is a significant decrease from DKK 119.5 million in 2001.

KEY DEVELOPMENTS 3 LANDMINE MONITOR REPORT 2003: Toward a Mine-Free World www.icbl.org/lm/2003

DJIBOUTI: On 2 March 2003, Djibouti destroyed its stockpile of 1,118 antipersonnel mines. It retained 2,996 for training purposes. In 2002, 4,986 square meters of land was cleared and 221 antipersonnel mines were destroyed. On 16 January 2003, Djibouti submitted its first Article 7 transparency report.

ECUADOR: According to the OAS, demining activities gained momentum in Ecuador in 2002. In March 2003, the OAS reported that a total of 61,649 square meters of land had been cleared of 4,286 antipersonnel mines. Impact surveys and technical studies were carried out in 2002 and 2003 in a number of provinces. The National Mine Clearance Plan for 2003-2004 was approved on 17 December 2002. Ecuador reported that antipersonnel mines were laid from 1995 to 1998, which indicates that Ecuador used antipersonnel mines after signing the Mine Ban Treaty in December 1997, but prior to entry into force in 1999. Ecuador reported corrections to the number of stockpiled mines destroyed and the number of mines retained.

EL SALVADOR: On 20 February 2003, El Salvador completed destruction of its stockpiled antipersonnel mines, ahead of its treaty-mandated deadline of 1 July 2003. During field research in September 2002, the International Demining Group identified 33 sites suspected of being affected by unexploded ordnance.

ERITREA: A national Landmine Impact Survey began in May 2002. In July 2002, the Eritrean government announced the establishment of the Eritrean Demining Authority to manage and coordinate mine action in Eritrea. The previous government coordinating bodies were disbanded, the national mine action NGO closed, and most international mine action NGOs were expelled from the country. United Nations demining support for the Eritrea- Ethiopia Boundary Commission began in late 2002. Eritrea has not submitted its initial Article 7 transparency report, which was due on 31 July 2002.

FRANCE: France increased its mine action funding in 2002 to more than $3.5 million. France has served as co- chair of the Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and Socio-Economic Reintegration since September 2002. The mandate of the National Commission for the Elimination of Antipersonnel Mines was renewed in October 2002 for another three years.

GABON: Gabon submitted its initial Article 7 report in September 2002, stating that its stockpile of 1,082 antipersonnel mines was destroyed at the time of entry into force.

THE GAMBIA: The Gambia ratified the Mine Ban Treaty on 23 September 2002 and became a State Party on 1 March 2003. It submitted a voluntary Article 7 report on 28 August 2002.

GERMANY: Government funding for humanitarian mine action in 2002 amounted to €20.4 million, an increase of nearly 50 percent from 2001. The German Parliament passed a resolution in June 2002 urging the government to work nationally and internationally toward a ban of all antivehicle mines equipped with sensitive fuzes. In June 2003, Germany expressed its view that antivehicle mines with breakwire, tripwire and tilt rod fuzes “seem unable to be designed in such a way that an individual cannot initiate the mine and are therefore not a recommended method of detonation.”

GUATEMALA: The date for completion of the clearance program has been moved up from 2005 to 2004. Clearance operations in San Marcos department were completed on 15 December 2002, with 8,342 square meters of land returned to communities. Guatemala has served as co-rapporteur of the Standing Committee on Stockpile Destruction since September 2002.

GUINEA: Guinea’s treaty-mandated deadline for stockpile destruction was 1 April 2003. Guinea has not met its obligation to submit an initial Article 7 transparency report, and annual updates, and has not informed the United Nations or other States Parties if it has met its obligation to destroy all stockpiled antipersonnel mines within four years of entry into force.

GUINEA-BISSAU: In September 2002, Guinea-Bissau destroyed 1,000 of its 4,997 stockpiled mines. The remainder are scheduled to be destroyed in 2003. In June 2003, CAAMI reported that 390,000 square meters of land had been cleared since 2000, including 2,400 antipersonnel mines. LUTCAM, the second domestic mine clearance NGO in Guinea-Bissau, started field operations in February 2003. Since mid-2001, 112 mine risk education activists and 260 community liaison agents have been trained, and have reached some 30,000 people.

KEY DEVELOPMENTS 4 LANDMINE MONITOR REPORT 2003: Toward a Mine-Free World www.icbl.org/lm/2003

HONDURAS: In May 2003, mine clearance in Choluteca department was completed. The final clearance operation then began in El Paraíso department, and is scheduled for completion by year’s end.

HUNGARY: In 2002, the Hungarian Army found 359,802 explosive items, including 15 live landmines from World War II. In 2002, Hungary manufactured a small quantity of a new Claymore-type munition (designated IHR), as one part of a proposed system to replace antipersonnel mines. Hungary has destroyed the last of its antivehicle mines equipped with tilt rods.

ITALY: Italy completed the destruction of its stockpile of more than 7.1 million antipersonnel mines in November 2002. Italy provided a total of €9.91 million (US$8.65 million) in mine action funding in 2002, a very significant increase from 2001. In 2002, Italian armed forces carried out demining in Afghanistan and Bosnia and Herzegovina, and mine risk education in Kosovo. Italy has served as co-rapporteur of the Standing Committee on Stockpile Destruction since September 2002. In April 2003, the Italian Campaign to Ban Landmines hosted the annual Global Landmine Monitor Researchers Meeting in Rome.

JAPAN: On 8 February 2003, Japan completed destruction of its 1,000,089 stockpiled antipersonnel mines. In 2002, Japan’s contributed ¥5,499 million (US$49.4 million) to mine action, which is nearly seven times the level of 2001. Mine action programs in Afghanistan received almost half of the 2002 funds. Japan exceeded its five-year pledge, contributing ¥10.34 billion ($91.3 million) to mine action from 1998-2002. Japan has served as co- rapporteur of the Standing Committee on Mine Clearance since September 2002.

JORDAN: Jordan completed the destruction of its stockpile of 92,342 antipersonnel mines on 23 April 2003. The Jordanian Army Engineering Corps cleared 20 minefields in 2002, which allowed the implementation of one of Jordan’s important national irrigation projects to proceed. Jordanian deminers were deployed to Afghanistan in December 2002 to clear mines at Bagram and Kandahar.

KENYA: Pending formal approval in September 2003, Kenya will host the First Review Conference of the Mine Ban Treaty at UN facilities in Nairobi from 29 November–3 December 2004. Kenya has served as co-chair of the Standing Committee on Mine Clearance, Mine Risk Education and Mine Action Technologies since September 2002. In April 2003, Kenya’s Department of Defense confirmed plans for destruction of its antipersonnel mine stockpile in 2003. In response to demands from the local population, the Kenyan military has begun some risk education in areas contaminated with unexploded ordnance.

LIBERIA: Liberia has not submitted its initial Article 7 transparency report, which was due on 28 November 2000. Liberia is one of the very few States Parties that have not yet officially confirmed or denied the existence of a stockpile of antipersonnel mines.

LITHUANIA: Lithuania ratified the Mine Ban Treaty on 12 May 2003, and will become a State Party on 1 November 2003. In July 2002, Lithuania submitted a voluntary Article 7 Report, in which it declared a stockpile of 8,091 antipersonnel mines and indicated its intent to retain the entire stockpile for training purposes. In 2002, 4,999 items of UXO and landmines were detected and destroyed.

MACEDONIA (FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF): The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia completed destruction of its stockpile of 38,921 antipersonnel mine stockpile on 20 February 2003. In 2002, a total of nearly 3.9 million square meters of land was cleared, destroying 19 mines and 131 UXO.

MALAWI: Malawi submitted its initial Article 7 report on 28 February 2003, acknowledging suspected mined areas along the border with Mozambique. Malawi is seeking funds for survey activities on the border. The military has not carried out any demining activities, but the government plans to provide funds for mine clearance in its budget year beginning July 2003. Implementation legislation is being prepared.

MAURITANIA: On 22 July 2002, Mauritania created a National Commission in charge of the mine issue. Implementing legislation has been prepared and is being considered. Instead of keeping 5,728 mines for training, Mauritania will destroy 4,885 mines and retain 843. The National Humanitarian Demining Office estimates about 310,000 square kilometers (one-third of the country) is affected or suspected to be affected by mines and UXO. A

KEY DEVELOPMENTS 5 LANDMINE MONITOR REPORT 2003: Toward a Mine-Free World www.icbl.org/lm/2003 level one survey was conducted in Nouadhibou in February-March 2003. Between April 2000 and April 2003, a total of 5,294 mines and 5,098 UXO were cleared and destroyed.

MÉXICO: México has served as co-rapporteur of the Standing Committee on General Status and Operation of the Convention since September 2002.

MOLDOVA: Moldova completed the destruction of its antipersonnel mine stockpile on 26 November 2002.

MOZAMBIQUE: Mozambique completed destruction of its stockpile of 37,318 antipersonnel mines on 28 February 2003, meeting its treaty-mandated deadline. Mozambique decided to retain 1,427 mines for training purposes, instead of none as it previously reported. In April 2003, the National Demining Institute reported it had re-evaluated information from the 2001 Landmine Impact Survey and decided to reduce its estimate of mined areas by 38 percent, from 558 million square meters to 346 million square meters. The National Demining Institute reported clearance of a total of 8.9 million square meters of land in 2002, although there is conflicting data. Mozambique reports that from January 2002 to March 2003, mine risk education was provided to 202,334 persons, and 100 MRE facilitators were trained.

NAMIBIA: Namibia’s deadline for stockpile destruction was 1 March 2003. It has made no official declarations about its stockpiles or their destruction, although it did inform Landmine Monitor in a July 2001 letter that it had destroyed all stocks, except those retained for training. Namibia still has not submitted its initial Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 transparency report, which was due by 28 August 1999. In 2002, the Namibia Development Corporation reportedly paid to demine dozens of 30-hectare plots in the West Caprivi region that had been mined between 1999 and 2001.

THE NETHERLANDS: Mine action funding in 2002 totaled more than $16 million, a significant increase over 2001. Stockpile destruction was completed in December 2002, with the destruction of 5,984 Gator antipersonnel mines. The Netherlands also destroyed 10,000 DM31 antivehicle mines. The Netherlands has served as co- rapporteur of the Standing Committee on the General Status and Operation of the Convention since September 2002, and will become co-chair of the committee in September 2003.

NEW ZEALAND: New Zealand has been a highly active participant in the Mine Ban Treaty intersessional work program. It is expected to be named Co-Rapporteur of the Standing Committee on the General Status and Operation of the Convention in September 2003. It has continued its efforts to promote universalization of the Mine Ban Treaty, particularly in the Pacific region. New Zealand’s mine action funding fell in its financial year 2001/2002 and again in 2002/2003.

NICARAGUA: On 28 August 2002, Nicaragua completed the destruction of the last of its 133,435 stockpiled antipersonnel mines. In 2002, according to the OAS, 339,032 square meters of land were cleared and 5,479 antipersonnel mines were destroyed. In March 2003, Nicaragua reported the completion of mine clearance operations in the departments of Chinandega, Chontales, Boaco, and Región Autónoma del Atlántico Sur.

NIGERIA: Nigeria has not submitted its Article 7 Report, due on 28 August 2002. The status of a possible landmine stockpile remains unclear.

NORWAY: In 2002, Norway provided US$25.5 million in funding for mine action, a significant increase from 2001. Norway’s five-year commitment of US$120 million to mine action activities came to an end, but officials have stated that Norway intends to maintain the same level of funding in the coming years. Norway continued to play a key leadership role in promoting full implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty and in the intersessional work program. At Norway’s initiative, a contact group on resource mobilization was established at the Fourth Meeting of States Parties. Norway reported that US antipersonnel mines stockpiled in Norway were removed in November 2002. In 2002, the Norwegian Petroleum Fund terminated its investments in Singapore Technologies due to that company’s production of antipersonnel mines. In September 2002, a conference was held in Oslo, “The Future of Humanitarian Mine Action,” marking the fifth anniversary of the negotiation in Oslo of the Mine Ban Treaty. In 2002, Norwegian Defense Forces participated in mine clearance operations in Kosovo and Afghanistan.

KEY DEVELOPMENTS 6 LANDMINE MONITOR REPORT 2003: Toward a Mine-Free World www.icbl.org/lm/2003

PERÚ: Perú has served as the co-chair of the Standing Committee on General Status and Operation of the Convention since September 2002. On 13 December 2002, Perú officially created the Peruvian Center for Mine Action, “Contraminas,” responsible for mine action planning and policy-making. A national mine action plan is being drafted. In 2002, the Army completed mine clearance of the Zarumilla Canal, its source at La Palma, and the area leading to the international bridge at Aguas Verdes. Between June 2002 and May 2003, the National Police and SIMA cleared 17,651 mines from around 688 high-tension electrical towers. Mine risk education was provided for the first time in 2002 to many of the people living near the towers.

PHILIPPINES: Three rebel groups used landmines or improvised explosive devices: New People’s Army, Moro Islamic Liberation Front, and Abu Sayyaf Group. Use by the MILF violated its written commitments to a mine ban in April 2002 and September 2002. In May 2003, national implementation legislation was introduced in Congress.

PORTUGAL: Destruction of Portugal’s stockpile of 231,781 antipersonnel mines was completed in February 2003, in advance of its August 2003 deadline.

QATAR: Qatar submitted its initial Article 7 transparency report, indicating that it is not mine-affected, and that it has never used, produced or exported antipersonnel mines, and has no stockpile of live mines. Qatar provided some clarifications regarding its position on US mines stockpiled in Qatar and on joint military operations with non-States Parties.

ROMANIA: Romania destroyed 486,000 antipersonnel mines from April 2002 to April 2003. Romania has served as co-chair of the Standing Committee on Stockpile Destruction since September 2002. In February 2003, Romania became Chair of the Reay Group on Mine Action. Government Decision 1326 was published on 4 December 2002, establishing an Interdepartmental Working Group to coordinate implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty.

RWANDA: A level one survey was carried out October 2002-January 2003, which determined that 46 percent of Rwanda’s mined areas had been cleared. From 1995 to 2002, a total of 1,220 mines and 27,791 UXO were cleared. No mine risk education activities were conducted in 2002, due largely to a lack of funding. A government committee was created in July 2002 to draft national implementation legislation.

SÃO TOMÉ E PRíNCIPE: São Tomé e Príncipe ratified the Mine Ban Treaty on 31 March 2003 and will become a State Party on 1 September 2003.

SENEGAL: A mine clearance plan has been developed, to be carried out in three phases over a five-year period. In 2002, Handicap International provided mine risk education training to 375 agents, and a total of 59,583 people were reached with MRE activities. In 2002, at least 56 new mine casualties were reported.

SIERRA LEONE: Sierra Leone has not submitted its initial Article 7 transparency report, which was due on 30 March 2002. It is not known to have enacted any of the required national implementation measures.

SLOVAKIA: In 2002, Slovak forces conducted demining in Afghanistan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Kosovo. In May 2002, Slovakia donated a Bozena demining machine to the International Trust Fund for use in Croatia.

SLOVENIA: Slovenia completed the destruction of its antipersonnel mine stockpile on 25 March 2003. Slovenia clarified its position on antivehicle mines with sensitive fuzes. In December 2002, Slovenia ratified Amended Protocol II of the CCW. The Slovenian-based International Trust Fund for Demining and Mine Victims Assistance raised nearly $30 million in 2002, a significant increase from 2001. In 2002, the ITF funded projects that cleared 11.4 million square meters of land in South East Europe. In July 2002, the ITF co-organized a workshop on landmine victim assistance in Southeastern Europe.

SOUTH AFRICA: The South African Parliament passed domestic implementation legislation in April 2003. South Africa has continued to play a leading role in the intersessional work program of the Mine Ban Treaty and in promoting universalization and full implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty among African States.

SPAIN: During 2002, the International Demining Training Center provided training courses on humanitarian demining for 100 personnel from Afghanistan, and 23 personnel from Angola and Mozambique.

KEY DEVELOPMENTS 7 LANDMINE MONITOR REPORT 2003: Toward a Mine-Free World www.icbl.org/lm/2003

SURINAME: Suriname ratified the Mine Ban Treaty on 23 May 2002, and the treaty entered into force on 1 November 2002. In March 2003, the Minister of Defense established an inter-ministerial Commission on Antipersonnel Mines.

SWEDEN: Sweden’s funding for mine action decreased significantly in 2002, to about SEK71 million (US$7.3 million). The government presented a new strategy on mine action in May 2002. In March 2003, the Bofors Company revealed to Landmine Monitor that it held 7,069 antipersonnel mines, not 4,000 as previously reported by the government. Sweden subsequently reported that this increased the number of mines retained for training and development to 16,015. The Swedish Rescue Service Agency in 2002 and 2003 provided mine action assistance, mainly quality assurance, in five countries. Sweden continued to invest significantly in research and development on mine detection and clearance technologies.

SWITZERLAND: In 2002, Swiss funding for mine action increased to more than $9 million, with nearly half going to the Geneva International Center for Humanitarian Demining. Countries receiving Swiss funding for the first time were Afghanistan, Angola, Colombia, Ethiopia, Lebanon, and Sri Lanka. Switzerland served as Secretary-General of the Fourth Meeting of States Parties in September 2002, and became co-chair of the Standing Committee on Stockpile Destruction.

TAJIKISTAN: Tajikistan began participating in Mine Ban Treaty-related meetings in September 2002. It submitted an initial transparency measures report on 3 February 2003, which declared a stockpile of 3,339 antipersonnel mines under the control of its forces and 18,200 mines under the control of Russian forces. Tajikistan began destroying its stockpiled mines in August 2002. Russian and Uzbek forces laid mines inside Tajikistan as late as 2001. Tajikistan has provided detailed information on areas that contain mines and areas suspected of containing mines. In May 2003, the first internationally-funded mine action program began. As of June 2003, an Executive Mine Action Cell was being formed.

TANZANIA: Tanzania submitted its initial Article 7 transparency report on 5 February 2003 and an update on 30 April 2003. It declared a stockpile of 23,987 antipersonnel mines. Tanzania intends to retain 1,146 antipersonnel mines for training and research. On 27 March 2003, Tanzania destroyed its first 9,837 antipersonnel mines and it has developed a plan to complete destruction by September 2004.

TIMOR-LESTE: Timor-Leste acceded to the Mine Ban Treaty on 4 May 2003. The treaty will enter into force on 1 November 2003.

TOGO: Togo submitted its initial Article 7 report, declaring a stockpile of 436 antipersonnel mines, all of which will be retained for training.

TUNISIA: Tunisia has destroyed another 13,684 stockpiled antipersonnel mines, and plans to complete destruction in September 2003. In June 2003, an inter-ministerial committee to coordinate implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty was established. MAG and UNMAS conducted assessment missions in December 2002 and January 2003 to examine Tunisia’s mine clearance needs.

TURKMENISTAN: Turkmenistan reported that it completed its stockpile destruction on 28 February 2003, destroying almost 700,000 antipersonnel mines in a seventeen-month period. Turkmenistan is retaining 69,200 mines for training purposes, far more than any other State Party. The ICBL has called this a violation of the Mine Ban Treaty.

UGANDA: Uganda completed destruction of its stockpile of antipersonnel mines in July 2003. Increased conflict with Lord’s Resistance Army rebels in the northern districts has seen new use of antipersonnel mines by LRA forces. Mine risk education activities were hampered by continuing insecurity, as well as lack of funds.

UNITED KINGDOM: The UK provided £10.7 million (US$16 million) to mine action in financial year 2002-2003, a decrease from £12 million in 2001-2002. In May 2003, the UK announced £4 million ($6 million) for mine clearance and coordination of mine action in Iraq. The UK decided to reduce the number of mines retained under Article 3, destroying 3,116 mines by June 2003. The UK has further elaborated its views on the issue of joint operations with non-States Parties that may use antipersonnel mines, and clarified its position that transit of

KEY DEVELOPMENTS 8 LANDMINE MONITOR REPORT 2003: Toward a Mine-Free World www.icbl.org/lm/2003 antipersonnel mines is prohibited by the Mine Ban Treaty. The UK has stated that tripwires, break wires and tilt rods are not acceptable methods of detonating antivehicle mines. Two British nationals were killed and three others injured in landmine/UXO explosions in 2002 and early 2003.

URUGUAY: Uruguay destroyed another 400 stockpiled antipersonnel mines in June and October 2002. In 2002 and 2003, eighteen Army deminers took part in the UN peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

VENEZUELA: Venezuela submitted its initial Article 7 Report in September 2002, for the first time revealing information about its landmine stockpile. It submitted an updated report in May 2003 which included a revised stockpile total of 46,135 antipersonnel mines. From 7-14 May 2003, 35,360 of those mines were destroyed. Venezuela has reported that it laid antipersonnel mines in May 1998, five months after signing the Mine Ban Treaty.

YEMEN: By the end of 2002, six of the fourteen high impact communities had been cleared of mines and declared safe. Technical surveys of the other high impact communities were completed. In 2002, eighteen mined areas were cleared, totaling 1,176,406 square meters. Survey teams engaged in area reduction of 570,625 square meters and marked another 3,451,895 square meters. In 2002, 204 antipersonnel mines, 151 antivehicle mines, and 25,361 UXO were destroyed in clearance and survey operations.

ZAMBIA: In 2002, 721 kilometers of road along Lake Kariba were cleared to open up the area for a US$50 million World Bank development project. A level one survey was carried out in Western Province in November 2002. Zambia will destroy some of the 6,691 antipersonnel mines initially designated to be retained for training.

ZIMBABWE: In 2002, a National Authority on Mine Action was established to formulate a national mine action plan. The Zimbabwe Mine Action Center was formed to coordinate all mine action in the country. In 2002, 85 kilometers of the Victoria Falls minefield were cleared, destroying 16,000 mines.

SIGNATORIES

BURUNDI: There continue to be credible allegations of antipersonnel landmine use by government and rebel forces. The government strongly denies the charges. On 2 December 2002, the transitional government of Burundi and the CNDD-FDD signed a cease-fire agreement that prohibits all laying of mines by either party. It also contains obligations for marking and mapping of minefields, as well as mine clearance. On 25 March 2003, a draft law for ratification of the Mine Ban Treaty was adopted by the Council of Ministers; it was then adopted by the Senate on 18 June 2003. In 2002, there were at least 114 new civilian mine/UXO casualties reported in Burundi.

ETHIOPIA: The country’s first humanitarian demining program started in mid-2002. By January 2003, it had cleared 396,555 square meters of land in Tigray, destroying 132 antipersonnel landmines, 12 antivehicle mines and 251 UXO. A national Landmine Impact Survey is due to be completed in October 2003. In 2002, mine risk education reached 301,372 people. Mine action funding totaled more than US$8.7 million in 2002. Ethiopia hosted the ICBL/Landmine Monitor Africa-wide regional meeting in December 2002. In 2002, 67 new landmine/UXO casualties were reported.

GREECE: Greece has completed domestic measures necessary to ratify the Mine Ban Treaty and on 3 May 2003, Greece and Turkey issued a joint statement that they would adhere to the treaty simultaneously. In March 2003, the Ministry of Defense for the first time revealed the size of Greece’s stockpile of antipersonnel mines to be just over one million mines.

GUYANA: In April 2003, Guyana's National Assembly approved ratification of the Mine Ban Treaty.

INDONESIA: Indonesia has continued to move toward ratification of the Mine Ban Treaty. There have been a number of incidents involving homemade mines and booby-traps in Ambon and Aceh.

POLAND: Poland voluntarily submitted an Article 7 report on 5 March 2003, in which it declared a stockpile of more than one million antipersonnel mines. Poland’s First Lady opened an exhibition on landmines by expressing

KEY DEVELOPMENTS 9 LANDMINE MONITOR REPORT 2003: Toward a Mine-Free World www.icbl.org/lm/2003 her hope that Poland would ratify the Mine Ban Treaty. In 2002, a total of 2,626 mines and 42,006 items of UXO were found and destroyed in Poland.

SUDAN: In May 2003, the Council of Ministers of Sudan officially endorsed the Mine Ban Treaty and transmitted it to the Parliament for ratification. Despite cease-fire agreements that include non-use of landmines, each side continues to allege mine use by the other. In September 2002, a memorandum of understanding was agreed to by the government of Sudan, the SPLM/A and UNMAS regarding UN mine action support to Sudan. UNMAS established a National Mine Action Center in Khartoum in September 2002 and a Southern Sudan Mine Action Coordination Office in Rumbek in February 2003. Mine clearance and mine risk education activities have expanded.

UKRAINE: Ukraine completed the destruction of nearly 405,000 PMN-type mines between July 2002 and May 2003. In 2002, Ukrainian deminers cleared 17,000 mines and UXO, most of them left from World War II.

NON-SIGNATORIES

ARMENIA: In 2002, the US trained and equipped 178 personnel at the new National Center for Humanitarian Mine Action, including the first demining company, medical technicians, and mine detecting dog handlers.

AZERBAIJAN: In September 2002, the Survey Action Center began a Landmine Impact Survey in Azerbaijan, conducted through the International Eurasia Press Fund and the Azerbaijan National Agency for Mine Action. Preliminary information identified more than 650 communities in 27 regions as mine suspected, of which more than 80 percent were considered to be low impact. In 2002, two national NGOs cleared 1,118,000 square meters of land, marked another 1,221,000 square meters for clearance, and identified and registered another 66,352,000 square meters in 12 regions as mine-affected. In 2002, 30 mine risk education seminars were held in 12 mine-affected regions, which trained 525 medical staff.

BELARUS: On 28 July 2003, Belarus completed the domestic steps necessary to accede to the Mine Ban Treaty with the approval of Presidential Decree 330. Belarus destroyed 22,963 stockpiled antipersonnel mines in 2002. Its moratorium on the export of antipersonnel mines was extended through the end of 2007.

BURMA (MYANMAR): Myanmar’s military has continued laying landmines. At least 15 rebel groups also used mines, two more than last year: the New Mon State Party and the Hongsawatoi Restoration Party. Nobel Peace Laureate Jody Williams and ICBL Coordinator Liz Bernstein visited the country in February 2003.

CHINA: China started mine clearance along the border with Vietnam in Yunnan and Guangxi provinces following the signing of a border agreement.

EGYPT: In March 2003, Egypt announced a national plan to clear mines and develop the northwest coast that would begin immediately and take twenty years to complete.

ESTONIA: Estonia’s Prime Minister has stated that the government is seriously considering joining the Mine Ban Treaty and has started the process of internal deliberations for joining. In 2002, a total of 1,675 pieces of unexploded ordnance were destroyed.

FINLAND: In 2002, Finland provided €4.8 million (US$4.6 million) to mine action programs.

GEORGIA: There continue to be reports of use of antipersonnel mines by Georgian military forces. Georgia strongly denies all allegations of use. NATO has agreed to provide assistance for clearance around both Georgian military sites and former Soviet military bases. In 2002, 70 new landmine/UXO casualties were recorded in Georgia.

INDIA: India laid large numbers of mines along its border with Pakistan between December 2001 and July 2002. The Indian Army started major mine clearance operations in October 2002. Numerous new civilian landmine casualties continue to be reported.

KEY DEVELOPMENTS 10 LANDMINE MONITOR REPORT 2003: Toward a Mine-Free World www.icbl.org/lm/2003

IRAN: The UN Development Program signed an agreement with Iran in July 2002 to help develop a mine action strategy and provide training in various aspects of mine action.

IRAQ: In 2003, Iraq underwent far-reaching political, military, and humanitarian changes. The conflict beginning in March 2003 increased the threats to civilians from landmines and unexploded ordnance, particularly abandoned Iraqi munitions and US and UK cluster munition duds. Iraqi forces laid landmines in several regions. The Humanitarian Operations Center has information on 317 minefields, 1,102 Coalition cluster munition strike sites, and 707 other UXO locations. In mid-March 2003, the established mine action programs in northern Iraq (with the exception of the Mines Advisory Group) were for the most part suspended when conflict became imminent, but have since resumed and been extended into new areas. Mine action programs were initiated for the first time in southern Iraq after the main fighting ceased. The new United Nations Mine Action Coordination Team is overseeing UN mine action programs in Iraq. Several emergency survey and assessment projects were either planned or underway by June 2003 in various parts of Iraq. The United Nations appealed in March 2003 for $20.4 million for mine action in Iraq, as part of a six-month emergency response plan. Numerous countries have provided or promised funds for mine action, and notably the European Commission announced in June 2003 a contribution of €10 million. In Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq in 2002, there were 457 recorded casualties due to mines or UXO; figures in Baghdad-controlled Iraq were unknown. The casualty rate in northern Iraq increased dramatically—by 90 percent according to the UN—during and after the 2003 hostilities.

ISRAEL: Israel extended its export moratorium until July 2005. It reported destroying twelve tons of landmines in 2002.

DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA: North Korea for the first time conducted mine clearance in the DMZ, as part of two inter-Korean transportation projects.

REPUBLIC OF KOREA: In an unprecedented operation, South Korea cleared about 1,000 antipersonnel mines from inside the DMZ as part of the inter-Korean transportation projects. It also cleared 6,019 landmines in rear areas in 2002. The government confirmed it has a stockpile of two million antipersonnel mines.

KUWAIT: In 2002, at least 39 landmines and 2,400 dud cluster munitions were detected and destroyed in Kuwait.

KYRGYZSTAN: In January 2003, the Red Crescent Society of Kyrgyzstan, in coordination with the Ministry of Emergency Situations, initiated a community-based mine risk education program in Batken Oblast. The Red Crescent, together with the ICRC, conducted roundtables on landmines in Batken in February 2003 and in Bishkek in March 2003.

LAO PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC: In mid-2002, a funding crisis led to significantly scaled-back clearance operations and forced the lay-off of nearly half of UXO LAO’s operational capacity. Operations have since gradually been resumed and staff re-hired. In 2002, 8.4 million square meters of land was cleared and 98,963 items of UXO destroyed. Mine risk education was provided in 683 villages, reaching 160,053 people. UXO LAO reported 99 mine/UXO casualties in nine provinces in 2002.

LATVIA: In April 2003, the Latvian Ambassador to the UN in Geneva said the country would probably join the Mine Ban Treaty in 2004. In May 2003, Latvia voluntarily submitted an Article 7 transparency report, in which it revealed a stockpile of 2,980 antipersonnel mines, kept only for training purposes. Latvia became a party to Amended Protocol II of the CCW on 22 August 2002. In 2002, 5,700 items of UXO were detected and destroyed.

LEBANON: Data collection for the national Landmine Impact Survey started in September 2002 and was completed in April 2003. In 2002, the Army reported demining 1.7 million square meters of land, destroying 7,973 antipersonnel mines, 139 antivehicle mines, and 8,109 UXO. As part of the $50 million United Arab Emirates “Operation Emirates Solidarity,” two commercial companies cleared 3.9 million square meters of land, removing and destroying 30,904 antipersonnel mines, 1,476 antivehicle mines, and 1,400 UXO in South Lebanon between May 2002 and May 2003. Between 1 May 2002 and 1 June 2003, mine risk education activities reached about 95,000 out of 180,000 students in South Lebanon, and as many as 500,000 people total. In 2002, 42 new landmine/UXO casualties were recorded in Lebanon, a significant decrease from the previous year.

KEY DEVELOPMENTS 11 LANDMINE MONITOR REPORT 2003: Toward a Mine-Free World www.icbl.org/lm/2003

NEPAL: For the first time, government and military officials have openly and officially acknowledged use of antipersonnel mines by security forces. An Army official also acknowledged production of antipersonnel mines. There was increased use of antipersonnel mines and Improvised Explosive Devices by both security forces and rebels in 2002, including use in all 75 districts. However, there has been little or no mine use by either side since the 29 January 2003 cease-fire. During a joint mission of the Nepal Campaign to Ban Landmines and the ICBL, both government and Maoist leaders expressed support for including a ban on landmines in the cease-fire code of conduct.

PAKISTAN: Pakistan states that it has cleared most of the minefields it laid following the December 2001 escalation of tensions with India. Landmine incidents in border areas with India and Afghanistan continue to be reported. In 2002, there were 111 reported landmine casualties, including 25 children. Tribesmen have used antivehicle mines in Baluchistan and Punjab. In January 2003, an NGO launched a pilot mine clearance project in the Bajaur Agency.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION: Russian forces continued to use antipersonnel mines in Chechnya in 2002 and 2003. Russia denied new allegations of mine use by Russian peacekeeping forces in Georgia in October 2002. In 2003, Russia for the first time publicly claimed that it destroyed more than 16.8 million stockpiled antipersonnel mines from 1996 through 2002. In November 2002, a senior military official stated that for the past eight years Russia has not produced or supplied to its troops antipersonnel mines of the PFM-1, PMN, PMN-2, and PMN-4 types. Russia’s eight-year export moratorium expired on 1 December 2002, but officials indicate that steps to formally extend it are underway. In November 2002, the ICRC hosted a regional conference on “Landmines and Explosive Remnants of War” in Moscow.

SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO: On 20 June 2003, the Parliament passed legislation to accede to the Mine Ban Treaty. Legislative preparations for accession had been delayed by the constitutional restructuring of the country from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia into the new state of Serbia and Montenegro. The Ministry of Defense disclosed that Serbia and Montenegro holds a stockpile of just over 1.3 million antipersonnel mines. The Mine Action Center for Serbia and Montenegro estimated in March 2003 that 39 million square meters of land may be contaminated by mines and cluster submunitions. Mine incidents in southern Serbia have continued in 2002-2003, but it remains unclear if these represent new use.

SOMALIA: On 12 November 2002, representatives of 16 Somali factions meeting in Eldoret, Kenya, signed the Geneva Call Deed of Commitment banning antipersonnel mines. The United Nations Mine Action Program, which had in 2000 and 2001 taken exploratory steps of setting up mine action offices in Mogadishu, Baidoa and Garowe, abandoned all such efforts because of insecurity in those areas.

SRI LANKA: In October 2002, the government announced its willingness to accede to the Mine Ban Treaty contingent upon reaching an agreement with the LTTE on the non-use of landmines. A citizens’ mine ban petition containing over one million signatures was handed to government and LTTE delegations during peace talks in Oslo in December 2002. The February 2002 cease-fire has enabled a significant expansion of mine action activities. A total of 16,356,485 square meters of land were cleared in 2002, including 36,880 mines and 10,198 UXO. Another 444,494 square meters were cleared from January to March 2003, including 17,966 mines and 2,951 UXO. The government has established a National Steering Committee on Mine Action. UNICEF and NGOs have increased mine risk education activities. In 2002, there were at least 142 new mine casualties reported in Sri Lanka, but the true number is believed to be higher.

TURKEY: On 12 March 2003, the Grand National Assembly unanimously adopted legislation for accession to the Mine Ban Treaty, which was subsequently signed by the President. On 3 May 2003, the foreign ministers of Greece and Turkey issued a joint statement that they would proceed to adhere to the treaty simultaneously. Also in May 2003, Turkey announced that its armed forces had started planning the destruction of the stockpile of antipersonnel mines. Turkey announced that mine clearance along the Turkish side of the border with Bulgaria was completed in mid-2002. Clearance elsewhere is ongoing. The government reported 21 new mine casualties in 2002, as compared to 58 new casualties in 2001. On 26 April 2003, Turkey without Mines organized the first national conference on antipersonnel mines, held in Istanbul.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: In fiscal year 2002, the US provided $76.9 million to international mine action programs in 37 countries, a decline of nearly $5 million from the previous year. The United States apparently did

KEY DEVELOPMENTS 12 LANDMINE MONITOR REPORT 2003: Toward a Mine-Free World www.icbl.org/lm/2003 not use antipersonnel mines in Operation Iraqi Freedom, though it stockpiled mines in the region for possible use. The legislative moratorium on export of antipersonnel mines was extended six years to 23 October 2008. The Bush Administration has not concluded its review of US landmine policy, begun in June 2001. US forces are using minefields from the Soviet era as part of their perimeter defense at locations in Afghanistan, but the US has not reported how it is complying with its Amended Protocol II obligations regarding those minefields. The Pentagon reported in May 2002 that it “will not be able to meet” the 2006 target date to develop and field alternatives to antipersonnel mines. The budget request for landmine alternatives programs for FY 2003-2009 is $1.07 billion. The RADAM alternatives program was cancelled in FY 2002. Thirty-one US soldiers were killed or injured by landmines and unexploded ordnance in Iraq and Afghanistan in the first five months of 2003.

VIETNAM: Local survey data gives, for the first time, a detailed view of mine and UXO casualties and contamination in portions of two heavily-affected central provinces. Mine and UXO clearance, risk education, and survivor assistance projects continued to expand, including into new areas of the country.

OTHER

ABKHAZIA: The Minister of Defense of Abkhazia stated that in mid-2002, both Abkhazian and Georgian troops mined areas around the Marukh mountain pass. In 2002, HALO Trust cleared 858,688 square meters of mine- affected land and destroyed 456 antipersonnel mines, 127 antivehicle mines, and 749 UXO.

CHECHNYA: Russian federal forces and Chechen rebels continued to use antipersonnel landmines. UNICEF and the ICRC continued mine risk education and survivor assistance programs in the North Caucuses. In 2002, the Chechen Ministry of Health reported 5,695 landmine and UXO casualties in Chechnya, including 938 children.

EUROPEAN UNION: In 2002, the European Commission allocated a total of €42 million ($40 million) to mine action, an increase of almost 50 percent compared to 2001. On 3 December 2002, the Commission adopted its “Mine Action Strategy 2002-2004.”

KOSOVO: During 2002, Kosovo Protection Corps operations cleared 203,360 square meters of land, destroying nine antipersonnel mines, 206 cluster submunitions, and 29 items of unexploded ordnance. Fourteen new dangerous areas were discovered. Total funding of mine action in Kosovo was $1.4 million. Recorded civilian casualties in 2002 range from 15 to 24, with most caused by unexploded ordnance.

NAGORNO-KARABAKH: In 2002, 380,386 square meters of land was cleared of mines and 3,683,900 square meters of land was surveyed.

PALESTINE: A National Mine Action Committee was created in August 2002. A UNICEF assessment of the landmine and UXO situation concluded that most affected areas are not properly fenced or marked, including Israeli military training zones. Mine Risk Education efforts have expanded.

SOMALILAND: A Landmine Impact Survey was completed in March 2003, which identified 357 affected communities, including 45 high impact and 102 medium impact. UNICEF and Handicap International conducted a Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices survey on landmines and UXO in Somaliland in September and October 2002. Three NGOs carried out demining activities in 2002, clearing 1.5 million square meters of mined land, and 20 million square meters of battle area. A total of 2,372 stockpiled antipersonnel mines and 18 antivehicle mines were destroyed in November 2002. Mine action coordination in Somaliland was seriously disrupted in 2002. Eight donors reported providing about US$5.55 million for mine action in Somaliland in 2002.

TAIWAN: Taiwan has transferred 42,175 antipersonnel mines to Germany for destruction. Taiwan contributed US$294,768 for mine clearance in Honduras. Legislation regarding the use, production, transfer, stockpiling and destruction of antipersonnel mines has been drafted.

KEY DEVELOPMENTS 13

Landmine Monitor Report 2003: Toward a Mine-Free World

Landmine Monitor Report 2003 A Review of Release Events & Activities

(4 October 2003)

Events to release Landmine Monitor Report 2003 took place in sixteen countries on Tuesday, 9 September 2003, in addition to media work by campaigners in another fifteen countries. This is a summary of how we did.

List of Events

CYBERSPACE. [GMT 09:00] Release of the full report online at www.icbl.org/lm/2003, including the full report (searchable by country), Executive Summary, Major Findings, Key Developments, maps and translations. Contact. Mr. Kjell Knudsen, ICBL Webmaster, Email [email protected]

BANGLADESH. [GMT 06:00] Release event in Bengali and English at 11:00 by Non-Violence International Bangladesh (NVI) at the Reporters Unity Club in Segon Bagicha, Dhaka. Speakers include the Director General of the UN wing of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Ruhul Amin. Contact. Mr. Rafique Al Islam, NVI, Tel. +880-341-64215/64809/64489. Email. [email protected]

From Mr. Rafique Al-Islam (11 September): “Yesterday at Dhaka Reporter Unity Club Auditorium NI-Bangladesh arranged a grand Release program of Landmine Monitor Report 2003. The program started at 11.30 and continued till 1PM. Mr. M Ruhul Amin Director General UN wing MFA Bangladesh was present from government side. Anne Pignard from HI-Bangladesh and other local NGOs were also present. 2 TV channels, reporter from all national newspapers, BBC, BSS, UNB and one Iranian national news agency attended. There were over 100 participants, including about 60 media. Since 8 September local newspapers has been writing on LM-Bangladesh report-2000, 2001 and 2002. It creates good attraction of all other media. Indeed it got a good coverage. Mr. Amin gave good information to the journalists.”

BELGIUM. [GMT 13:30] Release event at 14:30 by Handicap International Belgium (HIB) at De Markten in Brussels. Contact. Mr. Koen Baetens, HIB, Tel. +32-2-286-52-68, Mobile +32-479-29-50-28, Email. [email protected]

From Mr. Stan Brabant (9 September): “The Brussels release went well, even if we didn't have much press (maximum 10 journalists all together). The good thing

Landmine Monitor Report 2003: Toward a Mine-Free World

though was that the US, Belarus, Laos, Serbia-Montenegro, Angola, European Commission, Belgium and a few other countries were represented. Serbia- Montenegro announced that the instrument of ratification had been sent to NY.”

CAMBODIA. [GMT 07:00] Release event at 2:00pm by the Cambodia Campaign to Ban Landmines (CCBL) at the National Centre of Disabled Persons (NCDP) in Phnom Penh. In addition to the launch, other topics include youth activities against landmines and Cambodian mine survivors preparing to attend the 5MSP in Thailand. In Khmer and English. Contact. Mr. Ny Nhar, CCBL, Tel. +855-23- 880-139, Email. [email protected]

From Sister Denise Coghlan (10 September): “We had a great launch! There was a press presence from CHINA (3 different papers), Japan Kyodo news, Reuters, Camboge Soir (the French daily), Cambodia Daily (English daily), TVK Cambodian, two other local TV stations and many local Cambodian newspapers. Representatives came from the RUSSIAN embassy, Japanese embassy and various members of the public, including landmine survivors and NPA. We presented the Monitor 2003 with the multiple copies that arrived on time and were very popular with Russia , China and the journos plus our Cambodian monitor on English and Khmer and the major findings in Khmer and English and stories of the survivors going to BKK in Khmer and English and your press release and our press release.”

CAMEROON. [GMT 09:00] Release event at 10:00am by the International Club for Peace Research (ICPR/CIRP) at the Hilton Hotel in Yaounde. Speakers include Jonas Mfoutaie (ICPR), the ICRC regional delegate and the Canadian Commissioner in Cameroon (TBC). Contact. Mr. Jonas Mfouatie, ICPR/CIRP Director, Tel. +237-223-10-96, Mobile. +237-775-07-64, Email. [email protected]

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO. From Mr. Stan Brabant (9 September): “The Kinshasa release by the HIB team there went well also, here is what I just received: ‘Great meeting, great impact and interest among Embassys and international organizations, great media impact (Zulu and I spoke to TV chains). Great job from Stephan!!!’”

FINLAND. [GMT 9:30] Press event and seminar at 11:30am by the Finnish Campaign to Ban Landmines (FCBL) at the Finnish Parliament in Helsinki and a separate launch event including a photo exhibition by John Rodsted. Ian Doucet (LM Europe Coordinator), Zlatko Vezilic (NPA), and Sanna Rummakko (FCBL coordinator) will speak. Contact. Ms. Sanna Rummakko, FCBL, Tel. +358-9-142915, Fax +358-9-147297, Email. [email protected]

Landmine Monitor Report 2003: Toward a Mine-Free World

From Ms. Sylvie Brigot (11 September): “On 9 September, we started the day with a closed round table meeting chaired by Mrs. Jaakonsaari, chair of the FA Cttee of the Finnish Parliament. I presented the main findings of the report - as Ian had to cancel his trip. We had a short but constructive and open discussion. After the meeting, Zlatko and I presented the report to the Parliamentarians groups and the media. This conference went well also, we had interesting questions, and Laura and Zlatko were interviewed afterwards. The Minister of Foreign Affairs opened John Rodsted’s photo exhibit. The FCBL prepared a document in Finnish including the translation of the key findings, the Finnish report and the map of States Parties, signatories and non Signatories. Our Finnish colleagues were very pleased with the media coverage.”

FRANCE. [GMT 07:45] Release event at 08:45am by Handicap International (HI) at the CAPE Centre d'Accueil de la Presse Etrangère (Foreign Press centre) in Paris. Speakers include: Mr. Philippe Chabasse, HI Co-director; Mr. Frederic Meunier, HI Iraq Desk Officer; Mr. Pierre Jolivet, Filmmaker and Director of HI’s 2003 TV commercial. Contact. Maud Saheb or Sylvain Ogier, HI, Tel. +33-1-43- 14-87-02, Email. [email protected]

INDIA. [GMT 05:30] Release event at 11:00am by the Indian Campaign to Ban Landmines at Rainbow Higher Secondary School, New Delhi. Speakers include Canadian High Commissioner, Dy. High Commissioner, First Secretary (Political). Also, Dr. Kashyap Educationist and various media will participate in the event. Contact. Dr. Balkrishna Kurvey, Indian Campaign to Ban Landmines, Tel. 91 (712) 2745806, Fax. 91 (712) 2743664 Email. [email protected]

ITALY. [GMT 09:30] Release event at 10:30am by Campagna Italiana Contro/Italian Campaign to Ban Landmines at the Salone delle Bandiere - Rappresentanza del Parlamento Europeo [European Parliament Office], Via IV Novembre 149 in Rome. Contact. Mr. Guiseppe Schiavello, Italian Campaign, Tel. +39-6-85-30-43-26/85-80-06-93, Email. [email protected]

From Ms. Simona Beltrami (9 September): “We had our press conference this morning at the offices of the European Parliament with the participation of Deputy Minister Luigi Alfredo Mantica as well as Annalisa Formiconi for the LM and Emilio Emmolo presenting the Italy report. Nicoletta chaired and I gave a brief overview of the data in the report. We had a good turn out of TV crews who recorded interviews with Nicoletta (Main TV news TG1, national channel La7 and satellite channel Sat2000). We also had 4 major national dailies, the main Italian wire agency (ANSA) attending plus a series of radio outlets including Vatican Radio (Portuguese Service for Africa). We have one article coming out tomorrow on Catholic magazine Famiglia Cristiana and a full page on the NGO/third sector magazine Vita this coming Saturday. We also did radio interviews with Radio Avvenire, Radio Vatican (Italian, English and Portuguese for Africa services) and

Landmine Monitor Report 2003: Toward a Mine-Free World

a few local radio stations. Articles appeared on national circulation newspapers Avvenire, il Manifesto and La Stampa. On the net, the news was covered by the Missionary News Agency and a number of web pages linked to the church, NGOs and current affairs, including the "Eritrea News In Italian" (ERINIT) web page which reproduced our summaries of the report in full. As a follow up, some TV channels have been broadcasting short spots on universalization.”

JAPAN. [GMT 09:00] Release event at 18:00 by Japan Campaign to Ban Landmines (JCBL) at their offices: c/o JVC, 5F, Maruko-Bldg. 1-20-6, Higashi- Ueno, Taito-ku in Tokyo. Contact. Mr. Yasuhiro Kitagawa, JCBL, Tel. +81-3-38- 34-23-88, Email. [email protected]

From Mr. Yasohiro Kitagawa (9 September and 2 October): “We had Mr. Yasushi Fujii and his colleague of Kyodo News, and Ms. Mari Misumi of Mainichi Newspaper. The JCBL translated into Japanese the ICBL Press Release, a Table of Comparison of Statistic Data of LM-2003 and those in Reports previously issued (ICRC, Hidden Killers 1994, 1998 and 2001, LM 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002), Comments on Japan Chapter of LM 2003, and Comments of China Chapter of LM 2003. Mr. Yasushi Fujii and his colleague of Kyodo News, and Ms. Mari Misumi of Mainichi Newspaper attended the release event. Kyodo News, Mainichi Newspaper and Asahi Shimbun wrote intresting articles about the 5MSP and landmines problem in 6th year of Ottawa Treaty. In JCBL's News Letter issued on 30 Sep 2003, we introduced an editorial on 5MSP by Mr.Yusuke Shindo, Director of Conventional Weapons Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Japanese translation of ICBL's "What is 5MSP" and "Major Findings” of the 2003 report.”

KENYA. [GMT 13.00] Release event at 16:00 at Grand Regency Hotel in Nairobi hosted by the Kenya Coalition Against Landmines (KCAL). Contact. Ms. Mereso Agina, KCAL Coordinator, Tel. +254-20-573-099, Mobile. +254-722- 705-860, Email. [email protected]

From Mr. Cornelius Nyamboki (9 September): “About 50 guests came, incl. Eleven representatives of foreign missions. The Thai Ambassador, H.E. Dr. Charivat Santaputra, delivered the keynote address and other interventions were made by the Belgian and Canadian ambassadors.”

NORWAY. [GMT 09:00] Release event at 10:00 by Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA) at their headquarters on Storgata 33A in Oslo. Contact. Mr. Ivar Christiansen, NPA Head of Information, Tel. +47-22-03-77-00, Email. [email protected] or Mr. Per Nergaard, Head of Mine Action Unit, Tel. +47-22-03-77-56, Email. [email protected]

Landmine Monitor Report 2003: Toward a Mine-Free World

From Mr. Kjell Knudsen (9 September): “We had three journalists present at NPA HQ, national broadcasting, one of the major newspapers and Reuters rep. Think there was some more as well. So far the results were stories on the two major radios, pretty long on the larger one.”

From Ms. Sara Sekkenes (10 September): “In Oslo, the state TV channel had a report on the mid day news on television. We were also interviewed live in studio on one of the major radio channels. Otherwise unfortunately nothing in the major papers.”

PAKISTAN. [GMT 11:00] Release event at 15:00 by the Sustainable Peace and Development Organization (SPADO) in Peshawar. Contact. Raza Shah Khan, SPADO Executive Director, Tel. +92-91-84-17-89, Mobile. +92-300- 95-98-429, Email. [email protected]

From Mr. Raza Shah Khan (11 September): “Our release event went very well. Almost all the media representatives of the leading national and international dailies were present. The Acting High Commissioner of Canada was the guest speaker at the event. I read the Press release and provided information to the media about the LMN. At the end there was a question answer session. The press conference got a very good coverage in the newspapers. Moreover, we got the reports before the event and that helped us a lot.”

SWITZERLAND. [GMT 12:00] Release event at 13:00 by the ICBL Geneva Office in Salle III at the UN Palais des Nations in Geneva. Speakers include Ambassador Jean Lint, President of the Mine Ban Treaty’s Fourth Meeting of States Parties. Contact. Ms. Susan B. Walker, ICBL, Tel. +41-79-470-1931, Email. [email protected]

From Ms. Susan Walker (9 September): “I have just returned from the Geneva launch and, for those of you in Geneva, there should be TV news reports tonight on Swiss TV Italian (TSI at 1930H) and Swiss TV German (DSR at 2000H). Both Amb. Jean Lint and myself were interviewed.”

THAILAND. (10 September) [GMT 13:00] Release event at 8:00pm by the Thailand Campaign To Ban Landmines at the Foreign Correspondents Club in Bangkok. Contact. Mr. Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan or Ms. Emilie Ketudat, Thailand Campaign to Ban Landmines, Tel. +66-2-279-1817, Mobile. +66-1-611- 0086. Email. [email protected]

From Mr. Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan (10 September): “I know I had a radio interview on Voice of America last night out of Hong Kong on the LM launch, they interviewed by phone for broadcast last night. Yesterday we also had an

Landmine Monitor Report 2003: Toward a Mine-Free World

interview with Asahi Shimbun, one of Japan's largest newspapers, which should come out today, which features both Landmine Monitor but highlights situation in Burma. Also, Bangkok Post.”

From Ms. Sue Wixley (2 October): “There was good coverage of the event by Agence France Presse (AFP). Their article focused on the landmine problem in Asia in general and Burma in particular and the BBC World Service and others picked up this story the next day. There was other more general coverage by journalists who attended the launch, such as a feature on Liz Bernstein in The Nation on 14 September and an opinion piece by Richard Ehrlich in Bangkok Post (?) on 15 September, plus several pieces by Reuters and Kyodo News journalists who were at the LM launch and also covered the 5MSP the following week.”

TURKEY. [GMT 08:00] Release event at 10:00 by Turkey Against Landmines at Taxim Hill Hotel in Istanbul. Contact. Mr. Muteber Ogreten or Mr. Mehmet Balci, Tel. +90-535-22-93-828, Email. [email protected]. Another release event is scheduled by the the Bar (Lawyers) Association in Diyarbakir, eastern Turkey. Contact. Mr. Seadt Yurtdas, [email protected]

From Mr. Mehmet Balci (10 September): “Istanbul and Diyarbakir were very succesfull, I got a lot of feed back and important press reports in Turkish. In Istanbul about 15 media representatives including, CNN, NTV and Sky TV, Hurriyet, the most important national daily and Official Turkish News Agency (Anadolu Agency) some leftist media and also pro Kurdish media were present. I know already several local radio stations also diffused the news. The second press conference, in Diyarbakir was also well attended and especially regional media showed an great interest. There were also individual intervieiw with press conference organisers. National press agencies and daily papers reported the evens in the same articles.”

UNITED STATES. [GMT 13:30] Release event at 9:30am by Human Rights Watch and the ICBL at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. Speakers include Jody Williams, 1997 Nobel Peace Laureate, and Stephen Goose, Executive Director of the Arms Division of Human Rights Watch. Contact. Ms. Mary Wareham, HRW, Tel. +1-202-612-4356, Email. [email protected]

From Ms. Briana Wilson (1 October): “Media came to the press briefing from Alwatan Al arab1, Associated Press (2), Channel One, Chicago Tribune, Defense Week, IPS, National Defense, Radio Free Asia, Radio Free Europe, Tokyo Broadcasting System, UN Wire, Voice of America, and WIW/Solution Radio. HRW staff (Steve, Mark, Mary) also did a number of media interviews.”

Landmine Monitor Report 2003: Toward a Mine-Free World

List of Activities

In addition, the following campaigners are undertaking media outreach on 9 September 2003 and may hold a release event at a later date:

AUSTRALIA. (8 October) Briefing by Sheree Bailey, Landmine Monitor’s Victim Assistance Research Coordinator and the Australia Network of the ICBL at Parliament House in Canberra. Other participants include AusAID and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). Contact. Ms. Sheree Bailey, Landmine Monitor/ ICBL, +61-408-799-110, Email. [email protected]

From Ms. Sheree Bailey (10 September): “Unfortunately nothing to report re media coverage in Australia. I did send out the release to the major papers so maybe something will come later.”

AUSTRIA. Austrian Aid for Mine Victims in Vienna. Contact. Ms. Judith Majlath, Tel. +43-1-535-75-16, Email. [email protected]

BRAZIL. Campanha Brasileira Contra Minas Terrestres (CBCM) and Viva Rio in Rio de Janeiro. Contact. Mr. Gustavo Oliveira Vieira, Tel. +55 (51) 96-61-47-18, Email. [email protected]

CANADA. Mines Action Canada (MAC) in Ottawa. Contact. Mr. Paul Hannon, MAC Executive Director, Tel. +1-613-241-3777, Mobile. +1-613-282-2019, Email. [email protected]

DENMARK. DanChurchAid at in Copenhagen. Contact. Steven Olejas, DCA, Tel. +45-3315-2800 or +45-2969-9116, Email. [email protected]

GERMANY. Press release. German Initiative to Ban Landmines in Berlin. Contact. Mr. Markus Haake, GIBL Co-ordinator, Tel. +49-030-421-36-86, Email. [email protected]

MALAWI. Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation (CHRR). Contact. Mr. Undule Mwakasungura, CHRR, Tel. +265-1-761-122/700, Email. [email protected]

From Mr. Undule Mwakasungura (10 September): “A press briefing was organised where members of the print and electronic media were prsent. The report was released at this press briefing. The event came as a news item on the national and private radio statations. Several peole also attended which included Ngos, Donors and some government ministries.”

Landmine Monitor Report 2003: Toward a Mine-Free World

NEPAL. (3 December 2003) Briefing by Ban Landmines Campaign Nepal (BLCN) at Hotel Himalaya, Lalitpur in Kathmandu. Contact. Ms. Purna Shova Chitrakar, Tel. +977-1-271-794/277-428, Email. [email protected]

NEW ZEALAND. (17 October) Briefing by Campaign Against Landmines (CALM) at the Loaves and Fishes room at the Cathedral in Wellington. Speakers include Hon. Marian Hobbs, Minister for Disarmament, the Thai Ambassador, and Captain Lew Luff, a deminer just back from Afghanistan. Contact. Mr. John Head, CALM Convenor. Tel. +64-4-905-5524, Email. [email protected]

RUSSIA. (26-28 September) Release event by IPPNW-Russia at the Russian UN Peacekeeping Museum in Moscow. Contact. Mr. Roman Dolgov, IPPNW-Russia, Tel. +7-095-298-2161/958-5288, Email. [email protected]

SENEGAL. Mr. Boubine Touré in Dakar, Tel. +221-821- 82-54, Email. [email protected]

SPAIN. (17 or 18 September) Event by Moviment per la Pau in Barcelona. Contact. Ms. Maria Josep, Moviment per la Pau, Tel. +34-93-21-93-371, Email. [email protected]

SWEDEN. Press release. Svenska Freds (Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society, SPAS) in Stockholm. Contact. Frida Blom, SPAS, Tel. +46-8-702-1830, Email. [email protected]

UKRAINE. (October) Ukrainian Peacekeepers Veterans Association in Kiev. Contact. Mr. Yuri Donskoy, UPVA, Tel. +380-44-228-47-40, Email. [email protected]

From Mr. Yuri Donskoy (9 September): “We don't have public press events in Ukraine, but I sent press release and information about new LM 2003 and Bangkok meeting to main mass media agencies in Ukraine.”

UNITED KINGDOM. Media launch by Landmine Action in London. Contact. Mr. Richard Lloyd, Landmine Action Director, Tel. +44-20-7820-0222, Mobile. +44-771-374-1004, Email. [email protected]

LANDMINE UPDATE BAN MINES - CLEAR MINES - HELP SURVIVORS ISSUE 11 BANGKOK, THAILAND SEPTEMBER 2003

Ban Treaty News

o date, 136 countries have The meeting agreed that the and the Resource Mobilization ratified the 1997 Mine Ban 2004 Mine Ban Treaty Review Contact Group also reported on T Treaty, and an additional Conference will be held from 29 their activities and meetings 12 have signed it. The most recent November- 3 December 2004 in during the week. accessions are Belarus (3 Nairobi, Kenya. Austrian The following countries were September) and Timor Leste (7 Ambassador Wolfgang Petritsch proposed as Standing Committee May) and the most recent has been named President- Co-Rapporteurs for 2003-2004, to ratifications are Guyana (5 Designate. It was agreed that be presented to the 5MSP for August) and Lithuania (12 May). participation in the Review approval: The second session of the Conference should be at “the • General Status and 2002-2003 Intersessional Standing highest possible level.” Review Operation of the Committee meetings was held Conference preparatory meetings Convention: South Africa from 12-16 May in Geneva, will be held after the 2004 and New Zealand; Switzerland. Approximately 458 Standing Committee meetings (9- • Victim Assistance and participants representing 109 12 February and 14-18 June Socio-Economic countries took part in this very 2004). Reintegration: Nicaragua important series of informal Discussions were held and Norway; meetings, which have been a throughout the week on all the key • Mine Action, Mine Risk crucial tool to “mark, measure and Articles in the Mine Ban Treaty Education and Mine ensure progress in implementation (Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and Action Technologies: of the Convention” since 9), as well as ongoing preparations Algeria and Sweden; and, September 1999. Participants for the 5MSP in Bangkok. The • Stockpile Destruction: included 86 States Parties, 23 non- Contact Groups on Bangladesh and Canada. States Parties, UN and Regional Universalization, Article 7 & 9 Continued on page 3 Organizations and over 60 ICBL members from 25 countries. Ten landmine survivors from Afghanistan, Cambodia, India, Nepal and Sri Lanka participated in the meetings as part of the Raising the Voices landmine survivor advocate training program (see Campaign Action).

Campaign Action

he 2003 Landmine Monitor Global Researchers T meeting was held from 7-9 April in Rome, Italy. Over 70 researchers from 65 countries met Landmine Monitor Researchers gathered in Rome. Photo: Giovanni Diffidenti

About Landmine Update: Landmine Update is a quarterly newsletter prepared and disseminated by the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL). It reflects the activities of the ICBL, its member organizations, its partner agencies and pro-ban governments in a three-month period. The main distribution is done through web and e-mail, all future and past issues as well as subscription information is available at www.icbl.org/update/landmines, in preparation for major meetings of the landmines community special print editions will be made. Mostly these are abbreviated from what has been published on the web, refer to the web edition for links to further information about the events described here. The ICBL solicits contributions to the Update, as well as any clarifications and comments. Contact the ICBL Coordinator, Liz Bernstein, at [email protected], tel. +1-202-547-2667. Subscriptions through www.icbl.org/info/newsletter to discuss their finalized country campaigners to meet with their Young people from around the updates for Landmine Monitor governments and engage in world collected over 100,000 Report 2003. At the opening of lobbying activities in advance of petition signatures through the the meeting the ICBL called on the 5MSP. Contact: Youth Against War Treaty Italy to use its powerful position [email protected]. The ICBL sent initiative, urging India and as incoming president of the letters to all foreign ministers in Pakistan to join the Mine Ban European Union (EU) to condemn August urging full and meaningful Treaty. The petition handover, antipersonnel mine use and participation in the 5MSP. scheduled for 9 September, has actively promote mine prohibition. Contact: [email protected] been postponed. Campaign advocacy initiatives The Raising the Voices The ICBL 2002 Annual Report in this period were focused on survivor advocate program was released in August along with preparing for the 5MSP and brought 10 landmine survivors the 2002 Independent Audit. Both working to engage Asian from South and South East Asia to reports are available online. universalization targets. On 1 July Geneva, Switzerland in May to The 108th Inter-parliamentary the ICBL issued “Hold Hands participate in the Intersessional Union Conference was held from Against Mines in Asia,” an action Standing Committee meetings. 6-12 April in Santiago, Chile. The alert urging China, India, Nepal, Participants were introduced to ICBL worked with IPU members Pakistan, Singapore and Sri Lanka human rights and disability law, to encourage parliamentarian to join the Mine Ban Treaty. The the ICBL, and received training in action in support of the Mine Ban ICBL also issued a lobbying advocacy skills. Treaty. Contact: [email protected] action alert in July to encourage

Ban Treaty News Continued from page 1 Landmine Survivors Network communities along the Thai- important series of events. and the Geneva Forum hosted Cambodian border. Contact: Contact: [email protected] “Rights not Charity,” a panel to [email protected]. The ICBL Landmine Monitor, the ICBL’s discuss the need for and process to Non-State Actors Working group civil society-based reporting achieve a convention on the rights organized “Looking Back, initiative, compiled its annual of persons with disabilities. The Looking Forward,” a one-day report, Toward a Landmine-free Permanent Mission of Spain workshop on NSA engaged in a World: Landmine Monitor 2003. hosted a workshop for Spanish- mine ban, to be held 13 A network of 110 researchers speaking delegations on September. Contact: from 90 countries prepared reports implementing Article 9 [email protected]. on every country in the world with legislation. Visit: www.icbl.org/sc Campaigners will remain in respect to landmine ban policy, or contact: [email protected] Bangkok after the 5MSP to use, production, transfer, Much of this period focused on participate in the Third Biennial stockpiling, mine action funding, preparations for the Fifth Meeting ICBL General Meeting being held mine clearance, mine risk of States Parties to the Mine Ban from 20-21 September, also in education, landmine casualties, Treaty (5MSP) being held from Bangkok. General Meetings are and survivor assistance. The 15-19 September in Bangkok, held once every two years and report was released globally on 9 Thailand. Throughout the week provide an opportunity for the September. Campaigns in 15 campaigners will participate in the entire campaign membership to countries held events to launch the official 5MSP meetings, side meet to determine the future report (see individual country events, lobby meetings, press course and work of the reports). It was also released events and much more. ICBL side organization. Over 280 ICBL virtually and is available online at events include art and photography campaigners and researchers from www.icbl.org/lm/2003. Contact: exhibits, an interfaith service and 72 countries will participate in this [email protected] a field trip to mine-affected

PAGE 2 ICBL LANDMINE UPDATE #11 SEPTEMBER 2003 Mine Action Activities

demining team, is currently in a Planning Agency (MCPA) new National Mine critical condition in northern Iraq. conducted senior staff training in Action Authority and Iraq The Geneva International Kabul, Afghanistan from 3-22 Mine Action Center Centre for Humanitarian August. SAC submitted its survey A opened in Baghdad, Iraq Demining (GICHD) released final draft report to the Azerbaijan on 4 August. The institutions mark “Landmines and Unexploded National Agency for Mine Action the beginning of renewed Iraqi Ordnance: A Guide to Mine (ANAMA) for review and the UN institutional capacity in mine Action,” on 4 September at an Certification Committee will action. The United Nations inter- event hosted by the Geneva review this draft in September. agency mission in Baghdad was Forum in Geneva, Switzerland. The Canadian International holding a press conference on the This handbook provides basic Development Agency (CIDA) landmine situation in Iraq on 22 information for diplomats, donors, contributed significant funds to August when a bomb exploded, lawyers, practitioners, scholars SAC to complete its final survey injuring several mine action staff. and the media on the key aspects report for Somalia. The UN On 4 September two of mine action and is intended to Certification Committee will employees from Mines Advisory assist in decision-making, review the survey in September. Group (MAG) were ambushed program planning and research. Scanteam completed field visits to and shot at as they drove their All five core components of mine Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cambodia, vehicle along a main road towards action are included: mine risk Chad, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Mosul, northern Iraq. MAG’s education, humanitarian demining, Thailand and Yemen. They will bomb disposal expert, Ian Rimell, victim assistance, stockpile present their findings and from Kidderminster, UK, was shot destruction and advocacy against recommendations at the Survey dead and his colleague, Salem the use of antipersonnel mines. Working Group meeting on 15-16 Ahmed Mohammed, a local The Survey Action Center October in Copenhagen, employee from the MAG (SAC) and Mine Clearance Denmark.

Landmine-related events by country April-September 2003 ccess the Landmine book that shows the impact of Update online for event UXO and landmines on Lao PDR. Azerbaijan- Members of the A links and contacts: The book is designed to help keep Azerbaijan Campaign to Ban www.icbl.org/update/landmines the problems and the need for Landmines (AzCBL) met with the mine action before the Public Union of Garabagh War Afghanistan- The Afghan international community. Funding Invalids, Veterans and Victims' Campaign to Ban Landmines for the project came from AusAID Families on 9 June to encourage (ACBL) organized a youth letter and Caritas Australia. A video has involvement in the mine ban writing campaign in July in been prepared on John Rodsted's movement. The AzCBL translated response to the ICBL’s Asia tour of Afghanistan highlighting the Mine Ban Treaty text into Action Alert. Contact: UXO problems. Contact: Azeri with support from Canada. [email protected] [email protected] Representatives from the AzCBL visited several communities in Australia- The ICBL Austria- On 4 May violinist June and July to inform authorities Australian Network has Anne-Sophie Mutter and pianist about the importance of joining commenced a postcard campaign Lambert Orkis performed in the Mine Ban Treaty and to collect seeking public support for the “2003 World Without Mines,” a data about mine victims for a government to provide $150 charity benefit concert in Vienna national database project. The million (AUD) for mine action organized by the Austrian Foreign AzCBL's Annual Meeting was over the next ten years. The Ministry to raise funds to support held on 10 June in Baku. It was Australian Network, in UNICEF and Red Cross mine agreed that campaign members cooperation with UXO Lao action activities. Contact: will promote the mine ban issue produced “Claiming the Future,” a [email protected] with candidates in the upcoming SEPTEMBER 2003 ICBL LANDMINE UPDATE #11 PAGE 3

Presidential election. The AzCBL school presentations, public events them to take steps towards joining held a press conference on 17 July and other activities throughout the the treaty and participate in the to discuss their campaign country. Campaigners also did Fifth Meeting of States Parties in successes for the first half of 2003 presentations about the landmines Bangkok. and to announce upcoming issue at an “Educators for Peace” CCBL members participated in activities including the Landmine workshop and collaborated with a regional seminar organized by Monitor launch. Contact: Desarme to publish media articles the Thailand Campaign to Ban [email protected] about landmines. Contact: Landmines in Bangkok and Pak [email protected] Chong 20-21 August (see Bangladesh- Nonviolence Thailand). International Bangladesh held a Cambodia- The Cambodian CCBL organized a delegation Landmine Monitor release event Campaign to Ban Landmines of 16 landmine survivors to travel on 9 September at the Reporters (CCBL) reissued its call for 10 out via van from Cambodia to Unity Club in Dhaka. Speakers of 10 ASEAN countries to join the Thailand, where they joined 20 included the Director General of Mine Ban Treaty by the 5MSP. Thai landmine survivors to the UN wing of the Ministry of This call was released on the eve participate in opening ceremonies Foreign Affairs. Contact. of the 36th ASEAN Ministerial of the Fifth Meeting of States [email protected] Meeting, held from 16-17 June Parties in Bangkok 15 September. and the 10th ASEAN Regional Belarus- Belarus acceded to Forum held from 18-20 June in Cameroon- The International the Mine Ban Treaty on 3 Phnom Penh. The CCBL send Club for Peace Research (ICPR) September, following a decree letters to all diplomatic missions released the Landmine Monitor signed by Head of the Belarus in Cambodia in preparation for Report on 9 September at an event State Alexander Lukashenko on these events and enclosed a copy at the Hilton Hotel in Yaoundé. 28 July. The Belarus CBL noted of the report “ASEAN and the Speakers included representatives “the decree on accession to the Banning of Antipersonnel Mines.” from ICPR, the ICRC and the Ottawa Convention is to a large The CCBL also held a Landmine Canadian High Commission. extent the result of the efforts of Monitor release event on 9 Contact: [email protected] the Belarus and International September at the National Centre Campaigns to Ban Landmines that of Disabled Persons in Phnom Chile- The XXXIII OAS have managed to build trust Penh. Contact: General Assembly was held in among the stake holders, establish [email protected] Santiago from 1-3 June. The final a constructive dialogue with the The Cambodian Mine Action declaration included language Belarus authorities and develop a and Victim Assistance Authority promoting the Mine Ban Treaty. step-by-step strategy that is organized “The Way Forward,” a Contact: [email protected]. beneficial for all.” Belarus national workshop on mine and GSMAA, a Latin American currently has the world's seventh UXO risk reduction in Cambodia, survivor’s organization, created an largest landmine stockpile, with held on 12 June in Battambang. online course to teach children 4,5 millions mines. Contact: Contact: [email protected] about the dangers of mines. [email protected] Cambodian landmine survivors Contact: [email protected]. participated in Exchange for Chile completed destruction of its Belgium- Handicap Peace, a two-week education 59,192 stockpiled mines on 25 International Belgium organized a program started by Swiss MP August in Santa Cruz, Calama. Landmine Monitor release event Roland Wiederkehr. The theme of Chilean Minister of Defense on 9 September at De Markten in the this year’s program was Michelle Bachelet, the Bolivian Brussels with Belgian Prime landmines and the ICBL Consul General, members of the Minister Guy Verhofftadt. conducted workshops with diplomatic community and NGOs Contact: participants in Geneva, participated in the final [email protected] Switzerland. Contact: destruction event. Contact: [email protected]. [email protected] Brazil- The Brazilian In July ICBL Ambassador Tun Campaign to Ban Landmines Channareth and Thai survivor and Colombia- From 3-7 May the (BCBL) collected signatures for campaigner Wiboonrat Chancho Campaña Colombiana contra the Youth Against War Treaty at sent letters to Foreign Ministers of Minas (CCCM) and Geneva Call non States Parties encouraging

PAGE 4 ICBL LANDMINE UPDATE #11 SEPTEMBER 2003 Colombian army personnell preparing mines for destruction. Photo: Camilo Sema held meetings with the National destruction event. Contact: Treaty by 2006, as outlined in a Liberation Army (ELN) to assess [email protected] 2001 report on Finnish Security the possibility of engaging this CIREC held a training and Defense Policy, was not non-state actor in adhering to the workshop for young mine binding on the new government. Mine Ban Treaty. Meetings were survivors in June and July as part This announcement, issued shortly held with the Vice-President of of the “Semillas de Esperanza” after an ICBL visit to Helsinki, Colombia, Colombian Armed project. Twenty-two young people galvanized members of the Forces and Observatorio de Minas traveled to Bogota to participate in Finnish Campaign to Ban Antipersonal, ICRC, UN agencies, workshops on rehabilitation Landmines FCBL) into action. NGOs and indigenous groups. The issues. Two publications on victim From 9-10 September the FCBL delegation was able to meet with assistance in Colombia were organized two mine action days. ELN Central Command in released during the seminar. Events included information Havana, Cuba on 7 May. The Contact: [email protected] sharing roundtable meetings and ELN did not agree to cease its Landmine Monitor release events mine use but supported the idea of Denmark- DanChurchAid with Members of Parliament in setting up a mine-free zone in an held a Landmine Monitor release Helsinki and a presentation of the area under their control. On 26 event on 9 September, which Landmine Monitor report to June the Government of Colombia included distribution of Landmine parliamentary groups, NGOs and destroyed 496 mines at an event at Monitor postcards to cafes the media at Finnish Parliament. the Battalion of the High throughout Copenhagen. Contact: ICBL members, including Mountain of Sumapag in La Finca [email protected] Bosnian landmine survivor Zlatko de Australia. The Colombian Vezilic participated in these Vice-President, Minister of Finland- In June, Finland’s events. The Finnish Minister of Defence, diplomatic community, new Minister of Defense noted in Foreign Affairs attended the OAS, ICRC, UNICEF and CCCM a media interview that Finland’s inauguration of John Rodsted’s members participated in the objective of joining the Mine Ban “Aftermath” photo exhibition.

SEPTEMBER 2003 ICBL LANDMINE UPDATE #11 PAGE 5

Contact: Indonesia- On 29 May a information about campaign [email protected] seminar on the Mine Ban Treaty experiences, discuss campaign was held at the Centre for strategies and develop a clear idea France- In June, Handicap Strategic and International Studies of who will be interested in International (HI) sent a letter (CSIS) in Jakarta. Participants supporting IndoCBL activities. signed by scientists to the heads of included Canadian Mine Action Participants included members of state of Mine Ban Treaty States Ambassador Ross Hynes, ICBL the NGO and diplomatic Parties and non-States Parties and Ambassador Tun Channareth, communities and the UN. their diplomatic missions in representatives from the IndoCBL campaigners also France, encouraging them to join Indonesian government, urged EU Commissioner Chris the Mine Ban Treaty. In August, diplomatic community, UN, Patten to include the issue of HI sent a letter encouraging Mine academia, media and national and landmines in his discussions with Ban Treaty universalization to international NGOs. The seminar the Government of Indonesia. In several diplomatic representatives was held to raise awareness of the preparation for the 5MSP of non-States Parties based in mines issue and encourage campaigners sent letters to the France. HI launched the Landmine ratification of the Mine Ban editors of newspaper and Monitor report at an event on 9 Treaty. The Government participated in a regional mine September in Paris. Contact: established a working group made action seminar in Bangkok in [email protected] up of relevant government bodies August. Contact: including the Ministry of Foreign [email protected] Greece- On 6 May the Affairs, Ministry of Defense and Governments of Greece and the Ministry of Industry, to define Ireland- Pax Christi Ireland Turkey released a joint statement the route towards ratification. organized a conference on after a meeting of their Prime On 26 June the Canadian and Explosive Remnants of War from Ministers in Kas, Turkey, stating Dutch Embassies in Jakarta co- 23-25 April in Dublin, hosted by that the two countries will now hosted a dinner at the Canadian the Irish Ministry of Foreign proceed to submit their Ambassador's residence for the Affairs. Conference participants instruments of ratification/ Indonesian government, UN, created the Cluster Munitions accession to the United Nations diplomatic community, NGOs and Coalition, a group of NGOs to and become full States Parties to media. Approximately 70 people work on the issues of explosive the Mine Ban Treaty. participated in this event including remnants of war and cluster ICBL Ambassador Tun munitions. Contact: Guyana- Ratified the Mine Channareth. The dinner was [email protected] Ban Treaty on 5 August. organized in celebration of the establishment of an inter- Italy- The Italian government India- The Indian Campaign departmental working group, took over the Presidency of the to Ban Landmines and Global whose mandate is to address European Union in July. The Green Peace organized a issues surrounding Indonesia's Italian Campaign to Ban workshop in Srinagar on 20 April. ratification of the Mine Ban Landmines (ItCBL) and many of The event’s objective was to raise Treaty. The Canadian and Dutch its international counterparts awareness of the landmine Ambassadors appealed to the urged the Italian government to situation in India and mobilize government to ratify the Mine Ban use this position to take an active civil society to act against mine Treaty. ICBL Ambassador Tun role in promoting actions toward use. Contact: Channareth reminded guests of the creating a mine-free world. Italian [email protected]. The importance of the Treaty. NGO INTERSOS started a rapid Indian Campaign to Ban UNICEF hosted a meeting of reaction mine and UXO clearance Landmines launched the the Coordinating Working Group project in Southern Iraq in July. Landmine Monitor report at an for the Indonesian Campaign to The ItCBL launched the event at Rainbow Higher Ban Landmines (IndoCBL) to Landmine Monitor report on 9 Secondary School in New Delhi. provide information about the September at the European Speakers including a mines issue in Indonesia, allow Parliament Office in Rome. representative from the Canadian the government to provide an Contact: High Commission. Contact: update on the ratification process, [email protected] [email protected] allow LAPASIP to provide

PAGE 6 ICBL LANDMINE UPDATE #11 SEPTEMBER 2003 Japan- The Japan Campaign of the exhibition were held from A CALM member participated in to Ban Landmines (JCBL) 2-9 May at the Kyrgyz-Russian a New Zealand Government launched the 2003 Landmine Slavic University and from 1-8 mission to Papua New Guinea in Monitor report at a press June at the Ganci Airbase. April to encourage that country to conference on 9 September in Contact: [email protected] join the Mine Ban Treaty. CALM Tokyo. Contact: also received a new domain name: [email protected] Lithuania- Ratified the Mine www.calm.org.nz. Youth Ban Treaty on 12 May. campaigners collected 26 pages of Jordan- Representatives from signatures for the Youth Against Landmine Survivors Network Nepal- The ICBL Working War Treaty. CALM also participated in Jordan’s final Group on Non-State Actors facilitated the participation of stockpile destruction events held conducted a mission to Nepal activists from the Pacific Islands, on 23 April. Contact: from 8-14 June to assess the with financial support from the [email protected]. Campaigners landmine situation in the country Government of New Zealand, to in Jordan completed production of and encourage all parties to the the Fifth Meeting of States Parties. a 30 minute documentary film conflict to adhere to the Contact: [email protected] about landmines and mine victims international norm against mine in Jordan. Contact: use. Campaigners met with the Norway- Norwegian People’s [email protected] leadership of the Communist Party Aid launched the Landmine of Nepal, the Government of Monitor report on 9 September at Kenya- The Kenya Coalition Nepal peace negotiator, political an event at NPA headquarters. Against Landmines released the parties, the National Human Contact: [email protected] Landmine Monitor report at an Rights Commission, the event at the Grand Regency Hotel diplomatic community and NGOs. Pakistan- The Pakistan in Nairobi on 9 September. Nepal was encouraged to join the Campaign to Ban Landmines Contact: [email protected]. Mine Ban Treaty and include the (PCBL) held a conference on the A workshop on engaging Non- mines issue in peace negotiations. impacts of landmines on State Actors in a mine ban A press conference was held on 15 survivors, focusing on child organized by Geneva Call was June in Kathmandu at the survivors. The conference was held from 1-2 September in conclusion of the mission. held in Islamabad on 10 June. Nairobi. Contact: Campaigners from Japan, Representatives from the [email protected] Australia, Sri Lanka, Philippines Canadian and Swiss Embassies and Bangladesh participated in the chaired the event and speakers Korea- The Korean Campaign mission. Contact: included the ICRC and PCBL. to Ban Landmines (KCBL) [email protected]. A Ban Contact: [email protected]. The drafted legislation to present to the Landmine Campaign Nepal Sustainable Peace and Korean Government, urging mine delegation met with Nepali Prime Development Organization clearance and compensation for Minister Surya Bahadur Thapa on (SPADO) held a Landmine landmine survivors. To highlight 14 August. The delegation urged Monitor release event on 9 this activity the KCBL created an the Prime Minister to join the September in Peshawar. Contact: exhibition of cartoons depicting Mine Ban Treaty and encouraged [email protected] how landmines affect Korean him to send a high-level civilians. The exhibition is delegation to the 5MSP. Contact: Peru- The Americas Regional available online at [email protected] Mine Action Seminar, "En http://newstoon.net/landmine/introd Camino hacia un Hemisferio Libre uction_en.html. Contact: New Zealand- The New de Minas Antipersonal," hosted by [email protected] Zealand Campaign Against Canada, Peru and the OAS, was Landmines (CALM) supported held from 14-15 August in Lima. Kyrgyzstan- The IPPNW- Landmine Action UK's Clear Up ICBL campaigners and Kyzgyz Committee (IPPNW-K) campaign by collecting petition researchers from Brazil, Canada, created a photo exhibition signatures and writing letters. Colombia and Brazil participated highlighting the mine situation in CALM helped to lobby delegates in this meeting and made southern Kyrgyzstan. This project to the Pacific Islands Forum held interventions in the sessions on received support from the Rotary from 14-16 August in Auckland. regional planning and priority Club of Bishkek. Public showings

SEPTEMBER 2003 ICBL LANDMINE UPDATE #11 PAGE 7 setting and victim assistance. part of a joint, cross-conflict Sweden- The Swedish Peace Contact: [email protected] initiative to secure support for a and Arbitration Society (SPAS) mine ban from both the issued a press release for the Republic of Congo- Handicap Government of Sri Lanka and the Landmine Monitor report on 9 International Belgium participated LTTE. The Sri Lankan September. Contact: in a workshop on the government, military, mine action [email protected] implementation of the Mine Ban organizations, the UN, ICRC and Treaty in the Democratic Republic NGOs participated in the event. Switzerland- The Landmine of Congo and the Republic of Also in July, Landmine Action Monitor report was released on 9 Congo. The workshop took place launched “Explosive Remnants of September at an event at the UN in Brazzaville from 7-8 May and War in Sri Lanka,” a report about Palais des Nations in Geneva. was organized by the Republic of Sri Lanka’s explosive remnants of Speakers included Ambassador Congo and Canada. Contact: war contamination. Contact: Jean Lint, President of the Mine [email protected] [email protected] Ban Treaty’s Fourth Meeting of

Serbia and Montenegro- The Sudan- Parliament of Serbia and On 10 Montenegro approved legislation August the for accession to the Mine Ban Sudanese Treaty on 20 June. Contact: Governmen [email protected] or t’s Council [email protected] of Ministers voted to South Africa- South Africa ratify the passed into law B44 – 2002: Anti- Mine Ban Personnel Mines Prohibition Bill Treaty. The as required under Article 9 of the Sudan Mine Ban Treaty. Contact: Campaign [email protected] to Ban Landmines Sri Lanka- The Sri Lankan met with Campaign to Ban Landmines and Minister of the Inter-Religious Peace Foreign Foundation issued a statement at Affairs Dr. the beginning of the Donor Mustafa Conference on Reconstruction and Osman Development of Sri Lanka held in Ismail on Tokyo, Japan from 8-10 June. The 15 August statement called on Sri Lanka to and join the Mine Ban Treaty. The commende Japan and Sri Lankan campaigns d this vote worked together to participate in and the and ensure landmines were Minister’s addressed in this conference. They special participated in an NGO event held efforts on before the donors' conference on 8 this issue, June and issued a statement to the and urged Sri Lanka government, LTTE and him to Thai amputee during bicycle rally. Photo: Deborah Morrison Japanese government. Contact: continue to [email protected] ensure States Parties. Contact: In July, Landmine Action in Sudan submitted its instrument of [email protected] partnership with the Inter- ratification before the 5MSP. Religious Peace Foundation, held Contact: Timor Leste- Acceded to the a conference on antipersonnel [email protected] Mine Ban Treaty on 7 May. mines in Colombo. The event was

PAGE 8 ICBL LANDMINE UPDATE #11 SEPTEMBER 2003 Youth signatures were collected other NGOs participated in this Thailand- The Thailand Mine for the campaign against mines in event. The conference issued a Action Center (TMAC), in India and Pakistan and “Hold declaration calling on Turkey and partnership with Thailand Hands Against Mines” hand Greece to join the Mine Ban Campaign to Ban Landmines printing took place. Treaty as soon as possible and by (TCBL) and its network of NGOs, From 20-21 August members the 5MSP. On 6 May the organized a bicycle rally from of civil society organizations, Governments of Greece and Bangkok to Lopburi from 22-24 media, academia, UN Turkey released a joint statement April. Fifty-five cyclists, organizations as well as the after a meeting of their Prime including 35 landmine survivors, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ministers in Kas, Turkey, stating cycled for 135 kilometres to Thailand met in Bangkok and Pak that the two countries will now Lopburi, where the Royal Thai Chong for “APMs- Are they not proceed to submit their Government destroyed its worth it?” This ASEAN regional instruments of ratification/ remaining stockpile of seminar discussed non-use of accession to the United Nations antipersonnel mines. Contact: mines and included a field trip to a and become full States Parties to [email protected] mined area. Participants the Mine Ban Treaty. The Turkish In May, Nonviolence formulated recommendations on Campaign organized a release of International South East Asia what they would like to see from the Landmine Monitor report on 9 released “ASEAN and the the 5MSP Contact: September in Istanbul. Banning of Antipersonnel [email protected] Approximately 15 media Landmines,” a report containing The TCBL launched the representatives attended and the the 2002 Landmine Monitor Landmine Monitor report on 10 event was widely covered. reports for all 10 ASEAN September at an event organized Another release event was held at countries in addition to an analysis at the Foreign Correspondents the Bar Association in Diyarbakir. of trends in treaty compliance and Club in Bangkok. The Landmine Contact: mine action in the region. Contact: Monitor researchers on Thailand [email protected] seasia@nonviolenceinternational. and Burma presented their net findings, Liz Bernstein of ICBL Uganda- The Government of The TCBL launched its “Hold gave a regional overview and Uganda began destruction of 5018 Hands Against Mines” campaign introduction to the Meeting of of its 6782 stockpiled mines in a on 17 July in Bangkok, hosted by States Parties and Ms. Vanvessa ceremony on 7 July at the Kigo the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Vanno of the Ministry of Foreign Prison shooting range. The Participants painted their Affairs spoke on cooperation with remaining 1764 mines will be handprints on banners to show NGOs. retained for training purposes. their support for a mine-free TCBL campaigners were also Several mines were symbolically world. Subsequently handprints extremely busy preparing to host destroyed during the ceremony were collected in four provinces. the 5MSP and ICBL General and the rest will be destroyed at On 16 August the TCBL held a Meeting, to be held in Bangkok the Nakasongola Militry Barracks. Ban Landmines Fair in Rodfai from 15-21 September, for which Government and military officials, Park in Bangkok. About 700 TCBL provided coordination. the diplomatic community, children, youth, parents and Contact: [email protected] religious leaders and the media general public, as well as a participated in this event. Contact: Senator and the Chairman of Turkey- The Campaign for a [email protected] TCBL participated. It was a full Turkey without Mines (Turkish afternoon of fun in the park with Campaign) organized Ukraine- The Ukrainian painting, puppet shows, story “Antipersonnel Landmines in Peacekeepers Association (UPA) telling, children’s library books, Turkey and Worldwide,” a participated in “Caravan of Peace drawing contest, walk rally with conference held in Istanbul on 26 2003,” a series of events held in wheelchair victim escorts, April and organized in the Ukraine, France, Poland and literature distribution, a mobile cooperation with the Swiss Russia from May to September. exhibition by TCBL and a Campaign to Ban Landmines and UPA worked with partnering demining demonstration by Medico International. organizations to arrange seminars civilian deminers from the Gen. Approximately 60 representatives designed to increase awareness of Chatchai Choonhavan Foundation. from States Parties, the ICBL and the landmine situation globally

SEPTEMBER 2003 ICBL LANDMINE UPDATE #11 PAGE 9 and in the FSU region and to President. At the large events they Landmine Survivors Network promote the Ukraine’s ratification held “Ban Landmines” signs and organized a delegation of of the Mine Ban Treaty. A at smaller events they asked the landmine survivors to participate workshop was held at the UN candidates about their position on in the 2nd Ad Hoc Committee to Youth Summit held in Kiev in the Mine Ban Treaty. Candidates Consider Proposals for a July. Contact: [email protected] Carol Moseley Braun and Rev. Al Convention to Promote the Rights Sharpton both indicated, at two of People with Disabilities, held in United Kingdom- In July, separate forums, that they New York City in June. Contact: Landmine Action in partnership supported the treaty. Howard [email protected] with the Inter-Religious Peace Dean told one USCBL activist The Landmine Monitor report Foundation, held a conference on that he supports the treaty. Dennis was released at an event organized antipersonnel mines in Colombo, Kucinich indicates his support for by Human Rights Watch and the Sri Lanka (see Sri Lanka). the treaty on his website. John ICBL, held on 9 September at the “Explosive Remnants of War: a Kerry has previously expressed National Press Club in global survey” was published in support for the treaty, but has not Washington, DC. Speakers June. This report reveals that more made any recent statement on this included Jody Williams, 1997 than 80 countries and ten disputed issue. The other candidates have Nobel Peace Laureate, and territories are affected by not declared a position. Prominent Stephen Goose, Executive explosive remnants of war (ERW) US health professionals also Director of the Arms Division of throughout the world, highlighting signed a letter to the presidential Human Rights Watch. Contact: the need for international candidates urging them to support [email protected] humanitarian law to deal with this the mine ban. pressing issue. Contact: The USCBL also sent letters to Uruguay- A Uruguayan youth [email protected] President Bush, Condoleezza campaigner held an ICBL Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and Colin information table at the United States- The United Powell along with a collection of MERCOSUR Ministers of States Campaign to Ban pro-Mine Ban Treaty media pieces Defense Meeting held from 6-8 Landmines (USCBL) coordinated from the past few years. The May in Montevideo. Uruguay campaign participation at events USCBL website at completed its stockpile destruction with Presidential Candidates. www.banminesusa.org was also in August. Contact: Dozes of campaigners from across upgraded. Contact: [email protected] the country attended events with [email protected] the candidates running for

PAGE 10 ICBL LANDMINE UPDATE #11 SEPTEMBER 2003 LANDMINE CALENDAR EXCERPT

September 3: Kathmandu, Nepal. Landmine Monitor 9: Worldwide. Landmine Monitor Report report briefing organized by the Ban April 2003 released. Landmines Campaign Nepal. Contact: 28-30: Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina. 13: Bangkok, Thailand. “Looking [email protected] 2004 ICBL and Landmine Monitor Backwards, Looking Forwards,” 8-9: Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. Regional Meeting for Europe. Contact: workshop on non-state actors. Seminar on "Learning from the [email protected] experiences of landmines and Contact: [email protected] May explosive remnants of war problems 15-19: Fifth Meeting of States Parties to 7: Australia. Landmine Action Day and victim assistance in the region." the Mine Ban Treaty: organized by the ICBL Australia Organized by the Arab Net of www.icbl.org/5msp Network and AustCare. Contact: Researchers on Landmines and ERW. 15-18: Brussels, Belgium. International [email protected] Contact: [email protected] or Conference on Requirements and 9-13: Monterey, CA, USA. Sixth [email protected] Technologies for the Detection, International Symposium on 10-11: Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. Removal and Neutralization of Technology and the Mine Problem. 2004 ICBL and Landmine Monitor Landmines and UXO. Contact Contact: [email protected] [email protected] Regional Meeting for the Middle East 20-21: Bangkok, Thailand. ICBL General and North Africa. Contact: [email protected] June Meeting. 3-5: Vienna, Austria. 2nd Conference on 26-28: Moscow, Russia. LM release. Public Health and War-related Injuries. Contact: [email protected] 2004 Visit: End of month: Thailand. CALM fundraising January http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ierh/Conferen "run for those who cannot run." ce.htm 26-30: Bogota, Colombia. 2004 ICBL and Contact: [email protected] 21-25: Geneva, Switzerland. Mine Ban Landmine Monitor Regional Meeting Treaty Intersessional Standing for the Americas. Contact: [email protected] October Committee Meetings. 7: France. 9th Annual Shoe Pyramid in 30 28-29: Geneva, Switzerland. Mine Ban cities throughout France. Contact: February 9-12: Geneva, Switzerland. Mine Ban Treaty Review Conference [email protected] Preparatory Meeting. 8: Canberra, Australia. LM launch at Treaty Intersessional Standing Committee Meetings. 21-22 (TBC): Croatia. 2004 Landmine Parliament House. Contact: Monitor Global Researchers Meeting. [email protected] 13: Geneva, Switzerland. Mine Ban Treaty Review Conference Preparatory Contact: [email protected] 17: Wellington, New Zealand. LM launch TBC: Quito, Ecuador. Americas Regional Contact: [email protected] Meeting. 9-11: Canberra, Australia. Third Mine Action Seminar. For ICBL November Australian-American Joint Conference contact: [email protected] 3-5: Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. 2004 ICBL and on Technologies of November Minecountermeasures and LM Regional Meeting. Contact: 29-3 December: Nairobi, Kenya. First Unexploded Ordnance. Contact: [email protected] Review Conference on the 1997 Mine [email protected] 3-9: UK. Landmine Action Week focused Ban Treaty. on the Clear Up! ERW campaign. 26-28: Luanda, Angola. 2004 ICBL and Visit: www.clearup.org Landmine Monitor Regional Meeting December for Africa. Contact: [email protected] 3: Seventh Anniversary of the Opening for December March Signature of the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty 3: Events Worldwide. Sixth Anniversary of 28-31: Kabul, Afghanistan. 2004 ICBL and the Opening for Signature of the 1997 For the full and updated calendar including Landmine Monitor Regional Meeting Mine Ban Treaty links and further contact details see for Asia-Pacific. Contact: [email protected] www.icbl.org/calendar

Mine Ban Treaty Key contacts

Holdouts: ICBL: [email protected] Landmine Monitor: [email protected] Armenia+ Azerbaijan+ Bahrain+ Bhutan+ Raising the Voices: China+ Cuba+ Egypt+ Estonia+ Finland+ [email protected] Georgia+ India+ Iran+ Iraq+ Israel+ Youth Action Forum: [email protected] Kazakhstan+ North Korea+ South Korea+ For more ICBL contacts see Kuwait+ Kyrgyzstan+ Laos+ Latvia+ www.icbl.org/info/contacts.html Micronesia+ Mongolia+ Morocco+ Myanmar (Burma)+ Nepal+ Oman+ GICHD: [email protected] Pakistan+ Palau+ Papua New Guinea+ MASG: Russia+ Saudi Arabia+ Singapore+ [email protected] Somalia+ Sri Lanka+ Tonga+ Tuvalu+ Survey Action Center: UAE+ USA+ Uzbekistan+ Vietnam+ FR Looking for information about [email protected] Yugoslavia the Meeting of States Parties? UN Mine Action: [email protected] UNICEF: [email protected] For more information on the Mine Ban See www.icbl.org/5msp! Explosive Remnants of War: Treaty see www.icbl.org/treaty [email protected]

SEPTEMBER 2003 ICBL LANDMINE UPDATE #11 PAGE 11

Ratification Update

Latest Ratifications: Guyana (5 August 2003) and Lithuania (12 May 2003)

Latest Accessions: Belarus (3 September 2003) and Timor Leste (East Timor) (7 May 2003)

1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (1997 Mine Ban Treaty)

Under Article 15, the treaty was open for signature from 3 December 1997 until its entry into force, which was 1 March 1999. On the following list, the first date is signature, the second date is ratification. Now that the treaty has entered into force, states may no longer sign it, rather they may become bound without signature through a one step procedure known as accession. According to Article 16 (2), the treaty is open for accession by any State that has not signed. Accession is indicated below with (a).

As of 6 September 2003 , 148 signatories/accessions and 136 ratifications, accessions (a) or approvals (AA). Burundi 3 Dec 1997 Cambodia 3 Dec 1997; Afghanistan 11 Sep 2002 (a) 28 July 1999 Albania 8 Sep 1998; 29 Feb 2000 Cameroon 3 Dec 1997; Algeria 3 Dec 1997; 9 Oct 2001 19 Sep 2002 Andorra 3 Dec 1997; 29 Jun 1998 Canada 3 Dec 1997; 3 Angola 4 Dec 1997; 5 July 2002 Dec 1997 Antigua and Barbuda 3 Dec 1997; 3 May 1999 Cape Verde 4 Dec 1997; Argentina 4 Dec 1997; 14 Sep 1999 14 May 2001 Australia 3 Dec 1997; 14 Jan 1999 Central African Republic Austria 3 Dec 1997; 29 Jun 1998 8 Nov 2002 (a) Bahamas 3 Dec 1997; 31 Jul 1998 Chad 6 Jul 1998; 6 May Bangladesh 7 May 1998; 6 Sep 2000 1999 Barbados 3 Dec 1997; 26 Jan 1999 Chile 3 Dec 1997; 10 Belarus 3 Sep 2003 (a) Sep 2001 Belgium 3 Dec 1997; 4 Sep 1998 Colombia 3 Dec 1997; 6 Belize 27 Feb 1998; 23 Apr 1998 Sep 2000 Benin 3 Dec 1997; 25 Sept 1998 Comoros 19 Sep 2002 Bolivia 3 Dec 1997; 9 Jun 1998 (a) Bosnia and Herzegovina 3 Dec 1997; 8 Sep 1998 Cook Islands 3 Dec Botswana 3 Dec 1997; 1 Mar 2000 1997 Brazil 3 Dec 1997; 30 Apr 1999 Congo Brazzaville 4 Brunei Darussalam 4 Dec 1997 May 2001 (a) Bulgaria 3 Dec 1997; 4 Sep 1998 Democratic Republic of Burkina Faso 3 Dec 1997; 16 Sep 1998 the Congo 2 May 2002 (a) Costa Rica 3 Dec 1997; 17 Mar 1999 Malta 4 Dec 1997; 7 May 2001 Côte d'Ivoire 3 Dec 1997; 30 June 2000 Marshall Islands 4 Dec 1997 Croatia 4 Dec 1997; 20 May 1998 Mauritania 3 Dec 1997; 21 July 2000 Cyprus 4 Dec 1997; 17 Jan 2003 Mauritius 3 Dec 1997; 3 Dec 1997 Czech Republic 3 Dec 1997; 26 Oct. 1999 México 3 Dec 1997; 9 Jun 1998 Denmark 4 Dec 1997; 8 Jun 1998 Moldova, Republic of 3 Dec 1997; 8 Sep 2000 Djibouti 3 Dec 1997; 18 May 1998 Monaco 4 Dec 1997; 17 Nov 1998 Dominica 3 Dec 1997; 26 March 1999 Mozambique 3 Dec 1997; 25 Aug 1998 Dominican Republic 3 Dec 1997; 30 June 2000 Nauru 7 August 2000 (a) Ecuador 4 Dec 1997; 29 Apr 1999 Namibia 3 Dec 1997; 21 Sep 1998 El Salvador 4 Dec 1997; 27 Jan 1999 Netherlands 3 Dec 1997; 12 April 1999 Equatorial Guinea 16 Sep 1998 (a) New Zealand 3 Dec 1997; 27 Jan 1999 Eritrea 27 Aug 2001 (a) Nicaragua 4 Dec 1997; 30 Nov 1998 Ethiopia 3 Dec 1997 Niger 4 Dec 1997; 23 March 1999 Fiji 3 Dec 1997; 10 Jun 1998 Nigeria 27 Sep 2001 (a) France 3 Dec 1997; 23 Jul 1998 Niue 3 Dec 1997; 15 Apr 1998 Gabon 3 Dec 1997; 8 Sep 2000 Norway 3 Dec 1997; 9 Jul 1998 Gambia 4 Dec 1997; 23 Sep 2002 Panamá 4 Dec 1997; 7 Oct 1998 Germany 3 Dec 1997; 23 Jul 1998 Paraguay 3 Dec 1997; 13 Nov 1998 Ghana 4 Dec 1997; 30 June 2000 Perú 3 Dec 1997; 17 Jun 1998 Greece 3 Dec 1997 Philippines 3 Dec 1997; 15 February 2000 Grenada 3 Dec 1997; 19 Aug 1998 Poland 4 Dec 1997 Guatemala 3 Dec 1997; 26 March 1999 Portugal 3 Dec 1997; 19 Feb 1999 Guinea 4 Dec 1997; 8 Oct 1998 Qatar 4 Dec 1997; 13 Oct 1998 Guinea-Bissau 3 Dec 1997; 22 May 2001 Romania 3 Dec 1997; 30 Nov 2000 Guyana 4 Dec 1997; 5 August 2003 Rwanda 3 Dec 1997; 8 June 2000 Haiti 3 Dec 1997 Saint Kitts and Nevis 3 Dec 1997; 2 Dec 1998 Holy See 4 Dec 1997; 17 Feb 1998 Saint Lucia 3 Dec 1997; 13 April 1999 Honduras 3 Dec 1997; 24 Sept 1998 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 3 Dec 1997; 1 Hungary 3 Dec 1997; 6 Apr 1998 Aug 2001 Iceland 4 Dec 1997; 5 May 1999 Samoa 3 Dec 1997; 23 Jul 1998 Indonesia 4 Dec 1997 San Marino 3 Dec 1997; 18 Mar 1998 Ireland 3 Dec 1997; 3 Dec 1997 São Tomé e Principe 30 Apr 1998; 31 March Italy 3 Dec 1997; 23 Apr 1999 2003 Jamaica 3 Dec 1997; 17 Jul 1998 Senegal 3 Dec 1997; 24 Sept 1998 Japan 3 Dec 1997; 30 Sept 1998 Seychelles 4 Dec 1997; 2 June 2000 Jordan 11 Aug 1998; 13 Nov 1998 Sierra Leone 29 Jul 1998; 25 April 2001 Kenya 5 Dec 1997; 23 Jan 2001 Slovakia 3 Dec 1997; 25 Feb 1999 AA Kiribati 7 Sep 2000 (a) Slovenia 3 Dec 1997; 27 Oct 1998 Lesotho 4 Dec 1997; 2 Dec 1998 Solomon Islands 4 Dec 1997; 26 Jan 1999 Liberia 23 December 1999 (a) South Africa 3 Dec 1997; 26 Jun 1998 Liechtenstein 3 Dec 1997; 5 Oct 1999 Spain 3 Dec 1997; 19 Jan 1999 Lithuania 26 Feb 1999; 12 May 2003 Sudan 4 Dec 1997 Luxembourg 4 Dec 1997; 14 June 1999 Suriname 4 Dec 1997; 23 May 2002 Macedonia, FYR 9 Sep 1998 (a) Swaziland 4 Dec 1997; 22 Dec 1998 Madagascar 4 Dec 1997; 16 Sept. 1999 Sweden 4 Dec 1997; 30 Nov 1998 Maldives, 1 Oct 1998; 7 Sep 2000 Switzerland 3 Dec 1997; 24 Mar 1998 Malaysia 3 Dec 1997; 22 April 1999 Tajikistan 12 October 1999 (a) Malawi 4 Dec 1997; 13 Aug 1998 Tanzania 3 Dec 1997; 13 Nov 2000 Mali 3 Dec 1997; 2 Jun 1998 Timor Leste (East Timor) 7 May 2003 (a) Thailand 3 Dec 1997; 27 Nov 1998 Uruguay 3 Dec 1997; 7 June 2001 Togo 4 Dec 1997; 9 Mar 2000 Vanuatu 4 Dec 1997 Trinidad and Tobago 4 Dec 1997; 27 Apr 1998 Venezuela 3 Dec 1997; 14 Apr 1999 Tunisia 4 Dec 1997; 9 July 1999 Yemen 4 Dec 1997; 1 Sep 1998 Turkmenistan 3 Dec 1997; 19 Jan 1998 Zambia 12 Dec 1997; 23 Feb 2001 Uganda 3 Dec 1997; 25 Feb 1999 Zimbabwe 3 Dec 1997; 18 Jun 1998 Ukraine 24 Feb 1999 United Kingdom 3 Dec 1997; 31 Jul 1998

1997 Mine Ban Treaty – NON SIGNATORIES

This is the list of the 46 countries that have not signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty as of 6 September 2003.

Armenia Papua New Guinea Azerbaijan Russia Bahrain Saudi Arabia Bhutan Serbia and Montenegro China Singapore Cuba Somalia Egypt Sri Lanka Estonia Syria Finland Tonga Georgia Turkey India Tuvalu Iran United Arab Emirates Iraq United States of America Israel Uzbekistan Kazakhstan Vietnam Korea, North Korea, South Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Libya Micronesia Mongolia Morocco Myanmar (Burma) Nepal Oman Pakistan Palau JODY WILLIAMS, CAMPAIGN AMBASSADOR INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN TO BAN LANDMINES STATEMENT TO OPENING SESSION* FIFTH MEETING OF STATES PARTIES TO THE MINE BAN TREATY Bangkok, Thailand, 15 September 2003

Mr. Minister, Dr. Surakiart Sathirathai, first I would like to congratulate you on your assumption of the Presidency of the Fifth Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty. Also, thank you for the opportunity to address the opening session of this important gathering.

I must echo the words of President of the Fourth Meeting of States Parties, Belgian Ambassador Jean Lint, in expressing our deep sadness at the loss of Mr. Sergio Viera de Mello in the recent attack on UN headquarters in Baghdad. We all will recall that it was Mr. de Mello who joined us at the 4MSP in Geneva one year ago to speak on behalf of the Secretary General at the opening of that Meeting. Mr. de Mello was always a strong supporter and friend of our joint efforts to eliminate antipersonnel landmines. We all must mourn the loss of an individual committed to giving his best to make the world a better place for us all.

At the same time, we are fortunate to have with us Mr. Martin Barber of UNMAS, who was also in the UN building at the time of the attack, when so many others were killed and injured. Other of our UNMAS colleagues, who would have been in Bangkok, cannot be here because they are recovering from their injuries in that attack -- an attack which underscores the incredible fragility in which we find ourselves in today’s world.

Other speakers today have made allusions to that fragility and I will take a moment to address the issue a bit more now. As I stand here before you, I cannot help but remember two years ago as we were preparing to meet for the 3MSP in Managua, Nicaragua – another mine-affected country which has played an important role in the ban movement. It was just days before we were scheduled to depart for Managua that the terrorist attacks took place on September 11 in New York City and Washington, DC.

That heinous crime, which took the lives of thousands of innocent civilians, sowed fear and uncertainty not only in the United States, but also around the globe. Because of that uncertainty, it was not at all clear that the 3MSP would be able to go forward. However, we all recognized that not to proceed would be to give in to terror. We recognized that it was critical that the international community continue its efforts to deal with the multitude of issues confronting us all. Much to our great pleasure – and a clear indicator of the global commitment to the Mine Ban Treaty -- over 100 nations made the tremendous effort in those very difficult days following September 11 to travel to Managua to continue our work to eliminate landmines – a weapon of daily terror for tens of thousands of people in some 82 countries around the world.

I certainly did not think then that at future meetings of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty we would be living in a world that feels even less stable than the world of two years ago. Yet as incredible as it may seem, the world seems to be increasingly unstable as a result of the responses to the attacks of September 11. We meet here in Bangkok this week for the 5MSP at a point of great tension in the world. At the core of that tension is a struggle between those who would have one nation – or a small handful of nations – determine how the multitude of threats facing us all on this very small planet are to be met or whether it will be a community of nations, international bodies and institutions, and civil society joining together to take a different – a truly multilateral -- path and redefine global security in terms of human security.

One of the hallmarks of the Mine Ban Treaty is the Ottawa Process – that process in which governments, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations came together in open partnership to deal with the global humanitarian crisis posed by antipersonnel landmines. That process – that alternative model of a new diplomacy – is also currently under threat. Because it is being threatened, in my view it is even more important that we redouble our efforts to make certain that the tremendous progress we have seen already in the short life of this international treaty continues unabated.

What we have accomplished through this movement is not just the possibility of a world free of the daily terror of landmines. What we have accomplished together continues to give hope to people all over the world – in spite of the terrible instability in the world today -- that there are alternative methods to address our common problems. As we continue to make progress, we continue to inspire that hope. As we continue to make progress, we do inspire more and more people to take action for positive change around the world.

This is the critical context in which we find ourselves today as we congratulate Thailand for its assumption of the presidency of the 5MSP. This uncertain global situation is the backdrop against which we should again thank Belgium and its able Ambassador Jean Lint for all the progress we have seen in the last year under his leadership. The progress since our Managua meeting is certainly the result of our continued joint actions, but our work has been greatly enhanced because of Jean Lint’s dedication and leadership both as the able representative of his government, but also because of his deep personal commitment to a mine-free world. We should also thank Ambassador Lint for his final comments as President of the 4MSP, in particular for the concrete challenges that he posed to us all -- clear targets for action in period leading up to the Review Conference in Nairobi, Kenya in December of 2004.

We are certain that under the able leadership of Thailand as President of the 5MSP, we will meet those challenges. The Royal Government of Thailand has already demonstrated its clear commitment to that leadership role. The fact that Princess Galyani Vadhana presided over the Opening Ceremony of the Meeting, and that the Presidency was assumed today by Foreign Minister, Dr. Surakiart Sathirathai, leaves no doubt of Thailand’s intention to be a totally committed leader in this critical period.

But how could it be any other way? Thailand is a mine-affected country. It feels the impact of landmines in the blood of its own people. Thailand has consistently shown its commitment by destroying its stockpiles before the treaty-mandated deadline, by engaging in mine action programs in the country, and by helping provide for the needs of its landmine survivors. In our press conference right before this session, Minister Surakiart Sathirathai also spoke of steps that his government has already been taking to engage other Asian nations and move toward the universalization of the Mine Ban Treaty in this region of great challenges to the eradication of landmines. We are confident of the key role that the Royal Government of Thailand will play both nationally, regionally and internationally as we move forward toward the Review Conference in Nairobi.

As I close, I want to echo the words of speakers before me today who have noted the importance of the Nairobi Conference. At the Review Conference, not only will we be assessing the progress made since the signing of the Mine Ban Treaty in Ottawa, Canada in December of 1997, but also we will be looking forward, as we in the mine ban movement always do. At that Conference, States Parties will decide the structure of our work over the next five-year period through 2009 – another important date for many states who must meet the treaty deadline for mine clearance by that time. Just as we have been pleased to have such high level participation at this Meeting in Bangkok, we call upon all States Parties to participate in the Review Conference in Nairobi at the highest levels. This will demonstrate their clear intention to maintain the commitment necessary for us to reach our goal of a mine free planet.

In speaking of commitment, there is one other issue I need to highlight – a point I made last year and hoped I would not be making again this year. In her comments this morning, Princess Astrid of Belgium invoked words of the Preamble of the Mine Ban Treaty regarding landmine survivors when she spoke of their plight. We were all pleased that the Mine Ban Treaty called upon nations to address the needs of landmine survivors as part of their treaty obligations. Yet today, five years into the life of the treaty, survivors still find too many of their needs unmet. Of 82 nations reporting mine survivors this year in Landmine Monitor Report 2003, some 48 of those states indicate gaps in their ability to deal adequately with the needs of their survivors.

We have been pleased to see increased resources this year for mine action. At the same time, there is ongoing concern that the commitment of donor countries to address the needs of landmine survivors lags too far behind their support for mine clearance. It is not difficult to understand why – once a landmine is cleared or destroyed in stockpiles it is over and done with. We hear no more from those landmines. Landmine survivors, on the other hand, have needs that must be dealt with not once – at the time of the mine incident – or twice in the provision of prostheses, but for the rest of their lives. We must strive harder to address all the needs of landmine survivors. We must just not listen to their stories to keep us grounded in our work while we fail to provide the resources necessary to address the needs they describe when they talk of their deep desire to be fully participating members of their families, their communities and their societies. How can we give them such short shrift? Is it not because of the human cost that this movement came together? Human beings, after all, are at the heart of this movement to eradicate the scourge of landmines. We work to ensure that some day there will be a world where no one will live with the terror of landmines – but in keeping our focus on that goal, we cannot overlook those who have already known that terror.

In closing, I want to thank the many of you who have commended me as an emotional and inspiring speaker. While I thank you for that, I want you to know that for me, emotion and inspiration without follow-up action are largely irrelevant. I trust that whatever inspiration you might feel as a result of my comments today will continue to be turned into concrete action as we work together to achieve our goals. Because of what we have achieved already and what we will continue to achieve, we give hope to people all over the world that one day we will live in a world free of landmines. And please do not doubt for a moment that whenever our model of new diplomacy prevails, we also give hope to people everywhere but there is another way to deal with humanitarian and security issues. We make people believe that governments, international bodies and civil society can work together to address the critical issues that threaten us all. We inspire people everywhere to believe that global security can be enhanced when we work together to address human security.

THANK YOU.

(*Please note that this address was reconstructed after the fact from Jody Williams’ extemporaneous remarks.) Statement of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines

To the Fifth Meeting of States Parties to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty

Delivered by Stephen Goose (Human Rights Watch), Head of ICBL Delegation

Bangkok, Thailand

15-19 September 2003

Mr. President, distinguished delegates,

I speak on behalf of the more than 1,400 non-governmental organizations in more than 90 countries that constitute the ICBL. We are especially pleased to be here in Thailand, a mine-affected country that has shown admirable leadership in our common effort to ban antipersonnel mines. We very much look forward to working closely with Thailand in its role as President of the Fifth Meeting of States Parties.

We must express our most sincere gratitude to Ambassador Jean Lint for his outstanding work during the past year as President of the Fourth Meeting of States Parties, during previous years as co-chair of the Standing Committees on Mine Clearance and on General Status and Operation, and during earlier years as well. Ambassador Lint’s dedication, activism, creativity, and leadership have been truly remarkable, and his contributions to the achievement of a mine-free world have been immeasurable.

Mr. President, the past year has been a very encouraging one in our common effort to completely eradicate antipersonnel mines. One year ago, we were condemning the massive mine-laying operations by India and Pakistan as the most widespread use of mines in years or even decades, and we were lamenting the fact that global funding for mine action programs had stagnated for the first time since the early 1990s. This year, we can take heart that global use of antipersonnel mines has decreased markedly, while global mine action funding has increased sharply, by some 30 percent. Nearly every indicator of progress is positive, including the fact that twenty States Parties have reported completion of destruction of their stockpiles of antipersonnel mines in the past year.

Yet, huge challenges remain. Globally, the number of new mine casualties each year has apparently not continued to decrease in the way one would expect with expanded mine action programs. Moreover, according to Landmine Monitor findings, in 48 of the 65 countries reporting new casualties, assistance is inadequate to meet the needs of mine survivors—and as the number of survivors grows each year, so does the need for increased resources for survivor assistance. Despite increased global spending totals, too many affected countries and too many mine action organizations continue to report funding shortages. As the ICBL cautioned last year, it still appears many States Parties will have difficulty meeting the ten-year mine clearance deadline. Universalization of the

1 Mine Ban Treaty and the norm it represents also remains one of our greatest challenges, notably in this Asian region, with its disproportionate number of hold-out states and non- state actors, mine users, mine producers, and major antipersonnel mine stockpilers.

Fifth Meeting of States Parties

This Fifth Meeting of States Parties can play an important function in ensuring ongoing success. Among the concrete outcomes the ICBL would like to see from the Fifth Meeting of States Parties, we would like to highlight three that should be included in the “Conclusions and Recommendations” section of the Final Report, all to be achieved by or at the First Review Conference:

First, the Meeting should call upon mine-affected States Parties, those requiring assistance in meeting the needs of landmine survivors, and those in the process of destroying stockpiled antipersonnel mines to ensure that prior to the First Review Conference plans are in place consistent with the Mine Ban Treaty’s deadlines, to take concrete steps to implement those plans, and to present their problems, plans, progress and priorities for assistance during the Standing Committee meetings in 2004.

Second, with respect to resource mobilization, the Meeting should call upon donor States Parties to renew their commitments to provide the resources necessary to implement the Mine Ban Treaty, should call upon mine-affected States Parties to integrate mine action into national development and poverty reduction strategies, and, should call upon all States Parties to share information on matters pertaining to resource mobilization prior to the First Review Conference.

Third, the Meeting should call on States Parties to reach common understandings at the First Review Conference on outstanding issues pertaining to the interpretation and application of Articles 1, 2, and 3, and to utilize the intersessional process to this end.

In addition, we strongly urge States Parties to endorse the Standing Committee reports and to act urgently on their recommendations. We encourage States Parties to expand their support to the Sponsorship Program, which has contributed to both effective implementation and universalization of the Mine Ban Treaty.

We also hope the Fifth Meeting of States Parties will be successful in advancing the ongoing planning for the First Review Conference. We are convinced that the Review Conference should be a watershed event in the life of the Mine Ban Treaty, not so much for the opportunity to review the past five years, but as a means of ensuring commitments, and facilitating concrete and results oriented planning for the next five years. We encourage States Parties to participate at the highest possible level.

Mr. President, I would now like to turn to some major issue areas that are essential to any assessment of the health of the mine ban movement. First, State Party compliance with the Mine Ban Treaty; second, global use of antipersonnel mines; and third, the status of

2 universalization of the Mine Ban Treaty and the ban norm. I will draw on the findings of Landmine Monitor Report 2003.

State Party Compliance

Overall, State Party compliance with the Mine Ban Treaty must be judged to be very good. Landmine Monitor has not received any definitive reports of use, production or transfer of antipersonnel mines by a State Party during the most recent reporting period (since May 2002). While there have been some unverifiable allegations, it appears these core obligations have been respected by all States Parties.

It also appears that every State Party thus far has met its four-year deadline for stockpile destruction, with one notable exception: Turkmenistan. The seriousness with which states have treated the stockpile destruction deadline, and the willingness of other States Parties to encourage and facilitate compliance, is testament to the strength of the Mine Ban Treaty.

Compliance with the requirement to submit transparency reports under Article 7 had increased impressively to 88 percent (for initial submissions) as of the end of July 2003. The number of late initial reports was halved in the past year, from 30 to 15. Among the 15 states late in submitting initial Article 7 reports were Angola, Cote D’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Guinea, Liberia, Namibia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and Suriname, as well as five small island nations known not to have landmines. Some reports are more than three years late, and in the cases of Equatorial Guinea, Guinea and Namibia, their stockpile destruction deadlines have passed, meaning those states have not officially reported whether they have met that vital treaty requirement.

Our most serious compliance concern at this time relates to Turkmenistan. Turkmenistan reported that it completed its stockpile destruction by its 1 March 2003 deadline, destroying more than 1.1 million mines. However, it also reported that it plans to retain 69,200 mines for training. The ICBL believes that 69,200 mines is an unacceptable, and likely illegal, number as it is obviously not the “minimum number absolutely necessary,” as required by Article 3 of the treaty. The ICBL also believes that retention of such a large number of mines in fact means that Turkmenistan has not yet fully destroyed its stocks, and could therefore be considered in violation of its core treaty obligation under Article 4.

It is possible that Turkmenistan is unaware of or does not fully understand its obligations and State Party practice regarding mines retained for training, and the common understanding that the number kept should be in the hundreds or thousands, but not tens of thousands. It is essential that Turkmenistan drastically reduce the number of mines retained. It is also essential that other States Parties rise to this compliance challenge and respond effectively. This is clearly a test of the informal and unstructured approach States Parties have adopted with respect to compliance concerns thus far. The ICBL urges States Parties to consult with the Turkmenistan government to seek clarification and express concern regarding compliance with the Mine Ban Treaty. This should be

3 done in the “spirit of cooperation” called for in the treaty’s Article 8, under which States Parties have agreed to “consult and cooperate with each other” to facilitate compliance with obligations.

While the ICBL identified Tajikistan as the State Party of greatest concern one year ago, we have been very impressed by the steps taken by Tajikistan in the past year to fulfill its treaty obligations and to embrace the spirit of transparency and cooperation so central to the success of the Mine Ban Treaty.

With respect to allegations reported by Landmine Monitor two years ago regarding use by Uganda, we have been disappointed that Uganda has not, as promised, reported to States Parties on progress in investigating the matter.

Use of Antipersonnel Mines

While there have been some positive and some negative developments, the overall picture is one of greatly reduced use of antipersonnel mines around the world in the past year.

In its latest reporting period, since May 2002, Landmine Monitor noted confirmed use of antipersonnel mines, or compelling evidence of use of antipersonnel mines, by at least six governments. This compares to use by at least nine governments in the previous period and thirteen the year before that.

Of the six, four were in Asia: India, Pakistan, Nepal, and Burma (Myanmar). The others were Russia (in Chechnya) and Iraq. Of the six governments, only two are actively laying antipersonnel mines today: Russia and Myanmar. India and Pakistan wound down their border mine-laying in mid-2002 and began clearance operations. Nepal, which greatly expanded its use of mines during 2002, to include every district in the country, has apparently not used the weapon since the January 2003 cease-fire. The Iraqi government, which was the only new addition to the “users list” in this Landmine Monitor report, has ceased to exist. U.S. and other coalition forces apparently did not use antipersonnel mines in the Iraq conflict.

Landmine Monitor did not definitively conclude that any of the 12 signatory governments used antipersonnel mines in this reporting period, but it noted that there were ever-more compelling reports of use of antipersonnel mines by the Burundi Army. There were also serious allegations of use by government forces in Sudan. However, both governments deny any mine-laying.

The ICBL believes the use of antipersonnel mines by a signatory is a violation of international humanitarian law, in that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that signatories must refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of the instrument they have signed. It is noteworthy that in recent Article 7 reports, Ecuador and Venezuela indicated that they used antipersonnel mines after signing the

4 Mine Ban Treaty in December 1997, but before entry-into-force. Angola has also openly admitted using antipersonnel mines when it was a signatory.

States Parties should strive to ensure that signatories are fully aware of their obligations under international law, and should react more forcefully to acts by signatories that are inconsistent with the Mine Ban Treaty.

Among non-state actors (NSAs), the good news is that Landmine Monitor identified use of antipersonnel mines by NSAs in three fewer countries than the previous year (11 versus 14). The most disturbing development was the expanded use of antipersonnel mines by guerrilla and paramililtary groups in Colombia, which resulted in a sharp increase in the number of civilian mine casualties. The Maoist rebels in Nepal also increased use during 2002, but there have been few reported incidents since the January 2003 cease-fire. Two more rebel groups in Burma were identified as mine-layers, bringing the total to 15 groups. Rebel groups in the Philippines (MILF) and Sudan (SPLA) used antipersonnel mines after signing the Geneva Call Deed of Commitment banning antipersonnel mines.

The annual Meetings of State Parties should serve to reinforce the new international norm against any use of antipersonnel mines by anyone. The ICBL has condemned, and we have called upon States Parties to condemn, loudly and consistently those who choose to stay outside of the norm, particularly those who continue to use antipersonnel mines.

Without question, Mine Ban Treaty States Parties can do more to criticize and punish, diplomatically and otherwise, those who continue to use antipersonnel mines. We once again call for some sort of informal mechanism or process that will ensure a more consistent and strong response to instances of use of antipersonnel mines by non-States Parties and by rebel groups.

Universalization

We welcome Central African Republic, Gambia, Cyprus, Sao Tome and Principe, Timor Leste, Lithuania, Guyana, and most recently, Belarus, as new members of the Mine Ban Treaty family since we met in Geneva for the Fourth Meeting of States Parties. The overall total of 136 countries that have given their consent to be bound is impressive for a young convention. Another 12 countries have signed but not yet ratified, bringing the total number of countries legally committed to no further use of antipersonnel mines to 148—more than three-quarters of the world’s nations. That leaves 46 countries completely outside of the Mine Ban Treaty.

However, the pace of universalization has continued to slow, with 19 new States Parties in 2000, 13 in 2001, eight in 2002, and six thus far this year. There is hope for reversal of that trend as five countries have completed domestic procedures for ratification or accession (Burundi, Greece, Serbia and Montenegro, Sudan and Turkey), and a number of other countries have indicated their intention to come on board in the near future,

5 including several in the Asia-Pacific region, such as Cook Islands, Indonesia, and Papua New Guinea.

The lack of adherence to the Mine Ban Treaty is notable in several regions: the Middle East and North Africa, the former Soviet republics, and Asia-Pacific. Lack of adherence is also notable among major antipersonnel mine stockpilers particularly China, Russia, the United States, Ukraine, India and Pakistan (these six are estimated to hold more than 185 million stockpiled antipersonnel mines, roughly 90 percent of the world’s total). The fifteen remaining producers of antipersonnel mines are also key targets for universalization.

Positive Steps by Non-State Parties There are encouraging signs that even among non-States Parties, the international norm is taking hold. For example: the United States apparently did not use antipersonnel mines in the Iraq conflict, just as it did not in Afghanistan; Russia surprisingly revealed that it destroyed 16.8 million stockpiled antipersonnel mines from 1996-2002 (previously it had only reported destruction of 1 million mines); in November 2002, Russia also stated for the first time that for the past eight years it has not produced or supplied to its troops PMN or PFM type mines, particularly deadly mines which have been responsible for innumerable civilian casualties around the world in recent decades; Ukraine destroyed 405,000 antipersonnel mines between July 2002 and May 2003; a number of countries formally extended or reconfirmed their moratoria on exports of antipersonnel mines, including China, Israel, Poland, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Turkey and the United States; Latvia and Poland submitted voluntary Article 7 transparency reports as an indicator of their commitment to join the Mine Ban Treaty eventually.

Non-State Actors Another important aspect of universalization – not of the treaty itself, but of the international norm it represents—is engagement of non-state actors. Many of the NGOs involved with the ICBL have been increasingly attempting to educate and convince non- state actors about the importance of banning antipersonnel mines. States Parties should give greater attention to the NSA landmine issue, and should support efforts to obtain strong ban commitments from non-state actors. When in a position to do so, States Parties should help create the conditions to allow international organizations and NGOs to engage safely and expeditiously with non-state actors on a landmines ban.

The Final Declarations from the last two Meetings of States Parties have included language calling on non-state actors to ban antipersonnel mines. This language should be expanded upon in the Final Declaration here in Bangkok, by expressing support for the efforts of international and non-governmental organizations in engaging NSAs on a total ban on antipersonnel mines, and calling on governments to support and facilitate such engagement.

There have been encouraging developments in the past year. As noted above, NSAs used antipersonnel mines in three fewer countries than the previous year (with a cessation of NSA use in Afghanistan, Angola, and Sri Lanka). Moreover, two Kurdish groups in

6 northern Iraq and 15 factions in Somalia signed the Geneva Call Deed of Commitment for non-state actors, agreeing to implement a comprehensive ban on antipersonnel mines.

Other Major Landmine Monitor Findings

I would now like to report to delegates some of the other major findings of this year’s Landmine Monitor Report 2003:

Mine Action Funding: For 2002, Landmine Monitor identified $309 million in mine action funding by more than 23 donors, a 30 percent increase from the previous year. This is particularly welcome news since in 2001, global mine action funding stagnated for the first time. However, it must be noted that one donor—Japan—is responsible for well over half of the $72 million increase in mine action donations in 2002, and more than two-thirds of the increase went to one country—Afghanistan. Mine action funding has totaled over $1.7 billion since 1992, including $1.2 billion since the Mine Ban Treaty was opened for signature in 1997. However, it is evident from current rates of progress that even greater increases in mine action funding will be needed in the future to cope fully with the global landmine problem and to enable Mine Ban Treaty States Parties to meet their ten-year deadlines for mine clearance.

Mine-affected countries and Mine Action: Landmine Monitor research identifies 82 countries that are affected to some degree by landmines and/or unexploded ordnance, of which 45 are States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty. Congratulations to Costa Rica, which declared itself mine-free in December 2002. The number of mine-affected countries reporting organized mine clearance operations increased in 2002, and there were substantial increases in the amount of land cleared in many countries. However, no mine clearance was recorded in 16 of the affected countries and no mine risk education activities were recorded in 25 countries.

Landmine Casualties and Survivor Assistance: In 2002 and through June 2003, there were new landmine casualties reported in 65 countries; of which 41 were at peace, not war. Only 15 percent of reported casualties in 2002 were identified as military personnel. Nearly one-quarter of the casualties were children. The reported landmine casualty rate declined in 2002 in the majority of mine-affected countries, but it is likely that there were between 15,000 and 20,000 new landmine casualties, as in other recent years. In 2002, the greatest numbers of reported new casualties were found in Chechnya, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Colombia, and India. In many mine-affected countries the assistance available to address the needs of survivors is inadequate and it would appear that additional outside assistance is needed in providing for the care and rehabilitation of mine survivors. In this reporting period, Landmine Monitor has identified at least 48 mine- affected countries where one or more aspects of assistance are reportedly inadequate to meet the needs of mine survivors.

Stockpile destruction: Some four million stockpiled antipersonnel mines were destroyed since the last Landmine Monitor report, bringing the total to more than 50 million in recent years, by States Parties and non-States Parties. Another twenty Mine Ban Treaty

7 States Parties have reported completing destruction of their stockpiles, destroying some 10.8 million mines. Kenya and Chile are the most recent to finish, just last month. Others include Brazil, Chad, Croatia, Djibouti, El Salvador, Italy, Japan, Jordan, FYR Macedonia, Moldova, Mozambique, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Portugal, Slovenia, Thailand, Turkmenistan, and Uganda. Another eleven States Parties are in the process of destroying their stockpiles.

Trade: There were no confirmed instances of antipersonnel mine transfers, as the de facto global ban on trade held tight. Global trade in antipersonnel mines has dwindled to a very low level of illicit trafficking and unacknowledged trade.

Production: Nepal for the first time admitted that it has produced antipersonnel mines, making it the first addition to the ranks of the producers since Landmine Monitor reporting started in 1999.

A total of 110 Landmine Monitor researchers in 90 countries systematically collected and analyzed information from a wide variety of sources for this comprehensive report. Their names are listed at the beginning of the report. We would like to thank fourteen States Parties—Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom-- as well as the European Commission, for funding the Landmine Monitor initiative this year. As always, we welcome comments, clarifications, and corrections from governments and others, in the spirit of dialogue and in the search for accurate and reliable information necessary to reach the goal of a mine-free world.

Intersessional Work Program

The intersessional work program has continued to be vitally important in ensuring progress in the work of the Mine Ban Treaty. We deeply appreciate the extensive role accorded to the ICBL, and believe that this informal, inclusive, and cooperative approach has been key to the success of the Mine Ban Treaty. We would especially like to commend the excellent work of the Implementation Support Unit during the past year, and thank the GICHD for all its contributions. The establishment of the Resource Mobilization Contact Group has been another important and innovative initiative to ensure that the Mine Ban Treaty is fully realized.

We will intervene in detail later this week regarding the matters before each of the four Standing Committees, but would like to make a few remarks today.

Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and Socio-Economic Reintegration Landmine survivors are still not receiving the assistance they are promised under Article 6.3 of the Mine Ban Treaty. While global funding for mine clearance has increased greatly, funding for survivor assistance has been stagnant--even though the number of survivors continues to grow in every region of the world. A particular problem is States Parties who say they “do not do victim assistance,” but instead insist they are helping landmine survivors by funding general, broad-based, mainstream development activities.

8 Yet these general activities may not reach people who need it the most. Donors must recognize that specific, explicit strategies and practices are needed to ensure that mine survivors and other people with disabilities are positively impacted. Short of that, it is unclear if the State Party is truly meeting its obligation to “provide assistance for the care and rehabilitation, and social and economic reintegration, of mine victims.”

Another key to improving survivor assistance would be for mine-affected States Parties to make specific, well-thought-out, well-documented requests for assistance. Although this has been called for many times in intersessional meetings, to our knowledge, only one State Party, Albania, has ever responded to this call with the detailed information on their plan of action and the funding required for its implementation.

Standing Committee on Mine Clearance, Mine Risk Education and Mine Action Technologies It is ever more clear that much greater increases in mine action funding, as well as higher cost-efficiency, will be needed to enable States Parties to meet their mine clearance deadlines and cope fully with the global landmine problem. To be successful, non- traditional donors and funding streams will have to be tapped. Mine-affected countries will need to utilize their national budgets, to integrate mine action into national development and poverty reduction strategies, and more generally, to assert national ownership of the problem and to take responsibility for meeting deadlines through thorough planning and prioritization, and identification of problems and progress. Mine action operators must also take responsibility for more efficient use of resources, and better priority setting in humanitarian mine action operations.

Standing Committee on Stockpile Destruction States Parties are to be commended for meeting their four-year deadlines for stockpile destruction. It is essential to the credibility of the Mine Ban Treaty that all States Parties meet this legal obligation. Thus, it is important that the cases of Turkmenistan, and those few States Parties that have failed to report formally having complied with their deadline, be dealt with expeditiously. States Parties must continue to track carefully the progress and problems other States may be having meeting their deadline, and offer assistance where needed.

Standing Committee on General Status and Operation of the Convention The ICBL has put a high priority on the need for States Parties to reach common understandings on interpretation and implementation of Articles 1, 2, and 3 at the First Review Conference. After five years of discussion on these issues, it is reasonable to expect States Parties to reach conclusions. The Mine Ban Treaty will be stronger if ambiguity is removed and State practice is consistent. Our energies can then be focused even more on implementation of other key aspects of the treaty. Another top priority for the ICBL continues to be progress regarding related to compliance and Article 8. It will be difficult to call the First Review Conference a success unless it is able to deal with all these matters. We will have much more to say on these issues and others facing this Standing Committee, such as implementation of Articles 7 and 9, later this week.

9 Conclusion

In closing, we must note that the challenges of the coming years are indeed daunting: the challenges of universalizing the Mine Ban Treaty; of ensuring deadlines for stockpile destruction and mine clearance are met; of ensuring the needs of mine survivors are better met; the challenge of firmly establishing the new international norm so that no new antipersonnel mines are laid and we move toward our goal of no new mine victims.

We can only meet the challenges if the treaty and the landmine issue continue to be given high priority by governments and NGOs, and if political will remains strong. We can best meet the challenges by maintaining and even intensifying the government-NGO partnership that has characterized the Ottawa Process and the intersessional work program. In the ICBL, we look forward to rising to the challenges, together with all of you.

Thank you.

10 Monitoring Progress in Victim Assistance: Analysis of the Victim Assistance Indicator Study Landmine Survivors Network for the ICBL Working Group on Victim Assistance 18 September 2003 Bangkok, Thailand

Over the past few years, monitoring progress on victim assistance has been a particularly complex challenge. Unlike mine clearance or stockpile destruction, it has been difficult to come up with hard numbers that quantify the situation faced by mine victims.

In an attempt to remedy this situation, my colleagues at Landmine Survivors Network and I, on behalf of the ICBL Working Group on Victim Assistance, have prepared a study that will hopefully paint a clearer picture of the status of assistance for victims of anti-personnel mines in 69 countries.

Although our research is a work in progress, we feel that we now have a better idea of the status of victim assistance.

Our main findings indicate five main points.

1. The quantity and quality of information we have on victim assistance has improved dramatically since the study was first conducted in 1999/2000. This is especially a great credit to the researchers and writers of the Landmine Monitor. Over time this report has become stronger and stronger, and will certainly become even better in the future.

2. Secondly, in the area of medical care and rehabilitation, 55 percent of the countries showed either no change or received lower scores over the course of the three years of the study.

3. Eighty-one (81) percent of mine-affected countries received low scores in social and economic reintegration services.

4. All mine-affected regions show similar patterns of deficiencies in victim assistance.

5. Finally, and more generally, assistance for mine victims does not seem to be improving.

This study consists of six indicators, which were established at a conference near Ottawa in 1998. The first year of this study (1999/2000) was conducted for internal use by the government of Canada. The subsequent versions, 2002 and 2003 use the Canadian study as a baseline by which to measure changes in victim assistance. The six indicators measure:

1. The availability of information on victims’ demographics; 2. the existence of a national disability coordination mechanism; 3. the existence of medical care and physical rehabilitation; 4. the existence of social and economic reintegration programs and services; 5. the existence of laws and policies that protect mine victims; 6. the existence of a disability community advocacy network.

The information used in this study comes from each country’s report in the Landmine Monitor. When available, we also included mine-affected States Parties 2003 reports to the Intersessional Standing Committee on Victim Assistance.

Each indicator was assigned four color-coded rankings along with a ranking for insufficient information. In each case, green signifies that programs are functioning successfully or are probably not required. Yellow indicates that programs exist but experience shortcomings. Orange indicates that programs and policies are in their infancy, and red indicates that programs are virtually non-existent.

Each country examined has a color-coded matrix, which shows the grades for the indicators over the three years for which the study was done. In viewing these matrices collectively and analyzing them using statistical computer software, it is apparent that the situation has not changed much over the past five years. There is still a general shortfall in the area of victim assistance.

As my time is short this morning, I can only hope that I have peeked your interest with this presentation. Because I do not have time to speak of countries individually, my colleagues and I have prepared both written and electronic versions of our report. Additionally, this study will be on the ICBL website and, hopefully, the GICHD website. I hope you will look up your country, or the countries in which you may be involved in victim assistance.

As I stated earlier, the information available on victim assistance has improved dramatically over the past few years. In spite of this improvement, we are not yet where we should be. We still have many gaps in information that need to be filled. Government reporting is critical to establishing a clear view of victim assistance. After viewing the results of this study, if you have any information that may help us fill a gap or grade more accurately, we would greatly appreciate your input.

Thank you.

Presentation of the work of Raising the Voices participants Asia Cycle Bangkok, September 2003

Om Prakash Bhadrecha & Santa Singh, India • Organized 2000 people (136 landmine survivors) to petition state govt. for compensation for families suffering from landmines laid along India-Pakistan border • Brought team of Jaipur prosthetists from 500km away to do 3-day prosthetics production marathon - 136 limbs fitted • Organized a seminar during which participants took an oath to work for an Indian ban on landmines

Chim Kong & Sim Sameth, Cambodia • Conducted 2 two-part workshops for landmine survivors on the campaign to ban landmines and on human rights and people with disabilities

Thawee Kemprapha, Thailand • Trained 70 people with disabilities to access government services, loan programs, and animal bank

Choosak Sae Lee, Thailand • Made opening speech at Thailand stockpile destruction and participated in survivor bicycle rally

Wiboonrat Chanchoo, Thailand Prakaikul Thepnork, Thailand • Visits survivors in her district to help them set up savings groups, small businesses, and teach survivors about their rights.

Hari Jung Shah, Nepal • Formed group called “Our Voices” to advocate for Mine Ban Convention and rights of landmine survivors as well as other victims of war

Bhagavati Gautam, Nepal • Provides peer support to other survivors, does mine risk education in her village, met with Maoist leaders to try to convince them not to use landmines. Participated in ICBL mission to Nepal

Bounvien Luangnot, Laos • Apprises national disability council on MBT issues, advocates within government for rights of landmine survivors and people with disabilities, participated in nationwide survey of youth landmine survivors

Singkham Takounphak, Laos • Conducts trainings on human rights for people with disabilities, disseminated human rights documents to Depts. of Labour and Social Welfare, producing radio broadcasts to reach landmine survivors and people with disabilities in rural areas

Zohra Qudsia, Afghanistan • Currently a full-time student also working part time for International Committee of the Red Cross in Kabul. Plans to study international law and pursue advocacy for landmine survivors and people with disabilities

Omara Khan, Afghanistan • Runs 2 rehab. centers in Jalalabad and Kabul, organizes human rights and advocacy training for landmine survivors and other people with disabilities, produces magazine addressing issues of discrimination against people with disabilities

Prasanna Kuruppu, Sri Lanka • Apprises airforce combat casualties group of MBT developments, advocates for landmine survivors and people with disabilities at government level, will be conducting disability and human rights awareness-raising activities programs for Motivation

Kamala Sivasithamparam, Sri Lanka • Organised meeting of 97 landmine survivors from Jaffna District with human rights, advocacy and MBT trainings. Led to establishment of organizations of landmine survivors in district sections to advocate for mine clearance and rights of landmine survivors

Hazrat Ullah & Bakht Zada, Pakistan • Volunteer with the Pakistan Campaign to Ban Landmines and the Community Motivation and Development Organization, promoting the Mine Ban Convention and the rights of landmine survivors. 5MSP is their first RV experience – welcome!

Raising the Voices thanks the governments of Canada & Norway for their continued support Raising the Voices 2004

• 2004 cycle will include participants from:

– Middle East, – North Africa, – the Caucasus, and – Central Asia

• For applications and more information, contact Becky Jordan at LSN: [email protected] Tel: (202) 464 0007 Fax: (202) 464 0011

Update on the UN Ad Hoc Committee Meeting on Development of a Convention to Protect and Promote the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities

On December 19 2001, the UN General Assembly adopted by consensus a resolution calling for the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee to consider proposals for a “comprehensive and integral international convention to protect and promote the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities.” The first meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee took place in New York at the UN Headquarters from July 29 – August 9, 2002. The second meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee was held in June 16 – 27, 2003, again at UN headquarters in New York.

During this second session of the Ad Hoc Committee, which was very well attended by UN Member States and NGOs, the Committee decided to establish a Working Group mandated to prepare and present a draft text which will be the basis for negotiation by Member States and Observers at the next Ad Hoc Committee Meeting in May/June 2004. The Working Group comprises twenty-seven governmental representatives designated by regional groups, twelve representatives of non-governmental organizations and a representative from national human rights institutions. The Working Group will meet at UN Headquarters I New York, January 5-16, 2004.

This convention that seeks to promote the human rights of people with disabilities clearly intersects with and compliments the MBT states parties’ obligations in Article 6.3 regarding victim assistance. By clarifying the human rights framework for people with disabilities, this new convention will provide a guide to MBT states parties engaged in victim assistance.

Some MBT sates parties are already involved in the development of the disability convention. For example, Ecuador, Mexico, the Philippines and our host Thailand are active leaders in this process and will participate as members of the Working Group in January. Governmental delegates to the Mine Ban Treaty process should collaborate with their counterparts assigned to participate in the Disability Convention process to communicate their support for a comprehensive disability convention and ensure that the issues critical to victim assistance are addressed in the convention.

For more information on the relationship between the new convention and victim assistance, please refer to the document “Victim Assistance and the Human Rights of Persons with Disabilities” copies of which are available by the door.

Thank you.

Margaret Arach ICBL Co-Chair WGVA

FIFTH MEETING OF STATES PARTIES

INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS ON INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND ASSISTANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 6

Victim Assistance and Socio-Economic Reintegration

LANDMINE VICTIM ASSISTANCE IN SOUTH EAST EUROPE

Presented by

Sheree Bailey Handicap International Belgium [Landmine Monitor Victim Assistance Research Coordinator] E-mail: [email protected]

18 September 2003, Bangkok

In December 2002, Handicap International Belgium, in cooperation with the

Landmine Monitor research network, began a study in South East Europe to ascertain whether facilities and services were accessible, and had the capacity, to comprehensively address the needs of landmine victims in the region. Funding to conduct the study was provided by Canada and the US State Department through the

International Trust Fund for Demining and Mine Victims Assistance (ITF).

While the focus was on landmine victims, the study looked at facilities and services provided by both government and non government agencies that assisted not only mine casualties but all persons with disabilities. Mine survivors and other individuals with a disability were also consulted.

Through country-specific research in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Serbia and Montenegro and the province of Kosovo, existing victim assistance capacities were documented. The

Study focused on the key components of landmine victim assistance and priority 2 issues as identified by actors in the field and the Standing Committee on Victim

Assistance and Socio-Economic Reintegration: -

¾ Landmine Casualties and Data Collection ¾ Emergency and Continuing Medical Care ¾ Physical Rehabilitation (including prosthetics/orthotics) ¾ Psycho-social Support ¾ Vocational Training and Economic Reintegration ¾ Capacity Building ¾ Disability policy and practice ¾ Coordination and Planning

To keep this presentation brief, I will only make generalisations from the detailed information available in the study. However, it is important to note that each country is at a different stage in their post-conflict development and some of the problems highlighted could be more critical in one country than another. It can also be said that the problems experienced in this region are not dissimilar to those of other mine- affected countries struggling to meet the needs of mine survivors within their populations.

New mine casualties continue to be reported across the region. Although a mechanism for mine casualty data collection has been implemented in each country, the exact number of people killed or injured, and the number of mine survivors in the refugee population, is not known. However, based on available data, it is known that landmine survivors number in the thousands.

Reported Mine/UXO Casualties Total Killed Survivors Unknown Albania 241 20 221 Bosnia and Herzegovina 4,801 928 3,873 Croatia 1,848 414 1,373 61 FYR Macedonia 220 35 185 Serbia and Montenegro 142 30 57 55 Province of Kosovo 472 100 372 Total 7,724 1,527 6,081 116

In the past, most countries reportedly had well-developed health care infrastructures. However, years of armed conflict, sanctions and difficult socio- 3 economic conditions have impacted on the quality of care available. At the governmental level, the provision of health care facilities for mine survivors is included within general public health budgets. It is an unfortunate fact that in countries with limited public health resources, available funds tend to be directed towards primary health care with little left over for specialized care.

However, it is encouraging to note that some form of coordination and planning is underway in each country in study, either specifically related to mine victims or as part of a wider strategy on health care or disability issues. While progress is being made in the Region, there is still much work to be done. Several key issues were identified that limit the provision of adequate and appropriate assistance for the growing number of mine survivors in the region.

• Access to appropriate and affordable health care and rehabilitation facilities.

Many mine survivors must travel long distances to reach health care or

rehabilitation facilities. Another concern expressed was that because of high

levels of poverty in the region, mine survivors often do not have the resources to

travel to the hospital, to buy medicines, or to cover the cost of prostheses.

• Improving and upgrading health and rehabilitation facilities. Although much

progress has been made in this area, many facilities continue to need renovation

and refurbishment. The most common concern raised was the lack of resources

available to obtain equipment and supplies, or to repair the physical

infrastructure. In some areas, hospitals still do not have electricity for 24 hours a

day or equipment for trauma patients.

• Creating opportunities for economic reintegration. Many mine survivors

regard the lack of opportunities for economic reintegration as their main concern.

Nevertheless, there appears to be little progress in the area of vocational training, 4

the creation of employment opportunities, or income generation projects,

probably due to high unemployment rates in the general population.

• Capacity building and training of health care professionals. Many facilities

lack prosthetic technicians and physiotherapists, and others, trained to

international standards. Though some progress is being made in the training of

rehabilitation specialists, more needs to be done. Quality of care and

sustainability of services is more likely to be achieved with well-trained

practitioners. Capacity building within local NGOs providing psycho-social

support would also have a positive impact on the services provided.

• Establishing effective social welfare systems and legislation to protect the

rights of all persons with disabilities, including mine victims. Although

legislation to protect the rights of persons with disabilities exists in each country,

it would appear that there are insufficient resources to fully implement the

provisions of the legislation due to the economic situation. Pensions are

reportedly inadequate to maintain a reasonable standard of living.

• Sufficient resources to support facilities and programs. Many donors appear

to have lost interest in the region and some programs that could have assisted

mine survivors have closed due to the absence of funding. According to the ITF

2002 annual report, “Mine Victim Assistance programs are still grossly under-

funded.” Since 1998, the ITF has provided over $5 million for victim assistance

programs in South East Europe. Although this is commendable, the ITF has

never been able to reach its target of 15 percent of total mine action funding

allocated to victim assistance. In fact, the percentage has been declining since

1999 from 8.4 percent to a new low of 4.4 percent in 2002. and finally, 5

• Raise awareness on the rights and needs of persons with disabilities. More

attention should be given to raising awareness at both the governmental and

community level on the rights and needs of people with a disability, in an effort

to reduce the barriers faced in their social and economic reintegration.

Landmine survivors are not a group separate from other war victims or persons with disabilities, and assistance programs should be developed within the framework of disability in general. The government has principal responsibility for providing assistance as part of their country’s overall public health and social services system; however, due to poor economic conditions in the region international assistance continues to be needed to fulfil these obligations.

The information obtained for the study was as comprehensive as possible; however, it is not exhaustive and additional information would be welcomed. The study should be viewed as a starting point that will encourage relevant actors, including government authorities, donors, and local and international program implementers, to share information, to make informed decisions on where to direct resources, or to develop new initiatives, that will promote the complete care, rehabilitation and reintegration of landmine survivors. Adequate and appropriate assistance will benefit not only mine survivors but all persons with disability in the region. STATEMENT OF HANDICAP INTERNATIONAL TO THE FIFTTH MEETING OF STATES PARTIES

Bangkok, Thailand – 15-19 September 2003

Regional Victim Assistance in Southeast Asia Project

May I offer my thanks for this opportunity to address the meeting of States Parties to the Convention.

I have been invited to sum up on behalf of Handicap International an experiment on a regional approach to victim assistance with the countries of Southeast Asia.

In November 2001 representatives from Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia and Myanmar, joined by national and international non-governmental organizations, international organizations, and representatives of donor countries, met in Bangkok for the first-ever regional conference on victim assistance, opened by Her Royal Highness Princess Galyanai Vadhana Krom Luang Naradhiwas Rajanagarinda. This regional project was initiated in collaboration with the Swiss development cooperation, and supported by Thailand, Norway, Germany and France.

The Bangkok conference represented the end-point of the first, or preparatory, phase of the project. Behind it lay months of preparation, beginning in February 2001 with the preparation of a series of national workshops on victim assistance, involving over 400 participants drawn from all areas of civil society and government, including many who were themselves victims. These national workshops and the regional conference were the opportunity for technical actors in all areas of victim assistance to exchange views and to learn from each other's experience.

From the conference came a shared goal to enhance national capacity in all aspects of victim assistance, by developing nationally owned implementation plans for victim assistance within an integrated public health approach supported by effective institutional policies.

The objectives of the project, as agreed at the regional conference, were: • To promote within each participating country an integrated comprehensive approach to victim assistance. • To facilitate the exchange of information and encourage the search for solutions and methodologies at national level. • To promote advocacy for better implementation of the Ottawa Convention. • To promote regional exchanges among actors of governments and civil society.

It was also agreed that certain strategic principles should underlie the process, namely: • Involvement of stakeholders to guarantee follow-up and action. • Participation by survivors and mine-affected persons and the associations and groups representing them. • A bottom-up approach based on thematic issues from the inputs of national actors and concerned participants. • A partnership approach involving governments, non-governmental organizations, survivors and mine-affected people.

To assist in this process, Handicap International agreed to provide a victim assistance coordinator for the region, who would be able to work with national focal point bodies and other actors to assist in the implementation of the agreed strategy.

This implementation phase of the project began in mid-2002, based on the principles developed in the first phase, namely: Transfer of ownership. Because the project has aimed to strengthen national capacity to plan for victim needs, the emphasis has been on enhancing the skills and self-sufficiency of national actors, particularly of national focal points for victim assistance. This has been especially true while ensuring that national plans of action for victim needs are the result of the initiative and efforts of national actors. Facilitation not implementation. The role of the coordinator engaged by Handicap International has been to facilitate the activities of the national focal point organizations, not to supplement them. Networking. The project has also emphasized the development of networks throughout the region, in order to ensure that resources and ideas developed in one area can be shared throughout the region. Reporting. Regular reports on the progress of the project have been made to the Working Group on Landmine Victim assistance through the intersessional process of the Ottawa Convention.

We have now completed the second, or implementation, phase of the project. In this phase the following results have been achieved in the area of developing national plans of action: • Focal point organizations were assisted to hold workshops and other meetings to refine the outcomes of the earlier workshops. In Laos, for example, an additional national workshop on victim assistance was held in mid-2002, and a subsequent national meeting on the development of a national plan for victim assistance. Similar meetings and seminars have been held in Cambodia and Thailand. • Models for action have been drawn up in Thailand, Laos and Cambodia. The form of these models varies from country to country, depending on national needs and capacities. In Thailand, it takes the form of an integrated model for comprehensive mine victim assistance, presented at a national seminar in October 2002. In Laos, national actors, under the leadership of the Lao Disabled Peoples Association, have produced a comprehensive description of the services available to mine victims in the country. In Cambodia, the national focal point organization, the Disability Action Council, has coordinated the development of a comprehensive analytical overview of mine victim needs and services.

At the same time as models for action were being developed, work was proceeding on developing national and regional networks for the exchange of technical information. A great deal of activity in this area already exists, of course – in the months around today's meeting, for example, there are or will be regional conferences and workshops on subjects as diverse as disability databases, employment for the disabled, and community based rehabilitation. But what has been most interesting as an outcome of this project has been the scope for what might be called micro-meetings, small-scale exchanges of technical actors involved in a common field. To illustrate what this means in practical terms, the project recently supported the visit by a delegation of health officials from Vietnam's Quang Tri province to Battambang Province, Cambodia, where they were able to observe a project delivering village-level first aid services to mine victims. Quang Tri itself has a well-established program for the delivery of integrated services to mine victims, especially in the field of provision of prosthetics and socioeconomic reintegration. As a result of this visit, which cost less than $5,000, a link has been established which can save lives and build futures in both countries.

There is scope for many projects with a similar orientation – in the field of data collection, for example, where Cambodia's CMVIS program is well developed, or in the integration of handicapped children into mainstream schools, where Laos is something of a regional leader. Establishing these networks need not cost much money, yet can bring long-lasting results. But the active commitment of national governments is key in achieving such projects.

I would like to conclude by offering my thanks once more for this opportunity to address this meeting, but before I do so, I would like to inform you all that this afternoon, after this session closes at 5 p.m., Handicap International and ICBL will host an informal meeting in Meeting Room A where you we will be able to discuss practical issues relating to regional and more general aspects of mine victim assistance.

Thank you.

Report from the Standing Committee on Victim Assistance at the 5th Meeting of States Parties held in Bangkok, Thailand Thursday 18th September 2003

During the opening ceremony of the 5th Meeting of States Parties, Princess Astrid of Belgium in her speech mentioned that Victim Assistance is the most crucial of the Mine Ban Convention and urged states parties to take up this vital issue as part of national planning. Ambassador Lint further reiterated that states are responsible for provision of assistance to landmine victims and a platform is availed for them to raise their voices.

The Informal Consultations on VA, rescheduled to late Thursday morning and Thursday afternoon due to unfinished business from the previous day of the MSP. A total of 15 States Parties and 1 signatory (Sudan) plus Unicef (speaking for UNICEF and UNMAS), the ICRC, HI-France, HI-Belgium, and the ICBL spoke. The states parties that spoke were: Albania, Australia, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Japan, Mexico, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Peru, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden and Thailand.

The ICBL WGVA presented an overview of the status of victim assistance on a global scale. The overview was based on a study conducted by LSN in which the information from three years of Landmine Monitor reports was used to grade 69 mine-affected countries along six victim assistance indicators. The main findings of this study provide a sadly negative picture of VA-that VA has not improved in the five years since the Mine Ban Treaty entered into force. However, some positive changes were registered in information gathering.

From the UN, UNICEF gave assurance of its commitment to the care and rehabilitation of landmine survivors and collaboration with other VA implementers. In line with this, UNICEF is actively involved in promoting a new international convention on the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities and called on States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty to give the new convention process their full support.

Handicap International’s Phillip Coggan made a presentation on the VA SE Asian regional project. Sheree Bailey reported on a study of victim assistance initiatives in South East Europe and highlighted key issues for the region: access to affordable health care, improvement in existing services and facilities, capacity building, awareness raising and establishment of effective welfare systems. In response, two states in the region (Albania and Croatia) indicated that the findings of the report would be used to develop VA projects.

Generally states parties acknowledged the gap in victim assistance and decrease in number of new victims but also that affected states are economically disadvantaged and that victim assistance still represents amajor humanitarian challenge. Some countries still registered new victims as reported the the LM Report 2003. Canada reaffirmed its commitment to victim assistance stating that VA is still a key focus of Canada’s support in mine action.

The ICRC emphasized that VA is the most challenging field in mine action and that it had created a special fund for disabled particularly to cater for needs of people disabled as a result of war.

Margaret Arach, co-chair of the WGVA, gave an update on the recent UN Ad Hoc Committee Meeting on development of a new international Convention to Protect and Promote the Rights of Persons with Disabilities that took place in New York in June 2003. The purpose of the update was to encourage statesparties to take interest and give support to the convention as it clearly links with article 6.3 of the MBC.

The incoming co-chair for the SC-VA from Australia mentioned that VA is a difficult issue without easy solutions but encouraged States Parties to continue to report on their problems, plans, progress, and priorities for victim assistance in their respective countries. Raising the Voices was lauded as an excellent initiative and States Parties were urged to make use of the program’s graduates as resource persons. The second incoming co-rapporteur, Croatia, spoke about use of appropriate language, as well as asking that a victim assistance contact group be established.

The presence of many landmine survivors from Asia gave meaning to the meeting, and reinforced the point that more effort is needed to make lives of survivors bearable.

Informal Consultations on Mine Clearance, Mine Risk Education and Related Technologies of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction. Bangkok, 15 - 19 September 2003

Intervention, by Co-Chairs Sara Sekkenes - NPA and Hakimi Mohammad Shobab – MDC, on behalf of the Mine Action Working Group - MAWG of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines - ICBL.

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Please let me congratulate State Parties on remarkable achievements and progress in striving to meet obligations of the Convention as regards to Article 5. Among positive findings we can extract from the Landmine Monitor Report 2003 that;

- An increased number of countries are reporting of organised mine clearance programs, - Systems and structures for coordination of mine action were established in a number of countries, - More land has been cleared in terms of sqmtrs, and has been handed over to civil society for utilisation in the pursue and process of development and normalisation of life and livelihood in mine affected areas, - Increased number of countries reporting on the inclusion and improved integration of mine action into development and poverty reduction strategy plans -PRSP’s, although the actual operationalisation of these integration efforts still remains to be implemented in many countries and regions, - We note a 30 percent increase of funding for mine action in comparison to last year however it should also be noted that 75 percent of this increase originates from only two donors, Japan and the European Commission, and over two thirds of the increase went to one single recipient country, i.e. Afghanistan

All this is good, it is more than good. However, challenges remain and as reported at previous occasion in relation to current progress, we are deeply concerned about findings noting the apparent risk that a number of countries will have difficulties in meeting deadlines for mine clearance, a deadline that 14 State Parties reach in March 2009, only some 6 ½ years ahead.

A relation between mine action activities and the respective State Party’s Article 5 deadlines must be emphasised and articulated when planning and coordinating mine clearance operations clarifying the sequence, progress and devolution of activities in order to meet deadlines.

Article 5 of the Mine Ban Treaty requires “destruction of all anti personnel mines in mined areas…”. The ICBL and many others have for years used the term mine free to describe the central goal of eradication of antipersonnel landmines. Increasingly, other terms are being used to describe the objective such as mine safe, risk free and impact free. In the coming years these terms need to be discussed more thoroughly and there needs to be a better definition of precisely what the objective means as the international community continues to grapple with the solution to the landmine problem. Some State Parties are already using terms other than mine free and indicating difficulties meeting the 10-year deadline even with this lesser standard.

Two evident examples of State Parties elaborating on this development are Bosnia and Herzegovina and Mozambique. Bosnia stating a mile stone to be free of the threat of landmines and UXO by 2010, their Article 5 deadline coming up in 20091. And Mozambique’s mine action plan adopted in 2001 declares the goal of becoming a mine impact free country within 10 years, also them with a deadline in 2009.

This approach strongly implies the need for increased transparency and improved priority setting mechanism and a greater focus on post-clearance land use, increasing the cost efficiency as well as effectiveness of mine action and mine clearance operations. This process obviously facilitated by the 4P approach introduced by the Implementation Support Unit requesting the reporting on plans, priorities, progress and problems to reach the set goal.

Another concern is the evident lack of comprehension of the Convention and its contents at lower administrative levels in mine affected countries. There is a clear need for greater education about the appropriate implementation of the Convention and a realistic integration of the implications of the Convention among local and provincial authorities such as police stations, administrations and municipality centres as well as among mine action operators and other humanitarian organisations. This would significantly improve the successful implementation of the Convention both within mine action as well as in mine victim assistance, increase accountability and the overall understanding for the total eradication of the landmine problem.

These somewhat theoretically expressed concerns are visualised through examples from Afghanistan in which my Co-Chair Hakimi elaborates on Afghan responses to this matter and can be found in the handout version of this document.

1 BHMAC defines the objectives as the survey, clearance and release to the community of all priority 1 land, and marking of all priority 2 land. (Hakimi’s expls)

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I also congratulate State parties on their achievements in different aspects of the Ottawa convention implementation. As Sara mentioned we are deeply concerned about findings noting the apparent risk that a number of countries will have difficulties in meeting deadlines for mine clearance. But Afghanistan in general and the Mine Action in particular got very good experiences during last years and I would like to share Afghanistan experiences regarding the efforts to meet deadlines with those state parties which have concern in this regard.

As soon as Afghanistan ratified the convention and submitted the instrument, the Afghan government and Mine Action Program for Afghanistan drafted the 10 years Strategic plan which is based upon clearance, awareness and victim support prioritization through social-economic impact factors. For the implementation and sustainability of this strategy Team Approach, Strong Coordination Mechanism, Governmental Commitment and Coordination, Donor Balance of Multi-Year Humanitarian and Developmental Mine Action Funding, Cost Effectiveness, Transparency and accountability have been fully included.

Regarding the 2nd concern which is the lack of comprehension of the convention and its contents at lower administrative and group levels in mine affected countries,

We the Mine Action Program Components, means all demining agencies and victim assistance organizations together with the Government of Afghanistan, Mine Action Center For Afghanistan and Afghan CBL conduct joint ventures to pass the messages of the convention to both the lower administrative level in different part of the country as well as to the groups through the following activities which has assisted us in successful implementation of the convention .

1- Lobbying with the government in the provinces and districts levels 2- Volunteers communication program for supporting the campaign 4- Females workshop on banning landmines 5- Afghan Mine Action and Awareness Month (AMAAM) 6- Mine Victims Stories Book 7- Mine victim’s survivor’s workshop 8- Brochure in local languages 9- Notebooks, Marked by convention messages for the schools 10- Banners/ Metal boards in different places of the cities 11- Regular Publication and distribution of CBL News Bulletin 12- Printing of Calendars 13- Radio / T.V Programs 14- Holding of Press Conferences 15-Campaigners Participation in different National Events 16-Collection of Petitions in support of a total ban on landmines 17-Letter Campaign

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Because of our joint effort in Afghanistan we got the following results so far 1. Assessment, Planning and destruction of stock piles has been started, 2. Justice ministry authorities are working on national legislations, 3. Article 7 report was submitted, 4. And the Mine ActionaActivities continues based on the national strategic plan.

This was our experiences in Afghanistan which has assisted us to achieve our goal and objectives in the last year and hopefully meet the deadline on time and thank you for your attention.

Statement by the ICBL Mine Risk Education Sub-Working Group for the Fifth Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty, Bangkok, 18 September 2003

A number of positive trends continue to be reported in the field of mine risk education (MRE): - Landmine Monitor (LM) recorded significant MRE programs in 36 countries, including 23 States Parties (SP) and 10 non SP; new programs were recorded in 10 countries and areas, four of which are SP to the MBT. In addition, basic or limited MRE activities were recorded in 21 countries. - At least 4.8 million people took part in MRE sessions worldwide in 2002; millions more received MRE through radio and television, as well as through short briefings. - An increasing number of MRE operators report surveys, assessments, as well as external evaluations of their projects, generally leading to an increased quality of MRE in the field. - At least 24 mine-affected SP mentioned MRE in their Article 7 Reports, under Form I, while a growing number of mine-affected SP reported on MRE following the “4 Ps” approach.

Despite these positive trends, no MRE activities were recorded in 25 mine affected countries (11 SP and 14 non SP). More specifically, a pressing need for MRE, or increased MRE, was apparent in Angola, Burma, Burundi, Chad, Georgia, India, Iran, Nepal and Somalia.

Future challenges can be summarized in the four following questions: 1. How to further strengthen ownership of MRE programs by mine-affected communities while complying with the international standards? 2. How to involve people and communities who undertake high risk activities such as village demining in mine action? 3. How to get the best out of the cooperation between traditional mine action operators and MRE operators? 4. How to respond to MRE needs in mine-affected countries where no MRE programs exist yet?

Thank you. Interventions by Stephen Goose, Head of Delegation, International Campaign to Ban Landmines

To the Fifth Meeting of States Parties to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty Bangkok, Thailand 15-19 September 2003

On Articles 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, Compliance, and Stockpile Destruction

[Note to the reader: The ICBL made more detailed interventions on these matters at the May 2003 intersessional meetings, which are available on the website of the Geneva International Center for Humanitarian Demining].

Article 1 (17 September 2003)

We thank the co-chairs for stressing the importance that the ICBL attaches to this issue and for re-stating our position. The ICBL has for many years raised concerns about the issue of joint military operations with non-State Parties that may use antipersonnel mines, and the need for a common understanding of the Mine Ban Treaty’s Article 1 prohibition on assistance with any banned act. We have encouraged States Parties to share their views on Article 1 and their interpretation of “assist.” The treaty will be stronger if States Parties are consistent in their views of what acts are or are not prohibited. More than thirty States Parties have made statements about Article 1, joint operations and assist, though not many have been detailed. Eleven new statements are recorded in this year’s Landmine Monitor Report 2003. In reviewing all those statements, and from discussions with various States Parties, we believe that there is an emerging common view about what States Parties should NOT do when engaged in a joint military operation with a non-State Party. The following list should be considered a minimum of things that could be agreed upon, not a comprehensive list of what is or is not prohibited; it certainly does not represent the broadest possible interpretation of “assist”: • No participation in planning for possible use of antipersonnel mines; • No participation in training activities involving use of antipersonnel mines; • Reject Rules of Engagement permitting use of antipersonnel mines; • Do not agree to operational plans authorizing use of antipersonnel mines by a combined force; • Reject orders to use antipersonnel mines; • Do not request use of antipersonnel mines by others if you are in command of a combined force; • Do not seek to gain direct military benefit from the use of antipersonnel mines by others; • No assistance in laying, transporting, or providing security for stocks of antipersonnel mines.

We strongly encourage States Parties to continue discussions on these matters, with a view to reaching a common understanding by the Review Conference.

Article 2 (17 September 2003)

We made two lengthy interventions on these matters during the intersessional meetings in May, so we will not repeat ourselves here today. But we would like to associate the ICBL with every element of the excellent intervention by the ICRC. With regard to the intervention made by Germany, we welcome the work on antivehicle mines in any forum, including the CCW – especially technical work aimed at identifying the most dangerous sensitive fuzes and most dangerous antihandling devices, those that pose the gravest hazard to civilians. But it should be recognized that any work in the CCW context will have implications for the Mine Ban Treaty. Moreover, work in the CCW should not preclude discussions in the Mine Ban Treaty context regarding what is already covered in the treaty. For the 59 countries that are party to both the Mine Ban Treaty and CCW Amended Protocol II, antivehicle mines with sensitive fuzes that explode from the presence, proximity or contact of a person are already prohibited by the Mine Ban Treaty. There should be clear recognition of this; it should not be controversial. At a minimum, by the time of the 2004 Review Conference, States Parties should reach a common understanding that antivehicle mines with sensitive fuzes such as tripwires, breakwires, tilt rod fuzes and low pressure fuzes are prohibited under the Mine Ban Treaty. There should also be agreement that antivehicle mines with overly sensitive antihandling devices that explode from the unintentional act of a person are prohibited. Technical work should be done that helps identify what those overly sensitive antihandling devices are, and what best practices regarding antihandling devices might be.

Article 3 (18 September 2003)

We thank the co-chairs for describing the ICBL position so thoroughly in their overview of this issue, but our views are simply a reflection of the Oslo negotiations and what States Parties have repeatedly stated in the years since. This is not so much an “ICBL position” as a “States Parties position.” The ICBL believes that we are at the point of being able to easily reach a common understanding before the 2004 Review Conference on mines retained under Article 3, that “the minimum number absolutely necessary” should be in the hundreds or thousands, but not in the tens of thousands. In terms of State practice, the only exception to this is Turkmenistan. Turkmenistan’s reported decision to retain 69,200 mines for training purposes is of grave concern and States Parties must deal with this urgently. We would like to provide some relevant statistics. Sixty-two States Parties have indicated they will retain antipersonnel mines under Article 3. Of these, five intend to keep 15,000 mines or more: Turkmenistan, Brazil (16,545), Sweden (16,015), Algeria (15,030), and Bangladesh (15,000). We call upon these five States Parties to explain clearly why they require so many more mines for training and development purposes than other States Parties. Only six more States Parties intend to keep more than 5,000 antipersonnel mines. This means that greater than 80 percent of States Parties are retaining 5,000 or less antipersonnel mines for permitted purposes. Thirty-four intend to keep between 1,000 and 5,000 mines. Another 17 are retaining less than 1,000 mines A total of 55 States Parties have chosen not to retain any antipersonnel mines. Joining this category in the past year are Afghanistan, Chad, Guinea-Bissau and Qatar. One encouraging trend is the significant number of States Parties that have reduced the number of mines retained from the high levels originally proposed. Australia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Ecuador, Peru, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Thailand have taken this step in previous years. In the past year, Chile reduced the number of mines retained from 28,647 to 6,245; Italy reduced from a ceiling of 8,000 mines retained to 811; Mauritania reduced from 5,728 to 843; the United Kingdom reduced from 4,949 to 1,783; Uganda reportedly reduced from 2,400 to 1,764. Zambia has announced it will reduce its number of mines retained. Against the trend of reducing the numbers of mines retained, a handful of countries have actually increased their holdings. FYR Macedonia is now retaining 4,000 antipersonnel mines, a vastly greater amount than the 50 originally declared. Venezuela, in modifying the number of mines in its stockpile, also increased the number of mines retained from 2,214 to 4,614. Previously undeclared antipersonnel mines held by a private defense manufacturer in Sweden have necessitated an increase in mines retained from 13,948 to 16,015. The ICBL believes that it is important to have complete transparency on mines retained for training and strongly supports the recommendation of the Standing Committee on General Status and Operation of the Convention that States Parties should in their Article 7 reports “include information on the intended purpose and actual use” of retained mines. Finally, the ICBL continues to question the need for live mines for training and calls on States Parties to continue to evaluate the necessity for this exception. Several States Parties also echoed this view in interventions made at the intersessional Standing Committee meetings, including Afghanistan, Austria, New Zealand, and Norway.

Article 7 (18 September 2003)

The ICBL congratulates States Parties for the great effort that has been put into meeting Article 7 reporting deadlines. We especially commend the work of the Contact Group. As Ambassador Lint has reported, the 90 percent compliance rate for initial reports is excellent. The fact that the number of late initial Article 7 reports has been reduced to 14 is very good news. We should set the goal of having all of them submitted by the Review Conference. Some of the 14 are very late (due as long ago as 1999). Some are mine-affected states that would benefit from sharing detailed Article 7 information with other States Parties. For four of the States Parties late in submitting, their stockpile destruction deadline has passed, so we have no official information about whether the deadline has been met. We very much welcome the voluntary Article 7 reports prepared by signatories Latvia and Poland, and Lithuania before them. We view these reports as a strong indicator of commitment on their part to the Mine Ban Treaty, and to the complete eradication of antipersonnel mines. We encourage other signatories and non-States Parties to follow this example, particularly those who have supported the annual pro-ban UN General Assembly resolutions. The ICBL would like to take this opportunity to remind States Parties of the important types of voluntary reporting under Article 7 we have promoted: utilize voluntary Form J for reporting on victim assistance matters; report on intended purposes and actual uses of mines retained under Article 3 (about fifteen nations have done so to date); report on Claymore mines and steps taken to ensure they are used in command detonated mode only (Sweden is a good example of this); and report on foreign stockpiles of antipersonnel mines (Tajikistan’s initial Article 7 report is a good model for this).

Dialogue on Compliance (18 September 2003)

We are very disappointed that the compliance discussion has languished over the past year. The ICBL’s views are well-known: States Parties should put a high priority on operationalizing Article 8 and on finding a new mechanism or a new way of ensuring a more coordinated, systematic and effective response to compliance concerns. We support France in its call for the latter. We understand and support the view expressed by Canada that Article 9 on national implementation measures is vital to ensuring compliance with the Mine Ban Treaty. For years we have called for and tried to facilitate the adoption of strong national legislation with penal sanctions by all States Parties. But this cannot substitute for Article 8 and does not obviate the need for Article 8. If a State Party willfully violates the Convention, then Article 9 is useless. The ICBL does not understand why it is seemingly controversial to take the prudent steps of being prepared to use Article 8 in case of need. States Parties should go about operationalizing Article 8, while at the same time, of course, hoping that it will never be invoked. At a minimum, States Parties should ask the United Nations to take appropriate steps to enable it to fulfill the role accorded it in Article 8. This should be done by the time of the 2004 Review Conference.

Matters Pertaining to Compliance Concerns

We are somewhat embarrassed to take the floor again, but delegations seem to rely on the ICBL and Landmine Monitor to lead this part of the discussion, so we feel obligated. Compliance concerns are not theoretical. Landmine Monitor receives allegations of use of antipersonnel mines by States Parties every year. Happily, none have been definitively confirmed, though some have been quite serious. Indeed, at each Meeting of States Parties, the ICBL has raised a serious compliance concern. This year, it is Turkmenistan and its decision to retain 69,200 mines for training. This may be a violation of both Article 3 (for retaining an excessive number of mines, not the “minimum number absolutely necessary”) and Article 4 (for failing to meet its stockpile destruction deadline). We hope that States Parties treat this as a very serious matter; it is not in the same category as a late Article 7 report. Urgent action is needed to ensure that Turkmenistan understands its obligations and fully complies. Last year, the ICBL raised concerns regarding Tajikistan and its lack of implementation of a number of provisions of the Mine Ban Treaty. We are very pleased to say that we have been very impressed with the steps taken by Tajikistan since the Fourth Meeting of States Parties to fully embrace and faithfully implement the treaty. The previous year, the ICBL highlighted serious allegations of use of antipersonnel mines by Ugandan forces in the Democratic Republic of Congo. We are disappointed that after a welcome pledge to investigate, Uganda has not reported to States Parties on this matter. Finally, it is important to note that two States Parties in their recent Article 7 reports have revealed that they used antipersonnel mines while they were signatories to the Mine Ban Treaty. A third State Party has also openly acknowledged use of antipersonnel mines as a signatory. Landmine Monitor for each of the past five years has either confirmed or reported credible allegations of use by signatories. While these acts are not a violation of the Mine Ban Treaty – you can’t violate a treaty to which you are not a party – they are a violation of international humanitarian law. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that treaty signatories must refrain from acts that would defeat the object or purpose of the instrument they have signed. Obviously, use of antipersonnel mines is contrary to the object and purpose of the Mine Ban Treaty. States Parties to this treaty should be much more vigorous in responding to and criticizing instances of use by signatories.

Stockpile Destruction (19 September 2003)

Thank you for the invitation to provide a global overview of stockpile destruction, and progress since the last Meeting of States Parties. Since 1992, a total of 71 countries have destroyed approximately 52 million antipersonnel mines. Sixty-five States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty have destroyed more than 30 million antipersonnel mines. Since mid-2002, 21 States Parties completed the destruction of their stockpiles, eliminating a combined total of nearly 11 million antipersonnel mines over the course of their destruction programs. About 3 million mines were destroyed in the past year by States Parties, and more than one million by non- States Parties (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Somaliland). An important milestone in the implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty was reached on 1 March 2003: the four-year deadline for destruction of stockpiled antipersonnel mines for all countries that were party to the treaty when it first entered into force on 1 March 1999. It would appear that all States Parties with deadlines thus far have met their obligation, with the minor exception of Djibouti, which was two days late, and the major issue related to Turkmenistan, which reported completion of destruction, but also declared retention of 69,200 antipersonnel mines. The ICBL expressed its view that retention of such a number of mines in fact means that Turkmenistan did not fully destroy its stocks, and that it is not keeping “the minimum number absolutely necessary” as required by the treaty, and is therefore in violation of a core treaty obligation. Fulfillment of this obligation by States Parties has been a sign of the health and viability of the treaty, and of the impact of the international norm against the antipersonnel mine. Positive movement by States Parties toward destruction of stockpiled mines has also motivated non-States Parties to destroy antipersonnel mines. A total of 102 States Parties have either completed destruction of antipersonnel mines stockpiles, or declared never having a stockpile. Fifty-four States Parties have completed destruction of their stockpiles. We just heard reports from Chile, Republic of Congo (Brazzaville) and Kenya that they had completed destruction of their antipersonnel mine stockpiles shortly before the 5MSP. All three finished far ahead of their treaty-mandated deadlines. Eighteen other States Parties completed destruction since the publication of the Landmine Monitor Report 2002: Brazil, Chad, Croatia, Djibouti, El Salvador, Italy, Japan, Jordan, FYR Macedonia, Moldova, Mozambique, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Portugal, Slovenia, Thailand, Turkmenistan and Uganda. Forty-eight States Parties have officially declared not stockpiling antipersonnel mines. In the reporting period, Barbados, Comoros, Dominica, The Gambia, Ghana, Malawi, Maldives, Niger, Seychelles, and Trinidad and Tobago officially confirmed that they do not possess stockpiles of antipersonnel mines. Eleven States Parties are in the process of destroying their stockpiles. Six initiated the destruction process since the previous Landmine Monitor Report: Afghanistan, DR Congo, Guinea-Bissau, Tajikistan, Tanzania and Venezuela. Five others continued destruction programs: Argentina, Colombia, Romania, Tunisia and Uruguay. Two States Parties (Algeria and Bangladesh) have not begun the destruction process, but each has developed a plan to destroy their stockpiles in advance of the treaty- mandated deadline. Fifteen States Parties have not officially declared the presence or absence of antipersonnel mine stockpiles because of their failure to submit transparency measures reports on time. The deadline for stockpile destruction has passed for three of these countries (Equatorial Guinea, Guinea and Namibia). Equatorial Guinea has stated that it does not stockpile antipersonnel mines. Namibia claims to only retain mines for training and research purposes. Guinea’s stockpile status is not currently known. Four States Parties will announce their plans when they submit their initial transparency measures reports: Central African Republic, Cyprus, Timor-Leste, and São Tomé e Príncipe. Of these, only Cyprus is believed to stockpile antipersonnel mines. States Parties are to be commended for the tremendous progress in destroying stockpiles of antipersonnel mines. It is essential to the credibility of the Mine Ban Treaty that all States Parties meet this legal obligation. States Parties must continue to track carefully the progress and problems other States may be having in meeting their deadline, and offer assistance where needed.

Statement by Geneva Call

to the Fifth Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty delivered by Elisabeth Reusse-Decrey, President

17 September 2003

Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentleman,

Several years ago, we began discussing the question of how to engage armed non-state actors in the mine ban. Three years ago we launched Geneva Call in order to “operationalise” these discussions. Faced with this new concept, many were uncomfortable.

Today, we are almost all in agreement that the issue of non-state actors cannot be ignored, side-stepped or avoided. We, all of us, recognise there will not be full universalisation of the mine ban norm without the engagement of NSAs. To have a ban on antipersonnel landmines -- one that is in practice in all battle fields, one that is more than just a theory in the Capitals -- we must work to make it relevant to everybody.

We must keep in mind that today more NSAs are using mines than regular forces. We must remember that today some governments are reluctant to sign the Mine Ban Treaty because armed groups are using mines in their territory. Let us not forget that today the people living in areas under the control of NSAs do not receive adequate support.

Geneva Call does not view the Convention as flawed and in need of amendment in order to include NSAs. It is a state mechanism. We are however certain, that we must engage non-state actors. We are aware that this is sensitive work and quite politically charged. Regardless, the engagement of NSAs in the AP mine ban norm is driven, like the Convention itself, by humanitarian imperatives. The work done by Geneva Call and some national campaigns of the ICBL is complementary to the work done by others to bring all states onside with the Convention.

Geneva Call would like to request the States Parties to strengthen the language on non-state actors in the final declaration here in Bangkok. This is the fifth Meeting of States Parties. We are past the point of merely saying this is an important issue and calling upon NSAs to make a commitment. The words will need to be stronger to make change.

The issue of NSAs merits serious consideration. It deserves more attention than what can be achieved in workshops on the sidelines of meetings. This question of ‘what does it mean to engage NSAs in the mine ban norm’ must be placed squarely on the table, alongside other important questions such as victim assistance, mine risk education and clearance. Geneva Call asks that space be made for this discussion within the intersessional meetings.

It is important that governments here raise the profile of NSA engagements in the mine ban norm in other international fora. The achievements and the lessons learned here are as far reaching as they are unique. Our collective experience is valuable to others working to promote humanitarian norms.

Discussion alone is not enough. Geneva Call, and other NGOs working in this area have to be supported, and not only financially, but also in facilitating missions in the field and allowing access to certain regions. Already some governments are supportive -- Switzerland, Italy, the UK, Canada, Colombia, the Philippines, the European Commission, UNMAS and the GICHD. Geneva Call is grateful for this support.

Ladies and Gentleman, honourable members, States Party to this enormous accomplishment – the Mine Ban Treaty:

To engage NSAs, to support NGOs working in this field, does not mean supporting NSAs themselves or the causes they espouse. Geneva Call has shown this is possible. Together, if we refuse to accept the conditions of these wars we can “bring back” the peace. Safe living conditions for people are a prerequisite for peace.

It is time for States to consider that mines have nothing to do with politics. The effort to engage NSAs in humanitarian norms such as the mine ban have no agenda other than to alleviate the suffering of those living in places of war.

Thank you for your attention. Lessons Learned in Engaging Non-State Actors in a Mine Ban

Summary Report of the "Looking Back, Looking Forward Workshop on Engaging Non-State Actors" organized by the International Campaign to Ban Landmines Non-State Actors Working Group and Geneva Call, in cooperation with the Philippine and Thai Campaigns to Ban Landmines

13 September 2003, Suan Dusit Palace, Bangkok

Around 60 mine ban campaigners shared experiences in engaging armed non-state actors (NSAs) in a landmine ban last 13 September 2003 at Suan Dusit Palace. Progress in securing mine ban commitments within and outside of peace processes, monitoring and verifying compliance, joint mine action and victim assistance between states and NSAs, and forging national and regional linkages were shared by different country campaigners of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) Non-State Actors Working Group and the Geneva Call. Expert analysis were also provided by researchers from the Geneva International Center for Humanitarian Demining, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Landmine Monitor.

The workshop aimed to draw up lessons learned over the past seven years of initiatives to broaden universalization of the ban on antipersonnel mines by securing similar commitments and cooperation in mine action and victim assistance from non-state users, especially autonomous armed groups operating in conflict and mine-affected areas.

Emerging "lessons learned" identified were:

Campaigners doing NSA work must be clear about their goal, which is the universalization of the mine ban as a norm, and the provision of mine action and victim assistance to affected conflict communities. Their credibility and impartiality are important. They must also be clear about what to expect from states and NSAs, and the sensitivities and constraints of these parties.

Engagement approaches must be inclusive and involve partnerships with all parties concerned. Local ownership of the process is important. While there is diversity in contexts, actors and groups in conflict areas, networking and regional and global levels of intervention are also effective approaches.

Affected communities and mine survivors should be empowered to become active campaigners and NSA engagers, and their welfare given importance in negotiations. However, it is realized that local communities may be directly faced with security threats that could impair their active involvement.

Ceasefires and peace processes have provided an enabling environment for engaging NSAs as well as non-state parties to the Mine Ban Treaty. For example, the ICBL NSA Working Group was able to organize a mission to Nepal and meet with all parties involved in June 2003 when a ceasefire and peace process was in place.

The agenda, mechanisms ad agreement put into place by the peace/ ceasefire process have included or have supported the inclusion of mine ban/ mine action commitments. A number of ceasefire peace agreements - e.g., in Burundi and the Philippines -- already provide particular language for a mine ban, demining and post-conflict rehabilitation of mine-affected areas. In other cases, e.g. the Code of conduct signed by the Nepalese government and Maoist rebels, certain provisions can be interpreted to cover APMs.

In many of these conflict areas, NSA engagement work has been contingent on the peace situation or the progress of peace/ ceasefire talks and the implementation of agreements. Because of uncertainties in this process, NSA engagement work has also suffered from difficulties and discontinuities. There is need to link up with peace and human rights groups to support the whole process.

Within or outside of peace processes, the Geneva Call Deed of Commitment, a document pledging NSA adherence to a mine ban and support for mine action and victim assistance, has served as an important tool to bind NSAs and to enable them to take active part in monitoring, mine action and victim assistance. Around 20 rebel groups have signed the Deed of Commitment. The Deed is deposited at the Canton of Geneva. Geneva Call, an international humanitarian NGO, has been working in Africa, Latin Americas and Asia to encourage NSAs to commit through this Deed.

Existing mechanisms and tools for monitoring, verifying and exacting compliance to commitments secured from NSAs remain insufficient. Adding to this problem are situational difficulties in pinpointing accountability such as when many NSAs (and states) operate n the same space, or the fact that after explosion, it is difficult to identify the type of mine used/ planted.

Available monitoring and verification mechanisms, so far, are self-reporting to the Geneva Call of NSAs who have signed the Deed of Commitment (a practice similar to the Article 7 report provided annually by states parties); a monitoring network made up of local civil society groups, Landmine Monitor researchers, and international NGOs; and the conduct of verification missions. Non-compliance has largely been addressed through "naming and shaming" and follow-ups.

The experience in Sudan with the Sudan Campaign to Ban Landmines and Operation Saving Innocent Lives, and in Sri Lanka with the Sri Lankan Campaign to Ban Landmines and the Tamil Rehabilitation Organization show that mine action and victim assistance can progress significantly through the cooperative work of civil society groups, international NGOS, the state and the NSAs concerned. It was also notable that despite recurrence or outbreaks of conflict or continuing difficulties in the political process, demining efforts have continued. Continuing support for such mine action programs was deemed important.

States can support NSA engagement work by recognizing the need and legitimacy of such efforts, providing facilitation and other support to allow ground-level as well as regional and international initiatives in this line or work to flourish. However, states do operate on certain legal, diplomatic and political constraints that make open support sensitive.

To date, state parties to the Mine Ban Treaty have formalized support for NSA engagement in declarations made, including the Meeting of States Parties' Statements made in 2001 in Nicaragua and in 2002 in Geneva. The European Parliament has also issued a resolution encouraging support for NSA engagement work in 2000.

The Mine Ban Treaty Review Conference in 2004 is also an opportunity to examine the Treaty from the perspective of engaging NSAs in a mine ban.

As in most international treaties, the Mine Ban Treaty has no provisions specifically on NSAs but in any case binds all parties on the territory of the State Party which passes national legislation. Still, the Treaty and domestic legislation may not necessarily be the best nor the sole legal framework for NSAs to cease and renounce the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of APMs.

The legal regime relevant to securing NSA mine ban commitments includes Amended Protocol II of the Convention on Conventional Weapons, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, international humanitarian law, and international human rights law. There are also normative frameworks for NS engagement like regional cultural traditions, local customs, religious teachings, and revolutionary doctrines adhered to by NSAs.

Appeals to a sense of humanity and "dictates of the public conscience" ay prove more effective with NSAs. There should be flexibility and even combinations of frameworks utilized, with some offering advantages in specific cases. The ideal is an approach and process, which are inclusive, participatory, dialogical and persuasive of NSAs.

One practical tool for binding NSAs is the Geneva Call Deed of Commitment, an instrument and mechanism for adherence to a mine ban, assistance for compliance, accountability for non- compliance, and participation in the practice and development of international humanitarian norms. Other tools include unilateral, bilateral or multilateral declarations or agreements that may be partial or comprehensive in scope.

Mine action and peacebuilding: exploring the agenda

Mr Co-Chair,

Summary

The peacebuilding impact of mine action programmes is substantial, but often not fully acknowledged. However, it is important to recognise that although mine action interventions can help build peace, they may also fuel conflict through insensitive policies and programming. There is a need for the mine action community to explore existing experiences so it can establish a basis for developing the full peacebuilding impact of mine action in both policy and practice.

In order to explore these issues, the Fafo Institute for Applied International Studies (Fafo AIS), the International Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) and Landmine Action UK (LMA) hosted a roundtable discussion with practitioners and researchers in August 2003, funded by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The following issues were discussed:

• The relationships between mine action and peacebuilding • How mine action programmes can contribute to peacebuilding, and how they can potentially fuel conflict. • Ways to increase awareness of the mine action role in peacebuilding among practitioners

Why is it important to link mine action and peacebuilding?

The role of mine action as a contributor to peacebuilding efforts has long been acknowledged. Yet, this role is formulated only in the most general terms, whereby mine action is seen as simply one of many elements on a list of peacebuilding activities. The current focus of mine action’s role is on security and development but could expanded to include the political arena – in terms of confidence building, conflict resolution and reconciliation. An alternative approach involves investigating the ways in which mine action may, or may not, play a larger role in the building of peace in different sectors.

Awareness of the peacebuilding impact of mine action has primarily focused on the security domain, while less attention has been paid to mine action’s long-term development impact, and little, if any, to its impact in the political domain. The considerable effect of mine action in different domains has not been fully recognised.

Emphasis tends to be on mine clearance, crucially ignoring the impact that other components of mine action can play. For example, an initiative to gather information, such as the Sudan Landmine Information & Response Initiative (SLIRI), which involved representatives from both sides of the conflict, may be significant in terms of fostering confidence between belligerent parties.

A preliminary examination of the existing impact of mine action on peacebuilding reveals that mine action – like any other type of intervention in a conflict situation – has the potential not only to do good, but also to do harm.

For example, demining projects in Cambodia during the mid-1990s were followed by land- grabbing by officials to the detriment of poverty-stricken locals, leading to new tensions and demonstrating the potential to do harm. In some areas this problem was later addressed through the establishment of Land Use Planning Units (LUPUs).

Conclusions

An improved understanding of the ways in which mine action contributes to peacebuilding should inform mine action and peacebuilding policies alike. Actors in the mine action sector would benefit from this both through increased recognition and understanding of what they already do, and from the opportunity that it would provide to improve their practices.

Peacebuilding at large will have much to learn from mine action – a specialised sector with extremely concrete objectives – for example, with respect to the way mine action may serve as a vehicle to building peace and its success in bridging the gaps between global political agreements and implementing action on the ground.

Experience from other sectors can also inform the peacebuilding agenda of mine action. Lessons can be learned from relief aid, development and conflict analysis. There is already crossover in the experiences of these different sectors, for example, the employment of ex-combatants.

In addressing the problem of landmines and unexploded ordnance (UXO), mine action is extremely concrete in the effect that it has on people’s daily lives. It also has huge symbolic significance, tackling the effects of an instrument of war that belligerent parties may be hesitant to give up when confidence in an enduring peace is lacking.

Although poorly documented, there is already a wealth of experience within the mine action sector on what does and does not work in terms of contributing to peace. To solidify the peacebuilding impact of mine action, existing experience should be taken as a starting point. While there is undoubtedly large variation between the different contexts in which mine action operates, it is possible to draw general recommendations for policy and practice.

The research project that Fafo, LMA and PRIO intend to undertake over the next two years will use case studies, fieldwork, literature reviews, interviews and roundtable discussions with practitioners and policymakers in mine action and peacebuilding, and will examine lessons learned in other sectors. In this way, we plan to build a fuller picture of the interaction between mine action and peacebuilding in order to improve mine action at both policy and field levels.

Thank-you.

Landmine Action September 2003 MEETING OF THE STATES PARTIES TO THE APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 CONVENTION ON THE PROHIBITION OF 17 October 2003 THE USE, STOCKPILING, PRODUCTION AND TRANSFER OF ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES AND ON THEIR DESTRUCTION ORIGINAL: ENGLISH/ FRENCH/SPANISH ______Fifth Meeting Bangkok, 15-19 September 2003 Item 18 of the agenda

FINAL REPORT

The Final Report of the Fifth Meeting of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction consists of two parts and nine annexes as follows:

Part I Organization and Work of the Fifth Meeting

Part II Declaration of the Fifth Meeting of the States Parties

Annexes:

Annex I Agenda of the Fifth Meeting of the States Parties

Annex II Report of the President of the Fourth Meeting of the States Parties with respect to Consultations on Preparation for the Convention’s First Review Conference

Annex III Report on the Functioning of the Implementation Support Unit September 2002-September 2003

Annex IV Estimated Costs for Convening the Preparatory Meetings for the First Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti- Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction

Annex V President’s Action Programme

Annex VI Final Reports of the Standing Committees

Annex VII Declaración de Lima: Por un Hemisferio Libre de Minas Antipersonal

Annex VIII Human Security Network Declaration

Annex IX List of Documents

APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 2

PART I

ORGANIZATION AND WORK OF THE FIFTH MEETING

A. Introduction

1. The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction provides in article 11, paragraphs 1 and 2, that: “The States Parties shall meet regularly in order to consider any matter with regard to the application or implementation of this Convention, including:

(a) The operation and status of this Convention; (b) Matters arising from the reports submitted under the provisions of this Convention; (c) International cooperation and assistance in accordance with article 6; (d) The development of technologies to clear anti-personnel mines; (e) Submissions of States Parties under article 8; and (f) Decisions relating to submissions of States Parties as provided for in article 5”; and,

Meetings subsequent to the First Meeting of the States Parties “shall be convened by the Secretary-General of the United Nations annually until the first Review Conference”.

2. At its fifty-seventh session, the General Assembly of the United Nations in resolution 57/74 requested the Secretary-General, “in accordance with article 11, paragraph 2, of the Convention, to undertake the preparations necessary to convene the Fifth Meeting of the States Parties to the Convention in Bangkok, from 15 to 19 September 2003, and, on behalf of States Parties and according to article 11, paragraph 4, of the Convention, to invite States not parties to the Convention, as well as the United Nations, other relevant international organizations or institutions, regional organizations, the International Committee of the Red Cross and relevant non-governmental organizations to attend the Meeting as observers”.

3. To prepare for the Fifth Meeting, the Standing Committee on the General Status and Operation of the Convention, established by the States Parties, held two meetings, to which all interested States Parties, States not parties to the Convention, the United Nations, other relevant international organizations or institutions, regional organizations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and relevant non-governmental organizations were encouraged to attend.

4. The first meeting of the Standing Committee was held on 3 and 7 February 2003. During the meeting, participants considered a number of issues relating to the organization of the Fifth Meeting, including a draft of a provisional agenda, a draft of a provisional programme of work, draft rules of procedure and provisional estimated costs for convening the Fifth Meeting. No objections were raised in connection with these proposals and it was the sense of the Co-Chairs that they would be put before the Fifth Meeting. It was also the Co-Chairs’ view that matters pertaining to documentation should proceed in a manner consistent with previous Meetings of the States Parties (i.e., all other conference documents with the exception of reports submitted under article 7 of the Convention being finalized in all six languages of the Convention and the record of work of the four Standing Committees being communicated to the Meeting in the form of final reports prepared by the Co-Chairs of each Standing Committee). APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 3

5. The second meeting of the Standing Committee was held on 12 and 16 May 2003. During the meeting, no objections were made with respect to a revised provisional programme of work, and it was the Co-Chairs sense that it would be put before the Fifth Meeting in place of the programme that had been reviewed at the Standing Committee’s February 2003 meeting.

6. The opening of the Fifth Meeting was preceded by a ceremony at which statements were delivered by the Her Royal Highness Princess Galyani Vadhana Krom Luang Naradhiwas Rajanagarindra of Thailand, Her Royal Highness Princess Astrid of Belgium, and His Excellency Deputy Prime Minister General Chavalit Yongjaiyudh of Thailand.

B. Organization of the Fifth Meeting

7. The Fifth Meeting was opened on 15 September 2003 by the President of the Fourth Meeting of the States Parties, Ambassador Jean Lint of Belgium. The Fifth Meeting elected by acclamation His Excellency Dr. Surakiart Sathirathai, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Thailand, as its President in accordance with rule 5 of the rules of procedure.

8. At the opening session, a message addressed to the Fifth Meeting by the Secretary-General of the United Nations was read by Mr. Kim Hak Su, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, and a statement was made by Jody Williams, 1997 Nobel Peace Prize Co-Laureate and Ambassador for the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. In addition, a message of the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross was read by Professor Dr. Daniel Thürer, Vice-President of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

9. At its first plenary meeting on 15 September 2003, the Fifth Meeting adopted its agenda as contained in document APLC/MSP.5/2003/1. On the same occasion, the Fifth Meeting adopted its rules of procedure as contained in document APLC/MSP.5/2003/3, the estimated costs for convening the Fifth Meeting as contained in document APLC/MSP.5/2003/4, and its programme of work as contained in document APLC/MSP.5/2003/2.

10. Also at its first plenary meeting, representatives from Austria, Belgium, Colombia, France, Kenya, Peru, Romania and Switzerland were elected by acclamation as Vice-Presidents of the Fifth Meeting.

11. The Meeting unanimously confirmed the nomination of Major General Gitti Suksomstarn, Director-General of Thailand Mine Action Center and Ms. Atchara Suyanan, Director-General of the Department of International Organizations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Thailand, as Co-Secretaries General of the Meeting. The Meeting also took note of the appointment by the United Nations Secretary-General of Mr. Enrique Roman-Morey, Director of the Geneva Branch of the United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs, as Executive Secretary of the Meeting, and the appointment by the President of Mr. Kerry Brinkert, Manager of the Implementation Support Unit, as the President’s Executive Coordinator.

APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 4

C. Participation in the Fifth Meeting

12. Eighty-seven States Parties participated in the Meeting: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Holy See, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Macedonia (former Yugoslav Republic of), Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Moldova (Republic of), Monaco, Mozambique, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

13. Four States that had ratified or acceded to the Convention, but for which the Convention had not yet entered into force, participated in the Meeting as observers, in accordance with article 11, paragraph 4, of the Convention and rule 1, paragraph 1 of the rules of procedure of the Meeting: Belarus, Guyana, Lithuania, Timor-Leste.

14. Nine signatories that have not ratified the Convention participated in the Meeting as observers, in accordance with article 11, paragraph 4, of the Convention and rule 1, paragraph 1 of the rules of procedure of the Meeting: Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Ethiopia, Greece, Haiti, Indonesia, Poland, Sudan and Ukraine.

15. A further 19 States not parties to the Convention participated in the Meeting as observers, in accordance with article 11, paragraph 4, of the Convention and rule 1, paragraph 1 of the rules of procedure of the Meeting: Bhutan, China, Egypt, Finland, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Laos, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, Saudi Arabia, Serbia and Montenegro, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and Vietnam.

16. Delegation information submitted in accordance with rule 4 of the rules of procedure of the Meeting was received from 119 States mentioned in paragraphs 12 to 15 above. The Meeting took note of this.

17. In accordance with article 11, paragraph 4, of the Convention and rule 1, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the rules of procedure, the following international organizations and institutions, regional organizations, entities and non-governmental organizations attended the Meeting as observers: European Commission, Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining, International Campaign to Ban Landmines, International Committee of the Red Cross, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, Organization of American States, Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, United Nations Development Programme, UNICEF, United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs, United Nations Mine Action Service. In accordance with rule 1, paragraph 4, the following organizations attended the Meeting as observers at the invitation of the Meeting: Disability Action Council, International Peace Research Institute, International Trust Fund for Demining and Mine Victims Assistance, Korea Mine Action Group, Tamils Rehabilitation Organization, the Verification Research, Training and Information Centre (VERTIC) and Mr. Barzani – Mine Action Expert. APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 5

18. A list of all delegations to the Fifth Meeting is contained in document APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1.

D. Work of the Fifth Meeting

19. The Fifth Meeting held nine plenary meetings from 15 to 19 September 2003.

20. The first four plenary meetings were devoted to the general exchange of views under agenda item 10. Delegations of 53 States Parties, 16 observer States and 4 observer organizations made statements in the general exchange of views, including rights of reply.

21. At the fifth plenary meeting, on 17 September 2003, and the sixth plenary meeting, on 18 September 2003, the Meeting reviewed the general status and operation of the Convention, expressing satisfaction that 136 States have ratified or acceded to the Convention. The Meeting also expressed satisfaction that the international norm established by the Convention is taking hold as demonstrated by the successful record of implementation of the Convention as well as the changing behaviour of many States not parties to the Convention. The Meeting expressed satisfaction that efforts to implement the Convention are making a difference, that more than 110 States Parties now no longer possess stockpiled anti-personnel mines, that considerable areas of mined land have been cleared over the past year, that casualty rates have been reduced in several of the world’s most mine-affected States, and that more and better efforts are being undertaken to assist landmine victims.

22. Also in the context of reviewing the general status and operation of the Convention, States Parties took note of the challenges that remain in achieving the Convention’s core humanitarian aims, expressing their will to continue to focus with greater clarity in the period leading to the First Review Conference, on those areas most directly related to the core humanitarian aims of the Convention: clearing mined land, assisting victims, destroying stockpiled anti-personnel mines and universalizing the Convention’s comprehensive prohibition on anti-personnel mines. The importance of this was also noted with respect to confidence building, conflict resolution, peace building and development.

23. Also in the context of reviewing the general status and operation of the Convention, States Parties underscored the importance of universalization and expressed appreciation for the work of the Universalization Contact Group. In addition, States Parties noted the value of military-to- military dialogue, the efforts of parliamentarians and regional initiatives to promote universalization. Also under this agenda item, Switzerland proposed that an informal reflection group discuss the issue of non-state actors. Colombia proposed that discussions on the issue of non-state actors take place within the Universalization Contact Group. Several delegations, while emphasizing the importance of addressing the issue, stressed that at this point discussions should take place outside the framework of the Convention.

24. Also in the context of reviewing the general status and operation of the Convention, matters regarding mobilization of resources to achieve the Convention’s aims were highlighted, with the Meeting noting that over US$ 1.6 billion has been generated for mine action since the Convention entered into force and that mine-affected States Parties themselves have made substantial contributions to resolving their own landmine problems. The States Parties APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 6 acknowledged significant challenges that remain and recalled that they collectively have committed to eliminating anti-personnel mines. In this context, the Resource Mobilization Contact Group informed the Meeting that it had identified the following concrete goals and objectives: to help understanding the extent of needs; to renew commitments and ensure their sustainability; to engage a wide range of actors; and to make the most out of available resources. In this regard, the Meeting called upon: States Parties in a position to do so to renew their commitment to ensure sustainability of resources necessary to implement the Convention; mine affected States Parties, UN funds, agencies and programmes, the World Bank and regional development banks, international and national non-governmental organizations to integrate mine action into all relevant humanitarian and development activities; and all States Parties and relevant organizations to share information on matters pertaining to resource mobilization in advance of the First Review Conference.

25. Also in the context of reviewing the general status and operation of the Convention, the Meeting took note of how informal discussions on various articles of the Convention have improved clarity and understanding. In this regard, the Meeting called upon States Parties to continue to share information and views, particularly with respect to articles 1, 2 and 3, with a view to developing understandings on various matters by the First Review Conference.

26. Also in the context of reviewing the general status and operation of the Convention, the Meeting considered matters pertaining to reporting under article 7 of the Convention. All States Parties were encouraged to place a renewed emphasis on ensuring reports were submitted as required in advance of the First Review Conference. In addition, States Parties were encouraged to submit reports electronically and to maximize the potential of the reporting format as an important tool to measure progress and communicate needs.

27. At the sixth plenary meeting, on 18 September 2003, the Meeting considered the submission of requests under article 5 of the Convention. The President notified the Meeting that he had not been informed that any State wished to make such a request at the Fifth Meeting. The Meeting took note of this.

28. At the same plenary, the Meeting considered the submission of requests under article 8 of the Convention. The President notified the Meeting that he had not been informed that any State wished to make such a request at the Fifth Meeting. The Meeting took note of this.

29. In addition, within the framework of the seventh and eighth plenary meetings, the Meeting held informal consultations on international cooperation and assistance in accordance with article 6 on the following topics: victim assistance and socio-economic reintegration; mine clearance, mine risk education and related technologies; and, the destruction of stockpiled anti-personnel mines. These consultations involved a review of the work of the relevant Standing Committees, as recorded in their reports contained in Annex VI, with a focus on the actions recommended by the Committees.

E. Decisions and recommendations

30. Further to the recommendations made by the Co-Chairs of the Standing Committee on the General Status and Operation of the Convention, the Meeting emphasized the value and importance of the Intersessional Work Programme and highlighted the need to continue to focus APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 7 with greater clarity on the areas most directly related to the core humanitarian aims. In this regard, the Meeting called upon States Parties requiring assistance for mine clearance, those requiring assistance in meeting the needs of landmine victims, and those in the process of destroying stockpiled anti-personnel mines to ensure that prior to the First Review Conference plans are in place consistent with the Convention’s deadlines, to take concrete steps to implement these plans, and to use the opportunity presented by the Intersessional Work Programme to present their problems, plans, progress and priorities for assistance.

31. Pursuant to consultations undertaken by the Co-Chairs of the Standing Committee on the General Status and Operation of the Convention, the Meeting agreed to set the dates of the 2004 meetings of the Standing Committees from 9-12 February and from 21-25 June and identified the following States parties as the Standing Committee Co-Chairs and Co-Rapporteurs until the end of the First Review Conference:

• Mine Clearance, Mine Risk Education and Mine Action Technologies: Cambodia and Japan (Co-Chairs); Algeria and Sweden (Co-Rapporteurs); • Victim Assistance and Socio-Economic Reintegration: Australia and Croatia (Co-Chairs); Nicaragua and Norway (Co-Rapporteurs); • Stockpile Destruction: Guatemala and Italy (Co-Chairs); Bangladesh and Canada (Co- Rapporteurs); • General Status and Operation of the Convention: Mexico and the Netherlands (Co-Chairs); New Zealand and South Africa (Co-Rapporteurs).

32. The States Parties noted that as the 2003-2004 Intersessional Programme will culminate in the First Review Conference rather than an annual Meeting of the States Parties, the appointment of Co-Rapporteurs for 2003-2004 should be made without prejudice to the decisions taken at the Review Conference with respect to these Co-Rapporteurs assuming further roles in the period following the First Review Conference.

33. States Parties again recognized the value and importance of the Coordinating Committee in the effective functioning and implementation of the Convention and for operating in an open and transparent manner. The Meeting requested that the Coordinating Committee, in a manner consistent with its mandate, continue to be practical-minded and apply the principle of flexibility with respect to the format of Standing Committee meetings, and their sequencing and respective time allocation, and, continue with its practice of making available summary reports of its meetings on the web site of the GICHD. In addition, the Meeting requested the President, as Chair of the Coordinating Committee, to continue to report on the Coordinating Committee’s functioning.

34. The Meeting noted the Director of the GICHD’s report on the activities of the Implementation Support Unit (ISU), contained in Annex III. States Parties expressed their appreciation to the GICHD for the manner in which the ISU is making a positive contribution in support of the States Parties’ efforts to implement the Convention.

35. The Meeting again noted the work undertaken by these interested States Parties through the establishment of the Sponsorship Programme, which continues to ensure widespread representation at meetings of the Convention. States Parties encouraged additional contributions to the Sponsorship Programme to sustain the programme until the First Review Conference and called upon those who have benefited from the programme to review their required level of APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 8 assistance in order to ensure necessary support for others. In addition, the Meeting expressed its appreciation for the Sponsorship Programme and for the efficient management thereof by the GICHD.

36. States Parties endorsed, and expressed satisfaction with, the work of the Standing Committees, welcoming the reports of the Standing Committees, as contained in Annex VI. The Meeting was in general agreement with the recommendations made by the Standing Committees and urged States Parties and all other relevant parties, where appropriate, to act with urgency on these recommendations.

37. At its final plenary meeting, on 19 September 2009, on the basis of the Report of the President of the Fourth Meeting of the States Parties with respect to Consultations on Preparations for the Convention’s First Review Conference, document APLC/MSP.5/2003/L.2 and in accordance with Article 12 of the Convention, the Meeting agreed to hold the Convention's First Review Conference at the United Nations facilities in Nairobi from 29 November to 3 December 2004 and to hold Preparatory Meetings in United Nations facilities in Geneva on 13 February and 28-29 June 2004.

38. In addition, the meeting agreed to designate Ambassador Wolfgang Petritsch of Austria as the President of the First Review Conference, to request that Kenya designate a Secretary- General of the Review Conference, to accept the estimated costs prepared by the United Nations for convening the Preparatory Meetings as contained in document APLC/MSP.5/2003/L.4, and to proceed with a preparatory process in a manner consistent with the elements contained in the Report of the President of the Fourth Meeting. Finally, the Meeting urged participation at the highest possible level in a high level segment to be held at the end of the First Review Conference.

39. At the same plenary, the Meeting adopted the Declaration of the Fifth Meeting of the States Parties – the Bangkok Declaration, which is contained in Part II of this report. In addition, the Meeting warmly welcomed the President’s Action Programme, contained in Annex V, as a practical means of focusing the collective efforts of States Parties and other actors in progress in achieving the Convention’s core humanitarian aims in the period leading to the Convention’s First Review Conference.

F. Documentation

40. A list of documents of the Fifth Meeting is contained in Annex IX to this report. These documents are available in all official languages through the United Nations Official Documents System (http://www.ods.unog.ch).

G. Adoption of the Final Report and conclusion of the Fifth Meeting

41. At its ninth and final plenary meeting, on 19 September 2003, the Meeting adopted its Draft report, contained in document APLC/MSP.5/2003/CRP.2 APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 9

PART II

Declaration of the Fifth Meeting of the States Parties “Bangkok Declaration” As adopted at its last plenary meeting on 19 September 2003

1. We, the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, gathered in Bangkok along with other States, international organizations and institutions and non-governmental organizations, reaffirm our unwavering commitment to the total eradication of anti-personnel mines and to overcoming the insidious and inhumane effects of these weapons. Meeting one year before our First Review Conference, we commit ourselves to pursue, with renewed vigour, efforts to clear mined areas, assist victims, destroy stockpiled anti-personnel mines and promote universal adherence to this important instrument.

2. Meeting in Thailand, a mine-affected country in one of the most mine-affected regions, we are reminded of our common goal in achieving a mine-free world, our dedication towards the goal and ongoing challenges we must overcome both individually and collectively.

3. Recognizing both the human suffering caused by anti-personnel mines and the economic potential of mined areas, we urge countries in Asia and in other regions of the world to build on the momentum of the Fifth Meeting to generate additional public awareness of the humanitarian impact of anti-personnel mines and the benefits from joining the Convention.

4. We recognize that this first-ever gathering of the States Parties in Asia is a significant step towards the total eradication of anti-personnel mines. We highlight the importance of universal acceptance of the Convention, which builds mutual confidence between neighbouring States and contributes to peace and security as well as to social and economic development.

5. We celebrate the growing support for the Convention, formally accepted by 136 States, with Belarus, the Central African Republic, Cyprus, the Gambia, Guyana, Lithuania, Sao Tome and Principe and Timor Leste having joined the Convention since the Fourth Meeting of the States Parties. With an additional 12 countries that signed, but have not yet ratified the Convention, the number of States Parties and signatories now totals 148, including more than 40 mine-affected States.

6. We recognize that the international norm established by the Convention is being demonstrated by the successful record of implementation of the Convention, including the conduct of many States not party to the Convention respecting the provisions therein. This record is evidenced by the fact that more than 110 States Parties now do not possess stockpiled antipersonnel mines, including 50 which have reported that they completed stockpile destruction since the beginning of the process to establish the Convention. A further 11 States Parties have taken steps to destroy their stockpiles.

7. We are encouraged that over the past year, a considerable amount of land was cleared of anti-personnel mines and the first of the States Parties to have reported mined areas has indicated that it has completed its clearance obligations. While we remain deeply concerned at the growing number of victims, we are encouraged that there has been a reduction in the number of new APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 10 victims in some of the world’s most mine-affected States and that efforts are being made to address the needs of those individuals and communities affected by anti-personnel mines.

8. We note with great satisfaction that over US$ 1.6 billion in resources has been generated since the Convention was negotiated to address the global landmine problem, including more than US$180 million in resources provided by mine-affected States Parties themselves.

9. While recognizing the success of the Convention, we remain deeply concerned that antipersonnel mines continue to kill, maim and threaten the lives of countless innocent people each day, that the terror of mines prevents individuals from reclaiming their lives and that the lasting impact of these weapons denies communities the opportunity to rebuild long after conflicts have ended.

10. We deplore any use of anti-personnel mines. Such use is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention and exacerbates the humanitarian problems already caused by the use of these weapons. We expect those States, which have declared their commitment to the object and purpose of the Convention and which continue to use anti-personnel mines, to recognize that this is a clear violation of their solemn commitment. We call upon all States concerned to respect their commitments.

11. We urge all those who continue to use, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain and/or transfer anti-personnel landmines, to cease immediately and to join us in the task of eradicating these weapons. We call upon States outside the Convention to ratify or accede to the Convention. We also call upon all States in the process of formally accepting the obligations of the Convention to provisionally apply the terms of the Convention. We also underline the need to engage more actively States not party to the Convention by putting greater emphasis on the benefits of their joining the Convention.

12. We reaffirm that progress to free the world from anti-personnel mines will be enhanced if non-State actors embrace the international norm established by this Convention. We urge all non-State actors to cease and renounce the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of antipersonnel mines according to the principles and norms of international humanitarian law, and to allow mine action to take place. We welcome the efforts of non-governmental organizations, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations in engaging non-state actors on a ban on anti-personnel mines and express our appreciation for the work of these organizations and as well as our desire that individual States Parties that are in a position to do so facilitate this work.

13. Recognizing the need to secure full compliance with all obligations of the Convention, we reaffirm our commitment to effectively implement the Convention and to comply fully with its provisions. We do so in the spirit of cooperation and collaboration that characterizes this process. In the event of serious concerns of non-compliance with any of the obligations of the Convention, we acknowledge our individual responsibility as States Parties to apply the measures that we are obliged to take in accordance with Article 9 of the Convention to prevent or suppress prohibited activities. And we acknowledge our responsibility to seek clarification of concerns of non-compliance in a cooperative spirit in accordance with Article 8.

14. We recall that as soon as possible, but not later than 10 years after a State has become party to the Convention, that State Party must destroy or ensure the destruction of all anti- APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 11 personnel mines in mined areas under its jurisdiction or control. We encourage mine-affected States Parties, through the use of impact surveys and other means, to better understand the nature and scope of their landmine problems, to develop plans that are consistent with their Convention deadlines, to continue to implement mine risk education, mine clearance and other mine action programmes, including victim assistance programmes, and to integrate these efforts into national development strategies. We urge further national, regional and international initiatives aimed at fulfilling these obligations.

15. We call upon all governments and people to join in the common task to meet the enormous challenges of mine action, including victim assistance, and to provide the technical and financial assistance required. As States Parties committed to the eradication of anti-personnel mines, we reiterate that assistance and cooperation for mine action will flow primarily to those that have forsworn the use of these weapons forever through adherence to, implementation of, and compliance with the Convention.

16. We call upon mine-affected States to act with urgency with respect to their responsibility to provide for the care, rehabilitation and social and economic reintegration of landmine victims, taking into account the specific needs of victims, their families and their communities. And we call upon all other actors to assist the efforts of these States, particularly by supporting programmes that uphold the dignity of victims and ensure an equalization of opportunities for them.

17. We recall that prior to our First Review Conference, the four-year deadline for the destruction of stockpiled anti-personnel mines will occur for an additional five States Parties. At the same time, we congratulate those States Parties that have already destroyed their stockpiles of anti-personnel mines and celebrate the fact that together we have destroyed more than 30 million mines.

18. We warmly welcome the substantial progress made during the Intersessional Work Programme, expressing our satisfaction its work has been carried out in the Convention’s tradition of partnership, dialogue, openness, cooperation and inclusiveness. We note with satisfaction the increased participation of States Parties, other States and relevant organizations in the work of the Standing Committees and express our ongoing appreciation for the manner in which the Sponsorship Programme promotes widespread participation in our meetings. To take maximum advantage of the mechanisms available to us, we commit ourselves in the year leading to our First Review Conference to intensify our efforts in those areas most directly related to the core humanitarian aims of the Convention. We furthermore call upon all States Parties – particularly mine-affected States Parties and those in the process of destroying stockpiled mines – and other interested actors to continue to participate actively in the work of the Standing Committees.

19. We acknowledge the positive contributions made by the other innovative implementation mechanisms that we have created. We are pleased to see that the work of the Coordinating Committee has strengthened the performance of the Intersessional Work Programme. And we express our full satisfaction with the services of Implementation Support Unit, established by the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining, pursuant to a mandate agreed to by the States Parties, which is providing effective independent and professional support to us, the States Parties, as we pursue the fulfilment of our responsibilities.

APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 12

20. We express our gratitude to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and other relevant non-governmental organizations, the International Committee of the Red Cross and to regional and national organizations and agencies for their important and substantive contribution to the Intersessional Work Programme and to the overall implementation of the Convention. We thank the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining for its essential support and its commitment to the Intersessional Programme as well as the European Commission for its valuable support.

21. We appreciate the United Nations system’s contributions to mine action and to the Intersessional Work Programme.

22. We call on governments, relevant international organizations and non-governmental organizations to strengthen their partnership with the media and the private sector to further build public awareness with a view to achieving the universal acceptance of the Convention.

23. In reflecting upon our progress and accomplishments, and in considering the work that lies ahead, we commit ourselves to work together in all regions of the world and we reconfirm our conviction to make anti-personnel mines objects of the past, our obligation to assist those who have fallen victim to this terror, and our shared responsibility to the memories of those whose lives have been lost as a result of the use of these weapons, including those killed as a result of their dedication to helping others by clearing mined areas or providing humanitarian assistance.

24. In the process leading up to the First Review Conference, to be held in Nairobi, Kenya, in 2004, we call upon all States Parties and other relevant actors to renew their commitments to the aims of the Convention and to ensure that the Conference will be a significant milestone in marking our achievements and assessing the challenges that remain. APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 13

Annex I

AGENDA OF THE FIFTH MEETING OF THE STATES PARTIES As adopted at its first plenary meeting on 15 September 2003

1. Official opening of the Meeting.

2. Election of the President.

3. Address by the Secretary-General of the United Nations (and other distinguished guests).

4. Adoption of the agenda.

5. Adoption of the Rules of Procedure.

6. Adoption of the budget.

7. Election of the Vice-Presidents of the Meeting and of other officers.

8. Confirmation of the Secretary-General of the Meeting.

9. Organization of work.

10. General exchange of views.

11. Review of the general status and operation of the Convention.

12. Consideration of matters arising from / in the context of reports submitted under Article 7.

13. Consideration of requests submitted under Article 5.

14. Consideration of requests submitted under Article 8.

15. Informal consultations on international cooperation and assistance in accordance with Article 6.

16. Date, duration and location of the First Review Conference, and matters pertaining to the preparations for the Review Conference.

17. Any other business.

18. Consideration and adoption of the final document.

19. Closure of the Fifth Meeting of the States Parties. APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 14

Annex II

Report of the President of the Fourth Meeting of the States Parties with respect to Consultations on Preparations for the Convention’s First Review Conference

Introduction

1. During the Fourth Meeting of the States Parties (4MSP), the States Parties “agreed to mandate the President of the 4MSP to facilitate consultations leading to consideration of a variety of matters at the Fifth Meeting (5MSP) on preparations for the Convention’s First Review Conference”.

2. Open meetings to seek the views of the States Parties and relevant organizations were convened by the 4MSP President in Geneva on 31 January and 12 May 2003. Updates on this consultative process were provided by the 4MSP President in Geneva on 6 February and 16 May 2003. Based on subsequent consultations undertaken by the 4MSP President in accordance with his mandate, it is his view that the following constitutes the basis for decisions to be taken by the States Parties at the 5MSP:

I. First Review Conference

A. Date and duration

3. Given the nature of the issues to be addressed in accordance with the purpose of the First Review Conference, the duration of the Conference will be similar to a meeting of States Parties, that is five days. Based upon the level of participation as well as the amount of preparatory work required, the First Review Conference will be held from 29 November to 3 December 2004. The last day of that week will also coincide with the seventh anniversary of the signing of the Convention in Ottawa.

B. Location and Venue

4. The First Review Conference will be held at the United Nations facilities in Nairobi, Kenya.

C. President

5. Initial consultations indicated the general view that the nationality of the President be de- linked from the country within which the First Review Conference will be held. Subsequent consultations resulted in the view that Ambassador Wolfgang Petritsch of Austria be designated President of the First Review Conference.

D. Officers

6. The Secretary-General will be a representative of the host country and will be responsible, in close contact with the President designate and in consultation with the States Parties, for coordinating arrangements for the meeting’s opening ceremonies and side events as well as other efforts in support of the First Review Conference. The Executive Secretary will be nominated by APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 15 the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Co-Chairs of the Standing Committees could fill the positions of Vice-Presidents.

E. Participation

7. Given the importance of the First Review Conference, participation should be at the highest possible level. As has been the Convention’s practice, the active participation of all interested States, the ICBL, ICRC and other relevant organizations should be welcomed and encouraged during the First Review Conference.

II. Preparatory process

A. Date and duration

8. Based upon the understanding of what it is that States Parties wish to discuss during the preparatory meetings, as well as in the interest of efficiency, cost-effectiveness and participation, two meetings of one to two days each will be held immediately after the two sets of Standing Committee meetings of 2004 as follows:

• 13 February 2004 (i.e., a one day meeting following Standing Committee meetings held from 9 - 12 February 2004); and, • 28-29 June 2004 (i.e., a two day meeting following Standing Committee meetings from 21-25 June 2004).

B. Location and Venue

9. Preparatory meetings will be held in United Nations facilities in Geneva, with formal documentation services provided by the United Nations and with interpretation provided at preparatory meetings in the six languages of the Convention.

C. Presiding Officer

10. The President-designate or his/her representative will be responsible for, and involved in, all phases of the preparatory process. Given the widespread interest amongst States Parties to ensure the success of the First Review Conference, the President-designate could engage a broad range of actors in work related to the preparations for the Conference.

D. Participation

11. As has been the Convention’s practice, the active participation of all interested States, the ICBL, ICRC and other relevant organizations shall be welcomed and encouraged during the preparatory process.

E. Mandate

12. During preparatory meetings, the States Parties will have the opportunity to discuss those matters which would be relevant during the First Review Conference, including:

APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 16

• procedural matters such as a draft agenda, a programme of work, rules of procedure and cost estimates; • the nature and form of the review of the operation and status of the Convention, taking into account what has been achieved during the previous meetings of States Parties and the Intersessional Work Programme; • preliminary considerations of the need for and the interval between Meetings of the States Parties that would take place after the First Review Conference; • adjustments to the implementation mechanisms that have been established by the States Parties since the entry-into-force of the Convention, particularly taking into account possible decisions related to the interval between future Meetings of the States Parties; and, • preliminary considerations concerning any conclusions related to the implementation of the Convention.

13. This list of items should not be considered exhaustive nor should it be assumed that these items appear in order of priority.

III. Recommendations to the Fifth Meeting of the States Parties

14. On the basis of this Report, it is recommended that the Fifth Meeting of the States Parties agrees:

• to hold the Convention's First Review Conference at the United Nations facilities in Nairobi from 29 November to 3 December 2004 and to hold Preparatory Meetings in United Nations facilities in Geneva on 13 February and 28-29 June 2004; • to designate Ambassador Wolfgang Petritsch of Austria as the President of the First Review Conference; • with estimated costs prepared by the United Nations for convening the Preparatory Meetings; • that the preparatory process should proceed in a manner consistent with the elements contained in the Report of the President of the 4MSP; and • to urge participation at the highest possible level in a high level segment at the First Review Conference. APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 17

Annex III

REPORT ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT UNIT SEPTEMBER 2002-SEPTEMBER 2003

Prepared by Ambassador Martin Dahinden Director Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD)

Background

1. At the September 2001 Third Meeting of the States Parties (3MSP), the States Parties endorsed the President’s Paper on the Establishment of the Implementation Support Unit (ISU) and agreed to provide a mandate to the GICHD to establish the ISU. In addition, the 3MSP encouraged States in a position to do so to make voluntary contributions in support of the unit and provided a mandate to the President of the Third Meeting, in consultation with the Coordinating Committee, to finalize an agreement with the GICHD on the functioning of the unit.

2. The Council of Foundation of the GICHD accepted this mandate on 28 September 2001.

3. On 7 November 2001, in accordance with the above-mentioned actions taken by States Parties at the 3MSP, an agreement on the functioning of the unit was finalized between the President of the 3MSP and the Director of the GICHD. This agreement indicates inter alia that the Director of the GICHD shall submit a written report on the functioning of the ISU to States Parties and that this report shall cover the period between two Meetings of the States Parties.

Activities

4. The ISU provided assistance to the President of the Fourth Meeting of the States Parties (4MSP) in support of his activities, particularly through the provision of professional advice, ensuring that arrangements were made for activities convened by the President and systematically distributing documents prepared in accordance with the President’s responsibilities. Beginning in June, the ISU began to provide support of the President-designate as Thailand commenced preparations in advance of the Fifth Meeting of the States Parties (5MSP), in part by ensuring that draft documentation was distributed in a timely manner to all States Parties and others, developing a web site on the 5MSP and working closely with the United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs.

5. The ISU supported the work of the Coordinating Committee and assisted the President in his efforts to communicate to others the activities of the Coordinating Committee by ensuring that President’s Summaries of Coordinating Committee meetings were made available on the GICHD’s web site (www.gichd.ch).

6. The ISU continued to enhance the traditional level of service that the GICHD has provided to the Intersessional Work Programme, particularly by supporting the application by Co-Chairs and Contact Group Coordinators of the 4MSP decision that the Intersessional Work Programme in the lead-up to the Convention’s First Review Conference should focus with even greater clarity on those areas most directly related to the core humanitarian objectives of the Convention. In this APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 18 regard, the ISU increased its efforts to inform mine-affected States Parties, those in the process of destroying stockpiled mines, and those in a position to provide assistance of the opportunities to participate in and have their voices heard during the Intersessional Work Programme.

7. In support of and at the request of Co-Chairs and Contact Group Coordinators, the ISU undertook research and prepared information documents on various aspects of the status of the Convention. In addition, in response to a request from the Co-Chairs of one Standing Committee, the ISU prepared a bibliography of documentation retained by the ISU on the subject of stockpile destruction.

8. The ISU increasingly became a means for the States Parties and others to obtain timely and comprehensive information on the Convention and the implementation of it. The ISU responded to dozens of information requests from States Parties, States not party to the Convention, the media and others. The ISU significantly expanded the GICHD web site’s Convention-related content, including by ensuring that timely information on the Intersessional Work Programme, Meetings of the States Parties and preparations for the First Review Conference was made available. Upon receipt of invitations that were consistent with the ISU mandate, the Manager of the ISU made presentations on the implementation of the Convention at various workshops and seminars.

9. The GICHD continued to administer the Sponsorship Programme established by some States Parties to the Convention. The aim of the Programme is to support widespread participation in meetings related to the Convention. During each of the two periods of Standing Committee meetings, the Centre administered sponsorship to over 70 delegates. In addition, the ISU provided advice to the Programme’s donors’ group and information to sponsored delegates on how to maximise their participation in the Intersessional Work Programme.1

10. The ISU, in accordance with its mandate, established the Convention’s Documentation Centre, to house and make accessible documentation on the establishment of the Convention and its implementation. During the period covered by this report, a consultant completed his six- month task of ensuring that this facility would be operational by January 2003. At present the Documentation Centre contains over 3,000 reports, publications and other media, with new material added regularly.

General Operations

11. The 2003 budget for the ISU indicated that the ISU should remain small in number of staff and that in a manner consistent with this provision the staffing of the ISU in 2003 would remain at its level in the second half of 2002. In this context, in 2003 a full-time Implementation Support Officer was hired to replace a temporary staffing situation which had existed in the second half of 2002, with this officer joining the existing full-time ISU Manager and half-time Administrative Assistant.

1 The Sponsorship Programme’s donors group retains the responsibility for making all decisions related to sponsorship. The Programme is funded on a voluntary basis by these donors through contributions made to a separate trust fund. APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 19

Financial Arrangements

12. In accordance with the President’s Paper on the Establishment of the Implementation Support Unit (ISU) and the agreement between the States Parties and the GICHD, the GICHD created a voluntary trust fund for activities of the ISU in late 2001. The purpose of this fund is to finance the on-going activities of the ISU, with the States Parties endeavouring to assure the necessary financial resources.

Contributions to the ISU Voluntary Trust Fund2 1 January 2002 to 31 August 2003

Contributions received Contributions received in 2002 in 20033 Australia 45,045 Austria 8,030 Belgium 12,012 14,470 Canada 92,589 46,553 Croatia 1,357 Germany 38,250 Iceland 6,550 Ireland 73,990 Italy 78,408 Mexico 8,880 Netherlands 94,032 New Zealand 19,064 Norway 100,778 91,750 Total 468,719 263,039

13. In accordance with the agreement between the States Parties and the GICHD, in November 2002 the Coordinating Committee was consulted on a 2003 ISU budget4, covering the period from 1 January to 31 December 2003 and totaling CHF 451,000. The President of the Fourth Meeting of the States Parties subsequently distributed this budget to all States Parties and appealed to the States Parties to provide voluntary contributions to the ISU Trust Fund.

14. In accordance with the agreement between the States Parties and the GICHD, the Voluntary Trust Fund’s 2002 financial statements were independently audited (by PriceWaterhouse Coopers). The audit indicated that the financial statement of the Voluntary Trust Fund had been properly prepared in accordance with the accounting policies of the Foundation of the GICHD. The audited financial statement, which indicated that 2002 expenditures totalled CHF 350,659, was forwarded to the President of the Fourth Meeting of the States Parties, the Coordinating Committee and donors.

2 All amounts in CHF. 3 As of 31 August 2003. 4 Basic infrastructure costs (e.g. general services, human resources, accounting, conference management) for the ISU are covered by the GICHD and therefore not included in the ISU budget. APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 20

Annex IV

ESTIMATED COSTS FOR CONVENING THE PREPARATORY MEETINGS FOR THE FIRST REVIEW CONFERENCE OF THE STATES PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION ON THE PROHIBITION OF THE USE, STOCKPILING, PRODUCTION AND TRANSFER OF ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES AND ON THEIR DESTRUCTION

As prepared by the Secretariat and as accepted at the last plenary meeting on 19 September 2003

1. The attached annex shows a breakdown of the estimated costs for conference and non- conference servicing of the Preparatory Meetings for the First Review Conference of the States Parties, which will be held on 13 February 2004 and 28 -29 June 2004, respectively. It should be noted that the costs are estimated on the basis of past experience and anticipated workload. The actual costs will be determined after the closing of the Meetings when the exact workload is known. At that time, any adjustments in contributions by the participants sharing the costs will be made accordingly.

2. On the basis of the cost estimates in annex, if approved by the Fifth Meeting of States Parties, the Secretariat will prepare and issue assessment notices in accordance with article 14 (1) of the Convention which states that: “The costs of the Meetings of States Parties, the Special Meetings of the States Parties, the Review Conferences and the Amendment Conferences shall be borne by the States Parties and States not parties to this Convention participating therein, in accordance with the United Nations scale of assessment adjusted appropriately”.

3. Since the holding of the Preparatory Meetings for the First Review Conference of the States Parties shall have no financial implication for the regular budget of the Organization, States Parties should proceed with the payment of their share of the estimated costs before holding the Meetings.

Annex PREPARATORY MEETINGS OF THE FIRST REVIEW CONFERENCE OF THE STATES PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION ON THE PROHIBITION OF THE Title of session: USE, STOCKPILING, PRODUCTION AND TRANSFER OF ANTIPERSONNEL LANDMINES AND ON THEIR DESTRUCTION GENEVA, 13 FEBRUARY AND 28-29 JUNE 2004

Meeting Pre-session In-session Summary Post-session Support Services Other

Conference-servicing items Servicing documentation documentation records documentation requirements requirements Total

CHF CHF CHF CHF CHF CHF CHF CHF

Interpretation and

meeting servicing 45'063 45'063

Translation of documentation 189'684 61'800 64'674 316'158

Support Services requirements 4'176 4'176

Other requirements 5'614 5'614

Total 45'063 189'684 61'800 0 64'674 4'176 5'614 371'011

Total conference-servicing requirements (inclusive of 13% programme support costs) CHF 371'011

$US* 272'802

* - at US$1=CHF1.36

APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 22

Annex V

PRESIDENT’S ACTION PROGRAMME

I. Introduction

1. Four years after its entry into force, dramatic progress has been made in implementing the Convention and in promoting its universal acceptance. However, additional efforts will be required to ensure that the Convention lives up to its humanitarian promise. The Convention’s First Review Conference in 2004 will be an opportunity to renew our commitment to the total eradication of anti-personnel mines and to overcoming the insidious and inhumane effects of these weapons. With this in mind, the President of the Fifth Meeting of the States Parties urges:

• all States Parties and relevant organizations to renew their commitments to the implementation of the Convention; • all mine-affected States Parties to ensure that by the First Review Conference plans are in place and concrete steps taken to fully implement the Convention; • all States Parties, relevant international and regional organizations and non- governmental organizations to engage more actively States not party to the Convention, including by emphasizing the benefits of joining the Convention; • all States not yet party to the Convention to join us in this common effort, recognizing that the Convention is consistent with and supportive of national social and economic development, human security and multilateralism.

2. To focus our collective efforts to achieve these objectives in the period leading to the Convention’s First Review Conference, the President has identified the following objectives and actions for consideration:

II. Focusing on our core humanitarian objectives

A. Clearing mined land

3. Forty States Parties have reported mined areas. An additional 6 of those States Parties that have not yet submitted Article 7 reports, may be mine affected. Clearing mined areas within 10 years after entry into force of the Convention will be a significant challenge for many of these States. By acting promptly and in a systematic manner, we can ensure that this 10-year period will be well used towards meeting the deadline for mine-clearance. It is necessary that in the year leading up to the First Review Conference mine-affected States Parties share information about their problems, their national plans consistent with the Convention's deadlines, progress that they have made and their priorities for assistance. It is also essential that States Parties and relevant actors render all possible mine survey assistance to States in need. At the same time, States Parties should more actively encourage states outside the Convention with mine clearance capacity and technology to strengthen their involvement in our efforts towards the full eradication of landmines.

APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 23

B. Destroying stockpiled mines

4. We celebrate the fact that more than 110 States Parties now no longer have anti-personnel mine stockpiles and that together the States Parties have destroyed more than 30 million mines. However, important challenges remain. Eleven States Parties are in the process of destroying their stockpiled anti-personnel mines, but several States Parties have yet to begin doing so. While mine clearance and victim assistance require our utmost attention, in the interest of the health of the Convention we must also place a high priority on meeting our deadlines for stockpile destruction. State Parties which have completed their stockpile destruction are urged to share their experiences at the bilateral, regional or multilateral levels with State Parties for which the deadline is not yet due.

C. Assisting victims

5. Approximately 40 States Parties may require assistance to meet the care, rehabilitation and social and economic reintegration needs of landmine survivors. The challenge of meeting these needs is compounded by the fact that countries with the greatest numbers of mine victims are also amongst the world’s poorest. The obligation to assist a particular State Party's landmine survivors ultimately rests with that State and it is an obligation that lasts for the lifetime of survivors. However, States Parties have a responsibility to provide technical and other assistance to support the efforts of the States in need. Because of the nature of this obligation and partnership, it is essential in the year leading to the First Review Conference that States Parties requiring assistance provide information about their problems, establish national plans, communicate progress and define their priorities for outside assistance. Victim assistance programmes must take into account the views and needs of survivors and their families, respect the dignity of the survivors and aim to help them to help themselves

D. Universalizing the Convention

6. With more than two-thirds of the world’s States having already joined the Convention, the international humanitarian norm established by the Convention has been consolidated. The Convention, however, has not only established a humanitarian norm, it also provides the framework for overcoming the terrible effects of anti-personnel mines. States, whose populations suffer from these effects, should note that their acceptance of the Convention would see them benefit from the Convention's cooperation provisions regarding mine clearance and victim assistance.

7. Among the States remaining outside of the Convention, those that have recently used antipersonnel mines, continue to produce them or possess large quantities of them cause particular concern. Further efforts need to be made to bring these States into the Convention. We need therefore to increase our efforts, individually and collectively, to stress our conviction that no conceivable utility of anti-personnel mines could possibly outweigh and justify the devastating humanitarian costs of these weapons.

APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 24

III. Taking action to achieve our objectives

A. Exchanging information

8. Exchanging information through the Intersessional Work Programme and Article 7 reporting has been essential in the implementation of the Convention. Prior to the Convention’s First Review Conference, even more priority should be placed on providing mine affected States Parties with sufficient opportunities to share information on their problems, plans, progress and priorities and needs for assistance. Similarly, States Parties and others in a position to do so should be given sufficient opportunities to share their plans for assistance.

9. As Article 7 reporting provides valuable information to both support co-operation and assess progress, States Parties must give due regard to the annual reporting deadlines contained in Article 7. States Parties, individually or collectively, the Article 7 Contact Group, the President and interested organizations should continue to promote implementation of these provisions and provide means to assist States Parties in complying with them. A particular emphasis should be placed on encouraging those 14 States Parties which have not yet submitted their initial Article 7 reports, to do so as soon as possible. In addition, mine affected States Parties should consider maximizing the potential of Article 7 reporting by using it, on a voluntary basis, as a tool to communicate to other States Parties their plans, challenges and needs regarding mine clearance, victim assistance and stockpile destruction. States Parties are encouraged to use “Form J” to indicate resources, expertise and technical advice that they are willing to share, or have shared, with other countries. All States Parties should also take full advantage of the mechanisms and tools that have been developed to assist in completing Article 7 reports.

10. States Parties make considerable efforts to exchange information through the Intersessional Work Program and Article 7 reporting. They should ensure that the information made available is used effectively.

11. Exchanging and sharing information should also be enhanced through bilateral means and at regional level. Information sharing on mine clearance, stockpile destruction and victim assistance should be a continuous process and should serve as a means to achieve the aim of the universalization of the Convention.

B. Mobilizing resources

12. In Article 6, States Parties in a position to do so committed themselves on a long-term basis to sustain the process of achieving the Convention’s humanitarian aims. States Parties can live up to this obligation by continuing to give high priority to mine action within their development and humanitarian policies, particularly with a view to the Convention’s 10-year time frame for mine clearance. In this regard, it should be emphasized that the States Parties have repeatedly stated that assistance and cooperation for mine action will flow primarily to those that have forsworn the use of these weapons forever through adherence to, implementation of, and compliance with the Convention.

13. Mobilizing resources for mine action is a collective responsibility. While it is important that financial resources continue to be provided by States in a position to do so, it is equally important that affected States Parties themselves take full ownership for this responsibility by APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 25 integrating mine action into their national development and poverty reduction strategies. Moreover, resources to fulfil the aims of the Convention can be given by a variety of actors and relate to more than simply financial provisions. They can equally be provided by mine-affected states themselves, shared between mine-affected states or they can originate from development banks or the private sector. In this regard, the Resource Mobilization Contact Group should continue its efforts to encourage all relevant actors to ensure that by the First Review Conference a significant renewal of our collective commitment to eliminate anti-personnel mines.

C. Regional approaches

14. In the pursuit of the implementation of the Convention, each region has unique challenges and capacities. States Parties should therefore take steps to ensure that regional initiatives and activities to raise awareness on the issue of anti-personnel mines be undertaken as a continuous process, leading towards the First Review Conference. States Parties should highlight the issue of landmine in all the regional fora/meetings that they participate in. It is through such regional initiatives and activities that the achievement of the Convention's aims will be realized.

D. Actions to promote the universal acceptance of the Convention

15. States Parties, individually and collectively, the Universalization Contact Group, the President and interested organizations should play an active role in promoting the Convention. We should strive to achieve maximum acceptance of the Convention and of the international norm established by it in time for the First Review Conference. To this end, mine-affected States that have not yet joined our common effort should be made aware of the Convention’s unique sense of partnership and its mechanisms to promote international cooperation and assistance in the implementation of the Convention. We need to also step up our efforts to make States not party to the Convention realize the benefits from joining the Convention, inter alia, through awareness raising and practical cooperation.

16. States Parties and others should use every opportunity at all levels of contacts, bilateral and multilateral, political and military, with States not party to the Convention to urge them to ratify or accede to the Convention. Special emphasis should be placed on those States outside of the Convention that use, produce or possess large stockpiles of anti-personnel mines.

E. The role of public conscience

17. The efforts of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) and numerous other non-governmental organizations around the world in calling for a ban of anti-personnel mines is evidence of the important role of public conscience in furthering the principles of humanity. The role of public conscience will remain important in maintaining domestic interest in the landmines issue. Doing so will be essential to sustain the necessary political will and to generate financial and non-material resources to finish the work that remains.

18. The Convention’s First Review Conference in 2004 provides an opportunity to focus awareness to an even greater extent on the progress that has been made in implementing the Convention as well as on the challenges that still remain to overcome the inhumane effects of anti-personnel mines. States Parties should continue to reinforce their strong partnership with the APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 26

ICBL and ICRC, as well as with other significant actors in our common cause, like the United Nations and relevant international and regional organizations.

19. We should also work in partnership with the media as an important instrument in shaping the public conscience and creating public awareness of the landmine issue. At the same time, we should increasingly engage the private sector in our common efforts to address the humanitarian cost of landmines.

F. Cooperation to promote further clarity

20. The contributions of States Parties in informal discussions on matters pertaining to Articles 1, 2, 3, of the Convention have improved clarity and understanding with respect to the application of these Articles by States Parties. States Parties should continue to share information in the same informal, cooperative and voluntary manner with a view to developing common understandings on these matters at the First Review Conference.

21. Similarly, States Parties should continue to share information in the same manner regarding Articles 8 and 9 that make up the Convention’s compliance provisions. The primary responsibility for ensuring compliance with the Convention rests with each individual State Party. Particular emphasis should therefore be given to ensure that all States Parties that have not yet done so take all appropriate legal, administrative and other measures to prevent or suppress any activity prohibited by the Convention in accordance with Article 9. States Parties should also place a high priority on ensuring a more coordinated and effective response to compliance concerns. APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 27

Annex VI

STANDING COMMITTEE ON MINE CLEARANCE, MINE RISK EDUCATION AND MINE ACTION TECHNOLOGIES

Final Report∗ 2002-2003

I. Introduction

1. The Standing Committee on Mine Clearance, Mine Risk Education and Mine Action Technologies, established in accordance with the decisions and recommendations of Meetings of the States Parties, met in Geneva on 5 February 2003 and 14 May 2003. These meetings were convened by the Standing Committee’s Co-Chairs, Ambassador Jean Lint of Belgium and Mr. Michael Oyugi of Kenya, with support from their Co-Rapporteurs, Ambassador Sam Sotha of Cambodia and Ambassador Kuniko Inoguchi of Japan.

2. Representatives of more than 90 States Parties, 30 States not Parties, the United Nations, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and numerous other international and non-governmental organizations participated in the work of the Standing Committee. The meetings were held in Geneva with the support of the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD). Interpretation was provided thanks to the support of the European Commission.

3. The Standing Committee focused its attention on the status of the implementation of the relevant elements of the Convention, received an in-depth overview of a country case study, was provided with updates on various thematic matters, and received updates from mine affected States Parties and donors on their specific situations and needs.

II. Overview of Status of Implementation

4. The Co-Chairs reported that 37 States Parties have reported mined areas and that an additional 8 States Parties, which have not submitted an Article 7 report as required or which have not yet had to submit such a report, likely suffer from the impact of mined areas. It was highlighted that Costa Rica had become the first of the mine-affected States Parties to indicate that it had completed the implementation of its Article 5 obligations. It was also noted that Honduras and Guatemala were on-track to complete implementation of Article 5 prior to the Review Conference and that Nicaragua would do the same soon after.

5. In order to effectively measure progress made and assess collective challenges remaining, the Co-Chairs encouraged relevant States Parties to present their specific situations and needs with regard to mine action following the “4P approach” addressing, where possible, Problems, Plans, Progress and Priorities. (See Appendix I to this report.) To assist the process of assessing the state of implementation of Article 5, the Co-Chairs presented to the second meeting of the

∗ This report has been submitted by the Co-Chairs of the Standing Committee, Belgium and Kenya. This report is the Co-Chairs’ summary of the breadth of work undertaken by the Standing Committee during the 2002-2003 Intersessional period. It remains the responsibility of the Co-Chairs and is not a negotiated document. APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 28

Standing Committee a detailed compilation of information already furnished by the States Parties in accordance with the “4P approach.”

6. The ICBL also provided the Standing Committee with comprehensive global overviews of the status of implementation as far as it pertains to mine action. As part of these overviews, the ICBL called for more extensive and relevant reporting, including increased standardization and transparency in reporting.

7. In addressing needs identified by the ICBL, it was indicated that a standardized reporting feature for UN-supported mine action centres will be a feature of the Information Management System for Mine Action (IMSMA). It was noted that this feature could support Article 7 reporting and result in cost efficiencies, in part through the cost-benefit analysis.

III. Implementation plans and progress

8. The Co-Chairs provided opportunities for updates on implementation plans and progress by mine-affected States Parties. Twenty-four (24) States Parties took advantage of the opportunities presented by the Standing Committee to share information: Afghanistan, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Chad, Croatia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Republic of the Congo, Cyprus, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Jordan, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Malawi, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Peru, Rwanda, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia and Zambia. In addition, El Salvador highlighted that it had completed mine clearance prior to the establishment of the Convention.

9. Many States Parties indicated that problems faced include a lack of up-to-date equipment, data and funding. Progress was highlighted with respect to mine risk education (MRE) programming, the creation of mine action centres, completed surveys, and action plans for mine clearance. The need for assistance and coordination was noted by most States Parties as a priority in order to meet deadlines according to Article 5 of the Convention.

10. Four (4) States not Parties, Ethiopia, Libya, Sri Lanka and Turkey, provided updates on their status in relation to mine action and / or accession to the Convention, with Turkey indicating that it is due to deposit its instrument, together with Greece, in 2003. An update on Iraq was provided by the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS).

11. In order to ensure that lessons could be shared between mine-affected countries, the Standing Committee reviewed a detailed case study of Cambodia. It was reported that the Cambodian Mine Action Authority (CMAA) was established in 2002, in response to the need for a national regulator. The CMAA has since: established a database centre, mine action standards and a strategic plan; conducted national workshops, field visits and a planning development process; and integrated mine action in the National Poverty Reduction Strategy. In addition, it was noted that a National Mine Action Strategy, consisting of a Long Term Strategy and a Five Year Mine Action Plan (2003-2007), is soon to be approved. Various objectives of the programme were outlined, including: national co-ordination, improvement of socio-economic action, expanding upon mine action achievements, and the development of MRE and victim assistance. It was reported that Cambodia hosted a Regional Seminar, Building a Co-operative Future for Mine Action in Cambodia, 26-28 March 2003 in Phnom Penh.

APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 29

IV. Assistance and Co-operation

12. The Co-Chairs provided opportunities for interested States Parties to give updates on assistance and co-operation. Several States Parties took advantage of these opportunities, including: Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. In addition, the following organizations contributed to the discussions: the GICHD, Handicap International Belgium (HIB), the ICBL, James Madison University’s Mine Action Information Centre, JASMAR, Landmine Action UK, the International Peace Research Institute of Oslo (PRIO), the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Sudan Landmine Information and Response Initiative (SLIRI), the Sudan Integrated Mine Action Service (SIMAS), and the United Nations system.

13. With respect to the United Nations’ mine action efforts, it was reported that the UN continues to support 35 mine-affected countries and has piloted its mine action rapid response plan in Iraq. The importance of mine action integration and inter-agency co-operation, as well as the need for a humanitarian and disarmament hybrid of mine risk education and mine survey and surveillance activities was stressed. The contributions to the aims of the Convention of various elements of the UN system were highlighted, including the efforts of UNMAS, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and UNICEF. Challenges for the future were identified as resource mobilisation, mine action integration into development agendas, strengthening national mine action centres, long term strategic planning and emergency response.

Cooperation and assistance between mine-affected States Parties

14. With the assistance of the UNDP, the topic of cooperation and assistance between mine affected States Parties was highlighted. It was reported that the UNDP’s Mine Action Exchange Programme (MAX) matches experienced people with countries in need. It was noted that to date participants in this programme have included individuals from Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Croatia and Mozambique, and that exchanges are planned for 2003 in Albania, Cambodia, Somalia and Yemen. The UNDP emphasised that, as a response to the increasing need for horizontal exchanges among developing countries (south-south co-operation), the UN had made the promotion of cooperation among mine-affected countries one of its highest priorities and had reflected this in its UN Five-Year Mine Action Strategy. Also participating in the discussion on this topic were Norway, Sudan and Yemen.

V. Matters of a thematic nature related to implementation

A. Mine risk education (MRE)

15. The growing number of new MRE programmes was highlighted by the ICBL, the quality of which has greatly improved as a result of needs assessments, external evaluations, and the creation of international standards. However the urgent need for more MRE was also noted. The importance of including MRE needs in Article 7 reporting as well as the need to report on planning was also highlighted.

APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 30

B. Technologies for Mine Action

16. A general overview of the status of developments in the area of mine action technologies was provided by Belgium. It was reported that the International Test and Evaluation Programme (ITEP), created as a response to the lack of international co-ordination and co-operation, international standards and inadequate dialogue, had elaborated a work plan of testing and evaluation. Results of brainstorming meetings on mine action technologies, held on 4 February and 13 May 2003, were also reported. (See Appendix II to this report.) South Africa, Sweden and Thailand also contributed to the Standing Committee’s discussions on mine action technologies.

C. International Mine Action Standards (IMAS)

17. It was reported that the review board on IMAS met in January for a study on how these international standards have been adapted to national standards. It was highlighted that a total of 27 standards have been endorsed, with five new standards being prepared.

D. Information Management System for Mine Action (IMSMA)

18. It was noted that implementation of Version 3 of the IMSMA began this year, with upgrades and translations currently underway. It was highlighted that the IMSMA could be an effective tool to aid in the preparation of Article 7 reports as well as funding decisions by donor countries.

E. “Village” demining

19. HIB highlighted the issue of village demining by populations at risk in Cambodia, based on the book by Ruth Bottomley. The need to direct the focus of MRE on targeting the populations most at risk, in part through involving village deminers in MRE as key resource people, was emphasised. It was reported that a number of initiatives have been developed to this end, focussing on the greater involvement of communities.

F. Peace building

20. The relationship between mine action and peace building was outlined by PRIO. It was noted that mine action in donor policies is emphasised as a security issue with only marginal references to peace building. The opportunity for a more active role for the three phases of peace building – reconciliation, confidence building and conflict resolution – in mine action was illustrated. Possible drawbacks were outlined as increased risks, and focus and speed reduction. The need to strengthen conflict sensibility and for regular assessment of the impact of conflicts was highlighted.

VI. An assessment of needs that remain

21. The work of the Standing Committee in 2002-2003 placed a necessary emphasis on problems, plans, progress and priorities for assistance of the 40+ mine-affected States Parties which have an important obligation to fulfil in implementing Article 5. However, during the final Intersessional Work Programme prior to the Review Conference, it will be crucial that all relevant States Parties communicate their “4Ps” and best make use of the Standing Committee as means to highlight both progress and ongoing challenges. For their part, States Parties in a APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 31 position to do so and other relevant actors should act with urgency to assist the mine-affected States Parties in overcoming their challenges. With these points in mind, the Co-Chairs propose that relevant actors consider the following recommendations:

• 21.1. The Co-Chairs recommend that those mine-affected States Parties that have not yet done so develop and communicate a comprehensive plan for implementing Article 5 in a manner that takes into consideration the Article’s 10-year time-frame for mine clearance.

• 21.2. The Co-Chairs recommend that the mine-affected States Parties use the 2003-2004 Standing Committee meetings to provide updates on their problems, plans, progress and priorities for assistance, making use of the suggested framework that has been developed to assist them in preparing presentations. (See Appendix I to this report.)

• 21.3. The Co-Chairs recommend that States Parties “in a position to do so” continue to make use of the Standing Committee in 2003-2004 to share information on their commitments to ensuring that resources are provided to support those States that need assistance.

• 21.4. The Co-Chairs recommend that States Parties pursue a variety of regional approaches to clearing mined areas and delivering mine risk education with a view to fulfilling the aims of the Convention.

• 21.5. The Co-Chairs recommend an ongoing experts dialogue on technologies for mine action, taking into consideration the need to monitor the application of the recommendations made by the experts group in 2002-2003.

APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 32

Appendix I

Suggested framework for preparing updates to meetings of the Standing Committee on Mine Clearance, Mine Risk Education and Mine Action Technologies

1. In order to assist mine affected States Parties in preparing written and oral presentations (maximum: 8 minutes) on the challenges they face and efforts that are being taken to overcome these challenges, the following framework has been developed. In addition to making a presentation in accordance with this framework, States Parties may wish to distribute more lengthy documents, such as national mine action plans.

I. Problems related to mined areas and the humanitarian impact of these areas • I.1. In concrete terms, what is known – and not known – about the extent to which areas are mined and the impact of mined areas? What areas are affected? To what extent are communities and populations affected by mined areas? How many landmine casualties have there been in recent years? • I.2. Of the affected areas, which are considered to be high, medium and low impact? What methodology was used to determine these priorities? • I.3. If very little is known about the impact of mined areas, what steps are being taken or considered to obtain necessary information?

II. Plans to address the problem of mined areas • II.1. Has a national mine action plan been established? What are the objectives of the plan and how do these objectives relate to the Convention’s obligation to clear mined areas within a ten-year time-frame? • II.2. To what extent has mine action been incorporated into national development and poverty reduction strategies? How are mine-affected communities’ requests for clearance addressed? • II.3. What is the use planned for mined land once it has been cleared? • II.4. To what extent have domestic resources been applied to the problem of mined areas? • II.5. Have organizational structures been developed to support mine action? What organizations and assets are being deployed and for which activities? How many individuals are involved in activities such as mine clearance, mine risk education, and coordination? What other core assets (e.g., mine detecting dogs, mechanical devices, etc.) are available?

III. Progress made in meeting the obligations of Article 5 • III.1. If a national mine action plan has been developed, does it note how progress in implementing the plan will be measured? • III.2. On an annual basis, what area has been cleared and what area has been reduced (in square meters)? How many and what type of landmines and UXO have been cleared? • III.3. To what extent have populations and communities directly and indirectly benefited from the reduction of suspected areas and from mine clearance? To what extent has progress in mine action resulted in progress in the implementation of national development and poverty reduction strategies? APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 33

• III.4. How many (by age and sex) individuals have benefited from mine risk education? To what extent have casualty rates declined?

IV. Priorities for assistance in implementing national plans • IV.1. What are the priorities for outside assistance in implementing the national mine action plan or in obtaining necessary information regarding the impact of mined areas?

APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 34

Appendix II

Mine action technologies: Analysis of problems and recommendations to donors, end-users and technologists

Background

1. This annex to the final report of the Standing Committee is the outcome of two experts discussions on mine action technologies, which took place at the GICHD on the margins of the meetings of the Standing Committee in February and May 2003. These discussions were convened and chaired by Marc Acheroy (Royal Military Academy, Belgium) and involved the participation of: A. Antanasiotis (European Commission), D. Barlow (James Madison University), S. Brigot (ICBL), B. Briot (Ministry of Defence, Belgium), J. Dirscherl (GICHD), R. Gasser (European Commission), D. Lewis (International Test and Evaluation Programme), A. McAslan (Cranfield University), A. Sieber (European Commission Joint Research Centre), S. Sekkenes (ICBL), R. Suart (Canadian Centre for Mine Action Technologies), and C. Weickert (Canadian Centre for Mine Action Technologies).

Introduction

2. In 1997, at the Mine Action Forum that accompanied the Convention’s signing ceremony in Ottawa, concern was expressed at the lack of international coordination and cooperation in mine action technology. It was noted that there were no universal standards for technology, no common view on where resources should be directed, and that inadequate dialogue and understanding existed within and between the research and development communities. While we must acknowledge that further steps are still necessary, since 1997, significant efforts have been undertaken in many of these areas. Some success stories include:

• 2.1. The manufacturing of detectors which combine metal detection with ground penetrating radar (GPR); • 2.2. The development and use of mechanical devices; • 2.3. The development of applications based on information technologies (e.g., the Information Management System for Mine Action or IMSMA); • 2.4. The manufacturing of personal protective equipment and prosthetic feet; • 2.5. The training of rodents to detect landmines; and, • 2.6. The suitability and cost of personal protective equipment.

3. Thanks to the International Test and Evaluation Programme (ITEP), much work has been undertaken to test and evaluate equipment, systems and methods against agreed standards, including the CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation) Workshop Agreement – CWA 14747:2003 "Humanitarian Mine Action - Test and Evaluation - Metal Detectors", published by CEN in July 2003. Nevertheless, further efforts must be carried out, especially to initiate and increase the coordination and the cooperation between users, donors and technologists in order to develop and bring to the field equipment and tools based on real needs and not assumed needs. APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 35

Mine action technologies: a very difficult problem

4. Several factors slow down real progress in the development and fielding of new technology, with the most significant of these factors related to the fact that mine action solutions are not simplistic and that no “silver bullet” is available. It can be said that finding all mines in the ground without a false alarm is a challenge comparable to sending a person to the moon but with much less money. Some of the significant challenging factors include:

• 4.1. A lack of a procurement path makes fielding a technology very difficult. Consequently, developers can face a dead-end when research and development as well as prototyping and test and evaluation / validation (if any) are achieved! • 4.2. Mine action solutions are not universal but rather often country / region specific (e.g., related to specific soil type, climate, vegetation, socio-cultural environment, et cetera). A system approach needs to be used. • 4.3. Mine action technologies are diverse (e.g. ITEP recognizes 6 different categories: survey, detection, mechanical assistance, manual tools, personnel protection and neutralisation.) • 4.4. Requirements for technologies are not easily defined, nor satisfied. • 4.5. Some major advances have not been well adequately recognized (e.g., the very significant improvements in metal detectors, personal protective equipment, information technology support tools). • 4.6. It is now clear that the market for mine action equipment is not large enough by itself to support the cost of bringing products to market. • 4.7. Both donors and demining organizations are naturally conservative – especially regarding safety. • 4.8. Donors are reluctant to insist on new and more efficient technologies and deminers often do not change successful clearance methods (even if not efficient) as long as donors accept the status quo. • 4.9. Some of the problems of new mine action technologies are not technical (e.g. computer staff in field offices leaving once they are trained).

Recommendations to donors

5. Clearly, donors have a key role to play, especially in supporting the introduction to the field of new technologies which offer potential long-term cost-savings (e.g., by supporting the introduction of new technologies on the condition that they will lead to faster operations, saving lives, and saving money). Specific recommendations for donors to consider are the following

• 5.1. Donors should invest now in new technologies in order to get future gains in efficiency (thus saving money). • 5.2. Donors should insist on steady improvements in efficiency from demining organizations. • 5.3. Donors should insist that clearance contracts, where appropriate, include participation by demining organizations in testing new technologies (with costs re-paid by the donors). • 5.4. In order to solve the problem of the absence of large enough market for humanitarian demining equipment, donors should envisage dual use technologies, APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 36

including by leveraging military technologies and making incremental improvements to existing tools. • 5.5. Donors should understand that the most likely vendors are existing manufacturers (e.g. metal detector manufacturers). • 5.6. Donor should include in technology funding packages: a staff education package taking into account the social and cultural environment; and, a long-term training package for the maintenance and repair of equipment. • 5.7. Donors must realise that clearing mined areas more quickly and efficiently may be seen as leading to unemployment for local deminers, who may therefore reject new technologies. Support for improved clearance technologies must be complemented by assistance to local deminers to help them reintegrate into the local productive economy when clearance is complete. • 5.8. Donors should strive to understand users’ real needs, in part through increased contact between donors and technologists. Donors should accept that appropriate technology must correspond to appropriate needs and that mine action funding should not be just a platform for to sell donor country’s products.

Recommendations to end-users

• 5.9. Demining organisations and mine action centres should identify the best technologies for their geographic / social / cultural / mine – UXO situation with a view to addressing “bottlenecks” and leaving alone other areas where there are no problems. • 5.10. End-users should make use of the opportunities offered by the members of the International Test & Evaluation Programme (ITEP) to ask specific questions on technology performances and to receive information about “tried and tested tools”. • 5.11. End-users should help technologists understand the real needs of deminers (e.g., inviting them to go to the field to understand the working environment).

Recommendations to technologists

• 5.12. Technologists should visit the field to truly understand the real needs of end-users. • 5.13. Technologies should understand that field users will only accept sophisticated technology if it is simple to use and affordable. • 5.14. The ITEP should be wide-open to end-users’ questions and play a key role in providing information about “tried and tested tools”, including information on where, why and when they are useful. • 5.15. Technologists should increase their understanding of the fact that, in addition to technologies related to detection, technologies related to area reduction, strategic planning, programme management and other key areas of mine action are also important.

Conclusions

6. The Convention states that “each State Party undertakes to facilitate and shall have the right to participate in the fullest possible exchange of equipment, material and scientific and technological information concerning the implementation of (the) Convention.” This implies that such an exchange is an important underpinning to assisting States Parties in the fulfilment of their obligations. It is in the spirit of this provision of Convention that all actors are urged to apply the recommendations in this document. Donors need to understand that technologists need APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 37 their support to establish a sound procurement process for fielding new technologies in order to have a more cost-effective mine action. For their part, end-users need to be pro-active, understanding and open to the process of introducing new technologies in the field and to make use of existing tools. End users need to understand that new technologies could save human lives and increase mine action efficiency. Finally, technologists must accept that nothing is more important than understanding the working environment.

Examples of technology progress

• 6.1. Metal detectors: In recent years, manufacturers and scientists have significantly enhanced the capabilities of current metal detectors (much better sensitivity and resolution, much better behaviour in magnetic soils, etc). Not all soils are suitable for metal detectors as there are dangerous cases where it is impossible to detect metal objects because of soil characteristics. In order to solve this safety problem, an analysis of the soil characteristics is to be undertaken under the umbrella of the International Test and Evaluation Programme (ITEP).

• 6.2. Hand-held, dual sensor mine detectors (Metal detector + Ground Penetrating Radar): In 2002, mine detectors were tested successfully in Bosnia and in Lebanon. In 2003, operational tests will be performed with 24 mine detectors in 4 different mine- affected countries. Lessons will be collected and enhancements will be made if needed. The benefits include enhanced detection and a reduced false alarm rate.

• 6.3. Information technology: The IMSMA is still evolving. It now includes standard reporting facilities (e.g, reporting obligation of Article 7) and can exchange information with Geographical Information Systems (GIS) which allows the use of digitised map and satellite images. Satellite images with appropriate information overlays can be used as maps. Management tools have been developed or are under development (e.g. to assist with planning demining campaigns, cost-benefit analysis regarding the introduction of specific equipment, the definition of a mine clearance strategy at country / region level, et cetera).

• 6.4. Personal Protective Equipment: A test methodology has been developed based on in-depth analysis of the physics of mine blast damage mechanisms (CCMAT – US) and standards will be developed for personal protective equipment under the umbrella of the International Test and Evaluation Programme (ITEP).

• 6.5. Prosthetic feet (CCMAT): These prosthetic feet provide greater comfort for wearer (energy storage and return), much longer lifetime, low maintenance costs and better cosmetic features.

• 6.6. Educated Rodents (APOPO): In 2002, rats were tested successfully in Tanzania and proved to be reliable. In 2003, operational tests are foreseen in 6 different affected countries.

• 6.7. The International Test and Evaluation Programme (ITEP): ITEP is an international programme favouring collaboration between the participating countries to avoid duplication of efforts, dedicated to the test and evaluation of all forms of APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 38

equipment, systems and methods for used in humanitarian demining. It can be dangerous to rely on data sheets distributed by manufacturers to select equipment and/or to assess their real performances. Therefore, test and evaluation against agreed standards are very important for safety and operational effectiveness as it can be dangerous to rely entirely on manufacturers’ data for equipment selection and assessment. For these reasons, the two main activities of ITEP are test and evaluation and the development of standards (which is an ongoing process). Agreed standards for metal detector testing were published at the beginning of July 2003. The process of developing standards for ground penetrating radar (GPR) was launched in 2002. ITEP has also elaborated a work-plan for test and evaluation activities including six technical programmes: survey, detection, mechanical assistance, manual tools, personal protection and neutralisation. APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 39

STANDING COMMITTEE ON VICTIM ASSISTANCE AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC REINTEGRATION

Final Report∗ 2002-2003

I. Introduction

1. The Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and Socio-Economic Reintegration, established in accordance with the decisions and recommendations of Meetings of the States Parties, met in Geneva on 4 February 2003 and 13 May 2003. These meetings were convened by its Co-Chairs, Ambassador Gérard Chesnel of France and Ms. Fulvia Benavides-Cotes of Columbia, with the support of its Co-Rapporteurs, Mr. Peter Truswell of Australia and Ms. Dijana Plestina of Croatia.

2. Representatives of more than 90 States Parties, 30 States not Parties, the United Nations, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and numerous other international and non-governmental organizations participated in the work of the Standing Committee. Landmine survivors, through the Raising the Voices initiative, were active participants. The meetings were held in Geneva with the support of the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining. Interpretation was provided thanks to the support of the European Commission.

3. The Co-Chairs emphasised that in 2002-2003 the Standing Committee could best build upon past achievements by placing an increased emphasis on hearing concrete plans of action and problem areas from the mine-affected States Parties.

II. Overview of Status of Implementation

4. The Co-Chairs noted that approximately 40 States parties may require assistance in meeting the needs of landmine survivors within their countries. It was reported by Handicap International that there were 7,728 new casualties recorded in 2002, with three-quarters of the countries with new casualties being countries with insufficient infrastructure and services to provide for the care and rehabilitation of landmine survivors. The ICBL highlighted, however, that the recorded number of new mine casualties in 2002 does not take into account possible large numbers of the mine casualties that are not recorded and that the number of new casualties, therefore, is believed to be much higher. In addition, the ICBL provided an update on its study to measure progress in victim assistance, noting that 21 countries have been examined so far and that by the time of the Review Conference of 2004 the ICBL will be able to produce a comprehensive and detailed report of the progress made in victim assistance.

∗ This report has been submitted by the Co-Chairs of the Standing Committee, Colombia and France. This report is the Co-Chairs’ summary of the breadth of work undertaken by the Standing Committee during the 2002-2003 Intersessional period. It remains the responsibility of the Co-Chairs and is not a negotiated document.

APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 40

III. Update on implementation: plans and progress

5. The Co-Chairs emphasized that since the responsibility to assist landmine survivors rests with individual States parties, it is essential that they use the Standing Committee as a forum to communicate their problems, plans, progress and priorities for assistance. To assist, in advance of both meetings of the Standing Committee, the Co-Chairs distributed a suggested framework for States Parties to use in preparing presentations on the extent of their challenges and plans to address the priorities identified in 2002: emergency and continuing medical care; physical rehabilitation / prosthetics; psychological and social support; economic reintegration; national planning; and, laws and public policies.

6. Fifteen States Parties took advantage of the opportunities presented by the Standing Committee to share information: Afghanistan, Albania, Cambodia, Chad, Colombia, Croatia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, El Salvador, Namibia, Nicaragua, Rwanda, Senegal, Tajikistan and Zambia. In addition, Turkey, a State not Party, shared information.

• Emergency and continuing medical care: Updates on emergency and continuing medical care identified challenges as being: that countries with large numbers of victims are often some of the world’s poorest; and, that a lack of qualified medical personnel and trauma treatment – especially in areas where most victims can be found – are often persistent problems.

• Physical rehabilitation / prosthetics: While many reported that progress had been made, some problems identified were shortages of prosthetic technicians, a lack of other qualified staff, a lack of funds, and long distances that some individuals must travel to access services.

• Psychological and social support: Some reported on specific initiatives, like Croatia which highlighted a project designed to support the needs of young people. Others, like Afghanistan, noted that while a number of services may exist in a country they are often inadequate in addressing the total need.

• Economic reintegration: While some successes in the area of economic reintegration were noted, others highlighted that this remains a profound problem especially in countries experiencing broader economic problems.

• Laws, public policies and national planning: Several mentioned legislation that had been established and that progress is being made in institutional development in a number of countries. The capacity to implement legislation remains a problem, though, in many cases.

IV. Update on assistance and cooperation

7. The Co-Chairs noted that all States Parties and relevant organizations have an important role to play in supporting the efforts of mine-affected States Parties. Several States Parties, including Australia, Austria, Canada, France, Hungary, Japan, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden provided updates on assistance and cooperation activities. Several reported on specific victim assistance initiatives whereas others noted that they are fulfilling their obligations to assist mine-affected States with their responsibility to victims by providing support to broader APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 41 health care programmes or to the ICRC. Numerous organizations also contributed to this discussion, including the ICBL which expressed concern that only limited funding was being directed to victim assistance.

V. Regional approaches

8. In keeping with the call made by the President of the Fourth Meeting of the States Parties to place an emphasis on regional implementation initiatives, the Co-Chairs provided an opportunity for updates on significant relevant activities, noting that comprehensive initiatives are underway in Europe and Asia: Handicap International Belgium is undertaking research in South Eastern Europe on behalf of the International Trust Fund for Demining and Mine Victims Assistance. In addition, Handicap International France highlighted its ongoing Regional Assistance Project in South East Asia, noting the importance of partnership between mine- affected and donor States. The Co-Chairs indicated their appreciation for these initiatives and encouraged international and non-governmental organizations to pursue similar efforts in other regions.

VI. Maximising the Standing Committee as a vehicle for cooperation and assistance

9. The Standing Committee received updates on various initiatives being undertaken in other forums: Efforts to establish a new international convention on the rights of persons with disabilities were highlighted. An update was provided on discussions facilitated by the ICBL Working Group on Victim Assistance which are aimed at producing, in time for the Review Conference, enhanced cooperation between non-governmental organizations which are involved in prosthetic and orthopaedic services. As well, it was reported that the United Nations has engaged in a consultative process to establish a policy to assist mine action programmes in better defining their role in victim assistance.

VII. An assessment of needs that remain

10. The work of the Standing Committee in 2002-2003 succeeded in placing a greater emphasis on the voices of the mine-affected States parties in the work of the Committee. However, with only one year before the Convention’s First Review Conference, much more needs to be done.

11. In order for the States Parties at the Review Conference to assess progress in the pursuit of their wish “to do their utmost in providing assistance for the care and rehabilitation, including the social and economic reintegration of mine victims,” it is essential that the mine-affected States Parties themselves communicate how they define their challenges and hence how they will measure progress. Therefore:

• The Co-Chairs recommend that the Standing Committee in 2003-2004 increase efforts to promote the participation by mine-affected States Parties in the meetings of the Standing Committee.

• The Co-Chairs furthermore recommend that mine-affected States Parties make use of the suggested framework that has been developed to assist them in preparing presentations on their problems, plans, progress and priorities for assistance. (See the appendix to this report.)

APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 42

12. The Standing Committee also made it clear in 2002-2003 that the Convention implies that international cooperation and assistance will play a leading role in assisting the States Parties in fulfilling their obligations. Many States Parties “in a position to do so”, as well as numerous international and non-governmental organisations, have communicated that they are indeed providing necessary assistance and support – either through targeted victim assistance programs or through broader programming to support the health care and rehabilitation services or human rights frameworks in mine-affected States. However:

• The Co-Chairs recommend that States parties “in a position to do so” continue to make use of the Standing Committee in 2003-2004 to share information on their particular approaches to ensuring that resources are provided to support those States that need assistance.

13. It was apparent at the Standing Committee meetings in 2002-2003 that regional initiatives can play an extremely valuable role in assisting individual States Parties in meeting their obligations. To build upon this:

• The Co-Chairs recommend that additional regional efforts be undertaken in 2003-2004 with a view to enabling States Parties with similar challenges to share ideas and experiences, and develop joint strategies and initiatives.

APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 43

Appendix

Framework to assist mine-affected States Parties in preparing for meetings of the Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and Socio-Economic Reintegration

Introduction:

1. One of the enhancements made during the May 2002 meetings of the Standing Committees established by the States Parties to the Convention banning anti-personnel mines was to increase the number of opportunities for participation by States Parties. Mine affected States Parties may wish to maximize these opportunities during meetings of the Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and Socio-Economic Reintegration by preparing presentations on the challenges they face and efforts that are being taken to overcome these challenges. In order to assist these States Parties in preparing written and oral presentations (maximum: 10-12 minutes) on these matters, the following framework has been developed.

I. The extent of the challenge:

Provide an overview of the information that is available on landmine survivors, including information on their demographics and the types of injuries that they have suffered, and areas in the country where survivors are most prevalent. Is there an ongoing data collection mechanism to track new mine victims?

II. Addressing the challenge:

In each of the following four areas, provide a brief overview of: • The current situation with respect to services and facilities required to meet the needs of landmine survivors; • What you desire the situation to be; • Your plan to achieve the desired results; and, • Your priorities for outside assistance.

II.1. Emergency and Continuing Medical Care (e.g., first aid and transportation to respond effectively to landmine and other traumatic injuries, surgery, pain management, and additional medical care to assist in the rehabilitation of survivors)

II.2. Physical Rehabilitation / Prosthetics (e.g., physiotherapy, production and fitting of prostheses, pre and post-prosthetic care, repair and adjustment of prostheses, provision and maintenance of assistive devices and wheelchairs, and rehabilitative assistance for the deaf and blind)

II.3. Psychological and Social Support (e.g., peer support groups, professional counselling, sports and associations for the disabled)

APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 44

II.4. Economic Reintegration (e.g., skills and vocational training, literacy training, income-generating projects, small business loans, and job placement)

III. Laws and public policies:

Provide an overview of any laws and policies that are in place to promote and enhance the effective treatment, care and protection for all disabled citizens, including landmine survivors. In addition, what laws or policies are in place with respect to accessibility to the built-up environment? What mechanisms and / organizations exist to promote the rights of persons with disabilities? What programs exist to raise public awareness on disability issues? APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 45

STANDING COMMITTEE ON STOCKPILE DESTRUCTION

Final Report∗ 2002-2003

I. Introduction

1. The Standing Committee on Stockpile Destruction, established in accordance with the decisions and recommendations of the Meetings of the States Parties, met in Geneva on 6 February 2003 and 15 May 2003. These meetings were convened by the Standing Committee’s Co-Chairs, Mr. René Haug of Switzerland and Mr. Radu Horumba of Romania, with the support of its Co-Rapporteurs, Mr. Luigi Scotto of Italy and Mr. Carlos J. Arroyave of Guatemala.

3. In accordance with the President’s Action Programme of the Fourth Meeting of the States Parties (4MSP), the Standing Committee focused its attention on: States Parties with a deadline for stockpile destruction in 2003; bilateral and regional assistance and co-operation in the area of stockpile destruction; and technical aspects related to the implementation of stockpile destruction obligations.

II. Overview of the Status of Implementation

4. The Standing Committee attached great importance to that fact in 2003 the first deadlines for the stockpile destruction occurred, particularly with a view to ensuring that all States Parties could comply with this important obligation. It was highlighted with great satisfaction that all State Parties with a 2003 deadline indicated that they will comply with this obligation and will no longer possess anti-personnel mines stockpiles beyond their respective deadlines. The exchange of information on the completion of stockpile destruction was the most significant part of the Standing Committee meetings.

5. By the end of the May 2003 meeting of the Standing Committee, the following 16 States Parties declared that they had completed their stockpile destruction since the 4MSP: Brazil, Chad, Croatia, Djibouti, El Salvador, Italy, Japan, Jordan, the Netherlands, Moldova, Mozambique, Portugal, Slovenia, Thailand, Turkmenistan, and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. In addition, Uganda indicated that it will be able to meet its 1 August

∗ This report has been submitted by the Co-Chairs of the Standing Committee, Switzerland and Romania. This report is the Co-Chairs’ summary of the breadth of work undertaken by the Standing Committee during the 2002-2003 Intersessional period. It remains the responsibility of the Co-Chairs and is not a negotiated document. APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 46

2003 deadline with international help and assistance and Venezuela indicated that it would destroy its stockpiles prior to the Fifth Meeting of the States Parties (5MSP).

6. With respect to Guinea, which had a 1 April 2003 deadline, the Co-Chairs noted that no official information had been obtained concerning the existence of stockpiled anti-personnel mines by that country. The Co-Chairs also noted that while it is assumed that Barbados, Equatorial Guinea, Namibia and the Solomon Islands do not have stockpiles, these States Parties have not yet provided an Article 7 report to indicate this.

7. Several States Parties indicated that they carried out the final part of the destruction of their anti-personnel mines in the presence of ministers, representatives of other States Parties and international and non-governmental organizations, and national and international media. The Co- Chairs commended these States Parties for ensuring transparency and allowing for verification of their destruction programmes and invited other States Parties with future deadlines to do the same.

8. The following 14 States Parties with deadlines in 2004 and beyond gave updates on their stockpile destruction programmes: Argentina, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Chile, Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Romania, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uruguay and Zambia. In addition, 3 States not Parties to the Convention made statements concerning stockpile destruction, Belarus, Ukraine, and Serbia and Montenegro, as did one armed non-state actor from Somalia. This information from States not Party to the Convention was warmly welcomed, particularly information which also outlined plans to accede to the Convention in due course.

9. The ICBL gave overviews of the global situation regarding stockpile destruction, noting: that approximately 30 million antipersonnel mines have been destroyed so far by the States Parties; and, that as of May 2003, 46 States Parties had completed their destruction, 10 States Parties were in the process of destroying their stockpiles, and 8 other States Parties had yet to commence their stockpile destruction programmes. In addition, it was noted that 15 States Parties have yet to submit Article 7 reports confirming the presence or the absence of stockpiled anti-personnel mines.

10. The Co-Chairs distributed a chart presenting an up-to-date picture of the status of stockpile destruction. The Co-Chairs and Co-Rapporteurs will continue to update and circulate revised versions of this chart, including at the 5MSP. This chart is also available on the GICHD website.

III. Update on assistance and cooperation

11. The Co-Chairs commended national and international efforts to assist States Parties and other countries in fulfilling the Convention's obligations in the area of stockpile destruction. During the meetings of the Standing Committee, the following States Parties and organizations gave an update on, or mentioned in their presentations, on-going assistance efforts with respect to stockpile destruction: Canada, France, Portugal, the NATO Maintenance and Supply Agency (NAMSA), the European Commission (EC), the Organization of American States, the Reay Group of the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the GICHD. In addition, Italy, Japan, Jordan and Thailand noted their willingness to assist other countries in stockpile destruction with equipment, know-how and trained personnel. APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 47

12. The following States Parties requested international assistance and financial support for their stockpile destruction activities: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Uganda, Senegal, and Tajikistan. The following States not Parties the same: Belarus, Serbia and Montenegro, and Ukraine.

13. At the request of the Co-Chairs, the Standing Committee was briefed on the challenges posed by the destruction of large stocks of PFM-type mines in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union and on the safety risks posed by specific construction features and toxic substances that PFM mines contain. Two States not Parties to the Convention which possess large stockpiles of these mines, Ukraine and Belarus, stressed that without assistance they would have difficulty destroying their stockpiles and that this impeded their ratification of, or accession to, the Convention.

14. Bulgaria, the GICHD, Ukraine, and the EC provided updates on the technical and environmental challenges of transporting and destroying PFM and PMN landmines. Canada, the EC, NAMSA, the UNDP, and the GICHD provided updates on on-going assistance efforts with respect to the destruction of these mines. These updates highlighted the risks of continued storage and the explosive degradation of such mines as they approach the end of their shelf-life. In addition, it was highlighted that there is a need to develop a comprehensive funding and technology approach for the destruction these mines. The ICRC reported on a seminar in Kiev, where among others issues, the destruction of PFM mines was noted as a major impediment for the ratification of the Convention.

IV. Matters of a thematic nature related to destruction and post-destruction activities

A. "E-mine" website

15. The United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS) provided an update on its “e-mine” web site (www.mineaction.org), which now includes new functions and more comprehensive information on stockpile destruction in various countries.

B. Correct Use of Form B and Form D of Article 7 Reports

16. It was noted that in some cases States Parties have entered the same information on stockpiled anti-personnel mines under Forms B and D of their Article 7 reports, suggesting that they have stockpiles of anti-personnel mines even though they have fulfilled their obligations under Article 4 (Note: Form B corresponds to stockpiled anti-personnel mines whereas Form D corresponds to anti-personnel mines retained for the development of and training in various activities noted in Article 3.) The United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs clarified that reports in Form D regarding the number of anti-personnel mines retained in accordance with Article 3 should not be included in the number of mines still stockpiled as reported in Form B.

C. Preservation of information and data on stockpile destruction

17. The Co-Chairs recommended in their February 2003 "food-for thought" paper that information, data and lessons learned with respect to stockpile destruction programmes should be preserved and safeguarded. In this respect the Standing Committee appreciated the offer by the Implementation Support Unit (ISU) to serve as a depository for such information and data. As APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 48 result of the efforts of the ISU in this area, a bibliography on stockpile destruction sources can be presented at the 5MSP.

D. Contact Group

18. The Co-Chairs and Co-Rapporteurs decided that, considering the excellent compliance with stockpile destruction deadlines in 2003, meetings of a contact group on stockpile destruction would only be warranted should a need arise related to difficulties of one or more States Parties in meeting their Article 4 obligations.

E. Declaration and destruction of stockpiled anti-personnel mines discovered after the completion of stockpiles destruction

19. In their "food-for thought" paper, the Co-Chairs raised the issue of a possible discovery of formerly unknown stockpiles. Although the importance of this issue was acknowledged, discussions on this matter were inconclusive.

V. An assessment of needs that remain

20. The Standing Committee in 2003 marked impressive progress with respect to meeting the obligations outlined in Article 4 of the Convention and with respect to efforts of States Parties to cooperate and assist each other in stockpile destruction. Excellent compliance with the destruction deadlines during 2003 has become one of the Convention’s success stories.

A. Follow-up in 2003-2004

21. While during 2003 it appears that all States Parties with stockpile destruction deadlines fulfilled their Article 4 obligations, there is a need to continue to carefully monitor implementation of the article to identify, in a timely manner, possible assistance needs of a few cases that may have difficulty in meeting future deadlines. There is a need to be vigilant and to make every effort to uphold the so far flawless compliance record. A flawless compliance record in 2004 not only will strengthen the Convention further but also will provide an important input to the First Review Conference in 2004. With these factors in mind, the Co-Chairs recommend the following actions in 2003-2004:

• 21.1. That the Standing Committee give increased attention to those States Parties with stockpile destruction deadlines between end of the 5MSP and the First Review Conference;

• 21.2. That States Parties whose deadlines fall within the period leading to the First Review Conference provide updates to the Standing Committee and Co-Chairs on their plans and progress, and communicate any needs for assistance at their earliest convenience;

• 21.3. That States Parties whose deadlines fall in 2005 and beyond complete, if possible, their stockpile destruction before the First Review Conference;

APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 49

• 21.4. That, to promote transparency, strengthen the Convention and support universalization efforts, States Parties complete their final destruction events in the presence of representatives of other States Parties and international and non- governmental organizations, and national and international media;

• 21.5. That States Parties and international and regional organisations continue to provide assistance in the area of stockpile destruction assistance; and,

• 21.6. That an emphasis continue to be placed on the destruction of PFM mines with a view to ensuring the formal acceptance, by the time of the Review Conference, by those States for which this continues to be an issue.

B. Follow-up on thematic issues related to destruction and post-destruction activities

22. The Standing Committee in 2002-2003 discussed various broader thematic areas that warrant follow-up over the next year. The Co-Chairs thus recommend the following:

• 22.1. That States Parties and international and non-governmental organisations use the UNMAS "E-mine" website to share and access information on stockpile destruction;

• 22.2. That States Parties provide information and data on national stockpile destruction programmes, destruction technologies, national policies and case studies to the Implementation Support Unit in its role as a depository for such information and data;

• 22.3. That, in their Article 7 reports, States Parties indicate the number of antipersonnel mines retained in accordance with Article 3 only in Form D; and,

• 22.4. That the Co-Chairs convene a meeting of the Contact Group on stockpile destruction at their convenience whenever needs arise to discuss difficulties faced by one or more States Parties in fulfilling Article 4 obligations. APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 50

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE GENERAL STATUS AND OPERATION OF THE CONVENTION

Final Report∗ 2002-2003

I. Introduction

1. The Standing Committee on the General Status and Operation of the Convention, established in accordance with the decisions and recommendations of Meetings of the States Parties, met in Geneva on 3 and 7 February 2003, and 12 and 16 May 2003. These meetings were convened by its Co-Chairs, Ambassador Wolfgang Petritsch of Austria and Mr. Gustavo Laurie of Peru, with the support of its Co-Rapporteurs, Ms. Socorro Rovirosa of Mexico and Mr. Alexander Verbeek of the Netherlands.

2. Representatives of more than 90 States Parties, 30 States not Parties, the United Nations, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and numerous other international and non-governmental organizations participated in the work of the Standing Committee. The meetings were held in Geneva with the support of the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining. Interpretation was provided thanks to the support of the European Commission.

3. The Co-Chairs emphasised that the programmes they had developed for the Standing Committee meetings were intended to provide a broad overview of progress towards the achievement of the Convention’s core humanitarian aims while at the same time providing opportunities for dialogue on specific articles of the Convention.

II. Overview of the status of implementation:

4. The President of the Fourth Meeting of the States Parties (4MSP) provided updates on the general status of implementation of the Convention, particularly noting actions that had been taken in the context of the President’s Action Programme and its emphasis on achieving the core humanitarian aims of the Convention.

With respect to universalization, it was noted that whereas at the end of the 4MSP 128 States had formally accepted the Convention, by the end of the May 2003 meeting of the Standing Committee the number of States that had ratified or acceded to the Convention stood at 134. With respect to stockpile destruction, it was noted that the first deadline for destruction occurred on 1 March 2003 and that all 45 States Parties which had a deadline on that date had reported that they had completed destruction in accordance with Article 4. With respect to mine clearance, it was noted that while 45 States Parties may have mined areas, the first of the States Parties that had reported mined areas had indicated that it had completed clearance in accordance

∗ This report has been submitted by the Co-Chairs of the Standing Committee, Austria and Peru. This report is the Co-Chairs’ summary of the breadth of work undertaken by the Standing Committee during the 2002-2003 Intersessional period. It remains the responsibility of the Co- Chairs and is not a negotiated document.

APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 51 with Article 5. And concerning victim assistance, it was noted that while the Convention had made gains in highlighting at the international level the challenges faced by landmine survivors and other persons with disabilities, much more needed to be done at the national level to communicate the State-specific challenges, plans to overcome them, progress that has been made and priorities for outside assistance. The President of the 4MSP also highlighted the breadth of regional activity that has taken place during 2002-2003, which he had noted in the President’s Action Programme as being a priority during this period.

III. Overview of the general status of universalization

5. It was reported that between the end of the 4MSP and the end of the May 2003 Standing Committee meeting, six additional States had ratified or acceded to the Convention: The Gambia, Central African Republic, Cyprus, Sao Tome et Principe, East Timor, and Lithuania. In addition, several other States – including Greece, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Turkey – reported that they were in the final stages of formally accepting the Convention.

6. The ongoing work of the Universalization Contact Group was highlighted, with special note given to the role of States Parties’ partners in universalization efforts – including the work undertaken by actors such as parliamentarians, the Human Security Network and the ICBL, or within multilateral fora including the Non-Aligned Movement, the Inter-Parliamentary Union and regional organizations. In addition, a new initiative to promote increased military-to-military dialogue was highlighted.

IV. Mobilising resources to achieve the Convention’s humanitarian aims

7. It was recalled that at the 4MSP it was suggested that all relevant actors take necessary steps and maintain frequent contact to ensure that by the Review Conference a significant renewal of the collective commitment is made to eliminating anti-personnel mines. In this regard, the establishment of a Resource Mobilisation Contact Group was welcomed.

8. Matters regarding resource mobilization which were highlighted included the role of States Parties – both traditional donors but also mine-affected countries themselves. The Contact Group Coordinator distributed detailed reports on resources generated since the Convention’s establishment, with these reports indicating in part that mine-affected States Parties have made substantial contributions to resolving their own landmines problems. The roles of multilateral organizations and development banks in resource mobilization were highlighted as well. In addition, it was stressed that resource mobilization must be considered more than simply money raised but rather should be understood in the context of both the need for integration of mine action into broader development programming and an increased emphasis on national ownership and coordination.

V. Matters related to the general operation of the Convention

A. Intersessional Work Programme

9. The Co-Chairs proceeded with their traditional role of consulting with a view to developing a list of prospective Co-Rapporteurs for the 2003-2004 Intersessional Work Programme. Based on these consultations, the Co-Chairs reported that they will propose to the Fifth Meeting of the States Parties (5MSP) the following: APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 52

• 9.1. Standing Committee on the General Status and Operation of the Convention: South Africa and New Zealand. • 9.2. Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and Socio-Economic Reintegration: Nicaragua and Norway. • 9.3. Standing Committee on Mine Clearance, Mine Risk Education and Mine Action Technologies: Algeria and Sweden. • 9.4. Standing Committee on Stockpile Destruction: Bangladesh and Canada.

10. At both meetings of the Standing Committee, the Co-Chairs emphasized their understanding that the States Parties’ expectations for the Co-Rapporteurs who would serve during the 2003- 2004 Intersessional Work Programme would be different than in the past given that the culmination of the upcoming Intersessional Programme will be a Review Conference rather than an annual Meeting of the States Parties. That is, the Co-Chairs noted that the appointment of Co- Rapporteurs for 2003-2004 should be made without prejudice to the decisions taken at the Review Conference with respect to these Co-Rapporteurs assuming further roles in the period following the Review Conference.

B. Coordinating Committee

11. As requested by the States Parties at the 4MSP, the Chair of the Coordinating Committee reported on its activities, noting that, between the 4MSP and the May meetings of the Standing Committees, the Coordinating Committee had met seven times with its focus on preparations for the Standing Committee meetings, enhancing participation in these meetings and encouraging an emphasis on progress in the pursuit of the Convention’s core humanitarian aims.

C. Implementation Support Unit

12. The Director of the GICHD and the Manager of the Implementation Support Unit (ISU) provided updates on the work of the ISU, noting in particular the establishment of the Convention’s documentation centre and enhanced efforts to ensure that the States Parties receive the information they need in order to participate fully in the work of the Convention. It was also noted that between the approval of the mandate to establish the ISU the end of the May meetings of the Standing Committees, 11 States Parties had made financial contributions to the ISU Trust Fund.

D. Sponsorship Programme

13. The Coordinator of the Sponsorship Programme provided updates to the Standing Committee, noting that while additional donors continue to join the programme, demand for funds continues to outpace supply. The Coordinator stressed that additional resources will be needed to sustain the programme into 2004 and that it was hoped that those who have benefited from the programme would review their required level of assistance in order to ensure necessary support for others.

E. Preparations for the Fifth Meeting of the States Parties (5MSP)

14. In keeping with past practice, the first meeting of the Standing Committee reviewed a draft agenda, a draft programme of work, draft rules of procedure and provisional cost estimates for APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 53 the 5MSP. At the second meeting of the Standing Committee, a revised draft programme of work was reviewed, taking into consideration the need to make various changes to accommodate the meeting’s opening ceremony. It was the Co-Chairs’ sense that the draft agenda, revised draft programme of work, draft rules of procedure and provisional cost estimates could be put before the States Parties for their acceptance at the 5MSP.

15. The Standing Committee also noted the appointment by the United Nations Secretary- General of Mr. Enrique Roman-Morey as Executive-Secretary of the 5MSP, the nomination by Thailand of two individuals who would serve as Co-Secretaries-General of the 5MSP, and of updates provided by Thailand on various organizational matters.

16. In addition, in the context of discussions on preparations for the 5MSP, it was announced that various States Parties intended to host regional activities, either before the 5MSP or in the period leading to the Review Conference.

VI. Matters pertaining to particular Articles of the Convention

A. Article 1

17. The Co-Chairs provided opportunities for States Parties to share information in an informal and voluntary manner in their national experiences in the implementation of Article 1, particularly with respect to operational understandings of the word “assist” in Article 1, paragraph 1c. It was noted that an increasing number of national views was bringing greater clarity to this matter. The ICBL, while expressing concern about joint operations involving States Parties and States not party to the Convention with respect to military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, indicated its belief that there are a number of areas where common views are emerging regarding what States Parties should not do when engaged in such joint operations. It reiterated its view that a common understanding of this matter would strengthen the Convention.

B. Article 2

18. The Co-Chairs provided opportunities for States Parties to share information in an informal and voluntary manner on their national experiences in the implementation of Article 2. Several States Parties shared their experiences and points of view regarding the application and understanding of the article. The ICBL urged greater progress in clarifying the definitions contained in the article, reiterating its view that mines which are capable of being activated by the unintentional act of a person, meet the definition of an anti-personnel mine under the Convention. The ICRC reiterated its view that a mine which is likely to be detonated by the presence, proximity or contact of a person is an anti-personnel mine, regardless of intent or of how the mine is labeled.

Addressing the humanitarian impact of mines that may pose similar risks to civilian populations as anti-personnel mines

19. The Co-Chairs provided opportunities for States Parties to discuss steps taken, and possible approaches, to reduce the humanitarian impact of mines that may pose similar risks to civilians as anti-personnel mines. The ICRC recalled that it had hosted an experts meeting in March 2001 in order to identify practical steps to this end and proposed that in the lead-up to the First Review APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 54

Conference a process be undertaken to identify “best practices” which would culminate in an “understanding” on this issue for possible adoption at the Review Conference. However, at the May 2003 meeting of the Standing Committee the ICRC concluded that States Parties apparently are unwilling to engage in such a process. For their part, several States Parties expressed their view that matters related to mines other than anti-personnel mines should be discussed within the context of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, whereas others stressed the importance of keeping this matter on the agenda of the Standing Committee.

C. Article 3

20. The Co-Chairs provided opportunities for States Parties to share information in an informal and voluntary manner on their national experiences in retaining, using and planning to use antipersonnel mines in accordance with Article 3. Some States Parties made use of this opportunity to express their views on the Article or to provide further clarity on mines retained. Several confirmed that the understanding of negotiators of the Convention was that the number of mines retained in accordance with the Article should be in the hundreds or thousands, but not in the tens of thousands. The ICBL expressed its concern about some States Parties, which in its view are retaining excessive numbers of mines and, in particular, regarding the number of mines retained by one State Party. Several States Parties shared this concern. The ICBL further reiterated its view that States Parties should provide voluntary information in their Article 7 reports on the intended purpose and actual use of anti-personnel mines in accordance with the Article.

D. Article 7

21. The Coordinator of the Article 7 Contact Group reported on the status of Article 7 reporting, noting that by the end of the May 2003 meetings of the Standing Committees 90 percent of initial reports had been submitted in accordance with paragraph 1 of the article. In addition, it was emphasized that in accordance with paragraph 2 of the Article, Article 7 reporting is an annual obligation with States Parties required to submit reports by 30 April of each year.

22. It was noted that the United Nations had transferred responsibility for the receipt of Article 7 reports from New York to the office of the United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs in Geneva. States Parties were urged to submit reports electronically to the following address: [email protected].

23. It was also noted that three States not Parties had voluntarily submitted Article 7 reports in accordance with the encouragement to do so in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 57/74.

E. Article 8

Dialogue related to the facilitation and clarification of compliance

24. Updates were provided on the ongoing informal dialogue related to the facilitation and clarification of compliance, with it being noted that the non-governmental organization VERTIC had prepared a Guide to Fact Finding Missions. Some States Parties indicated their appreciation for this effort whereas others questioned the need for such a guide.

APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 55

25. While no other suggestion had been made for a discussion topic in the context of this ongoing dialogue, the open invitation for States Parties to propose topics was highlighted. (Following the May 2003 meeting of the Standing Committee, a request has been made for discussions on the relationship between Articles 8 and 9). For its part, the ICBL urged an ongoing, lively dialogue in part given its view that in the event of serious allegations of non- compliance Article 8 should be made operational.

Matters pertaining to compliance concerns

26. The Co-Chairs provided opportunities for informal discussions on any matter related to compliance concerns. The ICBL again urged the States Parties, in time for the Review Conference, to place a high priority on ensuring a more coordinated and effective response to compliance concerns. It was also noted that the ICBL recalled that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that treaty signatories must refrain from acts that would defeat the spirit and purposes of the instrument that they have signed.

F. Article 9

27. The Co-Chairs provided opportunities for States Parties to share experiences with respect to efforts to establish legislative, administrative and other matters in accordance with Article 9 to prevent or suppress any activity prohibited by the Convention. It was noted that 35 States Parties have adopted legislation, 21 States Parties are in the process of doing so and 13 States Parties consider existing laws sufficient to meet Article 9 obligations.

VII. An assessment of needs that remain

A. The general status of implementation and universalization

28. The Intersessional Work Programme’s focus in 2002-2003 on the Convention’s core humanitarian aims highlighted progress and challenges in those areas most pertinent to the achievement of the Convention’s promise:

• 28.1. The Co-Chairs therefore recommend that the Standing Committee in 2003-2004 again ensure that central focus is placed on assessing progress with respect to the core humanitarian aims as well as on those key areas – such as resources and information – that drive progress.

29. With respect to universalization, the Standing Committee’s emphasis in 2002-2003 on partnership and the contributions that could be offered by a multitude of actors underscored the importance of the Universalization Contact Group as an informal means to coordinate cooperative universalization efforts:

• 29.1. The Co-Chairs therefore recommend that the Contact Group enhance its efforts in 2003-2004 in the aim of ensuring that more States not party to the Convention ratify or accede to it in advance of the Review Conference.

• 29.2. In addition, the Co-Chairs recommend that all States Parties, the President of the 5MSP and all interested actors continue to play an active role in promoting acceptance of the Convention. APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 56

B. The general operation of the Convention

30. In 2002-2003, the States Parties were well served by the implementation mechanisms that they have established. With this in mind, the Co-Chairs recommend the following:

• 30.1. With respect to the Intersessional Work Programme, the Co-Chairs recommend that the States Parties emphasise the value and importance of the Intersessional Programme in the final year leading to the Review Conference and highlight the need to continue to focus with great clarity on the areas most directly related to the core humanitarian objectives.

• 30.2. Furthermore with respect to the Intersessional Work Programme, the Co-Chairs recommend that all mine-affected States Parties, those requiring assistance in meeting the needs of landmine survivors, and those in the process of destroying stockpiled antipersonnel mines, be encouraged to use the opportunity presented by the Intersessional Programme to present the problems they face in these areas, their plans to overcome these challenges, progress that has been made, and priorities for outside assistance.

• 30.3. Concerning the schedule for the Intersessional Work Programme between the 5MSP and the Review Conference, the Co-Chairs recommend that Standing Committee meetings be held the weeks of 9-12 February 2004 and 21-25 June 2004, and, that the Coordinating Committee continues to be practical-minded and applies the principle of flexibility with respect to the format of Standing Committee meetings, and their sequencing and respective time allocations.

• 30.4. With respect to the Coordinating Committee, the Co-Chairs recommend that the States Parties again recognize the value and importance of the Coordinating Committee in the effective functioning and implementation of the Convention and for operating in an open and transparent manner.

• 30.5. With respect to the Implementation Support Unit, the Co-Chairs recommend that the States Parties express their appreciation to the GICHD for the manner in which the ISU is making a positive contribution in support of the States Parties’ efforts to implement the Convention.

31. Mechanisms that have emerged on an informal basis also have played a significant role in contributing to the effective operation and implementation of the Convention.

• 31.1. With respect to the Sponsorship Programme in particular, the Co-Chairs recommend that States Parties express their appreciation for the manner in which the Sponsorship Programme has helped ensure more widespread participation at meetings of the Convention.

C. The Articles of the Convention

• 31.2. Given the increasing clarity that has emerged to date with respect to States Parties’ understandings of the application of Article 1 and Article 3, the Co-Chairs recommend APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 57

that States Parties continue to share information, in an informal and voluntary manner in the year preceding the Convention’s First Review Conference, with a view to developing common understandings on these matters at the Review Conference.

• 31.3. Similarly, the Co-Chairs recommend that States Parties continue to share information in an informal and voluntary manner in meetings of the Standing Committee on their experiences in applying Article 2 and with respect to mines that may pose similar risks to civilians as antipersonnel mines with a view to achieving a convergence of views on outstanding issues.

32. With respect to Article 6, 2002-2003 was a watershed year in increasing understanding of matters pertaining to resource mobilization and in highlighting our collective responsibility to generate the necessary resources and to apply them in an effective manner in the aim of ensuring that the Convention can live up to its humanitarian promise.

• 32.1. In this regard, the Co-Chairs recommend that the Resource Mobilization Contact Group continue its intensive efforts to encourage all States Parties, multilateral organizations, development banks, the private sector and other relevant actors to renew their commitments prior to or during the Review Conference.

• 32.2. With respect to Article 7, the Co-Chairs recommend that States Parties continue to give due regard to the reporting requirements contained in the article with a view to ensuring a 100 percent rate of compliance with the Article by the time of the First Review Conference.

• 32.3. Furthermore, the Co-Chairs recommend that the Article 7 Contact Group, individual States Parties, the President of the 5MSP and relevant organizations continue to promote these provisions and means to assist States Parties in complying with them.

• 32.4. In addition, the Co-Chairs again recommend that States Parties maximize the potential of the existing reporting format as an important tool to measure progress in the implementation of the Convention and for mine-affected States Parties to communicate their needs to other States Parties.

• 32.5. On matters related to Article 8, the Co-Chairs recommend that the dialogue on facilitation and compliance should continue in an open-ended format and that Canada should continue facilitating this dialogue as long as interest holds.

• 32.6. In recalling that Article 9 is the cornerstone of the Convention’s compliance mechanisms, the Co-Chairs recommend that, in advance of the Review Conference, all States Parties that have not yet done so take all appropriate legal, administrative and other measures to prevent or suppress any activity prohibited by the Convention.

• 32.7. In addition, the Co-Chairs recommend that States Parties use the opportunity presented by the Standing Committee to highlight good practices in the application of Article 9 and to request assistance if necessary. APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 58

Annex VII

“DECLARACIÓN DE LIMA: POR UN HEMISFERIO LIBRE DE MINAS ANTIPERSONAL”

Nosotros, los expertos de los Estados Americanos Parte de la Convención de Ottawa, reunidos en Lima, los días 14 y 15 de agosto de 2003, en el Seminario Regional “En camino hacia un hemisferio libre de minas antipersonal”, convocados por los Gobiernos del Perú, Canadá y por el Programa de Asistencia a la Acción Integral contra las Minas Antipersonal de la Organización de los Estados Americanos, para evaluar las fortalezas y debilidades de los países del hemisferio en la ejecución de las políticas en materia de la acción contra las minas, en observancia a las Resoluciones de la Asamblea General de la Organización de los Estados Americanos sobre esta temática, a saber, AG/RES. 1934 (XXXIII-0/03) "Apoyo al Programa de Acción Integral contra las Minas Antipersonal en Centroamérica”, AG/RES 1935 (XXXIII- 0/03) "Apoyo a la Acción contra las Minas en Perú y Ecuador", AG/RES 1936 (XXXIII-0/03) "Las Américas: Zona Libre de Minas Terrestres Antipersonal”:

Saludando los importantes avances conseguidos por los pueblos y Gobiernos de las Américas en el impulso a los procesos de desminado humanitario y de uso de tecnologías adecuadas, a los procesos de destrucción de arsenales de minas, a los de educación preventiva sobre el riesgo de accidentes de minas antipersonal y artefactos explosivos abandonados, así como a los procesos de asistencia a las víctimas y a sus familias, generadas por tales artefactos explosivos;

Reconociendo que las minas antipersonal continúan siendo una seria amenaza para la paz, la seguridad de las personas en el hemisferio y un evidente obstáculo para el desarrollo socio- económico de zonas productivas de algunos de nuestros países;

Reafirmando la imperiosa necesidad de lograr la erradicación total de las minas antipersonal;

Reconociendo la contribución de la comunidad internacional en favor de los programas y proyectos impulsados por nuestros países, para la consecución del objetivo de hacer del hemisferio occidental una zona libre de minas antipersonal, dentro de los plazos previstos en la Convención de Ottawa;

Reconociendo, también, la importante y valiosa contribución que ha venido brindando la Secretaría General de la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA), a través del Programa de Asistencia a la Acción Integral contra las Minas Antipersonal de la Unidad para la Promoción de la Democracia, a las tareas de la acción contra las minas antipersonal en el hemisferio;

Por ello, nosotros los expertos de los Estados Americanos Parte de la Convención de Ottawa, reunidos en este Seminario Regional, en el espíritu de la plena observancia de los principios del Derecho Internacional Humanitario y de los instrumentos y declaraciones internacionales sobre la materia, acordamos:

APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 59

1. Reafirmar la importancia de observar los principios y cumplir con las obligaciones contenidas en el derecho internacional respecto a la acción contra las minas antipersonal, que rige para todas las naciones;

2. Reiterar la importancia que los Estados Parte de la Convención de Ottawa continúen brindando sus aportes al proceso iniciado por dicho instrumento en el mundo;

3. Destacar que los Estados de las Américas han sido consecuentes con los compromisos asumidos al suscribir, ratificar e implementar el cumplimiento de las obligaciones contenidas en la Convención de Ottawa;

4. Reafirmar la necesidad de cumplir con las metas de la eliminación mundial de las minas terrestres antipersonal y la conversión de las Américas en una zona libre de minas antipersonal;

5. Instar a que nuestros Estados continúen considerando la acción contra las minas antipersonal como una prioridad nacional y regional, así como propiciar el ímpetu político y los recursos necesarios para mantener el liderazgo que las Américas han logrado a nivel mundial;

6. Instar a los países que aún no lo hubieren hecho, a que ratifiquen o consideren adherir a la Convención sobre la Prohibición del Empleo, el Almacenamiento, la Producción y la Transferencia de Minas Antipersonal y sobre su Destrucción, Convención de Ottawa, a la brevedad posible a fin de asegurar su plena universalización e implementación;

7. Agradecer a la comunidad internacional, la solidaridad y el valioso apoyo brindado a los países de las Américas en su esfuerzo por erradicar el flagelo de las minas antipersonal, e instar a los países amigos que conforman dicha comunidad donante a mantener, y en la medida de lo posible, incrementar su asistencia a los países de la región;

8. Saludar el acelerado proceso de destrucción de existencias de minas terrestres antipersonal en la región, desarrollados con fondos propios o de la cooperación internacional, destacando un especial reconocimiento a los esfuerzos desplegados por los Estados para su pronta eliminación y/o para la reducción a niveles mínimos de los stocks destinados a fines de entrenamiento o investigación;

9. Hacer un ferviente llamado a todos los Gobiernos del mundo para que se unan a nosotros, con el objeto de enfrentar los grandes desafíos que nos plantea la necesidad de brindar una adecuada atención integral (rehabilitación física, psicosocial, socio- económica) a las víctimas sobrevivientes de accidentes por minas antipersonal y sus familias, así como proporcionar la asistencia técnica y financiera a los programas sostenibles destinados a este propósito;

10. Respaldar firmemente el propósito y la necesidad de convertir “Las Américas en una zona libre de minas terrestres antipersonal”, propósito expresado en la Declaración de la Tercera Reunión de Estados Parte de la Convención de Ottawa, en diversas Resoluciones aprobadas en el marco de la Asamblea General de la Organización de los Estados Americanos, así como lo acordado en el “Llamado de Managua”;

11. Solicitar al Secretario General de la Organización de la Naciones Unidas (ONU) y al Secretario General de la Organización de los Estados Americanos (OEA), a través de la Unidad para la Promoción de la Democracia, y demás organismos internacionales que continúen APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 60 apoyando el desminado humanitario y la acción contra las minas antipersonal en aquellos países que lo requieran, de acuerdo a las posibilidades y recursos disponibles;

12. Celebrar con beneplácito la iniciativa del Gobierno del Ecuador de dar seguimiento a lo convenido en este Foro, en la próxima Conferencia regional que se llevará a cabo en la ciudad de Quito en junio del 2004;

13. Solicitar que esta Declaración sea considerada en la próxima Conferencia Especial de Seguridad, que se realizará en México, el 27 y 28 de octubre de 2003;

14. Acuerdan llevar la “Declaración de Lima: por un hemisferio libre de minas antipersonal” a la Quinta Conferencia de los Estados Parte de la Convención de Ottawa, que se realizará en Bangkok, Tailandia, del 15 al 19 de setiembre de 2003;

15. Agradecer a todos los participantes por los esfuerzos y valiosa colaboración prestada, para el adecuado desarrollo del presente Seminario regional;

16. Felicitar y agradecer al Gobierno del Perú, al Gobierno de Canadá y a la Organización de los Estados Americanos a través del Programa de Asistencia a la Acción Integral contra las Minas terrestres Antipersonal, por la organización y las atenciones recibidas durante la celebración del presente Seminario y encomendar a sus representantes a difundir adecuadamente los contenidos de la presente declaración en las organizaciones, conferencias y foros internacionales abocados al tratamiento de esta sensible problemática.

Acordada en la ciudad de Lima, Perú, a los 15 días del mes de agosto del año 2003. APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 61

Annex VIII

Déclaration du Réseau de la sécurité humaine pour l’universalisation de la Convention sur l’interdiction de l’emploi, du stockage, de la production et du transfert des mines antipersonnel et sur leur destruction

Les pays membres du Réseau de la Sécurité Humaine, à savoir l’Autriche, le Canada, le Chili, la Grèce, l’Irlande, la Jordanie, le Mali, la Norvège, les Pays-Bas, la Slovénie, la Suisse, la Thaïlande et l’Afrique du Sud en qualité d’observateur, réaffirment leur engagement à intensifier et à coordonner leurs efforts pour l’universalisation et la mise en œuvre de la “Convention sur l’interdiction de l’emploi, du stockage, de la production et du transfert des mines antipersonnel et sur leur destruction”.

En effet, les mines antipersonnel représentent une des menaces les plus graves à la sécurité humaine. Elles mutilent et tuent les populations civiles et continuent de causer des ravages. Elles entravent les efforts de développement et de reconstruction économiques dans les zones affectées. En ce sens, elles sont source de gamine, voire de pauvreté dans les pays touchés par le phénomène.

Les pays membres du Réseau réitèrent leur conviction qu’aucune utilité militaire supposée des mines antipersonnel ne saurait justifier les coûts humanitaires dévastateurs de ces armes.

La Convention qui interdit l’emploi, le stockage, la production et le transfert des mines antipersonnel constitue un instrument essentiel de sécurité humaine.

Les pays membres du Réseau réaffirment leur engagement à promouvoir dans le monde la sensibilisation autour des mines antipersonnel et de leurs effets graves sur la sécurité humaine.

À cette fin, le Réseau s’engage à promouvoir l’acceptation universelle de la Convention et de ses normes. Ainsi, les Ministres du Réseau de la Sécurité Humaine ont approuvé en mai 2003 un plan à moyen terme qui intègre les activités concrètes du Réseau et de ses membres en vue de la promotion de l’universalisation et de la mise en œuvre de la Convention. Le Réseau est prêt à échanger les expériences et à renforcer la coopération avec les pays intéressés par la destruction des stocks, le déminage et l’assistance aux victimes.

Les membres du Réseau, en saluant les récentes ratifications, lancent un appel à tous les États qui ne l’ont pas encore fait, à adhérer à ladite Convention.

Le Réseau attend avec impatience la première Conférence de revue qui, sous réserve de la décision de la 5ème Assemblée des États Parties, se tiendra au Kenya, en Afrique, où les mines antipersonnel constituent une sérieuse menace à la sécurité humaine d’un très grand nombre de personnes, affectant ainsi leur liberté de vivre à l’abri de la peur de du besoin. Le Réseau encourage tous les États Parties et toutes les organisations concernées à prendre part à la Conférence de revue en vue de réaffirmer leurs engagements par rapport à la Convention et ses objectifs humanitaires afin d’achever l’œuvre destinée à débarrasser le monde des mines antipersonnel.

Bangkok, le 15 septembre 2003 APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 62

Annex IX

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

Symbol Title

APLC/MSP.5/2003/1 Provisional Agenda

APLC/MSP.5/2003/2 Provisional Programme of Work

APLC/MSP.5/2003/3 Rules of Procedure

APLC/MSP.5/2003/4 Estimated Costs for Convening the Fifth Meeting of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction

APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Final Report

APLC/MSP.5/2003/L.1 Draft Declaration of the Fifth Meeting of the States Parties “Bangkok Declaration”

APLC/MSP.5/2003/L.2 Draft Report of the President of the Fourth Meeting of the States Parties with Respect to Consultations on Preparation for the Convention’s First Review Conference

APLC/MSP.5/2003/L.3 Report on the Functioning of the Implementation Support Unit September 2002 – September 2003

APLC/MSP.5/2003/L.4 Estimated Costs for Convening the Preparatory Meetings for the First Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction

APLC/MSP.5/2003/SC.1/1 Standing Committee on Mine Clearance, Mine Risk Education and Mine Action Technologies - Final Report 2002-2003

APLC/MSP.5/2003/SC.2/1 Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and Socio-economic Reintegration - Final Report 2002-2003

APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 63

Symbol Title

APLC/MSP.5/2003/SC.3/1 Standing Committee on Stockpile Destruction - Final Report 2002-2003

APLC/MSP.5/2003/SC.4/1 Standing Committee on the General Status and Operation of the Convention - Final Report 2002-2003

APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.1 List of the Reports on Transparency Measures

APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 List of Participants

APLC/MSP.5/2003/CRP.1 President’s Action Programme

APLC/MSP.5/2003/CRP.2 Draft Report, Part I - Organization and Work of the Fifth Meeting of the States Parties

APLC/MSP.5/2003/MISC.1 Provisional List of Participants

For technical questions on how to obtain the above documents, contact the UN ODS via E-mail at http://www.ods.unog.ch/ods/. Access to ODS is free for staff members of the United Nations Secretariat, for a limited number of users in specialized agencies and organizations of the United Nations system, and for up to 20 users in Member States of the United Nations. Requests for access can be submitted to the following person:

Ms. Margaret Wachter E-mail: [email protected] Fax: +41 22 917-0736 Telephone + 41 22 917-3657

______APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 64

Asamblea General de la Organización de los Estados Americanos, así como lo acordado en el “Llamado de Managua”;

11. Solicitar al Secretario General de la Organización de la Naciones Unidas (ONU) y al Secretario General de la Organización de los Estados Americanos (OEA), a través de la Unidad para la Promoción de la Democracia, y demás organismos internacionales que continúen apoyando el desminado humanitario y la acción contra las minas antipersonal en aquellos países que lo requieran, de acuerdo a las posibilidades y recursos disponibles;

13. Solicitar que esta Declaración sea considerada en la próxima Conferencia Especial de Seguridad, que se realizará en México, el 27 y 28 de octubre de 2003;

15. Agradecer a todos los participantes por los esfuerzos y valiosa colaboración prestada, para el adecuado desarrollo del presente Seminario regional;

Acordada en la ciudad de Lima, Perú, a los 15 días del mes de agosto del año 2003. APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 65

Annex VIII

Les pays membres du Réseau réitèrent leur conviction qu’aucune utilité militaire supposée des mines antipersonnel ne saurait justifier les coûts humanitaires dévastateurs de ces armes.

La Convention qui interdit l’emploi, le stockage, la production et le transfert des mines antipersonnel constitue un instrument essentiel de sécurité humaine.

Les pays membres du Réseau réaffirment leur engagement à promouvoir dans le monde la sensibilisation autour des mines antipersonnel et de leurs effets graves sur la sécurité humaine.

Les membres du Réseau, en saluant les récentes ratifications, lancent un appel à tous les États qui ne l’ont pas encore fait, à adhérer à ladite Convention.

Bangkok, le 15 septembre 200 APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 67

Annex IX

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

Symbol Title

APLC/MSP.5/2003/1 Provisional Agenda

APLC/MSP.5/2003/2 Provisional Programme of Work

APLC/MSP.5/2003/3 Rules of Procedure

APLC/MSP.5/2003/L.1 Draft Declaration of the Fifth Meeting of the States Parties “Bangkok Declaration”

APLC/MSP.5/2003/L.2 Draft Report of the President of the Fourth Meeting of the States Parties with Respect to Consultations on Preparation for the Convention’s First Review Conference

APLC/MSP.5/2003/L.3 Report on the Functioning of the Implementation Support Unit September 2002 – September 2003

APLC/MSP.5/2003/SC.1/1 Standing Committee on Mine Clearance, Mine Risk Education and Mine Action Technologies - Final Report 2002-2003

APLC/MSP.5/2003/SC.2/1 Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and Socio-economic Reintegration - Final Report 2002-2003 APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 68

Symbol Title

APLC/MSP.5/2003/SC.3/1 Standing Committee on Stockpile Destruction - Final Report 2002-2003

APLC/MSP.5/2003/SC.4/1 Standing Committee on the General Status and Operation of the Convention - Final Report 2002-2003

APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.1 List of the Reports on Transparency Measures

APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2 List of Participants

APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Add.1 Addendum to the List of Participants

APLC/MSP.5/2003/CRP.1 President’s Action Programme

APLC/MSP.5/2003/CRP.2 Draft Report, Part I - Organization and Work of the Fifth Meeting of the States Parties

APLC/MSP.5/2003/MISC.1 Provisional List of Participants

Ms. Margaret Wachter APLC/MSP.5/2003/5 Page 69

E-mail: [email protected] Fax: +41 22 917-0736 Telephone + 41 22 917-3657

______FIFTH MEETING OF STATES PARTIES TO THE APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 CONVENTION ON THE PROHIBITION OF THE 15 October 2003 USE, STOCKPILING, PRODUCTION AND TRANSFER OF ANTI-PERSONNEL LANDMINES ENGLISH/FRENCH/SPANISH AND THEIR DESTRUCTION ONLY ______Fifth Meeting Bangkok, 15 –19 September 2003

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

I. STATES PARTIES

AFGHANISTAN

Dr. Mohammad Haider Reza Deputy Foreign Minister, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Najibullah Alikhial Deputy Director, Economic Affairs Department Ministry of Foreign Affairs

ALBANIA

H.E. Mr. Pavli Zeri Vice-Minister, Ministry of Defence Head of Delegation

H.E. Mr. Vladimir Thanati Ambassador, Permanent Representative, Geneva

Mr. Arben Braha Expert, Albania Mine Action Programme

ALGERIA

Mlle Nassima Baghli Conseiller, Mission Permanente Geneve

Col. Hacène Gherabi Ministère de la Défense Nationale

ANGOLA

Mr. Santana Andre Pitra President, Comissāo Nacional Intersectorial de Desminagem (CNIDAH) Head of Delegation APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 2

Mr. Balbina Malheiros Dias da Silva National Coordinator Comissāo Nacional Intersectorial de Desminagem (CNIDAH)

ARGENTINA

Mr. Santiago Villalba Secretary of Embassy, Ministry of Foreign Affaires International Trade and Worship Head of Delegation

Lic. Susana Beatriz Carranza Ministry of Defense

Major. Fernando Carlos Dorrego Member, Group of Humanitarian Demining Army Joint Grl. Staff, Ops. Branch

AUSTRALIA

Mr. Peter Shannon Assistant Secretary, Arms Control Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Head of Delegation

Mr. Stephen Walker First Secretary, AUSAID, Bangkok

Mr. Brett Young Assistant, Bangkok

Mr. Peter Truswell Third Secretary, Permanent Mission to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva

Mr. Simon Cramp Afghanistan Humanitarian Unit Manager, Landmines Coordinator, AUSAID

Ms. Patricia Pak Poy National Coordinator, ICBL Australian Network

AUSTRIA

H.E. Mr. Wolfgang Petritsch Ambassador, Permanent Representative, Geneva Head of Delegation

H.E. Dr. Herbert Traxl Ambassador, Permanent Representative, Bangkok

Mr. Alexander Kmentt Counsellor, Permanent Mission, Geneva

APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 3

Mr. Richard Monsberger LtCol, Technical Expert, Adviser Federal Ministry of Defence, Vienna

Mr. Thorsten Eisingerich First Secretary, Bangkok

BANGLADESH

Mr. Hemayet Udoin Ambassador, Bangkok Head of Delegation

Mr. M. Ruhi Amin Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Director General to the United Nations, Dhaka

Lt. Col. Mamur Ur Rashid General Staff Officer (Grade 1), Military Operations Directorate. Army Headquarters, Dhaka

Mr. Humayun Farhud Senior Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Law, Dhaka

Ms. Rabab Fatima Counsellor, Permanent Mission, Geneva

Mr. Taufiqur Rahman Third Secretary, Permanent Mission, Geneva

BELGIUM

S.E.M. Jean Lint Ambassadeur, Représentant Permanent auprès de la Conférence du Désarmement, Geneva Chef de la délégation

M. Paul Huynen Chef du Service Non-prolifération et Désarmement Service Public Fédéral Affaires Etrangères

M. Luc Timmermans Chef de la Cellule Prévention des Conflits, Service Public Fédéral Affaires Etrangères

Lt. Col. Baudouin Briot Chef de la Section Maîtrise des Armements Service Public Fédéral Défense

Prof. Marc Acheroy Expert, Ecole Royale Militaire Service Public Fédéral Défense

Major Dominique Jones Chef-adjoint de la Section Maîtrise des Armements Service Public Fédéral Défense

APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 4

S.E.M. Pierre Vaesen Ambassadeur, Bangkok

M. Jean-Louis Van Belle Conseiller, Bangkok

Mme. Katleen de Vos Secrétaire, Bangkok

Lt. Col. Georges Valentin Chef du Service d’Enlèvement et de Destruction d’Engins Explosifs, Service Public Fédéral Défense

BENIN

M. Thomas Adoumasse Directeur Adjoint des Organisations Internationales au Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et de l’Intégration Africaine

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Mr. Darko Vidović Minister Counsellor, Commission for Demining, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Head of Delegation

Mr. Mustafa Alikadić Secretary, Ministry for Human rights and Refugees

Mr. Dragiśa Stanković Counsellor, Ministry of Civil Affairs

BRAZIL

Mr. Marco Antônio Diniz Brandão Ambassador, Bangkok Head of Delegation

Mr. Fernando José de Carvalho Lopes Minister Counsellor of the Embassy, Bangkok

Mrs. Lys Amayo de Benedek D’Avola Counsellor of the Embassy, Bangkok

BULGARIA

Mr. Roumen Subev Chargé d’affaires, Bangkok

BURKINA FASO

APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 5

S.E. General Kouamé Lougué Ministre de la Défense Chef de Délégation

Mme Sanou Ali Bibata Direction des Affaires Juridiques et Consulaires, Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et de la Coopération Régionale

Capt. Blaise Kiema Chef de Service INFRA au Ministère de la Défense

CAMBODIA

H.E. Mr. Sam Sotha Secretary-General, Cambodian Mine Action and Victim Assistance Authority (CMAA) and Advisor to the Prime Minister Head of Delegation

H.E. Mr. Ung Sean Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Bangkok Alternate Head of Delegation

Mrs. Tuot Panha Minister Counsellor, Bangkok

H.E. Lt. Gen. Khem Sophoan Director-General, Cambodian Mine Action Centre (CMAC)

Mr. Voeuk Pheng Assistant Secretary General, CMAA

Mr. Neth Sophal Director of Monitoring and Planning, CMAA

Mr. Oum Phumro Director of Support, Cambodian Mine Action Centre (CMAC)

Mr. Prak Sokhon Socio-Economic Coordinator, Cambodian Mine Action Centre (CMAC)

Mr. William J. Hudson General Manager, Asia Pacific, Asian Landmine Solution

Mr. Ngy San Disability Action Council

CAMEROON

M. Richard Etoundi Cadre au Ministère des Relations Extérieures

APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 6

CANADA

H.E. Mr. Ross Hynes Ambassador for Mine Action, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Head of Delegation

Ms. Shannon Smith Head of Research and Policy Section, Mine Action Team Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

Mr. Earl Turcotte Chief, Mine Action Unit Canadian International Development Agency

General (ret’d) Maurice Baril Special Advisor to the Ambassador for Mine Action Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

Lieut. Col. (ret’d) John MacBride Military Advisor and Defence Liaison Mine Action Team Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

Mr. Cory Anderson Program Coordinator: Research and Policy Development, Mine Action Team Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

Ms. Sumita Dixit Program Coordinator: Asia Pacific Mine Action Team Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

Mrs. Anne Woodbridge Senior Programme Officer, Mine Action Unit Canadian International Development Agency

Mr. Steven Estey Chair of the Board, Mines Action Canada

CHAD

M. Mahmoud Adam Bechir Coordinateur du Haut Commissariat National de Déminage

M. Moussa Ali Soultani Administrateur du Programme

CHILE

Sr. Luis Winter Director de Política Especial APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 7

Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores Jefe de Delegación

Sr. Rafael Guerra Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, Secretario Ejecutivo de la Comisión Nacional de Desminado

Sr. Felipe Illanes Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, Asesor

COLOMBIA

Sra. Maria Victoria Garcia de Santos Jefe de la Delegación

Sr. Miguel Camilo Ruiz Blanco Director de Asuntos Políticos Multilaterales del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores Jefe Alterno de la Delegación

Sra. Mónica Villegas Asesora del Vicepresidente de la República Delegada

Sra. Beatriz Helena Gutièrrez Coordinadora del Observatorio de Minas Antipersonal de la Vicepresidencia de la República Delegada

COMOROS

Mr. Mirhane Bourhane Director of Political Affairs Ministry of Foreign Affairs

CONGO

Col. Léonce Nkabi Chef de Corps du 1er Bataillon du Génie des forces Armés Congolaises

M. Boniface Lezona Chef de Division Assemblée Générale et Conseil de Sécurité à la Direction ONU Ministère des Affaires Etrangères

COTE D’IVOIRE

M. André Gnato Zié Directeur de Cabinet du Ministre de la Défense

APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 8

Le Capitaine Patrick M’Bahia Officier de la Gendarmerie Nationale

CROATIA

Mrs. Dijana Pleština Counsellor for Mine Action to the Minister of Foreign Affairs Head of Delegation Mr. Tomislav Maslac Assistant to the Head of Delegation Martina Belošević Secretary and General Manager of Croatian Association of Mine Victims

Mr. Toma Galli Second Secretary, Permanent Mission, Geneva

Mr. Slavko Halužan Head of Department for Military Readiness

Mr. Otto Jungwirth Head of Mine Action Center

Mr. Harald Wie CTA/CROMAC/UNDP

CYPRUS

Mr. Andreas G. Skarparis High Commissioner of the Republic of Cyprus in India

CZECH REPUBLIC

Mr. Martin Košatka Political Director Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Prague Head of Delegation

H.E. Mr. Alexander Slabý Ambassador, Permanent Representative, Geneva

Mr. Jiří Svoboda UN Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Prague

Mr. Milan Šimko Counsellor, Bangkok

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO

M. Fabien Emery Zulu Kilo-Abi Ambassadeur, Ministre Plénipotentiaire de 1ére classe et Chef de Service des Organisations Internationales Chef de la délégation

APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 9

M. Banza Ngoy Katume Premier Conseiller, Bangkok

DENMARK

Mr. Ulrik Helweg-Larsen Ambassador, Bangkok Head of Delegation

Mr. John Kierulf Minister Counsellor, Head of Disarmament and Non- Proliferation Unit, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Alternate Head of Delegation Mr. Anders Garly Andersen First Secretary, Bangkok

ECUADOR

Sra. Helena Yánez Loza Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores

EL SALVADOR

Dr. José Eduardo Avilés Flores Presidente del Instituto Salvadoreño de Rehabilitación de Inválidos

ERITREA

H.E. Tseggai Tesfazion Ambassador of the State of Eritrea to China in Pekin Head of Delegation

Mr. Joseph Wenkoff CTA/Programme Manager, Mine Action Capacity Building Programme

FRANCE

S.E.M. Gérard Chesnel Ambassadeur à l’action pour le déminage et l’assistance aux victimes des mines antipersonnel Chef de la délégation

M. Philippe Guerin Deuxième Conseiller, Bangkok

M. Yann Hwang Premier Secrétaire, Représentation permanente de la France auprès de la Conférence du Désarmement, Genève

APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 10

M. Michel Baran Ministère des Affaires Etrangères

Mme Brigitte Stern Présidente de la Commission Nationale pour l'élimination des mines antipersonnel Mlle. Isabelle Miscot Troisième Secrétaire, Bangkok

GABON

M. GNATOR Ziè Andrè Directeur de Cabinet du Ministre de la Défense

M. BAHIA Patrick Alexandre Capitaine

GERMANY

Mr. Friedrich Gröning Ambassador, Deputy Federal Government Commissioner for Disarmament and Arms Control, Federal Foreign Office, Berlin Head of Delegation

Dr. Reinald Steck Ambassador at large, Directorate General for Global Issues, the United Nations, Human Rights, and Humanitarian Aid Federal Foreign Office, Berlin Alternate Head of Delegation

Dr. Thomas Schäfer Head of Division (Conventional Arms Control) Federal Foreign Office, Berlin

Mr. Detlev Rünger Head of Division (Task Force Humanitarian Aid), Federal Foreign Office, Berlin

Mr. Dirk Roland Haupt Desk Officer (Conventional Arms Control) Federal Foreign Office, Berlin

LTC Detlef Schröder Desk Officer (Humanitarian Mine Action) Federal Foreign Office, Berlin

Navy Cdr. sg. Thomas Frisch Desk Officer (Arms Control and OSCE-FSC), Federal Ministry of Defense, Berlin

GUATEMALA

H.E. Sr. Gabriel Aguilera Peralta Embajador, Viceministro de Relaciones Exteriores APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 11

Jefe de la Delegación

Sr. Carlos José Arroyave Primer Secretario, Misión Permanente, Ginebra

GUINEA

Commandant Armand Favre Officier Supérieur de l'État Major Général des Armées

GUINEA-BISSAU

Eng. Nhasse Na Mã Secretary of States Head of Delegation

Sr. César Luis G. Lopes de Carvalho General Director, National Mine Action Coordination Centre (CAAMI)

HOLY SEE

Mgr. Francesco Cao Minh-Dung Chargé d’Affaires a.í., Apostolic Nunciature in Thailand Head of Delegation

Rev. Père Antoine Abi Ghanem Permanent Mission of the Holy See, Geneva

Rev. Père Vichai Phokithavi, S.I. Chairman of Thailand Campaign Toban Land Mines, Expert

HONDURAS

Dr. Octavio Salomón Nuñez Director General de Asuntos Especiales de la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores

HUNGARY

H.E. Mr. Sándor Jolsvai Ambassador, Bangkok Head of Delegation

Mr. Márk Horváth Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Budapest

IRELAND APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 12

Mr. Paul Barnwell First Secretary, Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Section, Department of Foreign Affairs Head of Delegation

Mr. Tony D’Costa Special Adviser, Department of Foreign Affairs

ITALY

H.E. Mr. Carlo Trezza Ambassador, Permanent Representative to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva Head of Delegation

H.E. Mr. Stefano Janfolla Starace Ambassador, Bangkok

Mr. Riccardo Manara Counsellor, Bangkok

Mr. Luigi Scotto First Secretary, Permanent Mission, Geneva

Brig. Gen. Piero Lucchetti General Defence Staff, Head Joint Arms Verification Center, Ministry of Defence

Col. Mario Amedei Expert

Col. Giuseppe Gionti Expert

JAPAN

Mr. Tetsuro Yano Senior Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs Ministry of foreign Affairs, Tokyo Head of Delegation

Dr. Kuniko Inoguchi Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Head of Delegation of Japan to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva Alternate Head of Delegation

Mr. Yusuke Shindo Director, Conventional Weapons Division Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tokyo Alternate Head of Delegation

Mr. Toshihisa Takata Minister, Bangkok

APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 13

Mr. Susumu Hasegawa Minister, Bangkok

Mr. Kiminori Iwama Private Secretary to Senior Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tokyo

Mr. Masahiro Mikami Counsellor, Bangkok

Mr. Yasunari Morino First Secretary, Delegation of Japan to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva

Mr. Shigeki Kobayahi First Secretary, Bangkok

Mr. Hajime Kishimori First Secretary, Bangkok

Col. Tatsuo Nagai First Secretary and Defense Attaché, Delegation of Japan to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva

Mr. Kenji Shinoda Second Secretary, Permanent Mission of Japan to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations, Geneva

Mr. Kazuo Kitahara Defense Official, Japan Defense Agency, Tokyo

Ms. Yukiko Tominaga Official, Conventional Weapons Division Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tokyo

Mr. Toshihiro Kaneko Official, Humanitarian Assistance Division, Multilateral Cooperation Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tokyo

Mr. Hidekazu Kaito Mayor of Shin Asahi Town

Mr. Shigeji Uehara Section Manager, Board of Education Shin Asahi Town

Mr. Jumpei Shimizu Clerk of Planning Public Relation Division Shin Asahi Town

JORDAN

Mr. Nabi T. Talhouni Ambassador, Bangkok and New Dehli

Mr. Fayez Mohammad Al-Dwairi Brigadier General, Head of the Royal Engineer Corps

APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 14

KENYA

Hon. Stephen Tarus Assistant, Minister of State in Charge of Provincial Administration and National Security Head of Delegation

Amb. Peter O. Ole Nkuraiyia Permanent Secretary Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Alternate Head Mr. Philip R. O. Owade Deputy Permanent Representative, Kenya Mission to the UN, Geneva

Mr. G. Kithinji Deputy Secretary, Office of the President

Brigadier Ali Hussein Department of Defence, Office of the President

Mr. Michael A.O. Oyugi Head/International Organizations and Conferences Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Nairobi

Mr. R.M. Lemoshira Second Secretary, Kenya High Commission, Kuala Lumpur

LESOTHO

Mr. Lebohang Bernard Moqhali Legal Officer, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

LUXEMBOURG

M. François Pilot Ambassador, Head of Arms Control and Disarmament

MACEDONIA (FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF)

Mr. Mazif Dzaferi Officer for Disarmament, Permanent Mission, Geneva

Mrs. Svetlana Geleva Expert, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

MADAGASCAR

Lt. Col. Georges Razafimahatratra Head Ammunition Service DMT/SERMU APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 15

MALAWI

Col. R. Ngwenya Deputy Director and Landmine Coordinator Malawi Defence Force

Mrs. G.B. Karonga Principal Foreign Service Officer Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation

MALAYSIA

H.E. Mr. Dato’ Syed Norulzaman Ambassador, Bangkok Syed Kamarulzaman Head of Delegation

Mr. Norman Mohamad First Secretary, Bangkok

Mr. Raja Reza Raja Zaib Shah Assistant Secretary, Multilateral Political Division. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Putrajaya

Lt. Col. Zulkifli Ahmad Assistant Secretary, Policy Division Ministry of Defence, Kuala Lumpur

MALI

M. Kissima Gakou Conseiller Technique chargé des questions de défense au Ministère de la Défense et des Anciens Combattants

Mme Safiatou Konaté Traore Directrice Adjointe des Affaires Juridiques au Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et de la Coopération Internationale

Mr. Cheick Oumar Coulibaly Expert de la Cellule sécurité humaine

MAURITANIA

Lt. Col. Mohamed Ould Moghdad Directeur du Génie Militaire Chef de la délégation

Com. Alioune Ould Mohamed El Hacen Chef du Centre de Déminage Humanitaire

APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 16

MEXICO

Sr. Javier Ramón Brito Embajador, Bangkok Jefe de Delegación

Sra. Socorro Rovirosa Ministro, Misión Permanente, Ginebra

Sr. J. Enrique Escamilla Nuñez Primero Secretario, Bangkok

Sr. Pedro Garcia Valerio Capitán de Navío I.M.P. D.E.M. Agregado, Beijing

MOLDOVA (REPUBLIC OF)

Mr. Vitalie Rusu Head of Disarmament Division Ministry of Foreign Affairs

MONACO

Mr. Sukhanetr Sribhumi Consul, Bangkok

MOZAMBIQUE

Hon. Mr. Tobias Dai Minister of Defence Head of Delegation

H.E. Alexandre Zandamela Permanent Representative, Geneva

Mr. Gamiliel Munguambe Director of National Institute for Demining

Mr. Miguel Raul Tungadza Desk Officer for Demining in Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mr. João António Xirinda Head of Department of International Relations in National Institute for Demining

Mrs. Mila Massango Assistant of Director

Mr. Dias Esquinar Jaqueta Military Official

NAMIBIA

APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 17

Major Fillemon Kotokeni Ministry of Defence

Mrs. Ketta Hangala Ministry of Foreign Affairs

NETHERLANDS

H.E. Mr. Chris Sanders Ambassador, Permanent Representative to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva Head of Delegation

Mr. Alexander Verbeek Deputy Head Arms Control and Arms Export Policy Division Deputy Head of Delegation

Mr. Ernesto Braam Counsellor, Head of the Political and Press Department, Royal Netherlands Embassy in Bangkok

Mr. Daniel Prins Permanent Representative to the Conference on Disarmement, Geneva

NEW ZEALAND

H.E. Mr. Peter Rider Ambassador, Bangkok Head of Delegation

Mr. Steve Dowall First Secretary, Bangkok

Col. Roger McElwain Defence Attaché, Bangkok

Ms. Hine-Wai Loose Second Secretary, Permanent Mission, Geneva

Mr. Paul Roberts Policy Officer, Disarmament Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Wellington

Hon. Deborah Morris Adviser, New Zealand Campaign Against Landmines Bangkok

NICARAGUA

Lic. Maria Auxiliadora Cuadra Vice Ministra de Defensa Jefe de Delegación

APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 18

T/C. Sergio Arauz Jefe Seccíon de Ingeniería, Ejército de Nicaragua

Dr. Juan Umaña Secretario Técnico de la Comisión Nacional de Desminado, Ministerio de Defensa

Tnte. Col. Spiro Bassi Jefe del Cuerpo de Ingenieros del Ejécito de Nicaragua

Lic. Maria Pía Hernández Primer Secretaria, Misión Permanente, Ginebra

NIGER

M. Adamou Garva Chef de Bataillon, Expert National

M. Hama Kansaye Souleymane Direction des Nations Unies et des Organisations Internationales au Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et de la Coopération

NORWAY

Mr. Steffen Kongstad Deputy Director General Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Oslo Head of Delegation

H.E. Ms. Ragne Birte Lund Ambassador, Bangkok

Ms. Ingunn Vatne First Secretary, Bangkok

Ms. Merete Lundemo Counsellor, Permanent Mission Geneva

Ms. May-Elin Stener Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Oslo

Ms. Annette Bjørseth Senior Advisor, Security Policy Department, Section for International and Military Law Ministry of Defence

PANAMA

S.E. Xiomara De Arrocha Embajadora, Bangkok

PERU

APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 19

Mrs. Maritza Puertas de Rodríguez Ambassador, Director of Political, Multilateral and Security Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mr. José Bustinza Soto First Secretary, Chargé d’Affairs of Peru in Thailand

PHILIPPINES

H.E. Antonio V. Rodriguez Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Bangkok Head of Delegation

Me. Marshall Louis M. Alferez Second Secretary, Bangkok

PORTUGAL

Mr. João António da Silveira Ambassador, Bangkok de Lima Pimentel Head of Delegation

Dr. Vitor Lourenço Deputy Director of Defence Politics Directorate

Dr. José Vilar de Jesus Defence Politics Directorate/Department of Studies and Coordination, Ministry of Defence

Mr. Jorge Figueiredo Marcos Secretary, Bangkok

QATAR

Brig. Gen. Naser Modh Naser Al-Maadhid

Col. Hassan Rashid Ghanim Al-Muhannadi

Lieut. Col. Saleh Ali Al-Aji

ROMANIA

Mr. Radu Horumba Director, Office for Non-Proliferation & Arms Control

Col. Marin Radu Head of Arms Control and Verification Ministry of Defence Ms. Adrian Iulian Mihai Legal Adviser

APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 20

RWANDA

Major Ferdinand Safari Ministry of Defence Head of Delegation

Mr. Daniel Mutezintare Senior Officer, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Co- operation

SENEGAL

M. Abdou Salam Diallo Ambassadeur, Conseiller Diplomatique de Monsieur le Premier Ministre du Sénégal Chef de Délégation

Lt. Col. Moctar Ndoye Directeur du Contrôle, des Etudes et de la Législation

M. Aboubacar Sadikh Barry Ministère des Affaires étrangères Chef de division universelle

M. Papa Diop Deuxième Conseiller, Mission Permanente, Genève

SLOVAKIA

Mr. Juraj Macháč Director-General of Directorate of International Organizations and Security Policy Head of Delegation, Bratislava

Ms. Marián Tomáśik Ambassador, Bangkok

Mr. Ivan Škorupa Deputy Chief of Mission, Bangkok

Mr. Henrik Markuš Desk Officer, Arms Control and Disarmament Unit, Directorate of International Organizations and Security Policy, Bratislava

SLOVENIA

Mr. Matjaž Kovaćić Ambassador, State Undersecretary Head of Delegation

APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 21

SOUTH AFRICA

Mr. David Robin Wensley Deputy Director, Arms Control Department of Foreign Affairs

SPAIN

H.E. Mr. José Eugenio Salarich Ambassador, Bangkok Head of Delegation

Mr. Antonio Polidura Alvarez Novoa Counsellor, Technical Verification,General Directoate For Security, Disamament and International Terrorism Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Madrid

Mr. Francisco de Asís Benítez Salas Counsellor, Deputy Head of Mission, Bangkok

Mr. Ramón Diaz-Guevara Domínguez Military Counsellor, Bangkok

Lt. Col. José Ramón Quevedo Ruiz Head of Counter-Proliferation Unit, Ministry of Defense, Madrid

SURINAME

Maj. J.Laurens Ministry of Defense

SWEDEN

Mr. Jan Nordlander Ambassador, Bangkok Head of Delegation

Mrs. Catharina Hempel Kipp Director, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Global Security Department Alternate Head of Delegation

Ms. Jenny Ohlsson Desk Officer, Ministry for Foreign Affairs

Ms. Sara Uddenberg Desk Officer, Ministry for Foreign Affairs

Mr. Magnus Carlquist Deputy Head of Division, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Stockholm

Ms. Anneli Lindahl Kenny Counsellor, Permanent Mission, Geneva APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 22

Ms. Eva Magdalena Mellgren Regional Adviser, SIDA, Bangkok

SWITZERLAND

M. Christian Faessler Ambassadeur, Mission permanente, Genève Chef de Délégation

M. Hans-Peter Erismann Ambassadeur, Bangkok

M. René Haug Conseiller, Mission permanente, Genève

Mr. Roman Hunger Collaborateur, Etat-major général, Groupe de la promotion de la paix et de la coopération en matière de sécurité, Département fédéral de la defense, de la protection de la population et des sports (DDPS)

Mme Janine Voigt Collaboratrice diplomatique, Division politique IV, Département fédéral des affaires étrangères (DFAE)

M. Flavio Del Ponte Médecin de la Division Aide humanitaire, Direction pour la cooperation au développement et de la cooperation du DFAE

M. Daniel Cavegn Premier Secrétaire, Bangkok

TAJIKISTAN

Mr. Jonmahmad Rajabov Head of Tajikistan Mine Action Cell Head of Delegation

Mr. Ismatullo Nasredinov Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Chief for UN Section

TANZANIA

Mr. A.J. Mwakamyanda Assistant Commissioner on manpower and organization, Ministry of Defence and National Service

Lt. Col. X.S Mapunda Staff Officer, Def HQ dealing with stockpile destruction

THAILAND APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 23

H.E. Dr. Surakiart Sathirathai Minister of Foreign Affairs Head of Delegation

H.E. Dr. Sorajak Kasemsuvan Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Deputy Head of Delegation Dr. Tej Bunnag Permanent Secretary of Foreign Affairs Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Prof. Vitit Muntarbhorn Faculty of Law, Chulalongkorn University Advisor

Mr. Virasakdi Futrakul Deputy Permanent Secretary of Foreign Affairs Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Bandhit Sotipalalit Deputy Permanent Secretary of Foreign Affairs Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Kirasak Chancharaswat Deputy Permanent Secretary of Social Development and Human Security Ministry of Social Development and Human Security

H.E. Mrs. Laxanachantorn Laohaphan Ambassador, Permanent Representative to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations, Geneva

H.E. Mr. Chaiyong Satjipanon Ambassador of Thailand of the Republic of Indonesia

Ms. Atchara Suyanan Director-General, Department of International Organizations Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Sihasak Phuangketkeow Director-General, Department of Information Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Maj. Gen. Gitti Suksomstarn Director-General, Thailand Mine Action Center, Supreme Command Headquarters Ministry of Defense

Ms. Vanvisa Vanno Deputy Director-General, Department of International Organizations Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Manop Mekprayoonthong Deputy Director-General, Department of International Organizations APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 24

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Bansarn Bunnag Deputy Director-General, Department of Information Ministry of Foreign Affairs

LCDR. Itti Ditbanjong, RTN Deputy Director General, Department of Information Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Maj. Gen. Somsak Skultong Deputy Director-General, Thailand Mine Action Center, Supreme Command Headquarters Ministry of Defense

Maj. Gen. Komsan Wangchana Office of Policy and Planning Office of the Permanent Secretary of Defense Ministry of Defense

Mr. Pakpol Wongpen Position Director of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Policy Bureau Ministry of Interior

Mr. Prawet Maharattanasakul Manager of Administration Development National Institute of Metrology (Thailand) Ministry of Science and Technology

Mr. Surachai Ratanasermpong Director of Geo-Informatics Center Geo-Informatics and Space Technology Development Agency Ministry of Science and Technology

Ms. Sirirat Ayuwathana Director of the Bureau of Social Welfare Services Department Social Development and Welfare Ministry of Social Development and Human Security

Ms. Ormporn Nitthayasuthi Director of Bureau of Empowerment for Persons with Disabilities, Office of Promotion, Protection and Empowerment of Vulnerable Groups Ministry of Social Development and Human Security

Mr. Pat Watanasin Social Development Officer, Bureau of Empowerment for Persons with Disabilities Office of Promotion, Protection and Empowerment of Vulnerable Groups Ministry of Social Development and Human Security

Ms. Churairat Sangboonnum Director, Bureau of International Cooperation, APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 25

Office of the Permanent Secretary of Education Ministry of Education

Mr. Upai Wayupat Director of Forest Protection and Forest Fire Control Office Ministry of Natural Resource and Environment

Mr. Chaleog Chareonpanich Director of Spatial Development Office National Economic and Social Development Board

Col. Pattanapong Aungardsithichai Directorate of Joint Operations, Supreme Command Headquarters Ministry of Defense

Lt. Col. (WAC) Prapakorn suksornstarn Thailand Mine Action Center Supreme Command Headquarters Ministry of Defense

Maj. (WAC) Worapun Krarurum Thailand Mine Action Center Supreme Command Headquarters Ministry of Defense

Mr. Piriya Khempon Minister Counselor, Office of the Minister Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Sek Wannamethee Minister Counselor, Office of the Minister Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Ms. Parichat Luepaiboolphan Director, Peace, Security and Disarmament Division Department of International Organizations Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Jesda Katvetin Director, Development Affairs Division Department of International Organizations Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Bhakavat Tanskul Counsellor, Office of the Minister Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Krairawee Sivikul Counsellor, Office of the Minister Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Munin Panniswasdi Counsellor, Peace, Security and Disarmament Division Department of International Organizations APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 26

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Surasak Suparat Counsellor, Department of International Organizations Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mrs. Kanchana Patarachoke Counsellor, Permanent Mission to the United Nations Office, Geneva

Mr. Suporn Ratananakin Chief of Foreign Relation Ministry of Interior

Ms. Chatuporn Anantapeuch External Relations Officer, Bureau of International Cooperation Office of the Permanent Secretary of Education Ministry of Education

Ms. Sunan Anudtarapanya Policy and Plan Analyst, Bureau of Policy and Strategy, Office of the Permanent Secreatry Ministry of Social Development and Human Security

Mrs. Rewadee Sakulpanich Chief of Legal Group Acting Secretariat of Fine Arts Department Fine Arts Department, Ministry of Culture

Mr. Chittipat Tongprasroeth First Secretary, Office of the Minister Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Saksee Phromyothi First Secretary, Office of the Minister Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mrs. Katanawadee Kalayanamit First Secretary, Peace, Security and Disarmament Division Department of International Organizations Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Apirat Sugonphabhiron First Secretary, Department of East Asia Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Vongthep Arthakaivalvatee First Secretary, Department of International Organizations Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Witchu Vejjajiva First Secretary, Permanent Mission to the United Nations, Geneva

APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 27

Ms. Attaya Mernavit Programme Officer, External Cooperation Division III, Department of Technical and Economic Cooperation Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Miss Hathaikahn Yamali Second Secretary, Peace, Security and Disarmament Division Department of International Organizations Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Ms. Wichaya Sinthusen Programme Officer, External Cooperation Division I, Department of Technical and Economic Cooperation Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Wajanai Snidvongs Third Secretary, Peace, Security and Disarmament Division Department of International Organizations Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Miss Nawinee Plynoi Attaché, Peace, Security and Disarmament Division Department of International Organizations Ministry of Foreign Affairs

TOGO

Lt. Col. Mèwèkiwé Edeou Deputy Chief Director, Ministry of Defence Head of Delegation

Mr. Agbessi Zomblewou Kokou Second Counsellor, Beijing Member of Delegation

UGANDA

Mrs. Dora Kutesa First Secretary Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Capt. Aloysius Asingura Kagoro Ministry of Defence

APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 28

UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND

H.E. Mr. David Fall HM Ambassador, Bangkok Head of Delegation

Mr. Nick McDuff War Crimes and Demining Section, United Nations Department, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Mr. Peter Balmer Counter-Proliferation and Arms Control Secretariat Ministry of Defence

Lt. Col. Charles Holman Staff Officer, Humanitarian Mine Action Ministry of Defence

Mr. Andy Willson Conflict and Humanitarian Affairs Department Department for International Development

Mr. Alistair Craib Demining Consultant, Department for International Development

Mr. Andrew Willson Mine Action Officer

YEMEN

Mr. Kassim Ahmed Al-Aggam Minister of State, Chairman of National Mine Action Committee Head of Delegation

Mr. Mansour Mohamed Alazi Executive Director of YEMAC

ZAMBIA

Hon. Davison Mulela Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Head of Delegation

Mr. Matomola Singongi Acting Director, Zambia Mine Centre Ministry of Foreign Affairs

ZIMBABWE

Col. Munongwa Director, Zimbabwe Mine Action Centre APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 29

II. OBSERVER STATES

A. STATES RATIFIED OR ACCEDED

BELARUS

Dr. Aleksandr Baichorov Head of International Security and Arms Control Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Head of Delegation

Col. Sergei Luchina Chief of the Engineering Forces, General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Belarus, Deputy Head of Delegation

GUYANA

Ms. Nadira Mangray Foreign Service Officer Head of Delegation

LITHUANIA

Mr. Rytis Paulauskas Director of Security Policy Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Erikas Petrikas Minister Counsellor, Permanent Mission, Geneva

TIMOR-LESTE

João Freitas de Câmara Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation

B. SIGNATORY STATES

BRUNEI DARUSSALAM

H.E. Dato Paduka Mohd Yunos Ambassador, Bangkok bin Haji Mohd Hussein Head of Delegation

Mr. Na’aim Salleh First Secretary International Organisations Department APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 30

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Haji Adi ihram bin Dato Paduka Senior Legal Officer Haji Mahmud Directorate of Politics and Organisations Ministry of Defence

BURUNDI

Col. Juvénal Bujeje Attaché Militaire auprès de l’Ambassade du Burundi au Caire

Col. Adrien Ndikuriyo Chef de Service chargé du Génie à l’Etat-Major Général de l’Armée

ETHIOPIA

Mr. Ojulu Owar Ochalla First Secretary, Permanent Mission, Geneva

GREECE

Mr. Nikolaos Zafiropoulos Ambassador, Bangkok

Mr. Athanasios Apostolou Advisoer to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

HAITI

Mr. Lafontaine St. Louis Embassy

INDONESIA

Col. Bambang Irawan Senior Scientist Arms Control and Disarmament Department of Defence

Mr. Iman Santosa Official of Directorate of International Security and Disarmament

POLAND

Mr. Andrzej Braiter Director, Head of Delegation APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 31

SUDAN

Mr. Abuelgasim Shiekh Idris Ambassador, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Dr. Sulafelddin Salih Mohamed General Commissioner Humanitarian Aid Commission, Country Coordinator of Mine Action

Brig. Isam Mahran Ministry of Defence

Mr. Abuelgasim Muawya Meddani Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs – Peace Department

UKRAINE

Mr. Anatoliy Scherba Head, Arms Control and Military & Technical Cooperation Directorate, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Head of Delegation

Volodymyr Tereshchenko (ret’d) Head of Main Division, State Commission for Defence Industry Chairman of Interdepartmental Working Group for Solving the Problem of Landmine Elimination

Mr. Volodymyr Dziub Head, Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Vitaliy Shved State Expert, State Commission for Defence Industry, Secretary of Interdepartmental Working Group for Solving the Problem of Landmine Elimination

C. OTHER STATES

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

Mr. Yaser Al Sagheer Deputy Head of Mission Head of Delegation

Mr. Siddig Elmahdi Administrative office, Bangkok

BHUTAN APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 32

M. Singye Rinchhen International Conventions Division, Multilateral Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Head of Delegation

CHINA

Mr. FU Cong Deputy Director-General, Department of Arms Control and Disarmament, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Head of Delegation

Mr. ZHAO Li Attaché, Department of Arms Control and Disarmament, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

EGYPT

Mr. Ahmed El Shandawili Diplomatic Attaché, Department for Disarmament Affairs of the Ministry of foreign Affairs

FINLAND

Mr. Lars Backström Director, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Helsinki Head of Delegation

Ms. Laura Kanikas-Debraise Counsellor, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Helsinki

Mr. Hannu Herranen Brigadier General, Ministry of Defense, Helsinki

KAZAKHSTAN

Mr. Saken Seidualiev Chargé d’Affaires, Permanent Representative to UN ESCAP Head of Delegation

Mr. Dudar Zhakenov Counsellor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

KUWAIT

Mr. Mashan Al-Ajmi Head of Delegation APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 33

LAOS

H.E. Mr. Phongsavath boupha Vice Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Bounpone Sayasenh Director of UXO Lao

Mr. Phonesavanh Chathavilay Deputy Director, Department of International Organizations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Khamsing Soseng-Inh Director of the Division of Europe and America Department of International Relations Ministry of Defense

Mr. Souvannu Phouyavong Counsellor, Loa Embassy in Bangkok

LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA

Mr. Mabrouk Milad Counsellor, International Organizations Department at the General Secretariat for Foreign Liaisons and International Cooperation

MONGOLIA

Col. Otgon-Uul Chef Adjoint de la Direction, Ministry of Defence

MOROCCO

Mr. Bendaoud Abderrahim Head, Section of Disarmament and Security Issues

MYANMAR

Mr. Soe Lynn Han First Secretary, Embassy of Myanmar, Bangkok

NEPAL

Mr. Yadav Khanal Chargé d' affaires, a.i., Bangkok

APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 34

SAUDI ARABIA

Big. Gen. Ibrahim Alarifi Army Officer Head of Delegation

Major Mesefer Al-Husain Army Officer

Cpt. Eng. Jabran Ben Hussein Al-Adi Army Officer

SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO

Mr. Aleksandar Tasic Counsellor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

SINGAPORE

Lt. Col. Teo Cheng Leong Military Officer, Ministry of Defence

SRI LANKA

H.E. Mr. H.M.G.S. Pallihakkara Ambassador of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka in Thailand

Mr. Sumedha Ekanayake Assistant Director, UN and Multilateral Affairs Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mr. W.M. Dharmapla Third Secretary, Embassy of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka in Thailand

TURKEY

Mr. Murat Salim Esenli Deputy Permanent Representative, Geneva Head of Delegation

Mr. Metin Kesap Officer

Lt. Col. Gültekin Turan Officer

VIETNAM

Mr. Vu Tran Phong Expert, Department of International Organizations, APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 35

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

III. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS OR INSTITUTIONS AND REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS1

A. UNITED NATIONS

UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (UNDP)

Mr. Sayed Aqa Mine Action Team Leader UNDP Mine Action Unit

Mr. Oren Schlein Mine Action Specialist, Resource Mobilization Mine Action Unit

Mr. Olaf Juergensen Chief Technical Advisor, Mozambique

UNICEF

Ms. Polly Brennan

Mr. Gianluca Buono

Mr. Reuben McCarthy Mine Action Protect Officer

Ms. Mehr Khan UNICEF Regional Director for East Asia and the Pacific

Mr. Jean-Luc Bories Regional Officer, UNICEF East Asia and Pacific Regional Office, Bangkok

Mr. Rodney Hatfield UNICEF East Asia and Pacific Regional Office Bangkok

Ms. Ayda Eke Assistant Emergency Project Officer UNICEF Indonesia

Mr. Plong Chhaya UNICEF Cambodia

Mr. Hanoch Barlevi Project Officer, UNICEF Sri Lanka

UNITED NATIONS DEPARTMENT FOR DISARMAMENT AFFAIRS (DDA)

1 as defined in Rules 1.2 and 1.3 of the Rules of Procedure APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 36

Ms. Agnes Marcaillou Chief, Regional Disarmament Branch

UNITED NATIONS MINE ACTION SERVICE (UNMAS)

Mr. Martin Barber Director

Mr. Gustavo Laurie UNMAS Liaison Officer, Geneva

Ms. Jackie Seck Diouf Treaty Implementation Office

Mr. Richard Daniel Kelly Programme Manager, UNMACA

Mr. Kubo Takuto External Relations Officer, UNMACA

B. OTHER INTERNATIONAL OR REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Mrs. Josick Van Dromme Project Manager

Mrs. Daniela Dicorrado Head of Sector, External Relation

GENEVA INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR HUMANITARIAN DEMINING

Dr. Martin Dahinden Ambassador, Director Head of Delegation

Mr. Ian Mansfield Operations Director Deputy Head of Delegation

Dr. Cornelio Sommaruga President

Mr. Kerry Brinkert Manager, Implementation Support Unit (ISU)

Mr. Davide Orifici Assistant to the Director

Ms. Sophie Delfolie Implementation Support Officer

Ms. Catherine Borrero Sponsorship Co-ordinator

APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 37

INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS

Mr. Thurer Daniel Vice-President ICRC

Mr. Soupart Mathieu Head of Sector, Mine ERW Action

Mr. Gallay Jean-Francois Head of Orthopeadic Program

Mr. Jean-Marc Bornet Regional Delegate, ICRC Bangkok

Mr. Alfred Grimm Regional Delegate, ICRC Bangkok

Mr. Dennis Alistone Regional Delegate, ICRC Bangkok

Mr. Peter Herby Coordinator, Mines-Arms Unit, Legal Division

Ms. Kathleen Lawand Legal Adviser, ICRC Mines-Arms Unit Legal Division

Mr. Andreas Lendorff Adviser, ICRC External Resources Division

INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF RED CROSS AND RED CRESCENT SOCIETIES

Mr. Preben Marcussen Special Advisor of Norwegian Red Cross

NATO

Mr. Mikaël Griffon Conventional Arms Control and Verification Co- ordination Section, Political Affairs Division

ORGANIZATION FOR SECURITY AND CO-OPERATION IN EUROPE

Mr. Chris Sanders Ambassador, the Chairman in Office of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES

Col. William A. McDonough Coordinator, OAS Mine Action Program Head of Delegation

APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 38

Mr. Jaime Toso Mine Action Program Specialist Alternate Head of Delegation

Mrs. C. Mélanie Regimbal Mine Action Program Specialist Alternate Head of Delegation

C. NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN TO BAN LANDMINES (ICBL)

ICBL Delegation:

Ms. Jody Williams, ICBL Ambassador Mr. Steve Goose, Human Rights Watch Ms. Yukie Osa, Association for Aid and Relief Japan Mr. Shohab Hakimi, Afghan Campaign to Ban Landmines Ms. Denise Coghlan, Cambodia Campaign to Ban Landmines Mr. Álvaro Jiménez Millán, Colombia Campaign Against Landmines Dr. Philippe Chabasse, Handicap International Mr. Stan Brabant, Handicap International Belgium Ms. Mary Wareham, Human Rights Watch Mr. Markus Haake, German Initiative to Ban Landmines Ms. Mereso Agina, Kenya Coalition Against Landmines Ms. Rebecca Jordan, Landmine Survivors Network Mr. Ken Rutherford, Landmine Survivors Network Mr. Steve Olejas, DanChurch Aid/Lutheran World Federation Mr. Paul Hannon, Mines Action Canada Ms. Sara Sekkenes, Norwegian People’s Aid Ms. Susan B. Walker, ICBL Ms. Elizabeth Bernstein, ICBL Ms. Sylvie Brigot, ICBL Ms. Sue Wixley, ICBL

ICBL Participants

Ms. Maria Eugenia Villarreal Ambassador Satnam Jit Singh Mr. John Rodsted Mr. Jim Barker Dr. Simon Bokongo Mr. Vladimir Kakalia, Abkhazian Committee to Ban Landmines Mr. Megan Burke, Adopt-A-Minefield/UNA-USA Ms. Jemma Hasratyan, Armenian Committee of IBCL APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 39

Mr. Phornchi Chiravinijnandh, Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC) Ms. Minami Tsubouchi, Association for Aid and Relief (AAR) Japan Mr. Anek Vijitragool, Association of the Physically Handicapped of Thailand Major Sirichai Sapsiri, Association of the Physically Handicapped of Thailand Mr. Abdoulkader Elmi Elabé, ASSOVIM Mr. Giovanni Tatti, AUSTCARE Mr. Michael G. Smith, AUSTCARE Ms. Judith Majlath, Austrian AID for Mine Victims Mr. Hafiz Safikhanov, Azerbaijan Campaign to Ban Landmines Mr. Stephen Stewart Sapienza, Azimuth Media Mr. Igors Tipans, Baltic International Centre for Human Education Ms. Purna Shova Chitrakar, Ban Landmines Campaign Nepal Mr. Ram Saran Sedhai, Ban Landmines Campaign Nepal Mr. Shirish Pandey, Ban Landmines Campaign Nepal Mr. M.W. Faruque, Bangladesh Campaign to Ban Landmines Mr. Iouri Zagoumennov, Belarus Campaign to Ban Landmines Ms. Deborah Morris, CALM-New Zealand Mr. Christopher Swain, CALM-New Zealand Mr. John Head, CALM-New Zealand Mr. Brian Hayes, CAL-New Zealand Mr. Socheatta Seng, Cambodia Campaign to Ban Landmines Ms. Hiroko Horiuchi, Cambodia Campaign to Ban Landmines Ms. Yan Lay, Cambodia Campaign to Ban Landmines Mr. Man Sakhoeum, Cambodia Campaign to Ban Landmines Mr. Song Kosal, Cambodia Campaign to Ban Landmines Mr. Soun Chreuk, Cambodia Campaign to Ban Landmines Mr. Ny Nhar, Cambodia Campaign to Ban Landmines Ms. Sok Eng, Cambodia Campaign to Ban Landmines Mr. Tun Channareth, Cambodia Campaign to Ban Landmines Ms. Laura Morelli, Campaign Italiana Contro le Mine-ONLUS Ms. Simona Beltrami, Campaign Italiana Contro le Mine-ONLUS Mr. Giovanni Diffidenti, Campaign Italiana Contro le Mine-ONLUS Mr. Mehmet Balci, Campaign for a Turkey Without Mines Mr. Gustavo Oliveira Vieira, Campanha Brasileira Contra Minas Terrestres Ms. Lucky Herath, Canadian Red Cross Dr. Raafat Misak, Center for Research and Studies on Kuwait Mr. Charles Ndayiziga, Centre d’Alerte et de Prévention des Conflicts Mr. Frederick Sadomba, Centre for Defense Studies, University of Zimbabwe Ms. Jeannette Perry de Saravia, CIREC Mr. Renato Raimundo, Club de Jovens Huila Ms. Celia McKeon, Conciliation Resources Hon. Andonia Piau-Lynch, Disability Promotion and Advocacy Association-Vanuatu Mr. Prakit Inthisith, Disabled People’s International Asia-Pacific Region Mr. Brian Liu, Documentary Filmmaker Mr. Robert Lin, Eden Social Welfare Foundation APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 40

Mr. David Lee, Eden Social Welfare Foundation Ms. Annelies Heijimans, European Center for Conflict Prevention Mr. Kraisak Choonhavan, Genereal Chatchai Choonhawan Foundation Mr. Suthikiet Sopanik, Genereal Chatchai Choonhawan Foundation Ms. Celina Tuttle, Geneva Call Ms. Katherine Kramer, Geneva Call Mr. Lare Okungu, Geneva Call Mr. Soliman Santos, Geneva Call/Philippine Campaign to Ban Landmines Ms. Christine Lefort, Handicap International Mr. Philip Coggan, Handicap International Mr. Paul Vermeulen, Handicap International Mr. Bill Howell, Handicap International Ms. Annalisa Formiconi, Handicap International Belgium Mr. Christian Provoost, Handicap International Belgium Mr. Koen Baetens, Handicap International Belgium Ms. Sheree Bailey, Handicap International Belgium Mr. Somchai Rungsilp, Handicap International Thailand Ms. Shushira Chonhenchob, Handicap International Thailand Ms. Lesley Clarke, ICBL Australia Network Ms. Patricia Pak Poy, ICBL Australia Network Mr. Loren Persi, ICBL Australia Network Mr. David Johnson, ICBL Australia Network Mr. Gerald Hinton, ICBL Australia Network Ms. Lenka Persi, ICBL Australia Network Ms. Narine Berikashvili, ICBL Georgian Committee Ms. Anila Alibali, Illyricum Fund Dr. Nalini Kurvey, Indian Campaign to Ban Landmines Dr. Balkrishna Kurvey, Indian Campaign to Ban Landmines Dr. Longri, Indian Campaign to Ban Landmines Mr. Sayyed Ishrat, Indian Campaign to Ban Landmines Mr. Krishna Dhok, Indian Campaign to Ban Landmines Ms. Desyana Zainuddin, Indonesian Campaign to Ban Landmines Ms. Pamela Velasquez, Instituto de Ecología Política (IEP) Mr. Wilbert Silva, Interfaith Fellowship For Peace and Development Mr. Kjell Knudsen, International Campaign to Ban Landmines Ms. Jackie Hansen, International Campaign to Ban Landmines Mr. Jonas Mfouatie, International Club for Peace Research Ven. Assaji Madampagama, Inter-Religious Peace Foundation Rev. Freddy De Alwis, Inter-Religious Peace Foundation Ms. Cholpon Galieva, IPPNW-Kyrgyz committee Ms. Aliki Akhmetova, IPPNW-Kyrgyz committee Mr. Edison Mworozi, IPPNW-Uganda Campaign to Ban Landmines Mr. Roman Dolgov, IPPNW/Russian Campaign to Ban Landmines Mr. Toshiro Shimizu, Japan Campaign to Ban Landmines Ms. Ingvild Solvang, Jesuit Refugee Service Indonesia APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 41

Mr. Cornelius Nyamboki, Kenya Coalition Against Landmines Ms. Mary Nyawira Onsomu, Kenya Coalition Against Landmines Mr. Jai-kook Cho, Korea Campaign to Ban Landmines Ms. Rosy Cave, Landmine Action Ms. Marielle Hallez, Landmine Monitor Ms. Tungalag Johnstone, Landmine Monitor Ms. Katarzyna Derlicka, Landmine Monitor Mr. Andrew Wells-Dang, Landmine Monitor Ms. Dalma Foeldes, Landmine Survivors Network Mr. Anders Eckland, Landmine Survivors Network Mr. Nathan Turner, Landmine Survivors Network Ms. Chrisine Manula, Landmine Survivors Network Ms. Katherine Guernsey, Landmine Survivors Network Ms. Habbouba Aoun, Landmines Resources Center Mr. Ayman Sorour, Landmines Struggle Center Mr. Undule Mwakasungura, Malawi Campaign to Ban Landmines Mr. Charlie Avendaño, Mine Action Canada Ms. Nancy Ingram, Mine Action Canada Ms. Patricia Ann Torsney, Mines Action Canada Mr. Steven Estey, Mines Action Canada Mr. Tim Carstairs, Mines Advisory Group Mr. John Wallace, Mines Advisory Group Mr. Rob White, Mines Advisory Group Mr. David Taw, NCGUB/KNU Mr. Rafique Al-Islam, Nonviolence International Bangladesh Ms. Chutimas Suksai, Nonviolence International Southeast Asia Mr. Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan, Nonviolence International Southeast Asia Ms. Sirinrath Tesvisarn, Nonviolence International Southeast Asia Mr. Erik Tollefsen, Norwegian People’s Aid Ms. Janecke Wille, Norwegian People’s Aid Mr. Damir Atikovic, Norwegian People’s Aid Ms. Ema Tagicakibau, Pacific Concerns Resource Centre Mr. Haroon Latif, Pakistan Campaign to Ban Landmines Mr. Tony D’Costa, Pax Christi International Mr. Herbert Docena, Peace and Security Programme, Focus on the Global South Mr. Constantin Lacatus, People of Sibiu for Peace/ Sibienii Pacifisti Ms. Sharon Quinsaat, Philippine Campaign to Ban Landmines Ms. Kara Patria Santos, Philippine Campaign to Ban Landmines Ms. Miriam Ferrer, Philippine Campaign to Ban Landmines Mr. Alfredo Lubang, Philippine Campaign to Ban Landmines Mr. Michael Boddington, POWER Laos Mr. Tilahun Kidan, RaDO Ms. Bhagavati Gautam, Raising the Voices Ms. Chim Kong, Raising the Voices Ms. Wiboonrat Chanchoo, Raising the Voices APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 42

Ms. Prakaikul Thepnork, Raising the Voices Mr. Thawee Khamprapha, Raising the Voices Mr. Bounvien Luangngot, Raising the Voices Mr. Singkham Takounphak, Raising the Voices Mr. Hazrat Ullah, Raising the Voices Ms. Kamalathevi Sivasithamparam, Raising the Voices Mr. Choosak Saelee, Raising the Voices Mr. Hari Jung Shah, Raising the Voices Mr. Bakht Zada, Raising the Voices Mr. Sim Sameth, Raising the Voices Mr. Santa Singh, Raising the Voices Mr. Omara Khan, Raising the Voices Mr. Ahmed Esa, Somaliland Campaign to Ban Landmines Mr. Elwaleed Elbashir, Sudan Campaign to Ban Landmines Mr. Hussein Elobeid, Sudan Campaign to Ban Landmines Mr. Robert Eaton, Survey Action Center Mr. Raza Shah Khan, Sustainable Peace & Development Organization Mr. Frida Blom, Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society Mr. Christian Gustavsson, Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society Mr. Tobias Gasser, Swiss Campaign to Ban Landmines Ms. Elisabeth Reusse-Decrey, Swiss Campaign to Ban Landmines/Geneva Call Rev. Mr. Semisi Nimo, TANGO Ms. Sirikarn Kahattha, Thailand Campaign to Ban Landmines Ms. Atiwan Kunaphinun, Thailand Campaign to Ban Landmines Mr. Suvit Yodmani, Thailand Campaign to Ban Landmines Mr. Saroj Ruangsakulraj, Thailand Campaign to Ban Landmines Ms. Siriporn Thongtrakful, Thailand Campaign to Ban Landmines Ms. Emilie Ketudat, Thailand Campaign to Ban Landmines Mr. Vichai Phokthavi, Thailand Campaign to Ban Landmines Ms. Nuchanad Sirichayaporn, Thailand Campaign to Ban Landmines Ms. Siriphen Limsirikul, Thailand Campaign to Ban Landmines Ms. Margaret Arach Orech, Uganda Campaign to Ban Landmines Mr. Yuri Donskoy, Ukrainian Peacekeepers Veterans Association Mr. Tin Maung Lwin, UNHCR Mr. Khalil Dokhanchi, University of Wisconsin-Superior Ms. Gina Coplon-Newfield, US Campaign to Ban Landmines Mr. Sovanna (Chhem) Sip, World Rehabilitation Fund Ms. Allyson Brown, World Rehabilitation Fund Ms. Heather Burns, World Rehabilitation Fund Mr. Ghassan Shahrour, Yarmouk Ms. Nadra Abdul Razzaq, Yemen Mine Awareness Association Ms. Laura Noboa Boix, Youth Campaigner Ms. Christa McMillin, Youth Mine Action Ambassador Programme Mr. Robert Mtonga, Zambian Campaign to Ban Landmines Ms. Kerry Fisher, Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 43

IV. ORGANISATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS INVITED TO ATTEND BY THE COORDINATING COMMITTEE OF CO-CHAIRS2

DISABILITY ACTION COUNCIL

Mr. Ngy San Staff of Semi Autonomous National Coordination Body on Disability Issues

INTERNATIONAL TRUST FUND FOR DEMINING AND MINE VICTIMS ASSISTANCE

Mr. Jernej Cimperick Director

Ms. Eva Veble Head of the Department for International Relations

KOREAN MINE ACTION GROUP

Mr. Moon Woong Assistant Director in Korea Action Group

Mr. Whan Im Director in Korea Action Group

PRIO (INTERNATIONAL PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE, OSLO)

Dr. Gary Littlejohn Member of the Advisory Board of the Assistance to Mine-Affected Communities Project

Mr. Kristan Berg Harpviken Project Leader of the Assistance to Mine-Affected Communities Project

Ms. Rebecca Roberts

TAMIL’S REHABILITATION ORGANISATION

Mr. Chandru Pararajasingham, Tamil Rehabilitation Organisation

Mr. KP Regi, Tamil Rehabilitation Organisation

2 pursuant to Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Procedure APLC/MSP.5/2003/INF.2/Rev.1 Page 44

Vertication Resarch, Training and Information Center (VERTIC)

Ms. Angela Woodward Legal Researcher

EXPERT

Mr. Siraj Barzani Director-General, National Mine Action Authority ______

Mr. Abdul Samey Afghan Campaign to Ban Landmines Ms. Zohara Qudsia House 271, Street 14 Wazir Akber Khan Raising the Voices Kabul 020 ICRC Main Delegation, Protection Department Afghanistan Kabul Tel. +93-70-275500, +93-020-23012 Afghanistan Fax +93-020-2301201 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Mohammad Shohab Hakimi Ms. Anila Alibali Afghan Campaign to Ban Landmines Illyricum Fund House 271, Street 14 Wazir Akber Khan Rr. Muhamet Gjollesha, Pll.60, Shk.1, Apt.7 Kabul 020 Tirana Afghanistan Albania Tel. +93-70-275500, +93-020-23012 Tel. +355-422-3569 Fax +93-020-2301201 Fax +355-424-7172 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Ms. Jemma Hasratyan Mr. Gerald Hinton Armenian Committee of ICBL ICBL Australia Network 33/41 Sayat-Nova Street 25 Chapel Street, Campbelltown Yerevan 375001 Adelaide SA 5074

Armenia Australia Tel. +3741-581-583 Tel. +61-8-8337-2250 Fax +3741-541552 /581583 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Ms. Lesley Clarke Mr. Loren Persi ICBL Australia Network ICBL Australia Network 22 Davis Street 20/22 Archibald Street, Lyneham Kew 3101 Canberra 2602

Australia Australia Tel. +61-3-9817-3122 Tel. +66-2-271294 Fax +61-3-9817-3122 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Michael G. Smith Ms. Lenka Persi AUSTCARE ICBL Australia Network 69-71 Parramatta Road 20/22 Archibald Street, Lyneham Camperdown, NSW 1450 Canberra 2602

Australia Australia Tel. +61-2-9565-9118 Tel. +61-2-6257-0562 Fax +612-9550-4509 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. David Johnson Ms. Janecke Wille ICBL Australia Network Norwegian People's Aid PO Box 624 PO Box 98 Herberton 4872 Toowong 4066

Australia Australia Tel. +61-7-4096-3236 Tel. +61-4-38-73-09-61 Fax +61-7-4096-3236 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. John Rodsted Ms. Sheree Bailey ICBL Australia Network Handicap International Belgium 6 Tallaroon Court, Greensborough PO Box 98 Melbourne 3088 Toowong 4066 Australia Australia Tel. +61-3-9432-6688 Tel. +61-7-3511-6430 Fax +61-3-9432-6699 Fax +61-7-3367-1779 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Ms. Patricia Pak Poy Ms. Judith Majlath ICBL Australia Network Austrian Aid for Mine Victims 4 Victoria Street, Mile End Borsegasse 3 Adelaide SA 5031 Vienna 1010 Australia Austria Tel. +61-8-8234-8642 Tel. +431-5357516 Fax +61-8-8234-8642 Fax +431-5357516 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Hafiz Safikhanov Mr. Rafique Al-Islam Azerbaijan Campaign to Ban Landmines Nonviolence International Bangladesh Sarayevo Street 7, Apt. 105 United Hotel Building, Bangabandhu Road Baku AZ 1142 Cox's Bazar 4700 Azerbaijan Bangladesh Tel. +994-12-941-458 Tel. +880-341-64809/ 64489 Fax +994-12-752-127 Fax +880-34-63827 Email [email protected] Email [email protected], [email protected]

Mr. Iouri Zagoumennov Ms. Marielle Hallez Belarus Campaign to Ban Landmines Landmine Monitor 16-425 Korolia Street Haantjeslei 130 Minsk 220004 Antwerp 208 Belarus Belgium Tel. +375-1721-05751 Tel. +32-3-248-1590 Fax +375-172105751 Fax +32-2-481590 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Koen Baetens Mr. Stan Brabant Handicap International Belgium Handicap International Belgium Rue de Spa 67 Rue de Spa 67 Brussels 1000 Brussels 1000 Belgium Belgium Tel. +32-2-286-52-68 Tel. +32-2-286-50-59 Fax +32-2-230-60-30 Fax +32-2-230-60-30 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Ms. Sue Wixley Mr. Damir Atikovic International Campaign to Ban Landmines Norwegian People's Aid c/o John Roberts, EUPM, Air ops/Logistics Zabrdje b.b. Rajlovac Sarajevo Sarajevo 71000

Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia and Herzegovina Tel. +387-61-347-305 Tel. +387-61-133-282 Email [email protected] Fax +387-33-436-533 Email [email protected]

Mr. Gustavo Oliveira Vieira Mr. Charles Ndayiziga Campanha Brasileira Contra Minas Terrestres Centre d’Alerte et de Prévention des Conflits Augusto Spengler Street, 1039, Bloco 06, Apt. 405 Bd du 28 Novembre, Av. Des Travailleurs, n 1, BP Santa Cruz do Sul 96820 020 6719 Brazil Bujumbura Tel. +55-51-9661-4718 Burundi Fax +55-51-3711-1469 Tel. +257-24-76-75, +257-955-991 Email [email protected] Fax +257-22-65-47 Email [email protected]

Mr. Channareth Tun Sister Denise Coghlan Cambodia Campaign to Ban Landmines Cambodia Campaign to Ban Landmines c/o Jesuit Refugee Service, P.O. Box 880 c/o Jesuit Refugee Service, P.O. Box 880 Phnom Penh Phnom Penh Cambodia Cambodia Tel. +855-23-880-139 Tel. +855-23-880-139 Fax +855-23-880-140 Fax +855-23-880-140 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Giovanni Tatti Ms. Eng Sok AUSTCARE Cambodia Campaign to Ban Landmines PDRD Compound, Oum Khun Street, Mondul 2, Khum c/o Jesuit Refugee Service, P.O. Box 880 Svay Dang Kum Phnom Penh Siem Reap Cambodia Cambodia Tel. +855-23-880-139 Tel. +855-1252-1184 Fax +855-23-880-140 Fax +855-63-963309 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Not So Mr. Sophat Duch Cambodia Campaign to Ban Landmines Cambodia Campaign to Ban Landmines c/o Jesuit Refugee Service, P.O. Box 880 c/o Jesuit Refugee Service, P.O. Box 880 Phnom Penh Phnom Penh

Cambodia Cambodia Tel. +855-23-880-139 Tel. +855-23-880-139 Fax +855-23-880-140 Fax +855-23-880-140 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Ms. Oeum Nhan Mr. Sim Sameth Cambodia Campaign to Ban Landmines Raising the Voices c/o Jesuit Refugee Service, P.O. Box 880 Phum Snam Prampi, Khum Makprang, Srok Kampot Phnom Penh Khet Kampot

Cambodia Cambodia Tel. +855-23-880-139 Tel. +855-1267-6290 Fax +855-23-880-140 Fax +855-23-880-140 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Ms. Chim Kong Mr. Kosal Song Raising the Voices Cambodia Campaign to Ban Landmines PO Box 170 c/o Jesuit Refugee Service, P.O. Box 880 Phnom Penh Phnom Penh Cambodia Cambodia Tel. +855-298-2976 Tel. +855-23-880-139 Fax +855-232-13876 Fax +855-23-880-140 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Sakhoeum Man Mr. Chreuk Suon Cambodia Campaign to Ban Landmines Cambodia Campaign to Ban Landmines c/o Jesuit Refugee Service, P.O. Box 880 c/o Jesuit Refugee Service, P.O. Box 880 Phnom Penh Phnom Penh Cambodia Cambodia Tel. +855-23-880-139 Tel. +855-23-880-139 Fax +855-23-880-140 Fax +855-23-880-140 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Ms. Soeung Sotheavy Mr. Philip Coggan Cambodia Campaign to Ban Landmines Handicap International c/o Jesuit Refugee Service, P.O. Box 880 c/o Disability Action Council Phnom Penh Phnom Penh

Cambodia Cambodia Tel. +855-23-880-139 Tel. +855-23-012-627 437 Fax +855-23-880-140 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Seng Socheatta Ms. Lay Yan Cambodia Campaign to Ban Landmines Cambodia Campaign to Ban Landmines c/o Jesuit Refugee Service, P.O. Box 880 c/o Jesuit Refugee Service, P.O. Box 880 Phnom Penh Phnom Penh

Cambodia Cambodia Tel. +855-23-880-139 Tel. +855-23-880-139 Fax +855-23-880-140 Fax +855-23-880-140 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Ms. Hiroko Horiuchi Ms. Srey Mom Man Cambodia Campaign to Ban Landmines Cambodia Campaign to Ban Landmines c/o Jesuit Refugee Service, P.O. Box 880 c/o Jesuit Refugee Service, P.O. Box 880 Phnom Penh Phnom Penh

Cambodia Cambodia Tel. +855-23-880-139 Tel. +855-23-880-139 Fax +855-23-880-140 Fax +855-23-880-140 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Christian Provoost Mr. Jonas Mfouatie Handicap International Belgium International Club for Peace Research PO Box 838, #18 Street 400, Boeng Keng Kang I Peace House, Descente Ave Germaine, Rue 1276 Phnom Penh Yaounde 13942

Cambodia Cameroon Tel. +855-1290-8927 Tel. +237-223-1096 Email [email protected] Fax +237-223-1096 Email [email protected]

Ms. Celina Tuttle Mr. Steven Estey Geneva Call Mines Action Canada 42 Campbell Street 1502 -1 Nicholas Street Carleton Place ON K7C 2R7 Ottawa K1N 7B7

Canada Canada Tel. +1-613-253-3135 Tel. +1-613-241-3777 Email [email protected] Fax +1-613-244-3410 Email [email protected]

Ms. Nancy Ingram Mr. Paul Hannon Mines Action Canada Mines Action Canada 1502 -1 Nicholas Street 1502 -1 Nicholas Street Ottawa K1N 7B7 Ottawa K1N 7B7 Canada Canada Tel. +1-613-241-3777 Tel. +1-613-241-3777 Fax +1-613-244-3410 Fax +1-613-244-3410 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Ms. Patricia Ann Torsney Ms. Christa McMillin Mines Action Canada Youth Mine Action Ambassador Program Room 213, Confederation Building 1200-1 Nicholas street Ottawa K1A 0A6 Ottawa K1N 7B7 Canada Canada Tel. +1 613 995 0850 Tel. +1-613-241-4141 Fax +1-613-995-1091 Fax +1-613-244-3410 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Charlie Avendaño Ms. Pamela Velasquez Mines Action Canada Instituto de Ecología Política (IEP) 1502 -1 Nicholas Street Seminario 776, Ñuñoa Ottawa K1N 7B7 Santiago CP6841232 Canada Chile Tel. +1-613-241-3777 Tel. +562-223-9059 Fax +1-613-244-3410 Fax +562-2234522 Email [email protected] Email [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Mr. Alvaro Jimenez Millán Ms. Jeannette Perry de Saravia Campaña Colombiana contra Minas CIREC Carrera 55 # 40A 20 Oficina 1302, Edificio Nuevo Carrera 42 # 65-25 Centro la Alpujarra Bogota Medellín Colombia Colombia Tel. +57-1-311-3584 57 1 3113639 Tel. +57-1-2174872 Fax +57-1-5443311 Fax +57-1-2174872 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Sam Christensen Mr. Steven Olejas Lutheran World Federation/ DanChurchAid Lutheran World Federation/ DanChurchAid Noerregade 13 Noerregade 13 Copenhagen 1165 Copenhagen 1165 Denmark Denmark Tel. +45-33-18-78-74 Tel. +45-3315-28-00 Fax +45-38-18-77-37 Fax +45-38-18-77-37 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Abdoulkader Elmi Elabé Mr. Ayman Sorour ASSOVIM Landmines Struggle Center PO Box 1285 or 2118 PO Box 121, Embaba Cité Gabode Giza Djibouti Egypt Tel. +253-31-20-26 Tel. +202-870-3548 Fax +253-35-62-88 Fax +202-870-3548 Email [email protected] Email [email protected], [email protected]

Mr. Tilahun Kidan Ms. Ema Tagicakibau RaDO Pacific Concerns Resource Centre PO Box 11233 Private Mail Bag Addis Ababa Suva Ethiopia Fiji Tel. +251-1-63-67-92 /93 Tel. +679-3304-649 Fax +251-1-62-72-95 Fax +679-3304-755 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Mehmet Balci Ms. Christine Lefort Campaign for a Turkey Without Mines Handicap International 12 rue de Suresnes 104/106 rue Oberkampf Nanterre 92000 Paris 75011

France France Tel. +33-1-58-47-00-13 Tel. +33-1-43-14-87-00 Email [email protected] Fax +33-1-43-14-87 07 Email [email protected]

Mr. Bill Howell Ms. Sylvie Brigot Handicap International International Campaign to Ban Landmines 14 Avenue Berthelot 47 rue de Belfort Lyon 69361 Cedex 07 Courbevoie 92400 France France Tel. +33-4-78-69-79-44 Tel. +33-1-4788-9753 Fax +33-1-43-14-87 07 Fax +33-1-47-88-98 61 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Philippe Chabasse Ms. Narine Berikashvili Handicap International ICBL Georgian Committee 104/106 rue Oberkampf 31 Tsinamdzgvrishvili Street Paris 75011 Tbilisi 0102 France Georgia Tel. +33-1-43-14-87-00 Tel. +995-99-905-134 Fax +33-1-43-14-87 07 Fax +995-32-961514 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Markus Haake Mr. Santa Singh German Initiative to Ban Landmines Raising the Voices c/o BITS, Rykestrasse 13 Village Post Office, Kotha Pakki, Via Dhani Berlin 10405 Sri Ganganagar Rajasthan Germany India Tel. +49-30-4213686 Tel. +91-712-2745806 Fax +49-30-42801688 Fax +91-712-743664 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Dr. Balkrishna Kurvey Dr. Nalini Kurvey Indian Campaign to Ban Landmines Indian Campaign to Ban Landmines 537, Sakkardara Road 537, Sakkardara Road Nagpur 440009 Nagpur 440009 India India Tel. +91-712-274-5806 Tel. +91-712-274-5806 Fax +91-712-743664 Fax +91-712-743664 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Agha Sayed Ishart Hussain Dr. Longri Indian Campaign to Ban Landmines Indian Campaign to Ban Landmines Safvi Manzil, House No 26/1 Tara Bal, Nawa Kadal PO Box 485, Niki Apartment Para Medical Srinagar Jammu and Kashmir, 190001 Nagaland 797001 India India Tel. +91-194-2423414 Tel. +91-370-2244727 Fax +91-712-2743664 Fax +91-712-2743664 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Om Prakash Bhadrecha Ms. Desyana Zainuddin Raising the Voices Indonesian Campaign to Ban Landmines Rohidawali, Suthran JL SMEA VI No. 26 RT 09/09 Cawang Jakarta Timur Sri Ganganagar Rajasthan Jakarta 13630 India Indonesia Tel. +91-154-2856021 Tel. +62-218-095750, +62-21-8095750 Fax +91-712-743664 Fax +62-218-095-750, +62-21-809-5750 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Ms. Ingvild Solvang Mr. Tony D'Costa Jesuit Refugee Service Indonesia Pax Christi International Gg Cabe DP III/9 Pringwulung, Condong Catur, 52 Lower Rathmines Rd Sleman Dublin 6 Yogyakarta Ireland Indonesia Tel. +353-1-496-5293 Tel. +62-274-517-405 Fax +353-1-496-5492 Fax +62-274-517-405 Email [email protected], [email protected] Email [email protected]

Ms. Laura Morelli Ms. Simona Beltrami Campagna Italiana Contro le Mine - ONLUS Campagna Italiana Contro le Mine - ONLUS Via Pirandello 2, Cavernago Via Nizza 154 Bergamo 24050 Rome 00198

Italy Italy Tel. +39-339-6586454 Tel. +39-06-858-00693 Email [email protected] Fax +39-06-85304326 Email [email protected]

Ms. Annalisa Formiconi Mr. Giovanni Diffidenti Handicap International Belgium Campagna Italiana Contro le Mine - ONLUS Via del Pratello 25/2 Via Pirandello 2, Cavernago Bologna 40122 Bergamo 24050

Italy Italy Tel. +39-05-126-5142 Tel. +39-339-2668381 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Ms. Minami Tsubouchi Ms. Yukie Osa Association for Aid and Relief (AAR) Japan Association for Aid and Relief (AAR) Japan 5F 2-12-2 Kamiosaki Shinagawa-ku 2-12-2, 5F, Kami-Osaki, Shinagawa-ku Tokyo 141-0021 Tokyo 141-0021 Japan Japan Tel. +81-3-5423-4511 Tel. +81-3-5423-4511 Fax +81-3-5423-4450 Fax +81-3-5423-4450 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Toshihiro Shimizu Mr. Cornelius Nyamboki Japan Campaign to Ban Landmines Kenya Coalition Against Landmines 5F, Maruko-Building 1-20-6,Higashiueno Taito-ku PO Box 57217 Tokyo 110-8605 Nairobi 00200 Japan Kenya Tel. +81-3-3834-2388 Tel. +254-7228-12376 Fax +81-3-3835-0519 Fax +254-2-223307 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Lare Okungu Ms. Mereso Agina Geneva Call Kenya Coalition Against Landmines PO Box 61650 PO BOX 57217 Nairobi 00200 Nairobi 00200 Kenya Kenya Tel. +254-20-565664 Tel. +254-20-573099, +254-2-223307 Fax +254-2-223307 Fax +254-2-223307, +254-20-573099 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Jai-kook Cho Dr. Raafat Misak Korea Campaign to Ban Landmines Center for Research and Studies on Kuwait #506-2, Shinsa-dong, Kangnam-gu PO Box 24885 Seoul 135-887 Safat 13109 Korea Kuwait Tel. +82-2-543-3824 Tel. +965-945-3279 Fax +82-2-543-3824 Fax +965-4815202 Email [email protected] Email [email protected], [email protected]

Ms. Aliki Akhmetova Ms. Cholpon Galieva IPPNW- Kyrgyz committee IPPNW- Kyrgyz committee 148\96, Tolstoi Street Ibraimova Street 108/44 Bishkek 720009 Bishkek 7200011 Kyrgyzstan Kyrgyzstan Tel. +996-312-647772 Tel. +996-312-280437 Fax +996-312-680452 Fax +996-312-680452 Email [email protected], [email protected] Email [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Mr. Bounvien Luangngot Mr. Singkham Takounphak Raising the Voices Raising the Voices Pangkham Road, PO Box 347 Phonkheng Road, 13 South, PO Box 6751 Vientiane Vientiane

Laos Laos Tel. +856-21-213010 Tel. +856-21-451578 Email [email protected] Fax +856-21-415-052 Email [email protected]

Mr. Igors Tipans Mr. Michael Boddington Baltic International Centre for Human Education POWER Laos Azenes 16-239 Vientiane Riga LV 1048

Laos Latvia Email [email protected] Tel. +371-9495-699 Fax +371-7089020 Email [email protected]

Ms. Habbouba Aoun Ms. Tungalag Johnstone Landmines Resource Center Landmine Monitor University of Balamand Faculty of Health Sciences, St. c/o Canadian Consulate, Diplomatic Services Building, Georges Health Complex, Ashrafieh, Youssef Sursok PO Box 243 Street, PO Box 166378, Ashrafieh, Beirut 1100 2807 Ulaanbaatar 210644 Lebanon Mongolia Tel. +961-1-562108 /9 Tel. +976-99171292, 976 11458169 Fax +961-1-562110 Fax +976-1-328289 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Shirish Pandey Ms. Purna Shova Chitrakar Ban Landmines Campaign Nepal Ban Landmines Campaign Nepal Sitapaila, Ring Road, PO Box 5840 Sitapaila, Ring Road, PO Box 5840 Kathmandu Kathmandu Nepal Nepal Tel. +977-1-4277428 Tel. +977-1-4271794,4277428,4278990 Fax +977-1-4-270396 /4277428 Fax +977-1-4-270396 /4277428 Email [email protected], [email protected] Email [email protected], [email protected]

Mr. Ram Saran Sedhai Mr. Hari Jung Shah Ban Landmines Campaign Nepal Raising the Voices Sitapaila, Ring Road, PO Box 5840 Khakh Village Development Committee Kathmandu Rukum Nepal Nepal Tel. +977-1-4277428,4278990 Tel. +977-1-4-477428 Fax +977-1-4-270396 /4277428 Fax +977-1-4-270396 /4277428 Email [email protected],[email protected] Email [email protected]

Ms. Bhagavati Gautam Mr. John Head Raising the Voices CALM - New Zealand Shova Village Development Committee, Ward No. 5 49A Wharemauku Road, Raumati Beach Rukum Kapiti Coast 6010 Nepal New Zealand Tel. +977-1-4-477428 Tel. +64-4-905-5524 Fax +977-1-4-270396 /4277428 Fax +64-4-905-5107 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Brian Hayes Mr. Christopher Swain CALM - New Zealand CALM - New Zealand 8 Marshall Street, Karori 39 Karepa Street, Brooklyn Wellington Wellington

New Zealand New Zealand Tel. +64-4-476-8379 Tel. +64-4-977-1155 Fax +64-4-918-8144 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Ms. Sara Sekkenes Mr. Erik Tollefsen Norwegian People's Aid Norwegian People's Aid PO Box 8844, Youngstorget PO Box 8844, Youngstorget Oslo 0028 Oslo 0028 Norway Norway Tel. +47-22-03-77-20 Tel. +47-41-413-007 Fax +47-22-20-08-70 Fax +47-22-20-08-70 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Kjell Knudsen Mr. Raza Shah Khan International Campaign to Ban Landmines Sustainable Peace & Development Organization PO Box 8844, Youngstorget 11-D/A, Circular Road University Town Oslo 0028 Peshawar NWFP 25000 Norway Pakistan Tel. +47-22-03-77-77 Tel. +92-91-841789 Fax +47-22-20-08-70 Fax +92-91-5703760 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Omara Khan Mr. Bakht Zada Raising the Voices Raising the Voices AABRAR, 2nd Floor, Flat #108, Khyber View Plaza, Inzary, Tehsil, Khar Jamrud Road, Abdara Chowk Bajaur Peshawar Pakistan Pakistan Tel. +92-91-277617 Tel. +92-91-844-078 Fax +92-91-271081 Fax +92-91-840521 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Hazrat Ullah Ms. Kara Patria Santos Raising the Voices Philippine Campaign to Ban Landmines Muslim Bagh, Tehsil, Kahr 18 Mariposa Street, Cubao Bajaur Quezon City 1109

Pakistan Philippines Tel. +92-919277617 Tel. +63-2-72252153 Email [email protected] Fax +632-4138821 Email [email protected]

Mr. Soliman Santos Ms. Sharon Quinsaat Philippine Campaign to Ban Landmines/ Geneva Call Philippine Campaign to Ban Landmines 18 Mariposa Street, Cubao Third World Studies Center, Palma Hall Basement, Quezon City 1109 University of the Philippines, Diliman Philippines Quezon City 1101 Tel. +63-2-7252153 Philippines Fax +632-4138821 Tel. +63-2-9205428 Email [email protected] Fax +63-2-9205428 Email [email protected]

Mr. Alfredo Lubang Ms. Miriam Ferrer Philippine Campaign to Ban Landmines Philippine Campaign to Ban Landmines Third World Studies Center, Palma Hall Basement, Third World Studies Center, Palma Hall Basement, University of the Philippines, Diliman University of the Philippines, Diliman Quezon City 1101 Quezon City 1101 Philippines Philippines Tel. +63-2-4266122 Tel. +63-2-9205428 Fax +63-2-4266064 Fax +63-2-9205428 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Ms. Katarzyna Derlicka Mr. Talnariu Horea Landmine Monitor The Zone Geographical Initiative People of Sibiu for Ul. Mikiewicza 48 Peace Zielonka 05-220 Str. Mitropoliei No. 26 Poland Sibiu RO-2400 Tel. +48-606-102-755 Romania Fax +48-22-761-09-44 Tel. +40-744-556466 Email [email protected] Fax +40-269-232-650 Email [email protected]

Mr. Roman Dolgov Ms. Lucky Herath IPPNW/ Russian Campaign to Ban Landmines Canadian Red Cross Leninsky Prospect 30-147 Prince George's Park Residence 5, 35 Prince George's Moscow 117334 Park, #05-23, Room G Russia Singapore 118429 Tel. +7-095-958-5288 Singapore Fax +7-095-958-5288 Tel. +1-604-597-1920 Email [email protected], Email [email protected] [email protected]

Mr. Ahmed Esa Mr. Wilbert Silva Somaliland Campaign to Ban Landmines Interfaith Fellowship For Peace and Development DHL, Hargeisa 218/4, Tewatta Road Ragama Hargeisa Ragama Somaliland Sri Lanka Tel. +252-828-5785 Tel. +94-1-956115 / 0094 /952102 Fax +252-213-6990 Fax +94-1-956115 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Ms. Kamalathevi Sivasithamparam Rev. Freddy De Alwis Raising the Voices Inter-Religious Peace Foundation No. 3 B, Government Quarters, Inner Harbour Road No 3 Chapel Lane Trincomalee Nugegoda

Sri Lanka Sri Lanka Tel. +94-26-22135 Tel. +94-1-811700 Fax +94-26-22114 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Prasanna Rajiv Kuruppu Ven. Assaji Madampagama Raising the Voices Inter-Religious Peace Foundation #71, Kuda-Buthgamuwa Road Sri Isepathanaramaya 180/34,Grand Pass Road Angoda 10620 Colombo 14

Sri Lanka Sri Lanka Tel. +94-569639 Tel. +94-1-440387 Fax +94-1-410068 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Hussein Elobeid Mr. Elwaleed Elbashir Sudan Campaign to Ban Landmines Sudan Campaign to Ban Landmines PO Box 6533 PO Box 12232 Khartoum Khartoum 11111 Sudan Sudan Tel. +249-11-475961 Tel. +249-12308155 Fax +249-11-475990. Fax +249-11-492862 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Ms. Frida Blom Mr. Christian Gustavsson Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society Svartensgatan 6, Box 41 34 PO Box 4134 Stockholm 102 63 Stockholm 102 63 Sweden Sweden Tel. +46-8-702-18-30, +46-8-7022675 Tel. +46-8-7021830 Fax +46-702-18-46 Fax +46-702-18-46 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Ms. Katherine Kramer Mr. Anders Eckland Geneva Call Landmine Survivors Network PO Box 334 Rue de Lyon 25 Geneva 4 1211 Geneva CH-1201 Switzerland Switzerland Tel. +41-79-784-4314 Tel. +41-22-340-68-19 Fax +41-22-800-20-8 Fax +1-202-464-0011 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Tobias Gasser Ms. Elisabeth Reusse-Decrey Swiss Campaign to Ban Landmines Swiss Campaign to Ban Landmines/ Geneva Call Breitfeldsdtrasse 40 PO Box 334 Berne 3014 Geneva 4 1211 Switzerland Switzerland Tel. +41-79-283-85-78 Tel. +41-79-411-7010 Fax +41-860-079-283-85-78 Fax +41-800-2066 /68 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Paul Vermeulen Ms. Susan B. Walker Handicap International International Campaign to Ban Landmines 11, avenue de Joli-Mont 62 rue Rothschild, 8eme Geneva 1209 Geneva 1202 Switzerland Switzerland Tel. +41-22-788-70-33 Tel. +41-79-470-1931 Fax +41-22-788-70-35 Fax +41-22-920-0115 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Ghassan Shahrour Mr. David Lee Yarmouk Eden Social Welfare Foundation PO Box 14189 116 #55 3F Wanmei Street Section Damascus Taipei 116 Syria Taiwan Tel. +963-11-5413923 Tel. +886-222-307715x260 Fax +963-11-5421893 Fax +886-222-306422 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Robert Lin Mr. Prakit Inthisith Eden Social Welfare Foundation Disabled Peoples’ International Asia-Pacific Region 116 #55 3F Wanmei Street Section 325 Bondstreet Road, Muangthong Thani, Pakkred Taipei 116 Nonthaburi Taiwan Thailand Tel. +886-222-307715x101 Tel. +66-2-984-1007 Fax +886-222-306422 Fax +66-2-984-1007 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Thawee Khamprapha Ms. Prakaikul Thepnork Raising the Voices Raising the Voices 133 M. 14, Khao Look Chang Village, Taphraya Sub- Prasat District Hospital, 602 M. 2,``Kang An Sub- district, Taphraya District district, Khunhaan District Sakaeo Province 27180 Sisaket Province Thailand Thailand Tel. +66-1-250-2752 Tel. +66-1-072-4873 Fax +66-2-271-3632 Fax +66-2-271-3632 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Choosak Saelee Mr. Suthikiet Sopanik Raising the Voices General Chatchai Choonhawan Foundation 51/5 Moo 7 Nongkok Village, Thepnimit Sub-district, 10 Baan Lucha Phaholyothin Soi 3, Phayathai Pongnamron District Bangkok 10400 Chanthaburi 22140 Thailand Thailand Tel. +66-2-617-2000 Tel. +66-9-935-0437 Fax +66-2-279-4283 Fax +66-3-936-0055 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Phornchi Chiravinijnandh Ms. Wiboonrat Chanchoo Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC) Raising the Voices PO Box 4, Klong Luang 30 M. 13, None Pattana Village, Phan Suek Sub- Pathumthani 12120 district, Aranyaprathet District Thailand Sakaeo Province 27120 Tel. +66-2-516-5900 Ext 201 Thailand Fax +66-2-524-5350 Tel. +66-9-007-0671 Email [email protected] Fax +66-2-271-3632 Email [email protected]

Mr. Anek Vijitragool Major Sirichai Sapsiri Association of the Physically Handicapped of Thailand Association of the Physically Handicapped of Thailand 73/7-8, Tivanon 8, Tivanont, Taladkwan, Muang 73/7-8, Tivanon 8, Tivanont, Taladkwan, Muang Nonthaburi NY 11000 Nonthaburi NY 11000 Thailand Thailand Tel. +66-2-951-0567 Tel. +66-2-951-0567 Fax +66-2-951-0567 Fax +66-2-951-0567 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Vichai Phokthavi Mr. Kraisak Choonhavan Thailand Campaign to Ban Landmines General Chatchai Choonhawan Foundation 2492 Soi Prachasongkroh 24 Prachasongkroh Rd., Huay 10 Baan Lucha Phaholyothin Soi 3, Phayathai Khwang Bangkok 10400 Bangkok 10400 Thailand Thailand Tel. +66-2-617-2000 Tel. +66-2-277-4625 Fax +66-2-279-4283 Fax +66-2-644-5010 Email [email protected]

Ms. Cynthia Vuiza Mr. Chaisi Yotprasert Jesuit Refugee Service Asia Pacific Prosthetic Foundation of Thailand 24/1 Soi Aree 4, Phaholyothin 7 Road, Phyathai Bangkok Bangkok 10400 Thailand Thailand Email [email protected] Tel. +66-1-914-4155

Fax +66-2-271-3632

Ms. Siriphen Limsirikul Ms. Deborah Morris Thailand Campaign to Ban Landmines CALM - New Zealand 24/1 Soi Aree 4, Phaholyothin 7 Road, Phyathai C. 3/19 Moo 5, Sukhumvit Rd, Tambon Ban Suan, Bangkok 10400 Amphur Muang Thailand Chon Buri 20000 Tel. +66-1-914-4155 Thailand Fax +66-2-271-3632 Tel. +66-38-796-203 Email [email protected], [email protected] Fax +66-38-795-960 Email [email protected]

Mr. Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan Mr. Somchai Rungsilp Nonviolence International Southeast Asia Handicap International Thailand 104/20 SOI 124, Latprao, Wangtonglang, Latprao, 10 Phaholyothin Soi 3, Phayathai Wangtonglang Bangkok 10400 Bangkok 10310 Thailand Thailand Tel. +66-2-6197833 /6197844 Tel. +662-934-3289 Fax +66-2-6198966 ext.11 Fax +662-934-3289 Email [email protected], [email protected] Email [email protected]

Ms. Chutimas Suksai Ms. Sirinrath Tesvisarn Nonviolence International Southeast Asia Nonviolence International Southeast Asia 104/20 Latprao 124, Wangtonglang 104/20 Latprao 124, Wangtonglang Bangkok 10310 Bangkok 10310

Thailand Thailand Tel. +66-2-9343289 Tel. +66-2-9343289 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Suvit Yodmani Ms. Nuchanad Sirichayaporn Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC) Thailand Campaign to Ban Landmines PO Box 4, Klong Luang 171 Kessaravill, Ladprao 101, Wangthonglang Pathumthani 12120 Bangkok 10310 Thailand Thailand Tel. +66-2-524-5353 Tel. +66-2-375-6592 Fax +66-2-524-5350 Fax +66-2-375-6592 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Ms. Siriporn Thongtrakul Thailand Campaign to Ban Landmines Mr. Suraphol Chaichomphu 24/1 Soi Aree 4, Phaholyothin 7 Road, Phyathai Prosthetic Foundation of Thailand Bangkok 10400 Bangkok Thailand Thailand Tel. +66-2-279-1817 Email [email protected] Fax +66-2-271-3632 Email [email protected]

Mr. Tawatchai Hoonghual Mr. Bunyoo Dhiphaya Jesuit Refugee Service Asia Pacific Prosthetic Foundation of Thailand 24/1 Soi Aree 4, Phaholyothin 7 Road, Phyathai Bangkok Bangkok 10400 Thailand Thailand Email [email protected] Tel. +66-1-914-4155 Fax +66-2-271-3632 Email [email protected]

Ms. Sirikarn Kahattha Mr. Therdchai Jivacate Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC) Prosthetic Foundation of Thailand PO Box 4, Klong Luang Bangkok Pathumthani 12120 Thailand Thailand Email [email protected] Tel. +66-2-516-5900 Ext. 107 Fax +66-2-524-5350 Email [email protected]

Ms. Atiwan Kunaphinun Ms. Shushira Chonhenchob Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC) Handicap International Thailand PO Box 4, Klong Luang 10 Phaholyothin 3, Samsennai, Phayathai Pathumthani 12120 Bangkok 10400 Thailand Thailand Tel. +66-2-516-5900 Ext. 304 Tel. +66-2619-7844 /26197833 Fax +66-2-524-5350 Fax +66-2619-7833 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Andreas Sugijopranoto Mr. Saroj Ruangsakulraj Jesuit Refugee Service Asia Pacific Thailand Campaign to Ban Landmines 24/1 Soi Aree 4, Phaholyothin 7 Road, Phyathai 24/1 Soi Aree 4, Phaholyothin 7 Road, Phyathai Bangkok 10400 Bangkok 10400 Thailand Thailand Tel. +66-1-914-4155 Tel. +66-1-914-4155 Fax +66-2-271-3632 Fax +66-2-271-3632 Email [email protected]

Ms. Emilie Ketudat Ms. Vilaiwan Phokthavi Thailand Campaign to Ban Landmines Jesuit Refugee Service Asia Pacific 24/1 Soi Aree 4, Phaholyothin 7 Road, Phyathai 24/1 Soi Aree 4, Phaholyothin 7 Road, Phyathai Bangkok 10400 Bangkok 10400 Thailand Thailand Tel. +66-2-279-1817 Tel. +66-1-914-4155 Fax +66-2-271-3632 Fax +66-2-271-3632 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Rev. Mr. Semisi Nimo Dr. Edison Mworozi TANGO IPPNW- Uganda Campaign to Ban Landmines PO Box 2 c/o Department of Paediatrics, Makerere University Funafuti Medical School, Mulago Hospital, PO Box 7051

Tuvalu Kampala Email [email protected] Uganda Tel. +256-41-531875/232668, +256-77-619355 Fax +256-41-531875/532591 /257637 Email [email protected]

Ms. Margaret Arach Orech Mr. Yuri Donskoy Uganda Campaign to Ban Landmines Ukrainian Peacekeepers Veterans Association 612 Spine Drive, Naalya Estate, PO Box 40058 20 Volkov Str. r.88 Kampala Kiev 02166 Uganda Ukraine Tel. +256-41-288351 Tel. +380-44-518-03-21 Fax +256-41-345597 Fax +380-44-228-47-40 Email [email protected] Email [email protected], [email protected]

Mr. Tim Carstairs Ms. Rosy Cave Mines Advisory Group Landmine Action 47 Newton Street 1st floor, 89 Albert Embankment Manchester M1 1FT London SE1 7TP United Kingdom United Kingdom Tel. +44-161-236-4311 Tel. +44-20-7820-0222 Fax +44-161-2366244 Fax +44-20-7820-0057 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. John Wallace Mr. Frank Cook MP Mines Advisory Group Landmine Action 47 Newton Street 1st floor, 89 Albert Embankment Manchester M1 1FT London SE1 7TP United Kingdom United Kingdom Tel. +44-161-236-4311 Tel. +44-20-7820-0222 Fax +44-161-2366244 Fax +44-20-7820-0057 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Rob White Mr. Richard Lloyd Mines Advisory Group Landmine Action 47 Newton Street 1st floor, 89 Albert Embankment Manchester M1 1FT London SE1 7TP United Kingdom United Kingdom Tel. +44-161-236-4311 Tel. +44-20-7820-0222 Fax +44-161-236-6244 Fax +44-20-7820-0057 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Ms. Allyson Brown Mr. Khalil Dokhanchi World Rehabilitation Fund University of Wisconsin- Superior 386 Park Avenue, South 2301 Wyoming Ave. New York NY 10016 Superior WI 54880 United States United States Tel. +1-212-725-7875 Tel. +1-715-394-8484 Fax +1-212-725-8402 Fax +715-394-8454 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Nathan Turner Ms. Jackie Hansen Landmine Survivors Network International Campaign to Ban Landmines 1420 K Sreet NW 110 Maryland Avenue NE, Suite 509, Box 6 Washington DC 20005 Washington DC 20002 United States United States Tel. +1-202-464-0007 Tel. +1-202-547-2667 Fax +1-202-464-0011 Fax +1-202-547-2687 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Ms. Elizabeth Bernstein Mr. Stephen Goose International Campaign to Ban Landmines Human Rights Watch 110 Maryland Avenue NE, Suite 509, Box 6 1630 Connecticut Avenue NW #500 Washington DC 20002 Washington DC 20009 United States United States Tel. +1-202-547-2667 Tel. +1-202-612-4356 Fax +1-202-547-2687 Fax +1-202-612-4333 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Ms. Jody Williams Ms. Heather Burns International Campaign to Ban Landmines World Rehabilitation Fund 663 Lancaster Street 386 Park Avenue South-Suite 500 Fredericksburg VA 22405 New York NY 10016 United States United States Tel. +1-540-372-9663 Tel. +1-212-725-7875 Fax +1-540-372-9941 Fax +1-212-725-8402 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Ms. Christine Manula Ms. Gina Coplon-Newfield Landmine Survivors Network US Campaign to Ban Landmines 1420 K Street NW #650 c/o Physicians for Human Rights``100 Boylston St. Washington DC 20005 Suite 702 United States Boston MA 02116 Tel. +1-202-464-0007 United States Fax +1-202-464-0011 Tel. +1-617-695-0041x228 Email [email protected] Fax +1-617-695-0307 Email [email protected]

Ms. Mary Wareham Ms. Megan Burke Human Rights Watch Adopt-A-Minefield/ UNA-USA 1630 Connecticut Avenue NW #500 801 Second Avenue Washington DC 20002 New York NY 10017 United States United States Tel. +1-202-612-4356 Tel. +-212-907-1314 Fax +1-202-612-4333 Fax +1-212-682-9185 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Ms. Katherine Guernsey Ms. Rebecca Jordan Landmine Survivors Network Landmine Survivors Network 1420 K Street NW #650 1420 K Street NW #650 Washington DC 20005 Washington DC 20005 United States United States Tel. +1-202-464-0007 Tel. +1-202-464-0007 Fax +1-202-464-0011 Fax +1-202-464-0011 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Mr. Robert Eaton Ms. Laura Noboa Boix Survey Action Center Youth Campaigner 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 240 Francisco Muñoz 3092, Apto. 3 Takoma Park MD 20912 Montevideo 11300

United States Uruguay Tel. +1-202-251-7777 Tel. +598-2-709-9352 Email [email protected] Fax +598-2-709-9352 Email [email protected]

Hon. Andonia Piau-Lynch Mr. Andrew Wells-Dang Disability Promotion and Advocacy Association Fund for Reconciliation and Development PO Box 1378 c/o VVMF, 51 Ly Thai To Port Vila Hanoi Vanuatu Vietnam Tel. +678-22261 Tel. +84-4-934-6161 Fax +678-22633 Fax +84-4-934-6162 Email [email protected], Email [email protected], [email protected] [email protected]

Ms. Kerry Fisher Ms. Dalma Foeldes Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation Landmine Survivors Network 15 Dang Dung Street PO Box 5564 Hanoi Sanaa 5564 Vietnam Yemen Tel. +84-4-733-9444 Tel. +967-1-287-230 Fax +84-4-733-9445 Fax +967-1-216-273 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Ms. Nadra Abdul Razzaq Dr. Robert Mtonga Yemen Mine Awareness Association Zambian Campaign to Ban Landmines Po Box No. 476, Crater C/O Doctors' Common Room,``University Teaching Aden Hospital,``P.O Box 50001, Yemen Lusaka 10101 Tel. +967-2-231-602 Zambia Fax +967-2-232-035 Tel. +260-9784-2922 /260-1-253947 Extn 4249 Email [email protected] Fax +260-1-250753 Email [email protected]