Somalia 188 South Sudan 197 Sri Lanka 205 Sudan 215 Tajikistan 222 Thailand 233 Turkey 242 Ukraine 252 United Kingdom (Falkand Islands) 260 Yemen 268 Zimbabwe 275
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
James Madison University JMU Scholarly Commons Center for International Stabilization and Global CWD Repository Recovery 2019 Clearing the Mines 2019: A Report by Mine Action Review for the Fourth Annual Review Conference of the 1997 Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention Mine Action Review Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cisr-globalcwd Part of the Defense and Security Studies Commons, Peace and Conflict Studies Commons, Public Policy Commons, and the Social Policy Commons Recommended Citation Review, Mine Action, "Clearing the Mines 2019: A Report by Mine Action Review for the Fourth Annual Review Conference of the 1997 Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention" (2019). Global CWD Repository. 1376. https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cisr-globalcwd/1376 This Other is brought to you for free and open access by the Center for International Stabilization and Recovery at JMU Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Global CWD Repository by an authorized administrator of JMU Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CLEARING THE MINES 2019 A REPORT BY MINE ACTION REVIEW FOR THE FOURTH REVIEW CONFERENCE OF THE 1997 ANTI-PERSONNEL MINE BAN CONVENTION THIS REPORT IS AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD AT WWW.MINEACTIONREVIEW.ORG 1 October 2019 MINE ACTION REVIEW ADVISORY BOARD: A REPORT BY MINE ACTION REVIEW FOR THE FOURTH REVIEW CONFERENCE OF THE 1997 ANTI-PERSONNEL MINE BAN CONVENTION Armeniia Turkey Bosniia and Herzegovina Tajikisttan Suddan India Egypt Somaliia Russiia United Kingdom (Falkland Islands) Yemen South Suddan Iran Afghanistan Georgia Pakistan Croatiia Lao PDR China Angola Perru Myanmar Iraq Ecuador Chad Kosovvo Eritrea Vietnam Morocco Sri Lanka Chile Cambodia Colombiia Zimbabwwe Cuba Palestine Lebanon Somaliia Israel Oman Cameroon Democcratic Republic of Congo Senegal Ukraine Western Sahara Serbiia Nagorno-Karabakkh Libyya Uzbekistan Thailand Azerbaijjan Argentina (Malvinas) Syria Ethiopiia Kyrgyzstan Niger North Korea Nigeria Cyprus South Korea ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DISCLAIMER This report was researched and written by Nick Cumming- The report and the views expressed in it are the work of the Bruce, Alex Frost, Katherine Harrison, and Lucy Pinches. The authors. The designation of armed non-state actors, states, or Mine Action Review project is managed by Lucy Pinches. The territories does not imply any judgement by The HALO Trust, report was edited by Stuart Casey-Maslen and laid out by MAG, NPA, the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Optima Design in the United Kingdom. The HALO Trust, Mines or any other organisation, body, or individual regarding Advisory Group (MAG), and Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA) the legal status of such actors, states, or territories, or form the project’s Advisory Board. Mine Action Review would their authorities and institutions, or the delimitation of their like to thank the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs boundaries, or the status of any states or territories that for funding its work as well as all those who contributed data border them. and information. OTHER INFORMATION This publication is available for download at www.mineactionreview.org ii Global Clearing contamination the Mines from 2019 anti-personnel mines FOREWORD We welcome the publication of Mine Action Review’s Clearing some countries there is an unwillingness to apply good the Mines 2019 in this important year of the Oslo Review practice in land release or worse still, inaction in survey and Conference, where the mine action community is taking stock clearance. Sadly, in a minority of countries and contexts even of progress made and setting the agenda for the next fi ve the good faith application of the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban years. In positive developments, since last year’s report Jordan Convention that international law demands is being called has completed clearance of the remaining mined areas that into question. The time has come for such inaction in Article 5 required verifi cation and Palau has determined that it does implementation to be addressed as a compliance issue. not have any mined areas under its jurisdiction or control. It is Completion of clearance is of course of fundamental always preferable to report good news, but the reason we came importance, but how we get there is also a measure of success. together as Advisory Board members to support this project This year, for the fi rst time, the Mine Action Review asked basic was to ask the diffi cult questions, even when we don’t like the questions of mine action programmes on how they address answers. This is how we improve programme performance. gender and diversity. There was not just a paucity of data but We believe that Mine Action Review has changed the mine an absence of understanding in far too many. Now that we know action narrative since it was launched at the Third Review how bad the problem is, we need to act to address it. Conference in 2014. Many states have shown great maturity Looking ahead, the new landmine emergency in states such by engaging positively with the project and continue to do so, as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria has shown the value of our even when this means openly discussing the challenges and work as a key protection issue. As NGOs, we are there to save not just the progress. The Mine Action Review works best lives and safeguard livelihoods. We need to build on this and where it has provoked debate and discussion. In-country ensure our work is fi rmly embedded in the wider humanitarian coalitions which bring together the national authority, response in the face of increasingly complex confl ict. Where implementing partners, and donors, can use the annual mine contamination is less of a humanitarian imperative and report to pull together towards completion, despite operators more of a disarmament and developmental endeavour, we need working in a sector in which competition is hardwired in to be relevant to development agendas and the Sustainable national and international frameworks. Impressively, some of Development Goals (SDGs), and to help address the impact on the closest intra and inter-sector cooperation has happened in mine action of the environmental crisis facing our planet. the most challenging environments, where recent confl ict has led to new contamination – and new victims. All of us in the mine action sector need to commit to not repeat errors of years ago, as we have no time to waste. It is In around 20 of the total 34 affected states parties, there has utterly unacceptable to be wasting time and money clearing been progress in Article 5 implementation and we congratulate uncontaminated land. In addition, it does not matter under them. But this progress is fragile and should not be taken for the Treaty how anti-personnel mines were produced: all granted, especially where long-standing programmes dealing improvised, as well as more conventionally manufactured with legacy contamination risk being at the mercy of changing mines designed to be detonated by a person are covered and political priorities of governments. States and mine action banned. All must be cleared, destroyed, and reported on. programmes that do the right things in the right way need to We also need to plan for completion and the management be supported and rewarded. This also means that national of residual risk, link our work to assistance to victims, governments need to allocate more of their own resources to meaningfully mainstream gender and diversity, coordinate mine action, even if they’re not able to meet the donors half way. our efforts, and actively engage in the transparent and open More has happened in some of the most highly complex discussions which need to be had. environments, such as South Sudan and Afghanistan, than So in Oslo, let us look forward to the next fi ve years and in a number of wealthier and more stable states parties. accelerate the pace of change in our sector as we push on States with huge resources at their disposal have absolutely towards 2025. If we are not being bold, we are not doing no excuse for inaction. But as the report illustrates, in enough, and that is simply not an option. JANE COCKING PER HÅKON BREIVIK JAMES COWAN CBE DSO Chief Executive Director | Department for Mine Action Chief Executive Offi cer Mines Advisory Group and Disarmament | Norwegian People’s Aid The HALO Trust mineactionreview.org iii CONTENTS KEY FINDINGS 1 STATES PARTIES 17 Afghanistan 18 OVERVIEW 2 Angola 27 The Legal Landscape 2 Argentina (Malvinas) 35 Meeting the Global Challenge 3 Bosnia and Herzegovina 36 Affected Countries 3 Cambodia 47 New Contamination and Anti-Personnel Mines Cameroon 58 of an Improvised Nature 4 Chad 61 Clearance in 2018 5 Chile 67 Clearance Since 1999 7 Colombia 73 Compliance Challenges and Concerns 8 Croatia 86 Article 5 Deadlines and Compliance 8 Cyprus 96 The 2025 Aspiration 10 Democratic Republic Of Congo 101 Twenty Years of the APMBC: Ecuador 109 Key Lessons for Mine Action 10 Eritrea 115 Location, Location, Location 10 Ethiopia 120 Land Release Methodology 11 Iraq 127 Information Management 11 Jordan 139 International Mine Action Standards (IMAS) 12 Niger 144 Residual Risk 12 Nigeria 149 Gender and Diversity in Demining 12 Oman 153 Country-Focused Approaches 13 Palau 157 Demining Programme Performance in States Parties 13 Palestine 162 Concluding Remarks 16 Peru 168 Senegal 175 Serbia 181 Somalia 188 South Sudan 197 Sri Lanka 205 Sudan 215 Tajikistan 222 Thailand 233 Turkey 242 Ukraine 252 United Kingdom (Falkand Islands) 260 Yemen 268