Intersessional Standing Committee Meetings, Geneva

Intersessional Update #9 - 7 June 2001
(finalized 1 August 2001)

Intersessional Standing Committee Meetings
Geneva, 7 - 11 May 2001

1.Introduction and Overview

2.Standing Committee On Victim Assistance, Socio-Economic Reintegration And Mine Awareness

3.Standing Committee On Mine Clearance & Related Technologies

4.Standing Committee On Stockpile Destruction

5.Standing Committee On General Status And Operation Of The Convention

6.Conclusions

7.State Participants In May 2001

Continued progress in the implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty, as well as issues of concern, were noted and discussed throughout the second session of the 2000-2001 intersessional Standing Committee (ISC) meetings held from 7 - 11 May 2001 in Geneva. As has often been said, the ISC meetings are a forum to "mark progress, measure progress and stimulate progress" and maintain the momentum in our global efforts to address the humanitarian problems caused by antipersonnel mines.

The ISCs continue to be a concrete example of the ongoing partnership and spirit of cooperation that has marked the Ottawa Process from the beginning, as noted by the President of the Second Meeting of States Parties (2MSP), Ambassador Steffen Kongstad, who made Opening and Closing remarks during the Intersessional week. Action points and recommendations agreed during the first year of the intersessional meetings and included in the 2MSP President`s Action Programme, were transformed into concrete projects completed during the second year - a testimony to the dynamic nature of the intersessional process. Examples of this include "Form J", the compilation of VA Guidelines, the Portfolio of VA Programmes, the Article 7 Reporting Guide, the "Information Kit on National Implementing Legislation" and others.

ICBL and its Working Groups were substantively involved in the development of all Standing Committee agendas. ICBL members participated actively throughout the week with presentations and interventions from the floor and the Chair of the ICBL Treaty Working Group facilitated the morning session of the SC on Stockpile Destruction.

Increased participation, particularly from mine-affected countries in Africa and the Americas, was welcomed and contributed to rich discussions. There were more than 350 participants from over 80 countries (listed at the end), 10 UN, regional and international organizations and 15 other organizations, including 68 persons from ICBL and member NGOs, of which 8 were Landmine Survivor Advocates from the Americas.

The news of three new ratifications leading up to and during the intersessional week was welcomed and demonstrates the continued momentum toward universalisation of the Mine Ban Treaty. These included: Sierra Leone (25 April), Congo Brazzaville (4 May) and Malta (7 May). Since then, Cape Verde (14 May), Guinea Bissau (22 May) and Uruguay (7 June) have also deposited their instruments of ratification with the UN Secretary General. This brings the total number of ratifications and accessions to 117 countries as of 31 July 2001, with an additional 23 countries having signed but not yet ratified the Convention. With two-thirds of the world having ratified/acceded to or signed the Convention, plus behavior changes even amongst non-Signatories, the Mine Ban Treaty is well on its way to becoming an international norm.

ICBL had three morning meetings during the week with our NGO participants and held or participated in dozens of meetings on the margins of the ISCs including:

Meetings directly related to Intersessional Week:

ICBL Intersessional Contact Group-IICG (5th meeting held on 6 May. This series of meetings was initiated by ICBL in August 1999 and was formerly known as the "20 + 2". It is a regular meeting bringing together all the present and former intersessional Standing Committee Co-Chairs, plus Friends of the FMSP President, and has proven to be a useful forum to strategize on Mine Ban Treaty issues with the ICBL and ICRC. GICHD also attends as an Observer.); Landmine Survivors Advocates Training Programme; Universalisation Contact Group (initiated and chaired by Canada); Stability Pact (Reay group); 3MSP planning meetings; Article 7 Contact Group (recently initiated and chaired by Belgium); Stockpile Destruction dinner; Victim Assistance lunch; SC-Mine Clearance strategy session.

Additional meetings held during the intersessional week:

Landmine Monitor Core Group; Managua Challenge; Conferences planning: Beirut, Mongolia, Poland and Thailand; UNICEF mine awareness seminar; and Bilateral meetings with many countries.

All currently available ICBL updates/reports and official statements from the May 2001 intersessional week can be found on the ICBL website at: http://www.icbl.org/sc

The ICBL website also includes links to the GICHD website, where all annual MSP and intersessional agendas and reports, including May SC reports, can be found: http://www.gichd.ch/mbc/all_meetings/

The new ICBL Index on Landmines (www.icbl.org/index) was officially "launched" with a press release on the opening day of the intersessionals, 7 May 2001. The ICBL Webmaster was also able to give a presentation on the Index during the SC on Mine Clearance.

Documents and Resources distributed during the week included (most are available on or linked to the ICBL website: http://www.icbl.org/sc ):

Prepared/updated by ICBL and Landmine Monitor (LM) for intersessional week:

1.ICBL letter to State Parties (24 April 2001) 2.ICBL Landmines Update and Calendar (April 2001) 3.ICBL-LM list of MBT Signatories/ratifications/accessions 4.ICBL Index on Landmines press release and fact sheet (7 May) 5.LM Factsheet: Stockpile Destruction - Progress Report (HRW) 6.LM Factsheet: Article 7 Reporting - Progress Report (HRW) 7.Joint Operations and the Mine Ban Treaty (HRW)

Additional documents distributed during intersessional week:

8.Landmine Monitor 2000 books and Executive Summaries 9."Providing Assistance to LandmineVictims: A Collection of Guidelines, Best Practices and Methodologies" - May 2001 (published by Canada and compiled by SC-VA Co-Chairs) 10."Information Kit on National Implementing Legislation" (ICRC) - available in English, French & Spanish and currently being translated into Russian. Prepared by ICRC in consultation with Belgium and the ICBL. Available online at: http://www.icrc.org/icrceng.nsf/a003c144faecacb4c12567280035afac/fa077b4a883ae5d0c1256a550051049f 11.Draft Article 7 Reporting Handbook (copies: angela@vertic.org). Prepared by VERTIC in cooperation with Landmine Action UK, Belgium and ICBL 12.3MSP information sheet (Nicaragua website: www.cancilleria.gob.ni ) 13."Report on the Technical Expert Meeting on Anti-Vehicle Mines with Sensitive Fuses or with Sensitive Anti-Handling Devices" (ICRC; 13-14 March 2001; for copies: weapons@icrc.org)

For additional information on or questions about the Intersessional Standing Committee meetings, please contact the ICBL Intersessional Programme Officer (walker@icbl.org ) or relevant WG Chairs ( gooses@hrw.org for General Status, wareham@hrw.org for Stockpile Destruction, becky@landminesurvivors.org for Victim Assistance, banemnow@icbl.org for Mine Clearance and stan.brabant@handicap.be for Mine Awareness).

^Return to Top

(Co-Chairs: Japan & Nicaragua; Co-Rapporteurs: Canada & Honduras)

The following summary is excerpted or paraphrased from the WGVA report on the ISC-VASERMA May session, with the "quoted" sections copied from the SC-VASERMA Co-Chair and Co-Rapporteurs` Summary of Action Points. Comments following the Action Points are primarily from Becky Jordan, WGVA Chair, with a couple by the Intersessional Programme Officer (SBW). See ICBL website for full WGVA report.

A. Raising the Voices of Landmine Survivors

"The Co-Chairs re-emphasized the need to reinforce the participation of landmine survivors in all aspects of the mine action. The Standing Committee received a presentation on a training program designed to develop a core group of "survivor advocates" who could participate actively in Standing Committee meetings and provide leadership in their communities. Program participants will report back on activities at the Third Meeting of the States Parties. The Standing Committee warmly welcomed the initiative and offered encouragement to the program organizers and participants. In addition, the Standing Committee suggested that this initiative could be expanded with a focus on other regions.

The Standing Committee was encouraged to expand participation of landmine survivors to all levels of decision-making, including national mine action coordination mechanisms."

WGVA Chair: Eight landmine survivors from the Americas received pre-meeting training focused on the Human Rights framework, the UN Standard Rules, the Mine Ban Treaty, and on what interventions they would make during the meetings from the podium and from the floor. In the meetings the survivors were very well received. It was evident that they were participating as more than tellers of their own stories this week, that they were actively following the proceedings and ready with contributions of their own.

Porfirio Gomez Zamora from Nicaragua opened the project from the podium during the first session of the Victim Assistance Standing Committee. He said sharing experiences with other survivors from the same region revealed that people with disabilities encounter similar difficulties no matter what country they come from, no matter what political party they belong to, or what status they have. This realization, and the personal connections developed with each other, provided a great psychological boost to them, he said.

Jose Miguel Larenas Mahn, a survivor from Chile, congratulated the Standing Committee for having accepted Form J as a voluntary reporting mechanism. He thanked the eight States Parties who completed Form J for Victim Assistance and urged other States Parties to do the same. He also said, "As survivors, we will be sure to assist researchers working for ... Landmine Monitor, to ensure that they receive the most accurate information about what is happening in Victim Assistance in our countries."

Jesus Martinez of El Salvador spoke about access, and said that this issue is one that all eight of the survivors agreed was key to the reintegration of landmine victims. Lack of access means that even when services exist, they are often not useful to survivors because of physical obstacles, or because they exclude certain groups, are too expensive, or are otherwise out of many survivors` reach.

For the next cycle of Raising the Voices, the WGVA will set up a selection committee whose role will be to choose from among the applicants to select 8-10 survivors to p participate in the two Intersessional meetings and the Fourth Meeting of States Parties.

Those interested in serving on this committee should contact Becky.

B. Linking Resources with Needs

"The Standing Committee discussed how measuring victim assistance can be undertaken from different perspectives and methodologies. Given that further work is required to better understand the level of need that exists and how the mine action community is responding to this need, the Co-Chairs encouraged the ICBL Working Group and other relevant actors to continue its work to develop and share information on the global level of the problem. In addition, it was suggested that States may wish to explore ways to enhance national data collection as it pertains to victim assistance."

WGVA Chair: An important issue is that the WGVA does not know exactly how to proceed with this issue. Governments say they want to know where we stand globally in terms of the need for victim assistance, the level of commitment and actual funding coming from donors, and if things are changing in mine-affected countries as a result of the Mine Ban Treaty and its implementation processes. LSN and HI`s concerns are two: 1) None of the existing tools allow for objective global tracking of victim assistance. 2) Even if the perfect tool exists and one has access to the necessary data, do we really want to publish results of the research? What would be the benefits? What are the risks?

Any thoughts or advice on this issue would be appreciated.

"The ICBL Working Group reported on its intention to produce an updated version of the Portfolio of Victim Assistance Programs in time for the Third Meeting of the States Parties. The Co-Chairs once again urged states and other relevant organizations to consider submitting projects to the ICBL Working Group and encouraged participants to provide feedback on the Portfolio."

WGVA Chair: The WGVA distributed an evaluation form for the 2000 version of the Portfolio. The call for new and updated entries went out in March. WGVA members are once again requested to update their own entries, to encourage local NGOs and government implementers to submit entries, and to pass on information about any instances of use of the Portfolio to the WGVA facilitator.

"It was reported that at least eight States Parties have used the guidance provided by the ICBL Working Group on victim assistance with respect to the Article 7 reporting format`s "Form J". The Co-Chairs congratulated those States Parties and encouraged others to take this guidance into consideration. The Co-Chairs also encouraged the Working Group to continue its work to enhance this guidance, taking into account issues raised during the Standing Committee meeting."

C. Implementing lessons learned related to the coordination of victim assistance

"The Standing Committee received updates on initiatives to enhance victim assistance coordination, including: the Swiss-developed Framework for Planning Integrated Victim Assistance Programs; a Handicap International sponsored conference on victim assistance in South East Asia; and a study being undertaken by the Geneva International Center for Humanitarian Demining and the UN Mine Action Service on the role of national coordination mechanisms in assisting landmine victims. It was suggested that the development of these initiatives should be inclusive and address concrete needs."

WGVA Chair: Those wishing to have more information about the South East Asia Victim Assistance conference to be held in Bangkok in November can contact Paul Vermeulen of HI Switzerland at paulhi@compuserve.com

The WGVA developed a one-page response (available upon request from the WGVA Chair) to a new study being carried out for UNMAS by the GICHD called "An Operational Review of the Role of Mine Action in Assistance to Mine and UXO Victims". Two other ICBL working groups, Mine Action and Mine Awareness, vetted the document, which was distributed to UNMAS, GICHD, and several States Parties.

D. Guidelines, information dissemination and information management

"The Co-Chairs distributed an English-language version of a compilation of guidelines, best practices and methodologies for victim assistance and agreed to produce versions in Spanish and French in time for the Third Meeting of the States Parties."

SBW: This is one of many excellent examples of a recommendation / action point made during the first year of intersessional meetings (by ICBL) and carried out to completion by the SC-VA Co-Chairs and Co-Rapporteurs.

"The Co-Chairs encouraged States that have not yet done so to identify national victim assistance focal points. The Co-Chairs also reiterated their intention to prepare and circulate a list of focal points."

E. Social and Economic Reintegration

"In undertaking vocational rehabilitation efforts, States Parties and relevant organizations were encouraged to work towards reducing vulnerability and promoting self-reliance. In terms of the design and implementation of initiatives, several principles and problems to avoid were presented which should be taken into consideration.

With respect to psycho-social rehabilitation, States Parties and relevant organizations were asked to share information and experiences and have an open and continuous dialogue on existing peer-support initiatives, program successes and shortcomings, and relevant program documentation. In this context, States Parties and relevant organizations were invited to provide information to the ICBL Victim Assistance Working Group."

WGVA Chair: A draft paper on psycho-social rehabilitation is available from WGVA.

"Special mention was made of the need to place a focus on access-related issues. To this end, all states were urged to consider how barriers to access for persons with disabilities could be addressed."

F. Mine Awareness (MA)

SBW: The ICBL Mine Awareness subgroup made a recommendation that MA be moved from the SC-VA to the SC on Mine Clearance. Subsequent discussions with relevant Co-Chairs resulted in support for this idea, which will be proposed at the 3MSP. There was unfortunately not enough time devoted to Mine Awareness during the SC meeting.

G. Other

"With a view to reinforcing the point that the Standing Committees are all about identifying practical means to assist in implementing the Convention, with respect to victim assistance the Co-Chairs encouraged all participants to give consideration to converting the wealth of information, advice, and suggestions provided to the Standing Committee into concrete actions."

SBW: Interventions from the floor during the SC-VA, in addition to ICBL, included, but were not limited to: the OAS, Mali, Canada, South Africa, Sudan, Thailand, Ecuador, Kenya, Peru, Nicaragua, Zambia, Colombia, Switzerland, Uganda, Honduras, Sudan, ICRC, VVAF, Cambodia, POWER, UNMAS, Benin, ILO and AARJ.

^Return to Top

(Co-Chairs: Netherlands & Peru; Co-Rapporteurs: Germany & Yemen)

Agenda items for this 1-1/2 day Standing Committee included: Standards and Criteria (IMAS and Impact of the Standards in the field); Measures of Impact and Benefit (Socio-economic analysis in mine action; Project Assistance in Mine Affected Communities; Landmine Impact Surveys); Technologies (progress in Research and Development "R & D" and Forum discussion on bringing R & D closer to field realities); Coordination, Planning and Prioritization (IMSMA, Landmine Monitor update, UN Coordination, Portfolio on Mine Action Projects, Database of Mine Action Investments and Compendium of NGO Mine Action Projects); and National Coordination.

The following is excerpted from the Mine Action Working Group (MAWG) report on the May SC on Mine Clearance and Related Technologies:

MAWG members were very active during the week making presentations and intervening from the floor. The Working Group had two formal meeting during the week: one to strategize for the week and a second to discuss the group`s future work.

The MAWG`s main concern in this Standing Committee was the allocation of a significant portion (i.e. one-third) of the agenda to Technology issues. By talking to a number of key players and the Co-Chairs, the MAWG managed to achieve their aim of demonstrating that new R & D for technologies have basically failed to produce concrete results yet and the focus should instead be on existing and practical technologies, which are affordable and sustainable. As a result of MAWG efforts, this message was made very clear not only from MAWG members, but also from a number of States, the Joint Research Council of the European Commission, as well as others.

The MAWG`s presentation on the International Mine Action Standards (IMAS) generated constructive discussion from the floor. Overall the IMAS were welcomed and viewed as a positive work by the group. However, implications in the field were highlighted in order not to be overlooked. Some of the implications include confusion between National and International standards. The MAWG position is that IMAS should be used as a minimum standard, unless specific cases prevent some parts of the IMAS to be implemented, such as air medical evacuation within one hour, which may be beyond the capacities in most mine affected countries. The UN was not clear on this issue and the MAWG does not want to see a situation where the IMAS is weakened and there would be several standards around the world that would diffuse the purpose of having IMAS. Using the IMAS as a minimum standard was supported by mine affected country representatives. Other areas of concern were increased costs of operations in some cases, training implications, translation and proper interpretation of standards and the comparative advantage of established international organizations over new local initiatives, to mention a few.

Other MAWG presentations included an update on Landmine Monitor, the Humanitarian Mine Action NGO portfolio and National Coordination. All these presentations enriched the work of the ISC on Mine Clearance.

Interventions from the floor during the SC-MC, in addition to ICBL, included, among others: Belgium, Thailand, Chile, Germany, Netherlands, Chad, Sweden, MCPA, Peru, MAG, Kenya, Cambodia, UNMAS and Canada.

^Return to Top

(Co-Chairs: Malaysia & Slovakia; Co-Rapporteurs: Australia & Croatia)

The importance of Stockpile Destruction as "preventive mine action" was emphasized and the urgency to speed up destruction planning in many countries in order to meet the four year deadline which, for 2 dozen States Parties, will occur in 2003. (See next section on SC-GSOC for more details on numbers.)

The first session on the status of global stockpile destruction, problems and challenges was moderated by Steve Goose, Chair of the ICBL Treaty Working Group and included updates from Thailand, Malaysia, Italy, Slovenia, Peru, Belarus, Yemen and Japan.

Issues considered by the SC-SD, taken from the Co-Chairs Executive Summary, included discussion of:

Assessing overall progress on stockpile destruction on a national, regional and global basis; Ensuring & encouraging that SD efforts be given political priority; UNMAS/Canadian Stockpile Destruction website; Regional initiatives: Managua Challenge & Bamako conference; Problems regarding certain mines (e.g. PFMs in former Soviet States) and the Budapest meeting on PFMs; Need to link countries requiring SD assistance with potential donors; Relevance of financial, technical, social and environmental considerations for Stockpile Destruction programs; Stockpile destruction management training course (Switzerland); and "Lessons Learned" - case studies (e.g. Albania, Moldova, Ukraine).

Interventions from the floor, in addition to ICBL, included: Yemen, Italy, UNMAS, Kenya, Thailand, Canada, Peru, Honduras, Belgium, Nicaragua, Chile, Ecuador, UNDP and others. See the Landmine Monitor SD Factsheet for further details on the global progress to date in stockpile destruction and the ICBL website for further information on the session.

^Return to Top

(Co-Chairs: Belgium & Zimbabwe; Co-Rapporteurs: Norway & Thailand)

Agenda items during this one day meeting included: Report from the President of the Coordinating Committee of the Convention (including proposal for an Implementation Support Unit for the Mine Ban Treaty); Standing Committee reports; an overview of the General Status and Operation of the Convention (universalisation; Article 7 reporting; development of a guide to completing Article 7 reports; Article 9 and development of a sample packet of existing implementation legislation); Article 8 (facilitation and clarification of compliance); Article 1 (discussion of interpretation of "assist"); Article 2 (definitions); Article 3 (mines retained for training) and 3MSP preparations.

ICBL made interventions on each of these topics including an extensive overview by the Chair of the Treaty Working Group which emphasized the "crucial obligations" of States Parties under the Convention "never under any circumstances" to "assist" in any way or use, produce or transfer AP mines (Article 1) and to destroy stockpiles (Article 4). In addition there are obligations under Articles 5, 6, 7 and 9. Compliance with all these obligations was cited as crucial to the credibility of the MBT and in further consolidating its establishment as an international norm. On compliance matters in general, the ICBL and others urged that more steps be taken to seek clarification of possible non-compliance, prior to any formal Article 8 investigation being initiated.

Details of ICBL recommendations on all matters relating to the Mine Ban Treaty can be found in the ICBL letter dated 24 April and sent to State Parties in preparation for the intersessional SC on General Status and Operation of the Convention. This is available on the ICBL website: http://www.icbl.org/sc

Positive progress was noted in UNIVERSALIZATION with 140 countries having signed, ratified or acceded to the MBT and 114 (as of 11 May) having ratifed or acceded. ICBL`s goal is to have 130 State Parties by the 3MSP and 170 countries on board by the 2004 Review Conference. Canada continues to lead the Universalisation Contact Group in which ICBL, ICRC and over a dozen countries participate.

Positive developments were noted in the consolidation and useful progress being made by the intersessional work programme: in the expansion of the Sponsorship program and resultant increased involvement by mine affected countries and in the establishment of the Coordinating Committee at the 2MSP, which is felt by ICBL to be the key to full and effective implementation of the Convention. ICBL expressed support for the proposal to establish an Implementation Support Unit for the Mine Ban Treaty, in order to increase effective operation of the intersessional Standing Committee meetings and ultimately impact positively on the implementation of the Convention. (Further details available on GICHD website and ICBL statement available from walker@icbl.org )

On USE, ICBL reported that very serious concerns remain with confirmed use by 2 Signatories, allegations of use by 3 more and continued use by 8 non-State Parties. Allegations of use by 4-5 additional countries are in the process of being evaluated by Landmine Monitor. On the day of the ISC meeting, there were 4 countries where governments were laying mines: Russia, Uzbekistan, Burma and Sri Lanka (all non-SPs) and ongoing use by 12 or more rebel groups.

On PRODUCTION, there is currently no concrete evidence of any State Party producing AP mines, but LM is investigating allegations of production by one State Party and one Signatory. It was noted that there are about a dozen active producers in the world today and an additional 4 likely to produce or are reserving the right to produce. It was noted that there were 55 producers in the past, so this is a significant reduction and evidence of real progress being made as a result of the Convention.

On TRANSFERS, it was noted that there have been no significant transfers of AP mines in recent years by State Parties, Signatories or non-State Parties, demonstrating a fairly effective de facto BAN on APM export worldwide.

On STOCKPILE DESTRUCTION, it was reported that 27 State Parties have completed destruction, with Bulgaria (December) and Malaysia (January) being the most recent; 19 State Parties have destruction underway and 500,000 AP mines have been destroyed since the December intersessional meetings. Concerns remain that 17 State Parties have not yet begun destruction or even planning and two dozen State Parties will soon be approaching their 2003 deadline for destroying stockpiles. Concerns also remain regarding foreign stockpiles in several SPs (Germany, Japan, Norway, Qatar and the UK) and that some State Parties continue to retain too many mines for training purposes.

On ARTICLE 2, concerns were noted regarding SPs retaining AVMs with sensitive fuses or AHDs which act like APMs and are therefore prohibited by the Convention. ICRC reported on its experts meeting held in March and the need to identify "best practices". Copies of the report are available from weapons@icrc.org. Landmine Action UK, an ICBL member, reported on their study on "thresholds", stating that safe minimum pressures for AVMs should be between 150 - 200 kgs and this threshold could easily be reached by, for instance, a child jumping from a tree or a pregnant woman carrying firewood.

On ARTICLE 7 reporting, which is a key obligation, 58 SPs have submitted reports and 36 SPs are late, while in Africa there is only a 36% compliance rate for initial Article 7 reports. VERTIC presented their draft Article 7 reporting guide which was undertaken following ICBL`s suggestion to the ISC last year and done in cooperation with Landmine Action UK, Belgium and the ICBL (cf. Overview for details on how to obtain copy).

On ARTICLE 9, it was noted that not enough SPs are enacting domestic implementation measures required by the Convention. The ICRC presented its "Information Kit on National Implementing Legislation", prepared in consultation with Belgium and the ICBL. This is yet another concrete result of a recommendation from the SC meetings being carried out and completed (cf. Overview for how to obtain copy).

On ARTICLES 5 & 6, which contain obligations to destroy mines and provide assistance to victims, it was noted that 87 countries are today affected by mines and UXOs, including 37 State Parties and 14 Signatories. Surveys are being conducted in 30 countries, with 60 mine clearance programs or sporadic clearance underway. There are coordinated Mine Action programmes in 25 out of the 87 affected countries. ICBL urged all countries to increase the available assistance to clearance and VA programmes. Of the 87 affected countries, 44 have received MA/VA help, including 20 of the 37 mine-affected SPs, 6 Signatories and 18 non-SPs. Indicators are that MA/VA programmes are increasing, that land being cleared is increasing

^Return to Top