COMMUNITIES AS VICTIMS AND SURVIVORS OF ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES KERRY - - PDF document

1 COMMUNITIES AS VICTIMS AND SURVIVORS OF ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES KERRY BRINKERT DIRECTOR ANTI-PERSONNEL MINE BAN CONVENTION IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT UNIT PRESENTATION TO THE COLLOQUIUM: THE OTTAWA CONVENTION – THE FIRST STEP TOWARDS HUMANITARIAN DISARMAMENT BRUSSELS, 28 MARCH 2013 I would like to thank the Royal Higher Institute for Defence for inviting me to participate in this colloquium and to congratulate the Institute and its partners for staging this important event. It has now been sixteen years since Belgium’s government, its parliamentarians and its civil society

• rganizations – perhaps most prominently, Handicap International – played such a central in

realizing a Convention banning anti-personnel mines – the Ottawa Convention. The world owes a debt of gratitude to Belgium for that original effort, for is ongoing persistence in ensuring that the Convention makes a difference on the ground, and in keeping the spirit of the Ottawa Convention alive, including by organizing events like this one. The Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention was ground-breaking in becoming the first multilateral arms control or arms control treaty to incorporate provisions that obliged States to act to address the needs of those who had fallen victim to weapons covered by the treaty. The States Parties to the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention broke ground again by defining “mine victim” broadly. In fact, following entry into force in 1999 “one of the early steps taken by the States Parties (…) was to clarify terms that are central to fulfilment of the aim of providing assistance to landmine victims, particularly the terms victim and victim assistance.” As a result, by the time of the Convention’s First Review Conference – the Nairobi Summit on a Mine- Free World – in 2004, it was “generally accepted that victims include those who either individually or collectively have suffered physical or psychological injury, economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights through acts or omissions related to mine utilization.” The States Parties noted at the time that “a broad approach to what is considered a landmine victim has served a purpose in drawing attention to the full breadth of victimisation caused by landmines and unexploded ordnance.” The Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention became the model for how victim assistance is now treated in the United Nations’ Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, or CCW. As concerns the breadth of what is consider a victim, the Plan of Action on Victim Assistance, which was adopted in 2008 by the High Contracting Parties to Protocol V of the CCW, explicitly acknowledges that “explosive remnants of war may not only affect the persons directly impacted by them, but also have broader social and economic consequences.” In addition, the evolution of understanding on victim assistance that resulted from almost a decade to implement the Convention was ultimately embraced during the 2008 negotiations on the Convention on Cluster Munitions, or CCM. On the particular matter of how the States Parties to the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention have accepted a broad approach to what is considered a “landmine victim,” the legal text of the CCM defines “cluster munition victim” as including “those persons directly impacted by cluster munitions as well as their affected families and communities.” The full body of international law that concerns itself with addressing the suffering caused by mines and other explosive remnants of war now is coherent with respect to an approach to victim

2 assistance, including through common acceptance and full understanding and appreciation for both individual and collective suffering. Credit for getting to this point goes to those non-governmental activists, with colleagues from Handicap International at the forefront, who first issued a call to action to address both the full breadth of suffering, and to those States such as Belgium that heeded the call. Even though we are well into the second decade of the implementation of the Convention, we know full well from the information provided by mine-affected States themselves that communities continue to suffer the adverse impacts of mines and other explosive remnants of war. We know this in large part as a result of the realism possessed by the Convention’s negotiators who in 1997 understood that mine-affected States may need more than ten years to clear all mined areas, that if they did, they would be required to ask for more time do so, and that in requesting more time, they would be required to spell out the social and economic consequences. While it may be unfortunate that so many States Parties have been unable to clear all mined areas in a ten-year period, we have benefitted from the wealth of information they have provided in their extension requests concerning the ongoing social and economic consequences of mine

• contamination. For example, in its 2010 request, Cambodia recorded that a 2005 needs assessment

suggested that presence of landmines was a key cause of poverty rural, mine affected areas, especially in communities bordering Thailand. Cambodia’s request went on to speak how mine contamination can lead to “a spiral of economic and social implications,” in that the lack of

• pportunities leads to community members engaging in risk-taking behaviour, such as farming or

foraging for food in suspected hazardous areas or scavenging for scrap metal derived from explosive remnants of war for sale. Cambodia’s extension request went on to note that risk taking behaviour may lead to “perpetual poverty,” for example, with the costs related to medical care forcing families into debt, which in turn can lead to landlessness. In addition, Cambodia suggested that the spiral of economic and social implications may have generational consequences, with the request recording that a survey of mine survivors in a the most mine-affected provinces of Cambodia indicated that 46 percent of the children of survivors were not attending school, presumably because, in the words of Cambodia itself, “for the child of a mine casualty, the impact on the economic situation of the family often results in children losing the opportunity to gain an education, and forcing a child to look for employment to support the family.” The economic consequences of mines to communities and societies have been well documented by

• ther States Parties in their requests to extend their mine clearance deadlines. Croatia, for instance,

in 2008 reported that “mined agricultural areas and forest areas represent the biggest problem for the economy” with the total loss because of mined agricultural areas estimated at € 44.0 million and the value of wood wealth that could not be used because of mines valued at € 178.0 million. Croatia also noted that there was another economic cost in terms of its inability to maintain and renew forests. Another case highlighting the societal impact and economic costs of mines and other explosive remnants of war is Afghanistan, which, in its extension request submitted in 2012, stated that most, that is, 83 percent, of the remaining contamination was obstructing agricultural areas, including grazing land. Afghanistan went on to state that “this can be considered a major blockage in a country where approximately seventy percent of the labour force is involved in agriculture-related activities.” Afghanistan, in its mine clearance extension request, also recalled how the presence or suspected presence of mines affects the development of the Afghan nation. Afghanistan’s request recorded 43 “major infrastructure, economic development and archaeological projects that (were) planned to be

3 implemented in Afghanistan with all 43 requiring a mine action intervention.” These include the railway line between Kabul and Mazar provinces, three main dam projects, as well as mining and petroleum projects. According to Afghanistan, “all these projects are vital for the country’s economic development and their success can be at risk if the threat of landmines and (other explosive remnants of war) is not addressed.” It is a tremendous credit to the non-governmental activists and States such as Belgium that the international community is cognizant of the tremendous social and economic costs of anti-personnel mines and other explosive remnants of war. It is thanks to them that it is accepted that he victims of mines include not only those whose lives have been irreversibly changed and whose enjoyment of rights are impaired as a result of tragic contact with a mine, but also those communities and societies that have suffered. It is one thing however, to recognize, understand and internalize the social effects of anti-personnel

• mines. It is another to act on these challenges and to produce results that benefit communities.

Thanks to the effort to implement the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, we know that progress has been made, again as documented by mine-affected States themselves. And we can be certain, as was expressed by Norway in December of last year, that “the situation for the majority of mine victims is significantly better today than it was 15 years ago, primarily as a result of this Convention, and (subsequently) the CRPD and the then the CCM.” Just as Cambodia, in its 2010 mine clearance extension request, documented ongoing social suffering and economic impairment as a result of mines, so too did Cambodia list the positive links between Convention implementation and social and economic returns. In Cambodia’s own words, “according to a cost-benefit analysis study on mine clearance operations in Cambodia in 2005, mine action is contributing substantially to the Cambodian economy and the country in general,” with benefits (of demining) “38 percent higher than the costs.” In addition, just as Cambodia noted in its extension request that the ongoing presence of mines amounts to a downward spiral in terms of the social and economic development of communities, the removal of these mines has had a tremendous positive impact. As Cambodia noted in 2010, demining has become “an important vehicle” in poverty reduction and self-sufficiency in that State-owned mined land, in accordance with Cambodia’s Sub-Decree on Social Land Concessions, “can be distributed to poor people who lack land for residential and / or family farming purposes.” Cambodia further noted that “decisions regarding post clearance beneficiaries are clearly determined prior to clearance commencing.” Another case where the positive community effects of the implementation of the Convention can be seen is in Jordan, again as documented in Jordan’s request for an extension of its mine clearance

• deadline. According to Jordan, “mine action’s macro link to development in Jordan has been tangible

and measurable.” For example, mine clearance was a necessary prerequisite for the construction of the US$ 110 million Al-Wehdeh Dam along Jordan’s border with Syria. Jordan noted in its 2008 extension request that this dam “(would) be one of the main sources of fresh water for Jordan and

• ne of the solutions to the kingdom’s dire water problem”, in addition to generating 1,880 mega-

watts per hour of electric power annually. Jordan’s extension request also reported that the US$ 800 million Ayla development project aimed at modernising Jordan’s only port and seaside tourist destination, Aqaba, could not proceed without the removal of mines. In 2008, it was anticipated that more than 5 million square metres of land – much of it former mined or suspected hazardous area – would be developed between the town of Aqaba and Jordan’s border with Israel. As noted in the extension request, “in order for the Ayla Development Project to proceed, Jordan removed and destroyed 19,800 mines and released more

4 than 1.5 million square metres of valuable land,” with it predicted that this project would create approximately 3,600 jobs in the construction and service industries. The social and economic benefits of the fulfilment of Jordan’s solemn commitment to clear all mined areas also extend to agriculture and tourism. One example, as noted in Jordan’s mine clearance extension request is the Mubarakeh Date Farm located along the Jordan River just north of the Dead Sea and covering an area of 1.2 million square metres. According to Jordan, the farm was established in 1998 after Jordan cleared 6,300 mines from the area and it now produces 1.0 million kilogrammes

• f world-class dates annually for export, providing jobs for 117 people in what Jordan refers to as
• ne if its “poverty pockets.”

In terms of tourism, “one of the most important historical, cultural, and religious locations in the Middle East” – the site of Jesus’ baptism – is located on the east bank of the Jordan River in a location that was once contaminated by mines. The area was subsequently cleared further to the commitment made by the late King Hussein to remove all mines from the Hashemite Kingdom and was officially opened to the public by His Late Holiness Pope John Paul II in 2000. According to Jordan, between 2000 and 2008, “over 150,000 tourists / pilgrims (had) visited the Baptismal Site which has now launched an ambitious infrastructure expansion program to draw 1.5 million tourists annually by 2015.” In conclusion, this Convention and the broader movement to eradicate anti-personnel mines and

• ther explosive remnants of war was ground-breaking for many reasons, including that it led to

understand victimization of mines in a broad sense. We now are well aware that families, communities and whole societies have suffered. Equally, we are well aware that the collective efforts to implement the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention and its sister treaty, the CCM, are producing results and communities that once suffered are now prospering and growing.