 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Antigua and Barbuda signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 3 December 1997 and ratified on 3 May 1999. The treaty entered into force for Antigua and Barbuda on 1 November 1999. Antigua and Barbuda's Article 7 transparency report, submitted on 29 March 2000, states that Antigua and Barbuda has "never stockpiled, transferred or employed the use of anti-personnel mines." No national implementation legislation is in place. Antigua and Barbuda participated in the First Meeting of State Parties in Maputo in May 1999. Its Ambassador to the United States, H.E. Lionel Hurst, made a statement on behalf of the fourteen CARICOM (Caribbean Community) member states. He said these states "are of the view that we too can play a significant role by contributing our moral leadership to this very necessary task of ending the scourge of landmines."240 Ambassador Hurst also said that Antigua and Barbuda would announce at the General Assembly of the OAS in June 1999 that it would make a pledge to the OAS demining program in Central America. Antigua and Barbuda voted in favor of the pro-Mine Ban Treaty UN General Assembly resolution in December 1999.
Key developments since March 1999: Argentina ratified the Mine Ban Treaty on 21 July 1999 and it entered into force on 1 March 2000. A Working Group composed of representatives of the Ministry of Defense and the armed forces has been created to oversee implementation.
Mine Ban Policy
Argentina signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 4 December 1997. Argentina's Congress approved the treaty on 23 June 1999 under Law 25.112, promulgated it on 15 July 1999 and published it in the Official Bulletin (number 29.191) on 21 July 1999. Argentina deposited its instrument of ratification at the United Nations on 14 September 1999. The Mine Ban Treaty entered into force for Argentina on 1 March 2000.
Then-President Carlos Saúl Menem submitted an interpretative statement on the Malvinas/Falklands to Congress at the same time as the ratification instrument, which was accepted without amendment. The statement says, "Argentina manifests that its territory in the Malvinas Islands is mine-affected, a fact which was communicated to the UN General Assembly in resolutions 48/7, 49/215, 50/82, and 51/149.... Argentina is impeded access to AP mines in the Malvinas in order to comply with the Mine Ban Treaty because of the illegal occupation by the United Kingdom."241
Argentina has not enacted domestic implementation legislation regarding the treaty. Law 25.112 does not contain provisions on violations and punishments.
Argentina's Article 7 transparency report is due on 27 August 2000 and according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it is being prepared.242 On 1 March 2000, Nobel Peace Laureate Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, President of El Servicio Paz y Justicia, SERPAJ (Peace and Justice Services) sent a letter to Argentina's Minister of Foreign Affairs Adalberto Rodríguez Giavarini asking "whether the Argentinian government is preparing the report," and requesting a copy of it.243
A Working Group on the treaty has been created (by resolution MD 169/00), made up of representatives of the Policy Directorate of the Ministry of Defense, the Army, the Navy and the Institute of Scientific and Technical Research of the Armed Forces (CITEFA). The Working Group is responsible for implementing treaty requirements, including Argentina's Article 7 report, and is also mandated "to strengthen Argentina's contribution to humanitarian demining."244
Argentina voted in favor of UN General Assembly Resolution 54/54B supporting the Mine Ban Treaty in December 1999, and has supported relevant UNGA resolutions in previous years. Argentine Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Minister Ana María Ramírez, noted at the UN General Assembly 54th session that "our country considers this legal instrument of fundamental value towards strengthening the principles of international humanitarian law."245
Argentina participated in the First Meeting of State Parties held in Maputo in May 1999. Minister Pedro Villagra Delgado, Director of International Safety, Nuclear and Space Affairs Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs made a statement in support of the treaty, and noted, "We mustn't drop our guard in the belief that the work is done. The international community must now redouble its efforts to achieve an effective and universal application of [the Mine Ban Treaty] principles and goals."246
Argentina has participated in all of the intersessional meetings of the treaty in Geneva.
Argentina is a state party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons and ratified Amended Protocol II on landmines on 21 October 1998. It participated in the December 1999 First Annual Conference of States Parties to Amended Protocol II and made a statement to the plenary. Argentina submitted its Article 13 annual transparency report on 12 December 1999. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, an interpretative statement was made by the Argentinian delegation dealing with the Malvinas issue.247 Argentina is a member of the Conference on Disarmament and has supported the unsuccessful attempts to address an antipersonnel mine transfer ban in that forum.
Production, Transfer, Use
Argentina is a former producer and exporter of antipersonnel mines. In the past, it manufactured three types of antipersonnel mines: the FMK-1 plastic blast mine, the MAPG pressure or trip-wire initiated mine, and the MAPPG bounding mine.248 Production took place at the Dirección General de Fabricaciones Militares of the Ministry of Defense. Officials have declined to provide information on decommissioning or conversion of production facilities.249
Argentina adopted a five-year moratorium on the export, sale or transfer of antipersonnel mines on 27 March 1995. The moratorium has now been superceded by Argentina's Mine Ban Treaty obligations.250 Based on mines found in the Falklands/Malvinas, it appears that Argentina imported antipersonnel mines from Israel (Number 4), Italy (SB-33) and Spain (P4B).251
It is not known if Argentina has used antipersonnel mines aside from the Falklands/Malvinas. During the confrontation between Argentina and Chile in 1978, which nearly led to war, Chile laid a large number of mines along its borders with Argentina, but it is not certain whether Argentina also used mines. Argentinian officials have repeatedly stated that Chile is solely responsible for the mined border areas. But, in July 1999 Congressmen Alfredo Bravo and Jorge Rivas made an official request for information on the number and location of antipersonnel landmines possibly planted by the Argentine Army along its border during the 1978 crisis. They have not received a response.252
Stockpiling
The Ministry of Defense did not provide information on the size and composition of Argentina's stockpiles or stockpile destruction plans to Landmine Monitor, stating that it is collecting this information for Argentina's Article 7 report.253 An official at the Directorate of Military Affairs of the Ministry of Defense stated that the government is not obligated to provide information to NGOs prior to the release of its Article 7 report.254 Information on stockpiles is not included in Argentina's Article 13 Annual Report to CCW Amended Protocol II.
Landmine Problem
The Argentinian Foreign Ministry has said that the only part of its territory that is mine-affected is the Malvinas Islands.255 The government maintains that mined areas along its sizeable border with Chile are only on the Chilean side. Nevertheless officials at the National Congress note that these mined areas might threaten the safety of Argentine peasants and indigenous peoples who cross back and forth on unmarked mine-affected border areas.0
According to a newspaper report, up to 14 border areas, mostly mountain passes between the two countries, are mine-affected, and not all of these passes are marked. The report indicates that there are minefields near the Aguas Calientes pass, close to Catamarca province, and in the southern border region, north of the Chilean city of Punta Arenas.1
Another newspaper report states that in the province of Jujuy there are mined areas southeast of the Licancabur volcano, close to the Jama pass; also, in Salta province, there are eight mine-affected areas around the Llullailaco volcano, in the Huaytiquina pass and around the Socompa pass. Chilean authorities only acknowledge four of these areas are mined.2
In August 1999 journalists covering a story of the recovery of three Incan infant mummies from the summit of Llullailaco volcano were warned by local peasants from the village of Tolar Grande to stay away from the salt fields of Mina La Julia and Mina La Casualidad, in Argentinian territory, because they were "full of landmines."3 Argentine authorities opened a file on the case, but still claim that the only mined-affected territory is the Malvinas Islands.
Mine Clearance
In April 1999, the Ministers of Defense and Foreign Affairs of Argentina and Chile met in Zapallar, Chile, to discuss their common landmine problem. The Ministers stressed their intent to obtain needed resources in order to initiate mine clearance, and discussed the costs involved as well as the possibility of contracting private companies for the task.4
The Argentine Ambassador to the Organization of America States stated that the presence of antipersonnel mines in the Andean highlands between the two countries is Chile's responsibility, but stressed that Argentina would cooperate in clearance.5
On 28 June 1999 Governor Juan Carlos Romero of Salta, noting that he had been updated on bilateral discussions regarding mine clearance by the OAS ambassador, said he would consider filing a claim at the international level if an agreement on mine clearance along the border was not achieved by the two countries.6 In his response to Governor Romero, Chile's Ambassador to Argentina, Florencio Guzmán Correa is quoted as saying, "The Chilean government has expressed its political will to initiate mine clearance in areas close to the Argentine border.... The Chilean government will do so as soon as it has the financial resources needed to do the task."7
The Argentinian and Chilean governments held talks on mine clearance during then President Menem's visit to Santiago in August 1999. The Argentine military offered the assistance of the CAECOPAZ, the Center for Joint Training for Peace Operations of Campo de Mayo, but it was rejected by their Chilean colleagues.8 Nonetheless, plans are being developed for the mine clearance activities in the south, in particular out in Cabo del Hornos Island in the Wollaston Archipelago.
At the 34th Conference of American Armies, held in November 1999 in the Bolivian capital La Paz, General Ricardo Izurieta, the Commander in Chief of the Chilean Army, announced that Chile would clear its minefields along the borders with Argentina, Perú, Bolivia, and Argentina.9 General Izurieta said, "In the briefest timeframe we'll clear minefields along the borders with Bolivia, Perú and Argentina - within the year - as a demonstration of our concrete and frank intention to strengthen ties with all our neighbours and in particular with the Bolivian Army."10
Mine Action
Argentina has not provided financial assistance, but has actively participated in international mine action programs, notably in Central American, Angola,11 and Kuwait.12 Armed Forces personnel have been involved in mine clearance operations in Central America since 1993. According to Argentina's Article 13 report to Amended Protocol II of the CCW, in 1999 Argentine personnel working in the OAS program, through the Interamerican Defense Board, participated in the destruction of 5,000 mines in Nicaragua.13 In 1999 Argentina participated once more in demining activities in Central America (Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras and Costa Rica) under the OAS.14 Argentina's participation in the regional program ended on 24 January 2000, when the last four Argentine military mine clearance instructors returned to Argentina because of budgetary constraints.15 The government is said to be evaluating the renewal of its assistance to mine clearance in Central America.16
Argentina states that it has offered to contribute to demining efforts along the Peru-Ecuador border under the MOMEP mission.17 The Ministry of Defense has offered the services of a military expert, three instructors, and mobile training equipment for mine clearance operations in Kosovo.18
The Argentine Army's Centre for Training in Humanitarian Demining has provided instruction to both national and foreign army personnel.19 Moreover, the Argentine Training Centre for Peace Operationos (CAECOPAZ) provides semi-annual courses on demining and humanitarian assistance. CAECOPAZ works exclusively in peacekeeping operations.20
According to the Ministry of Defense, the Institute of Scientific and Technical Research of the Armed Forces (CITEFA) has the capacity for research and development of mine-detection technology using thermal imaging.21
The Bahamas signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 3 December 1997 and ratified on 31 July 1998. It is not believed to have enacted domestic implementation legislation. The Bahamas has not yet submitted its Article 7 transparency report, due on 27 August 1999. The Bahamas was not present at the First Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty in Maputo in May 1999 and has not participated in the intersessional meetings of the ban treaty. The Bahamas voted in favor of the December 1999 UN General Assembly resolution in support of the Mine Ban Treaty.
In a January 2000 letter to the ICBL Coordinator, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that The Bahamas "attached much importance to the goals and objectives of the Treaty" and wished the ICBL "continued success in 2000 in promoting global awareness of the dangers and destruction associated with land mines, especially anti-personnel mines."22
The Bahamas has stated that it "produces no antipersonnel mines, has never used or stockpiled them, or engaged in any way in their transfer."23 The Bahamas is not mine-affected.
Barbados signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 3 December 1997 and ratified on 26 January 1999. The treaty entered into force for Barbados on 1 July 1999. It is not believed to have enacted domestic implementation legislation. Barbados has not yet submitted its Article 7 transparency report, due 27 December 1999. Barbados did not attend the First Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty in Maputo in May 1999 and has not participated in the intersessional meetings of the ban treaty. It voted in favor of UN General Assembly Resolution 54/54B in support of the Mine Ban Treaty in December 1999. Barbados has stated that it has never produced, imported, stockpiled or used antipersonnel landmines, and is not mine-affected.24
Belize signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 27 February 1998 and ratified on 23 April 1998, the tenth nation to do so. Belize submitted its Article 7 transparency report on 4 November 1999.
Belize has not yet enacted domestic implementing legislation.25 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed to Landmine Monitor that "to date Belize has not yet reached the stage of implementing laws for the enforcement of the aforementioned Convention of Ottawa."26 It appears other legislation has taken priority over the Mine Ban Treaty for now.27
Belize voted in favor of UN General Assembly Resolution 54/54B in support of the Mine Ban Treaty in December 1999, as it had on similar resolutions in 1997 and 1998. It has also supported the pro-ban resolutions of the Organization of American States (OAS). It was one of nine countries that signed the "Declaration of San José" in Costa Rica on 5 April 2000, which includes an article promoting the Mine Ban Treaty.
Belize did not attend the First Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty in Maputo in May 1999 and has not participated in the intersessional meetings of the ban treaty. Belize is neither a member of the Conference on Disarmament nor a party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons.
Belize has never used, produced, imported, or stockpiled antipersonnel landmines, including for training purposes.28 Belize is not mine-affected.
Key developments since March 1999: In December 1999, Chile began demining its border with Bolivia.
Mine Ban Policy
Bolivia signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 3 December 1997 and was the first country of South America to deposit its instrument of ratification with the UN on 9 June 1998. Bolivia has not enacted national implementation legislation.29
Bolivia participated in the First Meeting of State Parties (FMSP) in Maputo in May 1999. In her statement to the plenary, Barbara Canedo Patiño, Director General of Multilateral Issues of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, called on the countries which had not signed or ratified the treaty to do so as soon as possible, protested against new deployments of AP mines, encouraged states parties to correctly implement the treaty and described her government's support for the contribution of the ICBL and the ICRC. She went on to note, "Bolivia gives priority to the Ottawa Convention and confirms its commitment to fulfilling the terms of the Convention."30
Bolivia has participated in some of the intersessional meetings of the Mine Ban Treaty in Geneva, including the March 2000 meetings on mine clearance and victim assistance, and the January 2000 meeting on the General Status of the Convention.
Bolivia submitted its Article 7 transparency report on 8 November 1999. While the report was due by 27 August 1999, an official described the delay as due to a simple administrative hold-up and to the change in the cabinet.31 The report covers the period 1 January 1999 - 1 November 1999, was prepared by the Ministry of Defense, and was submitted in Spanish.
Bolivia voted in favor of UN General Assembly Resolution 54/54B in support of the Mine Ban Treaty in December 1999, as it had for similar resolutions in 1997 and 1998. It has also voted in favor of the pro-ban resolutions of the Organization of American States (OAS). In a May 2000 response to Landmine Monitor, Bolivia described its "total support and commitment" to the ban on antipersonnel mines.32
Bolivia is not a party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW). It participated as an observer in the December 1999 First Annual Conference of States Parties to CCW Amended Protocol II on landmines, but did not make a statement. Bolivia is not a member of the Conference on Disarmament.
Production, Transfer, Stockpiling and Use
Bolivia is not believed to have ever produced or transferred antipersonnel mines. In its Article 7 report, Bolivia states that it has no AP mine production facilities, and that it has no stockpiled antipersonnel mines whatsoever, including any for training. Bolivia is not known to have ever used AP mines.
Mine Clearance
While Bolivia stated in its Article 7 report that it has "no mined areas or areas that are suspected of containing AP mines," its border with Chile was mined by Chile during the 1970s, and in 1978 in particular, during a territorial dispute. In July 1998, Bolivia's President Hugo Bánzer asked Chile to demine the area as soon as possible, noting that the mines planted 20 years ago have harmed both the Bolivian and Chilean people. He offered Bolivia's assistance to Chile in the removal of landmines along the border.33
In November 1999 Chile's Head of the Armed Forces, General Ricardo Izurieta, announced in La Paz, Bolivia, that his country would demine the borders with Bolivia, Peru and Argentina "as soon as possible."34 On 1 December 1999, the Chilean Army announced in Santiago the launch of the program to clear mined areas and specified that it would begin immediately along the border with Bolivia: around Tambo Quemado, between Chile's First Region (Primera Región de Chile) and the Bolivian zone of Charana, at an altitude of some 4,000 meters in the Andes.35 On 9 December 1999, a media report said deminers had destroyed 250 antipersonnel mines and 27 antitank mines, discovered in Portezuelo de Tambo Quemado near the Bolivian border.36
At the time, the Chilean Army estimated that it would take approximately three months to demine this area,37 but the mine clearance was still underway as of May 2000. An official told Landmine Monitor that although Bolivia considers the demining process to be very slow, Bolivia is pleased demining has started and considers it as a sign of Chilean goodwill. The official also noted that Bolivia would like Chile to ratify the treaty as soon as possible because it means a commitment to demine in a scheduled time.38
A Bolivian newspaper reported the deaths of three Bolivian peasants due to mines between 1985 and 1997, but Landmine Monitor is unaware of any mine victims since then.39
Key Developments since March 1999: The Mine Ban Treaty entered into force for Brazil on 1 October 1999. Brazil ratified CCW Amended Protocol II on 4 October 1999. Brazil has not submitted its Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 report, which was due by 29 March 2000.
Mine Ban Policy
Brazil signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 3 December 1997 and ratified on 30 April 1999. Brazil's National Congress promulgated it on 5 August 1999 by Decree 3.128. The treaty entered into force for Brazil on 1 October 1999, but it has yet to enact implementation legislation. Brazil has domestic legislation regarding explosives and firearms.40
Brazil participated in the First Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty in Maputo in May 1999. Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs Ambassador Ivan Cannabrava the plenary, "We are ready to proceed - in its spirit and letter - with our involvement with the Ottawa process."41 He also called on all states that have not yet done so to "join our efforts by signing and ratifying the instrument." According to Ministry for Foreign Relations officials, Brazilian diplomats assigned to Geneva have been following all intersessional meetings of the treaty.42
Brazil's Article 7 transparency report was due by 29 March 2000 but has not yet been submitted. According to officials in the Ministry for Foreign Relations, consultations are continuing between the Ministry for Foreign Relations and the Ministry of Defense in order to produce the report, including data gathering on the size and composition of Brazil's stockpiled antipersonnel mines.43
Brazil voted in favor of UN General Assembly resolution 54/54B supporting the Mine Ban Treaty in December 1999, as it had for similar resolutions in 1997 and 1998.
Brazil was one of nine governments to sign the "Declaration of San José" in Costa Rica on 5 April 2000; the declaration contains an article promoting the Mine Ban Treaty.
Brazilian NGOs have actively promoted the ban on antipersonnel mines and advocated for ratification of the treaty both by Brazil and throughout the region. They include Associação do Jovem Aprendiz (AJA), a Brazilian NGO which works with handicapped youth, Father Marcelo Guimarães and a youth group called "Step for Peace," and SERPAJ Brazil.
Brazil ratified the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) Amended Protocol II on 4 October 1999. At the the December 1999 First Annual Conference of States Parties to Amended Protocol II, Brazilian Ambassador Adhemar G. Bahadian said, "While we remain open-minded, we believe that care should be taken not to waste our scarce resources in an endless effort to revise the provisions of the Amended Protocol II as far as anti-personnel landmines are concerned. While some provisions can be broadened, there would be little sense in engaging in an indefinite process of amendment, when, in our view, we should be aiming at the universalization and effective implementation of the Ottawa Convention."44
Brazil is a member of the Conference on Disarmament, but has not been a noted supporter or opponent of efforts to negotiate a ban on transfers in that forum.
Production and Transfer
Brazil is a former producer and exporter of landmines. The government states that it has not produced landmines since 1989, and has not exported landmines since 1984.45 The Ministry of Foreign Relations could not confirm whether Brazil has produced or imported Claymore-type mines.46
Stockpiling
According to officials at the Ministry of Foreign Relations, data on Brazil's AP landmine stockpile is being gathered at present. Landmine Monitor contacted the Chief of the Social Communication Center of the Brazilian Army, and the Communication Sector of the Ministry of Defense regarding stockpiled AP mines but has not yet received any information.
At the First Meeting of State Parties in May 1999, Brazil's representative stated, "The stockpiles we do have are being used by the Armed Forces for the development of techniques and training activities in demining."47
On 3 May 2000, Correio Braziliense, a national Brazilian newspaper, reported sources associated with the Brazilian Army Command as claiming that all types of landmines stockpiled by the Brazilian Army and Navy, allegedly more than 200,000, had been destroyed, and so quickly that records of stockpile destruction were still being compiled.48 The article also quoted an official at the Ministry of Foreign Relations as saying that "the Foreign Affairs and Defense Ministries are running against time in order to announce the total destruction of Brazilian landmines at the Treaty's Standing Committee of Experts Meeting to be held in Geneva, 22 May 2000." Such an announcement was not made, however. An official from the Ministry of Foreign Relations declined to comment on the article.49
In June 2000, National Assembly Deputy Nilmário Miranda met with the Minister of Defense Élcio Álvares, who wanted to respond to a written request for information the deputy had made on 27 May 2000. The Minister read a short document which said that Brazil produced an "insignificant" quantity of antipersonnel mines and that it would be nearly "irrelevant" to establish a destruction plan for existing stockpiles.50
Use
Landmine Monitor Report 1999 stated that it had found no evidence that Brazil planted mines on its borders or in the Brazilian Amazon, but did report that allegations of landmine use by landholders in North Paraná to keep out the "landless" (Sem Terra) were under investigation by the Human Rights Commission of the Lower House of Deputies.51 During the First Meeting of States Parties in Maputo, Brazilian Ambassador Cannabrava told Landmine Monitor that this was a false accusation published in Brazilian press and that the matter had never been under consideration by the Congress.52 A representative of the Movimento Sem Terra (Movement of Landless Peasants) confirmed no findings or incidents involving landmines among landless peasants.53 There have since been no more media reports on this particular issue and Landmine Monitor has found no evidence of any AP mine use in Brazil.
Mine Clearance
While Brazil is not mine-affected, it has actively participated in international humanitarian mine action on a bilateral and multilateral basis. At the First Meeting of State Parties, Ambassador Canbrava said, "Having participated in mine clearance activities in African countries such as Angola, in the context of UN peace-keeping operations, Brazil is currently supplying nearly half of the demining experts to the MARMINCA programme in Central America. Brazil has also participated in demining activities of MOMEP along the Peru-Ecuador border."54
Brazilian army experts participate in the OAS demining program in Nicaragua, Honduras, Costa Rica, and Guatemala. According to officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, operational costs and in-kind contributions to MARMINCA are estimated to cost Brazil US$1 million per year. There are 11 Brazilian demining experts among the 27 supervisors in MARMINCA.55
Landmine Casualties
There have been some Brazilian landmine casualties from participation in UN peacekeeping operations and mine clearance efforts. A Brazilian Navy Captain lost a leg in 1997, and an Army Captain was wounded in 1999, both on MARMINCA demining duties.56
The Ministry of Foreign Relations indicates that it does not have accurate data on provision of assistance to mine victims.57 Brazil has disability laws and a variety of rights for people with disabilities.
Key developments since March 1999: Canada continued to exercise a lead role internationally in promoting universalization and effective implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty. It played a crucial role in the success of the First Meeting of States Parties and the intersessional work program. Canada contributed $16.7 million to mine action programs in its FY 1999/2000. The private Canadian Landmine Foundation was established.
Mine Ban Policy
Canada was the first nation to sign the ban convention on 3 December 1997 and was one of only three countries to deposit its instrument of ratification with the UN Secretary General on the same day. Its Implementation Act, passed by Parliament on 27 November 1997, entered into force on 1 March 1999, as did the Mine Ban Treaty internationally.58 A description and analysis of the Act were provided in Landmine Monitor Report 1999.59
The Mine Ban Treaty serves as a central reference point in Canadian foreign policy, particularly with respect to its efforts to promote and institutionalize the concept of human security, which it did, for example, within the United Nations Security Council, where it is serving a two-year term ending 31 December 2000. Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy describes human security as an approach by governments that places the protection and well-being of individuals as the main criterion for international action. In virtually every official address or speaking engagement, which deals with Canada's human security agenda, Minister Axworthy refers to the Mine Ban Treaty as an example.
Government representatives frequently refer to the MBT as a model by which other issues emphasized in Canadian foreign policy may be advanced. Repeatedly, it and the contributions of civil society have been linked in official statements to human security, small arms and the role of the United Nations Security Council. Both domestically and internationally, the MBT is described as going beyond the elimination of mines, raising the profile of threats to human safety while providing a concrete example of how to advance the concept of human security.60
The appointment of an Ambassador for Mine Action in 1998 plus the creation of a new division within the Ministry specifically to work on landmines, the Mine Action Team (ILX), were intended not only to move the treaty process forward, but also to ensure that "Canada is able to continue to provide international leadership on the landmines issue."61
FMSP
Canada played a crucial role in the organization of the First Meeting of States Parties (FMSP) held in Maputo, Mozambique. It seconded a full-time staff person from its Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (ILX-DFAIT) to the FMSP secretariat in Mozambique for almost three months to assist with logistics and conference planning. From within Canada, staff worked to emphasize the importance of the FMSP to other states, describing the conference as a "key step" in the entrenchment of the MBT. A large contingent of Canadian officials, including Minister Axworthy, was present during the Meeting. All federal political parties and the Mines Action Canada coalition were represented on the Canadian delegation. ILX officials and staff helped to conceptualize and were vocal proponents of the Convention's intersessional work program. They also played a key role in developing and promoting the Article 7 Transparency Report formats, as well as the decision to post them to the Internet.
At the time of the FMSP, NATO was engaged in its bombing campaign in the conflict in Serbia/Kosovo. In his address to the opening plenary Axworthy called on the international community to develop a capacity for rapid, coordinated humanitarian mine action in post-conflict situations. "The international community must be ready to respond urgently to ensure that when the time comes, they can return to their homes in safety."62 He detailed the need to mobilize and coordinate available resources, to improve information gathering from refugees, and other sources and to identify demining priorities. The Minister also suggested the need for the quick assembly and dispatch of survey and assessment teams, ongoing identification of equipment and personnel available for mine action, as well as the provision of mine awareness training for refugees and those involved in their resettlement.
Transparency Reporting
Canada submitted its Article 7 Transparency Reports as required and made copies available immediately. The first report was submitted on 27 August 1999, reporting on the period 1 January 1999 to 31 July 1999 and the second was submitted on 27 April 2000, reporting on the period 1 August 1999 to 14 March 2000.63 Canadian officials reported fully on all of the areas required under Article 7 and, in the second report provided additional information on the use of mines retained for research and development, as well as training (for further information, see section on Stockpiling and Destruction).
There have been problems with late submission of Article 7 Reports by other countries. Canadian officials have stressed the importance of states parties fulfilling the treaty's reporting requirements, have compiled reports detailing the reasons why states parties may be late in fulfilling this treaty obligation, and have made efforts to facilitate their submission while urging other states to do likewise.
As of 30 May 2000, Canada was one of only eight OAS member states to submit information to the OAS Register of Antipersonnel Landmines.64
International Promotion of the Mine Ban Treaty
Canada continues to play an important and leading role in the global campaign to ban antipersonnel mines and to eliminate their socio-economic impact. Canadians have worked to universalize the treaty, to increase funds for clearance and victim assistance and other mine action, as well as to promote the Mine Ban Treaty. The Government of Canada's Mine Action Team, through the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (ILX-DFAIT), was expanded with the addition of program officers and support staff. Through their efforts the issue has been raised repeatedly in regional and international fora around the world. From Kosovo to Latin America and Mozambique, Canadian delegations have raised the issue of landmines and the Mine Ban Treaty in efforts to persuade others to take these critical steps to fulfill their obligations to the treaty and to meet its objectives.
Canada has raised the MBT in statements made in the G-8, the UN Security Council, APEC, the OAS, the Commonwealth, the ASEAN Regional Forum, la Francophonie, and other international fora. While in Russia at a conference on human security and northern policy Foreign Minister Axworthy asked then acting president Vladimir Putin to put in place a timetable for signature of the MBT and destruction of Russian stockpiles.65
As in past years, in 1999 Canada helped to draft and was a major promoter of the UN General Assembly resolution supporting the Mine Ban Treaty. In December 1999 Canada voted in favor of UNGA Resolution 54/54B
The government has played a key role in the Mine Ban Treaty's intersessional program. It is a co-chair of the SCE on the General Status and Operation of the Convention, and Canadian officials have also chaired or presented to other sessions within the SCEs.
Non-State Actors
In two separate statements Minister Axworthy referred to non-state actors (NSAs) in regards to the MBT and to human security and "the need to find ways to address the challenges they [NSAs] raise. Two years after the Ottawa Convention, the role of these non-state actors, as participants in armed conflict or in perpetuating the new war economies, is the subject of growing scrutiny from the G-8 to the UN."66 Canada provided C$40,000 to the conference "Engaging Non-State Actors in a Landmine Ban," 24-25 March 2000. The conference was hosted by the Swiss Campaign to Ban Landmines.
Naming Names
Canada was among the first and one of the most vocal countries to publicly name the states where new use of mines has been reported (especially Angola and Kosovo) since the conclusion of the MBT. Foreign Minister Axworthy has said, "This is cause for real concern.... We must use this opportunity to speak out about these acts that violate the new international norm created by the treaty. We must respond to those who challenge the validity of the treaty. We can do this by working at the regional level to bring pressure to bear on those governments to stop creating this humanitarian disaster in our neighborhoods. We must call these miscreants to account: to their own publics and to the international community."67
With respect to Angola, a treaty signatory using mines in the conflict against UNITA, Minister Axworthy has suggested that Canadian assistance for clearance and other mine action would be withheld from states that continue to use mines. "The Convention is helping: the fact is that it makes much more sense to invest in the painstaking and costly task of mine clearance in places where governments have said they will never again use these weapons."68
At the United Nations, Canada said, "No longer will countries, particularly signatory countries, be able to use landmines with impunity."69 Similar statements have been made in Helsinki, Finland and in St. Petersburg, Russia.70
In Geneva, in December 1999, a Canadian delegate raised the issue of mine use by Russia in its war on Chechnya. "Canada continues to have serious concerns about reports concerning the indiscriminate use of antipersonnel mines by the Russian military in the context of the ongoing conflict in Chechnya.... Many of these mines were remotely delivered against no apparent military target.... Russian forces appear to have taken few if any steps to protect civilians in that conflict from the effects of mines, for example through the posting of signs, sentries, or fences around known mined areas. Canada would welcome clarification of these issues from Russian authorities as soon as possible."71 In the same statement Canada called for clarification from Pakistan authorities on allegations that Pakistan Ordnance Factories offered AP mines to a British citizen, an infringement under Article 8 of Amended Protocol II.72
Landmine Monitor
Canada helped to conceptualize the Landmine Monitor system and has been among those countries supporting the Landmine Monitor initiative since its inception in 1998. In addition to financial grants the federal government also provided logistical and in-kind support for Landmine Monitor meetings held in Canada. 73 In his address to the First Meeting of States Parties, Axworthy welcomed the role of NGOs and civil society in monitoring the treaty. "We also have the power of civil society behind us -- a community committed to ensuring that the gains made in the negotiation and signing of the AP mine ban convention become real and remain respected. This community has made an incredible contribution to this effort with the publication, in record time, of Mine Monitor (sic), with its comprehensive documentation of the mine issue in over 100 countries. Canada is proud to have been an early and vigorous supporter of this effort -- we encourage others to join in funding this publication and helping it become an annual citizen's companion to our Convention."74 At that time Axworthy described the Landmine Monitor initiative as having "established itself as a world leader in highlighting international violations of the Ottawa Convention. I believe that they have proven instrumental in holding governments accountable for mine-related actions and obligations and that their annual report provides decision-makers with essential feedback on our progress in ridding the world of landmines."75
Regional Promotion of the Mine Ban Treaty
The realization of the Western Hemisphere as a mine free zone and other mine action activities within the Americas has been identified as a top priority for Canadian foreign policy efforts. Canada has been a strong supporter of various Organization of American States (OAS) resolutions and declarations relating to landmines. Most significant is the 1996 OAS resolution calling for a hemispheric mine free zone.
At the 30th OAS General Assembly, hosted by Canada in Windsor, Ontario, 4-6 June 2000, delegates voted unanimously on a resolution calling on all OAS member states, donors and agencies working in mine action to increase efforts to complete clearance programs in Central America as soon as possible. A second resolution calls for the OAS to continue efforts to provide assistance in combating the AP mine problem in Ecuador and Peru. Also relevant to the AP mine issue are resolutions on small arms and the important role of civil society within the OAS. 76 The OAS has been Canada's main partner in mine action in the Americas. According to Minister Axworthy, the OAS Summit of the Americas will take place in Québec City, 20-22 April 2001.
In accepting the Endicott Peabody Award for Humanitarian Works, Minister Axworthy noted the refusal of the U.S. to sign the treaty while urging the Administration to accede to it and to "join the moral force of the United States with that of those who have already done so."77
Domestic Promotion of the Mine Ban Treaty
Within Canada, the mine issue has been repeatedly raised. Federal ministers, in various appearances and speaking engagements for clubs and business meetings, have often raised the issue of the Mine Ban Treaty as a key example of Canadian efforts to promote human security. Domestically, Canadian youth, funded through the Youth Internship Program, have continuously educated the public on landmines-related issues. Their messages consistently emphasize the need to ban landmines, to raise awareness and to encourage Canadians to contribute to the support of humanitarian mine action. By all accounts the Youth Mine Action Ambassador Programme is a success and will continue into the foreseeable future.
Role of Canadian NGOs
Canadian NGOs and civil society initiatives in mine action range from implementation of programs in the field to directing advocacy efforts toward governments. The Mines Action Canada coalition remains the largest coordinated body working with NGOs in all aspects of mine action. The coalition currently has more than forty partner organizations. The MAC Secretariat and individual members have written letters to the Canadian government and to various other heads of state or state representatives on issues relating to the MBT. Topics have included the use of Claymore mines in peacekeeping operations, joint operations, promotion of a NATO policy on no use of AP mines, funds for mine action and the universalization of the MBT.
MAC was one of five campaigns which organized a non-state actor conference in Geneva and has undertaken a variety of education and outreach projects and been represented at numerous meetings and speaking engagements. Activities such as the MAC website, a newsletter, the Appropriate Technology Competition, and Africa Refugee Day are ongoing.
Throughout 1999/2000 MAC initiated several outreach activities with cultural and community groups on the mine issue and continues to host a series of capacity building workshops for NGOs involved in mine action.78 The workshops are intended to share ideas and improve practices in mine action and are based on the Bad Honnef Guidelines for mine action from a development-oriented point of view. Workshops take place on a quarterly basis and have included participants from government and NGOs. Topics covered include mine awareness programs and establishing priorities for mine action based on community needs. MAC has also organized workshops and briefing sessions on Claymore mines and cluster bombs and presented papers to the Canadian government on both of these issues. Mines Action Canada, the Canadian Red Cross and the Youth Mine Action Ambassador Program organized a major exhibition called Ban landmines '99 to mark the December anniversary of the opening for signature of the Mine Ban Treaty and also held a series of public events across the country as part of Canadian Landmine Awareness Week to highlight the 1 March 2000 anniversary of entry into force of the treaty.
MAC in partnership with the Canadian Red Cross and the Mine Action Team at DFAIT implement an outreach and sustainability program focused on Canadian students and youth. The Youth Mine Action Ambassadors Program (YMAA) grew from five youth interns in the first year to eight in the second year. Working within local host NGOs (UNICEF Québec, Canadian Red Cross, MAC and Oxfam Canada) the Youth Ambassadors raise public awareness, build public support for mine action and raise funds. These goals are met through organized events in schools, colleges and universities, as well as various activities with the general public. During the second year, the Youth Ambassadors undertook presentations and events in over 130 Canadian cities and towns reaching an estimated 35,000 people directly. This included 691 school presentations, fifty-four speaking events and 268 media interviews and articles.79
Mines Action Canada is a member of the Landmine Monitor Core Group and coordinates research in the Americas region. It is also developing the Landmine Monitor Database. The database is an information management tool that will facilitate the Landmine Monitor initiative specifically and mine action in general. Information collected and analyzed by Landmine Monitor is updated and published in the annual Landmine Monitor reports and incorporated into the database. The database is available online.80 Mines Action Canada is a member of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) Coordinating Committee and is active in several of its working groups.
CCW and CD
While Canada has signed and ratified both the original and the amended protocols of the CCW dealing with landmines, it also has consistently promoted the MBT as the best method to advance a total ban on AP mines and promote mine action. At the First Annual Conference of States Parties to Amended Protocol II of the CCW in Geneva, December 1999 the Canadian statement reaffirmed this position. "Canada continues to believe that the only sustainable and effective solution to the AP mines problem is a total ban on their production, stockpiling, trade and use. Partial restrictions such as those contained within Amended Protocol II must be seen as an important but temporary step on the path towards the total elimination of these weapons, which both in practical use and by technical design are quite obviously indiscriminate."81
On 10 December 1999, Canada submitted its Article 13 report. In its report, Canada again noted the supremacy of the MBT over Canadian obligations under the CCW.82
The Canadian delegation proposed measures to the States Parties related to Articles 2 (definitions) and 14 (compliance) in the Amended Protocol II to bring them in closer alignment with the Mine Ban Treaty. Another proposal related to antivehicle (AV) mines and the need to better protect civilians against their effects. The delegate in his statement said Canada would support efforts to develop minimal detectability standards for AV mines similar to those currently in place for AP mines. "Moreover, we would also support efforts to examine restrictions and/or total prohibitions on remotely delivered AV mines which are not equipped with self-destruct and/or self-deactivation devices."83
Canada participated in the January 2000 session of the Conference on Disarmament (CD) but made no statements regarding AP mines. However in the January 1999 session Canada said it would not support any work in the CD that will impair or hamper the effectiveness of the Mine Ban Treaty. "If such negotiations do take place, the only standards that we will accept are those of the Mine Ban Convention. Canada will not be a party to moving international law backwards."84
Production
The last mines produced in Canada were made by SNC Industrial Technologies of Le Gardeur, Québec. Production ceased in 1992 and the production capability was removed in 1998.85 In 1999 SNC-Lavalin International established its Mine Action Services Branch. For detailed information on past Canadian production and export of the C3A1/2 AP mines, prior to the MBT, see the Landmine Monitor 1999 report.
Alternatives to AP Mines
The Canadian Centre for Mine Action Technologies (CCMAT), created in 1998, is a joint initiative of the DND and Industry Canada. CCMAT's research facilities are based at the Defence Research Establishment Suffield (DRES) in Medicine Hat, Alberta. Part of CCMAT's mandate is to investigate alternatives to AP mines, "to show that viable and more humane alternatives, that do not target civilians, can be developed as a way to persuade hold-out countries to sign the Convention."86 CCMAT's Project Charter outlines this aspect of the center's mandate: "while there is no single technology or device that provides for a one-for-one replacement for anti-personnel mines, there may be alternative approaches that can accomplish the anti-personnel landmine function within the constraints of the convention in some scenarios and for some threats. The Centre would study and document such alternative approaches and identify technologies necessary for their implementation."87 CCMAT plans to conduct its investigation into alternatives by acquiring, modifying and/or developing computer models (see below) to assess alternatives to landmines and the development of sensor and command and control technologies as components of alternative systems.88 The budget is set at C$1.5 million over 5 years.
Concern has been raised by Mines Action Canada about the use of the Canadian Landmine Fund to finance research into alternatives to landmines.89
CCMAT's activities on alternatives coincide with NATO's research into alternatives to AP mines says Dr. Bob Suart, CCMAT's Director. He is adamant that CCMAT is looking into non-lethal alternatives only.90 According to Suart, NATO's research into alternatives has been ongoing since 1998 under what he referred to as NATO SAS 023. "NATO is concerned that if the army gives up AP mines, what is the impact and what are the appropriate measures to make up for that loss. NATO is liable to come up with an alternative weapons system and we're not interested in that," said Suart. "We don't have the budget to develop alternative [weapons systems]. We don't have the inclination and we don't have the mandate."91 Under CCMAT, operational research staff from DND are taking part in NATO meetings as part of Canada's contribution to the NATO study on alternatives to AP mines. "There have been no expenditures or assignments of CCMAT funds to develop alternatives," Suart told Landmine Monitor.92
CCMAT developed an operational research study in computer modeling on the military utility of AP mine use. Carried out by the Directorate Land Strategic Concepts at DND, the study reviewed the historical use of AP mines to identify the operational gap caused by removing AP mines from military inventories. As recorded in CCMAT Management Committee Minutes dated 26 February 1999, early results of the research suggest that the operational impact of removing AP mines from combat is marginal and that there are no obvious replacement technologies.93 The next step for CCMAT in the search for alternatives to AP mines is to build computer models to assess proposed alternatives.
MAC was invited to sit on the CCMAT management committee, but because of the concern vis-à-vis alternatives (particularly the possible use of funds allocated for humanitarian mine action to develop alternative weapons systems) chose to sit as an observer only and has no vote on the selection of projects.
Transfer and Transit
Canada distinguishes between the transfer and the transit of AP mines. Canada continues to maintain that while the transfer (import/export) of AP mines is prohibited under the Convention, the Convention does not address the issue of the transit of mines. "Transit is the movement from one part of a state's territory to another part of the territory of the same state. Canada has no legal obligation to prohibit the transit of mines through our territory by other states. However, Canada discourages this."94 A number of States Parties, as well as the ICRC, have said that transit is prohibited by the Mine Ban Treaty.95
Stockpiling and Destruction
The destruction of Canadian stockpiles, with the exception of those retained for training in mine clearance and the testing of clearance technologies, was completed in November 1997.
Before the UN in November 1999, Canada's Ambassador for Mine Action, Daniel Livermore, placed emphasis on the destruction of stockpiled mines as one of the most important methods for eliminating landmines, thereby preventing their trade and use. "Canada commends states that have partially or completely destroyed their stockpiled mines, and we call on all signatories to the Ottawa Convention to finalize a timetable for stockpile destruction. Canada is working in partnership with Ukraine to assist in the destruction of its anti-personnel mines, and we urge other states which have the means to do so to provide similar assistance in the destruction of mine stockpiles wherever it may be needed."96 Minister Axworthy has also placed emphasis on Canada's willingness to help with destruction of stockpiles and referred to Canadian assistance in destroying Ukraine's 10 million stockpiled mines. 97 (See report on Ukraine for details.)
According to public statements by the Minister of Defence, Art Eggleton, and Minister Axworthy, Canada has elected to keep a maximum of 2,000 AP mines under the treaty exception for training purposes. This is not codified in Canadian law, but appears to have taken the form of a ministerial directive.98 In Canada's second Article 7 Report there is clear mention that the Department of National Defence (DND) retains a maximum of 2,000 mines for this purpose.99 These numbers will change over time as mines are used (at a projected rate of 50 per year), and more foreign mines are imported. Mines have already been imported in this way from Georgia.
Following a call by the ICBL in December 1999 for states to include in their Article 7 reports the anticipated and actual use of mines retained for training purposes, Canada added a detailed description on this to its second report. "Canada retains live AP mines to study the effect of blast on equipment, to train soldiers on procedures to defuse live AP mines and to demonstrate the effects of landmines. For example, live mines help determine whether suits, boots and shields will adequately protect personnel who clear mines. The live mines are used by the Defence department's research establishment located at Suffield, Alberta and by various military training establishments across Canada. DND represents the only source of AP mines which can be used by Canadian industry to test equipment."100
During interviews for the 1999 Landmine Monitor, it was revealed that likely DND sites with stockpiled AP mines for training are the base near Dundurn, Saskatchewan, and another defense research establishment at Valcartier, Québec.101
In its first Article 7 report, Canada reported that it had a stock of 1,781 training mines.102 In its second Article 7 report, Canada reported that its stock of training mines was 1,668.103 Thus, a total of 113 training mines were used between 31 July 1999 and 14 March 2000; a total of eighty-four AP mines were used for research and development and twenty-nine AP mines were used for Canadian Forces' training. Nearly all of these (106 mines) were emplaced at the Canadian Forces Base Suffield, Alberta, "for the research and development of mine detection, mine clearance equipment and mine detection procedures."104
As of 14 March 2000, Canada's stockpile of 1,668 training mines included 962 C3A2 (Canadian), 485 M16A1/2 (U.S.), 42 PMA-1 (former Yugoslavia), 28 PMA-2 (former Yugoslavia), 30 PMA-3 (former Yugoslavia), 84 PP-MI-No.1 (Czechoslovakia), 15 VS50 (Italy), 10 VAL M69 (Italy), 8 VS MK2 (Italy), and 4 SB-33 (Italy). An additional 67 PMN-2 mines were imported from Georgia and added to Canadian stockpiles for clearance training and testing technologies.105
In addition to its program with Ukraine, Canada sent a delegation to Honduras and Nicaragua in February of this year to provide technical assistance in the destruction of AP stockpiles.106 In December 1999 and March 2000 during the SCEs on Stockpile Destruction, General (Ret'd.) Gordon Reay chaired the session "Stockpile Destruction as an Integral Part of Mine Action" and presented on the topic. General Reay is an advisor to the Canadian Mine Action Team on stockpile destruction.
DFAIT is currently working with the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS) to develop a stockpile destruction website/database as an in-kind contribution to UNMAS. The purpose of the proposed website/database is to enable the mine action community to share information on all matters pertaining to stockpile destruction, thereby facilitating cooperation between potential donors and recipients and more effectively disseminating best practice and standards on stockpile destruction experiences and expertise.
Canada retains stockpiles of Claymore mines. The number of Claymore mines held by Canada is unknown; this information was not reported in either of Canada's Article 7 reports submitted to date.
Claymore Mines
In October 1999, Canadian Forces taking part in UN peacekeeping operations brought Claymore mines to East Timor. While there is no evidence the Claymores were used, the incident received considerable media attention in early February 2000. A Captain in the Canadian Forces was reported as saying that less than 100 Claymores were taken to East Timor.107
A letter sent to Minister Lloyd Axworthy from Mines Action Canada, dated 18 February 2000, raised concerns about the potential for Claymore mines to be used in either of two modes: command-detonated or tripwire activated. The letter from MAC was not based on concerns that Canadian Forces may have been using Claymores in victim-activated (tripwire) mode. MAC wrote, "Although understood the use of these weapons in command-detonated mode is not prohibited under the MBT, it is unclear if modifications to them are an adequate response to concerns regarding indiscriminate nature and long-term negative impact. While modifications suggest a change in intent they may not fundamentally alter the weapon...."108
The Minister's response to MAC's letter, dated 20 June 2000, states that the C19 and the M18A1 Claymore weapons are of the same design and contain sockets or fuzewells in which a detonator is placed. The letter goes on to explain that detonators are of two varieties: command activated (through the application of an electrical current) and mechanically or victim-activated. "It is possible to attach a tripwire to this second type of detonator only. A tripwire would be incompatible with the first variety of detonator (command-activated). Let me emphasize that the Canadian Armed Forces do not possess, and are not permitted to possess, victim-activated detonators for application to the C19. Canada only stocks command-activated detonators and simply does not possess the accessories required for conversion of the C19 into an antipersonnel mine."109 Canadian Forces personnel have been advised through several means that the use of AP mines and the unauthorized use of Claymore mines, that is booby-trapping to facilitate victim-activation, is illegal and is punishable under Canadian law.110
Joint Military Operations
Canada appended the following "understanding" on joint military operations to its ratification of the Mine Ban Treaty: "It is the understanding of the Government of Canada that, in the context of operations, exercises or other military activity sanctioned by the United Nations or otherwise conducted in accordance with the international law, the mere participation by the Canadian Forces, or individual Canadians, in operations, exercises or other military activity conducted in combination with the armed forces of States not party to the Convention which engage in activity prohibited under the Convention would not, by itself, be considered to be assistance, encouragement or inducement in accordance with the meaning of those terms in Article 1, paragraph 1(c)."111 In addition, Canadian legislation states that participation in operations with a state not party to the MBT is allowed "if that participation does not amount to active assistance in that prohibited activity."112
Canadian officials have said that the intent of the understanding is mainly to ensure Canadian military personnel are able to participate fully in joint operations, for example with NATO allies, without fear of prosecution.113
Concerns about Canada's position regarding joint military operations were reported in the Landmine Monitor Report 1999. However, since then, the NATO alliance was involved in the military conflict in Kosovo and Yugoslavia. During the conflict the U.S. maintained the right to use AP mines (though it never did), making concerns about the implications of use of AP mines by a non-State Party in a joint military operation more immediate and tangible than before. In September 1999 Mines Action Canada wrote to Minister Axworthy asking him to support the ICBL's call for a "no use" policy by NATO. Although a written reply has not been received, MAC has been informed by a DFAIT official that the government's policy on joint operations remains unchanged.
Mine Action Funding
On 3 December 1997 at the signing of the MBT in Ottawa, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien announced the establishment of a C$100 million (US$67.3 million) fund over a five-year period to implement the treaty.114 This funding evolved into the Canadian Landmine Fund (CLF), which is jointly managed by four government departments: the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT), the Department of National Defence (DND), and Industry Canada (IC).
Unless otherwise indicated projects reported here are funded during Canada's Fiscal Year (FY) 1999-2000, which ran from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000.
In FY 1999-2000, Canadian funding for mine action totalled C$26 million (US$16.7 million), a very significant increase over last year's US$9.5 million.115
Government Reports
Canadian government transparency on reporting how funds are expended on mine action both domestically and internationally is very good. Information is provided in annual reports to Parliament, through press releases, regular progress reports and publications, on departmental websites and a detailed financial listing is available on the UN Mine Action Investment Database.
A report on the activities and projects supported by the Canadian Landmine Fund is submitted annually to the Parliament. The Mine Action Team at the Department of Foreign Affairs takes the lead in reporting on behalf of the four departments involved in the Canadian Landmine Fund. The first annual report (1998-99) was submitted to Parliament on 3 December 1999, the second anniversary of the signing of the Mine Ban Treaty. The document, entitled "Seeds of Terror, Seeds of Hope" is available to the general public as well and is posted to the Department of Foreign Affairs "Safelane" website.116
The report provides a good overview of the issue and international efforts to implement the treaty. It also provides a description of the numerous steps that the Government of Canada is taking as part of its commitment to the treaty, including country-by-country reports of where Canada is funding mine action. The report generally provides short descriptions of each project or program, including government and NGO partners including the sums of money contributed.117 The projects are categorized according to various mine action sectors.
UN Mine Action Investment Datatbase
The ILX-DFAIT Mine Action Team has made significant contributions to the development and operation of the UN Mine Action Investment Database. As more and more countries supply data it has the potential to be a valuable tool for a thorough understanding of global mine action funding. For specific donors the database can provide annual reports that include a description of the country's funding by recipient country and by regional/multilateral/thematic programming. Each program expenditure lists the country, amount in U.S. dollars, the funding source (e.g. department/agency), contribution type (monetary or in-kind), activity type (e.g. victim assistance, integrated mine action), program description, and funding channel/implementing agency. The program contributions for each country are totalled.
Government Policy on Mine Action Funding
The Canadian Landmine Fund uses the following criteria for project funding: humanitarian or developmental impact of landmines in the recipient country, the political commitment of the recipient country to the Mine Ban Treaty, recipient country's commitment to carrying out mine action, Canadian capacity, and neutrality and impartiality.118
In addition to the above criteria, projects funded by the Canadian International Development Agency must also complement CIDA's programming objective in the country in which it is to be implemented, and demonstrate an acceptable level of gender and environmental analysis.119 CIDA continues to work to improve its activities in humanitarian mine action (mine clearance, surveys, mine awareness and victim assistance). Changes at CIDA have brought the management of Canadian NGO projects into the Mine Action Unit, which should result in having them more closely integrated into the overall mine action programming of CIDA.
Further to these criteria the Canadian Government has also begun to draft both Progress Indicators and Guidelines to determine program or project funding and influence the overall direction of Canadian funding in mine action. The Mine Action Team of the Department of Foreign Affairs (ILX-DFAIT) has taken the lead on both of these policy areas.
On 1 May 1999 it issued a document entitled, "Measured Steps: Assessing Global Progress on Mine Action," which states that indicators are needed to measure any progress in the fight against landmines.120 DFAIT suggests likely indicators for Canadian initiatives and proposes to use these indicators to analyse the progress made to date. Measures of progress used in the report include: banning the production, stockpiling, trade and use of antipersonnel mines; reducing mine casualties; clearing mined land; providing assistance to mine victims and their communities; developing mine awareness; and, improving mine action information and planning. 121 Since the release of the report ILX staff have consulted widely and continue to refine the indicators to be used in measuring this progress.122
The Mine Action Team at DFAIT has drafted a set of Guidelines that would seek to provide a framework for developing, implementing and evaluating mine action programs.123 The indicators focus on the following six areas: improving mine action information and planning; clearing mined land; delivering mine awareness education and reducing casualties; meeting the needs of landmine victims; ending the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of AP mines, and; sustaining mine action efforts.
The Canadian Mine Action Progress Indicators seek to provide the mine action community with a clearer understanding of the state of mine action on a county-by-country basis. This will enable donor governments, NGOs and international agencies to see where effective mine action is absent, assess which forms of delivery are the most/least effective, and indicate where successes can be reinforced with the application of increased mine action efforts. Parallel to this process two DFAIT consultations have also been held within Canada on the various international standards and Canadian mine action capacity.
Mine Action Programs Funded By Canadian Landmine Action Fund
Mine Clearance
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Deployment of 550 SFOR-trained Entity Armies deminers and two Bozena mini-flails. Implemented by the Canadian Engineering Division of SFOR. C$630,000 (US$423,990)Support to Bosnian demining NGO, Akcija Mina in partnership with Handicap International. C$790,000 (US$531,670); training and deployment of 24 Bosnian deminers as part of Norwegian People's Aid mine clearance project in Sarajevo Canton. C$250,000 (US$168,250); training and deployment of 12 mine detection dogs and their Bosnian handlers. Implemented by the Canadian International Demining Centre (CIDC). C$350,000 (US$235,530)
Cambodia: Emergency bridge funding to the Cambodia Mine Action Centre (CMAC) to assist the centre in addressing short-term financial requirements while it addresses necessary reforms to its management practices. C$400,000 (US$269,200); provision of middle management training for CMAC personnel. C$11,000 (US$7403)
Ecuador: Contribution to the OAS/UPD Trust Fund for Demining Program in Ecuador and Peru. The objective is to allow the OAS to coordinate and execute operations within the program. C$200,000 (US$134,600); funding provided to the Government of Ecuador for demining and protective gear. C$92,500 (US$62,253)
Jordan: Funding to the Canadian International Demining Centre for the provision of protective demining equipment. C$500,000 (US$336,500)
Moldova: Provision of 10 mine clearance personal protection systems (suits) to the Moldovan Army Engineers. Protective suits are the SRS-5 model manufactured by Med-Eng Systems of Canada. C$120,000 (US$80,760)
Nicaragua: Funding provided to strengthen the OAS Assistance Programme for Demining specifically in the northern border region with Honduras in the area known as Operational Front #4. Canada and Norway are funding this two-year program covering operational expenses in the field, protective clothing, food, vehicle maintenance insurance and minimal administrative costs. C$1,000,000 (US$673,000); provision of minefield marking signs to OAS. C$4,984 (US$3,354)
Peru: Contribution to the OAS/UPD Trust Fund for Demining Program in Peru and Ecuador. The objective is to allow the OAS to coordinate and execute operations within the program. C$200,000 (US$134,600); provision of personal protective demining equipment to Government of Peru. C$92,500 (US$62,252)
Canada: Funding provided to the CIDC for the development of a center of excellence in explosives detection dogs.
Mine Awareness
Angola: Working though four local NGOs, UNICEF delivers mines awareness messages at the community level using theater, puppet shows, posters, wooden mine dummies, traditional songs and dances. The target groups of this project are primary and secondary school aged children of displaced communities who are congregating in the provincial capitals of Huambo, Kuito, Huila and Bengo. C$250,000 (US$168,250); evaluation by CIET Canada of mine awareness programming in Angola. C$60,000 (US$40,380)
Colombia: Support to UNICEF and the Colombian Ministry of Education for mine awareness activities. C$100,000 (US$67,300)
Victim Assistance
Afghanistan: Funding for the UNDP's Comprehensive Disabled Afghan Program (CDAP) directed at the orthopedic component. Covers salaries, raw materials for orthopedic devices, training sessions, and seminars on the standardisation of orthopedic technology and physiotherapy training. C$300,000 (US$201,900); funding to provide comprehensive rehabilitation services, particularly orthopedics and physiotherapy, to landmine victims through existing NGO, Guardians, in Kandahar. Also supports skills analysis and delivers appropriate training for staff of the clinic in Kandahar by the Royal Ottawa Rehabilitation Centre. C$163,000 (US$112,391)
Africa (not country specific): Support to the WHO for pilot testing of mine victim survey tools in various African states. C$250,000 (US$168,250)
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Contribution to Slovenia Trust Fund for victim assistance. C$70,000 (US$47,110)
Cambodia The goal of this World Vision Canada project is that the disabled population in Battambang, Pursat, Banteay Meanchey, and Pailin provinces become reintegrated into society with either employment skills or an established business that will enable them to be self-sufficient. C$250,000 (US$168,250)
Central America: Community Based Rehabilitation for Landmine Victims in Central America; A tripartite Canada-Mexico-PAHO Initiative. The overall goal of the program is to assist landmine victims in Nicaragua, El Salvador, in a context of post-conflict reconstruction and to integrate victims in the development effort of these countries. This initiative has been developed in co-operation with Mexico and the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) and in consultation with the Central American Republics. The program consists of: (1) rural rehabilitation services through long-term sustainable community-based rehabilitation programs, (2) prosthetic/orthotic development on a regional basis and (3) a landmine victim socio-economic reintegration program. C$750,000 (US$504,750)
El Salvador: The Healing Ourselves Healing The Land Project aims at training landmine victims in the development of environmentally appropriate technologies. A small enterprise loan and local alternative economic trading initiative will help support community economic development. The Sierra Club of British Colombia (The GAIA Project) collaborates with a local NGO in implementing the project. C$125,000 (US$84,125)
Guatemala: In collaboration with the Government of Israel, the International Centre for Community Based Rehabilitation at Queens University, Kingston, Canada implements this victim assistance project. Its goal is to facilitate the full social and economic reintegration of persons with disabilities in a post-conflict region though the implementation of community based rehabilitation. C$200,000 (US$134,600)
Nicaragua: The Falls Brook Centre in collaboration with local partners operates the "Creating New Energy-Building the Future," a project offering mine awareness education to communities in the East and West Rio Coco region. The main focus of the project is to train landmine victims in solar electrification so that they can be employed as distributors, installers and system maintenance experts for the community solar systems in the villages. The project also assists landmine victims with fitted prostheses. C$ 100,000 (US$67,300)
Sierra Leone: Support for a victim assistance rehabilitation program implemented by the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation. C$29,400 (US$19,786)
Uganda: This Canadian Network for International Surgery project aims at developing an information database for program planning and resource allocation, to improve health worker skills in emergency care hospitals and to enhance public education on all aspects of landmine victims problems. C$75,000 (US$50,475)
Yemen: The main objective of this ADRA Canada project is to provide community based rehabilitation services to the severely disabled persons and to provide vocational assistance in establishing a means of income for landmine victims and/or their families. C$150,000 (US$100,950)
Integrated Mine Action
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Institutional support to the Mine Action Centres. This program is implemented by the UNDP and it supports core functions of the BHMAC and Entity MACs, and the secondment of DND experts to serve within these MACs. C$930,000 (US$625,890)
Cambodia: Funding to Geomatics Canada for a Level 1 Survey. C$146,000 (US$90,858)
Chad: Core funding to support Chad Mine Action Centre. C$150,000 (US$100,950)
Lao People's Democratic Republic: Contribution to the UNDP Trust Fund to support UXO Lao in developing a national capacity to manage a mine action program. C$ 150,000 (US$100,950)
Mozambique: The Canadian Auto Workers (CAW), in partnership with CUSO, Handicap International and COCAMO (Co-operation Canada-Mozambique), project supports mine awareness, victim assistance, proximity demining and post-clearance community development activities, in close collaboration with provincial authorities, development agencies and local NGOs. CIDA's financial assistance ($330,000) is matched by the CAW. C$333,000 (US$224,109); a program consisting of three components that will significantly support and strengthen mine action in Mozambique: organizing and conducting a national level one survey implemented by Canadian International Demining Centre (CIDC); geospatial information gathering for the production of maps at a scale of 1:50,000 that will facilitate mine action by various demining organizations throughout Mozambique; and the provision of Canadian technical mine action specialists to the UN-supported Accelerated Demining Program to support training of survey personnel and database management. C$1,716,000 (US$1,154,868); emergency mine action assistance in support of UNMAS program to respond to Mozambique flooding. Funding for mine awareness activities to prevent an increase in the number of landmine accidents when the population return home. C$500,000 (US$336,500).
International: Core funding to UNMAS for Emergency Contingency Funding for Urgent Humanitarian Situations. Humanitarian emergency mine action situations due to natural disasters or to political crises, are impossible to plan for. Each situation is different and creates or worsens a mine contamination problem, which further exacerbates the humanitarian crisis on the ground. C$250,000 (US$168,250); core funding for UNMAS (unearmarked). C$500,000 (US$336,500); funding to the ICRC special appeal for Mine Action (1999-2003) to cover the cost of preventive action (mine awareness) and victim assistance (surgical, medical and hospital assistance and well and physical rehabilitation) in communities most affected by landmines. C$300,000 (US201,900); seed money for the Canadian Landmine Foundation (for details see below). C$550,000 (US$370,150)
Advocacy and Prevention
Cambodia, Vietnam: Support to Landmine Survivors Network for an awareness raising trip by Queen Noor to both countries. C$10,000 (US$6,730)
Croatia: Funding to Strata Research to support June 1999 Zagreb Regional Landmines Conference. C$10,000 (US$6,730)
Georgia: Support to IPPNW for a landmines conference in Tblisi, Georgia. C$20,000 (US$13,460)
India: Support to the All India Women's Conference for six workshops on mine issues held from August 1999 to March 2000. C$30,000 (US$20,190)
International: Core funding to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. C$200,000 (US$134,600); support for the Landmine Monitor initiative of the ICBL. C$200,000 (US$134,600); support for Mines Action Canada advocacy work in support of the antipersonnel landmines ban in Canada and abroad. C$306,000 (US$205,938); support to York University Centre for International and Security Studies to implement the Mine Action Research Program to promote research on the univerzalization and implementation of the AP mine ban. C$47,215 (US$31,776)
Nigeria: Support for a workshop on mine action held in Nigeria. Implemented by African Topics Magazine and the Centre for Conflict Resolution and Peace Advocacy. C$10,000 (US$6,730)
Russia: Support to the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) for landmine ban campaign activities in Russia and the former Soviet republics. C$100,000 (US$67,300)
Domestic: Funding to Cineflix for a documentary film on the landmine crisis. C$30,000 (US$20,190); contribution to the Survive the Peace campaign of the Canadian Red Cross. C$9,070 (US$6,104); funding for "Ban Landmines '99" a major public event to raise awareness of landmines issues and to mark the anniversary of the signing of the Ottawa Convention. Implemented by the Canadian Red Cross. C$99,725 (US$67,114); seed money for the Canadian Landmine Foundation. C$450,000 (US$302,850); contribution to Mines Action Canada to support the Youth Mine Action Ambassador program to increase public awareness in Canada. C$276,725 (US$186,237)
Research and Development
Canada: Funding for research and development activities of the Canadian Centre for Mine Action Technologies (CCMAT). C$2,529,000 (US$1,702,152)
Information
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Fact finding mission by Rebuild International to explore the possible conversion of mine production facilities. C$59,640 (US$40,138)
Thailand: Funding for consultants to do an assessment of Thailand's Mine Action Centre. C$19,470 (US$13,103)
UNMAS: Funding to UNMAS for studies pertaining to the socio-economic impact of landmines in Kosovo, Laos and Mozambique. C$100,000 (US$67,300); funding for training and provision of more and better information on the landmines problem for UN and NGO personnel involved in humanitarian work. C$60,000 (US$40,380)
Coordination
Azerbaijan: Support for the development of national mine action capacity. Implemented by UNDP. C$100,000 (US$67,300)
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Secondment of a Canadian expert as the UNDP Task Manager to assist in coordination of mine action efforts. One year secondment. C$75,000 (US$50,475); contribution to the Slovenian International Trust Fund for provision of funds for mine action institutional support. C$200,000 (US$134,600)
Croatia: Contribution to the Slovenian International Trust Fund for provision of funds for mine action institutional support. C$200,000 (US$134,600)
FSMP: Support to representatives of various states to participate in the First Meeting of States Parties. C$ 36,740 (US$24,727)
Mozambique: Support to the Mozambican government in its role as host of the First Meeting of States Parties in Maputo, May 1999. C$20,000 (US$13,460)
United Nations: In-kind contribution to the development and maintenance of a database on mine action investments made by donors, UN Mine Action Investment database. C$20,000 (US$13,460)
Other Canadian Government Funded Mine Action Programs
The majority of Canada's mine action funding has come from the C$100 million, five year Canadian Landmine Fund announced by the Prime Minister on 3 December 1997. The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) has in the past also funded mine clearance programs from its humanitarian assistance or other program budgets. This has continued again this year.
Afghanistan: Funding for mine clearance and mapping activities through UNOCHA. C$1,000,000 (US$673,000)
Bosnia and Herzegovina: A joint health and victim assistance project implemented by Queen's University. The Community Based War Victims Rehabilitation Project is a four-year, C$2.5 million (US$1,682,500) initiative. Funding this year was C$243,246 (US$163,705).
In addition this year there were two major developments in terms of new funding for mine action programs. The first of these was the launch of the Canadian Landmine Foundation, a new private sector initiative to raise funds for mine action (for more detail see Other Funding Sources section below). The second major development has been the Government of Canada's funding of major programs in Kosovo following the Balkans conflict in 1999. The mine action elements of the Kosovo response are in addition to what is funded by the Canadian Landmine Fund.
Kosovo: Following the cessation of conflict in the Balkans the government of Canada began announcing humanitarian measures in support of rehabilitation of Kosovo specifically and the Balkans in general. This included a number of mine action activities funded through humanitarian program funding envelopes and, therefore, separately from projects and programs supported by the Canadian Landmine Fund.
Mine Clearance Programs: In-kind contribution of three Canadian Forces personnel to support database and mapping work of UNMAAC for a period of six months. C$76,000 (US$51,148); landmine and UXO removal operations in Kosovo implemented by CIDC and Wolf Flats Ordnance Disposal Corporation. One four-person mine/UXO clearance team was deployed over a four-month period. C$528,000 (US$355,344) ; training and deploying mine action teams to focus on clearance of emergency shelter areas. Five mine/UXO clearance teams totalling twenty persons were deployed over a four-month period. Implemented by International Demining Alliance Canada Inc. (IDAC) C$2,565,000 (US$1,726,245); institutional support to the MACC provided three Department of National Defence staff members seconded over a four month period to enter data for the database and mapping services. C$150,000 (US$100,950); institutional support to MACC supported core functions of the MACC. Implemented by UNMAS. C$500,000 (US$336,500); demining in Kosovo, Phase II will entail the provision of a self-sufficient integrated mine/UXO clearance capability which will comprise the Canadian/CIDA contribution to the UNMIK-MACC Year 2000 Mine Action Program for Kosovo (project duration: 5 months). It consists of a project management team, a manual mine clearance team, a mine detection dog team, an explosive ordnance disposal team (EOD) and a mechanical system (mini-flail) clearance team. C$2,800,000 (US$1,884,400). The phase is implemented by a consortium of Canadian companies led by IDAC.
Mine Awareness Program: Support to UNICEF's Balkans Regional/Mine Awareness Program to respond to the needs of women and children including the implementation of mine awareness programs in Kosovo. C$200,000 (US$134,600)
Victim Assistance Program: Implemented by Queen's University this project focuses on human capacity building, institutional support, and training at the community center/health clinics level. C$500,000 (US$335,500); emergency shelter and related demining project implemented by CARE and Minetech over a four month period. The demining portion represents C$300,000 (US$201,900)
Coordination: Canada and Belgium co-funded an UNMAS assessment mission to identify priority areas for humanitarian mine action. C$75,000 (US$50,475); six month secondment of a lieutenant colonel to serve as a liaison between KFOR and the UNMAAC. $65,000 (US$43,745)
On 14 June 2000, a lead story on the front-page of a major Canadian daily newspaper alluded to problems in CIDA's contracting procedures, which resulted in a long delay in a C$2.5 million contract tender.124 In a follow-up article the next day, the Minister responsible for CIDA, Maria Minna, stated that the approval process slowed down when Canada considered new UN requirements for demining companies. "It took a little longer than normal," she said. "We wanted to make sure that it was done right...It's a very complex process, and the technical and safety standards are very high." The UN sent a letter of appreciation to the Editor of the Globe and Mail newspaper stating that Canada's mine action efforts [last year in Kosovo], as well as those of other donors, were [deployed] in the most effective and efficient manner possible, in difficult circumstances."125
In-Kind Support
Given the leadership role taken by Canada on the landmines issue it is difficult to report or to calculate the amount of in-kind contributions made. Canadian Forces personnel often contribute to mine action in countries where they are stationed as part of Canada's peacekeeping duties. Such activity may not be noted in any summary of Canadian activities. The Department of Foreign Affairs has provided support to numerous countries needing assistance either in deciding to sign or accede to the treaty, but particularly in assisting countries with depositing their ratification documents. Similar assistance is also provided for Article 7 Transparency reports. Not all of these activities may be reported in either the Mine Action Investment Database or the annual reports to Parliament.
In-kind contributions reported in the UN Mine Action Investment database for FY99-2000 are reported above. For 2000-2001 US$1,800 has been budgeted for an in-kind donation for support of a conference in Belarus on demining and stockpile destruction.
Other Funding Sources
Canadian Landmine Foundation
Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy announced the creation of the Canadian Landmine Foundation public in a public address to the Empire Club in Toronto on 28 June 1999. The Foundation received C$1 million (US$680,000) to assist with its start up and first year's operating costs. In his speech Minister Axworthy stated that the Canadian Landmine Foundation was launched so that "individuals and corporations can contribute to help eradicate landmines and ease the human suffering they cause. It will encourage Canadians to maintain the lead and set the example for demining efforts across the globe."126 Of the initial seed money from the government $450,000 (US$302,850) was for start up and initial fundraising events and $550,000 (US$370,150) was for project funding.
Canadian foundations and charities are required to register with the federal taxation department. The Foundation received its charitable status 29 April 1999. It was formed to raise funds to eradicate landmines around the world and to end the human and economic suffering they cause. According to its interim Executive Director, Scott Fairweather, the foundation is believed to be the first private sector foundation in the world totally dedicated to this purpose. It was felt there was a need for such an organization because, "there was a concern that governments' commitment and evolvement to this issue might not last the length of time needed for the issue. That the government itself did not have the resources necessarily to deal with the issue so the Canadian Landmine Foundation formed to generate interest and funding from the private sector and other communities in Canada."127
One area of focus for the Foundation will be supporting mine action in the Americas. Fairweather believes the Foundation has an obligation to help "clean up our own backyard" until the Americas are mine free.128 To date this has resulted in a contribution of C$100,000 (US$68,000) to the Organization of American States (OAS) demining efforts in Nicaragua. This phase of the OAS program is due to be finished at the end of June 2000. Future funding for the OAS demining program in Nicaragua is possible but is dependent upon a detailed final report. In June 2000 the Foundation announced a one-time contribution of C$13,633 (US$9270) to support OAS work and activities in the rehabilitation of landmine victims in Central America. The funds will be added to funds raised at a charity event hosted in May by the OAS "Women of the Americas," a non-profit organization chaired by the wife of the OAS Secretary General, Ana Milena de Gaviria.129
On 6 June 2000 the Canadian Landmine Foundation launched two major initiatives. One was an "e-philanthropy" approach to raising money, called Clear Landmines.130 The Foundation liked the innovative approach of raising funds through advertising on the Internet while at the same time not costing potential donors' any money. It is a new approach, which has been successful in raising awareness and funds for issues such as hunger, peace, the rainforest and cancer.
Also launched on 6 June 2000 was Adopt-A-Minefield Canada (tm). The Foundation entered into an agreement with the United Nations Association of the USA, Inc. to raise Canadian funds for countries where the Adopt-A-Minefield program exists. Currently those are Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Cambodia, Mozambique and Afghanistan.
The Foundation has signed an agreement with Mines Advisory Group (MAG) to work together on mine action in the Middle East, with details to be worked out in the months to come. The Canadian Landmine Foundation has set aside C$100,000 (US$68,000) for work in the region. The Foundation and MAG are negotiating terms of reference for potential project partners. Canada's missions in Tel Aviv and Ramallah are providing assistance in these negotiations.
Canadian Landmine Action Fund
In 1998 Mines Action Canada and the Mine Action Team at DFAIT created the Canadian Landmine Action Fund as another mechanism through which Canadians can financially contribute. Funds raised through the Youth Mine Action Ambassador Program are generally donated to this fund. On 3 December 1999 the first check from this fund was presented to the Canadian International Demining Centre (CIDC) to support the training and maintenance of the mine detection dog program. C$30,000 (US$20,190)
Canadian Red Cross Society
Tajikistan: The Canadian Red Cross Society (CRCS) operates a large orthopedic project under a delegated project arrangement with the ICRC. The annual funding of $790,000 (US$537,200) comes solely from private donations to the CRCS. The orthopedic program in Tajikistan is an important institution for the country and the amputees, which it serves. A 1997 initial survey identified an estimated 3,000 amputees throughout the country. On 21 March 1999 the first prosthetic was produced. Since March 1999 there have been 366 new patients registered. There were 188 new patients fitted with prostheses.
Countermine Research and Development
Canadian Centre for Mine Action Technologies (CCMAT) operates out of the Defence Research Establishment Suffield (DRES) in Medicine Hat, Alberta. DRES provides access to sophisticated test-and-evaluation (T&E) facilities. Testing and evaluation undertaken by CCMAT is done on behalf of Industry Canada (IC) to support the development of new technologies in mine action, particularly detection and clearance. IC's primary role with respect to mine action is to market viable technologies developed under the auspices of CCMAT.
With regard to Canadian R&D in clearance technologies and other equipment for mine action, perhaps the most significant contribution is the development of "surrogate" mines for use in the test and evaluation of equipment. Universal acceptance of these devices could reduce the need for the use and stockpiling (as allowed under Article 3 of the MBT) of live mines. The surrogate mines are formally referred to as "reproduction mines" and have been developed for four common mines -- PMA-1, PMA-2, PMA-3 and Type 72. "The reproduction mines duplicate these types in shape, size, weight, fuse principle and trigger force characteristics without the explosive content," says Dr. Bob Suart, Director of the CCMAT. "The need for these reproduction mines was determined by CCMAT, as were the requirement and the concept; the engineering was designed by an outside company. The reproduction mines were devised by CCMAT to get away from testing equipment with live mines."131 The surrogate mines were first used in June 2000. The Frangible Synthetic Leg is also in use by CCMAT to develop and test protective gear.
Through its association with the Defence Research Establishment Suffield (DRES), the CCMAT is able to provide basic research to Canadian companies who in turn apply it to the design of equipment for use in mine action. Prototypes are then sent to CCMAT for testing. CCMAT facilities are used for trials of Canadian technologies and may, through the International Testing and Evaluation Program (ITEP) in Europe, be used to test equipment developed elsewhere. ITEP's role is to develop universal methodologies and standards for T&E and for mine action technologies.
A problem often stated in reference to the research and development of clearance technologies is that final products tend to be developed in a vacuum, without basic research information or consulting those working in the field. As a result, the adaptation of new technologies to environmental and other conditions unique to each mine-affected area rarely takes places. Consequently, funds and expertise are channeled into technologies that will not be of use in the field.
To address this problem, in May 1999 CCMAT proposed the Demining Technologies Information Forum (DTIF). "There's a lot of effort expended in both R&D and test and evaluation of technologies. The idea behind the Forum is to put forward ideas that might come to fruition," said Suart. "Other forums, such as ITEP are useful in testing and evaluating equipment that is at the end of the development process. DTIF and ITEP can coordinate activities in [development of clearance technologies] and provide a place where scientists in both areas can compare notes."132 DTIF will publish findings from research on its web site and provide access to conference documents, research findings and technology required for various aspects of mine action. DTIF was founded by Canada and the European Union and ITEP was founded by the U.S. and the European Commission.
A pilot project for ITEP in which CCMAT played a key role was the performance test and evaluation of metal detectors. The British, Dutch and the U.S. were also active in the tests. The U.S. procured three copies of each known metal detector for use in the trials. At the CCMAT testing grounds all detectors were run through a series of highly controlled tests to gauge levels of accuracy based on speed and distance from the targets. Detectors were rated on their operability and ease of maintenance and field tested in Cambodia and Croatia. The results of the tests will be published jointly in October 2000 or late fall. Detector trials, under the auspices of the Mine Action Planning Afghanistan (MAPA), also took place in Afghanistan with the assistance of CCMAT staff. MAPA has not yet published the results of these tests.
An explosive for destroying mines in situ (FIXOR) and a mechanical neutralization device (PRO MAC) are two Canadian developed technologies that show promise for use in mine action. Both have been tested by CCMAT.
Landmine Casualties and Survivor Assistance
Canada is not a mine-affected country. However some former or active Canadian Force Bases have been used as practice or training ranges. In both Article 7 reports Canada lists the areas where defused mines have been placed for testing clearance technologies at the Canadian Forces Base Suffield, in Alberta. The locations of mined areas are given in UTM Grid References.133
The majority of Canadians injured or killed by landmines have been members of the Canadian Forces active in overseas military operations, peacekeeping duties or mine clearance.134 Benefits guaranteed by law to persons with disabilities include health and medical care, training, rehabilitation and counseling, employment and participation in decisions affecting themselves.135
Key developments since March 1999: The Mine Ban Treaty entered into force for Costa Rica on 1 September 1999. Costa Rica has not submitted its Article 7 report, which was due 27 February 2000. The suspended mine clearance program has resumed; it is now expected to be completed in 2002, rather than 2000.
Mine Ban Policy
Costa Rica signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 3 December 1997 and ratified it on 17 March 1999. The treaty entered into force for Costa Rica on 1 September 1999. Costa Rica has not enacted legislation to implement the treaty. Costa Rica has not yet submitted its Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 transparency report, which was due on 27 February 2000.
Costa Rica did not attend the First Meeting of State Parties in Maputo in May 1999. Costa Rica participated in four of the intersessional meetings of the treaty in Geneva-one each for mine clearance, technologies for mine action, victim assistance, and stockpile destruction.
Costa Rica supported the pro-ban OAS resolutions in June 1999, and voted for UN General Assembly Resolution 54/54B supporting the Mine Ban Treaty in December 1999. During debate in the UNGA First Committee, diplomat Bern Niehaus said that Costa Rica "endorsed the Ottawa Convention and appealed to all States to ratify it as soon as possible. The international community must continue to support mine-clearance activities."136
Costa Rica was one of nine countries that signed the "Declaration of San José" in the Costa Rican capital on 5 April 2000. Article 27 of the Declaration states, "We continue to promote adherence, ratification and compliance by all countries of the international community to the...Ottawa Convention."137
Costa Rica is a party to Amended Protocol II (Landmines) of the Convention on Conventional Weapons, but did not attend the First Annual Conference of States Parties in December 1999 in Geneva. Costa Rica is not a member of the Conference on Disarmament.
Production, Transfer, Stockpiling, Use
It is believed that Costa Rica has never produced, imported, stockpiled, or used antipersonnel mines, though the government has not made a definitive public statement. Costa Rica did not declare any AP mine stockpile to the OAS in April 1999 as part of the OAS Register of AP mines. Costa Rica does not have a standing military, but the Ministry of Security performs the functions of ground security, law enforcement, counter-narcotics and national security.138
Landmine Problem
Landmines were placed along Costa Rica's northern border by forces involved in the Nicaraguan conflict.139 The Ministry of Security's Mine Clearance Program estimates that there are 3,491 mines along the country's northern border with Nicaragua.140 Mine-affected territories are found in the sectors of Los Chiles, Pocosol, Upala and La Cruz, in minefields that are dispersed between border markers No. 2 and 20.141 Mine-affected territories are for the most part agricultural lands used by small-scale farmers. Only a few mines have been found near villages, as happened in Upala.
According to the Chief of the Mine Clearance Program, the following mines have been found in Costa Rica: PP-Mi-Sr II, manufactured in the former Czechoslovakia, found in Los Chiles; M-14, manufactured in the U.S., found in Upala; PMD-6, manufactured in the former Soviet Union, found in the La Trocha sector.142
Mine Action Coordination and Funding
The OAS PADCA (Program for Assistance in Demining in Central America), the OAS Inter-American Defense Board (IABD) MARMICA program, and the Costa Rican Ministry of Security are responsible for demining operations in Costa Rica.
The Inter-American Defense Board coordinates the OAS Assistance Program for Demining in Central America (PADCA). This involves mine and UXO clearance programs in Costa Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Guatemala, with fifteen demining platoons, each comprised of approximately 25 deminers. Since July 1999, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Venezuela have contributed personnel.143 In 1999 the annual budget for the OAS regional program was $6 million and in 2000 it was $7.6 million, financed by Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, U.S., and the U.K.144
Mine Clearance
As reported in Landmine Monitor 1999, mine clearance operations in Costa Rica were suspended in March 1998, pending acquisition of a medical evacuation helicopter. The OAS reports that in 1999 contributions from the United States, Costa Rica, and others covered the cost of rental of a medical evacuation helicopter, allowing demining to resume.145
Demining is carried out with the assistance of two international supervisors, forty-one deminers, and four mine-detecting dogs.146 Costa Rican personnel are assigned to the Unit of Sappers of the Costa Rican Security Forces, based in Los Chiles.
The Ministry of Security Mine Clearance Program now states mine clearance, once targeted for completion in 2000, should be completed by June 2002. Plans call for clearance in three sectors beginning in January 2000. The first sector, Los Chiles-Pocosol in Alajuela Province between border markers 2 and 12, contains approximately 1,198 landmines and demining is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2000. The second sector, Upala in Alajuela Province between border markers 13 and 14, containing approximately 318 landmines, is scheduled to be completed by June 2001. The final sector, La Cruz-Guanacaste in Guanacaste Province between border markers 14 and 20, contains approximately 1,975 landmines, and is scheduled to be completed by June 2002.147
According to the Chief of the Mine Clearance Program, 350 mines had been destroyed as of April 2000, at an approximate cost of $1,000 per mine.148
Mine Awareness
According to the OAS, a mine risk awareness education campaign has continued in the areas of Crucitas, Jocote, Las Tiricias, San Isidro, Pocosol, Medio Queso, and La Guaría, in Alajuela Province. This program includes educational talks at schools, and distribution of educational material.149
Landmine Casualties and Victim Assistance
Information concerning landmine victims in Costa Rica is anecdotal. No casualties have been reported recently by the OAS. Costa Rica does not have a program to assist landmine victims, and neither does it have a specialized clinic to treat them. The OAS reports that a medical camp was set up in the Los Chiles area, with the assistance of the Costa Rican Social Security Office, utilizing the specialized personnel assigned to the program for evacuation and medical safety operations. At this camp, care was provided not only to sapper soldiers, but also to the population living close to mined areas.150
Dominica signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 3 December 1997 and ratified on 26 March 1999. The treaty entered into force for Dominica on 1 September 1999. It is not believed to have enacted domestic implementing legislation. Dominica has not yet submitted its Article 7 transparency report, due 27 February 2000, but according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the report has been prepared and will be sent to the UN pending final approval by the Permanent Secretary.151 Dominica was not present at the First Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty in Maputo in May 1999 and has not participated in the intersessional meetings of the ban treaty. It voted in favor of the December 1999 UN General Assembly resolution supporting the Mine Ban Treaty. Dominica is not believed to have ever produced, stockpiled, transferred or used AP mines. It is not mine-affected.
The Dominican Republic signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 3 December 1997 and ratified on 30 June 2000. It is not believed to have enacted domestic implementing legislation. The Dominican Republic was not present at the First Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty in Maputo in May 1999 and has not participated in the intersessional meetings of the ban treaty. It voted in favor of the December 1999 UN General Assembly resolution supporting the Mine Ban Treaty. The Dominican Republic is not believed to have ever produced, transferred, stockpiled or used AP mines. It is not mine-affected.
Key developments since March 1999: Ecuador ratified the Mine Ban Treaty on 29 April 1999, and it entered into force for Ecuador on 1 October 1999. Ecuador destroyed 101,458 antipersonnel mines from stockpiles. Ecuador and Per_ have made significant progress in mine clearance along the border. In April 1999, the "Program for Demining Assistance in Ecuador/Perú" was established by the OAS. In August 1999, UNMAS and the OAS undertook independent assessment missions to Ecuador. In September 1999, Ecuador established a National Demining Center.
Mine Ban Policy
Ecuador signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 4 December 1997. On 30 March 1999, the National Congress approved ratification of the treaty. After a presidential decree authorizing ratification, Ecuador deposited its instrument of ratification on 29 April 1999. According to the Ministry of Foreign Relations ratification of the Ottawa Treaty constitutes an important aspect of Ecuador's foreign policy.152 The treaty entered into force for Ecuador on 1 October 1999. Ratification of international treaties automatically makes them law in Ecuador, but no specific implementation legislation has been enacted.
Ecuador's Vice-minister of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Francisco Carrión, led the country's delegation to the First Meeting of the State Parties in Maputo in May 1999. Ecuador has participated in the intersessional meetings of the treaty in Geneva.
Ecuador voted in favor of the December 1999 UN General Assembly resolution in support of the Mine Ban Treaty, as it had or similar UNGA resolutions in 1997 and 1998. Ambassador Mario Aleman, Ecuador's Permanent Representative to the UN, said to the General Assembly, "My country participated with tremendous interest in the Ottawa process and has begun implementing the Convention through the creation of the Ecuadorian Demining Centre, a little more than a month ago."153
Ecuador submitted its Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 transparency report in Spanish on 29 March 2000. The report covers the period from April 1999 to March 2000.
Ecuador is a State Party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons but has not ratified Amended Protocol II on landmines. Ecuador participated as an observer in the First Annual Conference of State Parties to Amended Protocol II in December 1999 in Geneva.
In August 1999 Ecuador was made a member of the Conference on Disarmament.
Production and Transfer
A military official confirmed to Landmine Monitor that Ecuador has not produced or exported AP mines.154 From information contained in Ecuador's Article 7 report, it appears Ecuador imported antipersonnel mines in the past from Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Singapore, the former Soviet Union, Spain, and the United States.155
Stockpiling and Destruction
In its Article 7 report, Ecuador reported a stockpile of 271,802 AP mines:
· 128,931 T-AB-1 blast AP mines from Brazil;
· 93,278 MAPP 78 F-2 blast AP mines from Chile;
· 4,655 MAPP 78 F-2 blast AP mines from Chile (instruc.);
· 70 P-4-B blast AP mines from Spain;
· 58 PMD-6M blast AP mines from the former Soviet Union;
· 200 PRB-M 35 blast AP mines from Belgium;
· 10,061 PRB-M 409 blast AP mines from Belgium;
· 25,151 VS-50 blast AP mines from Singapore;
· 3,525 MAPT 78 F-2 fragmentation AP mines from Chile;
· 17 M18A1 Claymore mines from the USA;
· 5,856 MON-50 fragmentation AP mines imported from the former Soviet Union.156
Ecuador reports destroying 101,458 antipersonnel mines between April 1999 and March 2000, including 93,278 MAPP 78 F-2 mines; 4,655 MAPP 78 F-2 training mines; and 3,525 MAPT 78 F-2 mines.157 The mines were transferred to the "Brigada de Apoyo Logístico No.25 Reino de Quito" for destruction by detonation at the Army's "El Corazón" Practice Institution in Machachi, Pichincha province.158 Military officials told the UN Mine Action Service (UNMAS) in August 1999 that they planned to destroy from stockpiles in the year 2000 a total of 110,000 antipersonnel mines, 9,000 antitank mines and 4,000 assorted munitions.159
In its Article 7 report, Ecuador reported that it would retain 170,344 AP mines for training. This includes: 128,931 T-AB-1 mines; 25,151 VS-50 mines; 58 PMD-6M mines; 200 PRB M-35 mines; 70 P-4-B mines; 10,061 PRB M-409 mines and 5,856 MON-50 mines, and 17 M18A1 Claymore mines.160
On 22 May 2000, at the second Standing Committee of Experts on Stockpile Destruction, the ICBL stated its concern at the number of mines Ecuador had chosen to retain, noting that it was ten times the number retained by any other country, and far outside of the treaty's requirement that the amount "shall not exceed the minimum number absolutely necessary." The ICBL voiced it concern again on 30 May 2000 in an information session on mines retained for training under Article 3 at the Standing Committee of Experts on General Status and Operation of the Convention. Ecuador's representative came to the closing session of the meeting and said he wanted to clarify a "mistake in the presentation of the [Article 7] report." He said the reported number of mines retained for training will need to be revised, and will be "in accordance with the provisions of the Convention and the exact figure will be provided prior to the Second Meeting of States Parties."161
Use
Ecuador states that it has not used antipersonnel mines since the Cenepa border conflict with Peru in 1995.162 Ecuador contends that Peru laid mines as well during the conflict, but Peru denies any use.
Landmine Problem
According to the Latin American Association for Human Rights (ALDHU), both parties laid some 130,000 to 150,000 AP mines.163 UNMAS reports that these figures do not contradict information received by the Ecuadorian military, who estimate the number of mines on the Ecuadorian side of the border in the Cordillera del Condór region to be in excess of 90,000.164
Ecuador's mine problem is along its southern border with Peru and the two southern provinces of El Oro and Loja. According to UNMAS, the most mined area is the Cordillera del Cóndor, where the 1995 conflict broke out, along 78 kilometers of the previously unmarked border.165 The majority of mines are believed to be located in the headwaters of the Cenepa and Coangos Rivers, in an area of approximately 80 square kilometers.166
In its Article 7 report, Ecuador reported five mine affected areas from the border dispute: Cordillera del Cóndor in the south-east border region; Cusumaza-Bombuiza in the east-central border region; El Oro Province in the southern border region; Loja Province in the southern border region; and, Tiwintza on the Peruvian side of the border.167 Antipersonnel mines may also have been laid in Montalvo in the east-central border region. The landmines laid are almost exclusively antipersonnel and include T-AB-1, MAPP 78 F-2, MON-50, P-4-B, PMD-6M, PRB M35, PRB M409, TS-50, VA-50 and M28A1.168
Ecuadorian military minefield records were provided to Multinational Observation Mission (MOMEP) but have not been made public. The Cordillera del Condór contains an immensely rich biological and floral ecosystem, and in relation to the rest of the country, is sparsely populated with an estimated 13,000 inhabitants on the Ecuadorian side of the border, including 7,000 Shuar and Achuar indigenous peoples and 6,000 mestizo settlers.169 It is expected that Shuar and Achuar displaced by the conflict will return now that there is peace.
According to UNMAS, there are a "limited" number of minefields in the southern provinces of El Oro and Loja, laid as barrier minefields by Ecuador in 1995. Ecuador's military claims that the minefields are well marked and fenced and "pose a limited threat" to civilian populations, but acknowledge that there has been some significant displacement of mines due to the heavy flooding resulting from El Niño. Both El Oro and Loja provinces have higher population densities than the Cordillera del Condór.170
UNMAS reports that Ecuador's forces state that they have not laid mines along the border with Colombia, but they did raise the possibility that Colombian guerrilla forces active in these areas may have laid mines there.171
Mine Action Funding
UNMAS notes none of the funds for the Ecuador-Peru Bi-National Development Plan are being set aside for mine action.
The Peruvian and Ecuadorian governments sent a joint note on 18 March 1999 from their Permanent Missions to the OAS, requesting the OAS to establish a specific fund to support demining related to the demarcation of the border.172 In April 1999, the "Program for Demining Assistance in Ecuador/Perú" (PADEP) was established by the OAS with a Canadian government contribution of CAN$300,000 (US$198,000) to be divided equally between the countries and used exclusively for the purchase of equipment and materials for activities to support humanitarian demining associated with the demarcation of the border between Ecuador and Peru.
At the 30th General Assembly of the OAS held in Windsor, Canada on 4-6 June 2000, delegates voted unanimously on a resolution calling on the OAS to continue efforts to provide assistance in combating AP mines in Ecuador and Peru.173
Several countries have contributed to the Ecuadorian mine clearance operation with both monetary and in-kind contributions including Canada, Spain, and the United States. Japan has offered financial assistance and Brazil has offered technical assistance.174 Ecuador was included in the U.S. humanitarian demining program on 22 February 1999 and will receive approximately $3.225 million in assistance between 1999 and 2000.
Surveys and Assessments
From 16-20 August 1999 the Organization of American States conducted a multi-disciplinary mission with the U.S. Department of State in Ecuador and Peru to evaluate the antipersonnel landmine situation in the border region of the two countries.175
From 23-27 August 1999, the UN Mine Action Service organized and led a multi-disciplinary and inter-agency mission to Ecuador.176
Mine Clearance
The Centro de Desminado del Ecuador, CEDESMI (Ecuadorian Mine Clearance Center) was officially established by Executive Decree 1297 on 22 September 1999. Mine clearance in Ecuador is the responsibility of the Army Engineers, specifically the 23rd Cenepa Engineer Brigade, which has a 95-man company consisting of six 15-man demining teams.177 The Engineers hope to increase their demining capacity by at least another 95-man company in 2000, subject to receiving international support.
The Engineers are described by UNMAS as "professional, well trained and generally well equipped" with a "good, trust based relationship with the local population."178 The UNMAS Assessment Mission report gives a detailed description of the challenges faced in mine clearance as well as techniques, equipment and other aspects.179
In cooperation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Army has developed a plan for clearance of all mines from Ecuador by the year 2008. The first priority for mine clearance was the demining of the sites for the border markers, in collaboration with Perú's Armed Forces. Ecuador cleared 12 of 23 sites in the Cordillera del Condór, a task completed in 1999.
Now there are five phases planned for mine clearance: the Twinza memorial area in Peru; the Ecuadorian side of the cross-border ecological Peace Park; the minefields in El Oro; the minefields in Loja; and the remainder of the Cordillera del Condór.180
Mine Awareness
Some limited mine awareness education has been undertaken by the military's psychological operations branch which recently produced and distributed posters and pamphlets with mine awareness messages, using Army funds and some assistance from the U.S. military. In Loja and El Oro provinces, some mine awareness education has taken place by the military with the help of local schools. Young Ashuar and Shuar men used by the military as scouts during the conflict are conceivably the most knowledgeable of all concerning the location of mined areas and they are thought to pass this information on to their communities, alerting them about mine areas and how to avoid accidents.181 According to the Director of ALDHU, Ashuar and Shuar indigenous peoples are at risk because of the levels of illiteracy and lack of knowledge of the problem.182
UNMAS has recommended that the military strengthen coordination and seek assistance from other crucial actors in mine awareness education including the Ministries of Health and Education, the church, NGOs, local authorities, and affected communities.183
Landmine Casualties
There is no systematic data gathering mechanism for landmine incidents in Ecuador and exact figures are unavailable. The Ministry of Health of Ecuador does not have an official registry of landmine casualties and the National Statistics Institute (INEC) also does not have information on landmine victims in the country.
The military told UNMAS that since the end of the conflict in 1995 there have been approximately 34 landmine-related accidents involving soldiers, including seven deaths.184 Military authorities in Patuca reported five civilians injured by landmines in 1995, and the Achuar representative in Macas reported four landmine victims in 1997, including one death.185 ALDHU reported eleven Shuar deaths and seven military deaths due to landmines between April 1995 and April 1999.186 ALDHU's director, Juan de Dios Parra, told Landmine Monitor that nine children and four women from indigenous communities of the border areas between Ecuador and Perú injured were injured by mines in the same period.187
UNMAS was told of a 1999 accident involving a civilian in an area near Mirado that had reportedly been declared "demined."188 The Director of ALDHU told Landmine Monitor that the incident raises doubts over the success of the demining process and points towards a need for quality assurance and verification.189
There are not believed to have been any new mine victims so far in 2000.
Victim Assistance and Disability Policies
The military in Ecuador has a well-structured and responsive health care system that provides integrated care to military landmine victims through the Instituto de Seguridad Social de las Fuerzas Armadas, ISSFA (Social Security Institute of the Armed Forces). According to UNMAS, the military hospital in Quito offers an integrated approach to rehabilitation that includes physical, psychological, professional and vocational programs and a rehabilitation center for outpatient treatment.190 Military personnel receive full coverage from these services.
Civilians injured by landmines do not receive the same level of attention and are not provided with adequate services. According to UNMAS, this reflects the gaps and weaknesses of the current health system, which is particularly acute in the remote and relatively inaccessible border regions that are mine-affected.191 Individuals who live in remote areas must rely on small medical outposts with only a basic infrastructure or travel long distances to Quito to get appropriate medical attention, a situation described by one local disability organization as "absolutely inadequate."192
Key developments since March 1999: The Mine Ban Treaty entered into force for El Salvador on 1 July 1999. El Salvador has not submitted its Article 7 report, which was due by 27 December 1999.
Mine Ban Policy
El Salvador signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 4 December 1997 and ratified on 27 January 1999. Thus, the treaty entered into force for El Salvador on 1 July 1999. El Salvador has not yet passed any legislation implementing the ban treaty. It has also not yet submitted its Article 7 transparency report, due by 27 December 1999, even though Vice-Minister of External Relations Rene Eduardo Dominguez has said, "We consider it necessary that transparency exist with respect to complete communication with the United Nations as Depository of the Convention, with the intent of advancing Article 7 reporting."193
El Salvador participated in the First Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty in Maputo in May 1999. Vice-Minister Dominguez told the plenary, "Today proudly we are able to say that we are a mine-free country."194
El Salvador voted in favor of UN General Assembly Resolution 54/54B in support of the Mine Ban Treaty in December 1999, as it had on similar resolutions in 1997 and 1998. It has also supported the pro-ban resolutions of the Organization of American States (OAS). It was one of nine countries that signed the "Declaration of San José" in Costa Rica on 5 April 2000, which includes an article promoting the Mine Ban Treaty.
El Salvador is not a party to Convention on Conventional Weapons, nor is it a member of the Conference on Disarmament.
Production, Stockpiling, Transfer, Use
El Salvador has never produced or exported AP mines, but imported approximately 37,000 M18A1 Claymore and M14 AP mines from the U.S.195 The guerrillas of the Farabundo Mart_ National Liberation Front (FMLN) made significant numbers of homemade AP mines and improvised explosive devices. Both sides used mines throughout the war.
According to the government, from March 1993 though January 1994, El Salvador's Division of Arms and Explosives of the Civil National Police destroyed the remaining AP mines that were in the stocks of the Salvadoran armed forces. El Salvador reported the destruction of these mines to the Secretary General of the Organization of American States in April 1997.196 It is not known if Claymore mines were included in the destruction. A recent media report about a munitions storage site explosion listed "landmines" among the things that were hurled from the blast. Defense Minister Juan Antonio Martinez told media that the depot was stocked with weapons including "landmines," but provided no details. These could have been antitank mines or Claymore mines.197
Mine Action
El Salvador is mine free, or as one official put it, "We have given a certificate where we declare that El Salvador is a mine free zone. Of course there is always a margin of error, but we haven't had an accident."198 There may still be some danger in remote areas. Mine clearance was carried out in 1993 and 1994 by former combatants from both sides of the conflict, who were trained and supervised by a Belgian company. The UN and other international donors funded this program. See Landmine Monitor Report 1999 for more details on the past landmine problem and clearance efforts.199
El Salvador currently contributes personnel to the OAS Assistance Program for Demining in Central America (PADCA), with operations in Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala and Costa Rica.
Landmine Casualties
No accidents involving landmines have been reported since 1994, although some accidents from UXO have occurred. From January 1994 through mid-1995, 271 people including 42 children were injured by UXO.200
Victim Assistance
While the initial mine clearance plan did not include assistance to mine and UXO victims as the years went by this was added. The Army has an institution for war wounded which includes a special clinic for prostheses. At first assistance was only provided to soldiers, but it has since been opened for use by all civilians.201
El Salvador is participating in the Joint Program for the Rehabilitation of Mine Victims in Central America conducted by the Pan-American Health Organization and initially funded by Canada.
In addition, a number of private groups have established victim assistance programs in El Salvador. A program called Promoter of the Organization of Disabled Persons in El Salvador (PODES) is operated by Medico International (a German NGO), with technical support and funding from the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation (a U.S. NGO). PODES has a database of 1,235 patients, produces approximately 300 orthopedic devices each year, and services a similar number. PODES employs 24 people, 18 of whom are disabled.202 The Landmine Survivors Network made an exploratory visit to El Salvador in April 2000 and will be establishing a program there starting in September 2000.203 Other institutions that provide prosthetic assistance include Fundación Teletón, the Army's Centro de Rehabilitación de las Fuerzas Armadas, the Instituto Salvadoreño de Rehabilitación de Invalidos run by the Government, Don Bosco University, the Asociación de Lisiados de las Fuerzas Armadas de El Salvador, and other private prosthetists.204
In April 2000, the Center for International Rehabilitation published a "Rehabilitation Resource Directory for Central America," which includes information on services available in El Salvador. This information was collected and provided to the Directory by a local NGO, The Cooperative Association of the Independent Group for Total Rehabilitation.
Grenada signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 3 December 1997 and ratified on 19 August 1998. It is not believed to have enacted domestic implementation legislation. Grenada has not yet submitted its Article 7 transparency report, which was due on 27 August 1999. Grenada did not attend the First Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty in Maputo in May 1999 and has not participated in the intersessional meetings of the ban treaty. It voted in favor of the December 1999 UNGA resolution supporting the Mine Ban Treaty. Grenada has never produced, used, transferred or stockpiled AP mines. It is not believed to be mine-affected.
Key developments since March 1999: Mine clearance in Ixcán was completed and demined lands were handed over for the first time to the local communities in January 2000. Guatemala has not submitted its Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 report, which was due by 27 February 2000.
Mine Ban Policy
Guatemala signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 3 December 1997 and ratified on 26 March 1999. Guatemala had passed domestic legislation to ban landmines as early as 1996, with Decree Number 106-97 prohibiting the production, purchase, sale, importation, exportation, transit, use or possession of AP mines or explosive artifacts or their composite parts. It is believed that this law now serves as the implementing legislation for the Mine Ban Treaty.
Guatemala has not yet submitted its Article 7 transparency report, which was due by 27 February 2000. Director-General of Multilateral Relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Arturo Duarte told Landmine Monitor in March that an office move had resulted in key files being misplaced, but he said, "We have everything in order now and we are working as fast as we can to get the report as soon as possible."205 When asked at the end of April for an update, he said, "We are finalizing the report and it will be delivered very soon."206
Guatemala voted for UN General Assembly Resolution 54/54B in support of the Mine Ban Treaty in December 1999, as it had on similar resolutions in 1997 and 1998. It has also supported the pro-ban resolutions of the Organization of American States (OAS). It was one of nine countries that signed the "Declaration of San José" in Costa Rica on 5 April 2000, which includes an article promoting the Mine Ban Treaty.
Guatemala's Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, H.E. Dr. Gabriel Aguilera led the country's delegation to the First Meeting of States Parties in Maputo in May 1999. In a statement to the plenary, he described the mine clearance program in Guatemala and in Central America as "a model that Central America would like to share with the rest of the world."207
Guatemala has participated in some of the intersessional meetings of the treaty in Geneva, including the March 2000 meetings of the Standing Committee of Experts on Mine Clearance and on Victim Assistance.
Guatemala is a state party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons but has not yet ratified Amended Protocol II on landmines. Director General Duarte told Landmine Monitor that Amended Protocol II is being considered by the Legal Department, and that he personally did not think it would be ratified within a year.208
Production, Transfer, Stockpiling and Use
The government of Guatemala states that it did not use landmines during its long-running internal war, and there is no concrete evidence to the contrary. The guerrillas of the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Union (URNG) made relatively limited use of crude, homemade mines and improvised explosive devices during the war. The government states that it has not produced or imported AP mines, and has no stockpile.209 Since the conflict ended in 1996, officials state they have no reason to believe that any new mines have been planted."210
Mine Action Funding
The Inter-American Defense Board (IADB) coordinates the OAS Assistance Program for Demining in Central America (PADCA). This involves mine and unexploded ordnance (UXO) clearance programs in Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica, with fifteen demining platoons, each comprised of approximately 25 deminers. Guatemala currently contributes personnel to PADCA.211 In 1999 the annual budget for the OAS regional program was $6 million and in 2000 it was $7.6 million, financed by Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the U.S. and the U.K.212
Landmine/UXO Problem
Estimates vary as to the extent of both the landmines and UXO problem in Guatemala. General Otto Perez Molina, who represents the Guatemalan military on the IADB, says that today probably only hundreds, not thousands, of landmines still pose a threat in Guatemala.213 Indeed the UNHCR and the ICRC both estimate that before the end of the war, in the mid-1990s, there were no more than 1,500 landmines in Guatemala.214
The mines were laid in many regions including the Playa Grande region of Alta Verapaz province, along with the bordering region of Ixcán in Quiché province.215 Other mined areas include the northern Petén province along Guatemala's border with Mexico, the Tajamulco volcano in San Marcos province, and the Atitlan volcanoes in Solola province. Mines were also used near San Mateo in Huehuetenango province, as well as in mountainous regions of Quetzaltenango, Chimaltenango and Escuintla provinces.216
Unexploded ordnance remains a far greater problem than landmines. In 1997, the government estimated that there were between 5,000 and 8,000 pieces of unexploded ordnance in Guatemala, in the same areas listed above.217
Mine/UXO Clearance
On 5 June 1997, Guatemala passed Decree 46-97, which established the Executive Coordinating Unit or "Unidad Coordinadora Ejecutiva" (UCE). In November 1997, the unit prepared a "National Plan for Demining and the Destruction of Unexploded Ordnance." It is under the auspices of this plan that the IADB is now assisting Guatemala with its demining and UXO clearing efforts."
The civilian Association of Volunteer Firefighters plays a key role in mine action, with more than 100 people engaged in activities including mine awareness education, obtaining information from the community on suspected mined areas, investigating and locating mines and other explosive artifacts. They mark the mines and UXO and the Army comes and destroys them.218 Future plans for the Association of Volunteer Firefighters include development and maintenance of a database on mine-affected areas and mine clearance, with the logistic support of the PADCA-OAS.219
The IADB began training Guatemalan personnel in demining efforts in June 1998. Hurricane Mitch, which swept Central America's Atlantic Coast in November 1998, did not delay demining activities in Guatemala.220 In December 1998, mine clearance started in Ixcán, Quiché Departments. The Association of Volunteer Firefighters located 145 explosive artifacts that the Army destroyed.221 Mine clearance in Ixcán was completed and demined lands were handed over to the community in January 2000.222
In February 2000 clearance in the Ixil Triangle started, including Nebaj, Chajúl and Cotzalm, the three regions most affected by the war. By the year 2002, the plan is to complete mine clearance in all of Quiché.223
Mine Awareness
The Association of Volunteer Firefighters conducts mine awareness education through TV, radio, and press, with support of the OAS and some logistical and financial support by the government.
In the mid-1990s, UNHCR, which was facilitating the repatriation of war refugees from Mexico back to Guatemala, embarked on a landmine and UXO awareness program which trained Guatemalan civilians among the repatriating community both in mine detection and mine awareness.
Landmine Casualties
According to the Association of Volunteer Firefighters, about 15 people have been hurt by landmines and UXO since 1994; before that there are no records.224 There have been no new reported mine casualties since publication of Landmine Monitor Report 1999, but officials caution that they cannot be certain "because sometimes people go to hospitals but do not give the information to us."225
Survivor Assistance
Guatemala has yet to make any comprehensive effort to treat war wounded. There is no special program for landmine survivor assistance, except for the Army through the Centro de Atención al Desacapacitado del Ejercito de Guatemala (CADEJ).226 It appears that little or no treatment is currently available in Guatemala for prosthetics fitting, rehabilitation or workplace reincorporation. Partly because the overall need for such programs is considered to be far less in Guatemala than in other Central American nations, the Pan-American Health Organization is not undertaking such efforts in Guatemala. One official noted, "Everybody keeps talking about the mines and nobody is talking about the ones hurt by them."227
In April 2000, the Center for International Rehabilitation published a "Rehabilitation Resource Directory for Central America," which includes information on services available in Guatemala. This information was collected and provided to the directory by a local NGO, Guatemalan Rehabilitation Association (AGREL).228 The Center for International Rehabilitation is also designing and implementing short-term, upgrade training courses for Guatemalan professionals providing rehabilitation services, including training manuals.229 Thirty-five professionals have been trained, in coordination with PAHO, in Health Information Systems.230
Key developments since March 1999: The Honduran mine clearance program, which was set back in late 1998 by Hurricane Mitch, is now due to be completed by the end of 2001.
Mine Ban Policy
Honduras signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 3 December 1997 and ratified on 24 September 1998. Honduras has not yet passed domestic implementation legislation. Honduras submitted its first Article 7 report on 30 August 1999 in Spanish, covering the period from 1998 to 1999.
Honduras voted in favor of UN General Assembly Resolution 54/54B in support of the Mine Ban Treaty in December 1999, as it had on similar resolutions in 1997 and 1998. It has also supported the pro-ban resolutions of the Organization of American States (OAS). It was one of nine countries that signed the "Declaration of San José" in Costa Rica on 5 April 2000, which includes an article promoting the Mine Ban Treaty.
Honduras attended the First Meeting of States Parties in Maputo in May 1999 but did not make a statement to the plenary. It has participated in four intersessional meetings, one for each of the Standing Committees of Experts, except for Mine Clearance.
Honduras is not a party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons, nor is it a member of the CD.
Production, Transfer, Use
Honduras has never produced or exported AP mines. It had imported, stockpiled, and used AP mines in limited quantities, for training purposes only. Since the end of the Nicaraguan war in 1990 and the El Salvador war in 1992, there is no evidence that any party of any nationality has used landmines in Honduras.
Stockpiling
Honduras' Article 7 report listed a total of 9,439 stockpiled AP mines, including 2,031 M18A1 U.S. Claymore mines, 2,969 M4 mines from the U.S., 231 1,480 M969 mines from Portugal and 2,959 FMK1 mines from Argentina.
According to the Article 7 report, Honduras intends to retain 1,050 AP mines for training as permitted under Article 3, including 226 M18A1s, 330 M4s, 165 M969s and 329 FMK1s.
The rest of the mines will be transferred for the purpose of destruction from the center of logistic support of the Army and the first platoon of engineers to the to the third platoon of infantry. In March 2000, local media reported that a Canadian delegation made an assessment of the inventory of AP mines stockpiled with three battalions.232
Landmine Problem
An expert from the Inter-American Defense Board (IADB) stated that there are probably 3,000 landmines that still pose a threat in Honduras.233 Honduran Lieutenant Arnold Ayestas Paz told Landmine Monitor that the only area that is still mine affected is Choluteca province.234 According to Lt. Ayestas, approximately 250 square kilometers of land are still mine-affected and awaiting mine clearance. However, the Article 7 report submitted by Honduras states that the total area that must be cleared is 98 square kilometers. It cites these locations in Choluteca: La Caguasca, Lomas Lota, Mogote, el Medio, El Variador, el Ojochal, El Roble.235
The mines were not planted by Hondurans, but by foreign combatants fighting over Nicaragua and El Salvador in the 1980s. Throughout the conflict between the Sandinistas and Contras, mines were planted on both sides of the Honduran-Nicaraguan border, mostly around electrical towers and bridges. There are no records of where the mines were laid.236 Both the Contras and the Sandinistas relied on former Soviet bloc AP mines including Czechoslovakian-made PP-Mi-1 and PP-Mi-Sr-11 and Soviet-made PMN, PMN-2 and PMD-6M blast mines and Soviet-made POMZ-2 and POMZ-2M fragmentation mines.237
Prior to the clearance, the most heavily mine-affected areas of Honduras were El Paraiso and Choluteca provinces.238 Mines have also been found in areas of the border with El Salvador.239
Mine Action Funding
The IADB coordinates the OAS Assistance Program for Demining in Central America (PADCA). This involves mine and UXO clearance programs in Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and Costa Rica, with fifteen demining platoons, each comprised of approximately 25 deminers. Honduras currently contributes personnel to PADCA. Since July 1999, in addition to Honduras, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Venezuela have contributed personnel.240
In 1999 the annual budget for the OAS regional program was $6 million and in 2000 it was $7.6 million, financed by Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the U.S. and the U.K.241
Mine Clearance
While it was hoped that mine clearance would be completed in the year 2000, delays caused by Hurricane Mitch have pushed this back until the end of the year 2001. The Army is currently clearing the last mine-affected areas. To date, 330,621 square meters of land has been cleared, and 2,231 mines and 51,364 metallic objects destroyed.242 The Army of Honduras started mine clearance operations in September 1995 after a two-year training program conducted with the IADB. Mine clearance in Honduras is supervised by the Mission of Assistance for the Removal of Mines in Central America (MARMINCA) program of the OAS, which determines the national clearance plan with input from civilians living in mine-affected areas. Logistical support is provided by PADCA, which also provides mine awareness.243
Landmine Casualties
There are not believed to have been any mine casualties in this Landmine Monitor reporting period.244 In September 1995, Honduran officials estimated that over 200 civilians had been killed in landmine accidents since 1990.245 From March 1996 through September 1997, the IADB recorded 5 mine accidents involving civilians in Honduras.246 Honduras has yet to conduct a comprehensive assessment of casualties resulting from mines or other artifacts of war.
Survivor Assistance
Honduras has only made minimal efforts in addressing the needs of landmine survivors and providing them with adequate treatment. Lt. Ayestas said, "To my knowledge there is no kind of assistance to mine victims."247
On 11 January 1999 in Mexico City, representatives of Canada, Mexico and the Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO) signed a Memorandum of Understanding on a Joint Program for the Rehabilitation of Mine Victims in Central America.248 The initiative includes a comprehensive effort by PAHO, which is being financed by an initial grant of 3.5 million Canadian dollars, to assess the needs of war victims and to begin to address them in Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador. According to Hernan Rosenberg of PAHO, the program will unfold in each country in four stages: assessing the number of victims; assessing individual's specific prosthetics and rehabilitation needs; providing for treatment and rehabilitation; and reincorporating victims back into the workforce.249
Jamaica signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 3 December 1997 and ratified on 17 July 1998. It is not believed to have enacted domestic implementation legislation. It has not yet submitted its Article 7 transparency report, due by 27 August 1999. Jamaica participated in the First Meeting of State Parties held in Maputo in May 1999. In a plenary statement, Jamaica welcomed the first annual report of the Landmine Monitor and stated that "the work of NGOs like Landmine Monitor and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines...indicates the need to ensure their full involvement in the process of anti-landmine efforts worldwide."250 Jamaica voted for the December 1999 UNGA resolution in support of the Mine Ban Treaty. Jamaica has stated that it has never produced, stockpiled, used, or imported antipersonnel mines. Jamaica is not mine-affected.251
Key developments since March 1999: Mexico has served as co-chair of the Mine Ban Treaty's Standing Committee of Experts on Victim Assistance.
Mine Ban Policy
A leader in the movement to ban AP mines, Mexico signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty on 3 December 1997 and ratified on 9 June 1998, the seventeenth country to do so.
Mexico has not enacted separate implementation legislation for the Mine Ban Treaty. Once the treaty was promulgated and published in the Official Federal Gazette on 21 August 1998, it became fully enforceable domestic law.252 In most cases, international agreements in Mexico are self-executing. In the national implementation measures section of Mexico's Article 7 transparency report, the steps described above are included. The treaty is considered as a Supreme Law in all the territory according to Article 133 of the Politic Constitution of the United Mexican States.
The first Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 report was submitted on 24 September 1999, in Spanish, covering the period 1998 and 1999. Mexico submitted its second Article 7 report on 7 February 2000, covering the period 1999 and 2000. It contained no new information.
Mexico voted in favor of UN General Assembly Resolution 54/54 B supporting the Mine Ban Treaty in December 1999, as it had for similar resolutions in 1997 and 1998.
Mexico attended the First Meeting of States Parties in Maputo in May 1999. In a statement to the plenary, Mexican Ambassador Carmen Moreno said, "The elimination of antipersonnel landmines should be a priority for the international community at the commencement of the twenty-first century."253
Mexico has participated extensively in the intersessional meetings of the treaty in Geneva and co-chaired the Standing Committee of Experts on Victim Assistance, Socio-Economic Integration and Mine Awareness, along with Switzerland.
Mexico is a state party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons and the original Protocol II on landmines. It has not ratified Amended Protocol II as it views it as being surpassed by the Mine Ban Treaty and too limited in comparison with the ban treaty.254 Mexico attended as an observer the December 1999 First Annual Conference of States Parties to Amended Protocol II, but did not make a statement.
While Mexico is a member of the Conference on Disarmament it does not support, and in some instances has blocked, any effort to launch negotiations on a transfer ban in this forum.255 Mexican officials have stated their opposition to any measures that might undermine the comprehensive ban embodied in the Mine Ban Treaty.
Production, Transfer, Stockpiling and Use
Mexico does not produce, transfer, stockpile or use AP mines.0 In a December 1999 response to Landmine Monitor, the Foreign Relations Secretariat (SRE) Director for the United Nations System, Minister Luis Alfonso De Alba, stated that Mexico is in compliance with all provisions of the Mine Ban Treaty.1 When asked to provide information on any AP mines retained for training, as permitted under Article 3 of the treaty, a Mexican officer from SRE indicated that the declaration of Mexico as a landmine-free territory should be interpreted in a broad sense, including in regard to Article 3.
Landmine Monitor has found no evidence of use of AP mines in Mexico, including by non-state actors.
Mine Action
Mexico has stated that it is "mine-free" on a number of occasions, including through its Article 7 reports. There are no known mine casualties in Mexico. According Minister Luis Alfonso De Alba, "Mexico was the main promoter of the initiative which ended with the signature of the `Memorandum of Understanding on a Joint-Program for Rehabilitation of Victims of Landmines in Central America,' between Mexico, Canada and the Pan-American Health Organization" at the Regional Seminar on Antipersonnel Landmines in January 1999."2
Mexico has not contributed to the UN Voluntary Trust Fund for Assistance in Mine Clearance, and is not known to have contributed bilaterally to mine clearance operations in affected nations.
Mexico's Ambassador Antonio de Icaza co-chaired with Switzerland the first meeting of the Mine Ban Treaty's Standing Committee of Experts on Victim Assistance, Socio-Economic Integration and Mine Awareness, held in Geneva in September 1999. The second meeting was held in March 2000 in Geneva.
Key developments since March 1999: The Mine Ban Treaty entered into force for Nicaragua on 1 May 1999. National implementing legislation was signed into law on 7 December 1999. Nicaragua began destruction of its AP mine stockpile in April 1999, and had destroyed 40,000 mines as of May 2000. As of January 2000, some $20.8 million had been committed of the estimated $27 million needed to complete mine clearance by 2004. By the end of 1999, 1.291 square kilometers of land had been cleared and 54,107 AP mines destroyed from 524 sites. The number of mine victims reportedly has declined.
Mine Ban Policy
Nicaragua signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 4 December 1997 and deposited its instrument of ratification at the UN on 30 November 1998. The treaty entered into force for Nicaragua on 1 May 1999. President Alemán Lacayo signed implementing legislation on 7 December 1999, with penal sanctions for violations of the law.3
Nicaragua participated at the First Meeting of State Parties (FMSP) held in Maputo in May 1999 and was represented by Ambassador Lester Mejía Solís. Since the FMSP, Nicaragua has served as co-chair of the Standing Committee of Experts on Victim Assistance. The government has participated actively in all the intersessional meetings of the five SCEs. Nicaragua made a presentation to the May 2000 meeting of the SCE on Stockpile Destruction. Nicaragua's Article 7 transparency measures report dated 30 September 1999 was submitted to the UN on 18 May 2000.4
In December 1999, Nicaragua sponsored and voted in favor of UN General Assembly resolution 54/54B, as it had done with other pro-ban UNGA resolutions in 1996, 1997 and 1998.
Nicaragua is not a party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons, and is not a member of the Conference on Disarmament.
Production, Transfer, Use
Nicaragua no longer produces landmines. It reports having AP mines manufactured by the former Soviet Union, former Czechoslovakia, and Cuba in its inventory.5
According to its Article 7 Report, 286 landmines were transferred to the OAS/IADB MARMINCA program for canine training on 29 September 1998. This included 62 PMN, 65 POMZ, 66 PP-Mi-SrII, 20 PMD-6M, 48 PMN-2, 20 MON-50, and 5 PTMI-K.6
There have been no allegations of recent use of antipersonnel mines in Nicaragua. According to Nicaraguan Army sources, the Operational Division of the Army registered the emplacement of approximately 120,000 antipersonnel mines during conflicts in the 1980s.7
Stockpiling and Destruction
Nicaragua's Article 7 report and subsequent information provided to Landmine Monitor by the Nicaraguan Army and Foreign Ministry indicate the following:
· 136,813 antipersonnel mines were in stockpiles at the beginning of 1999.
· A total of 40,000 AP mines have been destroyed: 5,000 on 12 April 1999; another 5,000 on 28 August 1999; another 10,000 on 3 December 1999; another 10,000 on 25 February 2000 in an event attended by the President; and, another 10,000 mines in April 2000.
· As of the end of May 2000, there were 91,813 antipersonnel mines in Nicaragua's stockpile.
· The target date for completion of destruction is April 2002.8
All destruction events were conducted in the presence of observers, usually including representatives from the Ministries of Defense and Foreign Affairs, Congress, NGOs and the media. OAS Secretary General César Gaviria attended the August 1999 event, and the President attended the February 2000 event.
Another 30,000 mines have been destroyed since the 30 September 1999 date of the Article 7 report, but at that time the Nicaraguan stockpile included the following mines: 38,818 PMN; 37,046 PMN-2; 5,250 PP-MiSr-11; 331 OZM-4; 3,023 POMZ-2; 38,862 POMZ-2M; 3,318 MON-50; 11 MON-100; 154 MON-200; PMFH (unspecified number); and TAP-4 (unspecified number).9 The stockpile totals for the Cuban PMFH-1 and indigenously produced TAP-4 antipersonnel mines were not included in the Article 7 report and not reflected in the total stockpile aggregation. Nicaragua possessed 1,820 PMD-6M antipersonnel mines, but 1,800 were destroyed in April 1999 and 20 transferred to the OAS/IADB for training purposes in September 1998.
The Article 7 report gives details on the 10,000 mines destroyed in public ceremonies during 1999, which included 4,463 PMN; 1,200 PMN-2; 1,015 PMFH-1; 1,800 PMD-6M; and 1,522 POMZ-2. Stockpile destruction was carried out at the Polígono de Tiro de Unidad Militar, at the National Sergeant School Andrés Castro in Managua. The method of destruction was open-burning/open-detonation (OB/OD).10
At a meeting of the SCE on Stockpile Destruction, Nicaragua said that it costs approximately US$5 to destroy each mine, and about $30,000 per explosion.11
According to the Article 7 Report, Nicaragua is planning to retain 1,971 landmines for training purposes. This includes: 500 PMN; 500 PMN-2; 100 PP-Mi-Sr11; 50 OZM-4; 50 PMFH; 100 POMZ-2; 500 POMZ-2M; 100 MON-50; 11 MON-100; and 10 MON-200.12
Landmine Problem
Nicaragua's Article 7 report states that 135,643 mines were laid in the country during the conflict, including both antipersonnel and antitank mines. UNICEF notes that in addition to the mines, "a large quantity of explosive devices such as bombs, fragmentation grenades, mortars, and ammunition were also left in areas where combat took place."13
Nicaragua reports that landmines laid between 1982-1989 are still in the ground in 465 fields or "groups" of mines along approximately 380 kilometers of the border, and in thirty-nine sites inside Nicaragua. The locating of suspected minefields was ongoing, taking into account the effects of Hurricane Mitch.14 Nicaraguan civilians have informed authorities of the presence of landmines in the Departments of Matagalpa, Madriz, Jinotega, Nueva Segovia, Estelí, Chontales, Boaco, Río San Juan, Chinandega, Zelaya Norte, and Zelaya Sur.15 Thirty-five of Nicaragua's 143 municipalities are mine-affected, which represents approximately 37% of the national population.16
In January 2000, the Army noted that currently there is one mine on the ground for every 55 Nicaraguans, down from one for every 32 in 1993; 26.9% of Nicaragua's northern border with Honduras is mined, down from 34% in 1993; 0.9% of Nicaragua's southern border with Costa Rica is mined, down from 29% in 1993; and there is one mine in the ground for every 34 Nicaraguan children, down from one for every 20 children in 1993.17
The Centro de Estudios Estratégicos de Nicaragua (CEEN), and the Centro de Estudios Internacionales (CEI), two of the principal NGOs dealing with the landmine problem and mine awareness in Nicaragua, note that there can only be estimates of the number of mines planted in Nicaraguan territory. The Army's records of mines it laid do not account for the mines planted by the "Contras" or, in all likelihood, those by all Army tactical units during the conflict. Joel Zamora, Director of CEEN, said, "To be realistic, neither the Army nor the Contras know where they planted many of their mines."18 Maps will have limited value, after nearly 15 years have passed and Hurricane Mitch affected the location of minefields.
With the passage of time and population growth, previously sparsely inhabited areas are being settled. Indeed according to reports from mine awareness volunteers, communities continue to expand into areas known to be mined-affected. The old warning signs and fences have been destroyed over time, especially on account of the 1998 Hurricane Mitch, but also through vandalism and the "recycling" of barbed wire and signs for economic purposes.
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has recently announced that during the period May-July 2000 it will carry out a landmine assessment mission to Nicaragua, in cooperation with the OAS.19
Mine Action Funding
The OAS Assistance Program for Demining in Central America (PADCA) involves mine and UXO clearance programs in Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, and Costa Rica. In 1999 the annual budget for the whole OAS regional demining program was $6 million and in 2000 it was $7.6 million, financed by Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the U.S. and the U.K.20 Nicaragua currently contributes personnel to PADCA. Since July 1999, in addition to Nicaragua, other countries including Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Venezuela have contributed personnel.21
According to the Article 7 Report, Nicaragua needs $27 million in international assistance to complete demining and stockpile destruction. Lt. Col. Cesar Delgadillo, head of the Demining Units, calculates that the Army will require some $30 million to carry out its work over the period 1999-2004. Virtually of all of this must come from foreign donations.22
According to the Nicaraguan Army's update of January 2000, so far, a total of $20.8 million has been committed by various countries to the demining effort, including: Denmark - $6.8 million for the period 2000-2004; Sweden - $5 million also for 2000-2004; Canada - $2 million for 2000-2001; Norway - $2 million for 2000-2001; the U.S. - $2.5 million for 2000-2002; and the UK - $2.5 million for 2003-2004.23
The OAS notes that U.S. and UK funds will be used to establish a new operations front composed of 100 deminers in the North Atlantic Autonomous Region. Deminers for the new platoons were in the process of being trained. The OAS emphasized that these deminers would supplement the other two fronts that are supported by the international community, through the OAS, in the areas of Ocotal and Juigalpa.24
Mine Clearance
Mine clearance is the responsibility of the Pequeñas Unidades de Desminado, PUD (Small Demining Units) of the Engineer Corps of the Nicaraguan Army. The Nicaraguan Army, with support from the OAS/IADB is currently undertaking mine clearance and training operations in Nicaragua.
According to the Article 7 Report, the approximately 650 Army personnel of the Programa De Desminado Nacional (PDN) destroyed 54,107 AP mines between 1993-1999 from 524 sites with 1.291 square kilometers cleared.25 Still to be cleared were an estimated 81,536 mines in 476 sites. Priorities are the northern and southern border regions, where there are large peasant populations whose agricultural and herding activities are important for the economic development of Nicaragua. Clearance of the remaining mines will be completed by 2004 with a total cost of approximately $27 million, about $340 per mine.26
After a request for assistance by President Alemán Lacayo after the devastation of Hurricane Mitch, UNMAS assessed the situation in Nicaragua in November 1998 and proposed the implementation of a short-term mine action assistance project. The aim of the project was to increase the national detection and clearance capacity in order to guarantee that reconstruction sites around destroyed bridges were cleared of mines.
From May until the end of July 1999, this UNMAS project resulted in more than 527 square meters around four destroyed bridges, on the northern part of the main road leading North from Managua to Honduras, to be declared free of landmines.27 Under the Hurricane Mitch emergency plan, between January and August 1999, thirty bridges were demined or certified free of landmines displaced by Mitch in different regions of the country. This includes 281 landmines destroyed and 748 square meters cleared.28
According to an Army update in April 2000, between January and April 2000 there were 1,076 mines destroyed, with a total of 124,187 square meters cleared. There were sixty-three high-tension towers cleared in the Guasaule-Villanueva corridor in Chinandega Department; and six bridges cleared, five on the El Rama highway (Ocongua, Quinama, La Concha, Presillitas, Estero Real) and one in Chinandega.29
Dogs are being used successfully in demining operations. However, questions have been raised in regard to costs: $35,000 for each dog and $1.5 million required for their upkeep annually.30
Disturbingly, a number of civilians have taken to hiring themselves out as mine clearers to landowners interested in incorporating previously mined areas for agriculture and ranching. According to CEEN and veteran's associations, these freelancers are usually impoverished local peasants who are former Army or Contra combatants. They work lacking even the most minimal protection, utilizing rudimentary tools. Wooden sticks are used to detect mines, which are then removed using machetes.31
A media report stated that at the end of 1999, as the result of border tensions with Honduras, the Nicaraguan Army had withdrawn some demining units from sensitive points, stopping the demining effort along certain border areas. The OAS representative denied this was the case claiming the suspension was due to year-end holidays and programming.32
Nicaraguan NGO Concerns about Mine Action in Nicaragua
Nicaraguan NGOs continue to express concerns about implementation of victim assistance and humanitarian mine action more broadly defined. Civil society and survivor participation in the monitoring and design of humanitarian mine action remains limited, although the debate on mine action as more than mine clearing has now been taken to the communities by key NGOs.33 An increasing concern is the Army becoming more involved in mine awareness education and victim assistance.34 Some donors have also expressed concerns. An official at the Danish Embassy said, "The Army cannot be involved in all three components: demining, prevention and rehabilitation. The priorities of the local communities are not necessarily reflected in the priorities of the Army."35 The EU is exploring the possibility of sponsoring an exposure visit for Army officers to third countries where programs are defined and executed in collaboration with the local communities.36
The establishment of the National Demining Commission (CND) in November 1998 provided an opportunity to broaden participation in mine action by civil society in the country. However, more than a year later, the CND is barely in operation, and void of any decision-making capacity. The CND is presided over by the Minister of Defense, and in the past year there have been three different Ministers. Criticisms by the non-government members of the CND are similar to those made last year: continued emphasis of a mine clearance perspective; limited role for non-military government agencies and for civil society; absence of consultation with communities; an emphasis on the number of mines removed as criterion of progress as opposed to the enhancement of living conditions for mine-affected communities; and relative neglect of mine awareness and prevention. The membership of the CND includes the Army, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health, Red Cross, Center for Strategic Studies, War Disabled Commission, and Foreign Ministry. The Minister of Defense chairs the CND.
According to Joel Zamora of CEEN, "If in Nicaragua there was a public policy that stipulated, at least in the most-affected departments, that the Education Ministry included mine awareness as a subject over a two year period, we would have more impact. Of course we cannot compare what is spent on mine clearance with what it cost to carry out education, prevention and victim attention. We are not saying that it should be proportional. What we are suggesting is that there be more of a will in regard to these two forgotten components, which are prevention and victim assistance."37 Most donors have not manifested concern in regard to the heavy emphasis on Army demining in Nicaraguan mine action, thereby reinforcing the pattern.
Mine Awareness
While the bulk of emphasis on the part of the government and OAS is on the clearance side of mine action, NGOs and other international agencies focus on mine awareness.
UNICEF is carrying out the second year of a "Child to Child Prevention In Nicaragua" project in 2000. The project is being implemented in cooperation with the Nicaraguan Red Cross and has a budget of $99,651 for the year 2000.38 Its goal is to enhance mine awareness education by using children to transmit prevention messages to other children. CEI has raised questions regarding the effectiveness of having urban children and youth teach their rural counterparts about the rural landmine problem, and the technical competency of the local leader or religious pastor that often accompanies the effort.39
Mine awareness materials produced by DC Comics and featuring Superman and Wonder Woman continue to be supplied by the U.S. Defense Attaché and distributed by the Ministry of Education. According to the Deputy Minister, some 169,325 comic books have been distributed and 3,735 teachers have been trained.40 It seems that UNICEF and Education Ministry officials believe that the effectiveness of the material will depend on how it is used, and have made no substantive objections on cultural appropriateness or the technical flaws that the ICBL, among others, has raised concerns about.
UNICEF officials in Managua have insisted that this was not their choice, but that UNICEF headquarters in New York wanted them used. Two arguments that continue to be used are that there are no other materials available, and that existing stocks of comics should be used. Ana Lucía Silva, UNICEF Human Rights Officer in Managua admitted that in mine-affected rural areas "Superman and Wonder Woman are unknown and there is not much identification with them." She insisted however that the comics should be used because of the abundant stock.41 After using the DC comics for a time, the Nicaraguan Red Cross reportedly stopped using it. According to the Public Relations Officer of the Nicaraguan Red Cross, "We were handing it out, but it has been discarded. The messages got distorted which is why we decided to withdraw it. It is now history."42
Landmine Casualties
There is no centralized source of information on landmine casualties in Nicaragua. The Nicaraguan Red Cross estimates that some fifty people are injured every year. Approximately 90% are civilians, and over half of these are children and adolescents.
The Army reports that there were thrity-one mine casualties in 1999, including eleven dead and twenty injured, and that from January-April 2000 there were four accidents involving five victims, including two deaths and the amputation of a leg and arm in another.43 Three of the four accidents took place in the San Fernando area of Nueva Segovia, in north central Nicaragua; all involved rural laborers. The Army report concluded that the areas had not been marked, and that mine awareness was weak in the population.44 With the support of the ICRC, the Nicaraguan Red Cross has ambulances in each of the demining "fronts" in order to provide emergency assistance for deminers.45
According to a newspaper article, the OAS is caring for 232 landmine accident survivors, of which 30% are children.46 Over the course of the past year, the OAS undertook a survey that indicated a reduction in the number of mine-related accidents. The OAS data is corroborated by the Health Ministry's Rehabilitation Unit. According to the Chief of the Rehabilitation Unit, admissions of landmine accident victims have decreased even though everyone expected them to go up, particularly after the mine displacements caused by Hurricane Mitch in October 1998.47
However, Uriel Carazo, a member of the CDN noted that there is no information on how many victims could afford to travel to Managua and remain there for extended treatment. Carazo believes that many seek treatment at local health centers or regional hospitals and then simply return to their communities and go unrecorded.48
Victim Assistance
The Nicaraguan Ministry of Health has two units providing rehabilitation programs in Managua, located in the Aldo Chavarría and Lenin Fonseca Hospitals. Their Prostheses Center has registered 617 landmine victims currently receiving care.49 At present there is minimal capacity for providing coverage in rural areas, although in the course of the year 2000, the north central region of the country, where most victims live, is planned to have permanent rehabilitation units.50 There are only seven physiotherapists from the Ministry of Health working in the entire country outside of Managua, and there is no budget provision for landmine victims.51
Victim assistance is the stated objective of a $4 million grant agreement with Canada, with support from Mexico, and to be administered by PAHO.52 Although a policy framework and funding have been established there is no specific governmental agency in place that deals with landmine victims. According to CEI this is as much the product of inertia and centralization of services in the capital Managua, as of the overall shortage of resources.53 Some argue against segregating landmine victims from other disabled individuals, although according to Handicap International's representative in Managua, "War victims in general still require specific targeting."54
State social security pensions for disabled soldiers (mostly mine victims) range from a $9 to $22 monthly.55 There is also the problem of minimal coordination among the various entities that provide rehabilitation services. There are only two functioning orthopedic centers in the country, but even if there were more the fact that the services and devices must be purchased combine to make these inaccessible to most victims who are overwhelmingly poor.
According to the OAS, the "Program for Care to Victims of Mines and UXO," which has existed in Nicaragua since 1997, was to be continued and strengthened in 2000, with the assistance of the Swedish government, in order to ensure monitoring of the rehabilitation services provided under the program.56 A Framework Agreement was signed between the International Rehabilitation Center and the OAS, for the implementation of a Plan of Action to develop and prepare new technologies, educational material, and physical and labor-related employment programs for the Rehabilitation Program for Victims of AP Mines.57
Key developments since March 1999: Panama has not submitted its Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 report, which was due 27 September 1999. Panama has clarified to Landmine Monitor that it does not have a stockpile of antipersonnel mines.
Mine Ban Policy
Panama signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 4 December 1997, and deposited its instrument of ratification with the UN on 7 October 1998. The ratification legislation literally adopts the treaty but cannot be considered to be full implementation legislation with penalties for violations.
Panama has not yet submitted its Article 7 transparency report, due by 27 September 1999, but officials say they are preparing the report.58
Panama voted in favor of the pro-Mine Ban Treaty UN General Assembly Resolution 54/54 B in December 1999, as it did on previous resolutions in 1997 and 1998. It has also supported the pro-ban resolutions of the Organization of American States (OAS). It was one of nine nations to sign the "Declaration of San José" in Costa Rica on 5 April 2000, which has an article promoting the Mine Ban Treaty.
Panama sent a representative to the First Meeting of States Parties in Maputo in May 1999 but did not make a statement to the plenary.59 It is not believed to have participated in any of the intersessional meetings of the treaty in Geneva.
Panama is a state party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons and ratified Amended Protocol II (Landmines) on 3 November 1999. Panama did not participate in the December 1999 First Annual Conference of States Parties to Amended Protocol II and has not submitted its Article 13 annual transparency report.
Panama is not a member of the Conference on Disarmament.
Production, Transfer, Stockpiling, Use
According to government officials, Panama has never produced, imported, or exported AP mines, and does not have a stockpile of AP mines.60 A government official stated that there have been no reports of use of Panama as a transit point for AP mine shipments going elsewhere.61
Claymore mines were used in Panama for training of both Panamanian and U.S. military personnel in the Canal Zone.62 There has been no new mine use since the closing of the ranges.
A member of the National Police told Landmine Monitor of possible AP mine use in the weapons trafficking and drug labs along the Panama-Colombia border, but it was not possible to confirm this allegation.63
UXO Problem
While Panama is not mine-affected, it does suffer from UXO contamination as a result of U.S. training exercises and weapons testing in military ranges in the Canal Zone for 30 years, until 1997 when the ranges were closed down. One 1997 assessment by the U.S. Department of Defense on the military ranges revealed the presence of various types of munitions, including Claymore mines but no other types of AP mines. 64 A former U.S. Army official has said that while the Army tested mines at three ranges, the testing included only component and systems tests, with no high explosive in the mines.65
The area of UXO-affected land in the Canal Zone is approximately 151.29 square kilometers and consists of ranges where weapons were tested and training took place.66 These include the Empire demolition range where explosives were used, including Claymore mines;67 the Balboa West range, and the Piña and Sherman range.68
According to UNICEF, there are approximately 100,000 people in 15 districts located around the ranges and therefore at risk from the presence of UXO.69 These include the communities of Nuevo Emperador, Burunga, Arraiján, Huile, Piña, Escobal, Providencia, and Bruja. The affected land has different uses including agricultural, ecological tourism, health and medicine purposes, as well as social purposes, such as housing, and income generation. Once the land is cleared, it will be used according to the plan made by the local governmental body, the Autoridad de la Región Interoceánica (ARI).70
In compliance with the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977, the U.S. Armed Forces have affirmed they "will take all practicable measures to remove all hazards to human life, health and safety." The U.S. claims that when it has completed the clean-up of the ranges, "some 12,119 of the 15,129 hectares will be available for Panama's reuse."71 In August 1999, U.S. Air Force Colonel David Hunt said that the military had removed 250 metric tons of debris in the last two years. He went on to note that it is "impossible" to remove all the UXO without tearing down the rain forests and threatening the canal's watershed.72 On 31 December 1999, as stipulated by the 1977 treaty, the U.S. pulled out of Panama.
Mine Awareness
Since 1997, UNICEF has funded some UXO/mine awareness and education, in coordination with the Ministry of Health.73 UNICEF has a $44,000 proposal to conduct mine awareness and education in affected areas in 2000, in partnership with the Ministries of Health, Education, Foreign Affairs and NGOs.74 A number of NGOs carry out research and advocacy on the UXO-contaminated ranges in the Canal Zone.75 At one point, the ICRC was involved in UXO awareness and education and held a few workshops.76
Mine and UXO Casualties
The Panamanian government states that at least 21 people have been killed by UXO since 1940, while the Pentagon says 7 deaths have occurred since 1984.77
Those injured can obtain rehabilitation services at various public and private hospitals. Most of these are in Panama City, but there are 1,175 health clinics around the country, one university hospital, nine public integrated hospitals, and also private clinics.78
Key developments since March 1999: The Mine Ban Treaty entered into force for Paraguay on 1 May 1999. Paraguay has stated for the first time that it does not have a stockpile of antipersonnel mines.
Paraguay signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 3 December 1997. The National Congress passed ratification legislation, Law 1339, on 6 October 1998 and Paraguay deposited its instrument of ratification at the United Nations on 13 November 1998. The treaty entered into force for Paraguay on 1 May 1999.
In May 1999 the government stated its commitment to pass national legislation to implement the treaty.79 Likewise, in November 1999, the government said, "Paraguay commits to adopt all the legal measures to prevent and repress into its territory any forbidden activity of the States Parts as provided by Art. 9 of the Convention."80 Yet, it has still not enacted implementation legislation.
Paraguay participated in the First Meeting of States Parties in Maputo in May 1999. Lilianne Lebrón-Wenger, Director-General of Multilateral Affairs in the Ministry of Foreign Relations told the plenary that "Paraguay is a country free of antipersonnel mines," and urged greater effort toward universalization of the ban treaty.81 Paraguay has not taken part in the intersessional meetings of the treaty.
In a May 2000 response to Landmine Monitor, Paraguay said that issues such as the Mine Ban Treaty are viewed as promoting peace and humanitarian actions and they therefore have significant importance for Paraguay.82
Paraguay voted for UN General Assembly Resolution 54/54B in support of the Mine Ban Treaty in December 1999, as it had done on similar resolutions in 1997 and 1998. It has supported, by consensus, the pro-ban resolutions of the Organization of American States.
In December 1999, the government gave Landmine Monitor a copy of Paraguay's Article 7 report, dated 17 November 1999. However, the report has apparently never been officially provided to the United Nations, as required.83 The report, which covers the period from 1 May 1999 - 17 November 1999, was prepared by the Ministry of Defense in Spanish.
Paraguay is not a party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons and is not a member of the Conference on Disarmament.
Paraguay is not believed to have ever produced, transferred, stockpiled, or used antipersonnel mines. In its Article 7 report, Paraguay states that it has no antipersonnel mines whatsoever, including for training. This is the first official declaration by Paraguay that it has no stockpile of antipersonnel mines.
Paraguay is not known to have contributed to international mine action programs. However, at the First Meeting of States Parties in May 1999, Paraguay stated its commitment to mine action, and indicated its intention to provide training for deminers and survivor rehabilitation.84
Key developments since March 1999: In April 1999, the "Program for Demining Assistance in Ecuador/Perú" (PADEP) was established by the OAS. In August and September 1999, UNMAS and the OAS conducted independent assessments of the mine problem in Peru. An inter-ministerial Working Group on Antipersonnel Mines was formalized in September 1999 to oversee implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty. Perú has served as co-rapporteur of the Mine Ban Treaty Standing Committee of Experts on Mine Clearance. Stockpile destruction is underway. More than 30,000 landmines were cleared and destroyed in 1999 and early 2000.
Mine Ban Policy
Peru signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 3 December 1997. On 19 May 1998, the Law for the National Adoption of the Ottawa Treaty (Legislative Resolution 26951) was approved and on 17 June 1998, Peru became the nineteenth nation to ratify the Mine Ban Treaty.
Peru has not yet enacted implementation legislation, though a Foreign Ministry official told Landmine Monitor that such legislation should be submitted following the elections of April and May 2000.85 Peru has reported nearly a dozen different implementation measures already taken, such as directives to the Armed Forces and Police informing them of their obligations of the treaty, creation of a national committee in 1999 to assist disabled people, the agreement between Ecuador and Peru to clear their common border of mines and the creation of special units of engineers for demining.86
An inter-ministerial Grupo de Trabajo sobre Minas Antipersonales (Working Group on Antipersonnel Mines) was formalized by Legislative Resolution 430-99-RREE on 17 September 1999,87 though it has been active since December 1998. The Working Group is led by the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Defense and also includes the Ministries of Energy and Mines, Interior, Health, and Education.88 The Working Group is responsible for overseeing implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty, including preparing the national implementation law.89
A Peruvian delegation participated in the First Meeting of States Parties in Maputo in May 1999. In his statement at the meeting, Ambassador Jorge Valdéz Carrillo, Perú's Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs, said that the Working Group was formed to:
evaluate and recommend political, legal and administrative measures that need to be taken in [national] territory. Some of the group's recommendations have already been approved - including that the Armed Forces and Police convert production installations; clear, register and destroy mines used to protect infrastructure from potential terrorist attack; train personnel in [these tasks], and facilitate the rehabilitation of victims.90
Since the Maputo meeting, Peru has served as co-rapporteur along with The Netherlands of the newly created Standing Committee of Experts on Mine Clearance. Peru has participated in all the intersessional meetings of the treaty in Geneva. Peru has also actively supported regional initiatives to ban AP mines and promote the Mine Ban Treaty.
Peru voted in favor of the December 1999 UN General Assembly Resolution 54/54B supporting the Mine Ban Treaty, as it had for similar resolutions in 1997 and 1998. At the 54th General Assembly, Francisco Tudela, Permanent Representative of Peru at the United Nations said, "We believe that it is highly important to continue to work so as to achieve the implementation of the goals and provisions within the [Convention]."91
Peru submitted its Article 7 transparency report in Spanish to the UN on 2 May 2000, more than eight months after its due date. A Foreign Ministry official said the report was late because information was "dispersed throughout the country," often "out of date" and sometimes sensitive requiring declassification by the government.92
Peru ratified Amended Protocol II (Landmines) of the Convention of Conventional Weapons on 3 July 1997. Peru has submitted its transparency report under Article 13 of Amended Protocol II, and participated in the December 1999 First Annual Conference of States Parties to the amended protocol. Peru is a member of the Conference on Disarmament, but has not been a noted supporter or opponent of efforts to launch negotiations on a mine export ban in that forum.
Production
Peru states that its production of antipersonnel mines ceased in 1997, and that the process of converting the production facilities began in March 1999.93 A UN Mine Action Service (UNMAS) Assessment Mission to Peru reported that production of landmines in the country only ceased entirely in January 1999, according to officials at the Ministry of Defense.94
Peru states that the Centros de Fabricación de Armas of the War Navy was the only state institution producing in the past.95 Some were produced on request from public utility companies during the internal armed conflict of the 1980s and into the mid-1990s.96 According to Peru's Article 7 report, the War Navy produced two pressure-activated antipersonnel mines: the CICITEC and the MGP-30.97
According to a March 2000 report by the Defensoría del Pueblo (Office of the Ombusdman of Peru), the utility company EDEGEL S.A. states that the War Navy also manufactured shoebox-sized, pressure-activated DEXA landmines for use on EDEGEL property. Later this mine was replaced by the MG MAP 304.98
Transfer
General Raúl O'Connor, Director of the Information Office in the Ministry of Defense, told Landmine Monitor that Peru has never exported mines.99 It appears to have imported mines from several countries, including Belgium, Spain, the United States, and Yugoslavia. (See below).
Stockpiling and Destruction
Landmine Monitor Report 1999 indicated that Peru reported to the OAS in 1997 that it had no stockpile of antipersonnel mines.100 However, Peru's Article 7 report submitted 2 May 2000 states that the country has a stockpile of 334,756 antipersonnel mines.101 The composition of Peru's stockpile according to the Article 7 report is as follows: 16,564 PMB-6 mines;102 24,861 PMB-6N mines; 5 EXPAL mines with fuse; 27 P4 A-1 EXPAL mines; 30,000 EXPAL mines without fuse; 376 M-5 mines with fuse; 68 M-35 C/ESP BS-BG mines; 25,307 M-35 C/ESP M-5 mines; 11,587 M-409 mines; 68,212 PMA-3 mines; 49,712 POMZ-2M mines; 89,506 MGP A/R (CICITEC) mines; 328 CICITEC mines without cap or fuse; 108 M-16 mines; 150 MGP-30 mines; 9,957 60510 MN mines; 328 Multi-use Magnetic mines; and 7,660 M18A1 Claymore mines. These mines are in the possession of the War Navy, National Army and National Police of Peru.
Peru reports that the War Navy destroyed 3,916 stockpiled CICITEC AP mines in 1999.103
In April 2000 a Ministry of Foreign Affairs official told Landmine Monitor that a full stockpile destruction process was in preparation in the country, subject to international technical assistance and funding.104 Peru reports that the government plans to destroy 30% of its stockpile in 2000, 30% in 2001 and 40% in 2002 using controlled detonation and incineration as methods of destruction.105
Peru plan to retain 9,526 AP mines for training, including 1,000 PMB-6, 1,833 A/R MGP CICITEC, 1,050 M-409, 1,100 PMA-3, 1,100 PMB-6N, 1,000 POMZ-2M, 108 M-16; 150 MGP 30, 985 AP60510, and 1,200 M18A1.106
Use
Peru has repeatedly stated that its Armed Forces did not use antipersonnel mines during its border conflict with Ecuador.107 The Latin American Association for Human Rights (ALDHU), however, estimated that both Ecuador and Peru laid 130,000 to 150,000 AP mines during the conflict.108 At the January 1999 Mexico City Regional Seminar on Landmines, representatives from both governments said that implementation of the peace agreement, including mine clearance, was more important than trying to establish who placed the mines.109
Peru acknowledges using AP mines inside the country as part of its counter-insurgency campaign during the 1980s and early 1990s against the guerrilla groups Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) and Movimiento Revolucionario Túpac Amaru (Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement). According to a December 1999 UNMAS Assessment Mission Report, the Peruvian government authorized the laying of AP mines by its armed forces around high-tension electrical towers and other installations in 1989 and 1990, at the height of the internal armed conflict.110 The Peruvian government acknowledges laying 87,146 AP mines in the country. A total of 15,437 AP mines were used around public infrastructure installations in the Departments of Puno and Cajamarca in the Andean highlands, as well as in Lima, including the Puente de Piedra Bridge and the nearby Port of El Callao.111 A total of 71,709 CICITEC AP mines were used in the perimeter of high-tension electrical towers to protect against guerrilla sabotage attempts, including 9,149 mines around 178 EDEGEL S.A. towers and 62,560 AP mines around 1,842 ETECEN towers.112 UNMAS reports mines were also used around the remote maximum-security prison at Yanamayo in the Andean highlands of Puno Department.113
Landmine Problem
Peru's landmine problem affects three parts of the country. One is along the northern border with Ecuador, due to a long-standing conflict between the two countries. A second is Peru's southern border with Chile, where the Chilean military used antipersonnel landmines in the 1970s and 1980s due to tension between the countries. The third area is around public infrastructure, especially electrical installations, inside the country from attacks during Peru's internal armed conflict in the 1980s and 1990s.
The border between Peru and Ecuador is mine-affected as a consequence of the 1995 border conflict, with the majority of AP landmines laid along a 78 kilometer-long contested area in the foothills of the Cordillera del Cóndor mountain range.114 The Peruvian government estimates there are approximately 120,000 AP mines along the border with Ecuador: in the Río Santiago, Río Cenepa and Comainas sectors; along the north-east frontier zone; and in the Departments of Tumbes and Piura.115 Peru does not have maps of mined areas along the border.116 According to an article in the official government gazzette, Ambassador Carlos Pareja Ríos said, "Drafts of maps are not useful, because of the features of the land. Because of heavy rains, it's almost certain that the mines have been displaced to other areas.... Thus, we are identifying the exact location of these explosive artifacts."117 The most frequently encountered mines are the T-AB-1, PRB M409, P-4-B and PMD-6M.118 It is also reported in the military trade press that the Chinese Type 72, Italian VS-50, and Belgian M35 and M409 AP mines are also found in Peru.119
Some 184,000 people live in the border areas with Ecuador that are mine-affected.120 The dense jungle areas of the Peruvian-Ecuador border in Amazonas Department are home to the Shuar and Achuar indigenous peoples on both sides of the border, and the Aguaruna and Huambisa on Peruvian territory. These people were displaced by the border conflict and their ability to return to a traditional way of life is constrained by the landmine and UXO problem, according to UNMAS.121 UNMAS reports that most AP mines are in the area between the rivers Cenepa and Coangos (hence the so-called "Cenepa Conflict" of 1995) in the Department of Amazonas. The region between Cuzumaza and Bumbuiza in the Department of Loreto and the regions of Lagartococha and Güepi were previously mine-affected, but these are reported to be mine-free now. According to the Peruvian government, these regions were cleared of AP mines in order to facilitate border demarcation along the Departments of Tumbes and Piura.122
In the south of the country, Peru's border with Chile in the department of Tacna is also mine-affected. Only Chile is reported to have used AP mines along that border, during the 1970s and 1980s. According to the Ministry of Defense, the mine-affected lands in Tacna are productive agricultural lands and the mined areas under the jurisdiction of the Peruvian government are properly marked.123
The third mine-affected area is inside the country, mainly around electrical installations. According to the Defensoría del Pueblo (Office of the Ombudsman of Peru) report of March 2000, the Peruvian Ministry of Energy and Mines reported that three electrical energy companies in the country had mine-affected installations: EDEGEL S.A. has 176 mined electrical towers, each with an average of 40 to 50 AP mines in its perimeter; ETECEN S.A. has 165 mined electrical towers, each with an average of 40 AP mines in its perimeter; and ETEVENSA S.A. has a thermal-power generation station ringed with landmines.124 According to UNMAS, the National Police reportedly have records of the minefields but these are "sketchy and of questionable accuracy"; UNMAS notes heavy rainfall causes mine displacements and washes away protective fences and warning signs.125
Surveys and Assessments
In addition to a number of internal assessments, there have been two recent evaluations of the mine problem in Peru. A mission was conducted by the Organization of American States (OAS) from 16-20 August 1999 in order to evaluate the AP mine situation along the border. As a result of this mission, the OAS submitted working documents for consideration by both governments containing a proposal to provide coordinated international assistance in integrated action against AP mines in their respective territories.126 In August-September 1999, UNMAS conducted a multi-disciplinary and inter-agency assessment mission to both Ecuador and Peru.127
Mine Action Funding
Following ratification of the Mine Ban Treaty in June 1998, Peru has benefited from access to international funding for demining, specifically along its border with Ecuador.128 International contributions received to date do not deal with Peru's internal landmine problem. Peru has appealed for technical and financial assistance for its medium and long-term clearance.129
As part of the peace agreement of 26 October 1998, Peru and Ecuador agreed to demining of the border under the supervision of the Ecuador/Peru Multinational Observation Mission, MOMEP. MOMEP is made up of military representatives from the United States, Brazil, Argentina and Chile. Canada, Japan, the United States, Spain, OAS and UNDP have contributed funds to support mine clearance for demarcation of the Ecuador-Peru border.130 Peru was formally included in the U.S. humanitarian demining program on 22 February 1999 and will receive approximately $3.225 million in assistance in 1999 and 2000.
In April 1999, the OAS set up the "Program for Demining Assistance in Ecuador/Perú" (PADEP), with a Canadian government contribution of CAN$300,000 (U.S.$198,000).131 According to the OAS, the PADEP contribution, divided equally between the two countries, has been used exclusively for the purchase of equipment and materials for activities to support humanitarian demining associated with the demarcation of the border.132
Currently, the Engineers School of Lima counts with a program of training in humanitarian demining supported by Spain and the United States.
Internationally, Peru has been co-rapporteur of the Mine Ban Treaty Standing Committee of Experts on Mine Clearance since May 1999 and will co-chair this committee beginning in September 2000. Peru has taken a keen interest in areas including: the current review of demining standards; the criteria used to decide the assignment of international co-operation; links between mine removal and the consolidation of peace and of mutual trust between neighboring countries; participation by Armed Forces in demining operations and in the need for primacy of national decisions in the planning and management of action programs against mines.133
Mine Clearance
The inter-ministerial Working Group on Antipersonnel Mines is the coordination focal point for mine action efforts in Peru. It has prepared a national action plan that addresses all aspects of the mine problem, which is currently under consideration, according to the Article 7 report.
In May 2000, Peru reported that the Army and War Navy had cleared and destroyed a total of 32,373 AP mines.134
Demining of the Peru-Ecuador border is the responsibility of Peruvian Army Engineers who have a current mine clearance capacity of 140 men separated into ten teams of fourteen. The UNMAS Assessment Report describes in detail the mine clearance procedures, equipment and logistics in the border's tropical jungle in which it is very difficult to operate.135 The first phase involved clearance to permit placement of border markers. This was done in collaboration with the Ecuadorian military at the beginning of 1999. The operation took ninety days to complete and cost over U.S.$3.5 million.136 A total of 439 TAB1, M-409 and M18A1 mines were cleared and destroyed.137
The second phase is clearance of a road linking Ecuador to the Tiwinza Memorial, which is on the Peruvian side of the border. Ecuador is responsible for demining around the memorial and Peru is responsible for the access road. In May 2000, Peru reported that it had cleared and destroyed nine hundred sixty-three TAB1, M-409 and M18A1 mines while demining the road.138 The next priorities are the provinces of Piura and Tumbes, the Cordillera del Cóndor in Amazonas province, and then Loreto province, taking eight years at an estimated cost of U.S.$35 million.139
Responsibility for clearance of mines around the electrical energy companies appears to rest with the companies, but the executing agent is the Ministry of the Interior, specifically the National Police. The National Police has a specialized unit, the Division de Seguridad de Activacion de Minas y Dispositivos Explosivos de Autoproteccion (DIVSAM-DEXA) dedicated to dealing with mines and improvised explosive devices, which receives funding and taskings from the electrical companies. DIVSAM-DEXA has an 84-man unit that can field ten 8-man mine clearance teams, but UNMAS reports that they are poorly equipped, with sub-standard and insufficient protection equipment.140
In May 2000, Peru reported that it had cleared 6,084 MGP mines and 6,181 CICITEC and DEXA mines on the perimeter of high-tension electrical towers, as well as 18,706 MGP mines around public infrastructure in Ventanilla, Lima.141
In February 1999, the National Penitentiary Institute of the Ministry of Justice reported that the high-security prison of Yanamayo, Puno Department, had been cleared of mines.142
Ratification of the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty by Chile, currently a signatory, is expected to lead to a mine clearance plan for this border area, including the department of Tacna.
Mine Awareness
According to a Ministry of Foreign Affairs official there are no mine awareness programs in the mine-affected areas, but "the population at risk does seem to know about the problem as well as the implied danger."143 The UNMAS Assessment Mission reported that the local population in the border area "seems to be generally aware of the landmine threat."144 UNMAS noted that the military had expressed an interest in initiating a mine awareness education campaign and noted that the local indigenous communities could implement effective community mine awareness programs if they are provided with some technical assistance.145
UNMAS also reported that the National Police and electrical companies have implemented some information and prevention programs in settlements close to mined towers and other such infrastructure facilities, including dissemination of illustrated pamphlets, but recommended that the existing programs need be reassessed in light of recent casualties.146
Landmine Casualties
There are no official surveys that report on the number of victims of AP mines in Peru.147 According to the Director of the Information Office of the Ministry Defense, there are thought to be approximately 130 AP mine victims in the country, the majority of them from the Cordillear del Cóndor border region.148 The ICRC reported thirty-seven mine accidents on the Peru-Ecuador border from 1994 to 1999, including thirty-six military personnel and one civilian.149
According to the UNMAS, seventy-two mine accidents have been reported around electrical installations since they were mined in the late 1980s and early 1990s, including thirty-two accidents to national police, five to electrical company employees, seven to other maintenance staff and twenty-eight to the local civilian population.150
Along the Chilean border, the ICRC reported accidents including one civilian mine accident in 1994 and one in 1998.151 The human rights NGO APRODEH also reported an accident that occurred in August 1999 where one civilian was injured and another killed, later confirmed by the military authorities.152
According to the Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación, INR (National Rehabilitation Institute), 10% of the 1,218 amputees it has treated are related to accidents with explosive materials and firearms but it does not have specific information on mine victims.153 The National Institute of Statistics and Information, INEI, does not have reports of victims that died or were injured by mines or explosive artifacts. The Ministry of Health does not provide official statistics on AP mine casualties who have been treated in hospitals and it is not possible to determine how many victims have been assisted.
Victim Assistance
While the Army and National Police guarantee and provide medical assistance, physical rehabilitation and prostheses for their own members injured by mines, in general medical attention that is available for civilians is more limited, costly and does not include provision of ortheses and prostheses.154 The Armed Forces have programs in place that provide vocational reintegration but the National Police programs only deal with the physical and psychological aspects of victim assistance.155 For veterans of the Cenepa Conflict of 1995, Law 26511 guarantees their right to physical rehabilitation. Veterans' benefits were extended by Law 27124 (27 May 1999) to those who were killed or incapacitated in that conflict. The military and National Police have disability pensions for members, though these are inadequate for covering the medical and social costs of becoming disabled in Peru.156
Along the border regions, and in the Andean highlands, basic health care and access to clean drinking water and sanitation are restricted. Civilians who are seriously injured must be transferred to Lima for treatment, where the majority of specialized health care services and well-trained professionals are concentrated.
The INR offers programs for amputees and burn victims, including physical and occupational therapy, psychological counseling and social services. According to the Director of the Congreso Nacional de Discapacitados, CONADIS (National Congress of the Disabled), the INR receives about 120 patients each year.157 CONADIS is the inter-ministerial body dedicated to the protection of disabled persons.158 CONADIS is in charge of the "Plan for the Development of the Disabled," which according to an official at the Ministry of Health does not make reference to assistance for employment and socio-economic reintegration of the disabled.159
According to an official at the Ministry of Health, Peruvian laws do not make special provisions or provide pensions to civilians disabled by AP mines.160
The UNMAS Assessment team received a petition from the Association of Persons Disabled by Explosive Devices (APIDEX) which described the objectives of the association, called for better treatment from the national health service for its disabled members, and appealed to the UN for international technical support and cooperation.161
Saint Kitts and Nevis signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 3 December 1997 and ratified on 2 December 1998. The treaty entered into force for Saint Kitts and Nevis on 1 June 1999. It has not yet enacted domestic implementing legislation. Saint Kitts and Nevis' Article 7 transparency report, due 27 November 1999, was submitted to the UN on 16 May 2000. The delay was due to illness and subsequent death of UN Ambassador Lee L. Moore.162 In a letter to the Landmine Monitor, Mrs. Astona Browne, Chargé d'affaires of the Permanent Mission of Saint Kitts and Nevis to the United Nations, wrote, "We applaud your organization for its initiative in raising the awareness of the global community with regards to the global landmine situation, humanitarian mine action, and compliance with the Mine Ban Treaty."163 Saint Kitts and Nevis did not participate in the First Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty in Maputo in May 1999 and has not participated in the intersessional meetings of the ban treaty. Saint Kitts and Nevis voted in favor of UN General Assembly Resolution 54/54B in December 1999 in support of the Mine Ban Treaty. The Article 7 report confirmed that Saint Kitts and Nevis has no stockpiled AP mines and that it is mine-free.164 Saint Kitts and Nevis has never produced, transferred or used AP mines.
Saint Lucia signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 3 December 1997 and ratified on 13 April 1999. The treaty entered into force for Saint Lucia on 1 October 1999. It is not believed to have enacted domestic implementing legislation. Saint Lucia has not yet submitted its Article 7 transparency report, due on 29 March 2000. Saint Lucia did not participate in the First Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty in Maputo in May 1999 and has not participated in the intersessional meetings of the ban treaty. It voted in favor of UN General Assembly Resolution 54/54B in December 1999 in support of the Mine Ban Treaty. Saint Lucia has never produced, transferred, used or stockpiled antipersonnel landmines. It is not mine-affected.165
Trinidad and Tobago signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 4 December 1997 and ratified on 27 April 1998, the eleventh country to do so. On 2 May 2000, the "Anti-Personnel Mines Bill 2000" was introduced to the Senate.166 The bill outlaws use, development, production, acquisition, and transfer of AP mines and provides for penal sanctions, including fines and imprisonment.167 The bill was passed by the Senate on 9 May 2000 and sent to the House of Representatives.168
Trinidad and Tobago has not yet submitted its Article 7 report, due on 27 August 1999. Trinidad and Tobago was not present at the First Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty in Maputo in May 1999 and has not participated in the intersessional meetings of the ban treaty. It voted in favor of the December 1999 UN General Assembly resolution in support of the treaty. Trinidad and Tobago has stated that it has never produced, imported, stockpiled, or used antipersonnel landmines and that it is not mine-affected.169
Key developments since March 1999: The Mine Ban Treaty entered into force for Venezuela on 1 October 1999. Venezuela has not submitted its Article 7 report, due by 29 March 2000.
Venezuela signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 3 December 1997 and ratified on 14 April 1999. According to a Foreign Ministry official, when Venezuela ratifies an international treaty, it immediately becomes national law, and therefore Venezuela considers that there is no need for an implementation law.170 Venezuela has not yet submitted its Article 7 transparency report, due by 29 March 2000. Venezuela voted in favor of UN General Assembly Resolution 54/54B in support of the Mine Ban Treaty in December 1999, as it had done on similar resolutions in 1997 and 1998. Venezuela did not participate in the First Meeting of States Parties in Maputo, Mozambique in May 1999. An official explained that Venezuela was not yet a State Party (it was in the six month waiting period between ratification and entry into force), and the government considered that it was not useful for the country to participate as an observer.171
Venezuela is not a party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons or its Amended Protocol II on landmines but it participated as an observer in the December 1999 First Annual Conference of States Parties to Amended Protocol II in Geneva. Venezuela is member of the Conference of Disarmament and has supported efforts to pursue an AP mine export ban there.
Venezuela states that it has never produced or transferred AP mines.172 The U.S. Department of Defense lists Venezuela as the producer of the MV-1 antipersonnel mine, which it describes as an improvised fragmentation AP mine that uses an E-1 hand grenade fuse, is made from aluminum, and is black with orange markings on the top and the bottom of the mine.173 According to the Colombian political and military officials, the illegal traffic of weapons in the border area between these two countries could include AP mines.174 Venezuela is believed to have a stockpile of AP mines, but the size, composition, and suppliers of the mines are unknown. Venezuela is not known to have used AP mines.
Venezuela is currently contributing four supervisors to the OAS Assistance Program for Demining in Central America.175 Venezuela is not mine-affected but there could be some mined areas on the Colombian side of the border with Venezuela from use by Colombia's rebel groups.176 The government states that there are no landmine casualties in Venezuela.177 Venezuela has a national health system with specialized services located in main urban centers, including rehabilitation services.178
240 Statement by Ambassador Lionel Hurst, Head of the Delegation of Antigua and Barbuda to the First Conference of the Parties to the Convention to Ban Anti-Personnel Mines, Maputo, 4 May 1999, p. 3.
241 Landmine Monitor has a copy of the interpretative statement. See also, Response by Ministry of Foreign Affairs to Landmine Monitor questionnaire, 30 March 2000.
242 Interviews with Secretary Santiago Villalba, Director of International Safety, Nuclear and Space Affairs Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in February and May 2000.
243 Landmine Monitor has a copy of the letter by Adolfo Pérez Esquivel.
244 Response by the Ministry of Defense to Landmine Monitor questionnaire, 8 May 2000.
245 Statement by Argentine Permanent Representative to the UN Minister Ana María Ramírez to the UN General Assembly 54th session, New York, 18 November 1999.
246 Statement by Minister Pedro Villagra Delgado to the First Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty, Maputo, 3 May 1999.
247 Response by Ministry of Foreign Affairs to Landmine Monitor questionnaire, 30 March 2000.
248 U.S. Department of Defense, "Mine Facts" CD Rom.
249 Response by the Ministry of Defense to Landmine Monitor questionnaire, 8 May 2000.
250 Landmine Monitor Report 1999 referred to a scandal surrounding alleged sale of AP mines to Croatia in early 1995 despite the UN arms embargo. In early 1999, the former Ministers of Defense and Foreign Affairs and the former Army Commander-in-Chief were formally charged in the case. "New evidence of weapons sale," El Clarín, 3 January 1999.
251 See Landmine Monitor 2000 country report on United Kingdom.
252 Interview with Osvaldo Gazzola, Advisor, Office of Congressmen Alfredo Bravo and Jorge Rivas, 14 February 2000.
253 Response by the Ministry of Defense to Landmine Monitor questionnaire, 8 May 2000.
254 Interview with Alejandra Martín, Advisor, Directorate of Military Affairs of the Ministry of Defense, 28 February 2000.
255 Landmine Monitor correspondence with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 27 January 1999.
0 Interview with Osvaldo Gazzola, Advisor, Office of Congressmen Alfredo Bravo and Jorge Rivas, 14 February 2000.
1 Juan Castro Olivera, "Chile keeps 14 mine fields along frontier areas," La Nacion, 2 July 1999.
2 Antonio Oieni, "One million antipersonnel mines still buried in the highlands," El Tribuno (Salta newspaper), 16 August 1999.
4 "Integration measures agreed," Clarín (Buenos Aires newspaper), 19 May 1999.
5 Antonio Oieni, "Chile is responsible for clearance of antipersonnel mines in the Andes," El Tribuno.
6 Statement made by Governor Juan Carlos Romero to Reuters on 28June 1999 and published in "The Province analyzes a Judiciary Claim," El Tribuno, 29 Tuesday 1999.
7 "Chile ratified its decision of demining the the Cordillera," El Tribuno, 13 October 1999.
8 "Chilean military put a halt to demining program," Clarín, 17 August 1999.
9 José Higuera, "Desminado fronterizo: La atrevida promesa de Izurieta," El Metropolitano (Santiago), 20 November 1999.
10 "Izurieta anunció retiro de minas antipersonales en zones fronterizas," La Segunda (Santiago), 18 November 1999. "Chile announces the demining of its borders," Agence France Presse (La Paz), 18 November 1999.
11 A group of twelve Argentine military personnel, volunteers with the White Helmet Corps, participated in mine clearance operations in the area of Malange between June 1997 and June 1998. "Risky Argentine Mission in Angola" La Nación, 19 April 1999.
12 An Army Engineers Unit participated in Kuwait under the UNIKOM mission. See Argentina's Article 13 report to CCW Amended Protocol II, Form E, 15 November 1999.
13 Argentina's Article 13 report to Amended Protocol II, Form E, 15 November 1999. See also statement by Argentine Permanent Representative to the UN Minister Ana María Ramírez to the UN General Assembly, New York, 18 November 1999.
14 Alberto Armendáriz, "Argentina collaborates with the removal of landmines in Nicaragua," La Nación, 18 April 1999. See also statement by Minister Ana María Ramírez to the UN General Assembly, 18 November 1999.
15 Email from Juan Luís Hurtado, military member of the mission in Central America, March 2000. Interview with Alejandra Martín, Advisor to the Secretary of Military Affairs, Guillermo Tello, Ministry of Defense, Buenos Aires, March 2000.
16 Interview with Alejandra Martín, Ministry of Defense, Buenos Aires, March 2000.
17 Argentina's Article 13 report to the Amended Protocol II CCW, Form E, 15 November 1999.
19 Argentina's Article 13 report to the Amended Protocol II CCW, Form F, 15 November 1999. See also statement by Minister Ana María Ramírez to the UN General Assembly, 18 November 1999.
20 Response by the Ministry of Defense to Landmine Monitor questionnaire, 8 May 2000.
22 Letter from A. Missouri Sherman-Peter, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Bahamas, to Elizabeth Bernstein, ICBL Coordinator, 18 January 2000.
23 Statement made by the Honorable Janet G. Bostwick, Minister of Foreign Affairs, at the Treaty Signing Conference, Ottawa, Canada, December 1997. This information is confirmed in the 1999 Landmine Monitor Questionnaire completed by the High Commission for the Commonwealth of The Bahamas, Ottawa, 2 February 1999.
24 1999 Landmine Monitor Questionnaire, completed by the Government of Barbados, 29 January 1999. See also the UN country report:
http://www.un.org/Depts/Landmine/country/barbados.htm.
25 Belize's Article 7 report, submitted on 4 November 1999, states that no national implementation measures have been taken.
26 Fax from Saida E. Espat, for the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "Report of Monitoring on Land Mines 2000 - Belize," Ref: FA/UN/28/2000 (40), to Landmine Monitor researcher, 15 June 2000.
27 Email from Candy Gonzalez, Vice President, Belize Institute for Environmental Law and Policy (BELPO), 23 June 2000.
28 Belize Article 7 report, submitted 4 November 1999.
29 In its Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 report, submitted 8 November 1999, Bolivia states in Form A, "No se dispone de medidas de aplicación alguna." (Translation: "There are not national implementation measures.")
30 Statement by Barbara Canedo Patiño, Director General of Multilateral Issues of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the First Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty, Maputo, 3-7 May 1999. In Spanish, translation by Landmine Monitor researcher.
31 Telephone interview with Barbara Canedo Patiño, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 10 May 2000.
32 Response to Landmine Monitor questionnaire, provided by Barbara Canedo Patiño, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 8 May 2000.
33 "Bolivia offers Chile assistance to accelerate the demining along the border," Agence France Presse (La Paz), 4 July 1998.
34 "Chile announces the demining of its borders," Agence France Presse (La Paz), 18 November 1999.
35 "Chile begins the demining in the border with Bolivia," Agence France Presse (Santiago), 1 December 1999; "Army Begins To Dismantle Mine Fields," El Mercurio, (Chilean national newspaper), 1 December 99.
36 "277 Landmines Destroyed," MISNA, Tambo Quemado, Chile, 9 December 1999.
37 "Chile begins the demining in the border with Bolivia," Agence France Presse (Santiago), 1 December 1999.
38 Telephone interview with Barbara Canedo Patiño, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 10 May 2000.
39 El Diario, 21 September 1997.
40 Article 253 of the Brazilian Penal Code, prescribes punishment of 6 months to 2 years imprisionment for producing, buying, selling, carrying or possessing, without license, any substance or explosive device, toxic gas or material for its production.
41 Statement by Ambassador Ivan Cannabrava, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Relations, to the First Meeting of State Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty, Maputo, 3 May 1999, p. 3.
42 Interview with Leonardo Cleaver de Athayde, Division of Disarmament and Sensitive Technologies (DDS) , Ministry of Foreign Relations, Brasília, 9 May 2000.
43 Interview with Minister Gilberto Fonseca G. De Moura, Chief of the Division of OAS Affairs; First Secretary Glivânia Coimbra, Chief, DDS; and Third Secretary Leonardo Cleaver de Athayde, also of the DDS, Ministry of Foreign Relations, Brasília, 14 January 2000. Brazil has also not yet submitted its annual landmine reports for the OAS or CCW Amended Protocol II.
44 Statement by Ambassador Adhemar Bahadian at the First Annual Conference of the State Parties to Amended Protocol II, Geneva, 15 December 1999.
45 Statement by Amb. Cannabrava to the First Meeting of State Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty, Maputo, 3 May 1999.
46 Interview with Leonardo Cleaver de Athayde, DDS, Ministry of Foreign Relations, Brasília, 9 May 2000.
47 Statement by Amb. Cannabrava to the First Meeting of State Parties, Maputo, 3 May 1999.
48 Pedro Paulo Rezende,"Brasil Destrói Minas Antipessoal," Correio Braziliense, 3 May 2000, p. 4. According to the sources quoted in the article, "Since 1 March 1999 [sic] when the National Congress ratified the treaty, more than 200,000 mines had been destroyed. Old mines from WWII were simply detonated in military bases in Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Sul and Goiás States. More recently manufactured landmines were disassembled and their explosive content retained for other uses, including civilian ones.... The task of compiling detailed information on which type of mines were destroyed or disassembled, when and where, is made more difficult by the lack of co-operation between the new Ministry of Defense and the Brazilian Army."
49 Interview with Leonardo Cleaver de Athayde, DDS, Ministry of Foreign Relations, Brasília, 9 May 2000.
50 Email from Deputy Nilmário Miranda, National Assembly, 29 June 2000. Deputy Nilmário Miranda is a member of the left-of-center Partido dos Trabalhadores.
51 See Landmine Monitor Report 1999, p. 287.
52 Landmine Monitor Core Group meeting with the Brazilian delegation to the First Meeting of States Parties, Maputo, 4 May 1999. Brazil's views were posted shortly afterwards to the "Comments Received" section of the Landmine Monitor website at http://www.icbl.org/lm/1999/comments.html#brazil
53 Email from Communication Service of MST, 23 June 1999.
54 Statement by Amb. Cannabrava to the First Meeting of State Parties, Maputo, 3 May 1999.
55 Interview with Minister Gilberto Fonseca G De Moura, OAS Affairs, Glivânia Coimbra, DDS, and Leonardo Cleaver de Athayde, DDS, Ministry of Foreign Relations, Brasília, 14 January 2000.
56 Interview with Leonardo Cleaver de Athayde, DDS, Ministry of Foreign Relations, Brasília, 9 May 2000.
58 Canada became the first country known to have charged a citizen with a violation of MBT implementation legislation. In July 1999, a raid of a private home reportedly resulted in the confiscation of a large number of weapons, including landmines. Police arrested a 47-year old Canadian man who was released on CND$5,000 bail the following day and is scheduled to appear in court 23 August 2000. Mike McIntyre, "Weapons cache included mines, machine guns," Winnipeg Free Press, 25 July 1999; "Bus driver gets bail," Winnipeg Free Press, 27 July 1999; interviews with various sources, June 2000.
59 Landmine Monitor Report 1999, pp. 221-224. Statutes of Canada, Chapter 33, An Act to Implement the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Antipersonnel Mines and on their Destruction; Bill C-22, Assented to 27 November 1997. For more on the provision in the Act related to joint military operations, and the related "understanding" submitted with the ratification instrument, see below in "Use" section.
60 Notes for an address by Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy to a Newsmakers Breakfast, Ottawa, 3 December 1999.
61 DFAIT, press release No. 129, "Axworthy Appoints Ambassador for Mine Action," 22 May 1998, Ottawa.
62 Notes for an address by Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy to the FMSP, Maputo Mozambique, 3 May 1999; Press release, No. 96, "Axworthy calls for post-conflict mine action capability in areas such as Kosovo," 3 May 1999.
63 The most recent Article 7 report submitted should be considered the standard.
64 OAS, Register on Antipersonnel Landmines, submitted by Peter M. Boehm, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Permanent Mission of Canada to the OAS, OES/Ser. G, CP/CSH-190/00 add. 1., 14 April 1999.
65 Statement by Lloyd Axworthy, "Canada and Russia: Human Security and Northern Policy," St. Petersburg, Russia, 2 February 2000.
66 Notes for an address by Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy to A Newsmakers Breakfast, Ottawa, 3 December 1999; Statement by Lloyd Axworthy, on the acceptance of the Endicott Peabody Award, Boston Massachusetts, 22 October 1999.
67 Notes for an address by Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy to the FMSP, Maputo Mozambique, 3 May 1999; Press release, No. 96, "Axworthy calls for post-conflict mine action capability in areas such as Kosovo," 3 May 1999.
69 Statement by Daniel Livermore, Ambassador for Mine Action, to the 54th Session of the UNGA, Item 35: Mine Action, New York, New York, 18 November 1999.
70 Statement by Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy, to the Paasikivi Society, Helsinki, Finland, 1 September 1999; Statement by Lloyd Axworthy, "Canada and Russia: Human Security and Northern Policy," St. Petersburg, Russia, 2 February 2000.
71 Statement by Bob Lawson, Senior Policy Advisor/Deputy Coordinator for Mine Action, at the First Annual Conference of States Parties to the Amended Protocol II CCW, Geneva, 15 December 1999.
73 Press release, #109, "Axworthy announces support for global landmine watchdog," 19 May 2000.
74 Notes for an address by Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy to the FMSP, Maputo, Mozambique, 3 May 1999.
76 Press Release, No. 141, "Axworthy welcomes progress on democracy and human security at OAS General Assembly," 6 June 2000.
77 Statement, Lloyd Axworthy, 22 October 1999 on the acceptance of the Endicott Peabody Award, Boston, Massachusetts.
78 Reports on Mines Action Canada's capacity building workshops are available at http://www.minesactioncanada.org.
79 Figures supplied by YMAAP Secretariat.
80 Available at: http://www.lm-online.org.
81 Statement by Bob Lawson, Senior Policy Advisor/Deputy Coordinator for Mine Action, to the First Annual Conference of States Parties to the Amended Protocol II of the CCW, Geneva, 15 December 1999.
82 Annual Report of Canada in Accordance with Article 13, paragraph 4 of Protocol II as Amended on 3 May 1996, 10 December 1999.
83 Statement by Bob Lawson, Senior Policy Advisor/Deputy Coordinator for Mine Action, to the First Annual Conference of States Parties to the Amended Protocol II of the CCW, Geneva, 15 December 1999.
84 Statement by Mike Moher, Canadian Ambassador to the CD, January 1999.
85 Government news release, No.5, on the announcement of comprehensive, unilateral moratoria on the production, export and operational use of AP mines by Canada, 17 January 1996. Other sources indicate production halted in 1994. See, Mark Abley, The Gazette, Montreal, 17 November 1994; Jane's Military Vehicles and Logistics, 1994-95, p.175. See also Article 7 Reports, Canada, 27 August 1999 and 27 April 2000, http://domino.un.org/ottawa
86 CCMAT Project Charter, October 1998.
89 Mines Action Canada, letter to ministers of foreign affairs, defense, international cooperation and industry, copied to CCMAT director, 29 January 1999.
90 Telephone interview with Dr. Bob Suart, Director of CCMAT, 28 June 2000.
93 Valerie Warmington, CCMAT Work on Alternatives to AP Landmines Summary, undated.
94 Fax from Kristeva Zoe, Political and Multilateral Issues, DFAIT-ILX, 11 February 1999.
95 This issue was discussed at the SCE on General Status of the Convention meetings in January and May 2000 in Geneva. Not only the prohibition on transfer must be considered, but also the prohibition on assisting anyone in a prohibited act.
96 Statement by Daniel Livermore to the 54th Session of the UNGA, Item 35: Mine Action, 18 November 1999, New York.
97 Press release No. 262, 1 December 1999, "Axworthy marks landmine anniversary in Ottawa"; Notes for an address by The Honourable Lloyd Axworthy, Minister of Foreign Affairs to a Newsmakers Breakfast, 3 December 1999, Ottawa, Canada.
98 Telephone interview with Col. Normand Levert, Liaison Officer to the Mine Action Team (ILX), 23 February 1999; telephone interview with Lt. Col. J.P. Chabot, Directorate of Arms and Proliferation Control Policy, 23 February 1999; telephone interview with Major Perrin, April 1998; LM-MAC/Fredenburg, February 1999.
99 Article 7 Report, Form D, submitted 27 April 2000, for the period 1 August 1999-14 March 2000.
101 Telephone interview with Major Perrin, April 1998; MAC/Fredenburg, Feb 1999;
MAC/Levert, Feb 1999.
102 Article 7 Report, Form D, submitted 27 August 1999, for the period 1 January 1999-31 July 1999.
103 Article 7 Report, Form D, submitted 27 April 2000.
106 Press Release No. 134, "Axworthy and Minna announce funding for landmine projects in the Americas," 4 June 2000.
107 Dennis Bueckert, "Canadian Forces issued mines despite campaign," The Ottawa Citizen newspaper, 14 February 2000. See also "Les Canadiens sont equips de mines," Le Journal de Québec, 14 Février 2000.
108 Letter from Mines Action Canada to Minister of Foreign Affairs Lloyd Axworthy, 18 February 2000. The letter was accompanied by a two-page backgrounder.
109 Letter from Minister Lloyd Axworthy to Mines Action Canada, received 23 June 2000. MAC has received contradictory information from different sources about whether modifications can or have been made to ensure the Claymore mines in Canadian stockpiles cannot be fitted with a booby-trap or made to be victim activated.
110 Article 7 reports and report to the CCW amended protocol II, 10 December 1999. However, it was reported to MAC, that on at least two different occasions, at an event in the spring of 2000 in Montreal, Quebec and another in British Colombia, representatives of the Department of National Defence have dismissed the Mine Ban Treaty said that Canada would use AP mines in a conflict, which raises concern about how well Canada's position is being communicated to the lower ranks of the Canadian Forces. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is reported to be looking into the matter.
111 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction,.C.N.473.1997.TREATIES-2
112 Statutes of Canada, Chapter 33, An Act to Implement the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Antipersonnel Mines and on their Destruction; Bill C-22, Assented to 27 November 1997.
113 Email communication from Bob Lawson, Senior Policy Advisor, ILX-DFAIT, received 15 March 1999.
114 Speech made by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien to the Opening Plenary of the Ottawa Treaty Signing Conference, 3 December 1997. For a description of the Canadian Landmine Fund see 1999 Landmine Monitor, Canada report, p.235; UN Mine Action Investment Database (www.un.org/Depts/dpko/mine/). The exchange rate used is C$1 = $US0.6730. This is the official exchange rate used by the Canadian government for 1999-2000 in its reports to the UN Mine Action Investment database.
115 FY 1999-2000 figure is based on the total of the projects detailed in this report (C$26,021,215). FY1998-1999 figure is as reported by the government of Canada in the UN Mine Action Investment Database for the year 1998. Canada has reported US$15.4 million for 1999 in the UN database.
116 Available at: www.mines.gc.ca.
117 "Seeds of Terror Seeds of Hope, 1998-199 Report on the Canadian Landmine Fund," report submitted to the Canadian Parliament by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, 3 December 1999. p. 26.
118 Mines Action Canada files.
120 See www.mines.gc.ca/english/documents/measeng-final.htm
122 Copies of the draft Canadian guidelines were circulated to Canadian NGOs in March and April 2000 meetings.
123 The Mine Action Team presented the Canadian Mine Action Guidelines and Canadian Mine Action Progress Indicators during a consultation meeting on mine action, held in Ottawa, Canada, 17 March 2000. The consultations also included presentations by key Canadian mine action organizations on: plans and priorities for the fiscal year 2000/2001, made by key Canadian mine action organizations; as well as Canadian mine action capacities.
124 Andrew Mitrovica, "Landmine chaos give Canada `black eye,'" The Globe and Mail, (Canadian newspaper) 14 June 2000. p. 1.
125 Andrew Mitrovica, "Canada's delay in mine crisis puts many at risk, officials say," The Globe and Mail, (Canadian newspaper) 15 June 2000. p. A5.
126 Notes for an address by the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy to the Empire Club, Toronto, 28 June 1999.
127 Telephone interview with Scott Fairweather, Interim Executive Director, Canadian Landmine Foundation, 16 June 2000.
130 Available at: www.clearlandmines.com.
131 Telephone interview with Dr. Bob Suart, Director of CCMAT, 28 June 2000.
132 Telephone interview with Dr. Bob Suart, Director of CCMAT, 18 June 2000.
133 Article 7 Reports, Form C, 27 August 1999 and 27 April 2000.
134 See Landmine Monitor 1999 p. 239 for more details.
135 See Canadian submission to the United Nations global Survey on Disability Policy, 15 September 1996, www.independentliving.org/Library
136 Statement by Bern Niehaus, Representative of Costa Rica at the UNGA First Committee First Session, GA/DIS/3142, 13 October 1999.
137 "Declaration of San José," Article 27, San José, Costa Rica, 5 April 2000. The nine countries were Costa Rica, Panamá, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Belize, the Dominican Republic, and Brazil.
138 CIA Factbook, Costa Rica, http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/cs.html.
139 International Demining Organization, 24 September 1998, Article No. 98-09-02, available at http://www.jid.org.
140 "Cronograma del Plan de Desminado" [Timetable for National Demining Plan], Minsterio de Seguridad Pública [Ministry of Security] provided to Landmine Monitor by Mr. Major Luis Carlos Calvo. Interview with Major Luis Carlos Calvo, Chief of the Mine Clearance Program, Ministry of Security, Los Chiles, 3 May 2000.
141 "Cronograma del Plan de Desminado" [Timetable for National Demining Plan], Minsterio de Seguridad Pública [Ministry of Security] provided to Landmine Monitor.
142 Interview with Major Luis Carlos Calvo, Chief of the Mine Clearance Program, Los Chiles, 3 May 2000.
143 Email from Jhosselin Bakhat, Organization of American States, 20 June 2000.
144 Ibid.; "Demining" section of the Unit for the Promotion of Democracy, Organization of American States, http://www.oas.org/upd/demining/demining.htm.
145 See OAS contribution to Landmine Monitor Report 2000.
147 "Cronograma del Plan de Desminado" [Timetable for National Demining Plan], Minsterio de Seguridad Pública [Ministry of Security] provided to Landmine Monitor.
148 Interview with Mr. Major Luis Carlos Calvo, Chief of the Mine Clearance Program, Los Chiles, 3 May 2000.
149 See OAS contribution to Landmine Monitor Report 2000.
151 Telephone interview with Mr. Ferrol, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Dominica, 8 June 2000.
152 Ministry of Foreign Relations of Ecuador, "Informe a la Nación 1998-1999, Tomo II," Quito, January 2000.
153 Statement by Ambassador Mario Alemán, Ecuador's Permanent Representative to the UN, at the Plenary Session of the UN General Assembly, New York, 19 November 1999.
154 Telephone interview with Colonel Roberto Tandazo, 31 March 2000.
155 Article 7 Report, Form B, submitted 29 March 2000.
157 Article 7 Report, Form G, 29 March 2000.
158 Article 7 Report, Forms D and F, 29 March 2000.
159 UNMAS, "Mine Action Assessment Mission Report: Ecuador," 15 November 1999, p. 20.
160 Article 7 Report, Form D, 29 March 2000.
161 Notes taken by Mary Wareham, Human Rights Watch, 30 May 2000.
162 Telephone interview with Colonel Miguel Patricio Proaño, 27 March 2000. There have been reports of use since 1995. The Latin American Association for Human Rights (ALDHU) told the UN in December 1996 that mine-laying activities were still on-going in the contested area and that an estimated 10,000 landmines had been laid since the cease-fire of February 1995. UNMAS, "Mine Action Assessment Mission Report: Ecuador," 15 November 1999, p. 11. A former Defense Minister has said that in the last tense moments before the end of peace negotiations in October 1998, a brief "landmine war" was fought between the two countries, which consisted of use of AP mines used by both parties "against enemy patrols" in border areas. Pablo Cuvi, Interview with General José Gallardo, in Al Filo de la Paz [On the Edge of Peace], (Dinediciones, Quito), March 2000, pp. 49-68.
163 ALDHU Report, "Human and Environmental Security of Shuar, Achuar (Ecuador), Aguaruna, Huambisa (Peru) Populations after the War," August 1999.
164 UNMAS, "Mine Action Assessment Mission Report: Ecuador," 15 November 1999, p. 11.
167 Article 7 Report, Form C, 29 March 2000.
168 UNMAS, "Mine Action Assessment Mission Report: Ecuador," 15 November 1999, p. 12.
172 See OAS contribution to Landmine Monitor Report 2000.
173 Press release 141, "Axworthy welcomes progress on democracy and human security at the OAS General Assembly," 6 June 2000.
174 UNMAS, "Mine Action Assessment Mission Report: Ecuador," 15 November 1999, p. 17.
175 OAS contribution to Landmine Monitor Report 2000.
176 UNMAS, "Mine Action Assessment Mission Report: Ecuador," 15 November 1999.
182 Telephone interview with Juan de Dios Parra, Director, Latin American Association for Human Rights (ALDHU), 24 March 2000.
183 UNMAS, "Mine Action Assessment Mission Report: Ecuador," 15 November 1999, pp. 27-28.
187 Telephone interview with Juan de Dios Parra, ALDHU, 24 March 2000.
188 UNMAS, "Mine Action Assessment Mission Report: Ecuador," 15 November 1999, p. 13.
189 Telephone interview with Juan de Dios Parra, ALDHU, 24 March 2000.
190 UNMAS, "Mine Action Assessment Mission Report: Ecuador," 15 November 1999, p. 19.
192 Email from Carlos Alberto Soto, Director of FEDUCA (an Ecuadorian NGO that works with disabled people) to CCCM for Landmine Monitor, 7 April 2000.
193 Statement by Vice-Minister of External Relations Rene Eduardo Dominguez, to the First Meeting of States Parties, Maputo, 4 May 1999, p. 2. Translation into English by Landmine Monitor.
195 Human Rights Watch and Physicians for Human Rights, Landmines: A Deadly Legacy (Human Rights Watch: New York, October 1993), pp. 185-186.
196 Seguridad Hemisferica, Cuadro Resumen: Minas Terrestres Antipersonales, Al 1 de mayo de 1998, "El Hemisferico Occidental como Zona Libre de Minas Terrestres Antipersonales," AG/RES. 1411 (XXVI-O/96) y AG/RES. 1496 (XXVII_O97) parrafo resolutivo 4, Organizacion de los Estados Americanos, Washington, D.C. de los Estados Ameicanos, Washington, D.C.
197 "Salvadoran munitions store blows up injuring 44," Agence France Presse (San Salvador), 10 May 2000.
198 Interview with Colonel Sidney Rendón, Embassy of El Salvador in Guatemala, Guatemala City, 9 May 2000.
199 ICRC, Antipersonnel Mines in Central America: Conflict and post-conflict, January 1996, p. 13.
201 Interview with Colonel Sidney Rendón, Embassy of El Salvador in Guatemala, Guatemala City, 9 May 2000.
202 Letter from Wanda Amory, PODES, to Wendy Batson, Director of Humanitarian Affairs, Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation, 17 July 2000.
203 Telephone interview with Sue Eitel, Landmine Survivors Network, 21 June 2000.
204 Letter from Wanda Amory, PODES, to Wendy Batson, Director of Humanitarian Affairs, Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation, 17 July 2000.
205 Interview with Arturo Duarte, General Director of Multilateral Relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Guatemala City, 13 March 2000.
206 Telephone interview with Arturo Duarte, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 23 April 2000.
207 Statement of Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Gabriel Aguilera Preralta at the First Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty, Maputo, 3 May 1999, p. 3.
208 Interview with Arturo Duarte, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 13 March 2000.
209 Interview with General Otto Perez Molina, the Guatemalan military's representative to the IADB, Washington, D.C., 19 February 1999.
210 Interview with Arturo Duarte, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 13 March 2000.
211 Email from Jhosselin Bakhat, Organization of American States, 20 June 2000.
212 Ibid.; "Demining" section of the Unit for the Promotion of Democracy, Organization of American States, http://www.oas.org/upd/demining/demining.htm
213 Interview with General Perez Molina, IADB, Washington, D.C., 19 February 1999.
214 UNHCR estimated that there were 1,000 to 1,500 landmines in Guatemala in the mid-1990s, according to the United Nations landmine country report on Guatemala. See http://www.un.org/Depts/landmine/country. The ICRC reported in 1996 that the total number of mines "is probably under 1,500." Antipersonnel Mines in Central America, p. 19.
215 UN landmine country report for Guatemala, 3 March 1997.
216 ICRC, Antipersonnel Mines in Central America, p. 18-19.
217 Republic of Guatemala, Legislative Commission for Peace Studies, Executive Coordination Unit, "National Plan for Demining and the Destruction of Unexploded Ordnance," November 1997.
218 Interview with Officer Sergio Vasquez, Public Relations Officer for Mine Clearance, Voluntary Fire Department, Guatemala City, 10 March 2000.
220 Organizaci_n de Estados Americanos, Junta Interamericana de Defensa, "El Programa de Asistencia al Desminado en Centroamerica," 4 February 1999.
221 Interview with Guillermo Pacheco, OAS Desminado, Guatemala City, 16 December 1999.
222 See OAS contribution to Landmine Monitor Report 2000.
223 Interview with Guillermo Pacheco, OAS Desminado, Guatemala City, 16 December 1999.
224 Interview with Officer Sergio Vasquez, 10 March 2000.
225 Telephone interview with Officer Sergio Vasquez, 3 April 2000.
226 Interview with Guillermo Pacheco, OAS Desminado, Guatemala City, 16 December 1999.
227 Interview with Arturo Duarte, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 13 March 2000.
228 Center for International Rehabilitation, "Central American Rehabilitation Resource Directory published by the Center for International Rehabilitation," Press Release, 12 April 2000.
229 "Partners: Guatemala" section of the web site of Center for International Rehabilitation, http://www.worldrehab.org/partners/guatemala.htm.
230 See UNICEF contribution to Landmine Monitor Report 2000.
231 The U.S. has never produced an AP mine with this nomenclature. It is likely that the AP mine being referred to is the U.S. M14. Honduras is one of the few governments to report on Claymore-type mines.
232 "Cumplimiento de la Convención de Ottawa: Comisión de expertos canadienses ayudará en la desactivación de los explosivos," Tiempo Digital (Honduras newspaper), 3 March 2000.
233 Interview with Inter-American Defense Board expert, Washington, D.C., 17 February 1999.
234 Interview with Lieutenant Arnold Ayestas Paz, OAS International Supervisory Official, Guatemala City, 11 May 2000.
235 Honduras Article 7 report, Form C, submitted 30 August 1999.
236 Interview with Lieutenant Arnold Ayestas Paz, 11 May 2000.
237 Jane's Mines and Mine Clearance, on-line update, 18 November 1999.
238 For more details, see Landmine Monitor Report 1999, pp. 256-257. Also, U.S. Department of State, Hidden Killers: The Global Landmine Crisis, December 1994, p. 99.
239 Antipersonnel Mines in Central America: Conflict and post-conflict, International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva, January 1996, p. 14-15.
240 Email from Jhosselin Bakhat, Organization of American States, 20 June 2000.
241 Ibid.; "Demining" section of the Unit for the Promotion of Democracy, Organization of American States, http://www.oas.org/upd/demining/demining.htm.
242 "Results (as of 29 February 2000)," section of the Demining Assistance Program in Central America section of the OAS web site, www.oas.org
243 Interview with Lieutenant Arnold Ayestas Paz, 11 May 2000.
245 UN landmine country report for Honduras, September 1995.
246 OAS, Junta Interamericana de Defensa, Mision de Asistencia para Remoci_n de Minas en Centro America, "Cuadro Demostrativo de Los Accidentes Ocurridos al Personal Civil que Vive en Las Areas Rurales de La Republica de Honduras," September 1997.
247 Interview with Lieutenant Arnold Ayestas Paz, 11 May 2000.
248 Carta de la Mision Permanente de Mexico y la Mision Permanente de Canada al Presidente del Consejo Permanente de la Organizaci_n de los Estados Americanos, Washington, D.C., a 3 de febrero de 1999. This letter builds on the OAS resolution, AG/RES. 1568 (XXVIII-O/98), "Support for the Mine-Clearing Program in Central America," adopted on 2 June 1998.
249 Interview with Hernan Rosenberg, Pan-American Health Organization, Washington, D.C., 18 February 1999.
250 Statement by Jamaica at the FMSP to the Mine Ban Treaty, Maputo, 3-7 May 1999, p. 4.
251 Response by Ministry of Foreign Affairs to 1999 Landmine Monitor Questionnaire received on 9 February 1999.
252 Diario Oficial de la Federación, 21 August 1998, p. 2-9.
253 Statement by Ambassador Carmen Moreno to the First Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty, Maputo, 3 May 1999, p. 5.
254 Telephone interview with Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson, Mexico City, Mexico, 23 March 1999.
255 See for example, "Mexico blocks conclave on world land-mine ban," Reuters (Geneva), 12 June 1997.
0 See for example, "Declaración de Principios del Gobierno de Mexico sobre la Producción, Exportación y Uso de Minas Terrestres Antipersonales." Misión Permante de Mexico ante la OEA. CP02954.S, Mexico, D.F. a 7 de Febrero de 1997.
1 Letter from Minister Luis Alfonso De Alba, General Director for the United Nations, Mexican Foreign Relations Secretariat, to Landmine Monitor Researcher, Document Number: DNU-1205379, 9 December 1999, p. 1.
3 Law for the Prohibition of Production, Purchase, Sale, Import, Export, Transit, Use and Possession of Antipersonnel Landmines, Law No. 321, published in the Official Gazette on 12 January 2000. Article I of this law adds "installation" to the prohibition on AP mines. Article III states that the Armed Forces must destroy its stockpiles in the "period determined by the relevant authorities." Article VI states that persons who violate the Law will be charged with "exposing the public to danger," and will be charged accordingly. See "Prisión para vendedores de minas," Confidencial, No. 158, 5-11 September 1999, p. 5.
4 The report contains information as of 30 September 1999, but does not indicate the starting date of the reporting period. The delay in submission was due to the fact that Nicaragua initially sent the report to the government of Austria, which had developed the Article 7 reporting format.
5 Article 7 Report, Form B, 30 September 1999.
6 Ibid., Form D. The PP-Mi-Sr-II is an AP mine of Czechoslovak origin and the PT-Mi-K is an antitank mine of Czechoslovakian origin.
7 Interview with Major Sergio Ugarte, head of demining for the Nicaraguan Army, Managua, 15 January 1999.
8 Remarks by Cecilia Sanchez Reyes, Minister Counsellor, Nicaragua's Permanent Mission to the UN, Geneva, to the Standing Committee of Experts on Stockpile Destruction, Geneva, 10 December 1999 and 22 May 2000. An Army official has said the goal is to destroy some 34,000 mines per year, with completion by December 2002. Written reply to Landmine Monitor questionnaire by Colonel Spiro Bassi Aguilar, Chief, Army Corps of Engineers, 16 February 2000.
9 Article 7 Report, Form B. Updated by the Nicaraguan Army in January 2000. The TAP-4 is a Claymore-type directional fragmentation mine produced by Nicaragua.
11 Remarks by Cecilia Sanchez Reyes, Minister Counsellor, Nicaragua's Permanent Mission to the UN, Geneva, to the Standing Committee of Experts on Stockpile Destruction, Geneva, 22 May 2000.
12 Article 7 Report, Form D. The figures of mines retained add up to 1,921 mines, but the total recorded on Form D is 1,971. Nicaraguan officials have cited the 1,971 figure in SCE meetings.
13 UNICEF, "Portfolio of Mine-Related Projects," June 2000, p. 126.
15 Article 7 Report, "El programa de desminado en Nicaragua," 30 September 1999, p. 1.
16 Nicaragua Army compilation based on regional command reports, provided to Landmine Monitor in April, 2000.
18 Interview with Joel Zamora, Director of CEEN and member of the CND, Managua, 18 January 2000.
19 UNDP, Mine Action Bulletin, May 2000.
20 Email from Jhosselin Bakhat, Organization of American States, 20 June 2000; "Demining" section of the Unit for the Promotion of Democracy, Organization of American States, at: http://www.oas.org/upd/demining/demining.html.
21 Email from Jhosselin Bakhat, Organization of American States, 20 June 2000.
22 "Síndrome de Estocolmo," El Nuevo Diario, 5 November 1999, p. 11.
23 Ministry of Defense figures provided to Landmine Monitor. See also Article 7 Report and Response to Landmine Monitor Questionnaire by Colonel Spiro Bassi Aguilar, Chief of the Army Engineer Corps, 16 February 2000.
24 See OAS contribution to Landmine Monitor Report 2000.
25 Article 7 Report, "El programa de desminado en Nicaragua," 30 September 1999, p. 1.
27 "Assistance in Mine Action: Report of the Secretary General to the General Assembly," A/54/445, 6 October 1999.
28 Article 7 Report, "El programa de desminado en Nicaragua," 30 September 1999, p. 3. The OAS reports that joint work was conducted with the government of Nicaragua in the clearance and certification of major roadways, primarily the bridges of Paso Real, Jícaro, Montecristo, Naranjita, Tapacales, Inalí, Río Pire, Pueblo Nuevo, and El Tular, along the Juigalpa-El Rama highway. A total of twenty-six bridges were cleared and certified. See OAS contribution to Landmine Monitor Report 2000.
29 Nicaraguan Army data based on a compilation regional command reports, provided to Landmine Monitor, April 2000.
30 "Nicaragua se librará de 34,000 minas," La Prensa, Managua, 12 January 12 2000, p. 14.
31 Observation based on visits and interviews in affected areas by CEI and CEEN personnel.
32 "Conflicto limítrofe con Honduras afecta el ritmo del desminado fronterizo," Enfoque, La Prensa, Managua, 26 January 2000, pp. 4-5.
33 For example, CEEN sponsored a forum in Ocotal on 3 November 1999, "Foro Departamental de Acción sobre Minas: En Busca de un Sistema Integral con Actividades Paralelas al Desminado." See Landmine Monitor Report 1999 p. 272-3 on concerns about the militarized nature of the content and perception of mine action.
34 Budget provisions for such action was presented by the Ministry of Defense delegation to the States Party Review Session: "Republic of Nicaragua National Humanitarian Demining Program," Geneva, 15 September 1999 (mimeo).
35 Interview with Jacob Brixe Tange, Danish Embassy, Managua, 28 March 2000.
36 Interview with Tom Dodd, Counselor for Economic Affairs, EU delegation, Managua, 17 February 2000.
37 Interview with Joel Zamora, 18 January 2000.
38 UNICEF, "Portfolio of Mine-Related Projects," June 2000, p. 126.
39 Discussions with various officials and in forums and reports from CEI network of peace promoters who also carry out mine awareness education.
40 Interview with Tulio Tablada, Vice Minister, Ministry of Education, 24 February 2000.
41 Interview with Ana Lucía Silva, Human Rights Officer, UNICEF, Managua, 2 March 2000.
42 Interview with René Baltodano, Public Relations Director, Nicaraguan Red Cross, Managua, 31 January 2000.
43 Nicaragua Army internal report provided to Landmine Monitor, "Resultados Acumulados Del Programa De Desminado Humanitario," 28 April 2000.
45 Interview with René Baltodano, Public Relations Director, Nicaraguan Red Cross, Managua, 31 January 2000.
46 "Síndrome de Estocolmo," El Nuevo Diario, 5 November 1999, p. 11.
47 Interview with Dr. Norman Lanzas, Head of the Rehabilitation Unit, Ministry of Health, Managua, 10 February 2000.
48 Interview with Uriel Carazo, 26 January 2000.
49 Interview with Dr. Norman Lanzas, Head of the Rehabilitation Services Unit, Ministry of Health, 10 February 2000.
52 "Supporting Landmine Survivors in Central America," A Tripartite Initiative, Government of the United Mexican States, Pan-American Health Organization and World Health Organization, Government of Canada, January 1999.
53 CEI, "El desminado en Nicaragua," 1999.
54 Interview with Philippe Dicquemare, HI representative, Managua, 4 February 2000.
55 Interview with Uriel Carazo, 26 January 2000.
56 See OAS contribution to Landmine Monitor Report 2000.
58 Telephone interview with Janio Tuñon, Director-General, Department of International Organizations and Conferences, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 12 May 2000.
59 Panama was represented by S.E. Sr. Flavio Mendez Altamirano, Director-General of International Organizations and Conferences, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
60 Inquires were made with the following government agencies in May 2000: Interior Commerce Department of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Explosives Technical Unit of the National Police and the Institutional Department for Public Security Affairs, Ministry of Government and Justice. Also, interview with Jaime Luque, Director, Inter-Institutional Department on Public Safety Affairs, Ministry of Government and Justice, Panama City, 2 May 2000. Landmine Monitor Report 1999 p. 275 stated that there was uncertainty about whether or not Panama had a stockpile of AP mines.
61 Interview with Jaime Luque, Ministry of Government and Justice, 2 May 2000.
62 PRC Environmental Management, Inc. for Panama Canal Treaty Implementation Plan Agency, Department of Defense, Unexploded Ordnance Assessment of U.S. Military Ranges in Panama: Empire, Balboa West, and Piña Ranges, Final report, January 1997, Appendix A, p. A-15. Hereafter cited as "PRC, UXO Assessment, January 1997."
63 Interview with member of National Police, Panama City, October 1999.
64 PRC, UXO Assessment, January 1997, Appendix A, p. A-15.
65 Telephone interview with former munitions test official, March 2000.
66 PRC, UXO Assessment, January 1997, p. ES-1.
67 UXO in the Empire range was described by one official in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as fitting the description of the M2M AP mine. See Letter from Juan Antonio Stagg, Copresidente, Comite Conjunto-DEPAT, to Colonel Hunt, Copresidente, Comite Conjunto-DEPAT, 29 May 1998. Landmine Monitor editor's translation from Spanish.
68 Sherman was not used as a Firing Range, but it was used as a training camp. Useful reports on the ranges include: PRC, UXO Assessment, January 1997; U.S. Army South, Installation Condition Report, Empire Range - Military Area of Coordination, 11 July 1996; and, Range Transfer Report: Empire, Balboa West, and Piña Ranges: Actions to Protect Public Safety & the Environment, A joint effort of U.S. Army South, U.S. Air Combat Command, U.S. Technical Center for Explosive Safety, U.S. Air Force Safety Center, U.S. Southern Command Treaty Implementation, U.S. Army Environmental Center, U.S. Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board, 29 October 1998.
69 UNICEF, "UXO Awareness Education in Panama," proposal for June-December 2000, in UN, Portfolio of Mine-related Projects, June 2000, p. 128.
70 Autoridad de la Región Interoceánica ARI, Plan de Uso General del Suelo, 1996.
71 Letter from Colonel David J. Hunt, U.S. Air Force, Co-Chairman, Joint Committee, Center for Treaty Implementation, Department of Defense, U.S. Southern Command, Corozal, Panama, to Engineer Juan Antonio Stagg, JC# 152-98, 3 April 1998.
72 Andrea Stone, "Deadly Reminders of U.S. in Panama," USA Today, 9 August 1999, p. 7.
73 UNICEF, "UXO Awareness Education in Panama," proposal for June-December 2000, in United Nations, Portfolio of Mine-related Projects, June 2000, p. 128.
75 These include Servicio Paz y Justicia en Panamá, Coordinadora de Derechos Humanos de Panamá, Movimiento Nacional por la Defensa de la Soberanía, all human rights NGOs, and CODIN, a women's NGO.
76 Interview with Marta González, Director, National Permanent Commission for
Implementation of International Humanitarian Law, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Panama City, 12 May 2000.
77 Andrea Stone, "Deadly Reminders of U.S. in Panama," USA Today, 9 August 1999, p. 7.
78 Ministry of Health, 1999 Annual Report, 1999.
79 Statement by Lilianne Lebrón-Wenger, Director-General of Multiateral Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Relations, to the First Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty, Maputo, 3-7 May 1999. In Spanish, translation by Landmine Monitor editors.
80 Paraguay Article 7 report, dated 17 November 1999, received by Landmine Monitor in December 1999.
81 Statement by Lilianne Lebrón-Wenger to the FMSP, 3-7 May 1999.
82 Response to Landmine Monitor questionnaire by Department of International Organizations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 10 May 2000.
83 The Article 7 report was attached to a letter from Admiral Jose Ocampos Alfaro, Chief of the Armed Forces, faxed to Landmine Monitor researcher, 22 December 1999.
84 Statement by Lilianne Lebrón-Wenger to FMSP, 3-7 May 1999.
85 According to another official in the Foreign Ministry, "by constitutional disposition, the Ottawa Convention is automatically part of domestic law, regardless of whether being proclaimed by an enacting law," but officials understand it is necessary to "specify crimes against the Ottawa Convention, and corresponding penalties, by means of enacting a complementary penal code law." Email from Carmen Azurin Araujo, Project Planning and Assessment Office, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Peru, 24 April 2000.
86 Article 7 report, Form A, submitted 2 May 2000.
87 The Working Group is chaired by Ambassador Carlos Pareja Ríos. See El Peruano (Official Government Gazzette), Lima, 22 September 1999.
88 UNMAS, "Mine Action Assessment Mission Report: Peru," 3 December 1999, p. 21.
89 Email from Carmen Azurin Araujo, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 24 April 2000.
90 Statement by Ambassador Jorge Váldez Carrillo, Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Peru, at the First Meeting of State Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty, Maputo, 3-7 May 1999.
91 Statement by Ambassador Franciso Tudela, Permanent Representative of Peru to the United Nations, at the 54th General Assembly Plenary on Agenda Item 35 ("Assistance in Mine Action"), 18 November 1999, New York.
92 Email from Carmen Azurin Araujo, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 24 April 2000.
93 Article 7 report, Form E, submitted 2 May 2000; and, email from Carmen Azurin Araujo, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 24 April 2000. The Article 7 report indicates that the Peruvian War Navy's production facilities for CICITEC antipersonnel landmines at the Naval Base of Callao are currently being converted.
94 UNMAS, "Mine Action Assessment Mission Report: Peru," 3 December 1999, p. 21.
95 Email from Carmen Azurin Araujo, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 24 April 2000; and, Article 7 report, Form E, submitted 2 May 2000.
96 Email from Carmen Azurin Araujo, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 24 April 2000.
97 Article 7 Report, Form H, 2 May 2000. The Article 7 report repeatedly refers to CICITEC as an AP mine, but UNMAS has indicated that CICITEC is a manufacturer of mines, particularly the MG-MAP 304. See UNMAS, "Mine Action Assessment Mission Report: Peru," 3 December 1999, p. 12.
98 Defensoría del Pueblo, "El problema de las minas antipersonales dentro del territorio nacional," Lima, March 2000. UNMAS states that the DEXA mine was designed by the national police and was locally manufactured. The report also states that the replacement MG-MAP 304 mines were produced by CICITEC. See UNMAS, "Mine Action Assessment Mission Report: Peru," 3 December 1999, p. 12.
99 Telephone interview with General Raul O'Connor, Director of the Information Office of the Ministry of Defense, 19 April 2000.
100 Landmine Monitor Report 1999, p. 278, citing OAS, "Summary Table: Antipersonnel Landmines, as of May 1, 1998."
101 Article 7 Report, Form B, 2 May 2000.
102 The PMB designation is not one found in standard reference materials. From the description, this would appear to be a variation of the Soviet PMD-6 wooden box mine.
103 Article 7 Report, Form G, 2 May 2000.
104 Email from Carmen Azurin Araujo, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 24 April 2000. Peru's representative to the 10 December 1999 meeting of the SCE on Stockpile Destruction said that it needed help with technical aspects of destruction and asked for assistance. He also asked the OAS to certify the destruction process.
105 Article 7 Report, Form E, 2 May 2000.
107 "Perú did not lay such mines before, during, or after the Cenepa Conflict [with Ecuador]," Article 7 Report, Form C, 2 May 2000.
108 UNMAS, "Mine Action Assessment Mission Report: Peru," 3 December 1999, p. 11, citing ALDHU report dated August 1999.
109 Remarks at the Regional Seminar on AP mines, Mexico City, 11-12 January 1999.
110 UNMAS, "Mine Action Assessment Mission Report: Peru," 3 December 1999, p. 8.
111 Article 7 Report, Form C, 2 May 2000.
113 UNMAS, "Mine Action Assessment Mission Report: Peru," 3 December 1999, p. 24.
115 Article 7 Report, Form C, 2 May 2000.
117 Mónica Macedo Latorre, "Perú avanza en el desminado de la frontera norte," El Peruano (Official Government Gazette), 26 October 1999.
118 UNMAS, "Mine Action Assessment Mission Report: Peru," 3 December 1999, p. 11.
119 Jane's Mines and Mine Clearance, on-line update, 18 November 1999.
120 UNMAS, "Mine Action Assessment Mission Report: Peru," 3 December 1999, p. 13.
123 Telephone interview with General Raúl O'Connor, Ministry of Defense, 19 April 2000.
124 Defensoría del Pueblo, "El problema de las minas antipersonales dentro del territorio nacional," March 2000.
125 UNMAS, "Mine Action Assessment Mission Report: Peru," 3 December 1999, p. 12.
126 See Landmine Monitor appendix, Report of the OAS Mine Action Program, 2000.
127 UNMAS, "Mine Action Assessment Mission Report: Peru," 3 December 1999.
128 Mónica Macedo Latorre, "Perú avanza en el desminado de la frontera norte", El Peruano (Official Government Gazette), 26 October, 1999, Especial VIII.
129 See Statement by Amb. Franciso Tudela, Permanent Representative of Peru to the UN, 18 November 1999, p. 5.
130 UNMAS, "Mine Action Assessment Mission Report: Perú," 3 December 1999, p. 22.
131 Report of the OAS Mine Action Program, 2000.
133 Statement by Amb. Franciso Tudela, Permanent Representative of Peru to the UN, 18 November 1999.
134 Article 7 Report, Form E, 2 May 2000.
135 UNMAS, "Mine Action Assessment Mission Report: Perú," 3 December 1999, p. 15.
137 Article 7 Report, Form E, 2 May 2000.
139 UNMAS, "Mine Action Assessment Mission Report: Perú," 3 December 1999, p. 16.
141 Article 7 Report, Form E, 2 May 2000.
142 Instituto Nacional Penitenciaro [National Penitentiary Institute] of the Ministry of Justice, Document 090-99 INPE-VP, 23 February 1999.
143 Telephone interview with Carmen Azurin Araujo, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Peru, 21 April 2000.
144 UNMAS, "Mine Action Assessment Mission Report: Perú," 3 December 1999, p. 18.
147 Telephone interview with Elizabeth Cornejo, Official of the Ministry of Health of Peru, 16 April 2000.
148 Telephone interview with General Raul O'Connor, Ministry of Defense, 19 April 2000.
149 UNMAS, "Mine Action Assessment Mission Report: Perú," 3 December 1999, p. 13.
153 Oficio No.926-DG-INR-99, 25 November 1999.
154 UNMAS, "Mine Action Assessment Mission Report: Perú," 3 December 1999, p. 19.
156 Telephone interview with Colonel Walter Ríos, Military Attaché of the Peruvian Embassy in Colombia, 26 March 2000.
157 Telephone interview with Francisco Velásquez, Director, CONADIS, 20 April 2000.
159 Telephone interview with Elizabeth Cornejo, Official of the Ministry of Health of Peru, 16 April 2000.
161 UNMAS, "Mine Action Assessment Mission Report: Perú," 3 December 1999, p. 19.
162 Telephone interview with Astona Browne, Chargé d'affaires of the Permanent Mission of Saint Kitts and Nevis to the UN, 30 May 2000.
163 Letter from Astona Browne to Landmine Monitor, 16 May 2000.
164 Article 7 report received from Astona Browne by the Landmine Monitor, 16 May 2000.
165 Landmine Monitor 1999 Questionnaire, completed by the office of the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Government of Saint Lucia, 1 February 1999.
166 Telephone interview with Mr. C.S. Arunachalam, Assistant Chief Parliamentary Counsel, 27 June 2000.
167 A copy of the bill was forwarded to Landmine Monitor by Mr. C.S. Arunachalam, 4 July 2000. See also, Kathleen Maharaj, "T&T joins fight against landmines," Trinidad Express, 4 May 2000.
168 Letter from Mr. C. S. Arunachalam to Landmine Monitor, 4 July 2000. See also, "Mines Bill scares senators," The Guardian, 10 May 2000.
169 Response by Legal and Marine Affairs Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Trinidad and Tobago to 1999 Landmine Monitor Questionnaire, 26 February 1999. This was also confirmed in telephone interview with Mr. C.S. Arunachalam, 17 July 2000.
170 Telephone interview with Victor Manzanares, First Secretary for Security and Disarmament, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Venezuela, 4 February 2000.
172 Telephone interview with Gerardo Delgado, Political Attaché of the Venezuelan Embassy in Colombia, Bogotá, 12 December 1999.
173 U.S. Department of Defense, "ORDDATA II, Version 1.0," a CD-ROM distributed by the U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict.
174 Interview with Pedro Agustín Roa, Special Issues Unit, Disarmament Office Assistant, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bogotá, 10 December 1999. Interview with Major Anselmo Escobar, Human Rights Official, Fourth Brigade Colombian National Army, Medellin, 5 January 2000.
175 Email from Jhosslin Bakhat, Organization of American States, to Human Rights Watch, 23 June 2000.
176 Telephone interview with Gerardo Delgado, Venezuelan Embassy in Colombia, 15 December 1999.
177 Telephone interview with Victor Manzanares, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 4 February 2000.
178 Telephone interview with Gerardo Delgado, Venezuelan Embassy in Colombia, 12 December 1999.