We continue to have a number of concerns regarding Article 7 transparency reporting. These include the seven late initial reports, decreased compliance with the annual update requirement, the lack of willingness by many to report on the intended purposes and actual uses of retained mines (including the limited use of the new, expanded Form D agreed to by States Parties at the 6th Meeting of States Parties), the lack of reporting on newly discovered or seized antipersonnel mines, and the lack of voluntary reporting on Claymore-type mines.
We continue to have a number of concerns regarding Article 7 transparency reporting. These include the seven late initial reports, decreased compliance with the annual update requirement, the lack of willingness by many to report on the intended purposes and actual uses of retained mines (including the limited use of the new, expanded Form D agreed to by States Parties at the 6th Meeting of States Parties), the lack of reporting on newly discovered or seized antipersonnel mines, and the lack of voluntary reporting on Claymore-type mines. We’ll touch on each of these concerns in turn.
There is no reason why there should not be a 100 percent compliance rate for initial Article 7 transparency reporting. Those seven failing to meet the obligation include Equatorial Guinea (more than seven years late), Cape Verde (nearly 4.5 years late), Gambia (more than three years late), Sao Tome and Principe (more than 2.5 years late), Guyana (more than two years late), Ethiopia (ten months late), and Bhutan (two months late). It is particularly important that Guyana, which is thought to have a stockpile of antipersonnel mines, and Ethiopia, which has a stockpile and is mine-affected, provide reports as soon as possible.
For a second straight year, there has been a decrease in the rate of annual Article 7 updated reports submitted for the previous calendar year; the latest were due by 30 April 2006. When Landmine Monitor Report 2006 went to print, 55 States Parties had not submitted the required annual updates, which equates to a compliance rate of only 62 percent. That compares to a rate of 65 percent last year, and 78 percent two years ago. The treaty is clear that all States Parties must submit annual reports, and States Parties have wisely created streamlined forms to minimize the burden. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) urges all to fulfill this obligation, and especially those that are mine-affected, that have mine survivors, that have stocks to destroy, that have chosen to retain mines for training, or that have not yet undertaken national implementation legislation.
In a later intervention, the ICBL will express a number of concerns regarding mines retained for training or development purposes, but for now, we would simply like to note that a disappointingly small number of States Parties have used the new, expanded Form D agreed to at the 6th Meeting of States Parties. Landmine Monitor Report 2006 only identified 11 states that utilized the form. This form allows States Parties to report on the intended purposes and actual uses of mines retained under Article 3 of the treaty. The unwillingness or inability of so many States Parties to be transparent about their retained mines is striking—especially in light of the large number of States Parties for whom the need to retain any mines is far from obvious.
We will not repeat but instead draw the attention of States Parties to the remarks the ICBL made earlier under the stockpile destruction agenda item about the failure of many to report on antipersonnel mines that they have discovered, captured, seized or had turned in after their stockpile destruction program has been completed. We have suggested the need for an amended Article 7 Form G in order to encourage and facilitate the required reporting of this phenomenon.
The ICBL also spoke in the stockpile session about the desirability of reporting on a voluntary basis on Claymore (directional fragmentation) mines and OZM-72 type mines. Use of Claymore and OZM-72 mines is legal under the Mine Ban Treaty as long as they are command-detonated, and not victim-activated (used with a tripwire). States Parties should voluntarily report on stockpiled Claymores and OZM-72s and the steps taken to ensure their use in command-detonated mode only.
In closing, we would like to applaud those states not yet party to the Mine Ban Treaty that have submitted voluntary Article 7 reports. We discovered this week that Morocco has done so for the first time. In addition, Poland submitted its fourth report, and Sri Lanka has indicated it will soon submit its second. This is an important indicator of a state’s commitment to the eradication of antipersonnel mines, and can facilitate the achievement of the humanitarian aims of the treaty, including rapid mine clearance and assistance to mine victims.
Thank you.
