Summary of Progress

As of October 2013, 59 states and four other areas were confirmed to be mine-affected. Of the 59 affected states, 35 were party to the Mine Ban Treaty. A further seven States Parties and one state not party had either suspected or residual mine contamination.

Five States Parties formally declared completion of clearance of all known mined areas in 2012: the Republic of the Congo (Congo), Denmark, Gambia, Jordan, and Uganda.^[1] In May 2013, Greece reported that its verification efforts in a previously mined area in Rhodes were completed in March 2013. Also in May, States Parties Bhutan and Venezuela announced that all known mined areas had been cleared and each expected to table a formal declaration of completion at the Thirteenth Meeting of States Parties in December 2013. Hungary reported in October 2013 that it planned to declare fulfillment of its Article 5 obligations to clear all known mined areas at the Thirteenth Meeting following the release of a mined area on the border with Croatia in September 2013. In addition to the States Parties, an other area, Taiwan, announced in June 2013 that it had cleared all known mined areas by the end of 2012.^[2]

Four States Parties submitted Article 5 deadline Extension Requests in 2012 that were subsequently approved at the Twelfth Meeting of States Parties: Afghanistan, Angola, Cyprus, and Zimbabwe. A further seven States Parties—Chad, Germany, Mozambique, Niger, Serbia, Sudan, and Turkey—submitted deadline extension requests in 2013 for approval at the Thirteenth Meeting of States Parties in December 2013. Germany and Niger submitted requests in accordance with a procedure for mined areas discovered after the expiration of a state’s Article 5 deadline.

In 2012, mine action programs released at least 281km² of mined areas^[3] through clearance and survey, in addition to 245km² of battle areas,^[4] of which 78km² were cluster munition-contaminated areas. In 2011, mine action programs cleared at least 190km² of mined areas and some 285km² of battle areas, including 55km² of areas contaminated by cluster munitions.

Mine-Affected States and Other Areas

As of October 2013, 59 states and four other areas were confirmed to be mine-affected, as set out in the table on the following page.

Mali is believed to be contaminated by antivehicle mines, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and explosive remnants of war (ERW) only. The UN Mine Action Service (UNMAS) set up a presence in Mali in September 2012 and reported around 50 people had been killed and injured by landmines between March and December 2012.^[5] As of March 2013, however, UNMAS could only point to contamination by antivehicle mines in northern Mali’s Kidal region.^[6]

Mine-affected states and other areas with confirmed mined areas as of October 2013

Note: Other areas are indicated by italics; States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty are indicated in bold.

* Argentina and the UK both claim sovereignty over the Falkland Islands/Malvinas, which still contain mined areas.

** Bhutan and Venezuela have unofficially declared in 2013 that they have completed their Article 5 obligations. Their official Declaration of Completion is expected in December 2013 at the Thirteenth Meeting of States Parties.

Affected states not party

Twenty-four (41%) of the 59 states believed to be affected by landmines are not party to the Mine Ban Treaty: Armenia, Azerbaijan, China,^[7] Cuba, Egypt, Georgia, India, Iran, Israel, Kyrgyzstan, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Myanmar, North Korea, Palestine, Pakistan, Russia, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Syria, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.

Mine-affected “other areas”

Four other areas not internationally recognized as states were also mine-affected as of October 2013: Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh, Somaliland, and Western Sahara.

States and other areas with suspected or residual mine contamination

In addition to states in which mine contamination is confirmed, a further eight states—of which all but one (Oman) are party to the Mine Ban Treaty—have either suspected or residual mine contamination, as set out in the table below.^[8] These States Parties have an obligation to make “every effort” to identify mined areas under their jurisdiction or control that contain antipersonnel mines and then to clear any that they find. In cases when they are unable to complete this work by the expiration of their Article 5 deadline, they must request an extension in order to remain in compliance with the treaty.

Extent of contamination

The Monitor does not publish a global table of the estimated size of mine contamination by state because it believes that many of the estimates cited by states are far higher than the true extent of contamination. Instead, an order of magnitude for contamination as of October 2013 is given in the table below, which lists states with very heavy (more than 100km²) and heavy contamination (10–100km²).

Mine Clearance in 2012

There are continuing problems in accurately counting true mine clearance, battle area clearance (BAC), and land release by survey, in large part due to the poor quality of record-keeping and reporting.^[9] However, the Monitor believes at least 281km² of mined areas were cleared by 40 mine action programs in 2012 (compared with 190km² in 2011), with the destruction of more than 239,000 antipersonnel mines and almost 9,300 antivehicle mines. The global clearance figure is conservative and understates the extent of clearance due to the fact that several states do not report while others do not disaggregate clearance figures.^[10] The largest total clearance of mined areas was achieved in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Croatia, and Sri Lanka, which together accounted for 62% of recorded clearance.

To promote more efficient release of land, amendments to the International Mine Action Standards (IMAS) approved by the IMAS Review Board in April 2013 remove General Assessment and set out to simplify and clarify standards on Land Release, Non-Technical Survey, and Technical Survey. The amendments seek to make clear distinctions between suspected hazardous areas (SHAs) and confirmed hazardous areas (CHAs) and provide more guidance on use of evidence to avoid inflating estimates of contamination where evidence does not justify it. They also seek to clarify basic principles of technical survey, the distinctions between area reduction and clearance, and the requirement to apply “all reasonable effort” in use of evidence to plan and interpret the results of technical survey.

States with suspected or residual contamination as of October 2013

Estimated extent of mine contamination in affected states as of October 2013

Note: States Parties are indicated in bold, other areas in italics.

Mine clearance in major mine action programs in 2012

Note: States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty are indicated in bold.

Battle Area Clearance in 2012

In 2012, at least 167km² of mined battle area was reportedly cleared, destroying in the process more than 310,400 items of unexploded ordnance (UXO) as compared to at least 233km² of mined battle area reported as cleared in 2011.

Mined Area BAC in major clearance programs in 2012

Note: States Parties are indicated in bold, other areas in italics.

Mine Ban Treaty Article 5 Obligations

In 2012, five States Parties formally declared fulfillment of their Article 5 obligations: Congo, Denmark, Gambia, Jordan,^[12] and Uganda.

States Parties reporting completion of their Mine Ban Treaty clearance obligations^[11]

* Burundi followed its initial declaration of completion in 2011 with reports in May 2012 and May 2013 that it still had suspected mined areas to release.

** Date of completion of demining program (prior to entry into force of the Mine Ban Treaty).

*** Greece made a formal declaration of completion in 2009 and further released a suspected area on the island of Rhodes in 2013.

**** Djibouti and Jordan are believed to have residual contamination.

In May 2013, Greece, which initially declared completion of clearance in 2009, reported that it had concluded its verification efforts concerning possible contamination in an area on the island of Rhodes on 8 March 2013, and that no contamination had been found.^[13]

In total, 24 States Parties have formally reported completion of their Article 5 obligations since the Mine Ban Treaty came into force, as set out in the table above.

In addition to these 24 States Parties, three others are expected to announce completion at the Thirteenth Meeting of States Parties in December 2013. Bhutan and Venezuela announced in May 2013 they had completed their mine clearance obligations and intended to make a formal declaration of completion at the Thirteenth Meeting. Hungary reported in October 2013 that, in cooperation with Croatia, it had completed both survey and clearance activities of its suspected mined area by September 2013, and expected to declare fulfillment of its Article 5 obligations at the Thirteenth Meeting.^[14]

States Parties with outstanding Article 5 obligations

Article 5 of the Mine Ban Treaty requires each State Party to destroy all antipersonnel mines in mined areas under its jurisdiction or control as soon as possible, but not later than 10 years after becoming party to the treaty. Ensuring full compliance with these mine clearance obligations is one of the greatest challenges faced by States Parties to the treaty.

Forty-three States Parties, as set out in the following table, were confirmed or suspected to be affected by antipersonnel mines as of October 2013, and therefore had obligations under Article 5 of the treaty.

Seven states listed above have not declared that they have (or still have) Article 5 obligations, but the Monitor believes they may be mine-affected, and thus their fulfillment of their treaty obligations may be in doubt: Djibouti,^[15] Jordan, Moldova,^[16] Montenegro,^[17] Namibia,^[18] Palau, and the Philippines.^[19]

States Parties with outstanding Article 5 obligations

* Bhutan, Hungary, and Venezuela have informally announced completion of their Article 5 obligations. A formal declaration of completion is expected in December 2013.

Burundi had previously declared completion of clearance of all known mined areas at the Eleventh Meeting of States Parties in November 2011,^[20] but in May 2012 reported that it still had suspected mined areas to release.^[21] In May 2013, Burundi confirmed its previous statements and requested assistance in surveying and clearing the suspected areas, if needed, in order to meet its Article 5 obligations by 1 April 2014.^[22]

Jordan officially declared completion of its Article 5 obligations on 24 April 2012 and submitted its formal declaration of completion to the Twelfth Meeting of States Parties in Geneva in December 2012.^[23] However, Jordan acknowledged that “a residual risk could remain in areas where landmines have been emplaced.”^[24] Verification and clearance continued in 2012 in the Jordan Valley as well as along the northern border with Syria. Jordan said it expected verification efforts to continue a further two years.^[25] Since then it has suspended verification work on its northern border in light of the conflict in Syria.

Palau submitted an Article 7 report in 2011 in which it declared for the first time that it had areas containing antipersonnel mines on its territory. In its 2012 Article 7 report, Palau reported suspected contamination in the Umubrogol Mountains (on Bloody Nose Ridge).^[26] In May 2013, Palau reported that two mine clearance operators were working in Palau to clear UXO, including land and sea mines, but that it faced a “bottle neck from the government permitting bodies due to lack of Standard Operating Procedures and the technical knowledge to review and approve clearance methodologies.”^[27]

Discovery of previously unknown mined areas after deadlines have passed

Germany, Hungary, and Niger have found themselves in the exceptional circumstance whereby they have reported the discovery of new suspected or confirmed mined areas following expiry of their initial clearance deadlines. Germany and Hungary reported new mined areas in 2011 and Niger in 2012. All three states had initial Article 5 clearance deadlines in 2009.

At the Twelfth Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty in 2012, States Parties committed to a process in situations where States Parties discover previously unknown mined areas under their jurisdiction or control after their clearance deadline has passed. States Parties agreed that in such cases they would:

• immediately inform all States Parties of such a discovery and undertake to destroy or ensure the destruction of all antipersonnel mines in the mined area as soon as possible;
• submit an extension request that is as short as possible, but not longer than 10 years, if it is believed that destruction could not occur before the next Meeting of States Parties or Review Conference, whichever falls earlier; and
• report on the location of all mined areas in their Article 7 reporting and on the status of programs for their destruction, as well as provide relevant updates at meetings of the Standing Committees, States Parties, and Review Conferences.^[28]

Both Niger and Germany have applied for two-year deadline extensions in 2013, while Hungary has reported that it completed clearance of the mined area in question by September 2013.

The procedure would apply to four other states that the Monitor believes have residual or suspected mine contamination, including Djibouti, Jordan, Moldova, and Namibia.

States Parties and Article 5 deadline extensions

Significant challenges remain in implementing the Mine Ban Treaty’s survey and clearance obligations; the number of Article 5 deadline extension requests that have been made far exceed the number of States Parties that have declared completion of their Article 5 obligations.

In accordance with Article 5, states are required to clear all antipersonnel mines as soon as possible, but not later than 10 years after becoming party to the treaty. States Parties that consider themselves unable to complete their mine clearance obligations within the deadline may submit a request for a deadline extension of up to 10 years under Article 5.3.

However, in accordance with Action #27 of the Nairobi Action Plan adopted at the First Review Conference in 2004, States Parties committed to “strive to ensure that few, if any, States Parties will feel compelled to request an extension.”^[29] The Cartagena Action Plan adopted at the Second Review Conference in 2009 went further, stating that extensions should only be needed “due to exceptional circumstances.”^[30] These are clear indications that States Parties believe that deadline extensions should be the exception and not the rule. Considering the high percentage of states granted, or seeking, deadline extensions—some for the second and third time—as well as the number that will likely need extensions in the future, the ICBL has encouraged States Parties to act with greater urgency in fulfilling their clearance obligations, and has noted that the trend toward requesting extensions has been “disappointing.”^[31]

As of October 2013, 35 States Parties in total have requested deadline extensions since 2009,^[32] of which only six have reported completion of their Article 5 obligations: Congo, Denmark, Guinea-Bissau, Jordan, Nicaragua, and Uganda.^[33] Four States Parties have requested multiple extensions since 2009: Chad (third extension pending decision), Zimbabwe (three extensions), Denmark (two extensions), and Mozambique (second extension pending decision).

Of the 35 States Parties with outstanding Article 5 clearance obligations (not including those States Parties deemed by the Monitor to have suspected or residual risk of contamination), a highly disappointing 83% (29) have current deadline extensions in place.^[34]

Seven States Parties are deemed not to be on track with their extension requests: BiH, Chad, Croatia, Ecuador, Senegal, Thailand, and the UK. The progress in an additional eight States Parties is unclear: Afghanistan, Cambodia, Colombia, Cyprus, Peru, Tajikistan, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.

An overview of the status of Article 5 deadline extensions as of October 2013*

* This table does not include the five States Parties that have submitted their first ever deadline Extension Requests for decision at the forthcoming Mine Ban Treaty Meeting of States Parties in December 2013: Germany, Serbia, Sudan, Niger, and Turkey.

** New extension requested, decision pending.

*** Verification surveys reported as ongoing.

Progress in States Parties granted extensions: 2008–2012

Many of the States Parties granted extensions to their Article 5 deadlines have since made only limited progress and risk not being able to complete the plans they put forward along with their extension requests (see table). The ICBL has called on states that have fallen significantly behind the benchmarks they laid out in their extension requests to submit revised plans to States Parties.^[35]

Congo, Denmark, Guinea-Bissau, Jordan, Nicaragua, and Uganda formally declared that they have completed their Article 5 obligations in 2012. Venezuela announced completion in May 2013 and expected to make a formal Declaration of Completion at the Thirteenth Meeting of States Parties in December 2013.^[36]

Afghanistan

Afghanistan’s 2012 Article 5 extension request, based on data as of the end of November 2011, estimated total contamination at 617km². By the end of 2012, cancellation through survey and clearance had reduced that figure to 558.6km².^[37]

At the start of 2013, Afghanistan estimated that, out of total ERW contamination of 558.6km², it had 270.7km² affected by antipersonnel mines that also included 253.3km² affected by antivehicle mines, and a further 34.7km² by other forms of ordnance, including 7.6km² by cluster munition remnants. Survey in 2012 added 204 hazards totaling 15.4km² of mine and battle area hazards to the database, but also resulted in the cancellation of 258 suspected hazards totaling 19.6km². As a result of clearance and survey, the extent of mine contamination was nearly 12% less at the end of 2012 than a year earlier and total ERW contamination was down 9%.

Under Article 5 of the Mine Ban Treaty, and in accordance with the 10-year extension granted in 2012, Afghanistan is required to destroy all antipersonnel mines in mined areas under its jurisdiction or control as soon as possible, but not later than 31 March 2023.

Afghanistan’s extension request provided for clearing the entirety of its ERW contamination, including 4,151 antipersonnel minefields covering 306.81km², 1,319 antivehicle minefields covering 253.9km², and 191 ERW contaminated areas covering 56.27km².^[38] The ICBL noted that the request was among the most comprehensive requests yet submitted, but also concluded that the workplan represented a best-case scenario and faced a range of challenges including donor support, security, and political uncertainties.^[39]

The funding challenges became particularly evident in 2013. Despite rising productivity in 2012, the program embarked on the first year of implementing the extension request with the equivalent of about 20km² of clearance unfunded. As a result, many implementing partners were working with lower levels of manpower than in the previous year and with less capacity than was called for in the request’s workplan.^[40]

Angola

In December 2012, States Parties granted Angola an extension of its Article 5 deadline for five years through 1 January 2018. In May 2013, Angola reported that there were 1,110 SHAs and 965 confirmed hazards covering a combined 1,246,700km², an area considered widely inaccurate by all stakeholders. Ten of the 18 provinces have at least 80 SHAs, indicating the extent and high level of remaining contamination, although half of the remaining contamination is in the four provinces of Moxico, Kuando Kubango, Bié, and Kwanza Sul.

It is planned that a national non-technical survey begun in 2011 and a mapping project that started in May 2013 would clarify the extent of the contamination by 2016. These would be used to establish a new baseline for both the planning and the submission of a second extension request.^[41] Angola has stated that it already projects it will need more than 10 years beyond 2018.^[42] Meanwhile, international NGOs and the National Institute of Demining continue clearance operations.

Argentina

At the Second Review Conference in Cartagena, Colombia in 2009, Argentina said it was unable to meet its Article 5 obligations because it did not have access to the Malvinas Islands due to the “illegal occupation” by the UK. Argentina said for this reason it had no other choice than to request an extension to its clearance deadline^[43] which was set for 1 January 2020.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

In 2012, as in all the years since it received the extension to its Article 5 deadline in 2008, BiH fell far short of its land release targets as contained in its Mine Action Strategy 2009–2019.^[44] It released a total of 77.24km², just 43% of the projected total of 179.40km². As a result, four years into its extension period, BiH had achieved only 70% of the land release planned for this period and barely a quarter of the planned clearance.

In accordance with the 10-year extension request granted in 2008, BiH is required to destroy all antipersonnel mines in mined areas under its jurisdiction or control as soon as possible, but not later than 1 March 2019.

Funding presents the main obstacle to progress in view of a downward trend in donor support and BiH’s inability to generate the additional funding that the Bosnia and Herzegovina Mine Action Center (BHMAC) expected to come from domestic sources. In 2012, BHMAC reported a shortfall in domestic funding of BAM39.55 million (US$26 million), or about half the budget projected for that year.^[45] In December 2012, the government said it would seek additional domestic sources for funding and would ask the European Union (EU) to give mine action more momentum, but as of April 2013, the financial outlook remained uncertain.^[46]

Cambodia

Cambodia’s baseline survey of 124 mine-affected districts completed in 2012 found a total of 1,043km² affected to some degree by antipersonnel mines.^[47] The Cambodian Mine Action Authority (CMAA) says the figure cannot be compared with the estimate in its Article 5 deadline extension request that 648km² needed full clearance, but has yet to present a revised strategy or work plan that explains the implications of the survey results for fulfilling its Article 5 obligations.

In the past two years, productivity has risen sharply, helped by the application of revised land release methods and more efficient use of the clearance toolbox. The total amount of land released by survey and clearance in 2012 reported by the CMAA amounted to 71.46km², 11% more than the previous year.^[48] Cambodia reported accelerating mine clearance in 2012, with the 53.66km² of land cleared representing an increase of 45% from the previous year and of 75% from two years earlier, although operators recorded substantially lower numbers of items cleared.

The outlook for donor support, however, is uncertain, particularly after 2015. So does the government’s willingness to increase funding for humanitarian mine action. An additional complication for Cambodia has been heightened insecurity along its border with Thailand, including cross-border clashes in April 2011, which have led Cambodian authorities to block demining activity in some heavily-contaminated border areas.^[49] A Cambodian-Thai joint working group agreed in principle in 2012 to clear landmines from a contested border area in Prey Vihear and assigned the Thailand Mine Action Centre and the CMAA to plan a joint demining operation.^[50]

Chad

Demining operations started in August 2000 but stopped at the end of December 2005 due to lack of funding. There has since been only intermittent clearance of mined areas and much of it poorly documented. The mine action program since 2008 has suffered from a lack of international funding, weak government oversight, and mismanagement within the National Demining Center (Centre National de Deminage), resulting in no demining until October 2012 when the EU provided funding to the Mines Advisory Group (MAG).^[51]

In 2012, Chad completed a survey of the northern and eastern parts of the country and, on 2 May 2013, submitted a third extension request that asked for an additional five years until 2019.^[52]

In May 2013, Chad presented a new mine action strategy for 2013–2017. The UNDP technical advisor to Chad left his post at the end of May 2013 when his contract expired.^[53] As of September 2013, no replacement had been announced and it is uncertain if the government of Chad and UNDP planned to recruit an international technical advisor.

Chile

In 2011, Chile was granted an eight-year extension of its Article 5 deadline until 1 March 2020. Chile cited weather, the remote locations of mined areas in high altitudes, the difficult terrain, and the different types and conditions of the mines as the main reasons for needing the additional time.^[54]

While the pace of clearance slowed in 2012, reportedly due to two earthquakes and severe flooding, there is some optimism that Chile may be able to release the remaining 15.24km² of contaminated area before 2020.^[55]

Colombia

In December 2010, States Parties granted Colombia a 10-year extension to its Article 5 deadline to 2020. Colombia’s extension request predicted that all mined areas would be released by 2020, even though “it is not possible to establish an operational plan which determines the exact number of squads, squadrons and municipalities where the organizations must operate.”^[56] Colombia’s 2011–2013 operational plan was a central component of the extension request. Fifteen of 660 possibly mine-affected municipalities in five of Colombia’s 32 departments, with contamination covering an estimated 15km², were deemed priorities for clearance by 2013.^[57] So far, Colombia has been far behind these targets.

Colombia did not include an operational plan for 2014–2020 in its extension request because of the lack of information on contamination and the uncertainty of the role and capacity of NGOs. In 2011–2012, the laws and standards were passed to allow NGOs to clear mines, and HALO Trust, the only international NGO to receive accreditation, began clearance in September 2013. Based on the decision of States Parties in approving Colombia’s extension request, Colombia is due to submit an operational plan for 2014–2020 at the Thirteenth Meeting of States Parties in 2013.^[58]

Croatia

Croatia released a total of 67.28km² of mine-affected land in 2012, slightly less than the previous year (70.36km²),^[59] and in May 2013, Croatia reported it had reduced the suspected mine contaminated area by 19.4km² through clearance (9.2km²) and survey.^[60]

Croatia has consistently failed to meet the targets set out in its extension request in the five years since it was granted. In 2012, Croatia released 67.28km² compared with 122km² projected in the extension request and further widened the existing significant gap between projected and actual land release since the extension came into effect. By the end of 2012, Croatia had released 312.67km² of the target of 457km² set out in its extension request—a shortfall of 154.33km².^[61]

This widening gap accentuated the challenge Croatia faces in meeting its revised Article 5 clearance deadline of 1 March 2019. The prospects for reversing this trend appear uncertain, which is further complicated by funding constraints.

The Croatian Mine Action Centre’s (CROMAC) initial work plan for 2012–2014 was never considered by the government because of elections and a change of leadership. By July 2013, CROMAC said it was finalizing a new three-year plan for 2013–2015, which it expected the government to adopt by the end of the year.^[62] In the meantime, a demining plan for 2013 provided for release of 68.08km², including 27.23km² through clearance and 40.85km² through cancellation by non-technical survey.

Cyprus

In accordance with a three-year extension request granted in 2012, Cyprus’ extended deadline is 1 July 2016. In its extension request, Cyprus cited ongoing difficulties in accessing the remaining mined areas located adjacent to the buffer zone that it reported as being under the control of the Turkish military and therefore de facto out of Cyprus’ control.^[63] In December 2012, Cyprus stated that due to the concentrated nature of the mined area, clearance was not expected to take a long amount of time once begun.^[64]

Democratic Republic of the Congo

In its extension request approved in 2011, the DRC reported 70 SHAs and 12 CHAs.^[65] In March 2013, the DRC launched a national survey to address database discrepancies and establish a baseline level of landmine and cluster munition contamination.^[66] The survey is scheduled for completion in December 2013^[67] and will be used as the basis for submitting a second extension request in 2014.^[68] As of 30 August, the National Landmine Contamination Survey was on track to be completed by the end of 2013.

The National Mine Action Strategy 2012–2016 sets 2016 as the target by when all mined areas will be cleared. However, it will not be known if this target can be met until the completion of the national survey in December 2013. While it appears mine clearance has progressed slowly in the DRC, the achievements are difficult to assess without baseline data.

Ecuador

In 2009, States Parties granted Ecuador an eight-year extension of its Article 5 deadline requiring it to clear all mined areas by 1 October 2017. Land release in Ecuador continues at a slow pace, although there was a substantial increase in output in 2010–2012 compared to previous years. At the end of 2012, Ecuador reported that there remained 26 mined areas covering 466,873m² and containing 15,595 antipersonnel mines.^[69] As of April 2013, Ecuador had released over 276,000m² of the original estimate of contamination of more than 640,000m².

Although Ecuador has met the clearance goals it set out in its 2010–2018 operational plan, it is still not clear how Ecuador can meet its 2017 deadline with its current capacity: the remaining contaminated area is more than has been cleared in total by Ecuador since 1998. In addition, weather conditions continue to cancel work days, making annual clearance projections somewhat unpredictable. Border markings and verification have become additional tasks for the Demining General Command, cutting into the time available for clearing mines. In 2010, Ecuador and Peru exchanged information on 13 mined areas on their common border. The additional 13 SHAs from Peru has added 91,000m² of contaminated area which, at 2012 productivity rates, is approximately 18 months of work.^[70]

Eritrea

In 2009, at the Second Review Conference, Eritrea had said that in the absence of significant international funding it would take much longer than initially planned to clear all mined areas, and that it would need to request an extension of its deadline to meet its treaty obligations.^[71] In December 2011, States Parties granted Eritrea a three-year extension to complete re-surveying by the end of 2014. As of April 2013, approximately 50% of the surveys had been completed.^[72] After the Eritrean Demining Agency (EDA) completes the surveys, it will submit a second extension request that will include an operational plan to clear the remaining mined areas.^[73] Eritrea’s extension request relies heavily on a level of international funding that has not been seen since the UN Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea departed the country in 2006 and demining NGOs were expelled in 2004. Eritrea asserts that the EDA has sufficient capacity, that international operators are not needed, and that it would complete the survey by the end of 2014 as planned.^[74]

Mauritania

In 2010, States Parties granted Mauritania a five-year extension to its Article 5 deadline. Mauritania cited a lack of financial resources, insufficient progress in demining operations, the use of only manual demining techniques, and difficult soil and climatic factors as the reasons for its failure to meet its deadline.^[75] Minimal mine clearance was conducted between 2009–2011, but following the establishment of a new program set up by Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA) in 2011, 13 mined areas covering more than 3km² were released through technical survey, full clearance, and cancellation in 2012.^[76]

In 2012, NPA conducted technical and non-technical surveys. As of September 2013, Mauritania had not released the results, and it remains unclear if Mauritania is on target to meet its 2016 deadline.

Mozambique

Since States Parties granted Mozambique an extension of its Article 5 deadline in 2008, it has identified many new SHAs through the Mine Free District Assessment approach, as well as from a survey on the Zimbabwe border and from reports of residual contamination in the four northern provinces. This has resulted in an increase of almost 300% more area to clear than was predicted in its extension request. While Mozambique had previously been on schedule, in May 2013 it requested a second short deadline extension until December 2014,^[77] by which time it hopes to complete clearance of the remaining 9.26km² of mine contamination, including the mined border areas with Zimbabwe.^[78]

Peru

In 2009, States Parties granted Peru an eight-year extension of its Article 5 deadline requiring it to clear all mined areas by 1 October 2017. In 2013, Peru revised upward its remaining contamination to 64 mined areas containing 13,325 antipersonnel mines, adding 48 mined areas that were previously thought to be located in Ecuador.^[79] Peru reported clearing 13,791m² of mined area in 2012^[80]—significantly less than in 2011—which was attributed to logistical difficulties posed by operating at a higher terrain.^[81]

In 2012, it was reported that Peru’s Defense Minister Alberto Otárola said the border with Ecuador “would be free of landmines by 2016.”^[82] In light of the new additional mined areas and the low clearance output of 2012, it is unclear if Peru can meet its 2017 deadline with its current capacity.^[83] Peru is reviewing its operational plans in light of the additional mined areas.^[84]

Senegal

Senegal has not formally reported in detail on its progress in demining over the last few years and has still to determine the extent of remaining contamination with any degree of precision. In May 2012, Senegal claimed that 36 suspected “localities” covering an estimated total of 3.5km² required technical survey and, if necessary, clearance.^[85] At the Second Review Conference in 2009, Senegal expressed its hope that it would have fulfilled its Article 5 obligations before 2015 if the peace process continued.^[86] As of May 2012, a total of only 320,000m² (0.3km²) had been released in five years of demining.^[87] NPA opened operations in Senegal in September 2012, but the Senegalese Mine Action Centre ordered a suspension of clearance activities for many months after the abduction of 12 deminers from commercial operator Mechem in May 2013.

Tajikistan

In general, mine clearance in Tajikistan has proceeded slowly and operations were only initiated several years after it became a State Party to the Mine Ban Treaty. Furthermore, Tajikistan has still to establish the precise extent of mine contamination, although re-survey has clarified the mine threat on the border with Afghanistan. In January 2013, it was reported that there were 4.89km² of SHAs along Tajikistan’s Afghan border and a further 2.28km² of SHAs in the central region.^[88] It was planned that most of the 7.2km² of remaining area would be manually cleared and very little would be released through non-technical survey.^[89] However, in September 2013 at an EU/Implementation Support Unit Workshop in Dushanbe, the Tajikistan Mine Action Centre unexpectedly revised its estimates of the remaining contamination and reported that as much as 14km² remained because additional mined areas on the Tajik-Afghan border were identified.^[90]

Thailand

Thailand is already extremely behind schedule (by almost 140km²) in terms of the targets in its Article 5 extension request. UNDP observed in a report at the end of January 2011 that, at the current rate of clearance, “it is estimated that it will take Thailand several decades to clear all landmines.”^[91] The use of better land release methodologies in 2012 led to the release of a total of 20.6km² in 2012^[92]—almost five times the area released in 2011 and more than 68% of the total area released since 2009. Virtually all of it was released through survey in 2012 while clearance accounted for just 288,980m² (0.3km²).^[93] However, land release in 2012 still fell short of the extension request clearance target for the year by 50%.^[94] Without a greater political will on the part of the government and without greater resources and manpower devoted to mine action, Thailand has little chance of fulfilling its clearance obligations by its November 2018 deadline.

United Kingdom

The UK conducted no mine clearance in 2011 and 2012, but at the Twelfth Meeting of States Parties in Geneva in December 2012 the UK reported release of 3.49km² through technical survey and an unspecified amount of battle area clearance that resulted in destruction of 79 items of UXO in the Falkland Islands.^[95] It followed up at the Standing Committee meeting in May 2013 by reporting clearance of four minefields (resulting in clearance of 296 antipersonnel mines and six booby-traps) and the release of an additional area found to contain no mines. Fifteen years after becoming a State Party to the Mine Ban Treaty, the reported operations increased the total amount of mined land cleared by the UK to 220,000m² (0.22 km²). In addition, it had cleared 4.7km² of battle area and reduced a further 4.6km² through survey.^[96]

The ICBL has regularly called upon the UK to provide a concrete plan and budget for fulfilling its Article 5 clearance obligations. It also reiterated that affected States Parties must clear all mined areas, not only those with a “humanitarian” impact.^[97]

Venezuela

Venezuela was granted a deadline extension^[98] at the Eighth Meeting of the States Parties in 2009, and a new deadline set for 1 October 2014.^[99] Venezuela did not begin clearing mines until 2010, more than 10 years after becoming party to the Mine Ban Treaty. In December 2010, Venezuela estimated that clearance of all mined areas should be completed by June 2013.^[100] At the meeting of the Standing Committee on Mine Clearance in May 2013, Venezuela announced that it had completed mine clearance operations a year ahead of schedule and that it would be tabling a formal Declaration of Completion at the Thirteenth Meeting of the States Parties.

Yemen

By April 2013, Yemen reported 107.4km² of SHA in three districts and confirmed hazards amounting to 9.82km².^[101] The Yemen Mine Action Center (YEMAC) reported that it conducted an emergency survey in Abyan after government forces regained control of the area, identifying 22 SHAs covering 19.32km² affected by antipersonnel and antivehicle mines, ERW, and booby-traps.^[102] In 2013, YEMAC said it planned to conduct non-technical surveys in four more districts of Abyan governorate (Alwadee, Ahwar, Sarar Modia, and Almahfed) and in the western districts of Sa’ada (Haidan, Al Daher, Saqain, and Shatha). It expected to complete non-technical surveys in Sa’ada and Hajjah by October and in Abyan by the end of the year.^[103]

Contamination added by conflicts in 2010–2012 (not yet fully assessed) prevents any determination of the extent of Yemen’s contamination; however, even before these conflicts more than 200km² of SHAs identified by survey had not been released and therefore it looked certain that Yemen would need to apply for an additional extension to its Article 5 clearance deadline of 1 March 2015.

Zimbabwe

At the Second Review Conference, Zimbabwe said “no significant progress” had been made since the beginning of 2009 in its clearance program due to the lack of both international and national support.^[104] At the June 2012 Standing Committee meetings, Zimbabwe repeated that it would not be able to complete planned surveying in the 22-month extension period and stated that it would request another extension.^[105] A third extension request for two additional years was approved in December 2012, but both NPA and HALO were delayed in starting operations until the second quarter of 2013 due to the slow bureaucratic processes in key ministries even though they had received international funding to begin operations.^[106] During the third extension period, the Zimbabwe Mine Action Centre, working with international operators, planned to clear approximately 4km² and to gain a better understanding of the mined areas for another extension request.^[107]

Compliance with Article 5 among States Parties still within their initial clearance deadlines

Ethiopia

In June 2010 at the intersessional Standing Committee meetings, Ethiopia said it would clear all mined areas by 2013, two years ahead of its deadline, if sufficient funding were available.^[108] Despite this plan, Ethiopia will not have cleared all remaining mined areas by the end of 2013. In June 2012, there was a total of some 1,200km² remaining to re-survey from the Landmine Impact Survey data, most of which is located in the Somali region. The Ministry of National Defense, which assumed responsibility for clearing the remaining mined area in August,^[109] has given no indication of whether it will re-survey this area and has not provided an update on its survey and clearance activities.^[110] Previously, the Ethiopian Mine Action Office claimed that 315 SHAs covering only approximately 5.9km² of this area needed to be released; it made the claim before transferring its operations to the Ministry of National Defense.

Iraq

In 2013, Iraq reached the halfway point in its 10-year Article 5 deadline, but no closer to demonstrating how it will fulfill its legal obligations under the Mine Ban Treaty. Non-technical surveys conducted in 2011 and 2012 started to build a better picture of the extent of mine contamination, but the absence of centralized or comprehensive reporting of clearance operations prevents a determination of the progress or quality of mine action in Iraq. However, Deputy Environment Minister Kamal Latif stated in 2012 that Iraq will not meet its 1 February 2018 clearance deadline.^[111]

In three northern governorates under the Kurdistan Regional Government, the mine action program in 2012 put into effect a long-discussed agreement that consolidated management of mine action, previously conducted by two organizations, under the umbrella of the Iraqi Kurdistan Mine Action Agency (IKMAA). Operations by 20 demining operators, most of them national, coordinated by IKMAA resulted in clearance of 10.56km² of mined area in 2012, an increase from 5.68km² the previous year. In central and southern Iraq, the Monitor received reports of clearance by humanitarian operators of just 0.2km² of mined area and 11km² of battle area. Most clearance is conducted by commercial companies on behalf of the oil industry, as well as by government ministries together with the army and civil defense, but no details are published.

That lack of reporting reflects the extent to which wider political developments have impeded the creation of a functioning institutional framework for planning, coordinating, and managing mine action, let alone upholding international standards. Among the major obstacles to progress in central and southern Iraq, mine action stakeholders cite the division of responsibility for the sector between several different ministries, the absence of high-level policy coordination, poor communication and cooperation between ministries, and complicated, slow-moving bureaucratic procedures.

Serbia

In March 2013, Serbia submitted a request for a five-year extension of its original 1 March 2014 Article 5 clearance deadline. That request that sets out plans for survey of 2.1km² and clearance of 2.28km² at a projected cost of €2.5 million ($3.2 million).^[112] The plan projected that survey would result in cancelling approximately half the mine-suspected area. It provided for state funding of €150,000 ($192,885) a year to cover the costs of survey and Serbian Mine Action Centre activities. It expected costs of clearance to be met by donor funding.^[113]

With confirmed and suspected mine contamination estimated at less than 5km², as late as May 2012 Serbia still held out hope of meeting its initial deadline.^[114] After applying for an extension in March 2013, Serbia told the Standing Committee meeting in May 2013, “[T]he dynamics of demining is affected by lack of funds” and by difficult terrain where demining is not possible throughout the year.^[115] The ICBL said the plan was insufficiently ambitious and encouraged Serbia to review its request with a view to shortening the timeline by at least two years and increasing the modest financial contribution Serbia proposed to make towards completion.^[116]

Sudan

At the intersessional meetings in May 2012, Sudan said it needed funding to support 30 clearance teams to meet its Article 5 deadline. If the funding was not available, Sudan would have to request an extension of its Article 5 deadline.^[117] In March 2013, Sudan submitted a request to extend its deadline until 2019, citing instability and lack of access in the states of South Kordofan and Blue Nile as the primary reasons for the extension.^[118] Sudan plans to release all the contaminated areas in the other states before 2016, when it plans to begin clearance in South Kordofan and Blue Nile.^[119]

As of May 2013, 257 suspected hazardous and contaminated areas covering 38km² remained in 10 of the 18 states that comprise Sudan. The 10 states are: Blue Nile, Central/East/North/South/West Darfur, Gadaref, Kassala, Red Sea, and South Kordofan. Almost 80% of the suspected and confirmed contaminated areas are located in Blue Nile, South Kordofan, and Kassala; both Blue Nile and South Kordofan are inaccessible because of ongoing conflict.^[120]

Turkey

Turkey has been slow to fulfill its obligations under Article 5. In the nine years after acceding to the Mine Ban Treaty, Turkey cleared a total of 1.15km² of mined area and three-quarters of this occurred in one year (2011).^[121] It did not record any land release in 2012.

Turkey reported in 2013 that it had a total of 3,174 mined areas covering 214.73km² with a further 346 suspected mined areas yet to be investigated.^[122] At the Eleventh Meeting of States Parties in December 2011, Turkey disclosed that clearance of its border with Syria would not be completed until 2016 and, a year later, it acknowledged to the Twelfth Meeting of States Parties that it would seek an extension to its deadline.^[123]

Turkey submitted a request in March 2013 asking for an eight-year extension until 2022 but also said this was “provisional” and only an “initial estimate” of the time needed.^[124] It cited delays in setting up a national mine action authority, inconvenient weather, and insecurity among factors that had obstructed progress. The extension request reported plans to complete clearance of all mined areas by 2022, with priority given to clearing the border with Syria. By mid-2012, 11 demining companies had bid for the first stage of Syrian border clearance, but in July 2013 the Ministry of National Defense reportedly canceled tenders for clearing the border because of developments in Syria.^[125] The status of that project is now unclear.

Turkey’s extension request also set out plans for a three-phase clearance of its eastern and southeastern borders. Work was expected to start before the end of 2014 and last for two years, although a table of the timelines showed the first two phases continuing through 2017 and the third phase being completed in 2018.^[126]

To meet its treaty requirements regarding areas under its jurisdiction or control, Turkey may also need to set out and implement plans for clearance of affected areas in northern Cyprus, but debate continues on where responsibility for clearing this territory lies.

Risks to Deminers

Demining operators remain at risk of attacks and abductions in some areas where non-state armed groups operate, especially in Afghanistan and more recently in Senegal. Insurgency and banditry continued to pose the main threat to the safety of Afghan deminers in 2012, which saw six deminers killed and 10 injured in 53 security incidents. A further 20 staff were also abducted but later released in 2012.^[127] The precarious security situation persisted in 2013 when 11 deminers were abducted and three vehicles seized.^[128] Implementing partners also reported interruptions to operations caused by security incidents or IED attacks in the vicinity of clearance tasks, as well as having to contend with the presence of IED detonations on roads in their operating areas. In June 2013, one community-based deminer was killed by a missile fired by international forces that apparently mistakenly believed he was planting IEDs.^[129]

In May 2013, 12 demining personnel from Mechem were held prisoner at a camp run by the Movement for the Democratic Forces of Casamance in Guinea-Bissau for several weeks, prompting an order from Senegalese authorities to halt all survey and clearance operations in the country.^[130]

An attack by a suicide bomber and armed attackers on a UN compound in Mogadishu, Somalia, in June 2013 by al-Shabab militia resulted in the deaths of three deminers from Mechem.^[131]

Amid ongoing instability and internal conflict in Yemen in 2012, YEMAC reported that four deminers were killed and one injured as a result of security incidents.^[132]

Conclusion

With a significant area of land remaining to be cleared of antipersonnel mines by States Parties and an increasing trend among them of extending their Article 5 clearance deadlines, there remain serious concerns about the implementation of clearance obligations under the Mine Ban Treaty as it heads toward its next Review Conference in June 2014.

The ICBL has expressed its concern over the number of States Parties that continue to rely on outdated baseline surveys that overestimate the level of contamination leading to the inappropriate allocation of time and resources, and the number of States Parties that have not employed the full range of methodologies that would assist in more efficient land release. Inaccurate and incomplete reporting by several States Parties compound the difficulty in achieving a clear overall picture of contamination and land release efforts. ^[133]

As noted by States Parties, Article 5 compliance is “part of the Convention’s overall comprehensive approach to ending the suffering and casualties caused by anti-personnel mines, for all people, for all time.”^[134] Failure by States Parties to implement full and effective clearance activities as soon as possible, as mandated under the treaty, has significant and detrimental implications for the safety and well-being of affected individuals and their communities.^[135] As the ICBL noted at the Twelfth Meeting of States Parties in December 2012: “Ultimately states should remember that deadlines are just not mere targets—they are legal obligations that reflect a state’s commitment to its own people and to the international community.”^[136]