Per Nergaard, Head of NPAs Mine Action Section, elaborates the organisations views on Land Release to the Resource Mobilisation Contact Group during the seventh Meeting of States Parties to the AP convention.

Published: 25.09.2006

By Per Nergaard Head Mine Action, NPA , 19th September 2006

The issue of finding better modalities to reach the objectives of article 5 in the Convention have been displayed and discussed in many ways over the last years, traditionally within the framework of enhanced co-ordination and cooperation both on field and global level, more financial resources to clearance activities, larger toolboxes, better capacity building, promoting national ownership, complementarities of methods in demining, and new technologies etc. Despite several thorough and concrete recommendations for improvement, many coming from the NGO operators, little practical results or changes have emerged.

However, to reach the overall objectives of the Convention, and reduce the possible number of applications for extensions of the deadlines by affected states, it is imperative that the community as a whole acknowledges that it is time to fundamentally rethink and redesign how mine action is undertaken. The responsibility for this rests with all stakeholders in Mine Action, but the donor community can and should play a key role in stimulating change by playing a much more active role in formulating requirements and policies as a basis for the dispersal of funds.”

Well, this rethinking and redesigning has to a large extent taken place over the last year amongst several of the operators through discussions, concept development and field trials. The word on most operators lips these days seems to be risk management and land release, and I will try to clarify how Norwegian Peoples Aid (NPA) struggles to develop good concepts for better efficiency and effectiveness by introducing new methods for releasing land, and what we read into the term land release and risk management. For the record, I am not very fond of the use of the term risk management, but as many of our processes is bordering with the discourse of risk management, I will leave that discussion out for now.

It is a sad fact of our work that maybe as much as 90 percent of our time and resources are spent on demining where there are no mines. Given the nature of the landmine problem and the obvious technical and practical challenges of surveying and detecting these buried objects, (and in addition the high standards we have set for ourselves for finding each and every one), no-one can hardly be criticized for this. However, as we are realizing this far too slow and costly approach, we are obliged to correct this now. We cannot continue at this pace if we are to reduce the numbers of new victims and meet the deadlines of the treaty.

So, NPAs motivation and determination to develop and formalize a new approach was born out of the fact that due to limited resources, and the urgency of re-opening land in most mine-affected countries, the challenge is to utilise scarce demining resources in a way that will allow rapid release of land and road sectors. If all suspected land and roads were to be released through full clearance only, the task would take decades and the treaty objectives may not be met.

What do NPA mean when we use the term land release? Well, the most complicated way to express what the land release concept to NPA is;

 “A structured and quantified assessment of the presence or absence of threats from ERW (Explosive Remnants of War) and a cumulative reduction of potential risk to tolerable levels using a minimum of resources.”

In practical terms this means that we will try to focus away from the costly and slow clearance process and start to emphasize on systematic analysis and information gathering and technical survey instead. Since land release, by its content and approach, is not full clearance, it is vital to consider the following:

The overall objective of mine action is not merely the release of land, but to ensure that the land released is utilised by the target group (end user).

The utilization of an area released depends on the users confidence in the land release approach. Currently this confidence is only reached by doing a 100 % clearance of the entire SHA. In practice, this implies that we must release land through other means than only traditional clearance without jeopardizing the quality of the work we do. We must , as I said earlier, mentally shift our focus/approach from clearance to information gathering. To be able to do this the following must be understood;

(i) Mine Action is all about gathering information on the probability of the presence of mines in a SHA (Suspected Hazardous Area).

(ii) We will not state that we have cleared a SHA (of all its mines), but we will release an SHA (by gathering sufficient information to confirm the absence of mines in the area with a high degree of certainty (with an acceptable residual risk)).

(iii) There is always a residual risk in mine action (Even in a full clearance operation, mines might be deeper, outside the boundaries or just missed). If we understand that there always is a residual risk, then the challenge will be do determine this threshold (acceptable risk level)

(iv) We should never release a SHA without documenting what we have done and received an approval from the land owner, local community, national authorities and the national mine action centre that they accept/understand what we have done.

Subsequently; In an NPA understanding, land release is undertaken through 3 different actions;

(i) Cancellation – the process in which an area is released based on information gathered only. No mine clearance tools have been used.

(ii) Reduction – the process in which one or more demining tools have been used to gather information about the presence/absence of mines. The method is used to increase our confidence that there is no mine threat in the area. (It is important to note that the tools/method used is not recognized as a full clearance method).

(iii) Clearance – The procedures in which one or more mine clearance tools are used to physically clear an area and are defined as “full clearance” according to IMAS (International Mine Action Standards) and national standards.

More of our capacities should be spent on the cancellation and area reduction method. Full clearance should be the last option and should ideally be used only when a presence of mines is confirmed.

So to be able to introduce cancellation and area reduction methods as a key element in the land release concept, we must be able to undertake a sound risk analysis and risk reduction:

As a precondition, the following must be undertaken;

(i) Documenting what we do – gather information to be able to make decisions based on proven evidence/facts and not gut feelings of individuals (depth on mines, location of mines, tools capabilities to detect different mines, limitation of your different assets etc)

(ii) Defining acceptable risk level

(iii) Understand the residual risk of your different assets

(iv) Establish a dialog with key stakeholders to ensure that they understand your approach and accept it as sufficient (within the acceptable risk level)

(v) Establishing procedures to ensure that you use escalating level of response (tools/procedures) in accordance with an escalating threat level. (in other words, you should avoid using full clearance drill if the presence of mines is still unknown)

(vi) analyzing the information gathered as a basis for decision making

Liability:

Some will ask whether land can be released without full clearance and whether we can take that responsibility. The answer to that question is that faster land release requires new solutions without lowering standards. Whatever we do, we do it with maximum quality.  Whatever concept is produced locally – in line with our policies needs to be accredited by the key stakeholders in that country, including national authorities and the UN. We need to follow a system that is generally accepted and acknowledged. Being willing to accept a higher degree of risk is not the same as being willing to work beyond a tolerable risk level. This needs to be defined in co-operation with key stakeholders in each country.

NPA cannot see how we can succeed with our mission without walking this alternative path.