Mine Free: Not Anytime Soon

Mine action is changing. This is not 1997 and what the international community has learned in the past seven years clearly indicates that the path forward is something different than a literal reading of the Ottawa Convention would suggest. The landmine impact survey process has demonstrated very clearly that only a small portion of the minefields, normally less than 20%, account for the vast majority of casualties and lost economic opportunities. The mine action community has a responsibility to profit from new knowledge and to adjust its approach accordingly.

The phrase "mine-free" is an inspiring statement of purpose, but a poor organizing principle given that no donor or collection of donors, no lending institution and no major impacted country has indicated a willingness to put up the huge amount of resources required to find and clear every last mine. With annual victim figures dropping towards 10,000, it is hard to make the case that landmines continue to be a global "scourge" on the order of other issues such as HIV/AIDS, food security, malaria, etc. The initiative to "mainstream" mine action into development argues in favor of using "return on investment" as a criteria for mine clearance, and while this return is positive in many cases, it is not positive in (most) others.

There is substantial evidence to suggest that many of the mines now being cleared are inert, degraded by the effects of time, temperature and moisture. Why risk deminers’ lives to clear land that no one will use? Why spend money to clear land that will not generate economic returns and why remove mines that Mother Nature has already rendered safe? Attempting to clear every last mine would be, in a world of pressing demands and scarce resources, an unfortunate waste of funds, funds that could save more lives and be more beneficial if applied elsewhere.

This realization should not be taken as a critique of any treaty or policy position, but rather as positive testimony to the power that knowledge can have in focusing scarce resources on activities where such resources will do the most good. Mine affected countries and the international community can work together to develop sound national strategic plans, plans that set forth achievable visions and match resources to prioritized and measurable outcomes. As the most pressing impacts of landmines are removed, collective efforts can shift away from large-scale clearance activities by outside organizations, allowing programs with greater national ownership to come to the fore. These smaller, more balanced and more sustainable programs would focus on mine risk education, marking of suspected hazardous areas and limited clearance only in response to newly discovered threats or changes in land-use patterns.

Such an approach would allow for the most rapid reduction of hazards and the lowest possible expenditure, surely a desirable outcome from any perspective.

[End]