We support expertise in industry and academia and elsewhere that seeks research and development which will respond quickly and directly to the needs of mined communities, and where that technology is fit into an integrated mine action program. Canadian money may be better spent in some instances on the diplomatic front or as seed money for the projects of: other countries, on-the-ground NGOs or mined communities directly. If a community need calls upon a technology that Canadian industry cannot produce (either technically or profitably), this does not mean that technology is not the most desirable one. It means we should support funding being directed to those partners who can produce the required need, either directly or indirectly. This is, we believe, the most cost effective, time-effective, life-saving approach.
We support a focus on realistic, cost effective technologies that are easy to maintain, that are reliable, affordable and sustainable. A sustainable project is one that must be: desired by the community, self-financing, and include training of local staff in the management and integration of the project as it evolves. This means we need to seek local, indigenous mined community personnel where possible for the manufacture, evaluation and testing of equipment and the maintenance of its production.
The evidence indicates that most equipment, including sophisticated protective gear can be sold cheaper (20-50% cheaper) when made in small shops in the industrial sector of developing countries. This is a cost-effective and practical perspective. Can Canadian industry respond to these demands of this market?
Similarly,
health-based technologies that are sustainable
in post-war and impoverished communities must be affordable,
maintainable and effective in regions that may lack reliable
electricity and infrastructure. Again, can Canadian industry
respond to this need?
Detection equipment must
meet the requirements of humanitarian demining. This means
the product must respond by successfully detecting mines in
the ground to the level of 99.6% effectiveness.
No technology
in existence, other than manual probing, can do that, and
for this reason, this is the equipment most in demand and
the equipment that is doing the effective humanitarian
demining.
We all agree that no single
technology will likely provide the mine clearance solution.
The absence of expensive high tech equipment in the field
does not mean a high tech solution is impossible. But it
does mean the cost-effective, practical approach in the
short term is to support innovative incremental improvements
to existing technology (and this means primarily manual
prodding techniques, mechanical assisted ground preparation
and safety equipment.) Simple ground preparation, the use
of dogs, and the cutting of grass or underbrush can increase
the rate of mine clearance by 10 times. Canadian industry and research and
development institutions are called upon to fit in with
these demonstrated needs, if they can.
Finally, we at MAC also
believe that the most cost effective and practical approach
to technology is to choose equipment and research in
such a way that it is integrated into the overall mine
action project. Mined communities need to be able
to afford the technology that they themselves produce, but
detection of mines is not cost effective in a region where
training of deminers does not take place, where the local
population is not educated to understand the meaning of
marked areas, where prosthetics are not produced and fitted,
where hospitals are not set up, nurses and doctors, and
medicine and bandages are not available. Money will not be
wasted if spent on technology if that technology fits this
structure of needs.