Speech given by Steve Wilson, Technical Operations Manager, Mines Advisory Group, Ottawa, Canada, 23 March 1998
Check against delivery
Introduction
Firstly I would like to say that MAG is committed to the people who exist in mine and ordnance affected communities. We will use whatever means are available and appropriate to address their needs. If all here are serious about this, then we must all focus on this task. MAG welcomes co-operation and a two-way dialogue with all those that share these aims.
In November of last year, MAG, NPA and HI sat down to agree a set of basic principles of operation. I will use some of these principles this group agreed upon as background to my talk.
We agreed that:
"These agencies stand ready to use their experience to support any organisation wishing to implement any activity that takes these principles into account"
In my view, the purpose of setting standards in mine clearance is to define our humanitarian aims, to put them in a long-term humanitarian perspective and to create a benchmark by which we can measure our programmes, and by which donors can evaluate our work.
Standards in mine clearance are not so different to standards in any other sphere of activity. Basically, there are two aspects to the issue: operations and administration.
Today I would like to add a third element: the responsibility of the international community towards the mine action community to support us in addressing the needs of mine affected communities.
1. Firstly what is Humanitarian Mine Action?
For the purposes of stating these principles it is:
"A comprehensive, structured approach to dealing with the tangible consequences of mine and unexploded ordnance (UXO) contamination, involving mine survey, mine risk education and mine clearance." Before technical operations can be conducted all mine clearance organisations should have in place good, workable and effective Standard Operating Procedures, better known as (SOPs). These SOP's should guarantee the safest possible working practices and should provide for a successful result.
A further principle is: Principle: "The need to take account of cultural sensitivities"
We are clearing mines and ordnance in someone else's country, on someone else's land, for those people. We are there to serve these people. MAG sees this as an obligation.
2. I will now move onto Standards in prioritisation - communication, trust and transparency.
A further principle is: Principle: "The need for objective analysis of the requirements of affected communities, and the structuring and conduct of operations to meet these requirements"
From my experience if you go to a mine or ordnance affected community and ask them what they want they will ask you to remove the problem, remove the threat. Unfortunately, due to funding constraints we do not always have the resources to respond immediately to this request. However, through two way communication, trust and transparency and by investing time, we can build up a relationship with affected communities and this allows for an appropriate response to the different requirements from different communities. Good sound prioritisation and a flexible response is the key.
Through experience it has been proven that we must be honest, not raise expectations or make promises that we cannot keep. Priorities are decided with the community for the community.
A prerequisite for this process is good quality, well trained staff. Which leads me onto:
3. Standards in staff welfare and development.
Staff welfare and development are vital if national ownership is to be taken seriously. High standards in all aspects of human resources is a must. I would like to mention a further principle, it is:
Principle: "A responsible approach to the welfare of personnel employed by these agencies involved in mine action"
Staff are the backbone of all organisations. Good management and good staff welfare policies are vital for success. Whether it be expatriate or national staff all staff should be valued and it is important to develop and train these staff. A high standard of effective skills transferral is essential. Local staff are the future of our programmes and are continually being prepared to assume responsibility for mine action capacities. The standards of the people that we employ, how we develop them and the skills that we give them is how we seriously move toward sustainable national ownership.
Low pay, poor skills and poor management will have the obvious detrimental effect. National ownership will be put in jeopardy and the future of the programmes integrity will be at risk. A further principle is: Principle: "The need to support the principles of transfer of competence to the affected communities."
Expatriate technical staff do not only have to possess technical skills. They need to be able to: manage, teach, communicate effectively, identify counterparts and TRANSFER skills over to these counterparts. It's useless them having all these skills if they can't transfer them to someone else. I would also like to mention administration. Operations rely on effective administrative support and this is not always acknowledged. Administrative skills also need to be transferred. Different skills or the lack of them will affect the whole programme.
So it follows that we have to set the standard across the board. We're not in this business to do the work as cheaply as we possibly can. Not only would it have consequences on the sustainability of the programmes and on the EFFECTIVE TRANSFER OF SKILLS, but it also would undermine the approach itself. Mine clearance is not cheap.
We come back to headquarters. You have to set and manage the standards from home and lead by example. This is why we ask, often in vain, that donors assist with programme support, financial management and other core costs. Something to think about...Yes, you can do it on a shoestring, but...| These are some ideas that have been developed by humanitarian agencies out of their experience and by sometimes learning the hard way. They are not to make it more difficult, but to make humanitarian mine action effective and enduring in the long term. We sincerely hope that donors will take these standards seriously and act on them.
The Ottawa Treaty doesn't talk about what humanitarian mine clearance is, nor how it works. Governments and donors should be looking at taking their share of responsibility, showing clear commitment and helping us to make it work.
"These agencies believe that these points must be taken into account by any government, institution or organisation considering involvement in or support of humanitarian mine action".
With regards to the welfare of communities and staff leads me to comment about the lack of co-ordination between mine action work, that is the work on the ground addressing the needs of people, and the international policy work, particularly on matters such as peace-building and refugee repatriation. I must say that I feel that there is a massive void between the international policy work and the work going on, on the ground.
Today, we know of two incidences - Western Sahara and Bosnia - where refugees will be repatriated into areas that are effectively minefields. The same happened in Cambodia in 1992, and may happen again in Angola. It seems unbelievable to me. Why is it and how can it be, after all the attention given to the landmines issue over the last several years, all the important speeches made by politicians, all the understanding of the problem that governments and development practitioners have gained, that yet again history may repeat itself?
There is little reason today to panic and react thoughtlessly about the mines problem. It is generally not an emergency situation. It can be solved. It just requires the proper co-ordination of information, policy, and available resources both human and financial. Yes, mine survey, risk management and clearance takes time and money. But balanced against human life and peace it is value for money. Planning for post-conflict rehabilitation and development MUST include planning and financing of effective mine clearance. I urge you to take this point extremely seriously.
I've spoken about some basic standards we apply to our work and have mentioned a number of areas that require further attention. May I take this opportunity to mention a few ideas of standards that donors could consider for their own activities.
4. Standards for new technologies and evaluation of proposals - a donor's guide
A further principle: Principle: A commitment to the continued development of existing methodologies...[and] a realistic and objective approach to new mine clearance technologies and methodologies ...[and] the need to avoid impractical 'quick-fix' solutions.
MAG believes in manual demining. It works. It addresses the needs. It is flexible and versatile and it is sustainable. These are the same parameters that new technologies should have.
It is no good saying to a mine-affected community that something will come along soon. "Sit tight and wait". They want their needs addressed now. And they are right to demand that. They want tangible action and tangible results today.
These needs highlight the major problem that donor governments have now: the allocation of funds for research and development, and for the ongoing and urgent work of humanitarian mine action. This is where co-ordination and a reasoned approach are vital. Overall, this is not happening.
I propose the following for your reflection:
1. If governments are to approach new technologies seriously, they must understand that there has to be close co-ordination with and a good understanding of the existing technologies already working on the ground. Existing and new technologies cannot be treated as two separate entities. Our belief is, at present, new technologies can augment manual demining, but not replace it. Over the past few years, there has been a dangerous and probably counter-productive tendency to compartmentalise. We want to see an homogeneous approach.
Governments and donors should take responsibility for ensuring the co-ordination of research. We can't do it! Governments have the power to dictate their requirements regarding approaches for the future and to exercise standards and humanitarian principles even within commercial considerations.
2. Governments need dedicated staff to evaluate different organisations, commercial firms, proposals and approaches. Where outside advisors are used, they MUST have the relevant skills and experience in Humanitarian Mine Action. This should include hands on experience on the ground. People in key positions should have a clear and open-minded picture of Humanitarian Mine Action. These staff should have a long-term commitment to their posts, to the goals of
Humanitarian Mine Action and this will enhance the stability and durability of their governments' commitment to the eradication of landmines and UXO. It will also allow for continuity.
It's not enough to have workshops. Key people should get out on the ground, look at what is going on, understand the practical difficulties, see different approaches; that will give balance. And it will give them the confidence that they have done all they can and considered all areas prior to allocation of funds.
3. Use the established agencies, their operational quality, performance, staff selection procedures, standards and community-based approaches to set a benchmark for the purposes of comparison (where operations can be compared).
Conclusion.
I would like to conclude by saying that during this workshop let us set a high standard of co-operation. Between us we have the skills, we have the resources and we have the will. Let us draw this together and translate this into practical, tangible HMA on the ground that addresses the needs of the people.
Thank you very much.