The OAP, adopted in 2019 at the Fourth Review Conference of the APMBC, has served as a pivotal framework guiding global mine action efforts. It has contributed to considerable progress across the sector.
Examples of progress are exemplified by States Parties’ commitment to the destruction of anti-personnel (AP) mine stockpiles, Sri Lanka meeting its Article 4 obligations in 2021, successful clearance operations, Chile and the United Kingdom meeting their Article 5 obligations in 2020, and the launch of Explosive Ordnance Risk Education (EORE) programmes by 19 State Parties. Additionally, 13 State Parties have reported initiatives in victim assistance, and international cooperation has been significant, with substantial contributions from top donors.
The mine action sector has grappled with numerous challenges since adoption of the OAP. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted operations globally, while Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has led to high-levels of contamination from landmines and other explosive ordnance. Conflicts in Sudan, Myanmar and Yemen have added to high levels of global contamination. The growing use of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), primarily by non-State Armed Groups (NSAGs) and explosive ordnance contamination in urban areas further complicate clearance efforts. Annual funding levels are subject to fluctuation and fall short of sector needs.
“The mine action sector has grappled with numerous challenges since adoption of the OAP.”
OAP Achievements
The OAP injected new energy and best practice. A key focus has been the integration of gender perspectives and the recognition of diverse needs within all pillars of mine action covered under the APMBC. This has resulted in broader acknowledgement that different societal groups are affected by contamination in varying ways, ensuring that reporting on the extent to which mine action initiatives are inclusive and sensitive to the needs of all affected populations has increased. The OAP has also helped to raise EORE standards, previously an overlooked area. The working groups on gender and EORE that were set up to support the OAP actions, continue to function well. The OAP also identified a need to explore alternative and/or innovative sources of funding, and highlighted the increasing challenge posed by IEDs.
“The OAP brought an unprecedented level of accountability, emphasising equal responsibility among stakeholders.”
Measuring progress from one RevCon to the next is challenging without a baseline. To address this, the OAP introduced indicators and best practices to provide a framework for assessment. With that, the OAP brought an unprecedented level of accountability, emphasising equal responsibility among stakeholders. The indicators that were introduced in the OAP serve as an operationalisation guide to the APMBC.
Challenges
“The level and quality of reporting against the action plan needs to be improved”
The OAP is a substantive document on which to build. There are, however, areas that should be strengthened in the new SRAAP, to capture new best practice and current sector needs.
The OAP does not adequately consider the environmental impact of mine action. New language is needed on considering the environment and climate change relating to the impact of mine action activities and their outcomes. New guidance is required to advise operators on how to strike an appropriate balance between potentially competing objectives (e.g. speed/cost vs environmental impact).
Engaging more with mine-affected communities and addressing their context-specific needs is crucial. An increased focus on the importance of effective prioritisation would be extremely helpful. Greater priority should be afforded to mental health within victim assistance.
The level and quality of reporting against the action plan needs to be improved. There is also a need to maintain a grip on the number of indicators, removing duplication. Monitoring progress can be particularly challenging, especially when Article 7 transparency reports are missing or incomplete. There is potential to leverage the information generated through actions and indicators in the OAP more effectively. Monitoring currently relies heavily on self-reporting which can be a weakness in objectively assessing State party needs. OAP Action 18, Indicator 1 may be leveraged for effective third-party monitoring, allowing for gaps in implementation to be identified and addressed. Reporting might be streamlined through increased emphasis on reporting against a few key performance indicators, and by providing more assistance to national authorities to establish baselines. While the OAP stresses that national ownership is essential, there is often a mismatch between what is expected and what is achievable without external support. The production of templates for effective budgets and planning processes could potentially assist national mine action authorities. More active national coordination platforms are necessary to allocate resources efficiently and support affected states in fulfilling their obligations.
Defining Success
“The sector needs a strong new narrative that foregrounds the positive impact of mine action on individuals and communities”
The strategic narrative around the “mine free 2025” aspiration set at the third RevCon in Maputo in 2014 broadened awareness of mine action as an achievable goal. It was energising at the fourth RevCon in Olso.
But the mine action sector landscape has evolved since 2014, notably with new and resurgent conflicts in the Middle East, Sahel, and Ukraine. Moreover, there was a risk of unintended consequences (e.g. under-reporting of new contamination) and of perceived ‘failure’ as the deadline drew nearer. Although several State Parties are close to completing their Article 5 obligations and could finalise implementation within five years, additional contamination from new conflict and the identification of new legacy mined areas demonstrate the need to broaden the measure of success beyond completion. The sector needs a strong new narrative – ideally around a single theory of change – that foregrounds the positive impact of mine action on individuals and communities.
The narrative should include a stronger emphasis on programme outcomes and realism on where completion is achievable in the short to medium term (celebrating individual national successes). It should champion smarter working (e.g. by using evidence and risk-based approaches to reduce the extent of expensive, time-consuming clearance operations). On balance, the Fifth RevCon should not set a new aspiration date for global completion.
Mine Action in Context
“Either the handover between mine action actors and development actors should improve, or there should be a greater focus on joint initiatives involving other sectors”
Mine action directly contributes to 12 of the 17 SDGs and indirectly to others. Action 6 in the OAP also emphasises the need to link mine action with broader development. The sector has developed a triple nexus approach in which mine action is linked to humanitarian assistance, development, and peacebuilding. Despite this framework and examples of successful integrated projects, many participants felt that the mine action sector was not maximising its enabling potential. The sector should review whether it only aims to complete its core or ‘traditional’ tasks, or strategically collaborates with other national and international actors. Either the handover between mine action actors and development actors should improve, or there should be a greater focus on joint initiatives involving other sectors.
To better bridge the divide between mine action and broader development goals, one positive action would be to strengthen and apply more consistently needs analysis, prioritising needs of the local community in project design from the outset. There is a strong alignment with localisation, ensuring that local communities have a leading voice in decision-making. Needs analysis also provides an opportunity to wrap in considerations of gender and inclusion. Complementary to this approach is developing an early understanding of local, regional, and national development plans, and how mine action can support them. Gaining a national champion increases the chances of success.
Broader engagement between national, international, and multilateral organisations, for example through a national platform should facilitate coordinated approaches and potentially more formal partnership arrangements. Coordination between different actors should not wait until clearance is completed, moving away from a linear understanding of the connection between demining and ‘follow-on’ development initiatives. This work could be underpinned by a robust theory of change to understand mine action’s contribution to broader outcomes, and how to measure impact.
There are obstacles to pursuing a more integrated approach. To be effective it would require drawing on different funding pots, as donors’ budgets often have differing policy objectives and operate in silos. A robust evidence base would be required to encourage new funding profiles. However, collecting data and using it effectively is challenging. More data and reporting on the direct and indirect impact of clearance operations is needed, made accessible to both donor countries and national authorities to share beyond the sector. Such data should include examples of success stories, country-specific progress updates, how the cleared land is used (using the land use categories defined by the sector), the extent to which clearance beneficiaries are reporting improved livelihoods or access to basic services, and the frequency with which affected communities enquire with mine action operators about ‘follow-up’ items such as seeds and fertilisers, which are traditionally beyond the remit of the mine action sector.
Mine action could use data more effectively to demonstrate value for money beyond measures of surveys and clearance efficiency. A more comprehensive approach to demonstrating value for money would help to attract funding to the sector and increase the attractiveness of joint, integrated projects using mine action to measurably enable the delivery of the SDGs.
There are means by which the sector could push for a stronger enabling role, for example by establishing more liaison roles. However, some participants felt there was a risk of the sector diluting its humanitarian message, a particular concern where donors fund mine action through humanitarian budgets. Where donors fund mine action through development budgets there might be more scope for more integrated projects. There may be different levels of ambition in different contexts, depending upon the extent of national and local capacity and ownership, donor flexibility, and existence of other development actors willing to act in proximity to contaminated land.