 |  |
TUESDAY 22 JUNE & WEDNESDAY 23 JUNE1. Opening of the meetingThe meeting was opened by its Co-Chairs, Syndoph Endoni of Nigeria and George Petmezakis of Greece. The Co-Chairs were supported by their Co-Rapporteurs, Daniel Avila of Colombia and Reto Wollenmann of Switzerland. In opening the meeting, the Co-Chairs highlighted that they had developed a programme covering following six areas: (i) Updates by States Parties that have completed implementation of Article 5 since the Second Review Conference; (ii) Updates by States Parties that were granted extensions on Article 5 deadlines; (iii) Updates by States Parties that have submitted or may submit requests for extensions in 2010; (iv) Updates from other relevant States Parties on the status of implementation of Article 5; (v) A presentation on a study of the aging of emplaced anti-personnel mines by James Madison University’s Centre for International Stabilization and Recovery; and, (vi) Updates on other developments and initiatives in support of the application of mine clearance. 2. Overview of the status of implementation of Article 5The Co-Chairs delivered a statement on the status of implementation of Article 5. They noted that at the close of the Cartagena Summit, 54 States Parties had reported that they had been or were still required to fulfil their Article 5 obligations; that of these, 15 States Parties had reported that they had fulfilled their obligation to destroy or ensure the destruction of all anti-personnel mines in mined areas; and, that at the close of the Cartagena Summit, there were 39 that still needed to complete implementation of Article 5. The Co-Chairs noted that these numbers are the benchmarks against which the States Parties will measure progress this year and in every subsequent year leading to our Third Review Conference in 2014.
3. Updates by States Parties that have completed implementation of Article 5 since the Second Review ConferenceThe following State Party reported that it had completed implementation of Article 5 since the Second Review Conference:
4. Updates by States Parties that were granted extensions on Article 5 deadlinesThe Co-Chairs provided States Parties that have been granted extensions with the opportunity to share updates on their progress in implementing Article 5 in relation to progress indicators contained in their requests and common understandings and concerns agreed to by the States Parties in taking decisions on their requests. The following States Parties that were granted extensions in 2008 provided updates:
In response to these updates, the following States Parties and others shared their views:
The following States Parties that were granted extensions in 2009 provided updates: In response to these updates, the following States Parties and others shared their views or exercised a right of reply: 5. Updates by States Parties that have submitted or may submit requests in 2010The Co-Chairs noted that since the Second Review Conference, three States Parties have made use of the provisions in Article 5, paragraphs 3-5, that permit a State Party, should it believe that it will be unable to destroy or ensure the destruction of all anti-personnel mines in mined areas that it has reported not later than 10 years after the entry into force for the State Party, to submit a request for an extension of this 10-year deadline. They further noted that four additional States Parties either have indicated that they will or may submit an extension request this year. The President of the Second Review Conference and chair of the group of States Parties mandated to analyse requests presented on an update on the Article 5 extension process.
The following States Parties that have submitted requests in 2010 provided updates: In response to updates provided by Colombia and Mauritania, the following delegations shared their views:
The following States Parties that will submit requests in 2010 provided updates: In response to these updates, the following delegation shared its views:
6. The effects of aging on landminesThe Co-Chairs called upon representatives of James Madison University's Centre for International Stabilisation and Recovery (CISR) to present initial findings of a study it is undertaking on the effects of aging on emplaced mines. In this presentation, which was delivered by CISR Programme Manager Daniele Resler and Colin King of Colin King Associates Ltd., highlighted that this matter has implications for the allocation of clearance assets, the choice of techniques for releasing land and mine risk education.
In response this presentation, the following delegations engaged in discussion on this matter:
7. Updates by other relevant States Parties on the status of implementing Article 5The following States Parties with Article 5 deadlines in 2012 or beyond provided updates:
In response to these updates, the following delegations shared views:
In addition, the GICHD delivered a presentation on its evaluation of Chile's humanitarian demining programme.
8. Updates on other developments and initiativesThe Co-Chairs provided an opportunity for updates or views on other developments and initiatives in support of the application of the mine clearance aspects of the Cartagena Action Plan. The following delegations took the floor under this agenda item:
9. Closing remarks by the Co-Chairs
|