How Falkland islanders plan to help the world

[Oddball]

How Falkland islanders plan to help the world by keeping their landmines

Audrey Gillan
Saturday June 11, 2005
The Guardian

Every day of the week Leon Marsh must drive down a track just the width of two Land Rovers, picking his way between the landmine fields that pepper his vast sheep farm in the Falkland islands.

With 117 minefields covering almost eight square miles, it is a routine that he and his fellow islanders have had to become used to in the 23 years since the conflict with Argentina ended.

But, in stark contrast to communities around the world which are battling to have their landmines removed, the Falkland islanders argue that theirs should be left alone.

Next week the islanders will back a radical plan by the charity Landmine Action, which proposes that instead of clearing the Falklands the British government remove mines from an equivalent land area in Angola, Cambodia or Afghanistan, where the lethal munitions present a daily risk to life. The proposal will be put to a meeting of the standing committees of the Ottawa convention in Geneva next week.

Britain is obliged to clear the Falklands mines by March 2009 under the convention. Promoted by the late Diana, Princess of Wales, it requires signatories not only to stop using landmines, but to remove them from their territory entirely.

However, Falkland islanders have told the Guardian that they would be "embarrassed" if the money were spent on clearing their mines when there is a dire need for it elsewhere in the world. British sappers cleared 4,500 mines - lying on their stomachs with hand-held prods - immediately after the war, but they lost two men and sustained several casualties. No Falkland islanders have died.

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1504064,00.html)

[Roger Rabbit]

Sounds like a decent enough request.

[soma]

Did they really expect the war to drag on that long, that they needed to mine so much of it?

[martinexsquaddie]

most of the minefields were layed correctly according to the rules and customs of war. and were a legit tactic of war although outside of stanley it went a bit pear shaped.
the falklands have plenty of space so as long as you stay out of the minefields there not a problem.
although having your photo taken inside a minefield or trying to set a mine off by throwing rocks has been made illegal :(

[Roger Rabbit]

Did they really expect the war to drag on that long, that they needed to mine so much of it?
If i recall correctly then it was the Argentinians who laid the minefields an then failed to either create or keep hold of records of where the mines were placed.


Dr. Reid: Landmines were used in the Falklands by our forces during the 1982 conflict, and in its aftermath. One British anti-personnel landmine remains unaccounted for although every effort has been made to clear our devices.

We have no reliable figure for the number of Argentine mines in the Falklands. Our best current estimate is that some 18,000 Argentine mines and similar devices of various types were laid, including some 14,000 anti-personnel landmines. About 1,400 Argentine mines were cleared following the conflict, before work was suspended after a number of serious injuries to clearance personnel.
Source: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo980428/text/80428w01.htm

However the Falklands War has to be thanked for helping to create that classic piece of adivce. If in a minefield take off your daysacks and bash them on the ground at arms length to detonate any mines.



The United Kingdom was one of the first 40 states to ratify the Ottawa Convention and remains an enthusiastic member of the Universalisation Contact Group. Why then is the UK poised to breach the treaty?
Article 5 of the Convention obliges each State Party to “destroy or ensure the destruction of all anti-personnel mines in mined areas under its jurisdiction or control, as soon as possible but not later than ten years after the entry into force of this convention for that State Party”. Therefore the UK is obliged to ensure the destruction of all anti-personnel mines in the Falklands no later than 1 March 2009.
The Falklands Island Government reports that there are 117 minefields that cover a total area of 20 sq. km in the vicinity of inhabited settlements in Port Stanley, Goose Bay, Port Howard and Fox Bay. All the minefields are fenced and marked and despite their proximity to settlements (three minefields are within 1 mile of the centre of the capital Port Stanley) there has never been a civilian casualty.
The mines were either laid in peat or in sand. In both cases clearance would be technically challenging and would inevitably necessitate large-scale environmental reconstruction afterwards. Although clearance is feasible it would be extremely expensive.
The economic, social and humanitarian impact of the minefields is negligible and is likely to remain so. There is loss of amenity, particularly on Stanley Common and Cape Pembroke (Yorke Bay, Surf Bay) where areas previously used for recreation and grazing are now out of bounds but the development of the islands’ road network has meant that other beaches have become accessible and the dairy herd has moved elsewhere. The poor quality of the land means that if 60 hectares of land were cleared in Port Howard the farmer-landowner would only be able to graze a further 40 sheep, a minor addition to a flock of 40,000.
Significantly there is no enthusiasm on the part of the Falkland Islanders for clearance. Reasons given for this include the absence of economic, social and humanitarian impact, the desire to avoid casualties in the clearance process and a lack of confidence that clearance would remove 100% of the mines. They have repeatedly asserted that the funds for clearance would be better spent elsewhere, in countries where mines have a significant humanitarian impact.
In these circumstances it makes little sense to clear the mines. However to breach the treaty and not clear the mines offers a potential get out clause for the unscrupulous: States Parties are effectively absolved of any responsibility to provide security of person for their populations. They can safely claim from their capital cities that the mines in their interior are having no economic, social or humanitarian impact: pastoralists and subsistence farmers will continue to blow themselves up in minefields.
It is possible to apply for an extension of the Article 5 deadline but this requires the agreement of the majority of States Parties and obliges the applicant to provide a work plan for the completion of the task. It does not remove the obligation to clear. By applying for an extension the UK Government would be making a declaration that, despite being a nation of the North with ample financial and technical means, it remains unable to ensure the destruction of its mines. The same unscrupulous nations would, with some justification, read “unable” as “unwilling”. The challenge for States Parties then is to reach consensus on the terms in which an extension can be agreed, without undermining the aims of the treaty.
One possible solution is for a Kyoto-style pollution credit scheme. In this context - as part of a ten-year deadline extension request - UK could commit to clear an equivalent area of mined land in the most heavily mine affected countries by the initial deadline of March 2009. To clear twenty square kilometers of land in Cambodia, Afghanistan or Angola could have a dramatic effect if specifically targeted at those mined areas that sustain the highest number of casualties. It is also relatively easily costed: in Cambodia for instance NGO’s are clearing at a cost of US$0.50 to US$2.00 per square meter. That’s forty million dollars to clear an area of Cambodia equivalent to the area of the Falklands. It is also half the area of the K5 mine-belt, the minefield that runs parallel to the Thai-Cambodian border that is one of the densest concentrations of mines in the world and the cause of a significant proportion of the world’s mine casualties.
The announcement of a “Falklands Initiative” with the full backing of the Falkland Islanders at the Meeting of States Party to the Convention this November would grab the world’s attention and inject much needed impetus into the international effort to eradicate landmines.

Source: http://www.landmineaction.org/newsarticle.asp?art=284

[RGRBOX]

Daring... and not too much to ask...

[bluffcove]

Landmines in the Falklands arent a Problem, ask 8steps or Chris smith at Goose Green!

Loads of the minefields are unmarked, but all the shepherds know where they are and all the marked fields are about time and a half larger than they need to be in order to prevent any accidnets nad be perfectly sure.

The argies threw the landmines out of helicopters ahead of the Brits, and landing on soft earth would actully sink in, hence no-on really knows where half of the fields are.

I reckon its bloody good of the Bennies to worry aobut The rest of hte world first. when you consider where mines are being used elsewhere, around towns and villages etc. there are only 500 people in Camp last that I heard and it is an area the size of Wales, the yhave coped for 20+ years with the mine fields why not wait a little longer.

Bluffcove