ABSTRACT
The humanitarian consequences of mines and explosive remnants of war (ERW) are extensive and long lasting. This fact suggests the relevance of having them addressed in negotiations among conflict parties and included in ceasefire and peace agreements. Nevertheless, the link between mine action (also called humanitarian demining) and peace mediation is underexplored in practice and theory as is illustrated by the limited guidance and literature on the matter. This issue brief aims to explore to what extent the two communities of practice could overcome the tendency of working in isolation and benefit from one another. It also shows that mine action can indeed contribute to mediation, especially as an instrument for confidence building and part of broader arms control. Moreover, mediation can strengthen the case of mine action by anchoring the topic in peace agreements.
These opportunities are however related to the challenge of linking mine action to the more politically-oriented agenda of peacemaking and peacebuilding. Notably, the traditional humanitarian focus that characterises mine action actors in the field, results in a desire to distance themselves from political engagement in general.
Additionally, mediators are confronted with numerous issues to be included in their processes and risk overloading them with too many topics. In other words, there is a reluctance to predetermine what needs to be discussed at the outset of a mediation process. The authors believe that all those concerns may well be moderated by facilitating a better mutual understanding and a more direct engagement between the two fields.
Overall, the study conducted for this issue brief leads to four main recommendations.
• First, mine action is a topic that should be addressed in peace mediation one way or another. This is to say, mediators should consider it as a possible issue for discussion. Whether this entails its formal inclusion in a ceasefire or peace agreement should be decided on a case by case basis.
• Second, it is important to clearly distinguish mine action before and after an agreement because this has a significant impact on its goal and operational scope. Mine action activities before an agreement are primarily used as entry points for peace processes or as confidence building measures. As such, they are primarily part of a larger mediation strategy and serve a humanitarian purpose to a limited extent. The latter point takes centre stage when mine action is conducted after an agreement, i.e. as part of its content.
• Third, mine action provisions in an agreement should be restricted to basic questions due to the limited knowledge and expertise available during negotiations. As accurate and detailed information will be sparse, it is most useful to merely clarify fundamental elements of mine action as well as respective responsibilities when it comes to the implementation of activities and build on those commitments moving forward.
• Fourth, there is the need to build relationships between the two communities of practice, which appear to operate in silos and have scarce knowledge of the respective fields of activities. In order to be in a position to benefit from each other, practitioners should maintain at least some form of interaction.