For years, the mine-action community has been revising its definition of explosive remnants of war. Viewing unexploded ordnance, landmines, ammunition stockpiles, and small arms/light weapons as individual threats, the mine-action community has created distinct budgets, programs and policies to address each of them. What were beginning to realize, however, is that a more integrated approach allows for greater progress in reducing the ERW threat

Adams, Mark

English

James Madison University

Journal of Conventional Weapons Destruction Volume 14 Issue 3 The Journal of ERW and Mine Action Article 2 October 2010 Integrating ERW Programs: The Case for Consolidating CWD Activities Mark Adams U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Military-Affairs, Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement (PM/WRA) Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cisr-journal  Part of the Other Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration Commons, and the Peace and Conflict Studies Commons Recommended Citation Adams, Mark (2010) "Integrating ERW Programs: The Case for Consolidating CWD Activities," The Journal of ERW and Mine Action : Vol. 14 : Iss. 3 , Article 2. Available at: https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cisr-journal/vol14/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Center for International Stabilization and Recovery at JMU Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Conventional Weapons Destruction by an authorized editor of JMU Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact dc_admin@jmu.edu. 4          editorial | the journal of erW and mine action | fall 2010 | 14.3 14.3 | fall 2010 | the journal of erW and mine action | editorial        5EDITORIALIn the last 20 years, the organized sup-port for humanitarian mine action has allowed us to make great strides in re-ducing the landmine threat worldwide. Now, however, we find ourselves in a position where the traditional lines between mine action and the threat of excess and poorly secured small arms/light weapons and other conventional weapons have blurred. The traditional approach to taking mines and unexploded ordnance out of the ground has evolved. The mine-action community has begun widening its scope to focus on armed vi-olence and the problems caused by aging stock-piles, remaining landmines and UXO, and the removal of all of this hazardous debris of con-flict to make the land safe. We now actively Integrating ERW Programs:   The Case for Consolidating      CWD Activities by Mark Adams [ PM/WRA ]work to eliminate the unintended consequenc-es of unstable ammunition detonation or loss of control of poorly secured government stock-piles of weapons, which are just as dangerous as explosive remnants of war. Mine-risk educa-tion and risk management have now broadened to become “armed-violence risk” or “ERW-risk education/risk management.” Wisely, our community has refined and re-vised its views about ERW. Perhaps it is time to consider revising and refining our strategies as well. I believe these new ideas should be re-flected in integrated approaches to programs, policies and budgets for dealing with ERW. Since we no longer think about UXO, land-mines, aging ammunition stockpiles or aban-doned ordnance as separate entities, why do we have separate budgets, programs and strategies for dealing with them? Is there perhaps a better, more effi-cient way of doing business?IntegrationAt this time of global financial downturn and international do-nor fatigue toward HMA activities, I argue that finding a way to bet-ter deal with the ERW problem in affected countries will allow us to more effectively justify budgets to our lawmakers and donors. I often discuss with many of my counter-parts “eating the elephant” one bite at a time. I have nothing against el-ephants, but the analogy is that we can only solve the problem one piece at a time by collectively putting to-gether all of our problems related to ERW and integrating our efforts re-garding policy, programs, resource management and direct action. This process allows us to deal with a very serious problem over time in a well-thought-out, systematic way. An integrated, centralized strat-egy for dealing with ERW allows us to more effectively and compelling-ly demonstrate our needs and ob-jectives. An integrated approach to ERW brings together similar skill sets related to explosive ordnance disposal under one umbrella. It streamlines communication. It can accelerate decision-making. It al-lows us to be more nimble and re-sponsive. It ensures a unified, rather than competing, agenda for ERW. It improves our visibility across relat-ed programs. It enhances our ability to see and monitor the totality of our efforts, and track and measure our successes. It improves cost-effective-ness. And at a time when we are be-ing asked and often required to do more with less, these benefits seem For years, the mine-action community has been revising its definition of explosive remnants of war. Viewing unexploded ordnance, landmines, ammunition stockpiles, and small arms/light weapons as individual threats, the mine-action community has created distinct budgets, programs and policies to address each of them. What we’re beginning to realize, however, is that a more integrated approach allows for greater progress in reducing the ERW threat.a technician throws away remnants of surplus weapons destroyed by the congolese armed forces (farDc) at the central logistics base during a collaboration project between Mines advisory Group and the farDc.all Photos courtesy of J.B. russell/MaGto be worth the effort involved to consolidate and integrate our inter-ests and missions as follows: HMA + SA/LW = ERW. Thus, the action of dealing with ERW can be called “conventional weapons destruction.”Perhaps we should rethink nation-al strategies and review our collective ERW strategy. This review would run the gamut from where to place the “Office of ERW” to appeals for do-nor support to the development of a new ERW national strategy. This ap-proach is radical and even anathema to many governments compared to the way we have conducted business in the past, but I believe it helps de-velop a national vision and provides better synchronization and synergy in the program and project manage-ment of all ERW activities.Although there will always be is-sues of how to resolve different min-istries’ equities (usually mine action Members of MaG loading munitions stockpiled at a farDc central logistics base onto trucks to be transported to a demolition ground.1Adams: Integrating ERW Programs: The Case for Consolidating CWD ActivitiesPublished by JMU Scholarly Commons, 20106          editorial | the journal of erW and mine action | fall 2010 | 14.3 14.3 | fall 2010 | the journal of erW and mine action | editorial        7is conducted by the Ministry of For-eign Affairs or Ministry of Interior and SA/LW/ammunition destruc-tion is relegated to the Ministry of Defense), an integrated approach allows one office or one ministry to take the lead. Whether Defense or Foreign Affairs, it doesn’t mat-ter, but having it all under one roof allows for a more streamlined deci-sion-making process to deal with a huge, multi-level problem. In the early years, the inter-national community always en-couraged affected governments to develop their own mine-action ca-pacity and a national mine-action center, as well as to develop a stra-tegic, integrated mine-action plan. Progress was measured by one or more of these yardsticks:• Area cleared • Decreasing numbers of civilians injured or killed • Area of roads opened up• Any similarly appropriate mea-suring toolNow, the international commu-nity can do the same by also mea-suring the number of weapons/tons of ammunition destroyed or the number of facilities strengthened with better security systems. The Challenges of IntegrationA national strategic plan that conducts humanitarian mine action and executes the reduction of stock-piles of excess weapons and unstable ammunition could be managed by an “Office of ERW Removal” or “Of-fice of Conventional Weapons De-struction.” Below is a sample list of challenges that office might face:• Preventing loss of life (since civil-ian communities have grown up around ammunition storage sites)• Reducing the amount of weap-ons and high stocks of unstable ammunition accessible to criminal elements by improving inventory control• Designating stockpiled ammuni-tion as “excess” if unassociated with a host-nation’s weapons system • Identifying old weapons systems no longer required by defense forces • Developing a destruction plan for SA/LW and ammunition to re-duce loss of control and acciden-tal explosion risks• Managing and protecting the ap-propriate amount of weapons nec-essary to meet host-nation security and defense needs• Conducting an adequate defense modernization review to indenti-fy real war-fighting needs.• Initiating strict security for at-risk weapons systems (such as shoul-der-fired missile systems) to pre-vent civilian and commercial impactsThis sounds great in theory, but how does it “play” in the real world? In 2004, the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs merged the program offic-es of Humanitarian Demining and SA/LW Destruction to form the Of-fice of Weapons Removal and Abate-ment (PM/WRA). The next step in this evolution will integrate all as-pects of ERW into one program bud-get, thereby focusing a single lens on the global human-security prob-lem of ERW. Our consolidated bud-get will be called Non-proliferation Antiterrorism Demining and other Related Conventional Weapons De-struction. With this consolidated budget, we can better focus on the most severe ERW problems in the world. We will continue to be  fully engaged in severely mine-/UXO-af-fected countries such as Afghanistan, Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Iraq, Laos and Viet-nam, and further strengthen our efforts to reduce excess stockpiles of weapons and destroy old, unsta-ble ammunition in these and other countries.The United States is not the only nation or organization that has seen efficiencies in merging CWD pro-grams. The International Trust Fund for Demining and Mine Victims As-sistance has developed a five-year strategic plan envisioning the ex-pansion of its role from HMA in the Balkans to global ERW remedia-tion. I salute the Slovenian govern-ment for its great vision and huge Mark Adams is Senior Advisor for U.S. Conventional Weapons Destruction, U.S. Department of State. Prior to his retire-ment from active duty as a Colonel in the U.S. Marine Corps, Adams served as the Marine Corps Advisor to the U.S. Secre-tary of State and the Deputy Director, Office of Humanitarian Demining Pro-grams, a position he held from 1998–2001. In his current assignment, Adams has negotiated numerous small arms/light weapons/man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS)/ammunition-de-struction agreements worldwide.Mark W. AdamsSenior AdvisorU.S. Conventional Weapons DestructionOffice of Weapons Removal     and AbatementBureau of Political-Military AffairsU.S. Department of State (PM/WRA)SA-3, Suite 61002121 Virginia Avenue, NWWashington, D.C. 20522 / USATel: +1 202 663 0111Fax: + 1 202 663 0090E-mail: AdamsMW@state.govWebsite: http://state.gov/t/pm/wraundertaking. Similarly, James Mad-ison University’s Center for Inter-national Stabilization and Recovery has changed the name of this pub-lication to The Journal of ERW and Mine Action. Other examples exist; these are but two. Change takes time. New nation-al policies and mine-action orga-nization objectives won’t happen overnight. For that reason, when I talk to groups of landmine experts, I encourage embracing the problem of inventory control, destruction and security of SA/LW and am-munition. Likewise, when I talk to SA/LW experts, I encourage them to talk to and coordinate with their mine-action counterparts. I realize the difficulty for those in some countries to talk laterally to their counterparts in the Minis-try of Defense, Ministry of Foreign Affairs or Ministry of Interior, but reaching across ministries is the way of the future. With a unified, ERW strategic plan the global CWD com-munity can increase its outreach and access to the donor community and, ideally, reduce the ERW impact on civilians. ConclusionWhether you work in government or a regional organization, I encour-age you to review your achievements over the past years, embrace an ex-panded view of dealing with ERW and reinvent your organization. I believe our great collective com-munity has a wealth of knowledge and capacity for innovation that can carry us far into the future to better handle the ERW problem and, thus, make our world a safer place. Members of MaG and the farDc pre-pare a demolition pit to destroy stockpiles of munitions as part of a MaG-farDc project to eliminate munitions stocks and reduce the risk of accidents. Letter to the EditorDear Ms. Carter Fay,I would first like to take this opportunity to introduce myself. I have recently been appointed as Geneva Call's Coordinator for Landmines and other Explosive Devices. I will therefore be the main contact person for all related issues within the organization.I would also like to inquire whether the authors of the article "Non-state Actors and Mine Action: Complications and Solutions," in the most recent issue of The Journal of ERW and Mine Action (Is-sue 14.2), have any illustrations of where humanitarian engagement with NSAs have led to their enjoying "a new bargaining position that they may in turn use to advance their international stand-ing," or use "to their advantage by recruiting new members or securing new resources from inter-ested sponsors"? As you are probably well aware, this is an issue that is potentially of great concern to Geneva Call, and which we endeavour to mitigate. It is also one side of an argument used to dis-credit such humanitarian engagement. We'd therefore be very keen to receive any supporting evi-dence where this proved to be the case.Thank you very much for your attention.Best regards,Katherine KramerProgramme Director (Asia)Acting Coordinator on Landmines and Other ExplosivesGeneva CallE-mail: info@genevacall.org2Journal of Conventional Weapons Destruction, Vol. 14, Iss. 3 [2010], Art. 2https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cisr-journal/vol14/iss3/2

Integrating ERW Programs: The Case for Consolidating CWD Activities

https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1373&amp;context=cisr-journal

Integrating ERW Programs: The Case for Consolidating CWD Activities

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

James Madison University