Scope of the Problem
Within the Republic, Tajikistan has three sources of land mines from three different periods, deployed in three different regions. Along the Southern border with Afghanistan in the Gorno Badakhshan Autonomous Oblast (GBAO) and Khatlon regions, Soviet forces laid land mines two decades ago to protect the Soviet Union’s outermost perimeter and minelaying continued into the Russian period, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Secondly, during the country’s civil war (1992-1997), landmines were placed primarily in the Rasht Valley in the Central region of country. Thirdly, within the past five years landmines were laid by the neighbouring Uzbekistan authorities along Tajikistan’s western and northern borders in the Sugd Region.
In the annual figures, all reported deaths and the majority of landmine-caused injuries have occurred in this Sugd Region. The present stance of the Uzbekistan Government has prevented mine action operations in the Sugd Region, which has diverted focus to the Central and GBAO Regions. Assistance has been limited to the positioning of more than 2,000 large hazardous warning signs along Tajikistan’s borders with Uzbekistan. At least a further 800 signs are being emplaced by FSD in the Central and Southern regionsThe Government estimates that, provided that there is a continued satisfactory donor response, 19 mined areas affecting nearby communities in the Central Region and GBAO could be cleared by 2008. However, unmarked minefields laid on disputed Uzbek / Tajik territory in the northern Sugd region still exact a toll on the inhabitants of 26 different communities in Tajikistan and their livestock.
Until the Government of Uzbekistan clears these mines, casualties will continue. Because of ongoing political limitations, no landmine clearance operations took place in the northern region. Projects concentrated instead on the central and western regions; surveys occurred on the Afghan border and in GBAO.
In the south, where departing Russian border troops left behind landmines planted by the Soviets for infiltration-prevention purposes, the population density is the lowest of the country. The amount of flat ground available in the south is equally scarce due to the mountainous terrain in this region. Notably, theflat ground which is ideal to the inhabitants was also ideal for laying landmines. Therefore much of the habitable and arable land needs to be de-mined in order to sustain the growing population and the increasing amount of livestock. Assessments of population figures thus do not always accurately reflect the areas which require the most attention.Sustainable progress has been made with the mine-clearing capacity since it first started in 2003.
Progress so far has resulted in four clearance teams and four survey teams, despite minimal additional assistance being expected this year for mine clearance operations. The TMAC estimates that there are currently up to seventeen square kilometres in 68 potentially hazardous areas. But survey operations continue and it is likely that these figures will increase as more information is gathered. Mine Action surveys continue and a Five Year Plan has been presented by the TMAC and accepted by the national government, and with appropriate funding, the goals presented in the plan are attainable. This means that the landmine problem in Tajikistan can, for the most part, be addressed within five years if resources are available. At this stage UNDP is also working towards essential transference of leadership to the Tajikistan Government.
The primary proposal for the upcoming year is the acquisition of mine detecting dogs. The use of dogs as a detection system can increase mine-clearing capacity up to five-fold. The cost of each dog is approximately $12,000 if trained and purchased at an internationally recognised school; this could be reduced by about half for dogs if they are trained and purchased in Afghanistan for arguably the same quality of product.
Appreciating the donors, this year’s portfolio has brought a restructuring of the national project portfolio to allow for a more direct investment opportunity for respective donors rather than partial shareholding in different projects. This new approach is intended to give donors more direct and individual influence as well as the opportunity for more individual selection. There will essentially be more selection available to allow for donors’ individual preferences as the sole investors in any chosen project.
