APLC/CONF/2014/PM.1/3

Third Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction APLC/CONF/2014/PM.1/3 17 December 2013 Original: English First Preparatory Meeting Geneva, 6 December 2013 GE.13-64654 Procedural report Introduction 1. The Convention on the Prohibition of the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and on their destruction provides in Article 12, paragraph 1 that a Review Conference shall be convened by the Secretary-General of the United Nations five years after the entry into force of the Convention and that further Review Conferences shall be convened by the Secretary-General of the United Nations if so requested by one or more States Parties, provided that the interval between Review Conferences shall in no case be less than five years. 2. The 2009 Second Review Conference agreed that the Third Review Conference will take place at the end of 2014, as stipulated in the final report of the Conference (APLC/CONF/2009/9, paragraph 29 (ii)). 3. The Thirteenth Meeting of the States Parties decided to hold the Third Review Conference in Maputo, Mozambique from 23 to 27 June 2014 and to hold preparatory meetings in advance of the Third Review Conference in Geneva on 6 December 2013 and on 10 April 2014. Furthermore, the Thirteenth Meeting agreed to designate His Excellency, Mr. Henrique Banze, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of Mozambique, President of the Third Review Conference. Organization of the First Preparatory Meeting 4. The First Preparatory Meeting was opened on 6 December 2013 by His Excellency, Mr. Henrique Banze, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of Mozambique, President-designate of the Third Review Conference. 5. At its first plenary meeting on 6 December 2013, the First Preparatory Meeting adopted its agenda as contained in document APLC/CONF/2014/PM.1/1. In addition, the Meeting designated the following States Parties as Vice-Presidents of the Third Review Conference: Belgium, Costa Rica, Japan, Indonesia, Poland, New Zealand, Austria, Ecuador and Norway. Participation in the First Preparatory Meeting 6. The following States Parties participated in the Meeting: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia

(Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gambia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Holy See, Honduras, Hungary, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Senegal, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. 7. The following delegations participated in the Meeting as observers, in accordance with article 11, paragraph 4, of the Convention and rule 1, paragraph 1, of the rules of procedure of the Meeting: China, Cuba, Egypt, India, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Palestine, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, and United States of America. 8. In accordance with article 11, paragraph 4, of the Convention and rule 1, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the rules of procedure, the following international organizations and institutions, regional organizations, entities and non-governmental organizations attended the Meeting as observers: European Union, Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD), International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, League of Arab States, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Organization of American States (OAS), United Nations Children s Fund (UNICEF), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS), United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA), and United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS). 9. In accordance with article 11, paragraph 4, of the Convention and rule 1, paragraph 4, of the rules of procedure, the following other organizations attended the Meeting as observers: Association Internationale des Soldats de la Paix (AISP), Center for International Stabilization and Recovery, Cranfield University, The HALO Trust, International Trust Fund Enhancing Human Security (ITF), and Swiss Foundation for Mine Action (FSD). Work of the First Preparatory Meeting 2 10. The First Preparatory Meeting held two plenary meetings on 6 December 2013. 11. The Meeting considered the cost estimates for the Third Review Conference, as well as the designations of Vice Presidents of the Third Review Conference. 12. The Meeting took note of the appointment by the Secretary General of the United Nations of Peter Kolarov of the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, Geneva Branch, as provisional Executive Secretary of the Third Review Conference. In addition, the President-designate informed the Meeting that in keeping with past practice he had asked Kerry Brinkert, Director of the Implementation Support Unit, to serve as the President s Executive Coordinator. 13. The Meeting considered discussion papers prepared by the President-designate on elements for a political declaration, as contained in annex I, preparing the review of the operation and status of the Convention 2010-2014, as contained in APLC/CONF/2014/PM.1/WP.1 and Corr.1, Elements for the consideration of the Plan of Action 2015-2019, as contained in annex II, and elements for the consideration of the post-

Third Review Conference Programme of Meetings 2014-2019 working programme, as contained in annex III, as well as a discussion paper on transparency, exchange of information, reporting and the Maputo Review Conference, submitted by Belgium, as contained in APLC/CONF/2014/PM.1/WP.2 and Corr.1. States parties and observers provided input on these documents. The President-designate expressed his appreciation for the constructive suggestions that would assist him in further developing and strengthening the draft documents for consideration by the Third Review Conference. 14. The Meeting also received updates from the host country, Mozambique, on logistical and administrative matters. The Meeting expressed its satisfaction with the state of preparations, taking note in particular 15. The Meeting took note of the appeal for high level participation at the Third Review Conference. Decisions and recommendations 16. The Meeting took note of the papers submitted in preparation for the Third Review Conference and expressed general satisfaction that their contents would provide useful direction to the on-going efforts to develop the review of the general status and operation of the Convention, an action plan covering the period following the Third Review Conference, and a high level declaration, as well as on a future meeting programme. 17. The Meeting adopted cost estimates for the Third Review Conference and its Second Preparatory Meeting, as contained in document APLC/CONF/2014/PM.1/2. 18. The Meeting recommended that, in keeping with the practice that has served the States Parties well at their formal meetings, the Co-Chairs of the Standing Committees should serve as Vice Presidents of the Third Review Conference, namely: Belgium, Costa Rica, Japan, Indonesia, Poland, New Zealand, Austria, Ecuador and Norway. Documentation 19. A list of documents of the First Preparatory Meeting is contained in annex IV to this report. These documents are available through the United Nations Official Documents System (http://documents.un.org). Adoption of the Procedural Report of the First Preparatory Meeting 20. The Meeting adopted its draft procedural report, as contained in document APLC/CONF/2014/PM.1/CRP.1, as orally amended. 3

Annex I Elements for a political declaration 1. Introduction The sender: who is communicating the message: 161 States Parties! Context: significance of Third Review Conference (3RC) taking place in Mozambique, once one of the worst affected, where States first met to start the work, and after 15 years of implementation, a state that has solved its mine problem, thanks to the Convention. 2. Background The rationale of the Convention: why was it established? 1990 s - A world faced with a global humanitarian crisis, claiming thousands of victims every month, blocking development, prolonging wars and hindering refugee return. The Convention and the process was an innovative, rational and relevant response, combining humanitarianism and disarmament. Initiated by humanitarian organisations and affected communities, completed by states in unique partnership. 3. On track for a mine-free world 15 years of successful implementation what has been achieved? Anti-Personnel Mines (APM) considered a weapon of the past, stigmatized and the few instances of their use are being met with international condemnation. The number of new victims declined significantly and now is less than 5 000 annual, from all kinds of ERW. Survivors have been recognised and their rights reaffirmed Large areas of formerly contaminated land have been cleared, and released for safe use. XX million stockpiled mines have been destroyed safely International humanitarian law, protecting civilians in conflict, has been significantly strengthened 4. What remains to be done? Progress in clearance is too slow in many places. The most effective and efficient methods and tools for identifying remaining mined areas are not being used as widely as they should. Lack of tangible progress impedes resource mobilisation. States need to do more to make relevant programs and services available and sustainable and ensure that all landmine victims have access to programs that meet their specific needs. They also need to ensure the fulfilment of the rights of all victims. Stockpiles still await destruction in several States Parties, three of which missed their Convention deadline. Ongoing use of anti-personnel mines by actors in and outside States Parties is a matter of deep concern to all States Parties. 4

5. Commit to complete A commitment by States Parties to fulfil, in partnership with international organisations and civil society, their major remaining convention obligations, within a finite and ambitious time-frame. A reaffirmation of a commitment to ensure that AP mines remain a stigmatized weapon and that no actor will ever use them again. A commitment to take all necessary steps to ensure that all obligations are complied with in a timely manner, so that the remaining mined areas can be identified, cleared and released for safe use for all without unnecessary delays, all stockpiles are quickly destroyed, there will be no new victims, and the dignity, rights and well-being of landmine victims will be ensured in a sustainable manner. A commitment of the international community to stay focused and work together to fulfil the obligations of the convention as soon as possible. A mine-free world can and should be achieved within years, not decades. 5

Annex II Elements for the consideration of the Plan of Action for 2015-2019 1. The Convention and its Articles is the primary source for directing States Parties actions towards the aim of a mine-free world. Compliance with the Convention s provisions is the most effective way towards that aim, although the challenges faced by a number of States Parties indicate a need for guidance in meeting these requirements in the most efficient and effective manner. The action plan should complement the Convention, by providing a set of actions that can facilitate States full and timely compliance. 2. The two previous action plans were highly detailed. While they have been important in identifying many obstacles and helped focus international discussions, the level of detail combined with a global scope may have led to plans that have been difficult to implement and monitor in an effective manner. 3. The new action plan should address the actual implementation challenges as they remain in 2014, with a particular focus on clearance, victim assistance, stockpile destruction and compliance with the ban. 4. Emphasis should, to the extent possible, be on articulating time-bound and specific objectives, while allowing for tailored and context-specific approaches at the national level. 5. The new action plan should be focused, concrete, and concise. It should spell-out a (non-exhaustive) road map, identifying the most important actions States should take to realise the vision of a mine-free world. The authors should seek to limit the number of action points, to, for example no more than 20, so as to ensure that the plan clearly articulates a prioritised set of actions. 6. The new action plan should only contain such actions that, if fulfilled, would make a real, measurable contribution towards addressing the landmine problem by the end of the action period. Actions not passing such a test should not be included. 7. In addition to guiding States in their efforts to implement the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, another objective of the new action plan should be the articulation of concrete commitments to which other stakeholders can hold States Parties accountable. 6

SAMPLE: Maputo Action Plan, with placeholder text mainly taken from Cartagena Action Plan (66 actions) I. Universalizing the Convention 1. All States Parties will: (a) Promote ratification of and accession to the Convention by States not Parties. (b) Promote adherence to the norms established by the Convention, and condemn and discourage in every possible way the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of antipersonnel mines by any actor. II. Destroying Stockpiled Anti-Personnel Mines 2. States Parties that have missed their deadlines for completion of obligations under Article 4, and thus remain non-compliant with the Convention, will: (a) Comply, without delay, with Article 4, by destroying all stockpiles of antipersonnel mines. (b) Develop, announce and implement a plan to ensure compliance with Article 4 as soon as possible, and no later than by XXXX. 3. All States Parties yet to complete their obligations under Article 4 will: (a) Develop as soon as possible, and no later than by XXXX, the national policies, plans, legal frameworks, and destruction capacity necessary to comply with Article 4. 4. All States Parties will: (a) When previously unknown stockpiles are discovered after stockpile destruction deadlines have passed, report such discoveries in accordance with their obligations under Article 7, and destroy these anti-personnel mines as a matter of urgent priority. III. Clearing Mined Areas 5. States Parties that have been granted an extension to their initial Article 5 deadlines will: (a) Complete implementation of Article 5 as soon as possible, and by no later than their extended deadlines. 6. States Parties that have reported mined areas under their jurisdiction or control will: (a) Identify, if they have not yet done so, the precise perimeters and locations, to the extent possible, of all areas under their jurisdiction or control in which anti-personnel mines are known or are suspected to be emplaced, report this information as required by Article 7, no later than by XXXX, and incorporate the information into national action plans and relevant broader development and reconstruction plans. (b) Facilitate access to all mined border areas where access may be difficult or contested, without prejudice to potential border delineation, to ensure that survey and clearance can proceed as soon as possible. (c) Retain, or develop, the procedures and capacities necessary to address residual contamination after reporting compliance with Article 5(1). 7

IV. Assisting the Victims 7. States Parties accountable to and responsible for the wellbeing of mine victims will: (a) Ensure the inclusion of and full and active participation of mine victims and their representative organisations in victim assistance related activities. (b) Develop and implement, as soon as possible, and no later than by XXXX, a comprehensive plan of action, with a corresponding budget, that addresses the human rights and needs of mine victims through objectives that are specific, achievable, relevant, time bound, and integrated into broader policy and legal frameworks. (c) Collect and make available, as soon as possible, and no later than by XXXX, all necessary data, disaggregated by sex and age, in order to develop, implement, monitor and evaluate adequate national policies, plans and legal frameworks. V. International Cooperation and Assistance 8. States Parties with obligations to destroy stockpiled anti-personnel mines, identify and clear mined areas, and assist mine victims, will: (a) Without delay, and by no later than XXXX, develop or update national plans, map the national resources available to meet their obligations, and the needs for international cooperation and assistance. 9. States in a position to provide international cooperation and assistance will: (a) Promptly assist States Parties that have communicated needs for support, and base the assistance provided on the priorities for assistance articulated by mine-affected States Parties in their national plans. (b) Endeavour to continue supporting States Parties that have completed their Article 5 obligations in their efforts to establish institutions to address the humanitarian consequences resulting from explosive remnants of war contamination. 10. All States Parties will: (a) Develop and promote bilateral, regional and international cooperation, in sharing and effectively using national experiences and good practices, resources, technology and expertise to implement the Convention. V. Compliance 11. All States Parties will, in case of alleged or known non-compliance, work together with the States Parties concerned to resolve the matter expeditiously in a manner consistent with Article 8(1). 8

Annex III Elements for the consideration of the post-third Review Conference Programme of Meetings 2014/2019 Working Programme I. Background 1. One of the purposes of the Review Conference is to review the operation and status of the Convention and to consider the need for and interval of meetings of the States Parties. (Art 12.2 a+b). 2. States meeting at the Third Review Conference in Maputo in 2014, thus have to opportunity to assess, discuss and take decisions on the work programme of the Convention for the period 2014 2019. For States this is an opportunity to assess how the current work programme has served its purpose and to identify the needs for the next period and to adjust the organisation of their work accordingly. II. III. Objective 3. The overall objective of such a discussion should be to ensure that the Convention s implementation architecture corresponds to current and actual implementation challenges while maintaining the function as arena for States reporting on progress and compliance, and for other implementation actors to monitor progress and interact with States on how they may meet their obligations. 4. Furthermore, States need to ensure that the next work programme is adequately supported in terms of planning, coordination and financial resources. Efficiency and effectiveness should therefore guide the States discussions on the work programme. 5. Mozambique, as incoming President-designate for the Third Review Conference (3RC) aims at facilitating a broad discussion of this issue during the preparations before the Maputo Conference, with the objective of securing a clear and sound decision by States Parties at the 3RC. As a point of departure for such a discussion, this paper suggests some elements to be considered in such a discussion. Current situation 6. Since 1999, the work programme has consisted of formal and informal meetings. In addition, individual states acting as thematic co-chairs or coordinators have organised several thematic and/or regional meetings. The Implementation Support Unit ISU has been instrumental in coordinating and supporting these meetings. A. Formal meetings 7. States Parties have formally met for annual Meetings of the States Parties (MSPs) since entry into force in 1999, as prescribed by Article 11. These have taken place in Geneva and in mine-affected states. In 2004 (Nairobi) and in 2009 (Cartagena) States met instead for the First and Second Review Conferences (Article 12). The Meeting of the States Parties and the Review Conference are the only forums in which States Parties make formal decisions. B. Informal meetings 8. States have met informally during the annual Intersessional work programme, which usually have taken place halfway between the MSPs. This informal work programme was established by the First Meeting of the States Parties in 1999, as means to provide necessary support to what was then a fledgling Convention, and to establish an arena for 9

practical discussions on how best to implement the provisions. The annual informal meetings have also functioned as arenas for mid-term reporting on progress and for exchanges of lessons learned and best practices. In addition they have been instrumental in facilitating the emergence of mine action as a community of practice and knowledge. 9. The intersessional programme has been changed several times over the years, as a result of changings needs. Duration of the formal and informal meetings has varied somewhat, but in general they have taken some 8-10 working days annually. C. Other relevant meetings 10. Throughout a year there are usually several other meetings relevant for the implementing end of the mine action community. Some of these are regularised, such as the UN Mine Action Director meeting, some are thematic, such as the parallel program on Victim Assistance and some are regional, such as mine action workshops in the Balkans or Africa. Some events are initiated and /or organised by Co-chairs, usually supported by the ISU, such as the 2013 Bangkok Symposium on International Cooperation and Assistance. 11. Costs for these meetings have been met in a variety of ways; host country, organiser, a consortium of States or other actors, and sometimes supported by different sponsorship programs. Common for these meetings is that they promote the Convention and its norms, function as arena for information sharing and thus help promote the overall aims of the Convention. IV. Changes with significance for a future working programme 12. There have been some developments and changes that have significance for the working programme of the Convention. These are partially due to developments in the international treaty framework relevant for the implementation of the Mine Ban Convention (MBC) and partly owing to changes in the structure and magnitude of the mine problem in the field. By themselves and taken together these developments will have an impact on the needs for the 2014-2019 work programme. A. Changes in international treaty framework 13. Since the Second Review Conference, two new treaties that are relevant for the implementation of the MBC have gained importance, namely the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM). B. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) 14. The CRPD entered into force in 2008. 155 States have signed the Convention, of which 133 are State Parties. The CRPD was in many ways inspired by the victim assistance work under the MBC, and its provisions are aimed at ensuring the rights of persons with disabilities are highly relevant for efforts designed to ensure the rights of mine victims. The CRPD is supported by a working programme of meetings, both annual Conferences of States Parties and by meetings in the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. C. Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM) 15. The CCM entered into force in 2010. 113 states have signed the Convention, of which 84 are States Parties. There is a large degree of overlap with membership of the MBC. The CCM is often recognized as the sister Convention of the MBC, and contains similar obligations for States Parties, such as clearance, risk reduction, victim assistance and stockpile destruction. The CCM is supported by annual formal and informal meetings, in a set-up that reflects the work programme of the MBC. Both formal and informal meetings have been shorter than under the MBC. 10

D. Thematic similarities and coherence challenges 16. Many actors involved in the implementation of the MBC will also be involved in implementation of either or both the CRPD and the CCM. Many of the themes discussed within each of those Conventions will also be discussed in one or two of the other. 17. As a result, during a given year, implementation actors may find themselves discussing the same issue several times during a year, with many of the same counterparts, but in the context of different treaties or different status of the meeting (formal/informal). Since the conventions and their subject matter may belong to different parts of the state apparatus or within the UN System (Mine victim assistance may belong to mine action portfolio while assistance to persons with disabilities may be development or human rights portfolios), there is also a risk that representatives of the same actor can have different assessments and views of what is essentially the same question, dependent on in what treaty or thematic context it is being discussed. V. Changes in implementing mine action 18. The challenges of implementing mine action, in particular clearance and victim assistance, have changed considerably since the convention was adopted. 19. Humanitarian mine clearance as an international discipline has developed significantly since the Convention entered into force. Mine clearance has become a highly professionalised sector, underpinned by sophisticated national and international standards, undertaken by a consolidated group of actors like the UN, ICRC, NGOs, private sector and national authorities. 20. As a result, the challenge of removing mines from the ground has changed from being primarily of technical and operational character to become a question of political will and implementation capacity. 21. Similarly, but for other reasons, victim assistance is a field that have developed significantly since the work started. Some of these changes, such as definition of disability, are so substantial that one may question whether the victim assistance approach as embedded in the practice of the Convention is relevant to meet the needs and ensure the rights of the persons who have been injured and traumatised by landmines. 22. While there is a continued need for exchange of experiences and development of methods among the experts involved in the various sectors of mine action, many of these discussions has become so specialised that they are less relevant for the majority of participants attending the formal and informal meetings of the convention. 23. Common for both sectors, as well as for Stockpile Destruction, where relevant, is that the critical implementation challenges are primarily national rather than international. Discussions in both the informal and the formal meetings tend to focus on international and multilateral responses that in many instances are of little relevance as responses to the national challenges. 24. Over time, this has led to a certain mismatch between what is presented as themes and approaches for general discussion and the audience attending, often resulting in mutual frustration and less effective use of increasingly scarce resources. VI. Compliance challenges 25. The MBC has had considerable and remarkable success as an international response to what was a global humanitarian crisis. However some critical issues have emerged over the past year; such as the slow progress in mine clearance and questions of compliance and allegations of new use by States Parties. Thus central discussions on implementation have changed in character, from being focussed on how to meet the challenges to a more critical focus on holding States Parties accountable to their legal and political obligations. 11

26. As the mine problem takes less prominence in international agenda, the Mine Action community may see an increase in the difficult and sensitive issues regarding compliance, leading to a different tone of discussions than those seen in the first 15 years of implementation. VII. Resources 27. Implementation support that takes place in the formal and informal work programme is financed from various sources. The costs for the formal Meetings of the States Parties and Review Conferences are shared between participating states, according to the UN scale of assessment. Where such meetings are held outside UN the extra costs are met through voluntary contributions from States. 28. The costs for the intersessional meetings, including the costs of interpretation, are covered by the GICHD with funds provided by Switzerland. 29. The sponsorship programme, which support participation from states eligible for such support to both formal and informal meetings, is financed though voluntary contributions from a small group of states. 30. The ISU provides critical support for the formal and informal meetings. The costs for this are integrated into the ISU budget, which is covered by voluntary contributions by a small group of states. 31. States need to ensure that decisions made on the future work programme will be matched with adequate resource commitments. VIII. A new working programme 2014 2019 32. The elements listed above are among some of the determinants of the relevance and value of the Convention s working programme, and thus should be part of the discussions on how best to meet the needs for the coming implementation period. 33. The discussion on the work programme must address two levels and subsequently two options. The first level concerns the formal meetings, as it is the purpose of the Review Conference to Consider the need for and interval between further meeting of States parties. (Article 12.2 (b)). The second level concerns the informal working programme. As the intersessional meetings are informal, changes to this programme may be taken by the States Parties at any given time, and is not restricted to the Review Conference. But the Review Conference is a good opportunity to assess its form and relevance. 34. Following a decision on the formal meetings, States may take a decision on the informal work programme. In essence this is a choice between continuing with the informal work programme more or less as it is or discontinuing the programme in its present form and meet the needs by other means. 35. Without prejudice to the preferences of States Parties meeting in June 2014, Mozambique would like to take this opportunity to offer a sketch of how the work programme could be structured for the 2014 2019 period. The objective is to present a point of departure for the discussions on how to structure the work programme in order to meet current and actual implementation challenges while maintaining the function as an arena for reporting on progress and compliance and for continued development of the partnerships with States, NGOs, UN and ICRC in underpinning the Convention. A. Formal level Annual Meeting of the States Parties 36. Meetings of the States Parties should continue to take place on an annual basis until 2019. The meetings should be geared towards formal reporting on compliance with treaty provisions including substantial discussions and decisions on Article 5 extensions. 12

37. Thematic discussions on how to conduct the various pillars of mine action should primarily be organised as side events rather than in the formal meeting. Pre-analysis of incoming Article 5 extension requests would continue as before within the Analysis-group, headed by the President. 38. To prepare for the formal Meetings of the State Parties, and to promote submission of the annual Article 7 reports in time, the President could convene a brief informal preparatory meeting at the most relevant time between the Meetings of the States Parties. B. Informal level 39. The intersessional work programme in its present form, with thematic sessions and comprehensive international participation should be discontinued. 40. Resources traditionally allocated to support planning, organisation and participation at the intersessional meetings should be made available for supporting relevant regional and thematic meetings, including contributions from and participation of, relevant Co-chairs, the ISU and other relevant implementation actors. 41. Co-chairs, supported by the ISU, could use findings from such meetings to inform the formal discussions as well as the work of the Coordinating Committee. Co-chairs could also consider participating in meetings of other instruments, when relevant to the subject matter. The Coordinating Committee, assisted by the ISU, should also help to coordinate themes relevant for the MBC and calendars to improve efficiency and avoid duplication. 13

Annex IV List of documents Symbol APLC/CONF/2014/PM.1/1 APLC/CONF/2014/PM.1/2 APLC/CONF/2014/PM.1/3 APLC/CONF/2014/PM.1/WP.1 and Corr.1 [English only] APLC/CONF/2014/PM.1/WP.2 and Corr.1 [English only] APLC/MSP.13/2013/CRP.1 Title Provisional Agenda. Submitted by the Presidentdesignate Estimated costs for the Second Preparatory Meeting and the Third Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the prohibition of the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and on their destruction. Submitted by the Secretariat Procedural report Preparing the review of the operation and status of the Convention 2010-2014. Submitted by the President-designate Transparency, exchange of information, reporting and the Maputo Review Conference. Submitted by the Coordinator on Reporting (Belgium) Draft procedural report. Submitted by the Secretariat 14