Gathering accurate and complete information on global mine action funding remains an elusive task. There is a lack of transparency on the part of many countries, and among those who do report, there is a great deal of variation in what is reported, the level of detail reported, and for what time period.[106 ] However, it is possible to provide an informative picture of the global funding situation.
For 2005, Landmine Monitor has identified US$376 million in mine action funding by more than 27 donors.[107 ] This is a decrease of $23 million, or 5.8 percent, from 2004.[108 ]The decrease in total global funding largely reflects big reductions in funding from the two most significant donors, the European Commission ($14.9 million decrease) and the United States ($14.6 million decrease). Of the 20 most significant donors, 10 provided less funding in 2005 than 2004. (See below).
This is the first time that global mine action funding has decreased meaningfully since 1992, when states first began to devote significant resources to mine action.[109 ] It is a matter of serious concern that global mine action funding fell markedly instead of increasing in 2005, the year after many Mine Ban Treaty States Parties made renewed commitments to mine action at the First Review Conference and in their collective endorsement of the Nairobi Action Plan. It is disconcerting that funding fell as many States Parties approach their 10-year treaty mandated deadlines for completion of mine clearance.
However, it should also be noted that the 2005 total of $376 million is the second highest annual total ever recorded, and is $37 million (10.9 percent) more than two years ago (2003). The decrease in 2005 comes on the heels of increases of 37 percent in 2002, 5 percent in 2003 and 18 percent in 2004.
The biggest contributors to global mine action in 2005 were the United States ($81.9 million), the European Commission ($51.5 million), Japan ($39.3 million), Norway ($36.5 million), the United Kingdom ($21.4 million), Germany ($21.1 million), Canada ($20.5 million) and the Netherlands ($19.3 million).
Of the 20 most significant donors, half increased their mine action contributions in 2005 in terms of national currency, and half provided less. Those with increases were: Slovakia (114 percent); France (103 percent); Australia (50 percent); Italy (44 percent); Germany (13 percent); United Kingdom (6.3 percent); Sweden (4.9 percent); Switzerland (2 percent); Norway (1.2 percent); and the Netherlands (0.2 percent).
Those with the decreases in terms of national currency were: New Zealand (65 percent); Ireland (32 percent); Belgium (30 percent); Austria (25 percent); European Commission (22 percent); Denmark (18 percent); US (15 percent); Canada (9 percent); Japan (7 percent); and Finland (2 percent).
Donors that increased their contribution by at least $1 million included: Slovakia ($3.7 million); Australia ($3.2 million); Germany ($2.4 million); Norway ($2 million); France ($1.9 million); Italy ($1.3 million); Switzerland ($1.2 million); and United Kingdom ($1 million).
Donors that decreased their contribution by at least $1 million included: European Commission ($14.9 million); US ($14.6 million); Japan ($3.5 million); Denmark ($2.4 million); Canada ($2.1 million); Belgium ($1.7 million); and New Zealand ($1.6 million). In terms of mine action funding on a per capita basis, the largest country donors were: Norway ($7.90 per capita); Iceland ($5.08 per capita); Luxembourg ($2.84 per capita); and Denmark ($2.09 per capita). Switzerland, Slovakia, Sweden, the Netherlands and Finland also had mine action contributions in excess of $1 per capita.
In terms of mine action funding as a percentage of gross national income (GNI), the largest country donors were: Slovakia (0.017 percent); Norway (0.013 percent); and Iceland (0.011 percent). These were the only three countries to contribute over one one-hundredth of their gross national income to mine action in 2005. The next largest donors on a GNI basis were Denmark, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Sweden, Finland and Switzerland.
The $376 million total for donor countries does not capture all global spending related to mine action in 2005. Other types of spending on and contributions to mine action that are not part of that total include research and development (R&D), some victim assistance funding and in-kind contributions, funding by NGOs and the private sector, UN peacekeeping funds, and funding by mine-affected countries of their own mine action programs.
As in past years, Landmine Monitor has not included funds for research and development into demining technologies and equipment in this total, and has instead listed available R&D funding separately; in 2005, R&D funding totaled at least $30 million (See R&D section below).
Funding for mine victim assistance programs is included where possible, but for some major donors, victim assistance funding cannot be separated out from other non-landmine-specific programs.
In some cases, donors do not report the monetary value of in-kind (as opposed to cash) contributions.
Mine action funding provided by NGOs and the private sector is not explicitly included, in part in order to avoid double counting when an NGO receives funds from a government donor. Landmine Monitor has not been able to gather extensive information on NGO and private sector funding, but some examples in 2005 include: Adopt-a-Minefield (USA) contributed $3.7 million for mine action in nine countries; the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund (UK) contributed over $3 million to mine action for three countries and two NGOs; Landmine Survivors Network (US) reported receiving private contributions totaling $800,000; the Humpty Dumpty Institute (US) raised $770,000 for mine clearance in Angola through the sale of surplus milk in a public-private partnership with the US Department of Agriculture’s Food Aid Program; and NGO members of ActionLandmine.de (Germany) contributed more than $300,000 to mine action.
Contributions from UN peacekeeping assessed budgets for mine action are not included in the global total. UNMAS reported securing over $24.3 million for mine action through UN peacekeeping funding in calendar year 2005; these funds primarily covered the costs of mine action conducted in conjunction with peacekeeping operations mandated by the Security Council in Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia/Eritrea, Lebanon and Sudan.[110]
Finally, and most importantly, the contributions to mine action by the mine-affected countries themselves are not part of the $376 million donor total. Many mine-affected countries do not make information available on their mine action expenditures, so that Landmine Monitor has not been able to develop an accurate global accounting. The total funding by mine-affected states amounts to tens of millions of dollars each year. Following are some examples of contributions by mine-affected countries in 2005, drawn from this year’s Landmine Monitor country reports; these eight mine-affected countries provided nearly $50 million in 2005.
In addition, in 2006, Jordan reported that it contributes $3.5 million annually to its national demining program. In 2005, Lebanon reported that it makes an annual contribution of in-kind and other support to mine action valued at approximately $4 million. In 2005, Cyprus estimated that it provides €170,000 ($211,000) annually for mine clearance and stockpile destruction. In 2004, the Nicaraguan Minister of Defense reported that Nicaragua provides 16 million Córdobas (about $1 million) each year to the member institutions of the National Demining Committee.
Mine-affected States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty previously reported national mine action contributions totaling $190 million from 1997-2003, and for 2004 Landmine Monitor identified about $57.5 million in contributions from the seven states with available information, including $4 million by Ethiopia and $3.5 million by Yemen.
Article 6 of the Mine Ban Treaty contains mine action cooperation obligations for States Parties. Furthermore, under the Nairobi Action Plan 2005-2009, States Parties agreed they will ensure the sustainability of their commitments, including providing where possible multi-year funding to facilitate long-term planning of mine action and victim assistance programs (Action #45); they agreed, where relevant, to urge the UN, regional organizations, and the World Bank, regional development banks and financial institutions to support States Parties requiring assistance in fulfilling their treaty obligations (Action #48); and they agreed to pursue efforts to identify new and non-traditional sources of support, technical, material or financial (Action #50).[113]
Some donor states stipulate specifically that their mine action funding should be directed with strong preference to States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty. Donor states which have expressed this as a policy position include Canada, Germany and the Netherlands. The EC lists “proven commitment of non-States Parties to mine action and the principles of the Mine Ban Treaty” as funding criteria, rather than State Party status, but the EC has also indicated that adherence to the Mine Ban Treaty influences its decision on mine action funding.
Several donor bodies exist which facilitate the coordination of mine action resources. The Mine Action Support Group (MASG), chaired by Switzerland in 2005 and by the US in 2006, consists of 27 donors. MASG usually meets three times a year and produces a regular newsletter which has contained some information regarding mine action funding. The Steering Committee on Mine Action, chaired by UNMAS’s director, includes representation by 24 donor states, and meets bi-annually. The Mine Ban Treaty’s Resource Mobilization Contact Group (RMCG), led by Norway, was established with the intention of securing sustainable funding and promoting cost-efficient and effective mine action. A prominent issue for the RMCG during the reporting period was identifying the specific needs of States Parties which require assistance to meet Article 5 mine clearance deadlines.
In 2006, the Contact Group on Mine Action and Development was initiated by Canada to address issues regarding the mainstreaming of mine action into the development sector, complementary to the work of the RMCG. In 2005, two meetings were held on the topic of integrating mine action into development programming; these meetings were attended by the ICBL and other NGOs, as well as by States Parties. The First Informal Dialogue Meeting on Mainstreaming Mine Action in Development was co-sponsored by Canada and the GICHD in June 2005. Fourteen donor states, the European Commission and various international agencies attended. The Second Informal Dialogue Meeting on Linking Mine Action to Development was held 5-6 December 2005, after the Sixth Meeting of States Parties in Zagreb. The dialogues were linked to Actions #40 to #50 of the Nairobi Action Plan, addressing mine action in the context of development processes, “rather than to be solely labelled as an element of humanitarian assistance.”[114 ]
Proponents see the integration of mine action into development funding as a means of providing long-term stability for mine action funding, and of preventing any future decline in mine action contributions due to “donor fatigue,” by expanding the channels for funding within donor states own official development assistance agencies and by better utilizing other existing funding mechanisms such as the World Bank, regional development banks and trust fund facilities. Canada, the leading proponent among States Parties, has stated that integration of mine action into development programming need not be a single track solution, and that mine action can be integrated into development programs in addition to donors providing dedicated mine action funding.[115 ]
Some have expressed concerns about mainstreaming (or integrating). Ambassador Martin Dahinden, speaking as the outgoing director of the GICHD in 2004, warned that Article 6 of the Mine Ban Treaty, compelling States Parties to offer cooperation assistance, “would have a less prominent role” should mine action funding be integrated into broader development spending.[116 ] Others have noted the approach may inadvertently jeopardize the security of mine action resources, make mine action operators compete for limited international aid resources distributed according to often-changing geopolitical interests, and diminish the significant influence that civil society has had in promoting substantial mine action funding. A report for UNDP by the International Peace Research Institute (PRIO) in Norway concluded “that there is little mine action expertise in development departments and vice versa a lack of development expertise within mine action management.”[117 ]
Although many States Parties mention development in statements regarding their funding policies, there has not been substantial movement toward implementation of the development integration approach. Following are some of the views expressed and actions taken by States Parties.
The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) is putting in place an approach that will promote integration of mine action in its regular programs. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is working to include mine action into its peace and security programming. Within the department, the Mine Action Unit is pursuing the integration of mine action into humanitarian, development and civil society programming frameworks in affected countries. CIDA has promoted development mainstreaming at meetings of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty.[118]
The UK’s Department for International Development (DfID) planned a review in mid-2006 of its mine action funding policy; this was expected to recommend continued integration of mine action into broader development programs and the security sector, in line with DfID’s policy change in 2004.[119 ]
The Netherlands expects to mainstream mine action into peace-building and security/stability sectors, rather than development.[120]
A considerable portion of mine action funding reported by donors is channeled through third-party funding mechanisms. In 2005, trust funds reported receiving at least $113.4 million in mine action funding, representing the equivalent of 30 percent of the total donor reported contributions. Trust funds can provide coordination between donors and implementing agencies and can use multiple funding sources to sustain ongoing programs.
Funding as reported by donors often differs from that reported by trust funds due to a number of factors, including varying fiscal years. In 2005, trust funds reported contributions by at least three donors which were not identified from direct donor reporting: Andorra, $25,522 to the UN VTF for core funding; Portugal, $16,000 to the UN VTF for Sudan; and Hungary, €40,000 ($49,796) to NATO PfP for Serbia and Montenegro.
Unless otherwise noted, figures are in US dollars.[123 ] Totals include victim assistance funding where this is known, and do not include funds for research and development, which is identified separately where known.
The 1992-2005 total includes $50 million contributed by United Arab Emirates to Lebanon 2002-2004, but individual year totals are not known.
The total of $32.5 million for other countries includes China ($6.2 million), Luxembourg ($5.9 million), South Korea ($5.2 million), Slovenia ($3.8 million), Saudi Arabia ($3 million), Iceland ($2.8 million), Czech Republic ($2.1 million), Poland ($2 million), and $1.5 million for other donors including Brazil, Hungary, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Portugal, South Africa, and others for lesser amounts.
Mine action funding was reported by the European Commission and 18 of the 25 European Union member states, which taken together totaled $187 million of funding identified by Landmine Monitor.[125]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA — $708.3 million
EUROPEAN COMMISSION — $422.6 million
The European Commission allocated some €41,337,001 ($51,460,332) to mine action in 2005. This was a significant decrease from €53.4 million ($66.4 million) in 2004. In 2005, the EC provided mine action funding to 17 countries, compared to 21 countries in 2004. The total for 2005 includes allocations of multi-year funding, some of which was to be dispersed in 2006. The total also includes an allocation of €3 million ($3.7 million) for a tender for stockpile destruction in Belarus which had not been dispersed as of June 2006. Countries receiving EC funding in 2005 but not 2004 included Albania, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Burundi, Chile, Ecuador and Peru. Those receiving EC funding in 2004 but not 2005 included Bosnia and Herzegovina, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kyrgyzstan, Mozambique, Somalia/Somaliland and Tajikistan.
NORWAY — $255.6 million
Norway provided NOK235,020,163 ($36,487,015) in 2005, its highest funding contribution to date. Norway contributed mine action funding to 18 countries in 2005, compared to 16 countries in 2004. Victim assistance support totaled at least NOK40,227,963 ($6,245,414) in 2005, slightly less than in 2004.
JAPAN — $217.3 million
In 2005, Japan contributed ¥4,323 million ($39.26 million), less than the ¥4,630 million ($42.8 million) contributed in 2004.[133 ] Almost half of Japan’s 2005 mine action funding, ¥2,100 million ($19 million), was allocated to Sudan. In 2005, Japan provided victim assistance funding of ¥112,825,790 ($1,024,664) or 2.6 percent of total spending, an increase from ¥53.3 million in 2004.
UNITED KINGDOM[134 ]— $175.3 million
UK funding of £11,758,747 ($21,400,920) in fiscal year 2005-2006 represented an increase from an upwardly adjusted 2004-2005 total of £11,137,178 ($20,414,447). In 2005-2006, the DfID reported mine action funding for 10 states, Somaliland and seven organizations totaling £9,225,924 (16,791,182). The UK Ministry of Defence provided £2,379,823 ($4,331,278) to the International Mine Action Training Centre (IMATC) in Kenya, and the Handicap International Phoenix project in Kosovo received £153,000 ($278,460) through the Global Conflict Prevention Pool. The UK continued its funding support for UNMAS and UNICEF, but did not report core funding to UNDP in 2005-2006.
CANADA — $148.1 million[135 ]
Canada provided C$24,799,163 ($20,469,800) in fiscal year 2005-2006, a decrease from C$29.5 million ($22.6 million) the previous year. Canada provided funding to 31 countries and areas (five less than the previous year), as well as regional bodies, UN agencies, NGOs, ICRC and GICHD. Canada increased support to mine clearance from $3.5 million to $6.4 million, but decreased funding for victim assistance from $2 million to $1.6 million and for mine risk education from $1.1 million to about $562,000.
GERMANY — $144 million
Germany’s funding for mine action totaled €16,972,295 ($21,128,810) in 2005, an increase from €15 million ($18.7 million) in 2004. In 2005, Germany provided funding to 20 countries and regions, two more than in 2004. Those receiving funding in 2005 but not in 2004 included Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Jordan, Somalia/Somaliland, and Uganda. Countries receiving funding in 2004 but not in 2005 included Burundi and Egypt. Germany funded UNICEF activities in the Caucasus in both years. The vast majority of German mine action funding was directed to mine clearance. In May 2006, Germany stated that it no longer funds research and development activities and, in preference, focuses funding on mine clearance.[138]
THE NETHERLANDS — $133.9 million[139]
The Netherlands contributed €15,521,772 ($19,323,054) to mine action in 2005, a comparable amount to €15,494,919 ($19.3 million) in 2004. In 2005, the Netherlands provided funding to 10 countries, as well as Abkhazia, Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh and Somaliland. Activities labeled as mine clearance/mine risk education received €11,812,619 or 76 percent of total funding; capacity-building €2,758,002 or 18 percent; advocacy €277,203 or about 2 percent; and victim assistance received €542,893 or about 3 percent, with the remaining €131,555 going to activities including MRE. The annual mine action budget of €12.6 million ($15.7 million) for 2005 was overspent. The Netherlands expects funding to be at the level of €12.6 million for the coming few years.
SWEDEN — $126.6 million
In 2005, Sweden’s mine action contribution totaled SEK87,554,890 ($11,719,300), an increase from SEK83.5 million ($11.4 million) in 2004. Sweden provided mine action funding to three countries in 2005 that had not received funding in 2004: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Democratic Republic of Congo and the Philippines. Sweden did not fund mine action in Mozambique in 2005, and decreased funding for Cambodia (from SEK12 million to SEK3.8 million) and Nicaragua (from SEK6.6 million to SEK3.2 million). Sweden continued its support to UNMAS in 2005.
DENMARK — $109.8 million
SWITZERLAND — $79.9 million
Switzerland provided CHF15,094,000 ($12,114,937) in 2005, an increase from CHF14.8 million ($10.9 million) in 2004. The 2005 total included CHF8 million ($6.4 million) for the GICHD and CHF7,094,000 ($5.7 million) for other mine action activities; non-GICHD spending totaled CHF6.7 million ($4.8 million) in 2004. In 2005, Switzerland contributed mine action funding to 13 countries, two less than in 2004. Countries receiving funding in 2005 which did not receive contributions in 2004 were Bosnia and Herzegovina, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq and Vietnam. Those receiving funds in 2004 but not 2005 included Albania, Chad, Georgia, Somalia and Yemen. The 2005 total includes an estimate of CHF2 million ($1,605,265) for in-kind contributions of nine Ministry of Defense staff for mine action activities in Afghanistan, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chad, Eritrea, Lebanon and Sri Lanka, as well as staff and equipment in Sudan. Switzerland reported victim assistance funding of CHF1,125,000 ($902,962), including CHF300,000 ($240,790) as “victim assistance—support to MBT.”
AUSTRALIA — $75.1 million
Australia contributed A$11,666,422 ($8,897,980) to mine action for its fiscal year July 2005-June 2006, an increase of some 50 percent from the A$7,756,101 ($5.7 million) provided in 2004-2005, and the largest amount in three years. Australia has pledged mine action funding of A$75 million for the period 2005-2009, with priority for heavily mine-affected countries in the Asia-Pacific region. In FY 2005-2006, Australian contributions were directed to seven countries, compared to three the previous year, with Afghanistan, Burma, Laos and Sudan receiving support, in addition to Cambodia, Sri Lanka and Vietnam. Victim assistance activities received A$3,244,192 ($2,474,345) in 2005-2006, including significant contributions to ICRC for the Special Appeal for Mine Action 2006 and the Special Fund for The Disabled 2006.
ITALY — $56.5 million
Italy contributed €3,583,600 ($4,461,224) to mine action activities in 2005, a greater amount than €2,539,500 ($3,158,630) in 2004. Italy provided funding to fewer countries, six in 2005 compared to nine in 2004. Iraq and Mozambique received funding from Italy in 2005, but not in 2004. Countries which did not receive contributions in 2005 but had the previous year were Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Croatia, Eritrea and Tajikistan. Italy also continued to contribute to mine action in the Americas with funding to the OAS in 2005. Funding for Sudan increased to €1,522,500 ($1,895,360) in 2005 from €200,000 ($248,760) in 2004.[148]
FINLAND — $52 million
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES — $50 million
The United Arab Emirates has reported that it provided $50 million to mine action in Lebanon from 2002-2004 under Operation Emirates Solidarity.[150 ] The precise year-by-year breakdown of expenditures is not available. The UAE dispersed $3,332,751 for Lebanon through the UN Voluntary Trust Fund in 2002-2005, including $310,000 for follow-up activities to the Operation Emirates Solidarity in 2005; presumably this is also part of the multi-year allocation of $50 million.[151]
BELGIUM — $31.5 million
Belgium contributed €3,201,918 ($3,986,068), to mine action activities in 2005, including significant in-kind contributions. Belgium contributed €4,547,878 ($5,656,651) in 2004. In 2005, Belgium provided mine action funding and assistance to 10 countries and Kosovo, twice as many countries as the previous year. Countries receiving funding and assistance in 2005 but not in 2004 included Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Indonesia, Iraq and Liberia. Funding for ICRC was not reported for 2005, but totaled €2 million ($2.5 million) or 35 percent of total funding in 2004, which more than accounts for the 30 percent decrease in total funding for 2005.
FRANCE — $28.6 million
France reported mine action funding of €3,055,000 ($3,803,170) in 2005.[154 ] This was more than double the 2004 total of €1,523,845 (about $1.9 million). Funding was provided to six countries in 2005 (compared to 15 countries in 2004): Albania, Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Mozambique and Yemen. Funding to victim assistance totaled €820,000 ($1,020,818) in 2005, or some 27 percent of total funding. France has reported that it contributes between 17 and 25 percent of EC funding to mine action projects through various channels.[155 ]
IRELAND — $16.3 million
Ireland contributed €1,740,000 ($2,166,126) for mine action in 2005, compared to €2,427,000 ($3,018,703) in 2004. In 2005, Ireland provided funding to four countries: Afghanistan, Angola, Eritrea and Somalia. Victim assistance funding of €200,000 ($248,980) was provided to Angola in 2005; no victim assistance funding was given in 2004.
AUSTRIA — $16.2 million
Austria provided €1,766,752 ($2,199,430) in 2005. This was a decrease from €2.4 million ($3 million) in 2004, which marked the highest level for Austrian mine action funding. Austrian contributions benefited seven countries in 2005, as in 2004. The only countries to receive funding from Austria in both 2005 and 2004 were Croatia and Mozambique. Countries to receive funding in 2005 but not in 2004 included Bosnia and Herzegovina, Nicaragua, Serbia and Montenegro and Sri Lanka. Victim assistance contributions included funding to ICRC and to a regional program for East Africa. Austria has reported that in addition to bilateral mine action funding, it provides approximately 2.2 percent of overall EC development aid expenditures, which include mine action contributions.[158]
NEW ZEALAND — $12.4 million
New Zealand reported contributions totaling NZ$1,290,723 ($909,831) for mine action activities during its fiscal year July 2005-June 2006, a decrease from NZ$3,736,922 ($2.48 million) in 2004-2006, which was New Zealand’s largest contribution ever. In addition to countries funded in 2004, funding was provided to Nepal and Sudan in 2005.
SLOVAKIA— 10.9 million
Slovakia reported contributing SKK218.5 million ($7.2 million) as the value of in-kind contributions of the Slovak Armed Forces in demining operations in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2005; in 2004, it reported SKK101.9 million ($3.5 million) in in-kind contributions to those two countries.[160]
Spain provided €1,533,648 ($1,909,238) in 2005, including in-kind clearance contributions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Kosovo, and training at its International Demining Training Center. Funding also included contributions from Spanish regional administrations to mine action in Colombia. Spain contributed €978,494 ($1.2 million) in 2004.[161 ] Estimated total mine action funding is $10.1 million.[162]
Greece did not report mine action funding in 2005. Previous mine action funding totaled $9.6 million 2001-2004. In February 2006, Greece contributed €1.9 million ($2.4 million) for mine action in Iraq to the UNDG Iraq Trust Fund of the International Reconstruction Fund Facility for Iraq (IRFFI) for demining operations; the funds had been pledged in July 2005.[163 ]
Luxembourg provided €1,081,931 ($1,346,896) for mine action in 2005. Funding benefited six countries. In 2004, $773,186 in funding was reported. R&D was not reported for 2005, but totaled €2,500 ($3,110) in 2004.[164 ] Total mine action funding is $5.9 million.
The Republic of Korea contributed $1,050,000 to mine action in 2005, including $1 million for Iraq. $3.1 million was contributed in 2004. Total mine action funding is $5.2 million.[165]
Slovenia reported contributing $384,498 in 2005, including $374,153 through the ITF and contributions to the GICHD. Slovenia provided $433,861 through ITF in 2004.[166 ] Total mine action funding is $3.8 million.
Iceland allocated $1,500,000 in 2005 for prosthetics, specialists, treatment, and training to the Prosthetic Limbs and Rehabilitation Center in Dohuk, Iraq.[167 ] Total mine action funding is $2.8 million 1997-2005.
The Czech Republic contributed CZK32,886,000 ($1,370,794) for mine action activities in 2005, a significant increase from $189,234 in 2004. The bulk of the funds were reported as an in-kind contribution of military mine clearance in Afghanistan. Funding was also provided to four other countries. Estimated total mine funding is $2.1 million.
Poland estimated its in-kind assistance to mine action in 2005 as totaling €1.6 million ($1.99 million). Polish deminers (137 in total) were engaged in peacekeeping and stabilization missions abroad in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Syria, and Kosovo.[168 ]
In 2005, nine countries reported spending about $30 million on R&D related to mine action, including $2.1 million for the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining. The biggest expenditures were by the United States ($13.2 million), Japan ($7.4 million), United Kingdom ($3.2 million) and Canada ($2.8 million). Other countries are also believed to have devoted funds to mine action R&D, but did not make information available.
Belgium allocated €456,314 ($568,065) to R&D for six projects, including multi-sensor mine signature detection, the International Test and Evaluation Program for Humanitarian Demining (ITEP), demining software development, and in-kind assistance for demining technology evaluations in Angola.[169]
The Belgian regional government of Flanders provided funding to APOPO of €905,960 ($1,127,830) for R&D and deployment of rats as biosensors, for the period 2005-2007. The total Flanders contribution to APOPO from 2003-2007 was €1,296,432 ($1,613,928), including €150,000 ($186,735) for 2004 not previously reported by Landmine Monitor.[170 ]
Canada allocated C$3,153,849 ($2,603,260) to the Canadian Centre for Mine Action Technology (CCMAT) for unspecified research and development projects.[171]
Denmark reported funding of DKK250,000 ($41,699) to the Nordic Demining Research Forum.[172]
The EC reported €350,000 ($435,715) in funding to the European Committee for Standardisation for R&D standardization activities in the field of humanitarian mine action.[173 ]
Japan reported R&D funding totaling ¥811,000,000 ($7,365,362), including ¥716,000,000 ($6,502,588) though the Japan Science and Technology Agency for research programs in explosives sensor technology, and an additional ¥95,000,000 ($862,774) to the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization for research including the improvement of detectors and machinery for use in shrubby areas, and portable demining machines.[174]
Norway provided NOK150,000 ($23,288) to the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI) for activities of the Nordic Demining Research Forum, and NOK33,375 ($5,181) to UNI Consult AS for consultancy on Nodeco/Minecat 230.[175 ]
The UK DfID provided R&D funding of £1,477,563 ($2,689,165) in fiscal year 2005-2006. DISARMCO was provided with £206,335 ($375,530) for its mine incinerator project, Dragon, which has been entirely funded by DfID.[176 ]ERA was funded with £867,615 ($1,579,059) to develop and test Minehound, a dual sensor mine detector.[177 ] Funding of £301,807 ($549,289) was provided to ITEP/QinetiQ for knowledge, research and advice, and BARIC received £101,806 ($185,287) for demining advice.[178]
The US Department of Defense spent $13.15 million on humanitarian demining R&D projects in fiscal year 2005, including the evaluation of prototype demining systems. The US also participates in ITEP to improve existing technologies.[179]
Donors also provided contributions to the GICHD identified as R&D funding. R&D type activities undertaken by GICHD may include research activities into mechanical clearance and biosensor technologies, and the development and distribution of software and information management/data mining products such as the Information Management System for Mine Action (IMSMA).
The following donors reported funding totaling $2,116,202 to GICHD for R&D in 2005:
In addition, Switzerland provided the GICHD with CHF8 million ($6.4 million) in 2005, and a total of some $27.7 million from 2000-2005. Landmine Monitor has included these amounts as part of Switzerland’s general mine action funding, rather than R&D, because it has not been possible to consistently distinguish the R&D components.
Precise, comprehensive and comparable figures on resources available for mine victim assistance in many countries are difficult to obtain. Some governments do not provide specific funding for victim assistance, but rather consider victim assistance as an integrated part of humanitarian mine action. Even among those governments which do provide some specific victim assistance funding allocations, often a number of victim assistance activities are reported together with other mine action activities and it is not possible to separate all amounts expended.
Despite the complications of identifying specific funding allocations, it is apparent that in many mine-affected countries the assistance available to address the needs of survivors is inadequate and additional outside assistance is needed to provide for the care and rehabilitation of mine survivors.
In the Zagreb Declaration from the Sixth Meeting of States Parties, governments affirmed a commitment that those in a position to do so should respond to the victim assistance priorities of the “24 States Parties with significant numbers of mine survivors.” States Parties also declared, “We recognize the urgency of fulfilling all our obligations under the Convention as well as our responsibilities... to landmine survivors.”[185 ] The wording might be interpreted to imply, incorrectly, that States Parties’ responsibilities to mine survivors are somehow separate from treaty obligations, however, the expression of urgency in the statement is pertinent.
Sustained support to victim assistance activities by all States Parties is needed, including both donor and mine-affected countries. States Parties at the First Review Conference reiterated the obligations in Article 6.3 of the Mine Ban Treaty, that “Each State in a position to do so shall provide assistance for the care and rehabilitation, and social and economic reintegration, of mine victims,” stating that this “constitutes a vital promise for hundreds of thousands” of mine survivors. In the Nairobi Action Plan, States Parties reasserted their collective commitment to providing external support for victim assistance. Action #36 calls on States Parties to “act upon their obligation under Article 6.3.”[186 ] While support for victim assistance has been increasing, more substantive action is required on the part of States Parties to fulfill these commitments.
In addition to resources provided by states, the European Commission reported funding for mine victim assistance in 2005. The total of funding attributable specifically to victim assistance is not known, however, the EC reported providing €799,684 ($995,527) to Handicap International for victim assistance in Angola. The EC also contributes funding to programs which include victim assistance components.
The identifiable victim assistance funding for 2005 was some $37.2 million, a significant increase of about 29 percent from $28.8 million in 2004. Donor states reported victim assistance funding to at least 22 countries, a decrease from at least 33 countries in 2004.
Several states contributed funding which had not done so in 2004. Many states increased their reported funding of victim assistance by more than 25 percent, including Australia, France, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland.
The greatest increase in dollar terms was made by the United States (an increase of $2.95 million from 2004). It should be noted that while the US contribution appears to be the largest, this includes the total contribution of the Leahy War Victims Fund (some $14.4 million, an increase of $2.47 million from 2004 funding), which supports programs for all victims of war; the percentage of funding that goes to support programs assisting landmine survivors is not available. Others with large dollar increases included Australia, France, Japan, Norway and Switzerland.
It is worth noting that the larger sums identified for victim assistance are influenced by improved methods of tracking financial support and may not represent significantly higher levels of funding in real terms. For example, in 2005 Iceland allocated $1,500,000 as in-kind assistance to the Prosthetic Limbs and Rehabilitation Center in northern Iraq, a specialist rehabilitation center that treats landmine survivors. Although the amount was identified as a contribution assisting mine survivors in Landmine Monitor 2006 reporting, it was not labeled as survivor assistance funding. Furthermore, due to States Parties’ greater awareness of victim assistance (highlighted though the VA 24 process), some of the reported increases are assumed to be the result of clearer reporting of existing victim assistance funding. Some similar contributions were likely to have been made in the past, but not earmarked as victim assistance spending.
Despite the reported increases, current levels of resources available for victim assistance continue to be inadequate for the needs of landmine survivors. Funding shortages were identified during the reporting period which impeded survivor assistance programs in several countries, including among the 24 States Parties with significant numbers of mine survivors. Countries with activities which assist survivors that experienced funding shortages included Cambodia, Croatia, Sudan, Tajikistan and Yemen.
The overall level of funding contributed for survivor assistance has been failing to keep up with needs of the existing projects available to the growing number of landmine survivors requiring assistance. For example, when measured proportionately as a collective UN mine action pillar, only 27 percent of the total sum for all the victim assistance project appeals through the UN Portfolio of Mine Action Projects was received in 2005 ($4.7 million received of $17.5 million requested). In comparison, mine clearance projects received 75 percent of the total of their collective appeals in 2005 ($115 million received of $153 million requested). In 2005, victim assistance programs received only 2 percent of the total of funds received through Portfolio appeals ($4.7 million of a total $241 million). The UN Portfolio End-Year Review reports that these percentages are consistent with past trends.[188]
The continued lack of substantial long-term funding commitments to victim assistance is a matter of serious concern. Fluctuations in spending on victim assistance programs have impeded the work of implementing organizations, and resulted in reduced levels of services for mine survivors in some cases. Landmine Monitor reporting has shown that victim assistance programs are highly vulnerable to shifting funding allocations. Existing services have been terminated, and in some cases whole programs have been forced to close, suddenly leaving mine survivors without services when short-term funding has finished. Increased long-term funding is needed to enable organizations and survivor assistance programs time to build capacity and secure alternative funding sources. Furthermore, with long-term funding organizations can be held more accountable, which is beneficial for both program recipients and donors.
As in the past, some states (including Denmark, Sweden and the UK) did not provide any specific funding for victim assistance. Sweden and the UK take the view that landmine survivors are reached through bilateral development cooperation and other contributions. In 2006, Germany stated that it will fund victim assistance only in exceptional cases, and will concentrate funding on mine clearance.[189]
Experience has shown that unless funding is specifically targeted at facilities and programs that assist people with disabilities, including landmine survivors, it is likely that resources will be directed to other areas of public health or development concern, leaving the disabled population further disadvantaged. With respect to integration of victim assistance into broader development programming, the ICBL favors a twin-track approach that allocates funding to specific victim assistance programs, as well as incorporating victim assistance activities into existing and emerging development programs and the health sector.
Some States Parties have acknowledged the need for sustained commitments specific to assisting mine survivors and people with disabilities. Having committed to strengthening its support for survivor assistance over the next five years, Australia recognized that “survivor assistance has been one of the lesser funded areas in this convention and that a long term commitment to assisting landmine survivors is needed by both mine-affected countries and donors.”[190]
Equally, if not more important, than international donor funding are the contributions made by mine-affected states to victim assistance. However, information on their contributions is rarely available. The Yemeni government was reported to have contributed $108,000 to the Yemen Landmine Victim Assistance Program. In Croatia, the state was reported to have allocated KN155,000 ($26,059) for victim assistance in 2005. Landmine Monitor has recorded victim assistance contributions by Croatia totaling $76,356 since 2001.
Funding by mine-affected states to areas of the public health system which assist landmine survivors is also rarely reported. However, state facilities and services which address the needs of landmine victims are an essential part of ongoing survivor assistance. States Parties which provide resources to assist mine survivors through the health system, or have enacted legislation which commits funding for survivor assistance through state services, should report on those contributions. For example, Tajikistan has laws entitling mine survivors and other people with disabilities to assistance, including medical care and physical rehabilitation; in its most recent Article 7 report, Tajikistan recorded an allocation of $235,000 in 2005 for an orthopedic clinic which treats people with disabilities, 10-12 percent of whom were landmine survivors. Mine-affected States Parties should be encouraged to report with as much detail and clarity as possible on how funding through the state system is allocated to assist mine survivors. Such reporting would not only indicate the commitment of States Parties to fulfill Article 6.3 of the Mine Ban Treaty, it would also support the data collection processes necessary for providing appropriate assistance.
The $37.2 million in donor country contributions for victim assistance in 2005 is not fully representative of the total resources available to provide assistance to mine survivors. In addition to the contributions of mine-affected states noted above, other sources include numerous private donors and charitable foundations. Some examples in 2005 were: the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund (a UK-based charity) provided $1.7 million; Adopt-a-Minefield raised about $1.3 million; Landmine Survivors Network received $3.2 million (40 percent of its annual income) in contributions from private grants and individual donations (including funding from the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund).[191 ] Other examples of funding provided through various means, including individual donations, in-kind contributions and legacies, are found in various country reports.
Included in the information provided by states are contributions to the ICRC Special Appeal for Mine Action and the ICRC Special Fund for the Disabled.