Table of Contents

Country Reports

LM Report 2004

Belgium

Key developments since May 2003: Belgium contributed €5.99 million ($6.78 million) to mine action in 2003, including research and development, a significant increase from €4.74 million the previous year. Belgium continued to play an important role in promoting universalization and full implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty. Belgian Ambassador Jean Lint served as President of the Fourth Meeting of States Parties and chair of the Coordinating Committee until September 2003, and carried out extensive preparations for the First Review Conference in 2004.

Key developments since 1999: Belgium was the first country to adopt a national prohibition on antipersonnel mines in 1995, and it became a State Party to the Mine Ban Treaty on 1 March 1999. National implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty in Belgium was achieved by amending the 1995 legislation in 1999. Stockpile destruction was completed in September 1997, before entry into force of the Mine Ban Treaty; an estimated 440,000 antipersonnel mines were destroyed. From 1999 to 2003, Belgium provided an estimated $17 million in mine action funding, plus another $5.6 million for research projects. This includes about $3.29 million in funding for victim assistance.

Belgium has played a leadership role in the Mine Ban Treaty work program and in promoting universalization and full implementation of the treaty. Belgium served as co-rapporteur then co-chair of the Standing Committee on General Status and Operation of the Convention from May 1999 to September 2001. It served as co-rapporteur then co-chair of the Standing Committee on Mine Clearance from September 2001 to September 2003. Belgian Ambassador Jean Lint served as President of the Fourth Meeting of States Parties in September 2002 and chair of the Coordinating Committee until September 2003; he carried out extensive preparations for the first Review Conference in 2004. Belgium initiated and has coordinated the Article 7 Contact Group. In 2001–2002, Belgium chaired the donors’ Mine Action Support Group. No mine or UXO casualties have been reported in Belgium since 2000, when one person was killed and five others were injured by UXO.

Mine Ban Policy

Belgium signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 3 December 1997 and ratified it on 4 September 1998, becoming a State Party on 1 March 1999. In 1995, Belgium became the first country in the world to pass domestic legislation comprehensively banning antipersonnel mines, following a 1993 export moratorium. Internationally, Belgium played a pioneering role in the movement which led to the Mine Ban Treaty. It was a member of the core group of countries that led the Ottawa Process, and hosted the June 1997 conference attended by 153 States that paved the way for the Oslo Diplomatic Conference in September 1997. Belgium was one of the first countries to work closely with NGOs, both domestically and internationally.^[1]

After ratification, implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty in Belgium was achieved by amending the 1995 legislation. Law N95-778 banned the production, procurement, sale, export, use and possession of antipersonnel mines, but was, in part, limited to a five-year period. In 1999, Parliament adopted a new law canceling the five-year limitation; this entered into force on 17 April 2000. Law N95-778 contains penal sanctions. It is wider in its prohibition than the Mine Ban Treaty, as it bans not only antipersonnel mines, but also booby-traps and “similar devices.” In 1996, a second law banned stockpiling and set a three-year deadline for the destruction of Belgium’s antipersonnel mine stockpile.^[2]

Belgium has played a leading role in annual meetings of States Parties to the treaty and the intersessional process, and, more broadly, in promoting universalization and full implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty. At the Fifth Meeting of States Parties in September 2003, Princess Astrid of Belgium handed over Belgium’s presidency (of the previous annual session) to Thailand. She reiterated Belgium’s “continued political support for the fight against anti-personnel mines” and suggested the treaty could be a model for other issues. Princess Astrid added that there was encouraging progress toward universalization, but noted that “a considerable number of States still remain outside the Convention. They should receive from us the clear message that there is no conceivable utility of anti-personnel mines that could outweigh or justify the devastating humanitarian costs of these weapons.”^[3]

Belgium’s Ambassador Jean Lint was President of the Fourth Meeting of States Parties in September 2002, and developed the President’s Action Program. In this role, Ambassador Lint chaired the intersessional Coordinating Committee from September 2002 to September 2003 and during this period he was mandated to develop preparations for the first Review Conference in 2004. Ambassador Lint helped develop the “4Ps” concept (Problems, Plans, Progress and Priorities) and, as President, invited mine-affected States Parties to use the 4P concept to make known the extent of the mine problem in their countries and their national plans, “which take into account the 10-year time-frame” of the Mine Ban Treaty.^[4]

During his farewell speech at the Conference on Disarmament (CD) in September 2003, Jean Lint said that, thanks to the Mine Ban Treaty, “the world is working together in seeking out a substantive solution to the threat caused by anti-personnel mines. Rarely has a disarmament-related message from the international community been so clear and consistent: the world will no longer tolerate these cowardly and deadly weapons.... It is through cooperation between States and with civil society that we can provide a permanent solution to the human suffering caused by these weapons.”^[5]

Belgium served as co-rapporteur then co-chair of the Standing Committee on General Status and Operation of the Convention from May 1999 to September 2001. It served as co-rapporteur then co-chair of the Standing Committee on Mine Clearance, Mine Risk Education and Mine Action Technologies from September 2001 to September 2003. Belgium helped to initiate the Universalization Contact Group, and has also been an active participant in the Resource Mobilization Contact Group. In 2001–2002, Belgium chaired the Mine Action Support Group, which brings together major donors in order to coordinate the efficient funding of mine action programs operated by the United Nations.^[6]

Establishing transparency reporting as a norm, and working to improve the reporting process, has been one of Belgium’s key contributions. In 1999, Belgium presented its own initial Article 7 report well in advance of the due date so that the First Meeting of States Parties could consider it as a model for compliance with the treaty. Belgium initiated and has coordinated the Article 7 Contact Group. In 2001, Belgium partially funded the NGO, VERTIC, to produce a guide on Article 7 reporting. Belgium has participated in workshops on Article 7 reporting, and has carried out démarches on the issue and given practical assistance to several States Parties.^[7]

Belgium’s annual Article 7 transparency report for 2003 was submitted on 30 April 2004. The report, which is Belgium’s seventh, includes the voluntary Form J, giving details of mine action funding.^[8]

In March 2004, Development Minister Marc Verwilghen confirmed that universalization of the Mine Ban Treaty remains one of Belgium’s priorities: “In our frequent contacts with countries that haven’t signed the Convention yet, the topic is always on the agenda.”^[9] On 1 March 2004, the fifth anniversary of entry into force of the treaty, Belgium told the CD that it had made “as a major pillar of its foreign policy the fight for a world free of mines. It would continue until this fight was brought to fruition.” Belgium’s representative called on all States, especially those not yet party to the Mine Ban Treaty, to participate in the Review Conference in November 2004.^[10] Also in March, at a meeting organized by the French Commission Nationale pour l’Elimination des Mines Anti-personnel, Belgium outlined its efforts to ensure universalization and full implementation of the treaty.^[11]

Belgium has supported regional initiatives aimed at universalization and participated in a seminar held by the International Committee of the Red Cross in Burkina Faso in January 2004 to promote the Mine Ban Treaty in West Africa. In previous years, Belgium’s universalization efforts have concentrated on African countries, and more recently on Northeast and Southeast Europe.^[12] In December 2003, Belgium voted for UN General Assembly Resolution 58/53, which calls for universalization and full implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty. Belgium has voted for similar General Assembly resolutions since 1996.

Belgium has participated in the extensive discussions that States Parties have had regarding interpretation and implementation of Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the treaty. Reacting to a Non-Paper circulated by the Standing Committee co-chairs aimed at facilitating conclusions on these issues prior to the Review Conference, the Belgian representative expressed the view that time would be better spent dealing with the “core humanitarian aims” as expressed in the President’s Action Plan.^[13] In respect of its own national policy, Belgium has taken positions on Articles 1, 2 and 3 largely supported by the ICBL.

With respect to Article 1 and the issue of joint military operations with non-States Parties, Belgium has informed the Standing Committee meetings on several occasions that national legislation prohibits its armed forces from taking any action that would lead to the use of antipersonnel mines. It has made efforts to persuade NATO partners not party to the treaty to respect this prohibition. At the Standing Committee meetings in February 2003, this was described as being a stricter prohibition than is contained in the Mine Ban Treaty.^[14] In 1998, the Defense Minister and Vice Prime Minister stated that Belgian legislation and the Mine Ban Treaty both prohibit the stockpiling of foreign antipersonnel mines on Belgian territory, and that the US authorities had been informed, and had confirmed that they did not transit antipersonnel mines through Belgium.^[15]

With respect to Article 2 and the issue of antivehicle mines with sensitive fuzes and antihandling devices, Belgium stated in May 2001 that Articles 1 and 2 of the Mine Ban Treaty constitute “an interdiction on using antivehicle mines with antihandling devices conceived or modified to activate when no attempt is made to tamper with or disturb them.”^[16] The 1995 national legislation bans not only antipersonnel mines but also “similar devices.”

Belgium has not made any new statements on this issue, in relation to its own antivehicle mines or regarding interpretation of the Mine Ban Treaty, since May 2002, when it informed the Standing Committee meetings that the Belgian army had concluded that all its antivehicle mines are “in compliance with both the spirit and letter” of the treaty.^[17] However, Belgium possesses the French-made HPD antivehicle mine, which is equipped with an antihandling device. The French National Commission has reported that HPD mines may be activated by the unintentional act of a person, and has recommended adaptation.^[18] Handicap International drew this information to the attention of the Ministry of Defense in March 2002. In 2001–2002, parliamentarians initiated several initiatives concerning antivehicle mines, which gained responses from the Ministries of Defense and of Foreign Affairs that Belgium could not engage in a unilateral prohibition.^[19]

Belgium is party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) and its Amended Protocol II and attended the Fifth Annual Conference of States Parties to the Protocol in November 2003. Belgium has attended annual conferences to the Protocol in previous years, where it has encouraged CCW members not yet party to the Mine Ban Treaty to attend the intersessional meetings. Belgium submitted its annual report in accordance with Article 13 of Amended Protocol II on 29 September 2003, and has submitted annual reports in previous years. Belgium helped to initiate CCW proposals for dealing with explosive remnants of war, which resulted in agreement on a new protocol in November 2003. It has also supported proposals for greater regulation of mines other than antipersonnel mines.^[20]

Production and Transfer

Production of antipersonnel mines ceased in 1990 and was banned in 1995.^[21] Transfer was banned in 1993. The company Poudres Réunies de Belgique (PRB) was a major producer and exporter of mines, including six types of antipersonnel mine and nine types of antivehicle mine. Production facilities were demilitarized in 1990, and PRB was declared bankrupt in 1993.^[22]

In April 2004, it was reported that five major Belgian banks invested in arms-producing companies, including Singapore Technologies Engineering, which produces antipersonnel mines. The report, by the pacifist NGO, Netwerk Vlaanderen, gained much media coverage. Handicap International issued a statement calling on the banks to take up their responsibilities. It also pointed out that the Mine Ban Treaty requires States Parties to take action against prohibited activities, and that Belgium’s image in the international community could be tarnished.^[23]

Following public and parliamentary protests, on 20 May 2004, Belgian Senators Philippe Mahoux and Christiane Vienne tabled a draft law that,would prohibit Belgian firms from directly or indirectly investing in companies involved in the production, use, or transfer of landmines.^[24] The legislation passed the Senate in late June 2004 and is now awaiting consideration by the parliamentary house of representatives.^[25] It also stipulates that any financial activity that stimulates the proliferation of antipersonnel mines “will be fought in the same manner as violations related to terrorism, or its financing, organised crime or illegal arms trade.”^[26] DEXIA and KBC have already sold their shares in STE, and ING was expected to follow suit in late 2004, while the other two banks, Fortis and AXA, have not undertaken any action.^[27]

Stockpiling and Destruction

Stockpile destruction was completed in September 1997, before entry into force of the Mine Ban Treaty, making Belgium one of the first countries to complete stockpile destruction.^[28] It has been estimated that 433,441 antipersonnel mines were destroyed, with the majority being transported to Germany for destruction. The stockpile is thought to have consisted largely of the M35 type.^[29]

At the end of 2003, Belgium retained 4,443 antipersonnel mines (type MB 35 Bg) under Article 3 of the Mine Ban Treaty. During 2003, a total 363 mines were consumed, “for training purposes.”^[30] Initially, Belgium retained 6,240 antipersonnel mines. This quantity has since been reduced each year with quantities consumed (1999: 424; 2000: 383; 2001: 334; 2002: 293; 2003: 363). To the end of 2003, Belgium has consumed 1,797 mines for permitted purposes, which are described in detail in Article 7 reports.^[31]

Belgium has made clear at Standing Committee meetings that States Parties should retain only the minimum quantity of mines absolutely necessary, and should report fully on the purposes for which they are used.^[32]

A source within the Ministry of Defense has informed Landmine Monitor that Belgium does not possess Claymore-type directional fragmentation devices.^[33]

Mine Action Funding and Assistance

In March 2004, Ambassador Jean Lint said that up to 40 States Parties may require assistance “to meet the care, rehabilitation, and social and economic reintegration needs of landmine survivors.... The countries with the greatest numbers of mine victims are amongst the poorest of the world.” He added that the Mine Ban Treaty’s commitment to assist survivors does not have a time-limit except for the lifetime of the victims. He called for “a more sophisticated approach to resource mobilization” and “significant renewal of our collective commitment...to eliminate anti-personnel mines.”^[34]

Previously, in its Article 7 report for 2002, Belgium identified maintaining mine action funding at adequate levels as one of the challenges of coming years. It reported that the needs of mine-affected countries exceed current resources. Belgium has said that in addition to ensuring that available resources are used efficiently, donor countries should find new sources of funding and prioritize funding allocation, and that mine-affected countries should mobilize domestic resources.^[35]

Belgium’s policy for mine action funding has concentrated on coordination and integration of humanitarian demining, victim assistance and research into safer technologies. Demining is accorded priority where land is needed for survival, and special attention is given to local capacity building. States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty are given preference, in order to ensure that demined areas will not be re-mined, but in emergency cases States not party to the treaty may be funded.^[36]

In 2003, Belgium provided funding for mine action totaling €5,992,910 ($6,780,978), including €475,315 ($537,819) allocated to research and development (R&D) projects.^[37] This represents a substantial increase from Belgium’s funding of €4,738,105 in 2002, including €908,000 for R&D.^[38] In 2003, funding was distributed to six countries and four organizations:

Countries:

• Afghanistan: €200,000 ($226,300) via UNMAS for mine action and survivor assistance
• Angola: €331,684 ($375,300) to HI for survivor assistance in Benguele province
• Bosnia and Herzegovina: €26,000 ($29,419) in-kind assistance (four personnel) for disposal of mines and munition stockpiles
• Cambodia: €960,471 ($1,086,773) consisting of €401,120 for clearance of mines and unexploded ordnance (UXO), €63,000 in-kind assistance (three personnel) – both as Belgian contribution to joint project with Luxembourg, €349,672 to HI for survivor assistance and €146,679 to HI for survivor assistance
• DR Congo: €3 million ($3,394,500) to HI for mine action and survivor assistance in Kisangani region^[39]
• Kosovo: €150,000 ($169,725) in-kind assistance (three personnel) for mine/UXO clearance
• Laos: €538,158 ($608,926) consisting of €135,000 to the UXO Lao trust fund via UNDP, and €367,158 and in-kind assistance valued at €36,000 to UXO Lao for clearance in Champassak province and capacity building

Organizations:

• ICRC: €74,367 ($84,146) for the special appeal for victim assistance
• GICHD: €9,915 ($11,219) for the Implementation Support Unit
• ICBL: €50,000 ($56,575) for Landmine Monitor Report 2003
• HI: €119,000 ($134,649) for information and awareness-raising.^[40]

Also included in the Article 7 report is Belgian funding of €48,000 ($54,312) for explosive ordnance disposal training provided by the Ministry of Defense for participants from Angola, Benin, Gabon and Congo-Brazzaville. Although it does not appear in Belgium’s Article 7 accounting of mine action funding, the government and the OSCE reported that Belgium provided €30,000 for an OSCE project to clear mines in Tajikistan.^[41]

R&D projects funded in 2003, totaling €475,315 were EUDEM (€1,600), PARADIS (€86,500), BEMAT (€107,000), MSMS (€10,000), ITEP (€122,800), and SMART (€147,415). Included in this total is the value of in-kind assistance and secondment of personnel.^[42] In addition, the Flemish community government supported a R&D project (APOPO) with €230,000 ($260,245) in 2003.^[43]

In 2004, in DR of Congo, Belgium is training a new, ethnically mixed battalion which includes six deminers. France and Luxembourg are also assisting in the training, which was expected to last at least six months.^[44]

Since 1999, Belgium has provided an estimated $16.7 million in mine action funding, excluding funding of R&D projects. There have been large increases in recent years (1999: $2.3 million, 2000: $2.5 million, 2001: $2.1 million, 2002: $3.6 million, 2003: $6.2 million). This includes about $3.29 million allocated to mine victim assistance (1999: $450,000, 2000: $695,000, 2001: $670,000, 2002: $317,000, 2003: $1,155,716). Funding has been provided to at least 13 countries and regions, including Albania, Burundi, Colombia, Croatia, Nicaragua and northern Iraq, in addition to those funded in 2003.^[45]

Research and Development

Belgium has devoted substantial resources to mine-related R&D projects, many of which are multinational or multi-institutional collaborations, and have other funding. Belgian R&D funding totals about $5.6 million for 1999-2004 (1999: $1.4 million, 2000: $1.3 million, 2001: $1.5 million, 2002: €908,000 ($862,600), 2003: $538,000). A presentation of R&D projects in which Belgium is involved was given at the Standing Committee meetings in February 2004; similar presentations have been given at previous meetings. In February 2004, Professor Marc Acheroy, from Belgium’s Royal Military Academy (RMA), also put forward a proposal that an informal expert group on mine action technologies be formed. The Royal Military Academy is involved in many of the projects, in a coordinating role. The Amended Protocol II Article 13 report includes details of R&D projects funded in 2002–2003.^[46]

PARADIS: This multi-agency project, including the RMA, to develop software for the planning and follow-up of mine clearance started in 1998. Although previously reported to have concluded in October 2001, the project is continuing with optimization of prototypes and work to make these compatible with the Swedish Explosive Ordnance Disposal Information System.

BEMAT: This is a follow-on of the HUDEM project (1997–2002), to evaluate mine-detection and remote area reduction, including robotics. Eight Belgian universities are involved, coordinated by the RMA.

MSMS: The Multi-Sensor Mine Signature project is managed by the EC’s Joint Research Center at Ispra, Italy. Belgium seconds test managers to the project.

SMART: The Spaceborne and Airborne Area Reduction Tools project, under the technical coordination of RMA, started in May 2001 and was due to conclude in May 2004. During 2003, testing was carried in Croatia.

APOPO: This project, researching the use of rats as “bio-sensors” of mines, started in 1997. Training and initial testing of the rats took place in Tanzania. The first rats were sent to Mozambique for field trials. In 2003, testing in six different sites was started. A TV documentary on the APOPO project was produced in 2003, with the support of Belgium’s Ministry of Development Cooperation department.

ARC: This project to develop a new system for technical surveys, with helicopter-based multi-sensors involves the Free University of Brussels. ARC started in January 2001 and was due to conclude in December 2003.

The Free University of Brussels is also involved in EUDEM2, a study of humanitarian demining. In September 2003, the Free University and the Society for Counter-Ordnance Technology hosted a conference on demining and EOD technologies, as a follow-up of the 1998 conference in Edinburgh. The aim was to bring together all relevant parties, end-users, developers, and scientists to create an inventory of current practices and technologies, and to foster collaboration.^[47] The Royal Military Academy also seconds personnel to the International Test and Evaluation Program (ITEP).^[48]

Landmine/UXO Problem and Casualties

Belgium is not considered to be mine-affected, but mines and unexploded ordnance from World Wars I and II are still found occasionally. The Armed Forces maintain an explosive ordnance disposal unit, the SEDEE-DOVO. In 2003, SEDEE-DOVO collected 296 tons of UXO, in the course of 3,539 responses to reports of explosive objects.^[49]

In April 2004, the owner of agricultural land near Dadizele, west Flanders, discovered artillery grenades while constructing a drain. SEDEE-DOVO was called in and on 23 April discovered a munitions depot from World War I. They started the clearance of up to 3,000 grenades of German and British origin, including poison-gas bombs.^[50]

Since 2000, SEDEE-DOVO has received nearly 13,000 reports and collected nearly 1,200 tons of UXO (2003: 3,539 reports and 296 tons collected; 2002: 3,229 reports and 291 tons collected; 2001: 3,046 reports and 304 tons collected; 2000: 3,125 reports and 304 tons; no data for 1999).^[51]

As of June 2004, no mine/UXO casualties have been reported in Belgium since 2001, when one person was killed and another injured by UXO. In 2000, one person was killed by UXO. In 1999, one civilian was killed and another injured by UXO.^[52] According to SEDEE-DOVO, casualties are usually amateur collectors of war remnants. A UXO awareness campaign was carried out in East Flanders province in 1999–2000.^[53]

Mine/UXO casualties among Belgian personnel in other countries include one injury in December 2002 (in Democratic Republic of Congo).^[54]

Belgian deminers and instructors are included in national provisions for assistance to casualties caused by mine accidents. While working overseas, they are also covered by these provisions.^[55]

NGO Activity

Handicap International in Belgium started its mine action work in 1996 and by 2004 employed 675 staff. It was engaged in demining, mine risk education and/or survivor assistance in eight countries in 2003: Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, Côte d'Ivoire, DR Congo, Northern Iraq, Laos, and Yemen. The Belgian government’s Amended Protocol II Article 13 report included details of HI mine action programs in 2002–2003.^[56]

HI continued to carry out advocacy and awareness-raising activities in Belgium and abroad in 2003-2004. It launched the Landmine Monitor Report 2003 at De Markten cultural center in Brussels, in September 2003. On 11 November 2003, HI briefed the Political Committee of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council on the new Landmine Monitor findings.^[57] HI contributed to the publication “Crossing the Divide: Landmines, Villagers and Organizations,” which was launched at the Fifth Meeting of States Parties in September 2003. This challenges the international community and demining experts to provide adequate responses to the needs of mine-stricken communities.^[58]

In December 2003, on the sixth anniversary of the signing of the Mine Ban Treaty, the ICBL and HI visited European Union parliamentarians, and the European Commission and Council, to discuss universalization of the treaty in Europe, and the role of Europe in mine action and at the Review Conference in November 2004.

In 2004, on 1 March, HI celebrated the fifth anniversary of entry into force of the Mine Ban Treaty by visiting the Brussels embassies of several States not party to the Mine Ban Treaty, including Finland, Poland, and Estonia.^[59] Previous anniversaries have been celebrated by similar visits. Also in March, HI released a press statement condemning the US announcement that it will retain antipersonnel mines, reversing its ten-year policy to eradicate them in the future.^[60] On 19 March 2004, HI organized a fundraising gala for mine survivors, at which Jean Lint, Belgium’s Ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament, gave a speech that was also critical of the US change in its landmine policy.^[61]

In previous years, HI has organized many awareness-raising and fundraising events, including at the Third World Market, at football matches and other athletics events, in schools and youth organizations. Belgian diplomats have participated in many of these events. HI developed the Blue Laces symbol to represent support for mine survivors. This symbol has been featured in many events, and a national Blue Laces Day has been organized annually. HI Belgium was established in 1986.

---

[1] For additional background, see Landmine Monitor Report 1999, pp. 532–537.
[2] “Law related to anti-personnel mines, booby-traps and devices of similar nature,” Law N95-778, 9 March 1995, Le Moniteur (official publication), 1 April 1995, p. 8225; “Law relative to the definitive interdiction of antipersonnel landmines,” File No. 2-76, 30 March 2000, Le Moniteur, 7 April 2000; “Law of 24 June 1996 modifying the Law of 3 January 1933 relative to the production, trade and carrying of arms and of commerce of ammunition with the intent of prohibiting the Belgian State or its public administrations from holding antipersonnel mines in depots,” F96-1435, Le Moniteur, 9 July 1996, p. 18777. For discussion of the Belgian position on antihandling devices and sensitive fuzes, see later section of this report.
[3] Statement by Princess Astrid of Belgium, Fifth Meeting of States Parties, Bangkok, 15–19 September 2003. Princess Astrid also attended the Second and Fourth Annual Meetings of States Parties.
[4] Response to LM Questionnaire by Ministry of Foreign Affairs, April 2004, p. 3.
[5] Statement by Amb. Jean Lint, Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, 9 September 2003. As President of the CD in June 2000, Jean Lint called on CD members to join the treaty.
[6] See Landmine Monitor Report 2002, p. 104.
[7] Seminars on Article 7 reporting were held in Burkina Faso in January 2004, in Brussels in November 2002 (see Landmine Monitor Report 2003, p. 110), and in Mali in February 2001 (see Landmine Monitor Report 2001, p. 612).
[8] See Article 7 reports submitted: 3 May 2004 (report dated 30 April 2004) (for calendar year 2003); 30 April 2003 (for calendar year 2002); 30 April 2002 (for calendar year 2001); 30 April 2001 (for calendar year 2000); 27 April 2000 (for calendar year 1999); 15 August 1999 (for the period 1 May–15 August 1999); 2 May 1999 (for the period 3 December 1997–30 April 1999).
[9] Speech by Marc Verwilghen, Minister for Development Cooperation, European Gala for Landmine Victims, HI Belgium, Brussels, 19 March 2004.
[10] “Conference on Disarmament hears statements on fifth anniversary of Mine-Ban Convention,” M2 Presswire, 26 February 2004.
[11] Intervention by Paul Huynen, Head of Department, Non-proliferation and Disarmament, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Colloque international des structures nationales chargées de la lutte contre les mines antipersonnel, Paris, 12–13 March 2004.
[12] Belgium participated in regional events in Cambodia, DR Congo, Perú, Poland, Russia, Thailand and Turkey in 2002–2003. Belgium has also carried out many démarches encouraging universalization. See Landmine Monitor Report 2002, p. 104, and Landmine Monitor Report 2003, p. 110.
[13] Intervention by Belgium, Standing Committee on General Status and Operation of the Convention, Geneva, 25 June 2004.
[14] Statement by Belgium, Standing Committee on General Status and Operation of the Convention, Geneva, 7 February 2003 (Landmine Monitor notes). Belgium has stated this position in June 2000, March 2001 and March 2002. See also Landmine Monitor Report 2001, p. 613.
[15] Response of the Vice Prime Minister and Minister of National Defense, Jean-Pol Poncelet, public meeting of the National Defense Commission, 1 December 1998, ref: C 683, p. 2.
[16] Statement by Belgium, Standing Committee on the General Status and Operation of the Convention, Geneva, 11 May 2001.
[17] Statement by Belgium, Standing Committee on General Status and Operation of the Convention, Geneva, 31 May 2002 (Landmine Monitor notes). Regarding its failure to provide data for Germany’s information-sharing initiative in the CCW, Belgium said that the foreign producers of its antivehicle mines were better placed to provide this information.
[18] “Rapport 2001–2002,” Commission nationale pour l’élimination des mines antipersonnel (Paris: La Documentation française, 2003), and “Rapport 2000,” Commission nationale pour l’élimination des mines antipersonnel (Paris, La Documentation française, 2001).
[19] See Landmine Monitor Report 2001, pp. 614–615, and Landmine Monitor Report 2002, p. 106.
[20] See Landmine Monitor Report 2001, p. 612, and Landmine Monitor Report 2002, p. 105.
[21] “Belgium’s Position regarding Action against Anti-personnel Mines,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs, April 2000, p. 1.
[22] The types of antipersonnel mine produced were: NR409/PRB M409, PRB BAC H-28, PRB M35, NR 413, PRB M966, and NR 442. Belgian antipersonnel mines have been found in at least eight countries: Angola, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iraq, Namibia, Rwanda, Somalia, and Zambia. See Landmine Monitor Report 1999, pp. 541–543. Parliament was told that the last year of production was 1986, with 112,000 mines produced in 1983–1986, all for export. “Belgium’s Position,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs, April 2000, p. 1.
[23] Netwerk Vlaanderen, “Clusterbommen, landmijnen, kernwapens en wapens met verarmd uranium: Een onderzoek naar de financiële banden tussen banken en producenten van controversiële wapens” (“Clusterbombs, landmines, nuclear weapons and weapons containing depleted uranium: an investigation into the financial ties between banks and the producers of controversial weapons”), Belgium, April 2004; Ruben Mooijman, “Landmijnen ‘horen niet bij ING,” (“Landmines are not part of ING”), De Standaard (daily newspaper), 28 April 2004.
[24] “Le législateur veut nettoyer les sicav” (“Lawmaker wants to clean up investment funds”), La Libre Belgique, 20 May 2004.
[25] Email from Inez Louwagie, Network Vlaanderen, 22 September 2004.
[26] Philippe Mahoux, Proposition de loi du Sénateur Philippe MAHOUX visant à interdire le financement direct ou indirect de la fabrication, utilization ou la detention de mines antipersonnel, provided 15 July 2004.
[27] Telephone interview with Christophe Scheire, Netwerk Vlaanderen, 22 September 2004.
[28] See Landmine Monitor Report 1999, pp. 540–543, and Landmine Monitor Report 2001, p. 613.
[29] In December 1996, 313,472 mines were transported to Germany; in August 115,480 mines were transported to Germany; the Belgian Armed Forces also destroyed 4,489 mines in 1998. See Landmine Monitor Report 1999, pp. 543–546.
[30] Article 7 Report, Form D, 3 May 2004.
[31] Belgian response to LM Questionnaire, 26 February 1999; Article 7 Report, Form G, 3 May 2004.
[32] Statement by Belgium, Standing Committee on General Status, 16 May 2003.
[33] Interview with Belgian Ministry of Defense official, Geneva, 13 May 2003.
[34] Jean Lint, “Past and Future of the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention,” European Gala for Landmine Victims, Handicap International Belgium, Brussels, 19 March 2004.
[35] Article 7 Report, Form J, 30 April 2003; Response to the Landmine Monitor Questionnaire, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 4 April 2003. For mine action funding policy, see Landmine Monitor Report 2001, p. 617.
[36] Belgian response to LM questionnaire, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, March 2001, pp. 6–10.
[37] Article 7 Report, Form J, 3 May 2004. Exchange rate for 2003 of €1=$1.1315, used throughout this report. US Federal Reserve, “List of Exchange Rates (Annual),” 2 January 2004.
[38] See Landmine Monitor Report 2003, p. 112.
[39] Interview with Paul Huynen, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Geneva, 24 June 2004. This clarifies different funding data included in Belgium’s CCW Amended Protocol II Article 13 Report, Form E, 29 September 2003.
[40] Article 7 Report, Form J, 3 May 2004.
[41] Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Belgium is co-financing projects in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan,” Press Release, 3 July 2003; Salla Kayhko, “Clearing the way for a mine-free Tajikistan,” OSCE Newsletter, November/December 2003, Vol. XI No. 7, p. 18.
[42] Article 7 Report, Form J, 3 May 2004.
[43] Fax from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 15 June 2004.
[44] “Frankrijk en Luxemburg helpen België bij operatie in Congo, (“France and Luxembourg help Belgium to operate in Congo”), De Standaard, 24 January 2004.
[45] Data taken from past editions of Landmine Monitor Report, using US$ amounts at exchange rate for each year. Data after 2001 was not recorded for Belgium on the Mine Action Investments database, accessed at www.mineaction.org on 17 June 2004.
[46] CCW Amended Protocol II Article 13 Report, Form E, 29 September 2003. Landmine Monitor has reported Belgian R&D projects fully in previous years. See Landmine Monitor Report 2000, p. 585, Landmine Monitor Report 2001, pp. 619–621, and Landmine Monitor Report 2002, pp. 109–110.
[47] EUDEM2-SCOT 2003: International Conference on Requirements and Technologies for the Detection, Removal and Neutralization of Landmines and UXO, Brussels, 15–18 September 2003.
[48] CCW Amended Protocol II Article 13 Report, Form E, 29 September 2003; CCW Article 7 Report, Form J, 3 May 2004.
[49] Email from Lt. de Vaisseau Jean-Luc Trullemans, SEDEE-DOVO, 21 June 2004.
[50] “MunitieDepot eerste Wereldoorlog gevonden in Dadizele, DOVO haalt 1.500 artilleriegranaten boven” (“Munitions depot of World War I found in Dadizele”), De Standaard, 24 April 2004.
[51] See previous LM reports. In the 1990s, more than 200 tons of devices were destroyed each year.
[52] Email from Pierre Favresse, Commandant, EOD, SEDEE-DOVO, 28 June 2004. In a telephone interview on 23 January 2001, Capt. Muylkens of SEDEE-DOVO reported that in 2000 two people were killed and four firemen were injured by UXO.
[53] Telephone interview with Capt. Muylkens, SEDEE-DOVO, 23 January 2001.
[54] For Belgian military casualties from mines before 1999, see Landmine Monitor Report 1999, p. 550.
[55] Response to LM Questionnaire by Ministry of Foreign Affairs, April 2004, p. 6.
[56] Amended Protocol II Article 13 Report, Form E, 29 September 2003. For details of HI Belgium mine action programs, see also reports on Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, the DR Congo, and Laos, in this edition of the Landmine Monitor Report.
[57] In previous years, HI Belgium has launched the Landmine Monitor Report and given briefings on the new findings at NATO Headquarters, the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, and the Belgian Senate.
[58] Ruth Bottomley, “Crossing the Divide: Landmines, Villagers and Organizations,” PRIO, 1/2003.
[59] Estonia has since acceded to the treaty.
[60] HI, “De Verenigde Staten verklaren het gebruik van antipersoonsmijnen verder te zetten” (“US declare they will continue to use antipersonnel mines”) and “Nobel laureates condemn U.S. decision to keep antipersonnel mines,” 1 March 2004, see www.handicapinternational.be .
[61] Jean Lint, “Past and Future,” European Gala, HI Belgium, 19 March 2004.