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.
Donor Contributions in 2005
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.
Additional Mine Action-Related Funding in 2005
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.
Croatia provided KN192,769,625 ($32.4 million), or 57 percent of its total
mine action expenditures. Croatia’s 2005 contribution comes to more than
0.09 percent of its gross national income, or more than five times the highest
international donor contribution measured as a percentage of GNI.
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, national sources (including the Council of
Ministers, entity governments and cantons) provided KM17,753,131 ($11.3
million), about 44 percent of its total mine action expenditures, an increase
from 30 percent in 2004; this continued the trend of increasing national
contributions since 2002.
Mozambique provided 52.9 billion Meticais ($2.3 million), compared to 178
billion Meticais ($7.9 million) in 2004; contributions were partly in-kind and
tax-exemptions.
Azerbaijan contributed AZM3,498,623,400 ($740,120), an increase from
$255,000 in 2004.
Chile provided $680,217 for the National Demining Commission budget,
compared to $154,086 in 2004.
Thailand contributed Baht 18.21 million ($452,400) to the national mine
action center, less than half the Baht 38.21 million (about $950,000) provided
the previous fiscal
year.[111]
Chad provided $367,790 for national mine action in
2005.[112 ]
The Colombian government approved COP571 million (about $213,400) for the
national mine action program for the period July 2005 to June 2006, compared to
COP2.5 billion (about $934,100) for the period July 2004 to June
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.
Funding, Cooperation and the Mine Ban Treaty
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]
Donor Funding Policy and the Mine Ban Treaty
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.
Donor Coordination
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.
Integrating Mine Action Funding into Development Programming
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]
Funding Channels
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.
The UN Voluntary Trust Fund for Assistance in Mine Action (VTF), operated by
UNMAS, received total donor contributions of about $50 million including core
and multi-year funding in 2005. Funding was received for mine action in six
countries in 2005: Afghanistan, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea,
Lebanon and Sudan. UNMAS was also active in securing peacekeeping funding for
mine action from the UN.
The UNDP Thematic Trust Fund for Crisis Prevention and Recovery reported
receiving contributions totaling about $33.7 million for mine action in 14
countries in 2005. UNDP also funds its mine action programs through locally
administered cost-sharing agreements and trust funds with UNDP country
offices.
The UN Development Group (UNDG) Iraq Trust Fund is part of the International
Reconstruction Fund Facility for Iraq. In 2005, the UNDG Iraq Trust Fund
received $1 million in mine action funding from the Republic of Korea. In
February 2006, Greece contributed €1.9 million ($2.4 million) to mine
action in Iraq through the fund.
In 2006, the UN Trust Fund for Human Security (UNTFHS) began to direct
funding to mine action for the first time since its inception in 1999,
channeling more than $1.7 million to mine action in Sudan. UNTFHS is currently
a single donor trust fund that receives contributions exclusively from
Japan.[121 ]
The International Trust Fund for Demining and Mine Victims Assistance (ITF)
based in Slovenia received $27.8 million from 13 governments, the EC, UNDP,
local authorities, government agencies, and private donors in 2005. Funding was
directed to mine action in southeastern Europe and the Caucasus, principally
Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro and its province
of Kosovo, as well as Azerbaijan. The ITF has an arrangement whereby the US
provides matching funds for donations to mine action in southeastern
Europe.
The NATO Partnership for Peace (PfP) Trust Fund assists NATO partner
countries to fulfill their stockpile destruction obligations under the Mine Ban
Treaty. In 2005, the Partnership for Peace Trust Fund reported receiving a
total of €854,000 (over $1 million) from five countries for antipersonnel
mine stockpile destruction in Serbia and
Montenegro.[122 ]
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.
Mine Action Donors
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.
Donor Mine Action Funding by Year
1992-2005
$2.9 billion
2005
$376 million
2004
$399 million
2003
$339 million
2002
$324 million
2001
$237 million
2000
$243 million
1999
$219 million
1998
$187 million (incl. an estimated $9 m.)
1997
$139 million (incl. an estimated $35 m.)
1996
$132 million (incl. an estimated $34 m.)
1992-95
$258 million (incl. an estimated $41 m.)
The 1992-2005 total includes $50 million contributed by United Arab Emirates
to Lebanon 2002-2004, but individual year totals are not known.
Donor Mine Action Funding 1992-2005: $2.9 billion
United States
$708.3 million
European Commission
$422.6 million
Norway
$255.6 million
Japan
$217.3 million
United Kingdom
$175.3 million
Canada
$148.1 million
Germany
$144 million
Netherlands
$133.9 million
Sweden
$126.6 million
Denmark
$109.8 million
Switzerland
$79.9 million
Australia
$75.1 million
Italy
$56.5 million
Finland
$52 million
United Arab Emirates
$50 million
Belgium
$31.5 million
France
$28.6 million
Ireland
$16.3 million
Austria
$16.2 million
New Zealand
$12.4 million
Slovakia
$10.9 million
Spain
$10.1 million
Greece
$9.6 million
Other countries
$32.5 million
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.
Donor Mine Action Funding for 2005: $376
million[124]
United States
$81.9 million
European Commission
$51.5 million
Japan
$39.3 million
Norway
$36.5 million
United Kingdom
$21.4 million
Germany
$21.1 million
Canada
$20.5 million
Netherlands
$19.3 million
Switzerland
$12.1 million
Sweden
$11.7 million
Denmark
$11.3 million
Australia
$8.9 million
Slovakia
$7.2 million
Finland
$5.9 million
Italy
$4.5 million
Belgium
$4 million
France
$3.8 million
Austria
$2.2 million
Ireland
$2.2 million
Poland
$2 million
Spain
$1.9 million
Iceland
$1.5 million
Czech Republic
$1.4 million
Luxembourg
$1.3 million
South Korea
$1.1 million
New Zealand
$0.9 million
Slovenia
$0.4 million
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]
Figures do not include additional mine action funding by individual European
Union Member States.
EC R&D funding totaled an additional €1,090,000 ($1,356,941) in
2005, €460,000 ($572,148) in 2004, and €51 million from
1992-2005.
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.
Additionally, R&D totaled NOK3,983,375 ($618,421) in 2005, and
NOK2,250,000 ($333,833) in 2004; previous Norwegian expenditures on R&D are
not known.
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.
R&D totaled ¥811 million ($7.4 million) in
2005,[132 ]¥795 million
($7.35 million) in 2004, and ¥2,366 million ($21 million) from 1999 to
2005.
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.
Additionally, R&D totaled £1,777,563 ($3,235,165) in 2005-2006,
£1.2 million ($2.2 million) in 2004-2005, and £8.9 million ($14.6
million) from 1999-2000 to 2005-2006.
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.
Additionally, R&D totaled C$3.4 million ($2.8 million) in 2005, C$3.1
million ($2.4 million) in 2004, and US$16.3 million from 1998-2005.
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.
R&D: no funding was identified in 2005; 2004: €102,989 ($128,098);
figures not available for 2000-2003; 1993-1999: $5.1 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 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 has in the past funded a number of R&D programs (approximately
$24 million in 1994-1999 and $1.7 million in 2003), but the total value for 2005
is not known.
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.
Figures for 1992-1995 do not include bilateral contributions.
Denmark reported providing funding of DKK250,000 ($41,699) to the Nordic
Demining Research Forum for research and development in
2005.[143 ]It has funded other
R&D programs in the past, but the value is not known.
See Denmark country report for more details on mine action
funding.
The totals since 2000 include significant funds for the Geneva International
Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD), most of which could be counted as
R&D funding, but Landmine Monitor has not identified specific R&D
amounts. Swiss funding for the GICHD totaled $6.4 million in 2005, $6.1 million
in 2004, $5.23 million in 2003, $4.35 million in 2002, $3.3 million in 2001, and
$2.3 million in 2000, totaling some $27.7 million from
2000-2005.
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 has funded a number of R&D programs in the past, but the total
value is not known.
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 has also funded a number of R&D programs, but the total value is
not known.
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]
See Finland country report for more details of Finland’s mine action
funding.
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]
R&D totaled €456,314 ($568,065) in 2005, €1,090,215 ($1.36
million) in 2004, and $9.8 million from 1994-2005. In addition, multi-year
R&D funding of €905,960 ($1,127,830) was contributed by the regional
Flanders Government in 2005 for the APOPO project.
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.
R&D spending was not reported for 2005. In 2004, R&D contributions
totaled €1.4 million ($2.2 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 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 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 has funded R&D programs, but annual totals are not
available.
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
2005
$7.2 (SKK218.5 million)
2004
$3.5 (SKK101.9 million)
1996-2002
$230,000
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]
Other Mine Action Donors:
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 ]
Research and Development Projects Reported by Donors
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:
Canada: C$230,440 ($190,211), consisting of C$11,342 ($9,362) as a general
R&D contribution, and C$219,098 ($180,849) for a GICHD technology
officer;[180 ]
Denmark: DKK300,000 ($50,039) as a general contribution of R&D
funding;[181]
EC: €740,000 ($921,226) for R&D, information and
coordination;[182]
Norway: NOK3,800,000 ($589,952) for R&D including mechanical mine action
systems;[183]
UK: £300,000 ($546,000) for GICHD core support for research and
knowledge.[184]
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.
States and Victim Assistance
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.[192 ]In 2005, the ICRC
Special Appeal for Mine Action received contributions for its physical
rehabilitation programs totaling CHF17,800,000 ($14,286,861), compared to
CHF15.8 million ($12.7 million) in 2004. The 2005 total included CHF5,224,000
($4,192,953) from four countries (Belgium, Canada, Finland and Norway);
CHF405,000 ($325,066) from national societies (Australia, Norway and United Arab
Emirates); CHF955,000 ($766,514) from organizations including Rotary,
Soroptimist International and others; and CHF11,216,000 ($9,002,328) from
contributions to the annual emergency
appeals.[193]
The ICRC Special Fund for the Disabled expended CHF4,308,000 ($3,457,741) on
physical rehabilitation programs for people with disabilities, including
landmine survivors in 2005, an increase from the CHF4,074,085 ($3,278,150)
reported for 2004. In 2005, five countries (Canada, Liechtenstein, Norway,
Switzerland, and the United States via the Leahy War Victims Fund) contributed
CHF3,037,000 ($2,437,595); seven national societies (Germany, Ireland, Japan,
Monaco, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey) provided CHF745,000 ($597,961); and
private donors provided CHF255,000 ($204,671).
States also report contributions to victim assistance through the
Slovenia-based International Trust Fund for Demining and Mine Victims
Assistance. In 2005, the ITF expended $1,169,529 on victim assistance, or 4.2
percent of overall spending.[194 ]This represents an increase from $717,358 in 2004 (2.9 percent of overall
spending), but is significantly less than the $2,684,100 (10.8 percent) expended
in 2003. Expenditure for victim assistance remains far below the ITF target of
15 percent. In 2005, Norway, Slovenia and the United States contributed to
victim assistance through the ITF, compared with four countries in 2004 and
seven countries in 2003.[195]
Major Mine Action Recipients
Reliable information regarding major mine action recipients is even more
difficult to obtain than for mine action donors. According to available
information, the largest recipients of mine action funding over time have been
Afghanistan ($515 million since 1991), Cambodia ($256 million since 1994), Iraq
($253 million since 1993), Mozambique ($214 million since 1993), Angola ($177
million since 1993), Bosnia and Herzegovina ($163 million since 1995), Kosovo
($93 million since 1999), Lebanon (estimated at greater than $86 million since
2000), Sudan ($80 million since 2001), and Laos ($69 million since 1994). Sudan
was added to the list of largest recipients for the first time in this edition
of Landmine Monitor. Funding for Sudan more than tripled in 2005 compared to
2004.
The top recipients of mine action funding in 2005 were Afghanistan ($66.8
million), Sudan ($48.4 million), Angola ($35.8), Iraq ($27.8), Cambodia ($23.9
million) and Sri Lanka ($19.1 million).
Only in Sudan did mine action funding increase greatly in 2005 (up $33.4
million). Other notable increases in 2005 were seen in Guinea-Bissau ($2.5
million), Albania ($2.3 million), Uganda ($1.5 million), Abkhazia ($1.3
million), Lebanon ($1.3 million) and Burundi ($1 million).
Drastic reductions in mine action funding occurred in Iraq (down $30.9
million, or 53 percent), Afghanistan ($25 million, or 27 percent), and Cambodia
($17.7 million, or 43 percent). Other countries with substantial decreases in
2005 included Sri Lanka ($4.6 million), Bosnia and Herzegovina ($2.7 million),
Mozambique ($2 million), Jordan ($1.7 million), Tajikistan ($1.6 million) and
Colombia ($1.2 million).
Top Mine Action Recipients in 2005
Afghanistan
$66.8 million
Sudan
$48.4 million
Angola
$35.8 million
Iraq
$27.8 million
Cambodia
$23.9 million
Sri Lanka
$19.1 million
Bosnia and Herzegovina
$15.0 million
Croatia
$9.1 million
Mozambique
$7.9 million
Laos
$7.0 million
Lebanon
$6.5 million
Vietnam
$5.8 million
Democratic Republic of Congo
$4.9 million
Eritrea
$4.9 million
Albania
$4.8 million
Azerbaijan
$4.1 million
Somaliland
$3.7 million
Nicaragua
$3.5 million
Guinea-Bissau
$3.5 million
Abkhazia
$3.3 million
Ethiopia
$2.6 million
Yemen
$2.5 million
Colombia
$2.3 million
Burundi
$2.1 million
Cyprus
$1.9 million
Kosovo
$1.9 million
Uganda
$1.7 million
Serbia and Montenegro
$1.7 million
Nagorno-Karabakh
$1.3 million
Chad
$1.2 million
Chechnya
$1.0 million
Summary of Major Mine Action Recipient Funding Findings
Abkhazia—HALO’s operations in Abkhazia received about
$3.25 million in 2005. In 2004, HALO received less, about $2 million.
Afghanistan—Reports by donors indicate that 16 countries and the
European Commission contributed $66.8 million for mine action in Afghanistan in
2005. This represents a decrease of some 27 percent from the $91.8 million
provided by 16 countries and the EC in 2004.
Albania—Donors reported contributions totaling $5.32 million in
2005. In 2004, contributions totaling $3 million were reported.
Angola— In 2005, 17 countries and the EC reported contributing
$35.8 million to mine action in Angola, a significant increase from the $28
million contributed in 2004.
Azerbaijan—From donor reports, Landmine Monitor estimated that
Azerbaijan received international donations totaling $4.1 million for mine
action in 2005, compared to $3.21 million in 2004.
Bosnia and Herzegovina—Fifteen countries reported contributing
$15 million for mine action in BiH in 2005, much less than the $17.7 million in
2004.[196 ]Landmine Monitor
estimated that some $26.8 million was contributed to mine action in BiH in 2005
from both national and international sources.
Burundi—Landmine Monitor estimated that a total of $2.12 million
was contributed by three countries and the EC for mine action in Burundi in
2005, a large increase from 2004 ($1.1 million).
Cambodia—Fourteen countries reported contributing $23.9 million
in 2005. This is a significant decrease from donor funding for 2004 ($41.7
million by 13 countries and the EC). The decrease primarily reflected
Japan’s annual contribution falling from $18.7 million in 2004 to $4.5
million in 2005; the 2004 contribution had been a six-fold increase from
2003.
Chad—The only country to report funding for mine action in Chad
in 2005 was the United States, which contributed $1.17 million. In 2004, four
donor countries provided a total of $1.9 million.
Chechnya—In 2005, three countries reported providing $982,124
for mine action in Chechnya and surrounding regions, an increase from 2004
($804,066 from three countries and the EC).
Colombia—Seven countries and the EC reported contributing $2.33
million to mine action in Colombia in 2005. This was a decrease of some 34
percent from the $3.53 million for 2004.
Croatia—Eight countries and the EC reported contributing $9.08
million, a reduction from $9.82 million in 2004.
Cyprus—The EC provided €1.5 million ($1.87 million) for
demining in the buffer zone in 2005, as part of €4 million ($5 million) in
mine action funding since 2004.
Democratic Republic of Congo—Eight countries and the EC reported
contributing $4.86 million to mine action in the DRC in 2005. Five countries
and the EC donated $4.46 million in 2004.
Eritrea—In 2005, six donor countries reported contributing $4.85
million to mine action in Eritrea. Eight donor countries and the EC reported
contributing a total of $4.95 million in 2004. Mine action funding to Eritrea
has been decreasing since 2002.
Ethiopia—Six countries provided mine action funding totaling
$2.6 million to Ethiopia in 2005. In 2004, funding totaled approximately $2.3
million.
Guinea-Bissau—Two countries reported providing $349,187 for mine
action in Guinea-Bissau in 2005. In 2004, $998,771 was contributed by three
donors.
Iraq—Fourteen donors reported providing a total of $27.8 million
for mine action in Iraq in 2005, a decrease of more than half from the $58.7
million from 13 donors in 2004. US funding alone decreased $24 million.
Jordan—Three countries reported contributing $468,906 for mine
action in Jordan in 2005, a sharp decrease from 2004 when international donors
provided some $2.2 million.
Kosovo—Landmine Monitor identified six donors which contributed
a total of at least $1.89 million for mine action in Kosovo in 2005, an increase
from approximately $1.58 million by three countries in 2004.
Laos—Ten donor countries reported contributing a total of $7.2
million to mine action in Laos in 2005, a decrease from $8.13 million in 2004.
Mozambique—Twelve donor countries reported contributing a total
of $10 million to mine action in Mozambique in 2005, a decrease from some $12
million donated by 14 countries and the EC in 2004.
Nagorno-Karabakh—The Netherlands reported providing
€667,638 ($831,143) to HALO for mine clearance and MRE in
Nagorno-Karabakh. HALO’s budget for 2005 was approximately $1.33
million.
Nicaragua—Landmine Monitor identified at least $3.5 million
donated in 2005 for mine action in Nicaragua by six countries. In 2004, five
donor countries reported donating about $4 million. It is difficult to clearly
identify mine action funding for Nicaragua on an annual basis, because many
donors designate funds for the Organization of American States’ Central
America program and not Nicaragua specifically, and some provide multi-year
funding.
Serbia and Montenegro—In 2005, two international donors provided
approximately $1.7 million to mine action in Serbia and Montenegro (excluding
stockpile destruction funding), the same amount as in 2004.
Somaliland—Six donor countries reported providing $3.73 million
in mine action funding for activities in Somaliland (as distinct from Somalia)
in 2005, compared to $4.11 million in 2004.
Sri Lanka—In 2005, 10 countries and the EC reported $19.05
million in funding for mine action in Sri Lanka, a decrease from $23.6 million
contributed in 2004 by 12 countries and the EC.
Sudan—Landmine Monitor identified contributions in 2005 totaling
$48.4 million for mine action in Sudan, from 14 governments and the EC. This
was an increase of $33.4 million, more than three times the $14.97 million
provided by twelve governments and the EC in 2004. Most notably, Japan
contributed more than $19 million, compared to $1.2 million in 2004. Since
2001, mine action funding to Sudan has risen sharply each year: $2.2 million in
2001; $5.1 million in 2002; $9.5 million in 2003; $15 million in 2004; and $48.4
million in 2005.
Tajikistan—Landmine Monitor identified $924,168 in mine action
funding by three donors in 2005, a significant decrease from the $2.5 million
contributed by six donor countries and the EC in 2004.
Uganda—In 2005, five donors reported contributing a total $1.76
million for mine action in Uganda, a large increase compared with $228,539
reported by two donors in 2004.
Vietnam—In 2005, six countries reported providing $5.74 million
for mine action in Vietnam, an increase from the $4.92 million provided by four
countries in 2004.
Yemen—Six governments reported contributing approximately $2.46
million to mine action in Yemen in 2005, a decrease from $2.64 million in
2004.
[106] As of July 2006, only
eight donor countries had reported their funding contributions on the UN Mine
Action Investments database for 2005. Donor reporting to the UN database
(accessible at www.mineactioninvestments.org)
has declined over the last five years (18 in 2001, 11 in 2002, 10 in 2003, 12 in
2004, 8 in 2005). Fourteen States Parties reported mine action funding
contributions for 2005 in Form J of their Article 7 transparency reports, but of
these, only seven contained enough appropriate and detailed data to be useful
for analysis. Some funding data was contained in CCW Amended Protocol II
National Annual Reports. Other data was provided directly to Landmine Monitor
by donors. [107] In some cases, donors are
not reporting on calendar year 2005. Among the countries reporting for
different fiscal years are the US (October 2004-September 2005), Canada (April
2005-March 2006), UK (April 2005- April 2006) and Australia and New Zealand
(July 2005-June 2006). As in the past, donor funding information for Japan has
been disaggregated on a calendar year basis. [108 ] Unlike the past three
years when the increase in global mine action funding as expressed in US
dollars was inflated by the declining value of the dollar, in 2005 the
relative leveling of exchange rates against the US dollar means that the
decrease this year was not much influenced by the dollar’s value.
For example, the Euro increased in value by less than a 0.09 percent versus the
dollar in 2005, compared to an increase of about 10 percent in 2004. For the
Euro, Landmine Monitor has used these average rates: in 2005: €1 =
US$1.2449; in 2004: €1=US$1.2438; in 2003: €1=US$1.13; in 2002:
€1=US$0.95; and in 2001: €1=US$0.90. US Federal Reserve,
“List of Exchange Rates (Annual),” 3 January 2006. [109] Funding increased every
year since 1992, except for 2001 when Landmine Monitor reported a reduction of
$4 million while noting, “Given uncertainties and anomalies in gathering
mine action data, this reduction is not statistically significant. Indeed it is
at least partially attributable to fluctuating exchange rates with the US
dollar.” [110] UNMAS, “Annual
Report 2005,” pp. 60, 64. [111] For fiscal year 1 October
2005-30 September 2006. Average exchange for 2005: Baht 40.252 = US$1. US
Federal Reserve, “Foreign Exchange Rates (Annual),” 3 January 2006;
Landmine Monitor Report 2005, p. 570. [112] However, the Chad
government was reported to have failed to or delayed in delivering its pledged
share of mine action funding in 2005, adversely affecting operations during the
year. See report on Chad in this edition of Landmine Monitor. [113] Final Report of the First
Review Conference, APLC/CONF/2004/5, 9 February 2005, pp. 94-105. [114] See
www.gichd.ch/1067.0.html. [115] Statement by Canada,
Standing Committee on the General Status and Operation of the Convention,
Geneva, 8 May 2006. [116] Amb. Martin Dahinden,
(former) Director, GICHD, “Humanitarian Demining at a Crossroads: a
Farewell Lecture,” 1 July 2004. [117] Kristian Berg Harpviken
and Jan Isaksen, “Reclaiming the Fields of War: Mainstreaming Mine Action
in Development,” PRIO- UNDP Report, 2004, p. 43. [118] Email from Carly Volkes,
DFAIT, 7 June 2006. [119] Email from Andrew
Willson, Conflict and Humanitarian Affairs Department, DfID, 4 July 2006. [120] Email from Ellen
Schut, Arms Control and Arms Export Policy Division, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, 7 April 2006. [121] Email from Mayumi Watabe,
Human Security Unit, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
(OCHA), 15 June 2006. [122] Email from Anne Suotula,
Staff Officer for Trust Funds, Political Affairs and Security Policy Division,
NATO HQ, 6 July 2006. [123] Figures for the years
prior to 2005 are taken from Landmine Monitor Report 2005, with any
corrections received for earlier years. For 2004, increased funding reported in
corrected data by Australia and the UK offset decreased funding reported by the
EC. In most but not all cases, the figures for earlier years are calculated at
the exchange rates for those years. [124] Average exchange rates
for 2005, used throughout this report; €1 = US$1.2449, A$1 = US$0.7627,
US$1 = NOK6.4412, £1 = US$1.820, US$1 = C$1.2115, US$1 = SEK7.4710, US$1 =
DKK5.9953, NZ$1 = US$0.7049, US$1= ¥110.11. US Federal Reserve, “List
of Exchange Rates (Annual),” 3 January 2006. Average exchange rate for
2005: US$1 = CHF1.2459. US Federal Reserve, “List of Exchange Rates
(Annual),” 3 January 2006 used for CHF conversions other than FSD
financial reporting. Currency conversions are rounded throughout, which may
result in rounding-off addition differences. [125] The EC reported the total
of EU member state contributions and EC contributions as more than €147
million ($183 million). “EC contribution to Landmine Monitor 2006,”
30 June 2006. [126] Per capita funding
provides another perspective on mine action funding by donor countries. To
calculate these figures, the 2005 country funding amounts were divided by that
country’s population. Population numbers are from the World Bank, World
Development Indicators Database, “Population 2005,” 1 July 2006, www.worldbank.org,
accessed 1 July 2006. Not included in the country funding amounts, and
therefore not reflected in the per capita figures, are contributions to European
Union bodies subsequently dispensed as European Commission funding of mine
action. [127] Gross national income
(GNI) was formerly known as gross national product (GNP). GNI figures are from
the World Bank, World Development Indicators Database, “Total GNI 2005,
Atlas method,” 1 July 2006, www.worldbank.org,
accessed 1 July 2006.
[128] Emails from Laura
Liguori, Security Policy Unit, Conventional Disarmament, EC, June-July
2006.
[129] This figure has been
adjusted down by €4.09 million ($5.09 million) from the total in
Landmine Monitor Report 2005 based on newly available information. EC,
“Mine Actions in the World 2005,” p. 55; European Community’s
Contribution to Landmine Monitor Report 2005, by email from Nicola
Marcel, RELEX Unit 3a Security Policy, EC, 19 July 2005; emails from Laura
Liguori, EC, June-July 2006.
[130] Email from Annette A.
Landell-Mills, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 21 June 2006.
[131] Emails from Kitagawa
Yasu, Japan Campaign to Ban Landmines (JCBL), March–May 2006, with
translated information received by JCBL from the Humanitarian Assistance
Division, Multilateral Cooperation Department, 11 May 2005 and Conventional Arms
Division, Non-proliferation and Science Department, 11 April 2006. [132] Email from Kitagawa Yasu,
JCBL, with information from Nobuhisa Tsuchiya, Research Propelling Division, and
Mr. Saito, Mechanical System Technology Development Division, NEDO JST, 11 July
2006. [133] Email from Kitagawa Yasu,
JCBL, 10 August 2005, with translation of Ministry of Foreign Affairs
information sent to JCBL on 11 May 2005. [134] Email from Andrew
Willson, DfID, 20 March 2006; email from Debbie Clements, Directorate of Joint
Commitments, Ministry of Defence, 10 August 2005; email from Lt. Col. Robin
Swanson, Ministry of Defence, 22 May 2006. The 2004 figure is revised from the
£8.3 million ($15.3 million) reported in Landmine Monitor Report
2005. The amount was increased £2,913,231 ($5,339,952) to reflect
funding for the International Mine Action Training Centre in Kenya, but reduced
£155,133 ($284,359) for programs subsequently identified as R&D.
Average exchange rate for 2004: £1 = US$1.833, US Federal Reserve,
“List of Exchange Rates (Annual),” 3 January 2005. [135] Figures prior to 1998
only include CIDA funding.
[136] Mine Action Investments
database; email from Carly Volkes, DFAIT, 7 June 2006.
[137] Article 7 Report, Form
J, 27 April 2006; Mine Action Investments database. [138] Statement to the Standing
Committee on Mine Clearance, Mine Risk Education and Mine Action Technologies,
Geneva, 10 May 2006. [139] Figures prior to 1996 are
not available.
[140] Email from Ellen
Schut, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 7 April 2006; email from Brechtje
Paardekooper, DMV/HH Humanitarian Aid Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 18
April 2006.
[141] Article 7 Report, Form
J, 2 May 2006; emails from Sara Brandt-Hansen, Desk Officer, Department for
Global Security, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, March-May 2006.
[142] Mine Action Investments
database; email from Rita Helmich-Olesen, Humanitarian Assistance & NGO
Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 31 March 2006. [143] Mine Action Investments
database; email from Rita Helmich-Olesen, Humanitarian Assistance & NGO
Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 31 March 2006.
[144] Email from Rémy
Friedmann, Political Division IV, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 28 April
2006.
[145] Email from Katheryn
Bennett, AusAID, 30 June 2006.
[146] The amount for 2004 has
been revised upward by A$509,516 ($375,259) from the A$7,246,585 ($5.3 million)
cited in Landmine Monitor Report 2005 to include previously unreported
amounts of A$500,000 ($368,250) for victim assistance in Cambodia and A$9,516
($7,009) for mine detectors for Azerbaijan. Emails from Katheryn Bennett,
AusAID, July 2006. Average exchange rate for 2004: A$1 = US$0.7365, US Federal
Reserve, “List of Exchange Rates (Annual),” 3 January 2005.
[147] Emails from Manfredo
Capozza, Humanitarian Demining Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, March 2006.
Not included in this amount is $300,000 to UNICEF for MRE in Sudan as reported
by UNMAO. [148] The 2005 figure includes
an amount of €1,280,000 ($1,593,472) to Sudan reported by the Italian
Embassy in Khartoum, as well as €242,500 ($301,888) reported by the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs for Sudan.
[149] Mine Action Investments
database; email from Paula Sirkiä, Unit for Humanitarian Assistance,
Ministry for Foreign Affairs, 16 March 2006. [150] The UAE reported in the
UN Mine Action Investment database that it had spent the $50 million from
2002-2004 as follows: $1,631,715 for Phase 1 (minefield reconnaissance and
elimination of booby-traps); $24,766,000 for Phase 2 (clearance and elimination
of mines and UXO); $6,199,000 for Phase 3 (clearance and elimination of UXO);
$1,349,685 for purchasing demining machinery and other equipment; $3,342,800 as
a contribution to the UN office in South Lebanon; $476,538 for film and media
coverage of the project by Emirates Media Corp; and $12,234,262 for expenses of
the UAE Armed Forces and other administrative expenses. Mine Action Investment
database, www.mineaction.org, accessed 4
August 2005. [151] UNMAS, “Annual
Report 2005,” p. 61; National Demining Office, Lebanon Mine Action
Program, “Annual Report 2005,” Annex A; MACC SL, “Annual
Report 2005,” 14 February 2006; email from Christopher Clark, UN Chief
Technical Advisor/Programme Manager, MACC SL, 22 May 2006.
[152] Article 7 Report, Form
J, 26 April 2006; email from Dominique Jones, Conseiller, Ministry of Defense,
17 May 2006; email from Stan Brabant, Head, Policy Unit, Handicap International,
26 May 2006.
[153] Article 7 Report, Form
J, 26 April 2006; CCW Amended Protocol II Article 13 Report, Form E, 6 October
2005; information from Olivier Sigaud, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in email
from Timon Van Lidth, Handicap International, 29 June 2006. France included
funding to CNEMA (National Commission for the Elimination of Anti-Personnel
Mines) of €135,000 ($168,062) in its reporting for 2005; this funding has
not been included in past reports. [154] Article 7 Report, Form J,
26 April 2006; CCW Amended Protocol II Article 13 Report, Form E, 6 October
2005; information from Olivier Sigaud, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in email
from Timon Van Lidth, Handicap International, 29 June 2006. [155] Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, “Support for mine action - role in mine clearance and aid to
victims,” available at, www.diplomatie.gouv.fr, accessed 4 July 2006.
France has stated that it will present more detailed information regarding its
financial contributions to mine action through the EC at the Seventh Meeting of
States Parties in Geneva in 2006. Statement by Amb. François Rivasseau,
Permanent Representative to the Disarmament Conference, Standing Committee on
Mine Clearance, Mine Risk Education and Mine Action Technologies, Geneva, 10 May
2006.
[156] Article 7 Report, Form
J, 21 April 2006; emails from Therese Healy, Disarmament and Non-Proliferation
Section, Political Division, Department of Foreign Affairs, May 2006.
[157] Article 7 Report, Form
J, 27 April 2006; email from Alexander Kmentt, Deputy Director, Department for
Disarmament, Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, Federal Ministry for Foreign
Affairs, 27 April 2006. [158] Email from Alexander
Kmentt, Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs, 4 May 2006.
[159] Email from Helen
Fawthorpe, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 6 June 2006; email from Megan McCoy,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 6 June 2006. [160] Article 7 Report, Form J,
dated 4 May 2006; email from Henrik Markus, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 16 May
2006. Average exchange rate for 2005: SKK0.033 = US$1. Landmine Monitor
estimate based on information from www.oanda.com/convert/fxhistory. [161] Article 7 Report, Form J,
27 April 2006; email from Luis Gómez Nogueira, Sub-department for
International Disarmament, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Co-operation, 25
April 2006. [162] This is an estimate, as
Spanish funding of mine action has not been reported fully in all years. See
Landmine Monitor Report 2004, p. 748. [163] IRFFI, “Pledges
made to IRFFI and Iraqi reconstruction at the Expanded Donor Meeting of
IRFFI,” 18 July 2005; UN Development Group Iraq Trust Fund,
“Newsletter,” January 2006, p. 1. [164] Email from
François Berg, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Luxembourg, 30 March
2006. [165] Response to Landmine
Monitor from the Permanent Mission of the ROK to the UN in New York, 9 May
2006. [166] Emails from Irina Gorsic,
Counsellor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, June 2006. [167] Embassy of Iceland in
Washington DC, “Iceland Contributes 1,5 Million USD to a Prosthetics
Project in Northern Iraq,” Information Sheet 08/05, 28 April 2005. This
amount was not reported specifically as a mine action contribution by Iceland.
[168] Letters from Tadeusz
Chomicki, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 22 March and 8 May 2006. [169] Article 7 Report, Form J,
26 April 2006 [170] “Cooperation
between Flanders and Mozambique,” (in Flemish), p. 2, Flanders Official
website, www.flanders.be, accessed 3 June 2006; Geert Bourgeois, Flemish
Minister of Administrative Affairs, Foreign Policy, Media and Tourism,
“Answer to Question No. 42 from Sabine Poleyn from 13 January 2006,”
(in Flemish), Flanders Parliament Website, (no date), available at
www.vlaamsparlement.be, accessed 3 June 2006. [171] Email from Carly Volkes,
DFAIT, 7 June 2006. [172] Mine Action Investments
database; email from Rita Helmich-Olesen, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 31 March
2006. [173] Emails from Laura
Liguori, EC, June-July 2006. [174] Email from Kitagawa Yasu,
JCBL, with information from Nobuhisa Tsuchiya, Research Propelling Division, and
Mr. Saito, NEDO JST, 11 July 2006. [175] Email from Annette A.
Landell-Mills, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 21 June 2006. [176] DfID, “DFID funded
project develops groundbreaking anti-landmine device,” 5 April 2005, www.dfid.gov.uk, accessed 5 July 2006;
Cranfield University, “Cranfield leads development of next generation
anti-land mine device,” 29 March 2005. [177] ERA, “Successful
trials for ERA’s revolutionary mine detector,” (no date), www.era.co.uk, accessed December 2005. [178] Emails from Andrew
Willson, DfID, 20 March and 4 July 2006. [179] Office of the Secretary
of Defense, “Research and Development Descriptive Summary, Humanitarian
Demining, PE: 0603920D8Z,” February 2006, p. 291. [180] Email from Carly Volkes,
DFAIT, 7 June 2006. [181] Email from Rita
Helmich-Olesen, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 31 March 2006. [182] Emails from Laura
Liguori, EC, June-July 2006. [183] Email from Annette A.
Landell-Mills, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 21 June 2006. [184] Email from Andrew
Willson, DfID, 20 March 2006. [185] “The Zagreb
Declaration,” (Unofficial Version), Part III, 8, 2 December 2005. [186] Final Report of the First
Review Conference, APLC/CONF/2004/5, 9 February 2005, p. 27. [187] All amounts are expressed
in US dollars. This data was collated following an analysis by Landmine Monitor
of Form J attachments to Article 7 reports, and other data provided to Landmine
Monitor. Some of the figures for 2004 have changed since Landmine Monitor
Report 2005, as new information became available, and the 2004 total has
been adjusted to include only international donor contributions. Full details
are available on request. [188] UNMAS, “2005
Portfolio End-Year Review,” p. 6, www.mineaction.org, accessed 20 May
2005. [189] Statement by Amb. Bernard
Brassack, Permanent Representative of Germany to the Conference on Disarmament,
Standing Committee on Mine Clearance, Mine Risk Education and Mine Action
Technologies, Geneva, 10 May 2006. [190] Statement by Australia,
“Survivor Assistance,” Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and
Socio-Economic Reintegration, Geneva, 9 May 2006. [191] LSN, “Annual Report
2005,” p. 25. [192] It should be noted that
ICRC financial accounts are based on a calendar year whereas some donors have
different fiscal years. For the purposes of funding analysis, the contributions
are reflected in the year in which they were received by the ICRC. [193] ICRC Special Appeal Mine
Action 2004. Landmine Monitor analysis of KPMG Fides Peat,
“Assistance for Mine Victims, Geneva: Auditor's report on supplementary
information on the Special Appeal, Statement of contributions and expenditure,
Financial Statements 2004,” Appendix II and III, Geneva, 14 July 2005.
Average exchange rate for 2004: US$1 = CHF1.2428, used for CHF amounts not
contributed by the Swiss Government at a set rate. US Federal Reserve,
“List of Exchange Rates (Annual),” 3 January 2005. [194] Email from Luka Buhin,
Project Manager, ITF, 30 May 2006; ITF “Annual Report 2005,” p 18.
In ITF’s annual report for 2005, the total is slightly different
($1,140,809.46, or 4.12 percent) as one victim assistance project was
incorrectly counted as MRE. [195] Email from Luka Buhin,
ITF, 30 May 2006; email from Iztok Hočevar, Head of International Relations
Department, ITF, 18 July 2006. [196] Last year Landmine
Monitor estimated $18.8 million in mine action contributions for 2004, but that
total included contributions by SFOR, UNDP and various international
organizations in addition to donor governments and the EC.