by ahabia adamaly, sunil gupta, & vibeke hjortlund · 1 executive summary recommendations 1)...
TRANSCRIPT
Landmine Report 99 .doc Page 0 of 33
Create date: 03/21/99 11:36 AM Print date: 11/30/00 10:21 AM
A MATTER OF MINES:LIVING WITH THEM AND PAYING THE BILL
BY
ZAHABIA ADAMALY, SUNIL GUPTA, & VIBEKE HJORTLUND
December 29, 1998
Landmine Report 99 .doc Page 0 of 33
Create date: 03/21/99 11:36 AM Print date: 11/30/00 10:21 AM
A MATTER OF MINES:Living with Them and Paying the Bill
December 29, 1998
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................ 1RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................................................................................1SUMMARY OF FINDINGS.............................................................................................................................................3
RESULTS............................................................................................................................................................................. 6FINDINGS & INTERPRETATIONS ................................................................................................................................6
PATTERNS IN STATE DONATIONS TO THE UNITED NATIONS VOLUNTARY TRUST FUND FOR ASSISTANCE IN MINE
CLEARANCE (UNVTF)...........................................................................................................................................6SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................................ 6RATIFYING STATES.............................................................................................................................................................. 6LANDMINE AFFECTED ......................................................................................................................................................... 6PRODUCERS OF LANDMINES ................................................................................................................................................ 7PROBLEMS WITH THE UNVTF ............................................................................................................................................ 8
EVALUATING MAJOR STATE DONORS TO MINE ACTION ASSISTANCE 1996-1998 ................................................9SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................................ 9BENCHMARK FOR THE MAJOR STATE DONORS: TOP TEN STATE DONORS TO THE UNVTF ............................................. 9CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MAJOR STATE DONORS ......................................................................................................... 10WEALTH ............................................................................................................................................................................ 10OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE (ODA) LEVELS OF THE MAJOR DONORS ........................................................... 11ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO MINE ACTION ASSISTANCE 1996-1998 .............................................................................. 12MINE ACTION ASSISTANCE IN CONTEXT OF ODA AND GNP ........................................................................................... 14RECIPIENT STATES ............................................................................................................................................................ 16RECIPIENT STATES & THE LANDMINES PROBLEM............................................................................................................ 18PROBLEMS EVALUATING THE DATA OF THE MAJOR DONOR STATES............................................................................... 18
SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................................................... 18NON-REPORTING STATES ............................................................................................................................................. 18INCONSISTENCIES IN REPORTED CONTRIBUTIONS........................................................................................................ 19Inconsistencies Across States ........................................................................................................................................ 19Inconsistencies Within States ........................................................................................................................................ 20
CONCLUDING REMARKS ABOUT PROBLEMS EVALUATING THE DATA OF THE MAJOR STATE DONORS ........................... 21SELF-REPORTED DATA COMPILED FOR THE MINE ACTION SUPPORT GROUP (MASG) .....................................22
SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................................................... 22SELF-REPORTED TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO MINE ACTION............................................................................................ 22TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO MINE ACTION ASSISTANCE BY TYPE OF ASSISTANCE .......................................................... 23PROBLEMS WITH MASG DATA......................................................................................................................................... 23
THE MINE BAN TREATY & THE LANDMINES PROBLEM .....................................................................................25SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................................................... 25LANDMINE AFFECTED STATES .......................................................................................................................................... 25MINE PRODUCERS ............................................................................................................................................................. 27
ANALYSIS......................................................................................................................................................................... 28METHODS OF INVESTIGATION ....................................................................................................................................28
SUPPORTING INFORMATION ................................................................................................................................... 29DATA ........................................................................................................................................................................29
SOURCES .......................................................................................................................................................................... 30BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................30RESOURCES ...............................................................................................................................................................30
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATIONS
1) ESTABLISH A CENTRALIZED REPORTING MECHANISM THAT IS:A) TRANSPARENT: Publicly available records of all state mine action assistance, pledged and
disbursed, multilateral and bilateral, itemized by clear, internationally standardized criteriawould allow for accurate cross-country comparisons of mine action assistance. This will inturn facilitate international coordination for mine action programs.
B) COST-EFFICIENT: States will be more likely to participate in a centralized reportingmechanism for mine action assistance if they do not have to contribute heavily to itsadministration and upkeep. Such a mechanism should have a limited mandate and be set upat minimal administrative expense.
C) INDEPENDENT: States are more likely to volunteer data on mine action assistance if they areassured that such a mechanism is independent of any policy-making, coordinating,integrating, and administrative process that determines mine action assistance levels anddestinations.
2) EXPLORE THE POLICY REASONS AS TO WHY THE MAJOR DONOR STATES HAVE NOT
CONTRIBUTED MORE MINE ACTION ASSISTANCE TOWARD A BROADER RANGE OF SEVERELY
LANDMINE AFFECTED STATES 1:
A) A FEW STATES ARE RECEIVING THE MAJORITY OF STATE-TO-STATE ASSISTANCE2: Only 4
severely affected states are the primary beneficiaries of mine action assistance from themajor donor states we selected. It would be valuable to explore the policies of the donorstates to determine why their levels of mine action assistance to other severely landmineaffected states is less.
3) RESOLVE INCONSISTENCIES FOUND IN THE DATA COLLECTED:A) INTER-STATE: There were significant inconsistencies found between information we
received from states and that received by the US State Department in its Hidden Killers1998 report. This questions the validity of both sets of data.
B) INTRA-STATE: Significant inconsistencies were also found among agencies andspokespersons within states. These also require explanation and resolution.
4) PLACE THE MINE ACTION SUPPORT GROUP (MASG) DATA INTO CHRONOLOGICAL
PERSPECTIVE:A) IMPORTANCE OF DETERMINING TIME PERIODS: Placing this undated, but otherwise detailed,
information into chronological perspective is key to determining current patterns in statemine action assistance. Future MASG questionnaires should specify the time periodwithin which states must report all mine action assistance.
5) EVALUATE MINE ACTION ASSISTANCE IN ALTERNATIVE WAYS:a) One reliable way to evaluate level and type of assistance toward mine action is to measure
impact. This would not only involve analyzing inflows of money into a recipient country,but would entail measuring socio-economic improvements in the field over a time span of
1 As classified by the Mines Advisory Group, http://www.oneworld.org/mag/map2.html, October 28, 1998.2 Our definition of state-to-state mine action assistance in the context of the 10 major donor states we researched canbe found infra note 9.
2
mine action giving. For example, improvements in: the number of landmine survivors withprosthetics, the number of local personnel with training in demining, and the area of landcleared.
6) EVALUATE WHAT FORMS OF MINE ACTION ASSISTANCE ARE MOST EFFECTIVE
(BILATERAL, MULTILATERAL, CASH, OR IN-KIND):a) Given that there are a variety of ways to gauge the effectiveness of mine action
assistance, it could be useful to apply these criteria to the various forms of mine actionassistance. The MASG data and our data provide an opportunity to determine whetherbilateral, multilateral, cash, or in-kind assistance reveal patterns in effectiveness.
7) URGE LANDMINE AFFECTED STATES AND MINE PRODUCING STATES TO RATIFY THE MINE
BAN TREATY3:
a) A majority of states that are landmine affected have not ratified the treaty. The same is trueof states that produce anti-personnel mines. Until more of these states comply with theprohibitions of the Treaty, their viability as candidates for mine action assistance maycome into question.
3 The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines andon their Destruction.
3
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
1) PATTERNS IN STATE DONATIONS TO THE UNITED NATIONS VOLUNTARY TRUST FUND
(UNVTF) FOR ASSISTANCE IN MINE CLEARANCE
a) A majority of the states contributing to the UNVTF are:• States that have not ratified the Mine Ban Treaty• States that are not mine affected• States that produce anti-personnel (AP) landmines4
b) Problems with the UNVTF and UN record keeping• Contributions to the UNVTF and the UN generally are reduced by high
administrative and overhead costs• Other UN Agencies often have no separate record keeping of mine action revenues or
expenditures because contributions are rarely earmarked.
2) EVALUATING THE MAJOR STATE DONORS TO MINE ACTION ASSISTANCE 1996-1998
a) The top ten donors to the UNVTF were used as a benchmark to determine the majordonors to mine action• However, the UNVTF may not be the best benchmark for determining the major
donors
b) Characteristics of the Major Donor States: Japan, Denmark, Switzerland, Norway, USA,UK, Belgium, Germany, and Italy• Most of the states have signed and ratified the Mine Ban Treaty and are not landmine
affected.
c) Wealth and Official Development Assistance (ODA) of the Major Donor States• These states represent a large portion of world GNP• These states represent a large proportion of world ODA outflows
d) Annual Contributions to Mine Action of the Major Donor States 1996-98• The US is the largest contributor to mine action in absolute numbers
e) 1997 Mine Action Contributions in the context of GNP and ODA• Norway and Denmark are the largest contributors toward mine action as a proportion
of ODA and GNP.
f) Recipient States and the Landmines Problem• The Major Donor States have given bilateral mine action funding to 30 states, but the
assistance is skewed toward 4 out of a total of 16 severely landmine affected states5.
g) Problems Evaluating the Major Donor States• States could not or did not provide consistent, data oriented -- as opposed to policy
oriented -- responses.• Inconsistencies in Reported Contribution Levels fell across two levels.
⇒ Inter-State level: Between our data and data collected for Hidden Killers⇒ Intra-State level: Between data collected from different Agencies
4 Throughout this report we refer only to anti-personnel mines and no other type of mine.5 For classification of severely landmine affected states see supra note 1.
4
3) SELF-REPORTED DATA COMPILED FOR THE MINE ACTION SUPPORT GROUP (MASG).
a) Total self reported contributions• The data reveals that Sweden, the Netherlands, and Australia may also be among the
top major state donors to mine action
b) Types of Mine Action Assistance• 73% of assistance is directed toward demining efforts
c) Problems with the data• The data provided has no time frames and does not distinguish between in kind and
cash contributions. This makes a comparative analysis highly problematic.
4) THE MINE BAN TREATY AND THE LANDMINES PROBLEM
a) Characteristics of Treaty Signatories and Ratifiers• Most of the states that are landmine affected or that produce anti-personnel mines
have not yet ratified the treaty
5
UN HQVoluntary Trust Fund
managed byMine Action Service
OTHER INTER-GOVERNMENTALORGANIZATIONS
WB, EU, Regional bodies
INTERNATIONAL NGOsMines Advisory Group
ICRCHALO Trust
UN AGENCIESCountry-specific Trust
Fundsmanaged by UNDP
WHO - Victim AssistanceUNICEF - Mine Awareness
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE (USAID, DANIDA, etc)Mine Action Contributions:
$ and/or In-Kind; Earmarked and/or Integrated;Multilateral and/or Bilateral
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENTPublic: Dept. of Defense
Private: Universities, High tech firms
GGLLOOBBAALL MMIINNEE AACCTTIIOONN AASSSSIISSTTAANNCCEE
FIELD: Govt. & local organizationsMine Action Centers, Clinics
training local armies in humanitariandemining
DONOR STATEForeign Ministry pronouncements
Signed/Ratified Ottawa Convention
6
RESULTS
FINDINGS & INTERPRETATIONS
PATTERNS IN STATE DONATIONS TO THE UNITED NATIONS VOLUNTARY TRUST FUND FOR
ASSISTANCE IN MINE CLEARANCE (UNVTF)
SUMMARY
The UNVTF, managed by the Mine Action Service in the UN Secretariat, remains the onlycomprehensive, transparent and verifiable pool of funds dedicated to new mine action programs. Itreceives contributions from states, multilateral institutions, and individuals.
The majority of states that have contributed to the UNVTF since its creation in 1994 are states thathave not ratified the Mine Ban Treaty, are not landmine affected, and are states that manufacturelandmines.
RATIFYING STATES
Of the 37 states that have contributed to the UNVTF6, only 16 (43%) have ratified the treaty.However, of the over $37 million contributed to the UNVTF, over $30 million (80%) came fromstates that have ratified the treaty. In conclusion, the 16 states that have ratified the treaty are alsothe UNVTF’s largest contributors. The non-ratifying states, which constitute the majority, giveconsiderably less.
6 United Nations, http://www.un.org/Depts/Landmine/vtf.htm, October 7, 1998.
State Contributors to the UNVTF: Ratifiers
Ratifying States43%
Non-Ratifying States57%
Ratifying States
Non-Ratifying States
Sources of Contributions to the UNVTF: Ratifiers
Money from Ratifying States
80%
Money from Non-Ratifying States
20%
Money from Ratifying States
Money from Non-Ratifying
LANDMINE AFFECTED
Of the 37 contributing states, only 12 (30%) are landmine affected. In addition, over $28 million(75%) of the total $37 million contributed to the UNVTF came from states that are not landmineaffected.
7
State Contributors to the UNVTF: Landmine Affected
Non-Landmine Affected States
70%
Landmine Affected States
30%
Landmine Affected States
Non-Landmine Affected States
Sources of Contributions to the UNVTF: Landmine Affected States
Money from Landmine
Affected States25%
Money from Non-Landmine Affected States
75% Money from Landmine Affected States
Money from Non-Landmine Affected
PRODUCERS OF LANDMINES
Twenty-one of the contributing states (57%) manufacture landmines7. Of the over $37 millioncontributed to the UNVTF, nearly $24 million (63%) came from states that are landmine producers.
7 MineWeb Web Page, US Department of State, http://www.mineweb.org/html/profiles.html, Nov. 11,1998. Thesite does not specify whether the state is still currently producing anti-personnel mines or component parts.
State Contributors to the UNVTF: AP Mine Producers
Non-AP Mine Producing
States43%
AP Mine Producing
States57%
AP Mine Producing States
Non-AP Mine Producing States
Sources of Contributions to the UNVTF: AP Mine Producers
Money from Non-AP Mine
Producing States37%
Money from AP Mine
Producing States63%
Money from AP Mine Producing States
Money from Non-AP Mine Producing States
8
PROBLEMS WITH THE UNVTF
Channeling state funds to the field through the UNVTF has proved cumbersome and expensive.The UN’s Mine Action Service, which manages the VTF, withholds 13% of state contributionsto cover administration and overhead costs. Many donor states now prefer to place theircontributions directly in country level Trust Funds managed by the UNDP, which withholds 3%of such contributions for the same purpose. Operational responsibility for managing programs inthe field is now concentrated in the UNDP8.
Other UN Agencies (UNHCR, UNICEF, WHO) allocate state funds for mine action. However,there is no separate record keeping of mine action revenues or expenditures because contributionsare rarely earmarked. State donations to these agencies are usually recorded by country --donor/recipient -- or, as in the case of UNICEF, also by sector in very general terms such as‘Health’ or ‘Education’.
These Agencies’ many active branches in landmine affected countries may spend money on mineaction programs, but such specific data are not forwarded to their UN offices in New York.
Double counting problems arise as these UN Agencies are both contributors and recipients ofUNVTF funds.
8 Judy Grayson, Advocacy Specialist, UNDP Emergency Division
9
EVALUATING MAJOR STATE DONORS TO MINE ACTION ASSISTANCE 1996-1998
SUMMARY
Most of the major state donors to mine action have signed and ratified the mine ban treaty, are notlandmine affected, and still produce anti-personnel landmines.
These states represent both a large proportion of the world’s GNP and official developmentassistance outflows. In absolute numbers, the United States is the largest contributor to mine action;however, as a proportion of GNP and ODA Norway and Denmark's contribution exceeds that of theUS.
The major state donors are giving mine action assistance9 to 30 landmine affected states; however,the assistance is skewed toward 4 out of a total of 16 severely landmine affected states.
Some of the major state donors could not or did not provide consistent, data-oriented responsesregarding their mine action contributions. In addition, several inconsistencies were found in theirresponses both on an inter-state and intra-state level.
BENCHMARK FOR THE MAJOR STATE DONORS: TOP TEN STATE DONORS TO THE UNVTF
Our definition of the major state donors to mine action is based on the top ten contributors to theUNVTF. We selected the states who have made the largest contributions (completed payments andpledges) to the fund since 199410.
STATE PAYMENTS PLEDGES TOTAL1. JAPAN $7,875,865.00 $1,686,195.00 $9,562,060.002. DENMARK $4,946,714.54 $0.00 $4,946,714.543. SWITZERLAND $3,330,568.00 $345,000.00 $3,675,568.004. NORWAY $2,602,995.85 $0.00 $2,602,995.855. USA $2,200,000.00 $0.00 $2,200,000.006. CANADA $601,046.36 $1,450,000.00 $2,051,046.367. UK $1,825,175.00 $0.00 $1,825,175.008. BELGIUM $1,131,501.17 $480,000.00 $1,611,501.179. GERMANY $1,456,924.46 $0.00 $1,456,924.4610. ITALY $1,205,283.95 $0.00 $1,205,283.95
The use of the UNVTF as a benchmark to determine the top ten state donors to mine actionassistance is problematic. Three significant donors who submitted data to the Mine Action SupportGroup (MASG) are not correspondingly represented among the contributors to the UNVTF. Thesestates are: Sweden, Australia, and the Netherlands. Despite problems with the MASG data (seebelow) it does serve to indicate that perhaps the UNVTF does not accurately reflect the world’s topten donors to mine action.
9 Our definition of the major state donors’ state-to-state mine action assistance includes both assistance givendirectly to landmine affected states and assistance given to NGOs, IGOs, and other organizations but earmarkedtoward a specific landmine affected state.10 See supra note 6.
10
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MAJOR STATE DONORS
THE 10 MAJOR DONOR STATESSigned Treaty 9 90%Ratified Treaty 8 80%Landmine Manufacturer 7 70%Landmine Affected 3 30%Severely Landmine Affected 0 0%
WEALTH
The major donor states represent a large majority of the world's wealth. Of the nearly $30 trillionthat comprised the world's total GNP11 in 1997, over $18 trillion (62%) was produced by the majordonors.
World GNP & GNP of Major State Donors
All Other States38%
Top Ten UNVTF States62%
Top Ten UNVTF States Other States
Comparisons of Average 1996 per capita GDP (PPP)
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
per
cap
ita
GD
P $
US
Series1 $22,850 $5,038 $1,809 $6,200
Top Ten UNVTF Donors
Landmine Affected States
Severely Landmine Affected
StatesWorld
A comparison of the average GDP per capita (purchasing power parity) of the major donor states,landmine affected states, severely landmine affected states, and the world, is also insightful. Whilethe world GDP per capita in 1997 was $6,200, the average GDP per capita of the major donor stateswas $22,85012. In contrast, the 1997 average per capita GDP of landmine affected states was $5,038while the average per capita GDP of severely landmine affected states was $1,809.
11 The World Bank, The World Bank Development Report 1998/1999, p. 190-1,http://www.worldbank.org/wdr/wdi/wdi01.pdf, December 11, 1998, based on 1997 prices.12 Id.
11
OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE (ODA) LEVELS OF THE MAJOR DONORS
The major donor states also represent a majority of the world's ODA outflows. Of the $47.6 billionin world ODA outflows in 1997, $32.7 billion (69%) originated from the major donor states.
World ODA & the Top Ten UNVTF States
All Other States31%
Top Ten UNVTF States69%
Top Ten UNVTF States Other States
12
ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO MINE ACTION ASSISTANCE 1996-1998
TOTAL REPORTED MINE ACTION ASSISTANCE
STATE 1996 1997 1998BELGIUM 1.62 1.90 1.08CANADA 1.89
13 1.89134.24
14
DENMARK 7.78 5.24 4.53GERMANY 10.65 7.60 11.70
15
ITALY NA 3.50 9.6016
JAPAN 3.3916 4.741616.00
17
NORWAY 10.00 11.15 23.87SWITZERLAND 2.84 3.72 1.78
18
UK NA 8.2519 8.4016
USA 26.64 41.52 45.47TOTAL 64.81 89.51 126.67NA: Not Available. State did not respond to our inquiries, nor could we find othersources for their contributions for this year.
These figures include all mine action assistance: bilateral (state-to-state aid) and multilateral (stateto NGO, state to IGO, & state to other).
13 Pro-rated, based total reported spending from FY1994-FY1998. Does not appear to include funding to NGOs,IGOs, or other non-governmental bodies. However, FY1998 figures do include funding to NGOs, IGOs, or othernon-governmental bodies. Canada reported a different set of spending figures for FY1998 in addition to its totalreported spending for FY1994-FY1998 (see below- “Inconsistencies in Reported Contributions”).14 Pro-rated, based total reported spending from FY1994-FY1998. Also includes additional funding reportedseparately from $100 million fund established on Nov. 22, 1997.15 Includes DM 2 million from the Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development on top of DM 18 millionfrom the Foreign Office. For 1996 and 1997 Germany only provided figures for the Foreign Office.16 Not reported. Source: Hidden Killers, 1998, US Department of State, p. 114.17 Based on pro rating. Japan committed $80 million over next five years beginning in 199818 The Swiss Foreign Ministry provided this 1998 figure with the qualification that it is not representative of totalspending for this year. Total 1998 spending will be at least as much as, if not more than, 1997 spending, accordingto the Political Division’s Peter Reinhart.19 Not reported. Approximate figure. The UK estimates its mine action assistance to be approximately $8.25million/year from 1991 to l997. “Landmines & Poverty: Breaking the Link”, Department for InternationalDevelopment, UK, August 1998, p. 2.
13
Total Mine Action Contributions by State & Year
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
50.00
State
$U
S M
illi
on
s
1996
1997
1998
1996 1.62 4.20 7.78 10.65 0.00 3.39 10.00 5.05 0.00 26.64
1997 1.90 3.91 5.24 7.60 3.50 4.74 11.15 4.60 8.25 41.52
1998 1.08 2.35 4.53 11.70 9.60 16.00 23.87 1.78 8.40 45.47
Belgium Canada Denmark Germany Italy Japan Norway Switzerland UK US
14
MINE ACTION ASSISTANCE IN CONTEXT OF ODA AND GNP
While the 10 major donor states have disbursed and pledged over $ 89 million to mine actionassistance worldwide in 1997, this figure represents only 0.27% of the total ODA outflows fromthese states in 1997.
State by state comparisons of ODA, mine action spending, and GNP levels in 1997 also reveal therelative generosity of the major donor states in:
1997 Levels GNP in $USmillions
ODA Outflowsin $US Millions
Mine ActionContributions in
$US millions
ODA as a % ofGNP
Mine Action as %of ODA
Mine Action as% of GNP
BELGIUM 268,400.00 764 1.90 0.28465% 0.24933% 0.00071%
CANADA 583,900.00 2,146 1.89 0.36753% 0.08817% 0.00032%
DENMARK 171,400.00 1,635 5.24 0.95391% 0.32064% 0.00306%
GERMANY 2,319,500.00 5,913 7.60 0.25493% 0.12857% 0.00033%
ITALY 1,155,400.00 1,231 3.50 0.10654% 0.28432% 0.00030%
JAPAN 4,772,300.00 9,358 4.74 0.19609% 0.05065% 0.00010%
NORWAY 158,900.00 1,306 11.15 0.82190% 0.85397% 0.00702%
SWITZERLAND 313,500.00 836 3.72 0.26667% 0.44502% 0.00119%
UNITED KINGDOM 1,220,200.00 3,371 8.25 0.27627% 0.24473% 0.00068%
UNITED STATES 7,690,100.00 6,168 41.52 0.08021% 0.67322% 0.00054%
For example, while the United States reports the largest amount of mine action assistance of all themajor donor states, compared to its overall ODA spending and GNP in 1997 the United States’contributions to mine action are relatively small. In comparison, the mine action contributions ofDenmark and Norway are more generous.
15
1997 ODA as % of 1997 GNP
0.00000%
0.20000%
0.40000%
0.60000%
0.80000%
1.00000%
1.20000%
BELGIU
M
CANADA
DENMARK
GERMANY
ITALY
JAPAN
NORWAY
SWIT
ZERLAND
UNITED K
INGDOM
UNITED S
TATES
OD
A a
s %
of
GN
P
1997 Mine Action Assistance as % of 1997 GNP
0.00000%
0.00100%
0.00200%
0.00300%
0.00400%
0.00500%
0.00600%
0.00700%
0.00800%
BELGIU
M
CANADA
DENMARK
GERMANY
ITALY
JAPAN
NORWAY
SWIT
ZERLAND
UNITED K
INGDOM
UNITED S
TATES
Per
cen
tag
e o
f G
NP
16
RECIPIENT STATES
The 10 major donor states have reported giving mine action assistance to 30 landmine affectedstates from 1996-1998.
Recipient $US Millions1. Bosnia Herzegovina 35.662. Angola 24.883. Afghanistan 21.324. Cambodia 21.305. Laos 12.956. Rwanda 7.557. Mozambique 7.198. Namibia 4.859. Eritrea 4.3310. Ethiopia 4.1111. Yemen 2.9012. Chad 2.3013. Zimbabwe 2.3014. Jordan 2.2615. Croatia 1.2216. Lebanon 1.2017. Iraq 1.0318. Russia (Chechnya only) 0.7719. Somalia 0.4420. Egypt 0.3021. Zaire 0.2722. Swaziland 0.2123. Nicaragua 0.1624. South Africa 0.1525. Vietnam 0.1426. Azerbaijan 0.1327. Ecuador 0.1028. El Salvador 0.0929. Honduras 0.0930. Georgia 0.04
17
Recipients of Mine Action from the Major State Donors 1996-1998
Angola15.53%
CAMBODIA13.30%
Laos8.08%
Other9.29%
Iraq0.64%
Jordan1.41%
Lebanon0.75%
Mozambique4.48%
Afghanistan13.31%
NAMIBIA3.03%
Swaziland0.13%
Viet Nam0.09%
Zaire0.17%
Yemen1.44%
Zimbabwe1.81%
SOUTH AFRICA0.09%
Somalia0.27%
Rwanda4.71%
Russia (Chechnya only)0.48%
NICARAGUA0.10%
Bosnia Herzegovina22.26%
Azerbaijan0.08%
El Salvador0.05% Eritrea
2.70%Honduras
0.05%Egypt0.19%
Ecuador0.06%
Chad1.44%
CROATIA0.76%
Ethiopia2.57%
Georgia0.02%
Afghanista
Angola
Azerbaijan
Bosnia Her
CAMBODIA
Chad
CROATIA
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvado
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Iraq
Jordan
Laos
Lebanon
Mozambiqu
NAMIBIA
NICARAGU
Russia (Ch
Rwanda
Somalia
SOUTH AF
Swaziland
Viet Nam
Yemen
Zaire
18
RECIPIENT STATES & THE LANDMINES PROBLEM
The data indicate that the major donors are directing their assistance especially to states that areseverely landmine affected. However, it also reveals that this mine action assistance from the majordonors is heavily skewed toward only a handful of these states.
DISTRIBUTION OF MINE ACTION FROM THE 10 MAJOR DONORS: 1996-1998Receiving Aid Not Receiving Aid Total
Number % Number % Number %Landmine Affected 56 35% 30 65% 86 100%Severely LandmineAffected
12 75% 4 25% 16 100%
The following severely landmine affected states have not received any mine action assistancefrom the major donors: Iran, Sri Lanka, Sudan, and China.
While it appears that the major donor states are giving to most of the severely landmineaffected, the data indicates that 64.4% of the total mine action assistance from the major donorssince 1996 is going to only 4 states: Afghanistan, Angola, Bosnia, and Cambodia. The remaining35.6% is being allocated among 26 different states.
Of these remaining 26 states, eight are classified as severely landmine affected20. These 8severely affected states received 16% of the total mine action assistance from the major donorssince 1996, but they represent 71% of all uncleared mines in severely affected states21 (69%according to US State Department estimates).
PROBLEMS EVALUATING THE DATA OF THE MAJOR DONOR STATES
SUMMARY
States could not or did not provide consistent data oriented, as opposed to policy oriented,responses.
NON-REPORTING STATES
Three of the 10 states we chose for in-depth study were either unwilling or unable to documenttheir public commitments toward mine action assistance, even in a rudimentary fashion (e.g.providing total annual expenditures from 1996-1998). These three states are Japan, Italy, and theUK.
Of these three, Japan and the UK have been significant, longstanding contributors. Japan hascontributed $31.54 million since 1989; the UK has contributed approximately $55.2 million since199122. These states have had over eight years to develop systematic mechanisms for coordinatingand reporting their mine action contributions at the intra-state (inter-agency) and inter-state level.
20 China, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Laos, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, and Vietnam.21 Based on UN Estimates. See Hidden Killers, 1998, US Department of State, p. A-1,2.22 US: HK 1998, p 114; UK DFID: “Landmines and Poverty”, p 4.
19
Besides Canada (which announced, in November 1997, a five-year pledge of $CAN 100 million),Japan and the UK have also been the largest “new” pledgers since Ottawa. Japanese pledges jumpedmore than 400%, from an estimated $3.5 million annually since 1989 to a projected pro-ratedamount of $16 million annually from 1998-2002. UK pledges are projected to increase by 100%after 1998, from 5 to 10 million pounds annually by 2001.
These states did provide lump sum rather than fiscal/calendar year contributions, with time spansdescribed as “since 1989” and “by 2001” that don’t specify the inclusive years. Predicting reliableannual contributions is also difficult since one government is not bound by the aid commitments ofits predecessor. The UK’s stated projections for future mine action, from the current £5 million ayear, are illustrative. It claims that “By 2001” mine action assistance “will rise to £10 million ayear”23 and that the UK is “doubling its budget to £10 million over the next three years.”24
Estimating the UK’s 1999 and 2000 contributions from these public statements is problematic.More importantly, the UK provided no complete information as to where its spending has been andwill be directed.
The non-response from advanced industrialized countries such as the UK and Japan show thatthere is no correlation between variables such as a donor’s institutional capacity, the length of timeit has been involved in mine action, the size of its contributions, and its ability and willingness topublicly document its mine action assistance.
INCONSISTENCIES IN REPORTED CONTRIBUTIONS
Inconsistencies Across States
INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN DATA COLLECTED & DATA COLLECTED FOR HIDDEN KILLERS
199825
1996-Reported
1996-HiddenKillers
1997-Reported
1997-HiddenKillers
1998-Reported
1998-HiddenKillers
BELGIUM 1.62 1.02 1.90 3.91 1.08 1.22CANADA 1.89 4.20 1.89 3.91 4.24DENMARK 7.78 6.54 5.24 4.95 4.53 2.00GERMANY 10.65 10.70 7.60 9.00 11.70 28.10ITALY NR 3.50 NR 9.60JAPAN NR 3.39 NR 4.74 NRNORWAY 10.00 11.15 23.87 12.00SWITZERLAND 2.84 3.72 1.78 3.70UK NR NR NR 8.40USA 26.64 32.80 41.52 44.50 45.47 91.80TOTAL 61.42 58.65 76.52 71.01 92.67 156.82NR: Not Reported. State did not respond to our inquiries.
A few considerations may be relevant. First, there could be differences in the reported figures sincesome of our states (Canada and the US) could provide us only with spending by fiscal year. It is
23 “Landmines and Poverty.” P 224 UK Foreign Office web site, press release of 10/29/9825 Hidden Killers- 1998, US Department of State, 1998, p. 114.
20
unknown if the data from Hidden Killers were subject to the same problems. It is possible that thefigures for 1998 represented only projected spending. Second, our reported figures are convertedbased on exchange rates from the week of November 23, 1998. We do not know what exchangerates the State Department may have used. Third, the inconsistencies may be due to errors on ourpart, the reporting government officials, and/or the US State Department. Fourth, concerning 1998spending there may be gaps between what states have committed to mine action and theirdisbursements, because, as in the case of Switzerland, governments may not yet have their datacompiled and accessible for the public.
On the fourth point, the case of Belgium provides a cogent example. According to the Belgiangovernment,
"[w]e make a distinction between the programming of financial resources for accepted projects and theactual disbursements. Nota (sic) that our term "programming" refers to a financial commitment to disbursemoney if no objections are made by the Belgian Department of Finance nor by the Court of Auditors."
26
Therefore, presumably other departments within the government may later veto earliercommitments made by the Belgian government toward mine action. As a result, if we add up theBelgian figures for spending commitments in 1997, we receive a total of $3.5 million, which ismuch closer to the $3.91 million reported in Hidden Killers 1997. This problem could also be trueof many other major state donors.
Inconsistencies Within States
Data problems in our research even appeared from different sources within the same government.The Canadian government, for example, gave us two reports- one covering FY1998, the othercovering FY1994-FY1998. While these reports overlapped, there were inconsistencies found inspending levels for Canadian assistance to Bosnia and Mozambique27. In another case, our contactin the US Department of Defense provided handwritten figures for fiscal year 1998 spending onmine action for the DoD28. However, many of these figures conflicted with the DoD's own web sitedocumenting its contributions to mine action29. While some of the differences were minor, each ofthese sources had left out entire states30.
Complicating this problem for the US, is that the United States provides mainly in-kindcontributions toward mine action. This is composed of contributing military equipment, supplies,
26 Jan Vanheukelom, Unit on Conflict & Peace, Belgium Ministry of Defense, Faxed Statement, dated December 8,1998.27 Kerry Brinkert, Assistant Director, Arms Control and Disarmament Division, Mine Action Team, Government ofCanada, Faxed Statement, dated December 15, 1998 and MASG questionnaire dated November 18, 1998. Unfortunately,due to the holidays, we were unable to seek clarification regarding these inconsistencies. It was presumed, however, thatthe reported spending for FY1998 for Bosnia and Mozambique was allocated from Canada’s $100 million pledge fund-separately from the total allocation reported in its FY1994-FY1998 report.28 Dale Sampson, Defense Security Cooperation Agency, US Department of Defense, Faxed Statement datedNovember 5, 1998.29 DoD's Humanitarian Demining Program, http://www.demining.brtrc.com/policy/news/dodprgm.htm, November25, 1998.30 In resolving conflicts between the two sources, direct figures conflicts resulted in use of the DoD website data.Figures and states absent from one source were relied on from the other source.
21
and military training to local state militaries in order to strengthen domestic demining efforts31.Therefore placing an exact value on these types of mine action may be problematic. The USconsiders the costs of anything related to mine action to be outside the normal operating costs of theUS military. Therefore, the value of military demining training is determined by the additionaloperating costs of bringing the trainers to the site, salary, equipment expended or donated, and foodand lodging while US trainers are on site. This could permit the US to under- or over-report its mineaction spending.
Germany provides another example of how states channel their funds through different offices,thus making it difficult to get a complete overview of the overall commitment. Upon our request,the German Foreign Office informed us that Germany spent DM 18 million in the field of bilateralmeasures of humanitarian mine action. However, in the information to the Mine Action SupportGroup, Germany includes both the DM 18 million from the Foreign Office and DM 2 million fromthe Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development in its bilateral contributions, giving us agrand total of DM 20 million. Similar inconsistencies might affect the 1996 and 1997 figures.
Furthermore, the EU member states also contribute to mine related projects through the EuropeanUnion. Some, i.e., Germany, like to include a calculation of those contributions based on their shareof the EU budget in their overall figures to specify their total engagement. For Germany thatamounts to approximately DM 30 million in 1998 (based on Germany’s 28 pct. share of the EUbudget). This is 50%. more than Germany’s bilateral contribution of DM 20 million for that year.We have not included EU contributions in our data. But it may be relevant to do so, especially inorder to gauge and compare the engagement of EU members with states in other parts of the worldsuch as the USA, Canada and Japan.
CONCLUDING REMARKS ABOUT PROBLEMS EVALUATING THE DATA OF THE MAJOR STATE DONORS
The inconsistencies and failures to respond to our queries lend credence to the off-the-recordconcerns expressed by different sources -- a government aid agency official, UN officials as well asNGOs -- that there is a gap between the financial commitments made by some states for mineaction, and their actual disbursements. There is currently no way to document the claim implied insome governments’ statements, that their increase in mine action assistance is “new” money. Onemajor donor acknowledged off the record that this is rarely the case; such commitments usuallyrepresent a reallocation of existing humanitarian assistance.
States should cooperate to establish a single, public reporting mechanism of all their mine actionassistance -- multilateral and bilateral -- so that their pledges and public commitments toward mineaction can be verified.
31 Telephone conversation with Dale Sampson, see note 28, supra, November 3, 1998.
22
SELF-REPORTED DATA COMPILED FOR THE MINE ACTION SUPPORT GROUP (MASG)
SUMMARY
The Mine Action Support Group has compiled the most recent and detailed data, made availableto it by states, on global mine action programs. Breakdowns are provided by donor, recipient,agency, funds committed, and type of assistance.
MASG was formed by donor states to improve coordination among their various mine actionprograms. The Norwegian Mission to the UN convened the first MASG donors activity meeting inNew York on November 16, 1998. Prior to this meeting, the Norwegian government requestedstates to submit completed questionnaires on their mine action programs. The received statementswere compiled and distributed to attendees. (Attached)
UNMAS has been requested by the MASG’s members to take on responsibility for coordinationand information sharing on global mine action. To this end, it has been asked to “prepare a financialstatement related to mine action for distribution to the donor community” on an annual basis.32 Pastefforts by UNMAS to take on a monitoring role, however, have failed.
The MASG data reveal that Sweden, the Netherlands, and Australia may also be among the topmajor state donors to mine action. It also reveals that a majority of the assistance given by reportingstates is going to demining efforts. However, the data provided has no time frames and does notdistinguish between in kind and cash contributions. This makes a comparative analysis highlyproblematic.
SELF-REPORTED TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO MINE ACTION
M ajor donors for m ine action
UKUS
Austra liaAustria
Belg iumCanada
Denm arkEU
FinlandG erm any
Ire landJapan
Luxem bourg
SwitzerlandSweden
NorwayNetherlands
0 10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
m illions U S$
32 MASG Information Packet, p 10
23
TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO MINE ACTION ASSISTANCE BY TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Areas of support in global mine action assistance
Demining73%
Demining integratedwith other
programs:16%
Victim Asst / Rehab: 7% Administration /
Coordination:1%
Other integrated programs: 0.3%
General Contribut:1%
Awareness /Education:2%
Other:2%
PROBLEMS WITH MASG DATA
Cross-country comparisons from MASG data are not reliable for several reasons. Firstly, statesdid not report contributions for the same years. Secondly, states did not report their contributionsover a consistent time span. The questionnaire sent out by the Norwegian Mission did not request aspecific cutoff start and end date.
The disparity in the time span applicable to these self-reported figures is obvious when they arecompared to the annual contributions of the states reported elsewhere. Japan allocated $3.1 millionaccording to MASG data, which corresponds to its average contribution for a single year since198933. The US allocated $173 million according to MASG data, and this corresponds to anestimated total of its average annual contributions over a 4-5 year period34.
Thirdly, states did not itemize in kind/cash and bilateral/multilateral contributions. States giving in-kind contributions can inflate mine action assistance estimates. (see section ‘Problems Evaluatingthe Major Donor States’). Bilateral assistance makes verification of disbursements to the recipientcountry difficult, because NGO recipients are under no obligation to disclose such funding sourcesand donors are under no obligation to make their data and classifications consistent with that of
33 $31.54/9 = 3.5. From HK 1998, p 11434 The US has contributed “$236 since 1993” averaging $47.2 million/year. From HK 1998, p 114
24
other countries or donor organizations. Multilateral assistance, on the other hand, like the UNVTF,generates publicly accountable record keeping, which facilitates cross-country comparisons.35
The US case is illustrative. We have to take their seemingly very high estimate of $173 million atface value, as their contributions are both bilateral and in-kind. Furthermore there is no standarddefinition of what the prevalent US mine action classification “developing indigenous capacity”constitutes. The proportion and value of skills and equipment transfer that actually takes place atthe indigenous level is unclear.
Therefore, while bilateral, in-kind contributions are a valuable source of mine action assistance, theactual numbers are, according to one source, “highly suspect,” both for themselves and for thepurpose of cross-country comparisons.
35 Leon Terblanche, UNDP
25
THE MINE BAN TREATY & THE LANDMINES PROBLEM
SUMMARY
While the Mine Ban Treaty has had tremendous success in gaining 133 signatories and 57 ratifierswithin its first year36, it has not yet been ratified by a large majority of states that are mine affectedand states that are anti-personnel (AP) mine producers. Therefore, most of the states that are boththe source of the landmine problem and affected by landmines are not covered by the treaty'sprohibitions on use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of mines.
LANDMINE AFFECTED STATES
While 48 (54%) of the 86 states that are considered to be landmine affected37 have signed the MineBan Treaty, only 20 (21%) of these 86 states have ratified it. Of the 16 states that are classified asseverely landmine affected, only three (19%) have ratified the treaty.
36 Mines Action Canada, http://www.minesactioncanada.com/map.cfm, December 14, 1998.37 Hidden Killers, 1998, US Department of State, 1998, p. A-1,2.
Number of Severely Landmine Affected Countries who have Ratified the Treaty
Ratified19%
Unratified81%
Ratified
Unratified
Total Population of Severely Landmine Affected Countries represented by Ratification
Ratified2%
Unratified98%
Ratified
Unratified
26
In terms of the total population of the 16 severely landmine affected states, only 139 millionpeople (9%) of the 1.6 billion people who live in severely landmine affected states live in states thathave signed the treaty38. Only 26 million people (2%) of the 1.6 billion people who live in severelylandmine affected states live in states that have ratified the treaty39.
TOTAL NUMBER OF MINES IN LANDMINE AFFECTED STATES
Total Mines in World Total Mines in Ratified StatesNumber Number % of Total
UN Estimates40 108,738,435 9,509,390 9%
US State Department Estimates41 93,299,741 3,031,093 3%
TOTAL MINES IN SEVERELY LANDMINE AFFECTED STATES
Total Mines Total Mines in Ratified StatesNumber Number % of Total
UN Estimates42 102,108,297 6,108,297 6%
US State Department Estimates43 87,910,000 1,885,000 2%
38 Population figures are for July 1997, obtained from 1997 CIA World Fact Book,http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/country-frame.html, November 11, 1998.39 Even if the population figures for China are excluded entirely, only 6% of the total population of severelylandmine affected states are represented by the treaty ratifications.40 Figures for only 36 of the total 86 landmine affected states available. See Hidden Killers, 1998, US Department ofState, p. A-1,2.41 Figures for 50 of the total 86 landmine affected states available. Hidden Killers, 1998, US Department of State, p.A-1,2.42 Figures for 14 of all 16 Severely Landmine Affected States available. See Hidden Killers, 1998, US Departmentof State, p. A-1,2.43 Figures for 15 of all 16 Severely Landmine Affected States available. See Hidden Killers, 1998, US Departmentof State, p. A-1,2.
27
MINE PRODUCERS
Of the 43 mine producing states44, 29 have signed the treaty while only 17 have ratified.
44 See supra note 7. Again, the source does not specify whether the state is still currently producing anti-personnelmines or component parts.
Number of AP Landmine Producing Countries who have signed the Treaty
Signed67%
Unsigned33%
Signed
Unsigned
Number of AP Landmine Producing Countries who have ratified the Treaty
Unratified60%
Ratified40%
Ratified
Unratified
Anti-personnel mine producing states that have not yet ratified the Mine Ban Treaty:
1) Argentina2) Brazil3) Cambodia4) Chile5) China6) Cuba7) Czech Republic8) Egypt9) Finland
10) Greece11) India12) Iran13) Iraq14) Israel15) Italy16) Netherlands17) Poland18) Portugal
19) Romania20) Russia21) South Korea22) Spain23) Taiwan24) United States25) Vietnam26) Yugoslavia
28
ANALYSIS
METHODS OF INVESTIGATION
1. Internet research of recent press releases and newspaper, magazine and wire service articles.
2. Gathering of publications from organizations and states.
3. We decided to use the UN Voluntary Trust Fund as a benchmark in our own data-collection. Wecontacted the top 10 donor states to request data for their contributions to all mine relatedprojects for 1996, 1997 and 1998 plus, to the extent possible, a break-down on recipientcountries. We conducted personal and telephone interviews and corresponded via fax, mail andemail with representatives from the Permanent Missions to the UN, Foreign Ministries and otherrelevant departments of the states. For non-responsive states we used figures collected by theUS State Department and presented in the report "Hidden Killers" to complete the picture.
4. Heads of Demining/Humanitarian Relief Agencies were interviewed.
5. Data were gathered from the UN, OECD, the US State Department, the US Department ofDefense, the Mines Advisory Group, and the CIA for purposes of further analysis andcomparisons. The data were compiled into Excel spreadsheets and tables.
29
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
DATA
1. UNVTF Chart
2. Database of Country Characteristics of all Signatories to the Landmines Treaty, UNVTFContributing State Parties, and Landmine Affected States.
3. MASG Information Packet
4. Responses received from states
5. Complete database compiled on the basis of the above information
6. UNDP classification of Responsibility within UN system for Mine Action Programs
7. Copy of relevant pages of DFID publication on UK mine action assistance.
8. Copy of tables used from Hidden Killers report.
All of the above data can be found attached to the end of this report.
30
SOURCES
BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
1. 1997 CIA World Fact Book On-Line, http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/country-frame.html.
2. "Hidden Killers 1998: The Global Landmine Crisis", US Department of State- Bureau ofPolitical-Military Affairs, Office of Humanitarian Demining Programs, 1998.
3. MineWeb Web Page, US Department of State, http://www.mineweb.org/html/profiles.html,November 11,1998.
4. UN Demining Web Page, http://www.un.org/Depts/Landmine/index.html, November 15,1998.
5. Government of Japan website:http://www2.nttca.com:8010/infomofa/policy/global/landmine/index.html
6. UK government website: http://www.mod.uk/
7. "Years, Not Decades: Agenda for Mine Action II" Chair's Summary, presented at MineAction Coordination Workshop convened by Canadian Foreign Ministry, Ottawa. March23/24 1998.
8. "Landmines and Poverty" published by the UK Department for International Development,August 1998
9. Transcript of Dublin meeting for Landmine Monitor
10. OECD, 1997 figures for Official Development Assistancehttp://www.oecd.org/news_and_events/release/nw98-64a.htm
11. United Nations Mine Action Service: UN Voluntary Trust Fund contributors, breakdowns ofindividual state-giving since its establishment in 1994.
12. US State Dept. and Organization for Security and Corporation in Europe survey results.
13. Mine Action Coordination Workshop publication for contact information on public officialsresponsible for mine action in individual states.
14. Table on "Responsibilities within UN System for Mine Action Programs" from UNDP listingall Country Programs and departments responsible for administering them.
RESOURCES
1. Governments:
a) Kerry Brinkert, Program Coordinator, Research, Policy & Development, Mine Action Team,Government of Canada
b) Jan Van Heuckelom, Conflict and Peace Unit, Development Cooperation, Ministry of ForeignAffairs, Government of Belgium
31
c) Matthew Murphy, Office of Humanitarian Demining Programs, US Department of State,Government of the United States
d) Dale Sampson, Defense, Security, and Cooperation Agency, US Department of Defense,Government of the United States
e) Geir Tønnsen, Permanent Mission of Norway to the UN
f) Anne Rikter-Svendsen, Section for Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid, Royal NorwegianMinistry of Foreign Affairs
g) Ragne Birte Lund, Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
h) Walther Lindner, Permanent Mission of Germany to the UN
i) Gunter Mulack, Director, Policy Coordination Department, German Federal Foreign Office
j) Alex Stemmer, Division 300, German Federal Foreign Office
k) Niels Severin Munk, Technical Adviser and Deputy Head of Relief Department, Royal DanishMinistry of Foreign Affairs
l) Carl Christian Hasselbalch, Permanent Mission of Denmark to the UN
m) Peter Reinhart, Political Division III, Section for Peace Policy, Switzerland Ministry of ForeignAffairs.
2. UN System:
a) UNDP Emergency Response Division, New York: Judy Grayson, Advocacy Specialist, LeonTerblanche, Mine Action Specialist
b) UNICEF: Yulia Kreeger, Assistant Program Funding Officer; Tehnaz Dastoor, LandminePrograms
c) UNHCR: Mr. Mbaidjol, Deputy Director, Liaison Office, New York
d) WHO: Monette Van Lith, Programme Officer, New York
e) UNMAS, UN Secretariat: John Ennis, Resource Mobilization Officer; Maj. John Flanagan.Policy Advisor
3. NGOs, Experts other independent sources:
a) Dr. Jim Cobey, Physician for Human Rights
b) Joe Lokey, Deputy Director, Humanitarian Demining Information Center, James MadisonUniversity, Virginia