Variables moduladoras del afrontamiento

countries were identified as being affected, compared with 84 in 2005, 83 in 2004, 82 in 2003, 90 in 2002, 90 in 2001, 88 in 2000.305 _{And within these countries the number of}

anti-personnel mines has fallen as the result of mine clearance programmes. In 2006, Landmine Monitor reported that with 740 square kilometres in 2005, more land had been cleared in a single year than at any time since the start of humanitarian demining in the late 1980s.306 _{These results were at least partly stimulated by the establishment of}

the Standing Committee of Experts on Mine Clearance in 1999, which later merged into the Standing Committee on Mine Clearance and Related Technologies (SC MCRT) and the Standing Committee on Mine Clearance, Mine-Risk-Education and Mine-Action Technologies, respectively. Moreover, the informal Resource Mobilisation Contact Group, set up in September 2002 during the Fourth Meeting of States Parties of the Ottawa Convention (Geneva) at the initiative of Norway, has been important in gathering funds for mine clearance in an efficient manner.

Table 7.6 Dutch policies on mine clearance December 1997 – December 2006

Objectives Dutch policy aims at clearing landmines and unexploded ordnance (UXO) in

order to reduce the number of mine accident victims and foster socio- economic development. The Netherlands seeks to establish cost-effective mine-clearing operations that mobilise local workers and can be taken over by national bodies as quickly as possible.

Results The first meeting of the SCE MCRT (September 1999), at which the

Netherlands acted as co-rapporteur, resulted in some concrete points of action.

Under Dutch co-chairmanship of the SCE MCRT no significant results were achieved.

Interventions • From 1996 to 2003 the Netherlands sent humanitarian demining

instructors to teach demining techniques.

• From 1996 to 2006 the Netherlands dedicated more than EUR 148 million to mine action programmes (mostly mine clearance) in 24 countries and thus became one of the largest mine action donors. • From September 1999 to September 2000, the Netherlands was

co-rapporteur of the SCE. From September 2000 to September 2001 the Netherlands was co-chair of the SC MCRT.

Impediments The most important impediment was the focus by the Dutch co-chair on

research and development.

Chapter 8 presents an overview of the main findings of the analysis of the Dutch efforts with regard to humanitarian demining 1996-2006.

305 Landmine Monitor, 2000–2006. 306 Landmine Monitor, 2006.

166

Objectives

Financial assistance to mine clearance operations has been part of Dutch government policy since 1992. At the time the Ottawa Convention was negotiated, the Dutch government decided that mine clearance was one of the most important issues to discuss and pursue when dealing with mine action.307 _{On 12 April 1999, the Netherlands}

ratified the Ottawa Convention, becoming a State Party on 1 October 1999. The event was of great significance to Dutch policy, because it became subject to the obligation to provide financial and other assistance for the worldwide clearance of mines and related activities. At that time the Dutch government pointed to mine clearance (together with supporting the work of the Standing Committee on the General Status and Operation) as one of its policy priorities within the broader category of mine action. As such it aimed to be active in the Standing Committee of Experts on Mine Clearance (SCE MC), later the Standing Committee on Mine Clearance and Related Technologies (SC MCRT) from 1999 to 2001. The priority for mine clearance was also emphasised in the

instructions to the Dutch delegation to the annual meetings of the Ottawa Convention in Managua (2001) and Bangkok (2003) and the national statement of the Netherlands at the First Review Conference of the convention in Nairobi (2004).

Since 1999 the Dutch criteria for funding mine clearance programs have been listed in several Policy Frameworks for Humanitarian Demining and the Stability Fund framework (see chapter 3). In 2003 the government formulated the following policy objective for humanitarian demining: ‘Dutch policy is primarily aimed at clearing landmines and unexploded ordnance (UXO) in order to reduce the number of mine accident victims and foster socio-economic development. […]. Victim assistance and mine risk education may also be funded but have a lower priority. Research and development (such as the development of new demining techniques) do not qualify for being subsidised.’308

Results

The Netherlands was appointed as co-rapporteur of the SCE MC during the First Meeting of States Parties in Maputo in May 1999. The first session of the SCE MC took place in September 1999 and resulted in some concrete points of action. The second meeting was from 27-31 March 2000, during which much attention was given to the Mine Action Support Group (MASG); despite the absence of an institutional

relationship between the MASG and the Ottawa Convention. En marge the Netherlands was complimented for the dynamic approach of its MASG chairmanship The third meeting – the first during which the Netherlands acted as co-chair - was in December 2000. Under the Dutch co-chairmanship, no significant results were achieved. This was mainly due to the focus given to technology; that approach was not supported by co-chair Peru, nor by other important members of the SCE.

307 Mine action includes several activities, such as mine clearance, victim assistance and mine awareness. 308 TK, 27433, nr. 13.

167

Interventions

Since 1992, the Dutch government has supported multilateral mine clearance operations in mine-affected countries by giving ad hoc financial support or by sending instructors and support staff. It did so in Mozambique, for example, where from 11 August 1993 to 16 January 1995 instructors were sent to teach demining techniques. In 1996 a pool of humanitarian demining instructors was established as part of Dutch assistance. The first time members of this pool were used was in 1998, when ten instructors were sent to Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, thereafter, the pool was not used very often. In 2004 a discussion was started on whether it would be better to close down the pool (the pool had already been downsized in 2003).

From 1996 on, the Netherlands was one of the largest donors to mine clearance. Between 1996 and 1999 the Dutch government earmarked some NLG 20 million annually for humanitarian demining.309 _{Until the end of 2000, financial assistance for}

humanitarian demining activities came under the budget item for emergency aid. In November 2000 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs created a separate item in its budget for humanitarian demining, and increased its annual contribution to NLG 30 million, to emphasise ‘the importance of humanitarian demining to re-establishing a safe living environment in post-conflict countries and the Netherlands’ specific expertise in demining and the contribution it can make’.310 _{In the autumn of 2003 the government}

decided to set up a Stability Fund in order to provide rapid, flexible support for activities at the interface between peace, security and development in countries and regions emerging from or at risk of sliding into armed conflict. The funds previously set aside for demining are now incorporated in this Fund.

From 1996 to 2006 the Netherlands dedicated more than EUR 148 million to mine action programmes in 24 mine-affected countries. This put the Netherlands into the G7 of the largest mine action donor countries. In its national statement during the Nairobi Summit in 2004, the head of the Dutch delegation stated that the Netherlands would retain its level of assistance at about EUR 10.5 million a year. However, the budget was increased: in 2005 to about EUR 15.8 million and in 2006 to EUR 19.7 million.

Most of the Dutch funds were assigned to mine clearance (see also annexe 3.3).311 _{By so}

doing, the Netherlands fits in with the overall trend in international funding. By way of illustration: in 2006 the Landmine Monitor reported that in 2005, activities labelled as ‘mine clearance’ received 76 percent of the total funding. The remaining money went to capacity building (18 percent), advocacy (2 percent), victim assistance (3 percent) and other activities (2 percent).312

309 TK, 26137 (R1620), nr.5:1. 310 TK, 27162, nr. 6.

311 UNMAS Mine Action Investments Database 1996–2003. 312 Landmine Monitor, 2006.

168

Next to giving support to mine clearance, the Netherlands played an active role in the Standing Committee of Experts on Mine Clearance (SCE MC) and later in the Standing Committee on Mine Clearance and Related Technologies (SC MCRT). During the Maputo conference in 1999 the Netherlands became co-rapporteur of the SCE MC. From September 2000 to September 2001 the Netherlands was co-chair of the SC MCRT. At the end of September 2000, the co-chairs met with the ICBL to further discuss the agenda of the SC MCRT. It was decided to dedicate as little time as possible to technological issues and instead to focus on mine clearance issues.313 _{Moreover, as}

co-chair, the Netherlands preferred to see a shift in focus, from UN involvement in mine action towards NGO involvement in mine action.

In November 2000, the SC co-chairs (the Netherlands and Peru) were approached by the Coordinating Committee of the Ottawa Convention with the question whether they had items for the agenda or were preparing a draft declaration. That was not the case; the co-chairs only aimed to streamline the list of speakers. In December 2000, the first intersessional meeting under the chairmanship of Peru and the Netherlands took place. The meeting focused on how to prioritise donor activities in a more transparent manner. The Netherlands suggested using the Consolidated Appeal Process of the UN Office of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) as guideline. In addition, a first draft of the IMAS was presented. The document was not received very positively, because it had been drafted without consulting key stakeholders in the developing world. Supported by several countries (among others, Nicaragua) the Netherlands argued against the imposition of IMAS on the NGO community, since that would impede the achievement of the common goal to free the world from anti-personnel mines. Finally, the SC MCRT also discussed the role of technology. It was agreed that the SC meetings should contribute in order to improve the coordination between demand (in the field) and supply (from the industry).

The second SC MCRT intersessional meeting with the Netherlands as co-chair was held from 8 to 9 May 2001. During the meeting, attention was given to the relationship between mine clearers and the research and development field. Moreover, a possible better architecture for future meetings was discussed. During the intersessional meeting, an informal meeting took place in order to prepare the agenda for the 3MSP in Managua in September 2001. A second informal meeting for preparing the agenda was planned for the end of May 2001, but was cancelled because of the lack of

participants. Instead, the informal meeting was held en marge of the 3MSP. By that time, Germany and Yemen had taken over the co-chairmanship of the Netherlands and Peru.

313 These objectives were reflected in the draft topics list for the first SC meetings (drafted by Peru): of the four topics suggested, only one was technological in nature. However, the special Dutch ambassador proposed adding a second item on this issue (file 703069, 4 October 2000). After the first meeting of the SC MCRT had taken place, the special Dutch ambassador commented that indeed little attention had been given to technology (file 703069, 21 February 2001).

169