Microsoft Word - Minutes - MASG Meeting OPEN Session 28 May 2021 (Final Version as at 21 June 2021).docx

MINUTES

MASG MEETING – OPEN SESSION

ZOOM – FRIDAY, 28 MAY 2021

1. Opening Remarks

1.1 Meeting Open. The Chair of the MASG, Mr Wolfgang Bindseil, opened the Zoom meeting at

14.00 hours (CEST) and welcomed the 100+ participants. The Chair then introduced Assistant

Secretary-General Alexandre Zouev from OROLSI/DPO and invited him to address the meeting.

1.2 ASG Zouev, OLROSI. Mr Zoeuv, ASG for Rule of Law and Security Institutions, thanked the Chair

for his introduction and said that he was pleased to attend the MASG on behalf of USG Lacroix, the

Chair of the Inter-Agency Coordination Group on Mine Action. He noted that the 24

International

Meeting of Mine Action National Directors and United Nations Advisers had just concluded and that

its theme was ‘Perseverance, Partnership and Progress’. He said that since this group last met in

October 2020, UN mine action has persevered – through multiple uncertainties and challenges

faced. Of course, the COVID-19 pandemic continues to have a significant impact – but aside from

this, the scenes from Gaza have raised deep concerns among the international community and

Afghanistan faces uncertainty considering the withdrawal of US troops. The UN has also seen the

need for a mine action response in the South Caucasus. Mr Zouev said perseverance takes

commitment from a wide range of actors – including of course the donors.

Mr Zouev pointed out that despite the challenges, progress is being made and gave the examples of

Colombia, Sudan, Syria. He underlined that in multiple peacekeeping settings, mine action projects

continue to train peacekeepers, provide technical advice, and respond to sightings of explosive

ordnance. They ensured safe implementation of mandates, even in areas facing high explosive

threats. With regards to the Mine Action Area of Responsibility, UNMAS, along with UNDP and

UNICEF, have increased the incorporation of mine action into humanitarian response plans. In 2020,

data collected against the UN Mine Action Strategy noted a significant drop in casualties from

landmines, explosive remnants of war and improvised explosive devices. The data also showed

progress regarding increased national and local capacities. Encouragingly, the number of women

serving in leadership or technical positions in UN mine action has increased.

Looking ahead, Mr Zouev underlined the importance of four points to achieve progress;

• First, through coordination and collaboration. Close collaboration has guided UN mine action

responses to crises in Gaza, the South Caucasus, Ethiopia, and Equatorial Guinea. Coordination

ensured that capacities were effectively deployed, tailored to best “value add”, and that duplication

was avoided. Engagement with NGOs and other relevant partners has also been ramped up through

a series of informal consultations.

• Enhanced integration of mine action into overarching frameworks – for example, humanitarian

response planning, and the Secretary-General’s Action for Peacekeeping initiative, or other agendas

such as Children in Armed Conflict and the Protection of Civilians – will continue. Integration will

ensure that the role of mine action across the “triple nexus” of humanitarian, development and

peace and security efforts is leveraged to accelerate results.

• The third priority relates to transparency and accountability. UNMAS, the coordinator of United

Nations mine action, has launched an ambitious management reform process to improve its

efficiency and effectiveness. Ongoing efforts in this respect aim to increase accountability and

integrate guidance from Member States and appointed auditors into policies and programming.

• Financial security is also a major aspect of the future of UN mine action. In 2020, the UN Voluntary

Trust Fund for Assistance in mine action received more than US$69 million – including from many of

the donors present today. Moreover, continued unearmarked contributions allowed many critical

interventions, such as in Gaza the South Caucasus, and Ethiopia. The UN understands that COVID-19

has created unforeseen needs and has led to the redirection of international resources. Yet, the UN

is compelled to appeal for donor’s support, which is needed now more than ever.

Mr Zouev concluded his remarks by saying that it is clear that threats from explosive ordnance are

not going away. To meet these complex demands the UN will need strong partnerships – including

national institutions, regional organizations, and donors. Mr Zouev thanked the donors for their

ongoing support to the UN – and not just financial support, but also through their political advocacy.

He wished all MASG members a fruitful meeting.

1.3 Update from the Chair. The Chair thanked Mr Zouev for his remarks and noted that many of the

points he raised were on the agenda of the MASG meeting today, such as regional cooperation,

gender issues and the nexus between mine action and humanitarian assistance, development and

peace and security. The Chair then mentioned that he had recently represented the MASG at

several on-line meetings, including a UNDP event titled ‘Beyond Square Metres Cleared – the Link

between Mine Action and Development’ and an UNMAS event held in Geneva on 7 April to mark the

International Day of Mine Awareness. He further mentioned a meeting in October 2020 organized by

Germany involving 40 stakeholders of mine action in Bosnia Herzegovina. The Chair then outlined

the agenda for the meeting and introduced the speakers.

2. Briefings: Regional Mine Action

2.1 Peru and Ecuador. Representatives from Ecuador and Peru gave a joint presentation titled ‘For a

Border without Landmines’. Ambassador Ricardo Morote of Peru opened the session saying that

since joining the Ottawa Convention, Peru and Ecuador have been making a great effort to demine

border areas. Both countries have adopted measures based on mutual trust and best practices.

Despite the negative effects caused by COVID 19, Peru is committed achieve mine free status by

December 2024. When the mines are cleared, Peru stands ready to assist other countries. Finally,

Ambassador Morote said that Peru appreciated the support of donors. Minister Luis Espinosa Salas

of Ecuador noted that after the peace treaty was signed between the two countries in 1998, good

cooperation and coordination has allowed Peru and Ecuador to work closely together. Ecuador has

completed 90% of its clearance, but because of the effects of COVID will need assistance to meet

their completion target of 2022.

A joint power point presentation then outlined the key statistics for both country’s mine clearance

efforts. Ecuador has released 90% of its affected areas leaving only 40,000 square metres remaining

to be released in Zamora Chinchipe Province. The budget to complete this work by 2022 is almost

US$10 million. For Peru, an area of 369, 212 square metres is to be released in five provinces by

2024. The budget for this work over the next four years in around US$9.5 million.

The Chair noted that the excellent cooperation between two nations formerly in conflict was

remarkable. He said that it showed great ownership and responsibility. In question time, the

representative of France asked about a similar budget being needed to clear quite different areas of

land. Ecuador stated that there were different realities on the ground and that much of its

equipment was old and outdated. Ecuador also noted that they aimed to clear all areas by 2022, so

they were working in a compressed time frame. Italy noted that they were about to finish funding

two projects in Ecuador and were interested hearing more about regional approaches. The APMBC

ISU noted that Peru and Ecuador achieving their Article 5 obligations would help the Convention,

and that the notion of ‘success breeding success’ would encourage other countries. He also noted

that this would be a step toward achieving a mine-free southern hemisphere. In conclusion, the

Chair thanked Peru and Ecuador for their interesting and substantial presentations and noted that

such examples of good cooperation were sadly not so frequent.

The PPT presentation is posted on the MASG website.

2.2 South Caucasus. Mr Steinar Essén, the Head of the UNDP Mine Action Team, gave a

presentation on the situation in Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabakh. Mr Essén briefly

outlined the background to the recent conflict and showed a map detailing which parts of Nagorno-

Karabakh are currently under control of Azerbaijan or Armenia. He noted that a peace agreement

has not been signed between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and that the situation is still tense and

sensitive.

Currently in Azerbaijan, there are extensive ‘border minefields’ (on the old line of contact) covering

an estimated length of 300 km and varying in width from three to seven km. As a result of last year’s

conflict, involving 44 days of intense fighting, affected areas are believed to be extensively

contaminated with a range of UXO, including cluster munitions. Mr Essén showed a photo of the old

line of contact near Fuzuli Town, containing a huge anti-tank ditch with defensive minefields on both

sides, where mine clearance had already been undertaken to facilitate the construction of a new

highway. The scope of the problem is significantly larger in Azerbaijan, but the impact of this mine

and UXO contamination affects communities on both side of the conflict, as it will hinder safe and

speedy reconstruction (such as power lines) and IDP settlement, it blocks access to agricultural land

and water and will hinder demarcation. The current mine action actors in Azerbaijan include the

NMAA and the mine action centre, ANAMA, along with the Ministries of Emergency Situations,

Defence and Education. In addition to commercial mine action actors, the Turkish Army, ICRC,

UNICEF and UNDP are present in Azerbaijan.

The situation in Armenia is different and mainly a legacy problem. However, there is some new

contamination due to the recent conflict, including cluster munition. In Armenia, the national mine

action centre (Centre for Humanitarian Demining and Expertise -CHDE) leads on mine action,

supported by the Ministries of Defence, Emergency Situations, and Education. The key actors in

Nagorno-Karabakh are HALO Trust, ICRC, local authorities, and Russian peacekeepers. In both

countries, the UN inter-agency needs assessment missions identified the following urgent needs;

capacity development support, non-technical survey, and Explosive Ordnance Risk Education

(EORE).

Mr Essén concluded by saying that mine action is a pre-condition for safe IDP return and early

recovery. He noted that strong national ownership exists, but the national bodies could benefit

from international support to strengthen efficiency and quality, in line with international mine action

standards and sector best practice. Close stakeholder coordination is needed, and UNDP is well

placed to assist with this. In question time, Netherlands noted that neither Azerbaijan, nor Armenia

are members of the APMBC and asked what steps can be taken to encourage them to join the

Convention. Mr Essén said that it was a challenge to promote the Conventions during conflict, but

he hoped that the matter may be included in peace talks to come. The ISU APMBC noted that there

are steps that can be taken to encourage non-members to join the Convention, and an opportunity

exists when affected countries are seeking donor support. Often in these situations there is a stand-

off where one country will not join until the other does, and even a commitment for no new use of

landmines at this time would be useful. The GICHD said that they had conducted a needs

assessment in April, and their findings were the same as UNDP’s. The GICHD was in touch with both

Armenia and Azerbaijan, and their report should be finalized shortly. Finally, Mr Paul Heslop from

UNMAS Afghanistan, who was joining the MASG meeting from a landmine meeting in Moscow, said

that both Armenia and Azerbaijan were in attendance at the Moscow meeting. Mr Heslop said that

the issue had been raised in the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) Protocol V and

that this was a good first step.

The PPT presentation is available on request from Mr Steiner Essén at [email protected]

2.3 Sahel. Ms Ilene Cohn, the Acting Director UNMAS and Mr Stephen Pritchard, Chief of Operations

UNMAS, gave a presentation on the situation in the Sahel Region (Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad,

Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, and The Gambia). Ms Cohn opened by saying that

explosive ordnance is creating a major challenge in the region, and that accidents continue to be

regularly reported. The weak capacity to manage arms storage poses the twin risks of unintended

explosions (e.g., tragedy in Bata, Equatorial Guinea) and arms diversion to illegal groups. The latter is

compounded by easy access to commercially available explosives and legacy arms diversion,

including notably from the breakdown of Libya in 2011. These factors have fuelled an increasingly

prominent IED threat, and in Mali this year there have been three ERW incidents and 68 IED

incidents up to the end of April. IEDs also continue to impact mandate delivery of UN peacekeeping

operations and threaten peacekeepers lives.

Ms Cohn outlined the need for a regional approach. The lack of border controls and the cross-

border criminal and terrorist networks in the region meant that tackling IEDs on a country-by-

country basis is doomed to fail. Arms sales, terrorist training camps and other activities outside the

region also play a role. Without strengthened, regional cohesion, international assistance efforts will

form at best a patchwork of country-centric efforts each with their own incompatible terminologies,

data management, and messaging. The UN Security Council has increasingly embraced a regional

approach to the Sahel, with a growing number of briefings and presidential statements on the region

seen in recent years. The Council has also expanded its interest to incorporate issues beyond

security. At the same time, Member State focus on the threat of IEDs appears to be gaining

momentum (including in the Arria formula, SC debate on mine action, increased references in C34

report). Just last week, the Security Council met to discuss the G5/Sahel, with some members

making explicit references to the IED threat. This augurs well for political support to a regional

approach to explosive threats in the Sahel. Ms Cohn concluded by saying that a starting point for

mine action partners active in the region is information sharing and prioritization.

Mr Pritchard then gave some details of mine action operations in the region. He started by thanking

the following civil society partners for contributing toward the briefing: Small Arms Survey, Handicap

International, Mines Advisory Group, Humanity & Inclusion, Norwegian People’s Aid, and also to UN

partners: ODA, DPO (DDR, SSR and OROLSI), UNDP, UNICEF, UNOPS and UNIDIR. Mr Pritchard said

the conflict systems across and beyond the Sahel are characterized by the use of improvised

explosive devices and conventional landmines, denigrating the ability of governments to provide

security, raise tax revenues as well as posing a safety threat to civilians and aid workers. The know-

how and components are spreading between conflict systems such as the Liptaka Gourma and Lake

Chad Basin regions. Explosives and components are sourced from three main origins: the

commercial market (e.g. Ammonium Nitrate explosive for rare metal extraction), diversion from

legitimate security providers (e.g. theft, capture or corruption), and legacy contamination (e.g.

existing minefields or abandoned stockpiles). The mine action sector has a role to play, not only with

risk education, but also Weapons and Ammunition Management (WAM), though it must adapt its

approaches to rely more on community/local institution delivery, since access for foreigners is

difficult across the region. The UN and international actors need to address information cohesion of

mine action and weapons and ammunition management (WAM) across the Sahel and beyond, as

these threats flow between different areas and respect no national boundaries.

The Chair thanked the speakers for their presentations. In question time, Ambassador Toscano,

Director GICHD, informed participants that some time ago the GICHD had created a French-language

regional cooperation programme. This group meets in the margins of the NDM-UN and will also

hold a meeting this October dedicated to the Sahel. The issue of IEDs, EORE and ammunition

management will be on the agenda. The GICHD will keep partners informed about the details of the

meeting.

The PPT presentation is posted on the MASG website.

2.4 Afghanistan. Mr Paul Heslop, Programme Manager UNMAS Afghanistan, gave a detailed briefing

on the current situation in Afghanistan. He started by saying that mine action had been a success

story in Afghanistan over the past 30 years. The number of civilian casualties caused by pre-2001

contamination had dropped dramatically. The Afghan Government had effective ownership of the

Mine Action Programme for Afghanistan and thousands of Afghans are employed in the sector.

However, the number of civilian casualties due to post-2001 contamination has risen sharply, mainly

due to IEDs. The current challenges are 1) landmines and IEDs, 2) access and security, 3) the

upcoming US troop withdrawal and peace process, 4) supporting safe return and humanitarian

delivery and 5) funding.

Mr Heslop then gave an assessment of the likely scenarios that may play out after the US withdrawal

and referred to a paper titled ‘Conflict Sensitivity in UNMAS Afghanistan Programming’. The biggest

challenge for mine action operators will be access to contested areas, and Mr Heslop outlined the

current UNMAS negotiation approach with the Taliban and other groups. Surveys, EORE and

marking will continue to be important activities to assist urgent humanitarian delivery during the

withdrawal phase.

The current APMBC Article 5 deadline for Afghanistan is 2023. The Government is currently

preparing a request for a seven-year extension – until 2030. Mr Heslop noted that if there had not

been new conflict in 2001, Afghanistan would now be clear of all the 1980’s Soviet-era landmines.

He then outlined the annual funding needs for Afghanistan to achieve a 2030 clearance deadline.

This included a total figure of $200 million to clear coalition firing ranges, which should not come

from humanitarian funding. In conclusion, Mr Heslop asked donors what their plans were for mine

action in Afghanistan after the US withdrawal. Germany responded by stating that they had no

changes in their project schedule at this stage. The US said that they intended to continue to

provide support going forward at the same level of US$20 million per year. There were some

practical implications, such as the need for safe operating space for mine action operators, and that

funding could not be provided for work in areas controlled by organizations subject to US sanctions.

Mr Laurenge from UNICEF highlighted that half of the child EOD casualties in the world are in

Afghanistan and that children bear the brunt of the threat of IEDs and ERW. UNICEF had continued

with EORE campaigns and have recently reached over 700,000 people remotely.

A copy of the general PPT and another presentation on the clearance of firing ranges in Afghanistan

are available on the MASG website. The paper on ‘Conflict Sensitivity in UNMAS Afghanistan

Programming’ is available on request from Mr Paul Heslop at hesl[email protected] .

3. Briefings: Thematic Updates

3.1 COVID Impact. A joint presentation on the impact of COVID 19 on mine action was given by Mr

Darren Cormack (Drumlanrig Group), Mr Amir Omeragic (UNOPS) and Ambassador Stefano Toscano

(GICHD). Mr Cormack opened by saying that he was taking a broad view of the situation, as he was

speaking on behalf of the Drumlanrig Group, which is an informal grouping of six mine action

operators, currently working in 30 areas. He said that COVID made life worse for the poorest of the

60 million people worldwide affected by landmines and ERW. The impact of the pandemic included

the following: 1) the fear of the virus spreading led to the closure of some IDP camps, forcing

residents to return to mine-affected areas, 2) migrant labourers forced to return home due to

lockdowns having to transit through affected areas, and 3) loss of livelihoods forcing people to try

and cultivate ERW-contaminated land. Mine action is essential to the triple nexus approach (saves

lives, contributes to peace, and facilitates development) and the pandemic does not change this, it

only adds to the urgency of mine action efforts. Mr Cormack then ran through some operational

considerations that were either immediate or had longer term implications, involving funding,

budgeting, service delivery and ways of working. Finally, he then offered some recommendations to

the MASG. These included the need for continued donor commitment, flexibility, sustainability, and

adaptability.

Mr Omeragic, from UNOPS, noted how technology had enabled global meetings like this one, but

that it still required human commitment to make a difference in the world. He then went on to

describe the measures that UNOPS had taken to address the effects of COVID on the projects that

they manage (which is 18 UNMAS field programmes involving 100 contracts/grants representing

$200 million of mine action activities). He stressed the need for early engagement and flexibility

with partners, and the desire to avoid outright terminations of staff and loss of capacity that would

ultimately cost more to stand up later. Their policy involved de-scoping projects, stand-downs,

suspending activities and where necessary termination. Overall, UNOPS undertook continuous cost-

benefit analyses and had to change the scope of works to 22% of their projects, 5% were stood

down and 8% were temporarily suspended.

Finally, Ambassador Toscano spoke about the opportunities and challenges for remote delivery. He

said that the pandemic has brought into sharp focus the need for mine action but has highlighted

that the sector will need to keep innovating and strengthening national capacities. Ambassador

Toscano also stressed the need for trust between partners and noted that the GICHD enjoyed good

relations with national authorities that had been built up over the years. A learning curve exists with

new technology involving hardware as well as software. Delivering remote training involved new

challenges which were different to face-to-face situations. The GICHD had worked with partners to

determine which topics could be trained remotely. Remote instruction allowed for more people to

be trained, but we cannot rely on it entirely. An example of successful remote training was a

technical survey course for Afghanistan, which was aided by setting up a dedicated space in the

GICHD for the training and the use of simulators. Lessons learned included the need to reduce the

length of lessons, strive to make the training interactive and to use different instructors. For another

course on ammunition management for Mauritania, it was agreed that some work could be done

remotely, but other topics had to be done in person. This was because some topics were sensitive,

the quality of technical advice is better with on-site visits and formal discussions, and it is easier to

capture nuances when in-person.

The Chair thanked all speakers for their interesting perspectives and a copy of the PPT presentation

is available on the MASG website.

3.2 Update on Country Profiles – The Monitor. Mr Hector Guerra of the Land Mine Monitor gave an

update on the work of the Monitor. Mr Guerra started by thanking the donors to the Monitor,

which has been reporting on the global landmine and cluster munition problems and solutions since

1999 and 2010 respectively. The Monitor reports on the universalization and implementation of the

Mine Ban Convention and the Cluster Munitions Convention, and incorporates gender and diversity

aspects, as well victims and survivors. It has a network of in-country researchers, including

mine/ERW, survivors covering at least 25 countries and region (as of 2021) and three editorial teams

and features two annual reports, online country profiles and maps. The objectives of the Monitor

are to 1) provide a global overview of the international community’s response to the landmine,

cluster munition and ERW problem, 2) act as a reliable one-stop hub of latest developments in mine

action, 3) promote discussion on landmine, cluster munition and ERW issues, 4) complement

transparency reporting and 5) contribute to efforts toward a mine and cluster munition free world.

In 2019, the Monitor undertook risk education thematic reporting for the first time since 2008. In

2020, the Monitor produced more than 250 country profiles, covering ban policy, impact, and

support for mine action. Finally, Mr Guerra advised that a new website for the Monitor would be

ready in the final quarter of 2021.

A copy of the PPT is available on the MASG website.

3.3 Impact of Mine Action on Development Outcomes. Mr George Bowles from Itad gave an update

on the work they had been doing on behalf of the UK aid, looking at the impact of mine action on

development outcomes. Mr Bowles said that he would provide some insights from an on-going geo-

spatial study to better understand links between mine action and longer-term development

outcomes in Afghanistan. The study is funded by the UK’s FCDO as part of its Global Mine Action

Programme 2 (GMAP2). Itad have partnered with AidData to conduct the study, with support

provided by the Directorate of Mine Action Coordination (DMAC) in Afghanistan. Geospatial impact

evaluation (GIE) is an innovative approach for studying causal impacts of development interventions,

utilizing data about interventions (i.e. land release) plus available sources of historical outcome data,

such as remotely sensed satellite data and large-scale surveys. One of the data sources of the study

is ‘Night Time Lights’, which uses before and after satellite photos of areas that have been demined,

to gauge the level of development by measuring the additional amount of lighting after demining.

This is used with other data to assess the impact of releasing land on economic development,

population growth, trust in government, self-reported well-being, and market access.

The Itad study found strong evidence of a causal link between clearance of hazardous areas in

Afghanistan and economic development. The greatest economic gains arose from those areas that

were least developed at the time of clearance. The impact had been stronger with programmes

implemented after 2008. The next phases will continue to explore the impact of clearance on

development outcomes by utilizing additional data sources and examine links between mine action

and community resilience. A remote workshop is being held on 15 June 2021 to reflect on the study

in more depth, and MASG members were invited to participate in the meeting.

A copy of the PPT presentation is posted on the MASG website.

3.4 Update on Gaza situation. Mr Steve Pritchard from UNMAS thanked UNICEF for freeing up their

section on the agenda, in order for him to give a short update on the situation in Gaza. He said that

in response to the recent intense escalation of violence between Hamas and Israel, UNMAS and

partners present in the Gaza strip are conducting an emergency mine action response. UNMAS and

UNICEF jointly delivered emergency risk education including through text messaging, and UNMAS

assessed dozens of UN sites (e.g. UNWRA schools) for explosive hazards, in order to support a return

to normal UN relief efforts for the Palestinian people. The destruction of properties and creation of

explosive hazards from bombing, the result of around 4,000 strikes half of which were by air, has

created the need to address contamination for both humanitarian and reconstruction purposes.

After a similar escalation of violence in 2014, UNMAS oversaw the clearance of over a hundred deep

buried bomb. This allowed reconstruction, prevented catastrophic explosions in the densely

populated area, and ensured that the explosive fill of those weapons was destroyed rather than

repurposed. Mr Pritchard concluded by saying that UNMAS needed US$4 million over the next two

years, and he thanked the US and Japan for engaging in early discussions with UNMAS on the

emergency response to the recent escalation.

4. Update from Observers

4.1 JMU CISR. Ms Susanne Fiederlein, the Acting Director of CISR gave a short update. She

highlighted that the Journal of Conventional Weapons Destruction has now been published for 25

years and would celebrate this milestone with a double issue this July. In addition, CISR was starting

a project called ‘CISR Exchange’, which would consist of recorded video conversations and guests will

include Journal authors, subject-matter experts, and senior managers. The CISR PPT presentation

has been posted on the MASG website.

4.2 OAS. Mr Carl Case, the Senior Adviser on Mine Action at the OAS, commented on the positive

efforts of Ecuador and Peru regarding cross-border mine action, and mentioned that they have

requested assistance from the OAS. He noted that the OAS, EU and ISU APMBC had organized a

meeting in February 2021 to promote a mine-free Southern Hemisphere, and to look at ways to

assist Peru meet its Article 5 target of 2022 and Ecuador 2024. Mr Case noted that donors, like the

EU, have requested proposals from both countries. The OAS plans to provide support in the form of

equipment, training, and quality management over the next two years.

4.3 GICHD. The Director of the GICHD, Ambassador Stefano Toscano, provided a written update on

the work of the GICHD covering ammunition management, Iraq, and Ukraine. The update has been

posted on the MASG website.

4.4 Mine Action Net. The Fenix organization briefed at the previous MASG meeting, and they had

provided a written update on the Mine Action Net tool, that allows easy searching of the

International Mine Action Standards (IMAS). Two updates have been posted on the MASG website.

4.5 ITF Enhancing Human Security. Ambassador Tomaz Lovrencic, Director of the ITF, said that he

believed what was not prominent enough in mine action was recognition of achievements. He felt

the sector needed to acknowledge the work of deminers in the field and the overall achievements

made in affected countries, so that donors could feed good news back into their governments and

budgets. This was particularly important given all the competing demands at present. He noted that

Sarajevo was close to being mine free 26 years after the war, thanks in a large part to the support of

the USA. He said the ITF hoped to hold an event in Sarajevo to mark this milestone. He also noted

that the ‘country coalition’ model between Germany and Bosnia Herzegovina was highly successful

and felt this should be expanded to other areas. Ambassador Lovrencic agreed that mine action

supported the nexus between humanitarian support, peace operations and development.

4.6 UNDP. Mr Luca Renda, Team Leader Recovery Solutions, UNDP advised that UNDP was

undertaking a global project with the GICHD. The project was titled ‘Beyond Square Metres’ and will

provide evidence of the benefits of mine action on development. The project will be spread over

two years and has been funded by Germany. The case studies in 2021 will be Bosnia Herzegovina,

Somalia and Ukraine, South Sudan, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Mr Renda also announced that Mr Steinar

Essén has recently been appointed the new Head of the UNDP Mine Action Team.

5. Closing Remarks and Next Meeting.

5.1 Closing Remarks. The Chair said that the next meeting of the MASG will take place in October

2021. He hoped that the meeting could be held in person in New York, but he would monitor the

situation with regards to COVID 19 and keep members informed about plans for the meeting. If any

member had suggestions for the next meeting, they should send an email to the Secretariat. The

Chair thanked the USA for their ongoing support of the MASG by funding the Secretariat post for

another year. Finally, the Chair thanked all the presenters for their contribution to a very

informative meeting.

5.2 Meeting Close. The meeting closed at 13.15 hours CEST.

Annex A: Donor Updates, MASG Meeting 28 May 2021

(Note. These updates were given in the Closed Session of the MASG meeting, but they are annexed

to these minutes for information)

1.1 Australia. The representative of Australia noted that Australia had provided AUD$9.5 million for

hazard reduction and victim assistance in the calendar year 2020. Australia continued to support

global mine action through the GICHD, UNMAS, UNDP and ICBL-CMC. Support was provided for

EORE and clearance activities in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Iraq, Sri Lanka, and Syria. Australia has an

ongoing commitment to the Clearing for Results programme in Cambodia. The high-quality work

undertaken by UNMAS in Afghanistan was recognized, particularly in mainstreaming gender

considerations, and this financial support has been extended to the end of 2022. Australia aided

Iraq and Syria (through UNMAS) and this support would extend to the end of June 2022. The

Australian Defence Force continues to aid Pacific nations in safely disposing of explosive remnants of

war, as well as providing education and training to enhance capability. Australian funding reduced in

2021 due to COVID 19, but funding levels are nearing pre-COVID levels in the Australian FY 2021/22.

Australia considers clearing of mines and IEDs to be a humanitarian and sustainable

development imperative for the successful distribution of aid, safe return home of

thousands of displaced people and the release of land back to local communities for

productive uses. Australia also supports efforts by states parties to pursue work on

stockpile management and encourages cooperation in capacity building and establishing

best practice.

1.2 Belgium. In 2020 Belgium had provided EUR 4 million for mine action, which was the same level

as 2019. The funding went to ICRC and UNMAS for programmes in Syria and Iraq. Belgium also

supported the HALO Trust in Iraq and the NGO APOPO.

1.3 Denmark. The representative of Denmark said they provided a core contribution to UNMAS and

that the current programme covering 2017 to 2021 had been extended into 2022. Denmark will

review its mine action funding in 2022. Denmark understands the high level of demand placed on

UNMAS, while they also fund various other local activities and programmes. Denmark supports a

focus on UN SC Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security.

1.4 Estonia. The representative of Estonia said that in 2020 they had contributed funding for Iraq

and Syria through UNMAS.

1.5 European Union. The EU representative said they were currently reflecting on possibilities for

future funding and that a decision would be made shortly about ongoing assistance to the ISU

APMBC.

1.6 France. The representative of France said that they continued to support mine action during

2019 and 2020, but it had been at a slower pace due to COVID 19. Around EUR 6 million had been

provided each year to programmes in the Middle East, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Mali, Chad, and Mauritania.

France had supported Iraq and Gaza through UNMAS. France supported two regional demining

schools in Lebanon and Benin and provided funding to NPA in Ukraine.

1.7 Finland. Finland started a new 5-year funding round on 1 January 2021, and it will run until

2025. Prior to this new programme, Finland had conducted a review of its mine action funding

which found no major changes to Finnish HMA policies were needed, because the current approach

was assessed as effective, efficient, and relevant. For Finland, humanitarian mine action is an

important humanitarian effort, but also part of the wider security, stability, and development

agenda. With a focus on fragile states, projects continued in the same countries as before:

Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, and Ukraine. Despite the pandemic, the MFA managed to secure

an increase to Finnish HMA funding, which now comprises EUR 15 million for the 5-year programme

(EUR 3 million/year). The implementing organizations that Finland partners with are UNMAS, the

ICRC and several international civil society organizations (the HALO Trust, DDG, MAG and the

GICHD). Finland favors an approach that combines several different pillars of mine action.

1.8 Germany. Germany provided EUR 49.2 million for humanitarian mine action in 2020. Funding

was granted to the priority countries included in the German Mine Action Strategy, and additionally

for mine action in Libya, Nigeria, and Yemen. In 2021, Germany will revise its “Humanitarian Mine

Action Strategy within the framework of Federal Governance humanitarian assistance”. Germany

will extend the strategy into 2022-2023. In collaboration with the GICHD, Germany will revise its list

of priority countries. Germany foresees to adapt project documents to include additional

requirements, such as inclusion (Gender/Age/Disability), which is particularly important in project

management.

1.9 Ireland. Ireland has a three-year funding agreement with HALO Trust covering 2018 to 2020, and

this has just been extended by one year. The agreement covers five countries – Afghanistan,

Colombia, Somalia, South Sudan, and Zimbabwe. A new programme for HALO Trust will be

discussed in mid-2021. The funding level for 2021 was EUR 2 million, which was the same as the

previous three years. Ireland is flexible with its aid programme and can shift money as required. A

separate Irish mine action programme is run by the Embassy in Hanoi, and this provides funding for

work in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam.

1.10 Italy. A dedicated national trust fund for Humanitarian Demining was set up by Italian law in

2001, allowing for the allocation of resources to mine action projects relating to anti-personnel

landmines and explosive remnants of war. Since then, Italy has invested more than EUR 62 million in

mine action programmes, with a particular focus on clearance, risk education and assistance to

victims. In 2021, Italy increased its annual contribution to EUR 8.5 million. Italy supports

programmes in crisis areas, such as Libya, Yemen, and Syria. Italy also supports initiatives in

Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Jordan, Sudan, Colombia, and Palestine, and is planning to support the

ASEAN Regional Mine Action Centre (ARMAC). The main beneficiaries to be included in 2021

planning will most probably be Somalia, Mali, Niger, Syria, and Iraq. The main partners are UNMAS,

ICRC, WHO and UNDP. The Italian Army has provided training and capacity building to Colombia,

Peru, and Ecuador. Italy also funds the GICHD, the APMBC and CCM ISU’s and Geneva Call.

Italy continues to adopt a holistic approach, paying attention not only to the necessary mine

clearance activities, but also to the social and long-term dimension, through a growing commitment

to risk education and assistance to survivors, both in terms of health assistance and socio-economic

integration.

1.11 Japan. During the 12-month period April 2020 to March 2021, Japan provided approximately

US$39 million to 21 countries and regions. In March, Japan provided over US$4 million through

UNMAS for six countries and regions, including Gaza. The policy of Japan is threefold; 1) to continue

support to seriously affected countries, 2) to promote south-south and regional approaches, and 3)

to provide support to mine victims.

1.12 Netherlands. The representative of the Netherlands said that they had started a new mine

action funding programme last year through their traditional partners, and despite COVID it stayed

at EUR 15 million in 2020. Netherlands also provided EUR 3 million through UNMAS for Afghanistan

and Iraq. Netherlands had looked at funding HALO Trust in Nagorno Karabakh, but this was not

possible for various reasons, so they were looking at other options. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan

had approached Netherlands for funds, but they would prefer to fund through a UN agency e.g.

UNDP. Netherlands are currently Chair of the APMBC and they want to ensure that the Convention

is front and centre of their work. Finally, Netherlands encouraged other donors to get countries in

the Caucuses to join the APMBC.

1.13 Slovenia. The representative of Slovenia reminded the meeting that Slovenia has a long history

of supporting mine action. Slovenia hosts the International Trust Fund – Enhancing Human Security

(ITF) and they will continue to support it in the future.

1.14 Sweden. The representative of Sweden said that they had provided EUR 9 million for mine

action in 2020 and had allocated a similar level for 2021. The multi-annual support went primarily to

DRC/DDG, MAG and UNMAS (for Iraq) for field operations, and core support was provided to the

GICHD. Sweden had also recently enhanced the collaboration between the Swedish EOD and

Demining Centre (SWEDEC) and the Ukrainian government authorities involved in implementing the

newly amended Mine Action Law in Ukraine.

1.15 Switzerland. In 2020, Switzerland invested CHF 17 million in the mine action area. These

resources were spent to clear mines, assist victims, raise awareness about the risks posed by mines,

cluster munition remnants and explosive remnants of war, strengthen local capacities, as well as

promote the respect of international commitments such as the ones against the use of anti-

personnel mines and cluster munitions. Projects were supported in the following contexts:

Colombia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Ukraine, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Georgia,

Myanmar, Kosovo and Syria. Experts were deployed to the following contexts: Mali, South Sudan,

the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Western Sahara. Switzerland’s engagement is based on

its latest Mine Action Strategy, which covers the period 2016-2022.

1.16 United Kingdom. The representative of the UK said that due to an overall reduction in the aid

budget, the allocation to mine action had been cut by 50% and the amount for the Global Mine

Action Programme 2 in 2021/22 is £17 million. This has led to some difficult discussion with delivery

partners. The UK remain committed to evidence-based research and all results will be shared with

other donors. The UK will fund the next steps of its research in Afghanistan but would be pleased to

hear from any MASG member interested in co-funding research in another country. The UK is also

looking at innovative funding mechanisms, such as impact bonds, public-private partnerships, and

front-loaded funding mechanisms. This work will be briefed at the June Intersessional meeting of

the APMBC.

1.17 United States. The representative of the US said that with the Biden administration continuing

to take shape as more and more of its political leaders are confirmed by the Senate, they are

working to address as many policy issues as quickly as possible, but the US do not yet have clear

answers on everything. A review is currently underway of the US landmine policy, and this may lead

to a roll back of the 2020 policy. The request for the next annual budget for conventional weapons

destruction is US$255 million – the largest amount ever. With regards to Afghanistan, the US does

not intend to alter its commitment after the US troop withdrawal scheduled for September 2021.

The US has budgeted US$20 million for Afghanistan in 2022 – which is the same level as past years.

The delivery is dependent on there being continued safe space for mine action operators to operate.

For Gaza, the US has provided an emergency grant of US$500,000 through UNMAS. The US

encouraged other donors to assist in Gaza. Secretary of State Blinken has expressed strong support

for funding demining in the Nagorno-Karabakh region, and the United States does intend to

contribute. That said, Armenia’s and Azerbaijan’s unwillingness to reach a compromise on access for

international humanitarian organizations is extremely unfortunate, and until the parties can reach

agreement on such basic principles, the US remain at a standstill. Finally, the US representative re-

affirmed ongoing US commitment to CWD around the globe.

End – Final Version