Article 6 of the Mine Ban Treaty on international cooperation and assistance recognizes the right of each State Party to seek and receive assistance from other States Parties in fulfilling its treaty obligations. While this chapter focuses on financial support for mine action by affected countries and on international mine action assistance reported by donor states for calendar year 2014, cooperation and assistance is not only limited to financial assistance. Other forms of assistance can include the provision of equipment, expertise, and personnel as well as the exchange of experience, know-how, and best-practice sharing.

Key Figures

• Thirty-three donors and 13 affected states reported contributing approximately US$610.4 million in international and national support for mine action in 2014; [1] $30.4 million less than in 2013 (a 5% decrease). [2] 
• International contributions accounted for 68% of overall support for mine action in 2014, while states’ contributions to their own national mine action programs accounted for the remaining 32% of global funding.
• Donors contributed $416.8 million in international support for mine action to 42 affected states and three other areas. This represents a decrease of $23 million from 2013 (a 5% decrease).
• Contributions from the top five donors—the United States (US), the European Union (EU), Japan, Norway, and the Netherlands—accounted for 72% of all international funding with $301.8 million.
• The top five recipient states—Afghanistan, Lao PDR, Iraq, Angola, and Cambodia—received 45% of all international contributions.
• Support to mine action activities in Afghanistan dropped considerably, from $67.5 million in 2013 to $49.3 million in 2014, although it was still 30% higher than funding received by the second largest recipient (Lao PDR: $37.3 million).
• International funding was distributed among the following sectors: clearance and risk education (68% of all funding), victim assistance (7%), advocacy (5%), capacity-building (4%), and stockpile destruction (less than 1%). The remaining 16% was not disaggregated by the donors.
• The Monitor identified 13 affected states that provided $193.6 million in contributions to their own national mine action programs, $7 million less than in 2013 (a 4% decrease), when 18 affected countries reported contributing $201 million.

International Contributions in 2014

In 2014, 33 donors contributed $416.8 million in international support for mine action. This represents a decrease of $23 million (5%) from the $440 million reported in 2013. Support went to 42 affected states and three other areas (down from 47 states and three areas in 2013) with $58 million not earmarked for any specific country.

While this is the second year in a row that international assistance to mine action has declined, it has totaled more than $400 million for the ninth consecutive year. It is too early to speak of a continuing downward trend, but the Monitor will continue to closely follow future developments.

International support for mine action: 2004–2014

Over the past five years (2010–2014), international support totaled $2.3 billion, an average of $460 million per year. Three donors—the US, Japan, and Norway—contributed $1.1 billion, almost 50% of total international support. Four other donors—the EU, Germany, the Netherlands, and Australia—contributed more than $100 million each.

Donors in 2014

In 2014, 26 Mine Ban Treaty States Parties, three states not party, the EU, and three international institutions [3] contributed a total of $416.8 million to mine action.

The majority of the funding came from just a few donors. The top five donors contributed a total of $301.8 million, representing almost three-quarters of all international funding for 2014. The US remained the largest mine action donor, followed by the EU, Japan, Norway, and the Netherlands. Two countries entered the top 10—Denmark and Finland—replacing Australia and Sweden, which reduced their contributions by a combined total of $13 million. Thirteen donors contributed less than $1 million each.

Support from States Parties in 2014 accounted for 55% of all donor funding with 26 countries providing approximately $230 million, down from a total of $278 million in 2013. The top five State Party contributors—Japan, Norway, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Germany—provided $152 million (36%).

In 2014, the EU and its member states [4] contributed a total of $166 million and accounted for 40% of total international support reported, up from the $153 million provided in 2013 (35% of total international funding in 2013).

Contributions by donors: 2010–2014*

* The amount for each donor has been rounded to the nearest hundred thousand.

** Other donors in 2014 included: Andorra, Austria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, South Korea, Turkey, the Common Humanitarian Fund (Sudan), the OPEC Fund for International Development, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Each contributed less than $1 million.

Based on available data as of November 2015, funding for mine action in 2014 decreased by $23 million. Twelve donors decreased their funding, led by Japan ($15 million down), the UK ($10 million down), Australia ($8 million down), Norway ($8 million down), and Sweden ($5 million down).

In contrast, 11 donors contributed more in 2014 than they did in 2013, including a $28 million increase from the EU, notably through the disbursement of approximately $25 million to mine action projects in Angola. The US provided $4.2 million more than in 2013, while Denmark and the Netherlands increased their assistance by more than $2 million each.

Three donors from 2013 did not report any contribution to mine action in 2014: Colombia, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the latter of which provided more than $9 million in 2013. Five new donors—one State Party, one state not party, and three institutions—were identified in 2014: Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the Common Humanitarian Fund (Sudan), the OPEC Fund for International Development, and the OSCE.

Summary of major changes in 2014

However, as shown in the table below, changes in the exchange rates between national currencies and the US dollar significantly affected the US dollar value of some contributions. For instance, whereas Japan has provided ¥5.2 billion in 2014, ¥1 billion less than in 2013 and representing a 17% decrease, the value of its contribution when expressed in US dollars results in a 23% decrease. Similarly, Canada’s contribution dropped by 4% in US dollar terms during 2014, despite rising by 3% in national currency terms.

Changes in mine action funding in national currency terms and US$ terms*

· Average exchange rates for 2014: A$1=US$0.9034; C$1.1043=US$1; DKK5.6151=US$1; €1=US$1.3297; ¥105.74=US$1; NZ$0.8313=US$1; NOK6.2969=US$1; £1=US$1.6484; SEK6.8576=US$1; and CHF0.9147=US$1. US Federal Reserve,“List of Exchange Rates (Annual),” 2 January 2015, www.federalreserve.gov/releases/G5a/current/default.htm

Funding paths

In addition to bilateral aid, donors provided funding via several trust fund mechanisms, including the UN Voluntary Trust Fund for Assistance in Mine Action (VTF), administered by UNMAS; the ITF Enhancing Human Security (established by the government of Slovenia); the Common Humanitarian Fund in Sudan; and the NATO Partnership for Peace Fund.

In 2014, contributions to the VTF totaled $45.1 million from 22 donors, compared to $51 million from 23 donors in 2013. [5] Japan, the EU, and Australia were the largest donors to the VTF, amounting to half of all contributions. Several small donors used the VTF to contribute to mine action, including Andorra, Estonia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea. Six donors and two international institutions allocated $8 million in 2014 through the ITF for mine action programs in nine states and one area, as well as for global activities. [6] Other organizations that received a significant proportion of contributions in 2014 included the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) ($18.2 million) and the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) ($10.7 million).

Recipients

A total of 42 states and three other areas received $358.8 million from 33 donors in 2014. A further $58 million, designated as “global” in the table below, was provided to institutions, NGOs, trust funds, and UN agencies without a designated recipient state or area. Most advocacy funding is contained within this category of funding.

Of the 45 recipients in 2014, 29 states and one other area received more than $1 million each. Afghanistan received the largest amount of funding ($49.3 million) from the largest number of donors (14). Twelve states, or 27% of all recipients, had only one donor. [7]

As in previous years, a small number of countries received the majority of funding. The top five recipient states—Afghanistan, Lao PDR, Iraq, Angola, and Cambodia—received 45% of all international support in 2014.

International support recipients in 2014

* Other recipients in 2014 included: Albania , Armenia, Azerbaijan , Burundi , Croatia , Guinea , Jordan , Kosovo, the Marshall Islands, Mauritania , Peru , the Philippines , the Solomon Islands , Sudan , and Western Sahara. Each received less than $1 million.Note: State Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty are indicated in bold ; other areas are indicated by italics.

In 2014, 35 states and areas experienced a change of more than 20% in funding compared to 2013, including 24 recipients receiving less support. Turkey was the recipient with the largest upward fluctuation, receiving $26 million more than in 2013, while Afghanistan was the recipient with the largest downward fluctuation, receiving $18 million less than in 2013. Fluctuation may be a reflection of shifts in donor priorities, changes in local situations, as well as the closing of some programs. Uncertain and changing levels of mine action support received could negatively impact the ability of some affected states to comply with their Mine Ban Treaty obligations in a timely manner. Such concerns were for instance raised by Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, Chad, and Zimbabwe regarding their clearance obligations, and by Ukraine regarding its stockpile destruction obligation. [8]

Funding by thematic sector

Almost 70% of mine action funding in 2014 supported clearance and risk education activities. Victim assistance support dropped by $1.9 million from 2013, and represented 7% of total international support to mine action. Stockpile destruction totaled just more than $3 million, most of which was provided by the EU and Germany for the destruction of Ukraine’s PFM-1 landmines through the NATO Support Agency (with a total of $2.5 million). [9]

Contributions by thematic sector in 2014 [10]

Clearance and risk education

In 2014, $281.8 million, or 68% of all reported support for mine action, went toward clearance and risk education activities. This represents a decrease of $18.5 million from 2013.

Many donors reported clearance and risk education as a combined figure, although clearance accounts for most of the reported funding with 23 donors contributing $237.9 million. Nine donors reported contributions totaling $8 million specifically for risk education projects in nine countries.

Victim assistance [11]

Direct international support for victim assistance activities reached $27.7 million in 2014, down from $29.6 million in 2013. This represents 7% of all reported support for mine action in 2014, about the same share as in 2013.

Seventeen [12] of the 33 donors identified reported contributing to victim assistance projects in 14 States Parties, four states not party, and one area. [13] Most mine-affected countries did not receive any direct international support for victim assistance.

Advocacy

In 2014, 5% of all reported support for mine action went toward advocacy activities ($20.7 million). Of the 33 donors reporting international contributions to mine action, 18 reported supporting advocacy activities.

Advocacy activities included, but were not limited to, support for the Mine Ban Treaty Third Review Conference in Maputo in June 2014 and the Convention on Cluster Munitions Fifth Meeting of States Parties in San Jose in September 2014; travel sponsorship through UNDP; and, contributions to the Implementation Support Units. GICHD, Geneva Call, the ICBL-CMC and its Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor also received donor support for advocacy.

National Contributions in 2014

While there has been more transparency from affected states, overall national contributions to mine action continue to be under-reported. Few States Parties report national funding in their annual Article 7 reports. States Parties such as Algeria and Iraq, as well as states not party India, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam—all mine-affected states with significant contamination and major clearance operations, usually conducted by the army—have never reported annual expenditures. In March 2014, the media reported that the government’s contribution to demining in Vietnam was around $30 million per year. [14]

Thirteen affected states reported $193.6 million in contributions to mine action from their national budget in 2014, approximately $7 million less than the $201 million reported in 2013 (a 4% decrease). [15] Angola ($121 million) accounted for 63% of the total. Additionally, four States Parties reported contributing a large part to their own mine action programs: Bosnia and Herzegovina ($14.6 million, 63%), Chile ($4.9 million, 100%), Croatia ($28 million, 60%), and Ecuador ($5.5 million, 100%).

Whereas data about national support remains incomplete, it has accounted to about 30% of total mine action funding in 2010–2014.

Summary of contributions: 2010–2014

Peacekeeping Operations

Peacekeeping in the Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, DR Congo, Darfur, Lebanon, Somalia, South Sudan, and Sudan (Abyei [16] and Darfur), as well as Western Sahara, had mine action programs that were partially funded by UN General Assembly assessments as part of peacekeeping mission budgets in 2014.

In 2014–2015, an estimated $166 million was allocated to mine action for peacekeeping missions globally, a 10% increase from the previous year. [17] The breakdown of assessed budget per mission was not available as of November 2015.