In-depth topics

Innovation and technology

A criticism sometimes levelled at the sector is that it is too conservative in its approach to bringing in new ideas, technologies, and methodologies. The scale of the challenge in Ukraine is encouraging new thinking, for instance on a risk-based approach to reduction and cancellation, and on greater use of drones and AI for survey and digitisation to improve information management. There are areas of successful sector innovation, such as PPE designed specifically for women, first responder training, and new ways of disseminating risk education messages (e.g. use of telephones, social media, and murals). The COVID crisis led to greater use of local organisations, able to go to communities to deliver risk education messages where internationals could not.

There is no ‘silver bullet’, but there are areas where mine action could benefit further from new ideas, technologies, and methodologies. These include:

• Looking to benefit more from military innovation through enhanced military to civilian dialogue
• Developing Virtual Reality for training, exploring the potential utility of advancements in other sectors (e.g. in disaster management)
• Enhanced partnerships with academic institutions, applying the land release methodology universally
• Better use of qualitative data, creation of a platform for information sharing
• Greater emphasis on low-cost solutions.

The smaller operators in this sector will be wary of cost when considering adoption of new technology. Sharing expensive equipment or renting it where fields are smaller could be an efficient solution.

A willingness to innovate should be underpinned by a robust assessment of the risks of new and unproven technology. GICHD could enhance its role in testing and validating new technology and confirming the applicability of proven equipment in a different context, supporting the expediting of proof of concept and national accreditation. Innovators should work closely with mine action operators at all stages of the innovation cycle. From the outset, innovators should confirm with mine action operators that they have identified a real problem that is amenable to a new solution.

“There is no ‘silver bullet’, but there are areas where mine action could benefit further from new ideas, technologies, and methodologies.”

Alternative/innovative funding models

Traditional donor funding will not be sufficient to deliver sector aspirations over the next five years and beyond. The benefits of alternative/innovative funding methods include increasing the pace of work by introducing new funding sources or enabling faster disbursement of funds, mitigating the risks and impacts of instability and funding gaps in mine action programmes, and supporting more outcome-driven funding opportunities. These methods also promote nationally led funding decisions informed by affected states and diversify funding streams.

Alternative financing methods already in use or in development include nationally led campaigns, such as Lebanon’s public-private partnership with a credit card company and national bank, and Cambodia’s private fundraising campaign. These models have the potential to be scaled up, replicated, or further developed.

Public-private partnerships and private sector campaigns could be replicated in other countries or scaled regionally or globally. Development Impact Bonds, while unlikely to scale beyond tens of millions of dollars or become multi-country, had been helpful for incentivising additional outcomes and could be replicated in other countries and contexts.

Frontloading is in its early stages of development, but strong political will from affected states like Ukraine is helping to build momentum around it. The model’s success will depend on commitment from a few key donors to get started.

While acknowledging the risks associated with all innovative financing mechanisms, it is essential that they complement rather than detract from traditional bilateral funding. Innovative finance models provide a way for donors and investors alike to use funds more effectively and attract new sources of money to benefit mine-affected communities.

Some capacity and knowledge gaps on innovative finance exist within the mine action sector. This offers an opportunity to share good practices, experiences, knowledge, and success stories from outside the sector. Hence, goals for the Siem Reap Ankor Action Plan could include taking concrete steps forward, increasing engagement, and continuing efforts to build and refine funding models within the sector. Three key recommendations may be considered:

• Producing a simple and clear guide to models and success stories within the sector and from other sectors. This could serve as a user guide for operators, donors, and National Mine Action Authorities.
• Strengthening advocacy efforts among states to pursue a frontloading model.
• Proposing a Working Paper at the 2nd Preparatory Conference in September, outlining actionable steps for the Action Plan linked to concrete measures of success over the next five years.

Comprehensive Responses

It is difficult for the sector to respond simultaneously to emerging crises such as Gaza, protracted situations including Ukraine, and sustain a drive for legacy tasks, including countries close to completion. This dual demand highlights the sector’s limitations and the need for new mechanisms to improve efficiency and effectiveness.

The meaning of ‘completion’ in a mine action context is ambiguous given the potential for subsequent discovery of ‘residual contamination,’ previously unknown contamination identified following a declaration of mine free status. ‘Impact free” has advantages as an alternative description of the desired end state, though this is also open to challenge given that contaminated land that is considered low impact today, may become high impact tomorrow following population movement.

A dedicated completion fund has been proposed as a potentially effective new mechanism for channelling funding to countries approaching mine free status and providing an incentive for accession to the APMBC. It might encourage donors collectively to provide more continuity of funding at a time when countries find it hardest to attract it from donors individually. The voluntary trust fund established to support national implementation of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is a possible model. However, the ATT fund is small, and governance (including prioritisation and allocation of funds) and capacity to run a completion fund could present additional issues. Some donors would struggle to justify transferring funds into a completion fund if the humanitarian and development need were not compelling. Further work through a volunteer stakeholder group would be needed to further develop the concept and determine its feasibility.

National Ownership and Localisation

The key components of national ownership are agency, control, and decision-making. The sector has made progress towards empowering national ownership, particularly in technical development. However, there is scope to go further in developing and executing national strategies and fostering cooperation between mine-affected states.

Localisation – increasing support and space for local operators, recognising they are best positioned to understand and address local challenges – is widely recognised in the broader humanitarian sector, but is less prevalent in demining. The sector has been more successful in supporting local operators to deliver risk education and victim assistance. Several factors limit localisation in demining, including historical dependence on international organisations for expertise and funding, and high startup costs. It is challenging for local operators successfully to bid for international donor funding, given stringent governance and due diligence requirements, complex biding processes, and the preference of some donors to award multi-country contracts. It is though important to support localisation within all mine action pillars, including through investing in a residual local capacity for when the international community moves on. In the short term, donors could encourage localisation through requiring international NGOs to work in closer partnership with local organisations to enable knowledge transfer so that, in time, local organisations are in a stronger position to bid directly for donor funding.

Supporting the SRAAP

The following three themes were identified as overarching conclusions. More specific recommendations are captured at the front of this Report:

• The OAP has proven to be a robust framework over the past five years. It serves as a solid foundation for progress, and the SRAAP should reflect its evolution rather than revolution.
• The focus should be on actions that drive forward national ownership, partnership working, localisation, innovative finance mechanisms, and cross cutting themes (including environment and climate change considerations).
• Tools to assist include increased compliance on qualitative and quantitative reporting supported by simple templates and strategic approaches for reporting to not over-burden national authorities, a sector theory of change, and national platforms.                                                                       

Emmelyne van Hooijdonk

Wilton Park | June 2024

In partnership with

---