STANDING COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS ON VICTIM ASSISTANCE,
SOCIO-ECONOMIC REINTEGRATION AND MINE AWARENESS Network Group on the Collection and
Dissemination of GuidelinesCollection of Existing Guidelines or Reference Documents:Mine Action Programmes from a development-oriented point of view
(“THE BAD HONNEF FRAMEWORK”)Adopted by the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), Co-laureate of the Nobel Peace Prize 1997.This document is also available in the following languages: Arabic (in work), French, German, Italian (in work), Portuguese, Spanish. If you want to have this document in one of these languages, please contact:German Initiative to Ban Landmines, Markus Haake, Rykestr. 13, 10405 Berlin , Germany , Phone +49 30 421 36 86, Fax +49 30 428 01 688, Email: gibl.haake@t-online.de Geneva Centre for Humaitarian Demining (GICHD) - Ana Andrino,
Email: a.andrina(at)gichd.ch , Fax +41 22 906 1690  Preliminary remarksLandmines are murderous instruments of war and armed conflicts, which have devastating humani­tarian and development consequences long after the end of armed hos­tilities. Like no other weapon, mines illustrate the fact that wars do not simply end, and cer­tainly not automatically at the moment when peace is made. The continuing threat posed by millions of mines in large parts of the world today is both a real and sym­bolic manifestation of the permanent damage caused by wars and armed conflict. The psychological and social upheavals endure beyond the damage to the infra­structure of a country, affecting individuals as much as the society as a whole. Violence, trauma, mistrust and family breakdown are not easily repaired; indeed they become dominant factors in the life of the community. Efforts at rehabilitation in post-war societies require a comprehensive concept of reconstruc­tion and development. It must be ensured that the conditions which led to war in the first place are not recreated. It is not sufficient to simply provide a few technical “inputs” such as mine-clear­ance and the provision of prosthetics. Rather, rebuilding and development must be approached “societally”, in other words through a lengthy struggle to change those things which on the one hand made war possible and which on the other hand have been seriously damaged by war; namely the social fabric, traditional social transactions and the economic founda­tions of the country. A rehabilitation which can stabilise the peace requires a readjustment of the rela­tionship between the individual and the social environment, a relationship which varies from culture to culture. Current practice in rehabilitation rarely achieves this goal. The allocation of funds and the guidelines applied are determined by political interests and the aim of being able to show results as soon as possible. Rather than the sustained rehabilitation of war-damaged socie­ties it is more often a matter of pragmatic “quick impact” programmes which as a rule are measured in terms of their “output”, such as how many kilometres of road have been de-mined, how many refugees have been resettled or how many prosthetics have been distributed to the injured. Whether the d e-mining of roads really does contribute to the reju­venation of agriculture, whether the resettled people are able to build democratic social structures which respect human rights and whether the prosthetics really help the reintegra­tion of the injured, remain matters of only secondary interest. However, the aims introduced by the International Convention on the Prohibi­tion of Anti-personnel Landmines which came into force on March 1 st 1999 are far-reaching and show the way forward. The so-called “Ottawa Treaty”, which came about due to international public pres­sure, unites a weapons ban with concrete provisions for disarmament as well as humanitarian and development obligations. Article 6 of the Agreement requires alongside mine clearance the physical reha­bilitation of victims as well as their social and economic reintegration. Reintegra­tion can only succeed of course when the social fabric into which they are to be reinte­grated and which has been damaged by war, is itself rehabilitated. The Bad Honnef Framework on Mine Action Programmes makes such an approach manda­tory. It is based on the experience of Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and commu­nity based organisations acquired at the project level and in their efforts towards achieving a ban on landmines. In June 1997 experts from all over the world met in Bad Honnef in Germany in order to draft a framework for such comprehensive Mine Action Programmes. The objective was not to design a catalogue of universally valid criteria, directly pre­scribing action. Such a catalogue, however tempting it may be, would inevitably be bound to fail because it would, by its very nature, ignore the specific social and cultural context in which any concrete actions must be embedded. Instead, the Bad Honnef Guidelines posited “critical guidelines” which propose a framework for possible, locally adapted, activities according to three central principles. These three principles are: I. Participation – Since the needs and aspirations of those people affected by mines and not the particular interests of the funders must be the starting point for all endeavours, Mine Action Programmes require the appropriate involvement of those affected, at all levels and from the beginning. II. Coherence – As part of the rehabilitation efforts in post-war situations Mine Action Programmes are embedded between straight emergency relief measures and long-term development programmes. Only with an integrated consideration of all the areas of activity aiming at rebuilding and a resump­tion of peace, can Mine Action Programmes contribute to a permanent change. III. Solidarity – The aim is the immediacy of support which is conveyed by the idea of solidarity and the encouragement of autonomy and which does not promote new dependencies. The political struggle for the ban on landmines, including advocating the universal adoption of the “Ottawa Treaty”, as well as its extension to cover other mines and similar weapons are a genuine component of the endeavour towards providing care for victims. This results from the principle of prevention, which is used to evaluate the effective­ness of relief projects (and in this case the ban on landmines), in terms of whether they have contributed to the avoidance of future damage. And vice versa, along with the ban goes the admis­sion that the unfortunate victims have been wronged – on account of which they must be granted com­pensation. This view has been endorsed by the UN which makes it clear in its “Mine Policy Papers” that “de-mining”, “victim assistance” and “political advocacy” for the ban on land­mines belong inextricably together. The Bad Honnef Guidelines in this slightly revised form were again ratified in June 1999 in Berlin at a second international conference of experts, with the participa­tion of rep­resentatives from NGOs, community based organisations, the UN, inter­national organisa­tions and some governments. The guidelines, now called “The Bad Honnef Framework”, simul­taneously address several audiences: - Field workers, who are offered a framework for action, - Donors, who want to find out about both the meaningful and the questionable use of funds, - Campaigners, who are presented with arguments to show that only the com­bination of public political action and practical solidarity can guarantee success. The success of Mine Action Programmes lies in the lasting improvement in the living condi­tions of those affected by mines. It is indeed also the creation of social justice and peace which guarantees the permanent success of Mine Action Programmes. In view of such a comprehen­sive objective, the monitoring of indi­vidual projects requires the setting, in ad­vance, of concrete goals with the partici­pation of all sides and especially of those affected. From the above comes the need for three definitions: I. Mine
NGOs and community based organisations define anti-personnel mines by their impact rather than by their design. This view holds that a weapon which has the impact of an anti-personnel mine is an anti-personnel mine. Accordingly, for these Guidelines, a mine is any device that possesses one or more of the following characteristics: a. a device which may be exploded through contact by, or presence or proximity of, a person or persons, and which is capable of killing, injuring or incapacitating one or more persons; b. any device or munitions which, although its primary purpose or design may be other than specified in (a) above, can be deployed in a manner to achieve such effect without modifi­cation or through a specific design feature; c. any device, including an anti-tank mine, which is fitted with an anti-handling, anti-distur­bance or similar mechanism which will cause that device to be exploded through contact by, or presence or proximity of, a person or persons and which is capable of killing, injuring or incapacitating one or more persons. NGOs and community based organisations will also consider damage to the wider environ­ment as a criteria for the definition of such weapons. II. Mine VictimsIn accordance with the World Health Organisation (WHO) definition of health, all human beings impaired in their physical, psychological, or social integrity are to be regarded as victims. Among these are: a. human beings immediately maimed by a mine (suffering from physical and psychological trauma); b. family members and/or dependants of people disabled or killed by mines; c. all human beings affected by the existence of mines including all those who, due to the threat of mines, could not or cannot pursue their normal activities. This understanding of what constitutes a victim views disability not as an impair­ment specific to an individual human being, but as an interaction between human beings and society that has been impaired and damaged by a specific event. Mines and wars damage this inter­action between individual human beings and the social reality surrounding them. Rehabilita­tion must therefore take into account both the suffering of the individual, with all the attendant psycho­social and eco­nomic ramifications, and the collective damage impairing the way of life, repro­duc­tion, and existence of the broader social group. Accordingly, mine action programmes cannot limit themselves to addressing indi­viduals. By means of organisational development and support for collective self-help, they must contri­bute towards overcoming the injustice suffered by the com­munity, group or society as a whole. III. Mine Action Estimates of 60 – 110 million landmines do not provide any information in terms of impact on populations, societies, health, reconstruction and economic development of a mine affected country. Mine action is more than clearing mines. To ensure the success of mine action requires the achievement of sustainable improvements in the living conditions of mine victims and their communities. Beyond the integration of mine survey, marking, clearing and awareness, as well as the ac­companied physical, psychological, socio-economic and cultural rehabilitation of mine victims, mine action must be part of peace-building and reconstruction and development pro­grammes, if it is to be sustainable. It is, therefore, necessary that participation by the afflicted community, and their capacity enhancement, is guaranteed in all measures which concern their interests. Since no single organisation or international institution has the overall knowledge and com­petence to fulfil all elements of the integrated and comprehensive approach, close co-opera­tion between national and local authorities with the organisations, which take responsibility for a specific component of the mine action programme, is crucial. Guidelines for Development-oriented Mine Action ProgrammesBasic principles1. The needs and aspirations of people affected by mines are the starting point for mine action programmes. Mine action programmes must be environmentally spe­cific; they must be compatible, in form and content, with the conditions in individual countries. 2. As much as any human being, mine affected people and communities have the right to shape their own lives and to participate in political and economic decision making which concerns their interests. The implementation of the humanitarian action in a spirit of soli­darity designed to promote autonomy rather than creating new dependencies is crucial. 3. Mine action programmes must be part of integrated response. They have to sup­port peace-building including reconstruction and development of the community and aim at enhancing the socio-economic and cultural infrastructure. Empowerment of the commu­nity to carry out all aspects of mine action pro­grammes by providing the proper training, equipment, standard and supervision is the ultimate goal. 4. Social indicators that will determine the progress and success of a mine action pro­gramme should be defined in advance in consultation with the affected com­munity and donors. Each programme should have well-defined goals, to be re­viewed continuously. 5. Mine action programmes should be designed on the basis of objective data ob­tained through accurate socio-economic taking into account indicators and factors particular to the cultural environment. There is a need to review and revise pro­gramme objectives in con­sultation with the community and donors as the pro­gramme evolves. 6. The complex situation of societal destruction after war requires a coherent and simultaneous approach for all of the following elements of mine action program. a) insertion in a national and local peace-building and development framework; b) community and victim/survivor participation; c) mine awareness and accident/incident prevention; mine surveying, marking and mine clearance d) effective emergency response capacities to accidents (emergency first aid); e) physical and psychological rehabilitation of mine victims; f) political, social, and economic reintegration of mine victims, families and their communities, g) empowerment of local communities, and h) political advocacy and support for the programmes. 7. Mine action programmes should reflect the impact of landmines on the environ­ment and wildlife providing appropriate support. Participation and co-operation - Integrated mine action programmes based on community participationAwareness building, Surveying, Marking and Demining: 8. It is essential that clearing mines and other explosive debris (UXO) is accompa­nied by information, education, and training, taking into account the specific cul­tural environ­ment of each mine affected community. The population should be made aware of the dangers and consequences of mines in ways that are appropri­ate to the age, gender and social group of those being trained. 9. Surveying and marking of mine infested areas, as well as the actual demining pro­cess, including the destruction of mines and UXO, must take place in close co-op­eration with the affected population and all relevant authorities and organisations. 10. The guidelines (8) and (9) should be carried out by fully skilled and equipped local specialists trained by qualified trainers and planned and implemented in an inte­grated and co-ordinated manner. Emergency first aid and physical rehabilitation11. Access to prompt medical attention and the availability of surgical care is impera­tive. Local paramedics and physicians should be trained to competently provide emergency first aid, ambulance care and longer-term treatment to victims of mine ex­plosions. 12. Prostheses and wheelchairs or other aids for the victims must be provided through the development of local production capacities. The highest possible quality stan­dards, adapted to local circumstances, should be reached. 13. Physiotherapeutic and other rehabilitative measures should be carried out with an emphasis on the training of local specialists. 14. In order to guarantee continued success of the medical measures, the affected commu­nities should be supported in their efforts to provide medical support and follow-up care for people with disabilities. Socio-economic, cultural and psychological rehabilitation15. Personal suffering and rupture of the social fabric must be countered by a) offering appropriate accompaniment, educational and vocational training and/or other income generating possibilities for economic reintegration; b) providing psycho-social care for the disabled and their kin (with the care tailored to the cultural traditions), helping to generate community capacities in this regard; c) supporting healing cultural activities (such as sports, cinema, theatre, dance, news­paper, etc), as the realm of social integration, with a balanced participation of disabled and non-disabled; d) supporting local organisations and particularly the efforts of the affected people to organise themselves. 16. Mine action programmes must address peace-building, reconciliation and needs of mine affected communities. This means for example to guarantee access to education and justice systems as well as creation of citizen secu­rity. Access to water, rural credit schemes, village roads provision of primary health care should also be ensured, in order to sustain livelihoods. 17. Efforts at psychosocial rehabilitation should be accompanied by basic and further training of local monitors (social workers, health workers, teachers, and other community monitors). 18. Mine victims and landless people must be given priority in the allocation of de­mined land. Institution building, co-operation and synergy19. To correspond as best as possible with the needs and aspirations of affected communi­ties, local institutions implementing individual parts of mine action pro­grammes should be sup­ported both in establishing themselves as well as in their work (capacity enhancement). 20. Close co-operation between organisations is required in planning and imple­menting mine action programmes, mobilising different organisational competen­cies. A practical division of labour and responsibility in different aspects of projects contributes to an inte­grated and participatory approach. 21. Since no single organisation or international institution has the overall knowledge and com­petence to fulfil all elements of the integrated and comprehensive ap­proach close co-operation between national and local authorities and organisations which take responsibility for a specific component of the mine action programme is crucial. 22. Co-operation between institutions of the North and the South (North-South-co-op­era­tion) as well as between institution from the South (South-South-co-operation) should be sup­ported to build mutual confidence. An improved and mutual transfer of organising ability and other competencies is therefore required. Exchanges of community based experiences should be encouraged. 23. Non-local workers need to be sensitised in local culture and language in recogni­tion of the demandingly holistic approach. They are a guest in a foreign country, and working for the benefit of that country. They should contribute to insuring sustainability. 24. The creation of local campaigns for the banning of landmines should be supported, for instance in helping to bring about an awareness of a collectively suffered injus­tice, or in averting the possible renewed use of mines. Coherence and sustainability - Mine action programmes as part of peace-building, reconstruction and development programmesGeneral requirements25. Mine action programmes are part of national reconstruction and development pro­grammes guided by the goal to create a community empowerment, social confi­dence and a development-oriented civil society. 26. Mine action programmes are part of peace building programmes. Beyond victim assis­tance, they should take into consideration the need for fully reintegrating refugees, dis­placed per­sons, and demobilised soldiers. There should be no dis­crimination of ex-sol­diers, particu­larly of victims of mine accidents and other war disabled. 27. The participation of diverse social groups in mine action promotes both the sustainability of programmes and national reconciliation. The success of recon­ciliation, particularly among war victims, is an indicator of progress. 28. Efforts on the part of the victims (and their dependants) to establish a reparation fund, and financial aid such as pensions, should be supported. States are required to draw up and implement appropriate legislation regarding war victim and disabled rights, including the rights of veterans. 29. Mine action programmes require the creation of national data management sys­tems including archives, mine related records, Geographical Information Systems, and national-wide databanks. Data should not only cover planted and stockpiled mines but also victims, internally displaced, demobilised soldiers. Comprehensive data collection and transparency with free access for all participants needs to be assured. The role of NGOs and community based organisations in implementation and moni­toring30. NGOs and community based organisations welcome the steps taken so far on the path towards prohibiting mines, especially the Ottawa Convention for the prohibi­tion of anti-personnel mines. However, they regard the results achieved to date as a first step that has to be followed by further steps: - extending the prohibition to include all mines and weapons covered by the effect-oriented definition; - ensuring transparency of information on research into mines and weapons similar to mines and on the sale, transfer or export of mines; - verifying the destruction of all mines; - ensuring transparency in funding the research, development and procurement of new mines and mines delivery systems; - rededicating funds allocated to the research and development of new mine tech­no­logies to mine action programmes. 31. NGOs and community based organisations support the universalisation of the Ottawa con­vention and beyond this the comprehensive banning of landmines and weapons with similar effect. Relevant work by local, regional and national cam­paigns towards an overall ban should be supported. 32. NGOs and community based organisations should demand international and national stan­dards for the main elements of mine action programmes, such as demining and the reha­bilitation of victims. NGOs and community based organisa­tions should be part of the rele­vant negotiations on these and should bring their influence to bear. 33. National control mechanisms such as legislation should include NGOs and com­munity based organisations in verifying compliance with these standards. 34. NGOs and community based organisations should monitor the overall impact of mine action programmes put into practice, in order to ensure compliance with the holistic approach.  Solidarity and financing - Promotion of autonomy instead of creation of new dependenciesGeneral principles35. The NGOs and community based organisations demand that governments or war­ring par­ties, who developed, produced, exported and/or used landmines, accept their responsibility for the eradication of mines and addressing the impact of mines. 36. Comprehensive, integrated, participatory mine action programmes should become the norm for development policy in mine-affected societies. Plain demining cannot be the only goal of developmental or humanitarian considerations in the face of the pervasive destruction wrought on these societies. It is important that civil institutions are involved in all aspects of demining and mine action. The NGOs and community based organisations will strive continuously for this. 37. For the provision of additional funds, the principle that the polluter pays should be con­sidered: companies that have profited from the development, production and sale of mines, could pay into a reparation fund. Standards for the allocation of funds38. Resources for mine action programmes should be allocated according to humani­tarian considerations and according to these guidelines. If commissions are given to commer­cial enter­prises, profits must not go into weapons production or into activities that are counter to these guidelines. 39. The comprehensive, integrated approach of mine action programmes demands a long term planning perspective, which needs to be considered when providing funds. Funding deci­sions should be made as close to the field as possible. Funds should be released rapidly to ensure programme coherence and timely imple­mentation. Donors should practice direct funding to implementing organisations and take greater and closer responsibility for pro­gramme monitoring. 40. Funding allocation decisions must be based on the needs and aspirations of mine vic­tims and their communities. These decisions should involve mine action pro­tagonists at all stages of the allocation process. Vested interests of the donor or recipient countries should not play a decisive role. 41. While NGOs and community based organisations accept appropriate research into new mine clearance technologies based on end-user requirements and existing technologies, the ratio of funding should be balanced in favour of community-based mine action pro­grammes. New mine clearance technology should reflect local capacities and be locally manageable. 42. Donors should be fully transparent about the funds allocated to mine action. The pur­pose of the grants should be specifically designated in different categories: these should include mine clearance, research and development of new mine clearance and detection technology, and mine victim assistance. This will clarify whether humanitarian funds are being used to fund non-humanitarian work, and/or commercial and military research and development. 43. NGOs and community based organisations encourage mine-affected countries them­selves to create, in full transparency, their own mine action budgets commen­surate with the extent of the landmine problem. Such budgets should include cor­responding decreases in military spending for mine technology. 44. Development, commercial and other investments in mine-affected countries should include appropriate mine-action elements in project planning, budgeting and im­ple­mentation. In particular, all mine clearance organisations and commercial investments in affected areas should privilege local capacity-building. Changes and improvement of these guidelines45. Changes to these guidelines will make use of experts representing the diverse elements of integrated mine action programmes. These Guidelineswere drafted by the German Initiative to Ban Landmines. They were dis­cussed and adopted at the First International Conference of Experts in Bad Honnef, 23rd/24th June 1997. At the Second International Conference of Experts (Bad Honnef II) in Berlin-Kladow from 21st till 23rd June 1999 they were renewed and revised. Significant contributions to elaboratethese guidelines were made among others by following experts: - Sayed Aqa (Afghan Campaign to Ban Landmines) - Andrea Lari (Angola/Jesuit Refugee Service) - Denise Coghlan (Cambodia/Jesuit Refugee Service) - Mary Foster (Mines Action Canada) - Nicolas Drouin (Mine Action Unit – Canadian International Development Agency) - Raul Mijango (El Salvador/Member of the Asemblea Legislativa) - Bill Howel (France/Handicap International) - François De Keersmaeker (Germany/Handicap International) - Horst van de Meer (Germany/Solidaritätsdienst International) - Thomas Gebauer (Germany/medico international) - Ulrich Tietze (Germany/medico international) - Sebastian Kasack (Germany/medico international) - Hein Winnubst (Germany/Misereor) - Jörn Kalinski (Germany/Oxfam) - Fritz Mamier (Germany/Gesellschaft für technische Zusammenarbeit) - Wolfgang Mai (Germany/Brot für die Welt) - Günter Mulack (German Ministry for Foreign Affairs - Christiane Hieronymus (German Ministry for Economical Co-operation and Development) - Justin Brady (Consultant medico international) - Jim Monan (Hongkong/Oxfam) - Nicoletta Dentico (Italian Campaign to Ban Landmines) - Katsuhiko Takeda (Japan/Association to Aid Refugees) - Mereso Agina (Kenyan Coalition of NGOs Against Landmines) - Tony West (Laos/Handicap International) - Undule Mwakasungur (Malawi/CHHR) - Alejandro Bendaña (Nicaragua/Centro de Estudios Internacionales) - Jacobus T. Theyse (Republic of Namibia Ministry of Home Affairs) - Kristian Berg Harpviken (Norwegian People’s Aid) - Mario Weima (Netherlands/Novib) - Abdulkadir H. Ismail Jirde (Somaliland Coalition Against Landmines) - Aleu Ayieny Aleu (Sudan/OSIL) - Elisabeth Reusse-Decrey (Swiss Campaign to Ban Landmines) - Wolfgang Hirsch ( Geneva International Center for Humanitarian Demining) - Noel Stott (Mines Action South Africa ) - Olaf Juergensen (South Africa/International Development Research Centre) - Mark Albon (Permanent Mission of South African in Geneva ) - Ian Mansfield (UNDP) - Hemi Morete (UNMAS) - John MacInnis (UNDHA) - Pete Abel (United Kingdom/Omega Foundation) - Rae McGrath (United Kingdom/Killing Secrets) - Tim Carstairs (United Kingdom/Mines Advisory Group) - James Cobey USA/Physicians for Human Rights) - Jerry White (USA/Landmine Survivors Network) - Bob Eaton (USA/Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation) Comments and proposals for improvement of these guidelines are most welcome!Please contact: medico international,
Obermainanlage 7,
D-60314 Frankfurt
Germany
Phone +49 69 944380
Fax +49 69 436002
Email: medico_international@t-online.de Misereor
Mozartstraße 9
D-52064 Aachen
Germany
Phone +49 241 4420
Fax +49 241 442188 Deutscher Initiativkreis für das Verbot von Landminen
Markus Haake
Rykestr. 13
10405 Berlin
Germany
Phone +49 30 421 36 86
Fax +49 30 428 01 688
Email: gibl.haake(at)t-online.deThe German Initiative to Ban Landmines has established a Website with actual figures, trends and analysis of the landmine issue: http://www.landmine.deEditing: Thomas Gebauer,
Markus Haake,
Wolfgang Mai
GIBL