Update VIII re Dutch LLF
The Hague, April 12, 1997
The debate regarding the Dutch/Canadian Low-Level Flight Agreement in the
Lower House (the Second Chamber of Parliament) will take place on April
15, 7.30 pm.
Govert de Groot
coordinator
Foundation Innu Support Group NL
PO BOX 13670
NL- 2501 ER The Hague
The Netherlands
phnr. + 31 70 3888553
New faxnr:
+ 31 70 4020943 (and from April 12 new phone number as well)
e-mail: innusuppnl@gn.apc.org
Summary of the answers to the parliamentary questions regarding the
approval of the Agreement between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and
Canada for the continuation of the agreement of 4/5 December 1986
regarding the training of Dutch forces in Canada.
1. In answer to questions regarding the expenses of the low-level flight
training:
The financial conditions are part of the MoU, not the agreement. According
to the new MoU the Netherlands will pay C$ 13.5 million annual. The MoU of
February 20th, 1996 knows a new system for the division of the expenses of
llf training, the hight of which can be influenced by the participants.
The operational expenses for Goose Bay depend on the amount of sorties.
This year, 1997, 2000 sorties are planned. We do not expect to exceed our
planned expenses. During the first ten years of the agreement our expenses
were C$ 129.6.
Parliament will be informed when more than 3000 sorties from Goose Bay
will take place. Theoretically our need exceeds this amount (about 237
pilots x 13 sorties = 3081 sorties). This excludes 25 newcomers, which
would bring our need to 3406 sorties annually. Presently we do not
realize this number of sorties, but we might in the near future. In total
18,000 sorties are permitted under the MoU, the rest of which is utilized
by the UK, Germany and "non-participants". There is no limited amount of
sorties mentioned in the agreement.
At this moment Belgium is a "non-participant" nation, and pays accordingly
to the Canadian government. Part of the Dutch infrastructure is used by
the Belgiums. There exists a bilateral agreement regarding this use
between the two countries.
The need for llf training for France and Italy is not based on
military-strategic grounds. They have enough opportunities for training
above their own and African territory.
The Royal airforce is constantly searching for alternative llf areas.
Possibilities are in central and eastern Europe and the USA. There might
be other possibilities in Norway and Morocco in cooperation with the
Belgium airforce. On the short and/or long run this is no alternative,
however, neither in quality nor quantity. Goose Bay's strongest point is
the cooperation of several nation, of which the division of the expenses
and the joint trainings are important factors that cannot be found easily
elsewhere.
The Netherlands will send detachments this year in 8 periods: 1. 28/4 -
13/5 2. 23/6 - 15/7 3. 14/7 - 29/7 4. 28/7 - 12/8 5. 11/8 - 26/8
6. 25/8 - 9/9 7. 8/9 - 23/9 8. 22/9 - 7/10 This year the Royal
airforce will not train in Goose Bay from May 10 till June 23, in order to
join "Maple Flag" in Cold Lake, Alberta.
2. In answer to questions regarding the necessity of low-level flying.
Llf has been used little in recent conflicts in areas such as the
Falklands, Chad, and the Gulf. The Netherlands has not participated in any
of these conflicts, neither by supplying pilots, nor by supplying
aircraft. The tactic of llf is nonetheless necessary. Llf is more riskful
than flying at high altitude and should be avoided if other options are
available. At high altitude, however, detection- and weapon systems can
pose such a threat that llf must be used. Llf is also still the best
option to inforce the element of surprise. Apart from this, restrictions
of the use of weapon- and sensor use and bad weather can force one to use
llf for visual identification of targets, for example to prevent
collateral damage. Therefore this option cannot be missed. In view of the
extreme difficulties of llf in a hostile environment vs. flying at high
altitude, a high level of training is necessary. This level can only be
achieved and maintained with great effort. Letting go of this level might
lead to unacceptable losses (especially in time of peace) of pilots and
aircraft. The amount of training can not be proportionally related to an
expected use of llf.
More simulation training is no alternative. Simulation is a useful part of
the basic training, but cannot replace the actual cooperation in the air
and on the ground between the involved parties.
3. In answer to questions regarding the environment:
NATO member will share an amount of C$ 1.5 million for the expenses of
mitigation and monitoring activities. These activities, and the necessary
research, will be conducted by the Institute for Environmental Monitoring
and Research. Expenses will be related to the amount of flight movements.
The Netherlands will pay about 17% of this amount.
Apart from this there is an annual environmental clean-up, during which
remnants of practice monition in the PTA's are cleaned up and practice
targets are removed. Expenses regarding this clean-up are more explicit in
the present agreement, and includes disposal or clean-up of environmental
contaminants and site restoration. The UK and Germany have similar texts
in their agreements.
Regarding certain new areas to extend the present llf areas: these areas
are subject to a supplementary EIS. Certain is that by changing the
practice area, important natural areas in northern Canada will be excluded
from llf activities. The first draft is expected this spring.
4. In answer to questions regarding indigenous peoples:
In May 1996 a delegation of the Dutch parliament visited the Innu in
Canada. The Dutch government acknowledges the necessity among indigenous
people for avoidance programs. Respecting flying restrictions is a main
point for the Royal airforce. In Goose Bay a system was used by which
sensitive areas were avoided. In certain cases this included so many areas
that flying rendered almost impossible and there could be no guarantee
that all locations would be avoided. Therefore these areas were marked for
"block avoidance". This method guarantees that sensitive areas will not
be overflown. Indigenous peoples were enabled to make known their
intended stay in this area. The provision of communi- cation machinery has
as yet not been found well-timed in regards to the duration of the stay in
the country of the Innu-Indians (energy supplies) and the distance
(reachability). Block avoidance, therefore, supported by the Royal
airforce, remain the best guarantee for the avoidance of huntingcamps and
other registered locations.
According to the government there is no direct relation between the
agreement and the ILO agreement nr. 169. Although the Canadian government
has not ratified ILO agree- ment nr. 169, the Dutch government is under
the strong impression that the Canadian government acknowledges the
contents and the spirit of this agreement with regards to the interests of
the indigenous peoples in the llf area.
The government is of the opinion that negotiations, especially with
regards to matters concerning landrights, should be followed at a
distance. They do not consider it desirable that the Dutch government
stands aside too much, however, because of the important policies
regarding indigenous peoples and the developments since 1993 and ILO
agree- ment nr. 169. The Netherlands is not party to the negotiations
between the Canadian government and the indigenous peoples of Canada. The
Dutch government, however, has been actively involved to make sure that
the interests of the Innu in the llf area are taken into account. The
Netherlands obliged itself to contribute to the environmental measure-
ments with regards to the llf training and will take into account present
and future advice given by the newly set up Environmental Institute. ILO
agreement nr. 169 does not provide for a dispute regulation concerning
ownership: ownership is (almost) always a national matter. It is possible
to pose complaints to an ILO committee that sees to the observance of
agreements. There are no sanctions that can be implemented when agree-
ments are not observed. In practice many governments are prepared to
understake some necessary steps. The Dutch government is of the impression
that the Canadian government is taking the interest of indigenous peoples
at heart.
The term "indigenous peoples" will be used more consequently (in stead of
"minorities").
5. In answer to questions regarding to extension of the agreement:
There are no plans, nor the desire to extend the presence of Dutch
personnel on a more permanent basis with additional forces. Under the new
agreement this is however possible. A new MoU will then be necessary.
Dutch pilots should be capable to perform world-wide. It is therefore
important that the training should not be restricted to a Western-European
environment. The extent of the environment necessary for this kind of
training can only be found abroad. Training in foreign areas remains
limited because of annoyance and expenses. Under the present agreement it
is possible that military practice and trainings other than llf training
can take place. The Marine Corps and the infantry have such a need for
possibilities to practice. This concerns, among others, the training of
the "Forward Air Controllers". In 1997 14 people will be involved in this
kind of training. The Netherlands will bear the expenses for these
trainings in Goose Bay, which will take place in the present llf area and
will also include ground practice of infantry.
Apart from this the we will participate in "Maple Flag" in may and June
1997, a joint NATO exercise in which infantry will also participate. The
exercises will take place in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan,
north-east of Edmonton. In the practice area for Maple Flag, near Cold
Lake, live the so called Denne people. They are socially and economically
fully integrated in society. These indigenous will profit economically
just as much as the other inhabitants of this area from these
Defense-activities. There is no similar situation to Goose Bay.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs
The Secretary of Defense
This is un unofficial translation by the Innu Support Group
Larry Innes Visit the Innu Nation WWW site:
Environmental Advisor http://www.web.net/~innu/
Innu Nation
P.O. Box 119, Sheshatshiu, Labrador, Canada A0P 1M0
phone: (709) 497-8398 email: innuenv@web.net fax: (709) 497-8396
\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=