Sida's Contributions to Humanitarian Mine Action

More documents

Recommendations

Info

er, throughout the data collection, analysis and writing of the report, contact with Sida has beenlimited. During field visits, the study team sought discussions with Sida representatives in order to briefthem on preliminary findings. In practice, it often proved difficult for Sida personnel in the field toaccommodate our request for such meetings. Lastly, when possible, the team has discussed findingswith key personnel from organizations visited. Such discussions have proved useful for gaining feedback,for filling in gaps in the data and as a way of double-checking our preliminary conclusions.The evaluation teamThe team for the evaluation consisted of the following personnel. The data gathering, analysis andwrite-up of the report was carried out by members of the Assistance to Mine-Affected Communities(AMAC) project at the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO). This team consisted ofKristian Berg Harpviken, Project Leader, AMAC; Ananda S. Millard, Senior Researcher, AMAC;Kjell Erling Kjellman, Researcher, AMAC; and Arne Strand, Research Fellow, PRDU, University ofYork. In addition, Barbro Rönnmo, Consultant, SIPU International AB, functioned as AdministrativeCoordinator and assisted the research team in Bosnia. Göran Andersson, Director, SIPU InternationalAB, was team leader for the study.In order to ensure that the evaluation has maintained the highest possible standards, the research teamwas aided by an independent quality-assurance team. The quality-assurance team comprised IvarEvensmo, Researcher and Consultant, PRIO; Bengt Ljunggren, Consultant, SIPU; and Sayed Aqa,Field Director and Consultant, Survey Action Centre (SAC).Structure of the reportThe report is structured in the following manner. Chapter 2 examines four of the main current approacheswithin HMA to social impact assessment, namely ‘Rules of Thumb,’ Cost-Benefit Analysis,Composite Indicators and Community Studies. In order to illustrate the advantages and disadvantagesof each, we draw on examples from Afghanistan and Mozambique. Chapter 3 turns to a discussion ofdifferent implementation channels. The discussion focuses on the merits of using NGOs and themilitary as implementers of HMA. Specifically, we look at two of the largest international NGOs atpresent, Mines Advisory Group (MAG) in Iraq and Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA) in Angola. Further,we examine the merits of the Nicaraguan government’s use of the military as implementers of HMAin Nicaragua. In addition, we also take a brief look at the UN and commercial companies as implementationchannels. Chapter 4 looks at the coordination of mine action, both within HMA and inrelation to other humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo. In thischapter, the focus is on what has become the central role of Mine Action Centres (MACs) today, thatof coordination bodies. Chapter 5 examines Swedish capacities in international mine action, lookingspecifically at Swedish initiatives in research and development, the use of seconded technical expertsand the dog project in Cambodia. In Chapter 6, our recommendations for future policy guidelines arepresented. In Chapter 7, we offer our concluding remarks on the study, focusing on the role of Sida asa donor.12 Sida’s CONTRIBUTION TO HUMANITARIAN MINE ACTION – Sida EVALUATION 01/06
2 Impact AssessmentThe essence of the shifts that HMA is currently undergoing lies in a reorientation from defining themine problem in terms of numbers of mines or total suspected area contaminated by mines to definingthe problem in terms of the impact of mines on human populations. This reorientation has inspiredthe development of different approaches to impact assessment, all drawing on insights from the widerdebate on postwar reconstruction and development. Over the past several years, Sida has becomeincreasingly interested in the issue of impact and has eagerly pursued the impact perspective with someof the agencies it has funded. At the same time, Sida’s current policy position is to prioritize mineclearance over all other aspects of HMA. Such a position serves to constrain a constructive engagementin ensuring the impact orientation of HMA programmes. Most fundamentally, a thoroughimpact assessment of any particular programme is rendered impossible, unless that programme hascollected impact data on a systematic basis.In this chapter, we will first look briefly at Sida’s policy. We will then provide a tentative definition ofimpact, before situating impact assessments in relation to stages of reconstruction, phases of projectsand level of society. We then turn to a review of four different approaches to impact assessment: Rulesof Thumb, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Composite Indicators and Community Studies. These approachesdiffer from each other in fundamental ways, both when it comes to the questions they generate and tothe methodology applied for responding to these questions. Each approach has its own strengths andweaknesses. The challenge is to establish which one works best for a particular task or in a particularcontext and to see how the different approaches may complement each other. Finally, we will exploresome of the key challenges that an agency is faced with if it wants to make impact assessment aneffective tool in its project-implementation practice, challenges that apply across all approaches.Sida’s roleSida has not been a visible actor in the process of reformulating international HMA policy to integratesensitivity to impact. At the same time, Sida has repeatedly expressed concern about the lack of evaluationsof impact in the sector. 1 The 1998 Afghanistan study of socio-economic impact of HMA hasbeen closely reviewed within Sida. 2 The 1997 impact study of the programme in Laos contributed toSida’s disengagement from the programme. Concern over the scarcity of HMA impact documentationwas a key reason for why Sida in 1999 initiated a desk study on existing initiatives. 3Sida’s concern about impact has not translated into increasing support for the development andapplication of tools for impact assessment. The documentation of impact of any given programme isdifficult in the absence of impact data, a conclusion also reached in the Sida desk study. In Sida’s mostrecent policy formulations, there has been an explicit emphasis on demining, at the exclusion of othercomponents of HMA that include impact assessment or survey arrangements. Thus, there is as of nowan inherent contradiction between Sida’s demand that programmes have a more solid impact orientationand its lack of funding initiatives in the area.1See for example: Preliminär redogörelse för och analys av det samlade svenska stödet till olika former av minverksomheter samt underlag förpreliminär inriktning av fortsatt stöd, Sida, 28 June 2000.2Mine Clearance Planning Agency (MCPA), 1998. Socio-Economic Impact Study of Mine Action Operations Afghanistan: Interim Report.Islamabad: MACA.3Management Perspectives International, 2000. Desk Study on the State of Knowledge of the Effects of Mine Action, Draft Report,Sida, January.Sida’s CONTRIBUTION TO HUMANITARIAN MINE ACTION – Sida EVALUATION 01/06 13
Page 4: This report is part of Sida Evaluat
Page 9 and 10: MDDMEDDSMGMMLSWMoPHMOUMPLANATONDING
Page 12 and 13: the conclusions of this report is t
Page 14 and 15: A prime concern with Mine Action Ce
Page 16 and 17: 3. The coordination of mine action,
Page 18 and 19: an needs and the needs of victims o
Page 20 and 21: At the same time as Sida has been o
Page 24 and 25: Donors may feel that the costs of i
Page 26 and 27: is genuinely new. 8 At an overall l
Page 28 and 29: The first attempt to apply a form o
Page 30 and 31: standard for basic impact surveys.
Page 32 and 33: Community studiesCommunity studies
Page 34 and 35: and progress monitored in all phase
Page 36 and 37: 3 Implementation ChannelsOver the p
Page 38 and 39: cal implementation and management,
Page 40 and 41: ing that demining has any effect at
Page 42 and 43: actual response. In an effort to ov
Page 44 and 45: ecently developed. The approaches t
Page 46 and 47: A different tool that will be used
Page 48 and 49: Alternative implementation channels
Page 50 and 51: appear to have been doing a good jo
Page 52 and 53: Coordination may at times even be c
Page 54 and 55: itarian and development effort. Imp
Page 56 and 57: Two). In terms of coordinating mine
Page 58 and 59: ased demining of AREA. Another type
Page 60 and 61: The Kosovo UNMACC took a number of
Page 62 and 63: would be accredited and tasked by U
Page 64 and 65: programme. The proposal was backed
Page 66 and 67: The present landscape of Swedish ac
Page 68 and 69: demining purposes. Buoyed by a wave
Page 70 and 71: given that SRSA also recruits perso
Page 72 and 73:
teams. The need for a breeding capa
Page 74 and 75:
6 RecommendationsIn the preceding c
Page 76 and 77:
• MACs should operate with agreem
Page 78 and 79:
7 ConclusionIn this report, we have
Page 80:
70Appendix 1
Page 89 and 90:
Ziauddin Operations Officer METADup
Page 91 and 92:
Bennedich, Claes Department for eva
Page 93 and 94:
Appendix 3BIBLIOGRAPHYAccelerated D
Page 95 and 96:
Faulkner, F. & L Pettiford, 1998.
Page 97 and 98:
McGrath, Rae, 2000. Landmines and U
Page 99 and 100:
Miscellaneous DocumentsBrady, Justi
Page 101 and 102:
Appendix 4Sida’s CONTRIBUTION TO
Page 103 and 104:
Appendix 6• The area must be secu
Page 105 and 106:
Appendix 7Locality identifier: Dist
Page 107:
Recent Sida Evaluations00/37:1 Asse
show all

Sida's Contributions to Humanitarian Mine Action

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?