Sida's Contributions to Humanitarian Mine Action

is genuinely new. 8 At an overall level, it remains the case that the attention to impact assessment inHMA is primarily aimed at developing a tool for planning and prioritization prior to implementation,with little attention given to the implementation and completion phases. As argued elsewhere, in orderto ensure the maximization if impact, including the effective mitigation of any potential negativeimpacts, there is a need for implementation to include an ongoing monitoring of impact. 9 Similarly,the shift from output to impact is unlikely to be successful unless there is a systematic assessment ofimpact upon completion of each operation. Post-operation analysis is in this sense a requirement ifeffective organizational learning is to take place.Rules of thumbMost operative HMA programmes have used a simple typology of tasks as the basis for setting priorities.Here, a single dimension of the tasks at hand constitutes the basis for ranking. Most often, focus ison the type of area affected, such as whether a road or a residential area is mined. What will here bereferred to as ’rules of thumb’ approaches to impact assessment still guide most actual programmeimplementation in HMA. These one-dimensional typologies are based on the simple assumption thatknowing with sufficient certainty that a particular task is, for example, a residential area indicates thesocial and economic importance of that area. The typologies currently applied in Mozambique andAfghanistan, which we will examine here, are both more advanced versions. In these, certain additionalcriteria are added to the key factor, such as whether action has been requested by a UN agency or anNGO with other plans in that particular area.In Afghanistan, criteria for priority-setting were first defined in 1996. Before 1996, tasks had to meetcertain minimum requirements to be taken on, such as the absence of armed conflict and support fromthe local community (see Appendix 2.2). In 1996, a new system for priority-setting was developed.Its foundation is a sorting of tasks into type of land, such as agricultural, residential, roads, irrigationsystems or grazing land. With type of land as the key element, emphasis is given to additional factors.Among these is whether or not there has been a request from a UN agency, an NGO or from locals.Other factors include the urgency of the task in terms of whether the area affected will be taken intouse soon and the prevalence of mine incidents. 10 The actual priority decisions take place at the districtlevel, with the potential involvement of local authorities and representatives from other agencies. Incontrast with Mozambique, the Afghan programme has consistently applied its priority-setting system,helped greatly by the existence of a nationwide general survey as well as by a functioning coordinatingbody. The use of consistent ranking, as well as a country-wide survey, has allowed the Afghan programmeto report on the share of high-priority areas cleared. Nevertheless, its relevance as a representationof programme impact is limited.8A draft version of the standards for the impact survey was not available as of 1 January 2001. The other survey formats referto former standards as follows: a general survey replaces the level one survey; a technical survey replaces the level two surveyand the handover documentation replaces the level three survey.9Millard & Harpviken, 2000, note 6 above; Roche, 1999, pp. 3--0-32, note 4 above.10By 1998, the existing system for prioritization was complemented by a 'General Prioritization System', in which the focus isplaced on the actual impact of the task, through such broad categories as, for example: alleviation of human suffering,repatriation of refugees and resettlement of IDPs, and food security (see Appendix 2.2). This system, which is currentlyemphasized in MAPA, should be understood as a formulation of overall policy principles, and is not directly applied inoperational documents decisions. The principles herein are in compliance with overall UN policy on Afghanistan, andcorrespond to the UN’s core themes for cross-sectoral coordination.16 Sida’s CONTRIBUTION TO HUMANITARIAN MINE ACTION – Sida EVALUATION 01/06