Measures for mines: Approaches to impact assessment in humanitarian mine action

Third World Quarterly

Volumn 24, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 889-908

  Harpviken, Kristian Berg ^a   Millard, Ananda S ^b   Kjellman, Kjell Erling ^c   Skåra, Bernt A ^a  

^a PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE OSLO PRIO   (Norway)

^b Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD)   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; HUMANITARIAN AID; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; MINE; RISK ASSESSMENT; STAKEHOLDER;

EID: 8844236728     PISSN: 01436597     EISSN: 13602241     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0143659032000132911     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. This article is the result of research conducted by the Assistance to Mine-Affected Communities (AMAC) project at the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO) (http://www.prio.no/amac). AMAC acknowledges the financial support of the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We also wish to acknowledge the cooperation of mine action agencies and staff, and the generosity and willingness of mine-affected populations in assisting with our inquiries.
2. The article builds on work presented earlier in K B Harpviken, A S Millard, K E Kjellman & A Strand, Sida's Contribution to Humanitarian Mine Action, Stockholm: SIDA, 2001
3. and A S Millard & K B Harpviken, Reassessing the Impact of Humanitarian Mine Action: Illustrations from Mozambique, PRIO Report 1/ 2000, Oslo: PRIO, 2000. We are grateful for the comments of two anonymous referees on an earlier version of this article.
4. R S Kaplan & D P Norton, 'The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive performance', Harvard Business Review, January-February 1992, pp 71-79.
5. See, for example, C Horwood, 'Humanitarian mine action: The first decade of a new sector in humanitarian aid'. Relief and Rehabilitation Network Paper No 32, London: Overseas Development Institute, 2000. On the debate over military competence
6. see also K B Harpviken, 'Guides to humanitarian mine action'. Third World Quarterly, 24 (5), pp 000-000.
7. See K E Kjellman, K B Harpviken, A S Millard & A Strand, 'Acting as one? Co-ordinating responses to the landmine problem'. Third World Quarterly, 24 (5), 2003, pp 855-871.
8. For a summary of the major arguments, see K B Harpviken & M C Fixdal, 'Anti-personnel landmines: Just means of war?'. Security Dialogue, 28 (3), 1997, pp 151-165.
9. C Roche, Impact Assessment for Development Agencies: Learning to Value Change, London: Oxfam, 1999.
10. For a typology of various types of constraints affecting HMA priority setting, see A S Millard & K B Harpviken, Reassessing the Impact of Humanitarian Mine Action: Illustrations from Mozambique, PRIO Report 1/ 2000, Oslo: PRIO, 2000.
11. D Hulme, 'Impact assessment methodologies for microfinance: Theory, experience and better practice', World Development, 28 (1), 2000, pp 79-98.
12. For more on local engagement in mine action generally, and impact surveys specifically, see B A Skåra, 'Risky business or constructive assistance? Community engagement in humanitarian mine action'. Third World Quarterly, 24 (5), 2003, pp 839-853.
13. For a discussion of naive assumptions about power in communities, linked to the larger debates about local participation, social capital and civil society, see G Mohan & K Stokke, 'Participatory development and empowerment: The dangers of localism'. Third World Quarterly, 21 (2), 2000, pp 247-268.
14. K B Harpviken, 'A community study of landmines and humanitarian demining: Cassua, Kwanza Norte, Angola', Landmine Memo no 7, Oslo: PRIO, 1999.
15. The combination of methods in order to profit from the strengths and weaknesses of each is often called triangulation. For a good overview of methodological triangulation, see H Arksey & P Knight, Interviewing for Social Scientists, London: Sage, 1999, ch 2.
16. The dichotomy between emergency and development has been heavily criticised, both for blurring the extent to which emergency and development priorities need to be pursued simultaneously, and for being cemented in institutional and funding structures in aid. See, for example, P Sollis, 'The relief-development continuum: Some notes on rethinking assistance to civilian victims of conflict'. Journal of International Affairs, 47 (2), 1994 pp 451-471.
17. E Chelimsky, 'The coming transformations in evaluation', in E Chelimsky & W R Shadish (eds), Evaluation for the 21st Century: A Handbook, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997, pp 1-26.
18. See, for example, A Simanowitz, 'From event to process: Current trends in microfinance impact assessment', Imp-Act Guidelines, Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, 2002, at http://www.Imp-Act.org.
19. See K B Harpviken, A S Millard, K E Kjellman & A Strand, 'Sida's contribution to humanitarian mine action', SIDA Evaluation 1/06, Stockholm: Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, 2001, pp 16-17, at http://www.sida.se/Sida/articles/10700-10799/10744/ Utv01-06.pdf, accessed 21 July 2003.
20. Chitui was one among a handful of communities where we had access to both LIS data and a community study report. The economic approach does not depend on a particular mode of data gathering, as long as sensible figures exist for agricultural land affected by mines. For the full community study, see A S Millard & K B Harpviken, Community Studies in Practice: Implementing a New Approach to Landmine Impact Assessment with Illustrations from Mozambique, PRIO Report 1/2001, Oslo: PRIO, 2001, pp 43-46.
21. United Nations Mine Action Services (UNMAS), 'International Mine Action Standards (IMAS)', New York: UNMAS, 2001 (cited 15 March 2003), at http://www.mineactionstandards.org/imas.htm.
22. See, for example, R Chambers, Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last, London: Intermediate Technology Publications, 1997.
23. A Benini, 'The Global Landmine Level-1 Impact Survey and socio-economic indicators', Protocol Document no 6, Washington: Survey Action Center, 2000.
24. Global Landmine Survey, 'Landmine Impact Survey: Republic of Yemen', Washington, DC: Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation, 2000, at http://www.sac-na.org/pdf_text/yemen/FinalReport.pdf, accessed 21 July 2003.
25. R Kidd, 'The Landmine Impact Survey process'. Journal of Mine Action, 4 (3), 2000, pp 45-49.
26. Combining the Yemen findings with similar distributions from surveys in Chad, Mozambique and Thailand, SAC has suggested that as few as 10% of the affected communities are high impact, 25% are medium impact, while the remaining 65% are low impact, which has huge implications for the realism of eliminating the threat of landmines by 2010. See B Eaton, 'The Global Landmine Impact Survey: Application of a new knowledge base', paper presented to the conference on 'The Future of Humanitarian Mine Action', Oslo, 13 September 2002.
27. This illustrates the more general point that the us is designed to inform not only de-mining but also a broader range of HMA activities, including mine awareness. See J Brady, 'The utilization of Level One survey data for mine awareness'. Journal of Mine Action, 4 (3), 2000, pp 54-56.
28. At the time of writing, an evaluation of SAC and the LIS approach is underway, and is due to be completed by the end of 2003. The Norwegian company Scanteam is in charge of the evaluation. Survey Action Centre, Newsletter, 5 (2), May 2003, at http://www.sac-na.org/newsletter/ Vo12_No5_May2003/Vol2_No5_03_06_04.html, accessed 21 July 2003.
29. The first version of the report was launched in October 1998; a revised and expanded version came in December 1999. Mine Clearance Planning Agency, 'Socio-economic impact study of mine action operations in Afghanistan: Interim report', Islamabad: MACA, 1998
30. Mine Clearance Planning Agency, 'Socio-economic impact study of mine action operations in Afghanistan', Islamabad: MACA, 1999. Reference here will be to the 1999 version.
31. For an assessment of the report, see Management Perspectives International, 'Desk study on the state of knowledge of the effects of mine action'. Draft Report, Stockholm: SIDA, January 2000.
32. W A Byrd & B Gildestad, 'The socio-economic impact of mine action in Afghanistan: A cost-benefit analysis', Afghanistan Watching Brief, Islamabad: The World Bank, 2001.
33. Although the World Bank admits that central effects of landmines are neglected by economic analysis, this third objective has nevertheless been of concern to people involved in HMA. Other analysts applying economic analysis have been more straightforward on the issue. Geoff T Harris, for example, with reference to his findings that de-mining in Mozambique is not profitable, argues that money should be reallocated for other purposes, such as malaria control. G T Harris, 'Cost-benefit analysis and mine clearance', in Gareth Elliot (ed), Beyond De-Mining: Capacity Building and Socio-Economic Consequences, Johannesburg: South African Institute of International Affairs, 2000, pp 87-97.
34. GICHD, Socio-Economic Approaches to Mine Action: An Operational Handbook, Geneva: GICHD, 2002; and GICHD, A Study of Socio-Economic Approaches to Planning and Evaluating Mine Action, Geneva: GICHD, 2001.The study also introduces other approaches to impact assessment, including the composite indicator approach and the community studies approach, in addition to an emergency survey conducted by the Survey Action Centre in Kosovo, based mainly on spatial data and population statistics.
35. This is also the conclusion drawn in the original report for UNDP. See GICHD, A Study of Socio-Economic Approaches to Planning and Evaluating Mine Action.
36. A third set of economic assessments of mine action initiated by Geoff Harris, is not reviewed in this article. G Elliot & G T Harris, 'A cost benefit analysis of landmine clearance in Mozambique', Development Southern Africa, 18 (5), 2001, pp 1-19; Harris, 'Cost-benefit analysis and mine clearance'; and Harris, 'The economics of landmine clearance in Afghanistan', Disasters, 26 (1), 2002, pp 49-54.
37. GICHD, Socio-Economic Approaches to Mine Action. See particularly p 29 for a discussion of the various practical problems of applying economic analysis in mine action programmes.
38. W P Handwerker, Quick Ethnography, Oxford: AltaMira Press, 2001.
39. See also B Goslin, 'Making analytical tools operational: Task impact assessment', Third World Quarterly, 24 (5), pp 923-938.
40. For an assessment of community studies, including a comparison with other similar applications, see G Littlejohn, 'Training HMA organizations in community studies', Landmine Memo no 8, Oslo: PRIO, 2002.
41. Global Landmine Survey 'Landmine Impact Survey: Republic of Yemen'.
42. This paragraph is based solely on findings from the community study, as reported in A S Millard & K B Harpviken, Community Studies in Practice, pp 43-46.