Mine Action Program Performance 2014
Mine Action Program Performance 2014
In 2014, the Monitor mine action team developing a ranking system to assess the performance of national mine action programs of landmine-contaminated countries that were States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty (as of 1 July 2014). Programs were ranked according to 10 criteria with a mark out of 10 for each criterion:
- Problem understood
- Target date for completion of clearance
- Targeted clearance
- Efficient clearance
- National funding of program
- Timely clearance
- Land release system
- National mine action standards
- Reporting on progress
- Improving performance
An average score for 10 criteria gives the overall program performance scoring. An average score of 0–3.9 ranks as "very poor", 4.0–4.9 is ranked "poor", 5.0–6.9 is ranked "average", while 7.0 or above is ranked "good".
The table below explains the indicators used to rate performance against the criteria.
|
Criteria |
Performance indicators |
|
Problem understood |
Has the extent of the mine threat been identified with a reasonable degree of accuracy? Does the estimate include confirmed mined areas as well as suspect hazardous areas?
|
|
Target date for completion of clearance |
Is a state seeking to clear all mine contamination from its territory? Has a date been set by the MAC or NMAA for completion of clearance of all mined areas? Is the target date realistic based on existing capacity? Is there a strategic plan in place to meet the target date? Is it sufficiently ambitious?
|
|
Targeted clearance |
Is clearance focused on confirmed mined areas? Are significant areas of land being cleared that have no contamination? If clearance is ongoing for more than 10 days in an area without finding any contamination, what is supposed to happen?
|
|
Efficient clearance |
How much does manual clearance cost per m2? Are costs increasing or decreasing? Are dogs integrated into demining operations (where appropriate)? Are machines integrated into demining operations (where appropriate)?
|
|
National funding of program |
Is national funding covering the cost of the MAC? Is national funding covering any survey or clearance costs?
|
|
Timely clearance |
Are contaminated areas prioritized for clearance according to explicit criteria? Are areas of high humanitarian impact dealt with swiftly? Are there delays to clearing an area for political reasons?
|
|
Land release system |
Is there a coherent land release system in place for the program? Is there a functioning non-technical survey capacity? Is there a functioning technical survey capacity?
|
|
National mine action standards |
Do national mine action standards exist? Do they respect IMAS? Are they adapted to the local threat and context? How well are they applied?
|
|
Reporting on progress |
Does the state submit regular Article 7 reports on progress against the AP Mine Ban Convention? Does it report regularly to donors? Do these reports detail progress disaggregated by the different methods of land release?
|
|
Improving performance |
Has the mine action program, or key parts of it, improved or deteriorated over the last 12 months?
|
