Mine Action Program Performance 2015
Mine Action Program Performance 2015
In 2015, the Monitor repeats a program performance rating system developed by Norwegian People's Aid (NPA). It recognizes that the quality of programs for the survey and clearance of cluster munition remnants varies widely among State Parties, signatories and non-signatories. The performance scoring system is meant to help states and their partners focus their capacity-building and technical assistance efforts on areas that may need improvement. Programs were ranked according to 10 criteria that may have a patricularly strong influence on effectiveness and efficiency. Each criteria is scored with a mark out of 10:
- Understanding the problem
- Target date for completion of clearance
- Targeted clearance
- Efficient clearance
- National funding of program
- Timely clearance
- Land release in place and being implemented
- National mine action standards in place and being respected
- Accurate and timely reporting on progress
- Improving performance over the previous calendar year
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" with 8.0 or above "very good."
The table below explains the indicators used to rate performance against the criteria.
|
Criteria |
Performance indicators |
|
Understanding the problem |
Has the extent of the cluster munition remnant threat been identified with a reasonable degree of accuracy? Does the estimate include confirmed hazardous areas as well as suspect hazardous areas?
|
|
Target date for completion of clearance |
Is a state seeking effectively 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 contamination? 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?
|
|
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 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 its Convention on Cluster Munitions Article 4 clearance obligations? Does it report regularly to other States Parties at intersessional meetings? 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?
|
