International Mine Action Standards · International Mine Action Standards (IMAS) ......

2011 IMAS Evaluation Report

of 68

Evaluation of

International Mine Action Standards

(IMAS)

September 2011

Report Date: 30 September 2010


of 68

TABLE OF CONTENTS Background .............................................................................................................................. 4

Evaluation Objective ................................................................................................................ 5

Evaluation Basis ................................................................................................................... 5

Objectives of the Evaluation ................................................................................................. 5

Evaluation Team .................................................................................................................. 6

Acronyms & Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... 6

Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 6

Conduct ................................................................................................................................ 6

Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 7

About “Standards” .................................................................................................................... 8

What is a ‘Standard’? ........................................................................................................... 8

Types of ‘Standards’ ............................................................................................................ 9

Evaluation - Responses & Discussion ................................................................................... 10

Respondents/IMAS ‘Customers’ ........................................................................................ 10

Use of IMAS ....................................................................................................................... 12

Usefulness, Relevance, Efficiency and Effectiveness ........................................................ 13

Usefulness – Contributing to Objectives ......................................................................... 13

Relevance ....................................................................................................................... 14

Frequency of Use ........................................................................................................... 17

Availability/Accessibility of IMAS .................................................................................... 18

Management of IMAS ..................................................................................................... 20

Translation of IMAS ........................................................................................................ 26

Format, Style & Content ................................................................................................. 29

Improving and Strengthening IMAS ....................................................................................... 32

Future Direction .................................................................................................................. 32

Moving to ISO .................................................................................................................... 34

Gaps in the Process, Products, and Services .................................................................... 35

Legislation ...................................................................................................................... 35

National Standards ......................................................................................................... 35


of 68

Non-ERW Standards ...................................................................................................... 36

Training & Qualifications ................................................................................................. 37

Technical Issues ............................................................................................................. 38

Outreach Programme ......................................................................................................... 40

‘Internal & Downwards’ Outreach ................................................................................... 40

‘Lateral/Horizontal’ Outreach .......................................................................................... 41

Conclusions & Recommendations ......................................................................................... 43

Annexes: ................................................................................................................................ 47

Annex A – Evaluation Terms of Reference ........................................................................ 48

Annex B – IMAS Evaluation Survey Questionnaire ........................................................... 51

Annex C – Expanded Results for Selected Survey Questions ........................................... 55

Annex D – IMAS Management Structure ........................................................................... 61


of 68

BACKGROUND The concept and need for standards for the Mine Action ‘industry’1 first emerged from managers and practitioners in the field during the early- to mid-1990’s (notably personnel from the Afghanistan and Cambodia programmes as well as ‘deminers’ in DPKO2 & DHA3) who saw a growing need for some degree of consensus and consistency within the rapidly expanding humanitarian mine action sector. Most of the early advocates had substantial experience in the construction industry and military – both of which make extensive use of ‘standards’/SOP to guide complex and dangerous activities and to deliver consistent end-results.

An international conference was subsequently held in July 1996 (Denmark), at which international standards for humanitarian mine clearance programmes were formally discussed by working groups. In doing so, criteria were prescribed for all aspects of mine clearance, standards were recommended, and a new, universal definition of "clearance" was agreed to.

A UN-led working group subsequently revised and developed these principles, resulting in what became known as ‘International Standards for Humanitarian Mine Clearance Operations’. The first version of these standards was released by the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS) in March 1997. These standards were subsequently expanded to include the other components of mine action and to reflect changes to operational procedures, practices, and norms: they were then formally redeveloped and renamed as ‘International Mine Action Standards’ (IMAS) with the first Edition produced in October 2001.

IMAS, in their current form, are now the accepted standards, issued by the United Nations, to guide the planning, implementation and management of mine action programmes. They have been developed to improve safety and efficiency in mine action. IMAS follow the format of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and draw on the three main treaties in international law which deal with landmines, 1) the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, 2) Amended Protocol II and V to the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and 3) Convention on Cluster Munitions. IMAS provide general information on existing regulations and treaties which affect mine action, particularly those referring to international humanitarian law, clearance requirements, hazard marking and general safety issues.

There are currently 41 IMAS covering a wide range of issues from establishing a mine action programme to the evaluation of mine action programmes. They also include guidelines on specific field activities such as testing of mine detection dogs or medical support to demining

1 Throughout this paper, the term ‘ERW industry’ is often used in lieu of the phrase ‘Mine Action industry’. The two phrases should be taken to mean essentially the same thing 2 DPKO – the UN Department of Peace Keeping Operations 3 DHA – UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs; now known as the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA)


of 68

operations. New IMAS are produced periodically based on requirements realized either in the field or at the management level in mine action. The existing IMAS are reviewed every three years and amended or replaced with a new edition as and when needed.

Current doctrine sees IMAS as being a framework to assist the development of National Mine Action Standards (NMAS) which can more accurately reflect specific local situations in a given country. IMAS can be adapted as national standards where the United Nations, or other international body, temporarily assumes the responsibility of a mine action authority. IMAS can also provide the framework for legal contracts between donors and implementing organizations.

So far, IMAS have been reviewed, but the concept itself, its added-value, and cost-effectiveness have not yet been independently evaluated. An independent evaluation of the GICHD’s contribution to IMAS was, however, conducted by the GICHD in 2008. It is believed that IMAS have made a great contribution to safe and efficient mine action operations and they should continually be reviewed, revised, and updated to ensure they remain relevant and responsive to the mine action challenges in the future.

EVALUATION OBJECTIVE

Evaluation Basis

The IMAS Review Board requested, in its 2009 meeting, that an independent evaluation of IMAS should be conducted to:

• provide clear feedback as to how IMAS have been perceived in the field;

• indicate areas that need to be further improved and strengthened (including the need for new IMAS, training and support services, and publication improvement); and

• serve as the basis on which the IMAS future strategy should be developed (The IMAS Steering Group, in its last meeting in March, agreed to this approach and consequently endorsed the decision to conduct the evaluation).

Objectives of the Evaluation

The principal objectives of the evaluation were to:

1. assess overall usefulness, relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of the IMAS in mine action; and

2. identify gaps in the process, products, and services, and highlight areas for improvement and strengthening of the IMAS and the outreach programme.


of 68

Evaluation Team

Hemi Morete, Managing Director, Southpac Consulting Ltd (evaluator, report editor and contributor)

Ian Bullpitt, Director, BOZ Technical Services (report author & contributor)

ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS

IMAS International Mine Action Standards

NMAS National Mine Action Standards

TNMA Technical Notes for Mine Action

GICHD Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining

ERW Explosive Remnants of War

UNMAS United Nations Mine Action Standards

ISO International Organization for Standardization

METHODOLOGY

Conduct

The evaluation was undertaken by Southpac Consulting in three broad phases:

• Phase 1: Desk study of IMAS and other relevant documents including:

o IMAS, TNMA, CWA;

o Minutes of the IMAS Review Board and Steering Group meetings; and

o Evaluation reports; the GICHD’s evaluation of the IMAS 2008; GICHD evaluation report 2004 and GICHD evaluation report 2010;

• Phase 2 - Interviews with key actors including:

o Members of the IMAS Review Board and IMAS Steering Group;

o Representatives from National Authorities Reps and National Directors;

o UN Programme Managers and Technical Advisers;


of 68

o Employees of mine action organizations (national, international and commercial);

o UNMAS and GICHD staff; and

o Other stakeholders and partners including staff of mine action programmes, donors, military representatives, staff of the UN small arms control standards and disarmament standards etc.

• Phase 3 - Development of an e-questionnaire available to all mine action groups and advertised on the GICHD website (refer to Annex A for details). The questionnaire generated some 60 responses from the mine action sector (both humanitarian and commercial).

Limitations

While the responses to the survey are useful as broad indicators, care should be exercised in interpreting the results too literally as there are many factors that may have influenced the respondents’ answers - including but not limited to:

• the respondent’s position (operator, supervisor, manager, director)

• the nature of work performed by the respondent’s organisation (implementing agency/contractor, client, national mine action centre, consultant, etc)

• the respondent’s personal attitude towards ‘standards’ generally and IMAS specifically

• the respondent’s knowledge and experience with ‘standards’ generally and IMAS specifically

Influences such as those listed above have not been explored by this evaluation nor have they been factored into this evaluation’s analysis or comments (other than to note that these influences may exist).


of 68

ABOUT “STANDARDS” Before discussing the specifics of IMAS and the findings of this evaluation, a short digression looking at the broader subject of ‘standards’ may be useful. Looking at the ‘bigger picture’ and how others ‘do things’ may provide our industry with useful insights as to how ERW standards should or could progress. Furthermore, from comments obtained by the survey and during the evaluation, it would appear that there are some quite significant differences of opinion regarding what IMAS should be. This latter point also links-in with the IMAS Outreach Programme (discussed later) – an important component of which should be ‘education’ of the end-users.

What is a ‘Standard’?

“Put at its simplest, a standard is an agreed, repeatable way of doing something. It is a published document that contains a technical specification or other precise criteria designed to be used consistently as a rule, guideline, or definition. Standards help to make life simpler and to increase the reliability and the effectiveness of many goods and services we use. Standards are created by bringing together the experience and expertise of all interested parties such as the producers, sellers, buyers, users and regulators of a particular material, product, process or service.

Standards are designed for voluntary use and do not impose any regulations. However, laws and regulations may refer to certain standards and make compliance with them compulsory. For example, the physical characteristics and format of credit cards is set out in standard number BS EN ISO/IEC 7810:1996. Adhering to this standard means that the cards can be used worldwide.

Any standard is a collective work. Committees of manufacturers, users, research organizations, government departments and consumers work together to draw up standards that evolve to meet the demands of society and technology. British Standards' staff act as secretaries to these committees and project manage the production of standards. As the world’s oldest National Standards Body, BSI British Standards has over 100 years’ experience of bringing together these often very varied viewpoints and of facilitating consensus” (From BSI4)

Another view:

“Standards are published documents setting out specifications and procedures designed to ensure products, services and systems are safe, reliable and

4 BSI is the National Standards Body of the UK. http://www.bsigroup.com/en/Standards-and-Publications/About-standards/What-is-a-standard/


of 68

consistently perform the way they were intended to. They establish a common language which defines quality and safety criteria

These documents are practical and don’t set impossible goals. They are based on sound industrial, scientific and consumer experience and are constantly reviewed to ensure they keep pace with new technologies.

They cover everything from consumer products and services, construction, engineering, business, information technology, human services to energy and water utilities, the environment and much more.” (From Australian Standards5)

Types of ‘Standards’

Standards used by a multitude of highly diverse industries throughout the world invariably fall into one of the six broad types of ‘standard’:

• Specification: Standard that sets out detailed requirements, to be satisfied by a product, material, process, service or system, and the procedures for checking conformity to these requirements.

• Method: Standard that gives a complete account of the way in which an activity is performed (and, where appropriate, of the equipment or tools required to perform it) and conclusions are reached, to a degree of precision appropriate to the stated purpose.

• Guide: Standard that gives broad and general information about a subject, with background information where appropriate.

• Vocabulary: Standard listing definitions of terms used in a particular sector, field or discipline.

• Codes of Practice: Standard comprising recommendations for accepted good practice as followed by competent and conscientious practitioners, and which brings together the results of practical experience and acquired knowledge for ease of access and use of the information.

• Classification: Standard comprising designations and descriptions of different grades of a product and that identifies and arranges data in hierarchical order.

5 http://www.standards.org.au/DevelopingStandards/WhatisaStandard.aspx


of 68

EVALUATION -‐ RESPONSES & DISCUSSION

Respondents/IMAS ‘Customers’

Detailed interviews were conducted with mine action personnel with extensive involvement with the development or implementation of IMAS. The evaluation team also drew on personal experiences within both the humanitarian and commercial ERW sectors. All comments, feedback, suggestions and ideas have been amalgamated into the discussion on various issues identified.

A total of 60 respondents utilised the e-questionnaire to provide feedback. The breakdown of respondents was as follows:

What type of organisation do you currently work for?

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

National Mine Action Authority 13.3% 8

International Organisation 18.3% 11

Demining Organisation - non-profit 15.0% 9

Demining Organisation - commercial 18.3% 11

Contracting organisation 11.7% 7

Government agency / donor organisation 5.0% 3

Other:

o Consultancy/support role – 7

o Peacekeeping – 1

o Academic - 1

o Other NGO – 1

o EOD/Demining school + commercial demining - 1

18.3% 11

Note: After analysis, 3 responses were re-categorised from ‘Other’ to ‘International Organisation’


of 68

One noteworthy issue is that some 40% of the responses came from the commercial / non-humanitarian sector (including consultants and organisations performing both commercial & humanitarian work). In the absence of other standards or controls for commercial ERW work, this clearly indicates that there is a need for some form of international ‘standards’ in the commercial arena and that IMAS are – rightly or wrongly - currently being used in this role (at least in part). This issue is discussed in more detail later in the report.

A second issue of interest is the organisational level of the respondents:

• Almost 42% of respondents appear to be involved with IMAS at the higher planning and management levels (national authorities, donors/government, contracting organisations, consultants and the like)

• Some 37% of respondents appear to be involved with IMAS at the implementation level (NGOs, commercial companies, ERW schools and the like)

• The remainder (almost 22%) did not contain sufficient information to accurately classify the level.

While the above is not an exhaustive analysis, data from the evaluation indicates that the respondents comprise a reasonably equal distribution of IMAS users laterally across the humanitarian/governmental and commercial sectors and vertically between the higher planning/management level and the implementation/operator level. The number and variety of responses also indicates a general interest (albeit sometimes conflicting) in IMAS as topic for discussion within the industry. Readers are cautioned that this distribution analysis only relates to the survey respondents – it is not currently known whether or not this distribution of users accurately reflects the entire ERW industry.

Of the 60 respondents to the survey questionnaire, the overwhelming majority (almost 92%) felt they had an ‘adequate’ or higher level knowledge of IMAS (see next table) – from an


of 68

evaluation perspective it is clear that the respondents were sufficiently competent to make informed judgements about the current IMAS.

How knowledgeable do you consider yourself on IMAS?


Expert – very knowledgeable on all or most IMAS 26.7% 16

Expert on some, familiar with others 16.7% 10

Adequate knowledge of those most relevant to my position 48.3% 29

Understand purpose of IMAS but rarely use 5.0% 3

Not familiar with IMAS 3.3% 2

Use of IMAS

As illustrated in the next table, IMAS appears to be addressing three quite distinct needs on a roughly equal basis:

• Development of the ERW ‘framework’ (national or programme/project standards and guidelines)

• Assisting in formulation and management of contracts, agreements and the like

• Guiding technical aspects of the ERW industry by defining or offering advice on ‘best practices’ and field procedures

(Note: Respondents were allowed to select all that applied to their circumstances)

How have you used IMAS? (please tick all that apply)


As a basis for the development of National Standards/Guidelines. 73.7% 28

As a basis for contractual agreements. 52.6% 20

As a reference document for procedural or safety reasons. 78.9% 30

Other (please specify) 13.2% 5


of 68

answered question 38

skipped question 22

It has been stated that “IMAS are intended to be a framework to assist the development of National Mine Action Standards (NMAS) which can more accurately reflect specific local situations in a given country”. The responses confirm that IMAS are being used as a basis for the development of National Standards/Guidelines however it is also apparent that IMAS’s customers are expecting more than just guidance on the broad framework for a particular country’s programme – the most common response indicates that IMAS are most often used “as a reference document for procedural or safety reasons”.

The third most common use of IMAS was reported to be “as a basis for contractual agreements” however it could be argued that this is merely an extension of ‘procedural or safety reasons’ – most contracts/agreements typically use IMAS as a technical standard (e.g. “Clearance Work shall be performed in accordance with IMAS” and “achieve the clearance standard stipulated in IMAS”; “QC shall be conducted in accordance with IMAS” or similar such wording). If this assumption is valid, then it is probable that the greatest usage of IMAS within the industry is as ‘technical standards’ (as distinct from ‘framework standards’).

This situation is by no means unique to the ERW industry – the majority of standards published globally and which span nearly every conceivable industry are detailed ‘technical standards’. These other industry’s ‘technical standards’ essentially aim to either:

• Standardise the way in which certain activities are performed within an industry (e.g. “the red electrical wire is be used for ‘live’; the brown wire is to be used for ‘neutral’”)

• Define an industry’s minimum acceptable practices (e.g. “Concrete slabs used to support this structure shall be a minimum of 300mm”)

• Describe an industry’s ‘best practice’

Usefulness, Relevance, Efficiency and Effectiveness

Usefulness – Contributing to Objectives

The reduction of risks to people is often one of the key objectives of ‘standards’ in any industry that is involved with hazardous materials or hazardous activities (not just ERW). Responses to the survey questionnaire (table below) clearly show that the vast majority of respondents (80%) believe that standards have contributed to improving safety within the industry:

Since the advent of IMAS, do you think that mine action is:



of 68

Safer? 80.0% 48

Less safe? 6.7% 4

About the same? 10.0% 6

I have no opinion 3.3% 2

The evaluation was not able to explore in any detail how exactly IMAS has contributed to a safer working environment nor which IMAS have the greatest impact on safety. Furthermore, and due to the absence of consolidated accident/incident data in the ERW industry, it was not possible to validate if the industry has indeed become safer. Despite this, there is at least a perception that IMAS plays a role in helping to make a safer ERW industry.

Improving efficiency/effectiveness is usually another key objective of most industries’ standards. The majority of survey respondents (almost 72%) indicated that IMAS have also made a contribution to increasing efficiency of the ERW industry:

Since the advent of IMAS, do you think that mine action is:


More efficient? 71.7% 43

Less efficient? 6.7% 4

About the same? 15.0% 9


It should again be noted that the evaluation did not explore how IMAS has contributed to increased efficiency/effectiveness, nor which IMAS have had the greatest impact on these. Similarly, there is little consolidated data within the ERW industry that can be used to validate whether the industry has become more efficient/effective thus it must again be concluded that there is at least a perception that IMAS plays a role in helping to make the ERW industry more efficient/effective.

Relevance

36 of the 60 respondents to the survey questionnaire provided ‘relevance’ ratings of the various IMAS (Refer Table 1 in Annex C). Of the respondents who answered this question, the overwhelming majority indicated that all IMAS were ‘relevant’ – even the lowest scoring IMAS (09.43 - Remote Explosive Scent Tracing – REST) was assessed to be ‘relevant’ by just over 50% of those who provided a response.

The ‘Top 5’ IMAS which were rated by the respondents as being ‘highly relevant’ were as follows:


of 68

Answer Options Highly relevant

09.11 - Battle Area Clearance 21

10.30 - Personal Protection Equipment – PPE 21

10.40 - Medical Support to Demining Operations 20

08.22 - Technical Survey 20

09.10 - Clearance Requirements 19

The ‘Top 5’ IMAS which were rated by the respondents as being ‘relevant’ were as follows:

Answer Options Highly relevant Relevant

08.10 - General Mine Action Assessment 12 17

09.44 - Guide to Occupational Health and General Dog Care 9 17

08.30 - Post-clearance Documentation 15 16

07.30 - Accreditation of Demining Organizations 14 16

09.50 - Mechanical Demining 12 16

The ‘Lowest 5’ IMAS which were rated as being the least relevant were as follows:

Answer Options Irrelevant Highly

irrelevant TOTAL -

"Irrelevant"

09.44 - Guide to Occupational Health and General Dog Care 2 3 5

03.30 - Guide to the research of mine action technology 5 0 5


of 68

03.10 - Guide to procurement of mine action equipment 3 4 7

03.20 - Procurement Process 6 4 10

09.43 - Remote Explosive Scent Tracing - REST 6 5 11

In hindsight, the Evaluation Team believe that this issue could have been explored further by asking slightly more probing questions such as:

• How relevant is this subject/issue to your work?

• How relevant is the material contained in IMAS to your work?

As it stands at present, the responses received to date do not distinguish between these two aspects and it is therefore difficult to determine whether the respondents were rating the importance/need of each IMAS or whether they were rating the suitability/adequacy of the content of the various IMAS.

Another factor (which was not analysed) is the correlation between ‘relevance’ and the nature of the respondent’s work. For example, it is unlikely that many operators (NGOs, commercial companies and the like) would have much need for ‘02.10 - Guide for the establishment of a mine action programme’ and thus this IMAS’s relevance might potentially score very poorly which may further imply that this IMAS is relatively unimportant. By contrast, to those few organisations or individuals charged with establishing such mine action programmes, this IMAS might be perceived as being extremely relevant and vital to the task. It is therefore important not to read too much into the survey responses as these may contain significant biases depending on the respondent’s organisation and role within the organisation.

A further issue to be considered is the magnitude of the impact that the various IMAS may have. For example, while a poorly implemented site safety plan could result in a deminer’s death or injury, a poorly implemented national mine action programme could not only result in many deminers deaths/injuries but may also:

• delay the clearance of hazards (resulting in higher-than-necessary civilian casualties and further socio-economic drain on a country);

• allow activities to occur which are either ineffective or partly effective (possibly also contributing to civilian casualties, reputation damage, etc); or

• result in wastage or misdirection of scarce or limited resources.

This too needs some further investigation or analysis before being able to say with certainty whether one IMAS is ‘more important’ than another.


of 68

Recognising the above-mentioned issues – and despite the lack of precision or detail in the responses - in very broad terms it appears that:

• Overall, IMAS are generally perceived to be ‘relevant’ to most users.

• IMAS presently covers the subjects that most of the ‘customers’ want.

• ‘Technical issues’ appear to be slightly more important to the users than ‘management/structural’ issues (although the difference in need does not appear to be significant).

• Only a few issues in the current IMAS received relatively low scores – notably IMAS relating to ‘Procurement’ and ‘Remote Explosive Scent Tracing – REST’.

Frequency of Use

36 of the 60 survey respondents provided their ratings regarding the frequency of use for each IMAS (refer Table 2 in Annex C). The lower-than-expected response to this question may indicate some failing in the survey (this section of the survey was described by one respondent as “daunting”) or an indication of the extent of interest in the issue.

It is acknowledged that ‘frequency of use’ is not a good indicator of ‘importance’ or ‘need’. For example, a mine action programme may only use some IMAS once or twice in the life of the programme (spanning many years) but those IMAS may be crucial to the activity being undertaken. Nonetheless, the responses do at least provide a rough indication of usage patterns and this may also be an indication of relative importance of, or relative need for, the various IMAS.

Limited analysis of the responses yielded some interesting results (as follows):

• None of the current IMAS scored a 36/36 for ‘Never Used’. Even the least used IMAS (IMAS 09.43 - Remote Explosive Scent Tracing) scored moderately well in terms of frequency of use - some 40% of the respondents indicated that they ‘never used’ this IMAS however the majority (60%) said they used it at some point. While neither a clear or definitive conclusion, the results from this question would suggest that all IMAS documents are used to some extent by groups within the industry. Based on this, it may be reasonable to further conclude that the subjects addressed by the current IMAS are broadly of use to the industry as whole.

• The responses generally cluster around the “Monthly/Annual/Seldom” region. The most common responses were as follows:

o 1st: Annually or Seldom

o 2nd: Monthly

o 3rd: Weekly

o 4th: Daily

Based on this simplistic analysis coupled with personal experiences, it is postulated that IMAS are generally used by most programmes/organisations to shape


of 68

subordinate documents (e.g. national standards, organisational SOP’s and the like) – these subordinate documents, are likely then used more frequently (weekly, daily) and the IMAS then only used:

o as part of an annual/bi-annual review (informal or formal) of systems, SOPs etc;

o when starting up a new project; or

o when amendments to the IMAS are issued.

• While the survey did not delve into this next point, there are likely some notable exceptions to the above:

o Consultants, evaluators and the like which move from one programme/project on a more frequent basis (e.g. monthly/bi-monthly) likely use various IMAS more frequently.

o Recently issued IMAS or IMAS which have been amended are likely to be viewed or used more frequently - especially if an IMAS has had numerous amendments.

o Conversely – and using a slightly extreme hypothetical – if a particular IMAS has been widely accepted by the industry and unchanged for many years, then it is possible that the IMAS might also be ‘Never Used’ despite it being a core or vital standard within the industry. It may therefore be completely wrong to assume that ‘lack of use’ is an indication that the IMAS is ‘unimportant’ or ‘unnecessary’.

Availability/Accessibility of IMAS

Up-to-date IMAS (and their translation into Arabic, Chinese, French, Spanish and Russian) are posted on the IMAS website (www.mineactionstandards.org). An IMAS CD ROM with up-to-date IMAS is also produced annually and disseminated to the mine action community. Other relevant information such as examples of national standards, technical notes for mine action, CEN Workshop Agreements for mine action are also available on the IMAS website and IMAS CD.

The availability of, or access to, a ‘product’ (in this case, IMAS) is usually a key issue affecting the ‘acceptance’ of the product. If an industry’s ‘standards’ cannot be easily accessed, the users will often find alternatives to meet their needs and the ‘official’ standards can quickly be rendered useless or deemed by the users as ‘unnecessary’. As shown in the next table, access to current IMAS does not appear to be overly problematic however at least 13% of users indicated that they did not have access to the current IMAS:

Do you have access to the most recent versions of IMAS in your current role?


Yes 81.7% 49

No 13.3% 8


of 68

Don't know 5.0% 3

It would be easy to dismiss the 13% as being a small minority and claim ‘success’ in delivering IMAS to the users. However, given the inherently hazardous nature of ERW work and thus the potential importance of IMAS, all users should be able to access the current IMAS. While it is acknowledged that internet access may be limited or non-existent in some locations, other methods of providing this key information are usually available (including but not limited to ‘snail mail’ postal services). It is recommended that this issue be investigated further by the GICHD to determine:

• What groups are having difficulty gaining easy access to IMAS and the likely reasons for this?

• What, if any, alternative formats could be used for IMAS to improve “downloadability” (e.g. having an option to download a ‘plain text’ version of IMAS for those with a low capacity/low speed internet connection).

• What, if any, additional means of transmitting IMAS to users could be utilised? NB: The Evaluation Team notes that GICHD does already offer some other mechanisms such as posting CD or hardcopies to users.

Another dimension to this issue is the way in which amendments or changes to IMAS are notified or distributed. This was not specifically addressed during the evaluation however the Evaluation Team believe that there is scope for improvements in this area. Processes identified in other industries which may be of value to the ERW industry include the following:

• Many other industries provide an option to subscribe to a service which automatically advises the subscriber (by e-mail or other communication) of new standards or changes to existing standards. The Evaluation Team notes that such as service is offered6 however the exact workings of this system were not assessed – there may therefore be some value in further evaluation of this aspect of the IMAS broadcasting process.

• Other industries frequently use their industry’s periodicals/regular journal/newsletters to broadcast changes or future planned changes to their standards. It is again noted that IMAS periodically appears as news in various publications (e.g. the ‘Journal of Mine Action’) however there may be some merit in having IMAS as a regular topic in such journals to keep the subject ‘alive’, to serve as a constant reminder of their existence and – most importantly – to encourage discussion and feedback.

• Many of the industries dealing with high risk materials or high risk activities often utilise ‘News Alerts’, ‘Safety Bulletins’ and the like to notify users of:

6 At http://www.mineactionstandards.org/extra/email-subscription/


of 68

o Identified or potential weaknesses/failings associated with a standard – such alerts are usually issued when it is impractical to issue a formal amendment to a standard in a timely manner (formal amendments are usually issued some weeks or months later);

o New issues have been identified that are not adequately covered by the existing standard(s) – in such circumstances, the alert may offer a suggested or temporary solution pending further investigation (and subsequent inclusion in a standard) or the alert may simply advise users of the issue without offering any further advice; and

o Proposed or forthcoming changes to standards

Management of IMAS

As stated in the opening of this report, the original impetus for standards within the industry came from practitioners and managers in the field – not from the “top down”. It should be noted that even in those early days, personnel working at higher levels (DPKO, DHA, some donors, etc) concurred with the concept and provided considerable support to the standards development process. The first standards (1997) were largely developed by those same practitioners and managers in the field with minimal overarching control or direction. The first major revision of the 1997 standards (circa 1999-2000) saw an increased involvement by higher-level organisations but the revision process was still largely driven by ‘users’ (through, for example, the User Focus Groups). Subsequently, the IMAS development and management process was progressively formalised through the formation of the IMAS Review Board (established circa 2001). The current IMAS management process is briefly described below:

• The highest level of endorsement of IMAS is at the Inter-Agency Coordination Group for Mine Action (at the Principal’s level). Endorsement of IMAS at this level is noted in the Report of the Secretary General on Mine Action, provides IMAS with the distinction of being a “UN Document”, and authorizes IMAS to be published on the IMAS website as current documents.

• A Steering Group provides Executive Direction to the IMAS Review Board (RB). This Group does not comment on technical input or changes to IMAS but will provide guidance and direction on more general issues of procedure.

• The IMAS Review Board (RB) consists of individuals representing a broad collection of organisations/groups, donors and specialties, who themselves represent a broad cross section of the humanitarian mine action community. The RB identifies qualified organizations for membership and recommends them to the IMAS Steering Group for final approval.

The current structures and processes for managing IMAS have worked adequately over the past decade, however responses and findings obtained during this evaluation have raised questions as to whether these are suitable for the future. Key findings from the evaluation which are relevant to this topic include the following:


of 68

• The significant rise in commercial organisations within the ERW industry – particularly over the past 10 years (note that some 40% of survey respondents had a commercial involvement) coupled with an increasing use of IMAS within the commercial sector and for contracting purposes.

• Increasing codification or standardisation of ERW practices in developed countries (e.g. US, UK, Australia, Canada, etc) – often occurring without reference to IMAS7.

• Emergence of potentially competing ERW standards issued by other entities or industry groups8 (Note: A brief review of some these suggests that most are broadly compatible or complimentary to IMAS - the fact that others are issuing standards of their own could be a potential opportunity to share development effort).

• An increasing number of situations where:

o commercial companies are performing humanitarian work;

o humanitarian/government entities are involved in commercial work;

o both commercial & humanitarian organisations are supporting military activities (in conflict and in peace);

o military ERW operations are blending into follow-on humanitarian or commercial work;

o organisations are undertaking both commercial and humanitarian work and cannot be classified as being uniquely ‘humanitarian’ or ‘commercial’; and

o personnel from various organisations (ranging from operators to senior managers) are freely moving between the ‘humanitarian’ and ‘commercial’ sectors.

7 As part of this evaluation, a limited review of ERW policies in the US, UK, Australia & Canada was conducted. In all cases, there was little to no evidence that these countries are using or referring to IMAS in the course of developing their own ERW legislation or standards. This comment also reflects the evaluators’ own experiences working in a diverse range of countries. It must be emphasised that research on this issue was quite limited. 8 For example, in late-2009 the UK ‘Construction Industry Research and Information Association’ (CIRIA) published “Unexploded Ordnance (UXO): A guide for the construction industry” (written mostly by Worley Parsons and 6 Alpha Associates Ltd). CIRIA’s press release states that

“There is currently, little publicly available guidance to specifically assist construction professionals (particularly clients, developers and ground-works contractors) in assessing the risks associated with encountering UXO during the intrusive engineering phase of a project. This lack of previous guidance and direct legislation regarding the potential risks the construction industry faces from UXO hazards, and the limited knowledge many developers have on the subject, often means that construction professionals depend solely on specialist advice to deal with potential UXO risk at a site. This lack of guidance and understanding has resulted in project delays and growing widespread concerns that the construction industry is not being well served by UXO contractors; including:

• A lack of any consistency in the assessment and reporting of UXO risk

• An absence of quantifiable processes when assessing UXO risk.

• The perceived conflict of interest in a UXO specialist providing advice on required mitigation measures and then offering contractor services to mitigate their own assessed risk level.”


of 68

• A variety of views being expressed including but not limited to the following:

o The humanitarian standards are too ‘isolationist’ and there is growing need to dovetail these into both the commercial ERW sector as well as other industries standards (e.g. explosives industry, Dangerous Goods/HAZMAT industry, contaminated land industry, construction/oil & gas industries, general OH&S/HSE standards and the like).

o There is merit in looking at how other industries with similarities to the ERW industry manage their standards and the content/style/etc of those other industries’ standards.

o Some of the IMAS are becoming ‘dated’, do not reflect the diverse ways of ‘doing things’ in the ERW industry, are too focussed on ‘humanitarian demining’ rather than addressing the wider subject of ERW (in humanitarian, commercial and military/peacekeeping environments) or are somewhat disconnected from ‘the real world’.

o Some perceptions that the IMAS management process is ‘another Club’, somewhat of a ‘closed shop’, ‘too UN-centric’ or lacking credibility outside of the UN.

o Not enough ‘technical content’ in technical IMAS.

In addition, it appears unusual that some highly technical standards need to have input from, be referred to or are approved by individuals who mostly have little to no technical understanding of these issues e.g. highly technical standards such as EOD, mine clearance, explosives management, etc appear to require discussion/input from UNDP/UNOPS and donors (via the RB) but, more importantly, appear to need ‘final approval’ by the Inter-Agency Coordination Group for Mine Action. The logic of seeking approval for technical issues from WFP, WHO, FAO, UNOPS, UNHCR, UNDP, OCHA, WB and OHCHR seems flawed or, at best, a ‘rubber stamp’ process which offers little to no benefit to the industry. The Evaluation is not suggesting that there is no need for the involvement of these organisations in IMAS – quite the reverse - WFP, WHO, FAO, UNOPS, UNHCR, UNDP, OCHA, WB, OHCHR and other non-technical organisations are often key stakeholders who could form the basis of a slightly different forum/focus group/advisory group. Their input could be highly beneficial in developing standards related to strategic issues, programme management, inter-operability and so forth.

The Evaluation notes that there is likely merit in having ‘high level endorsement’ of IMAS however it is felt that:

• the current ‘heavy’ UN involvement in the management/approval process is contributing to a perception that IMAS are ‘UN’ or ‘humanitarian demining’ standards;


of 68

• UNMAS could possibly perform this function (either without reference to other UN agencies or with co-endorsement of relevant UN agencies, other technical authorities or donors/governments9); and

• there is a risk that the current ‘high level approval’ process may be discouraging ownership of IMAS by the industry ‘users’.

The Evaluation Team further notes that it seems unusual that:

• For highly technical standards, subject specialists are only invited to contribute or participate “as required” or are “optional”. For highly technical or specialised subjects, it may be more logical to use ‘technical working groups’ comprising mostly subject matter experts with possibly a few ‘generalists’.

• There appears to be no mandatory requirement for new IMAS or proposed amendments to existing IMAS to be put out to the industry for review or comment before being approved. The Evaluation Team notes that draft IMAS are usually listed on the GICHD/IMAS website however there does appear to be a formal or mandatory process for seeking industry comment.

• The entire development and management system for IMAS appears to be being run on a mostly ‘voluntary’ basis which presumably expects the participants to give their own time to writing and reviewing of IMAS. The viability/success/cost effectiveness of using volunteers (many of whom have very busy ‘normal’ jobs to attend to) was not explored during the evaluation, however it is recommended that consideration be given to using short-term employment or consultants to assist with or expedite the writing and development process.

The results from the survey and comments received during the evaluation seem to clearly point to there being two very different groups of users within the ERW industry - namely:

• Those who primarily concerned with issues that are more ‘strategic’ in nature e.g.:

o the international ERW framework,

o inter-operability within the industry and externally between the ERW industry and other sectors, and

o higher level issues associated with establishing and running national programmes/large projects.

• Those who are primarily concerned with ‘operational’ or ‘technical’ issues e.g.:

o How to conduct survey, clearance, EOD, etc;

o Safety distances, safety procedures, medical treatment, etc; and

9 E.g. co-endorsement by WHO for medical issues, ICRC for victim assistance, the Institute of explosives Engineers for ‘Transport, Storage and Handling of explosives’ and so on


of 68

o Technical details associated with various munitions, etc.

Another key finding of the evaluation was that there continues to be significant differences in opinion regarding how much detail should be in the standards or how specific the standards should be. If there are indeed two quite separate groups/users within the ERW community (as discussed in the preceding paragraph), then this may partly explain why this debate continues – it is speculated that the ‘strategic’ users may be seeking only broad(er) guidance on issues whereas the ‘technical/operational’ users may be seeking more detail. Again, it is beyond the scope of this evaluation to delve into this in more detail however – if these conclusions are valid – it might suggest a need for two different ‘types’ or ‘styles’ of standards and possibly also two different management approaches. For example:

• Type/Style 1 - Strategic/structural/programme standards:

o Including strategic, structural, programme/project management, procurement, etc standards

o Less detailed and offer broader ‘guidance’ type information

o Less prescriptive in nature (generally ‘should’, ‘could’, ‘may’)

o Development of these standards to include key higher-level stakeholders (e.g. various UN agencies, donors/governments, programme managers, etc)

o May use a variety of forums to review/develop these standards e.g.:

Meetings involving or requiring input from all stakeholders for those standards which are multi-dimensional, cross-sectoral or have many stakeholders

User Focus Groups/Working Groups comprising only key stakeholders & specialists for those standards which have a smaller number of stakeholders or are more specialised in nature,

o Require higher-level endorsement/approvals (e.g. at the Inter-Agency Coordination Group for Mine Action)

o Should be circulated to the wider ERW industry for comment before approval (but could possibly be ‘optional’)

• Type/Style 2 - Operational and technical standards:

o Including operational, technical and specialist standards such survey, clearance, BAC, Use of MDD, OH&S/HSE, etc

o More detailed and provide more specific instructions regarding ‘how to’

o More prescriptive in nature (‘shall’, ‘will’, etc) while still allowing some flexibility to modify practices or adopt new practices

o Primarily uses ‘Technical Working Groups’ comprising mostly subject matter experts with some key ‘generalist’ stakeholders to develop/revise IMAS


of 68

o Does not need to go to the Inter-Agency Coordination Group for Mine Action for approval; approved instead by a ‘competent technical authority’ (possibly the Review Board?)

o Mandatory to be circulated to the wider ERW industry for comment before approval

The above suggestions should not be construed as meaning that there is a need to formally have different types of IMAS but rather that there is a need to change the content, level of detail and style to recognise that there are quite different types of users with different needs. Whether or not these different ‘types’ of IMAS require different approval processes should be a matter for further discussion.

Readers may wish to note that these issues are not unique to the ERW industry – very similar situations regarding the development and approval of ‘standards’ exist for:

• the air transport industry (see the ‘International Civil Aviation Organization’10 and the ‘International Air Transport Association’11)

• maritime safety (see the ‘International Maritime Organization’12)

• the atomic energy industry (see – for example – the ‘International Atomic Energy Agency’13)

• the explosives and Dangerous Goods industries (for explosives, see – for example - the ‘Institute of Explosives Engineers’ and the ‘Institute of Makers of Explosives’; standards for ‘dangerous goods’ involve a number of different actors.)

• the contaminated land industry (various institutes and authorities)

Based on the changing shape of the ERW industry coupled with the preliminary findings of this evaluation (as discussed in the preceding paragraphs), the Evaluation:

• believes that there is a critical need to undertake a more thorough study into the future direction, shape and management of IMAS.

• assesses that it is beyond the scope of this evaluation to delve further into this subject or provide detailed discussion, options, alternatives and the like.

10 The ICAO is a specialized agency of the UN which sets standards and regulations necessary for aviation safety, security, efficiency and regularity, as well as for aviation environmental protection. The Organization serves as the forum for cooperation in all fields of civil aviation among its 190 Member States. 11 IATA is an international industry trade group of airlines whose mission is to represent, lead, and serve the airline industry. IATA represents some 230 airlines comprising 93% of scheduled international air traffic. One of the key functions of IATA is development of commercial standards for the airline industry. 12 The IMO is the United Nations specialized agency with responsibility for the safety and security of shipping and the prevention of marine pollution by ships. 13 The IAEA is the world's centre of cooperation in the nuclear field. The Agency works with its Member States and multiple partners worldwide to promote safe, secure and peaceful nuclear technologies. Three areas of work underpin the IAEA's mission: Safety and Security; Science and Technology; and Safeguards and Verification.


of 68

• recommends that this matter be further debated and investigated with a view to determining:

o the future place of IMAS within the wider global ERW industry, and

o the management structures best suited to handle IMAS into the future.

Translation of IMAS

IMAS are currently translated into Arabic, Chinese, French, Spanish and Russian – all of which are posted on the IMAS website (www.mineactionstandards.org).

Only 38 of the 60 survey respondents answered this question – of those 38, the majority (29) indicated support for IMAS to be translated (see table below). Responses in relation to which specific languages are most sought are provided in the two subsequent tables:

Should IMAS be officially translated into languages other than English?

Answer Options Response Percent

Response Count

Yes 76.3% 29

No 5.3% 2



skipped question 22

If "yes", which languages?


Response Count

Arabic 76.2% 16

Chinese 19.0% 4

French 57.1% 12

Russian 38.1% 8


of 68

Spanish 71.4% 15

Other (please specify) 14


skipped question 39

Other (please specify)

Farsi (Iran, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan)

Amharic

Italian

Tamil x 2

Dari & Pashtu x 2

Romanian

Portuguese x 4

Cambodian

Available for other mine action programs on request

Determine by operational analysis of requirements

The relatively low number of responses makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions – accordingly, it may be beneficial if the IMAS managers sought further feedback from users or look at how other comparable industries deal with this issue. Providing translation support may also be a service that could be considered as part of the Outreach Programme which may:

• help to improve the overall acceptance and usage of IMAS; and

• if combined with support to develop sound national legislation, help to promote good governance in countries where this is an issue or concern.

Subsequent to the draft evaluation report being issued, the Evaluation was asked to elaborate further on this matter and to specifically address the question of the translation of IMAS into the official UN languages. As stated in the preceding paragraph, the Evaluation


of 68

feels that it does have enough information to make firm recommendations on this question however the following ‘for and against’ comments are offered:

• IMAS are not ‘official’ UN documents nor are they ‘UN standards’14 (even though are currently ‘approved’ by a UN group and are deemed to have ‘official UN status’ – a matter which is discussed earlier under the section titled ‘Management of IMAS’). Accordingly, there is likely no formal obligation to provide translations into other official UN languages.

• Rightly or wrongly, English has increasingly become the de facto global language for scientific, technical and research documents.

• Notwithstanding the above points, the evaluators believe that having translated versions of IMAS:

o Encourages wider readership of IMAS thus likely encourages greater usage and acceptance/adoption of IMAS, and

o Helps to dispel any perception that IMAS are some form of ‘western imposition’ or are a ‘western view’ of how ERW work should be conducted.

• The official UN languages are not the ‘official’ languages of some of the largest ERW programmes currently operating (e.g. Afghanistan, Cambodia) – translation of IMAS into the official UN languages would thus still not cater for large segments of the ERW industry.

• Responses to the survey questionnaire clearly indicate that the majority of respondents support translation into other languages however it is not clear whether respondents would prefer to have this done centrally or be provided with support to have this done at the country level. Providing a central translation service (i.e. GICHD) would likely provide a higher level of assurance that the IMAS had been correctly translated15 but:

o Likely places a significant extra burden on the GICHD (note that it is not just a case of having the original/1st issues of IMAS translated – all subsequent changes and amendments should be translated which could require substantial extra resources);

o Would likely only cater for some of the other language users and, even then, would likely not take into account local variations of languages; and

14 This was believed to have been a conscious decision made by the UN and the industry users many years ago (circa 1997) – the author cannot recall all of the factors which were behind that decision however ‘risk and liability’ together with ‘availability of translation resources’ were certainly topics that were discussed at that time. 15 The translation of highly technical documents often requires specialist translators who understand the technical vocabulary of the industry. At the risk of overgeneralising, organisations that offer general translation services may be suitable for processing documents that use everyday language and terminology but may struggle to correctly translate highly technical or very specialised terminology.


of 68

o Could possibly discourage national ownership of standards (It should be noted that one of the key objectives of IMAS is to act as a basis for the development of tailored national standards).

• Resources for the further development of IMAS are limited – one of the key questions that needs to be answered (and which the Evaluation is unable to answer) is whether it is better to direct most of these limited resources to producing one set of comprehensive and sound standards or to producing translated versions of possibly ‘lower standard’ standards.

• Respondents to the survey showed stronger support for translation into Arabic, French and Spanish however there was also moderate support for other languages (e.g. Russian, Chinese & Portuguese). Readers are again cautioned that the number of respondents is statistically very small (compared to the total size of the ERW industry) and care should be taken in interpreting the survey’s results.

• Other non-ERW organisations who produce ‘international standards’ (e.g. ICAO, IATA, IMO, IAEA, etc) do not appear to be translating all their documents into all of the UN official languages – in those cases, translations appear to be either limited to only some of the UN languages or to only some of the documents.

• Lastly, it is presently unclear whether the translation of IMAS is an important issue or a relatively unimportant issue. The survey results clearly show that most respondents believe that IMAS should be translated (into at least some other major languages) however this may not necessarily be an indication of importance or impact. It could well be that many users would like to have translated versions available but are doing ‘just fine’ without such translations. Conversely, the lack of translated IMAS might be a major impediment to progressing or developing a national programme.

The evaluation concludes that:

• Insufficient information is presently available to make firm recommendations on this issue,

• There are equally valid arguments both ‘for’ and ‘against’ IMAS being translated into either the official UN languages or other languages, and

• The GICHD should gather more information on which a sound decision can be made by promoting further investigation and discussion of this issue.

Format, Style & Content

37 of the 60 survey respondents provided ratings on the current format of IMAS as follows:

The current format of IMAS is:


Response Count


of 68

Excellent - no need to change 27.0% 10

About right - only small changes necessary 37.8% 14

Repetitive - should be edited and simplified 32.4% 12

Other (please specify) 2.7% 1


skipped question 23

At first glance, the results would suggest that most users are generally satisfied with the ‘format’ of the current IMAS – almost 65% indicated that the current IMAS were ‘about right’ or ‘excellent’. However a deeper analysis (which also took into account numerous comments received during the evaluation) might suggest something slightly different:

• Firstly, it should be noted that only 37 respondents answered this question which may not be sufficient to be statistically significant. Additionally, when the ‘no responses’ are included, the ‘about right/excellent’ percentage drops to only some 40% which, while still positive, could not be called ‘overwhelming positive’.

• Secondly, and possibly more importantly, comments received during the evaluation appear to somewhat less favourable – comments typically fell into the following 4 main categories:

o Level of detail – “Too vague”, “needs more detail”, “more specific [detail on technical issues] needed”, etc (at least 9 such comments)

o Repetition/Duplication/Size – “Too many standards”, “becoming a monster”, “too much repetition”, “similar standards/same subject could be merged”, “duplicate [or sometimes conflict with] other non-ERW standards”, “other [non-ERW] standards/mechanisms could be used”, etc (at least 7 such comments plus 32% of those who answered this question indicated that the IMAS were ‘repetitive’)

o Weak – “Too many ‘shoulds’”, “[IMAS ok but] national standards need to be more prescriptive”, “unenforceable”, “not taken seriously”, “IMAS need more [institutional] backing”, (at least 8 such comments)

o Other – various comments covering a quite wide range of issues (mostly aimed at specific IMAS)

While the overall number of ‘negative’ comments is quite low, the Evaluation Team feels that many of these comments may reflect the views of a much larger portion of the ERW industry (although this cannot presently be confirmed). The Evaluation Team also believes that some of these issues are an extension of earlier discussion related to there being two quite


of 68

different groups of IMAS users who each have quite different needs/expectations regarding the style and content of IMAS (see earlier section - ‘Management of IMAS’). As stated previously, the debate regarding ‘content’ has been around since industry standards were first conceived and, if this Evaluation Team’s conclusions are valid, it might suggest a need to change the style and content based on the different target audiences:

• Type/Style 1 - Strategic/structural/programme standards:

o Including strategic, structural, programme/project management, procurement, etc standards.

o Less detailed and offer broader ‘guidance’ type information.

o More flexibility/less prescriptive in nature (generally ‘should’, ‘could’, ‘may’).

• Type/Style 2 - Operational and technical standards:

o Including operational, technical and specialist standards such survey, clearance, BAC, testing of equipment, use of MDD, OH&S/HSE, etc.

o More detailed, describes industry ‘best practices’ and provides more specific instructions regarding ‘how to’.

o More prescriptive in nature (‘shall’, ‘will’, etc) while still allowing some flexibility to modify practices or adopt new practices if circumstances so dictate.

• Type/Style 3 – Information and Supporting Documents:

o Not strictly standards but designed to complement standards by providing additional information, background material and the like

o An extension of the TNMA concept and could consist of a wide range of material of relevance to the ERW industry that helps to build knowledge and understanding - such as:

technical information on munitions, hazards, equipment, etc

research papers, scientific studies, concept papers and the like

field or other evaluations of equipment or processes, etc

industry data, statistics, etc (e.g. Database of Demining Incident Victims - DDIV)

o No specific format and could come from a wide variety of sources

o May need some review mechanism to ensure material is relevant and from a credible source but, as much as possible, ‘editorial control’ should be kept to a minimum

The Evaluation again asks readers not to interpret the above as meaning that there is a need to formally have different types of IMAS but rather that there is a need to change the


of 68

content, level of detail and style to recognise that there are quite different types of users with different needs.

It may also be worth noting that many of non-ERW industries’ standards (e.g. construction, oil and gas, mining, explosives, HAZMAT, soil contamination, transport, medical, etc industries) are mostly ‘Type 2’ standards.

IMPROVING AND STRENGTHENING IMAS

Future Direction

This part of the evaluation report is based largely on informal comments gathered during the evaluation coupled with ideas and experiences from a variety of sources – some old, some new. The aim of this section is to briefly summarise these issues as ‘food-for-thought’ rather than being specific recommendations.

Ultimately it is up the ERW industry and its stakeholders (UN, donors, governments and the public) to decide what the future direction of IMAS should be. As it stands at present, IMAS is primarily focussed on humanitarian demining and only partially covers some of the other ‘pillars of mine action’16. There are some loose linkages with other ERW-relevant material (CEN Workshop Agreement – CWA, various scientific/research papers, etc) but – by and large – much of the ERW industry’s guidance material and knowledge base is spread over a wide range of repositories, has often been developed outside of the IMAS framework and much of this is not easily found or accessible to the average user.

Despite there being a reasonably good spread of survey respondents between the humanitarian and commercial organisations, responses from government/donors, peacekeepers and militaries were low (5, 1 and 0 respondents respectively) however these are all key actors in the global ERW industry – many of whom are actively involved in ERW work in their own countries or other countries. Furthermore:

• It is not clear whether the ‘donor/government’ respondents were commenting on behalf of their entire government or only commenting as the aid funding agency of their government – in many donors’ countries, the ‘aid’ arm of government has little or nothing to do with how that government manages its own country’s ERW activities (the latter is frequently managed by government defence and/or environmental agencies)

• It is not known whether the commercial respondents to the evaluation survey were quasi-humanitarian (i.e. primarily involved in countries which have humanitarian

16 The five "pillars" of mine action: (1) Clearance of landmines and ERW including marking or fencing contaminated areas (2) Mine-risk education (3) Medical assistance and rehabilitation services to victims (4) Advocacy (5) Stockpile destruction


of 68

programmes) or whether they are working exclusively as commercial entities in developed countries (the former are more likely to making use of IMAS).

The evaluators’ experiences coupled with limited research indicate that ERW activities in developed countries and ‘pure commercial work’ are rarely making use of IMAS17. In these situations, it appears that governments and implementing organisations are often developing their own standards, policies and procedures largely without reference to IMAS.

A key question that therefore needs to be addressed relates to the future shape of the ERW industry and the humanitarian demining sector – will the ERW industry merge the humanitarian, commercial, government and military ERW sub-sectors ‘under one roof’ or will each continue on its own, independent path? There is considerable logic and potentially many benefits to be gained by broadening our outlook and joining forces with the other ERW sectors and there are signs that this is already happening to some extent. While there are some small differences between the various sub-sectors, generally speaking most ERW activities are executed in a very similar manner regardless of whether they are done in a humanitarian, military/peacekeeping, civilian or government context.

Conversely, if the various sub-sectors remain separated, it may be an easier and more comfortable path but it is highly likely that future development will stagnate, be fragmented/inefficient or result in conflicting approaches. In a worst case scenario, IMAS could be overtaken or surpassed by developments in the commercial/ government sectors and eventually become redundant as users adopt better standards from another sector18.

Without some vision as to where the industry is going, it is difficult to assess whether there are any gaps in IMAS and whether further developments are needed or not. This was also evidenced by some differences in evaluation responses – some respondents said “no further changes needed” while others indicated that further expansion and improvements are needed. Accordingly, the Evaluation Team strongly recommends that the GICHD encourage or support further discussion to determine the future direction of the humanitarian sector within the ERW industry19. As much as possible, such discussion should aim to include the many actors who are currently not intimately or directly involved with humanitarian mine action.

The following sections have adopted the view that there will be some merging of the ERW industry sectors – accordingly, many of the suggestions regarding products & services are offered on the basis of a wider group of users. Conversely, if there is no expansion/merger,

17 In some instances IMAS have been used as a basis for commercial ERW work but have been extensively modified or adapted to meet commercial needs. 18 Such a situation is occurring to some extent in the airlines industry with ICAO and IATA supposedly working together but issuing different standards. Most commercial airlines utilise IATA ‘standards’ but numerous governments support ICAO ‘Instructions’. The ICAO and IATA ‘standards’ are generally complimentary but there are a number of differences between the two. Similarly, the explosives and Dangerous Goods industries appear to have similar but often competing ‘standards’. 19 The Evaluation notes the recent work done by the GICHD on assessing the future of the sector however limited time available for this evaluation did not allow this matter to examined in more detail.


of 68

many of the suggested products & services might be irrelevant. Discussion on suggested products & services has been deliberately kept brief pending answers to the ‘key question’ posed above.

Moving to ISO

The survey questionnaire did not cover this issue however an interview was conducted with the appropriate ISO representative in Geneva. From an ISO perspective, the primary reasons for a standard moving to an ISO format were identified as:

• Outreach

• Access to expertise

• Industry endorsement

• Standards management

It is the opinion of the Evaluation Team that none of the reasons stated would improve upon the status quo. In fact, the process involved in gaining an endorsement at a country level across all ISO members would have a potentially negative effect. Each member country would be required to assemble a panel or committee of experts to discuss draft standards, and the resulting documents would then have to be considered by an international industry working-group for endorsement prior to production into standards.

However, mine action has already been through this process and to start again is considered to be a waste of time and resources. Moreover, this process would come at a cost and the industry would be required to recoup these costs for ISO - this is usually achieved through the sale of the standards.

The results of the survey tend to reinforce this. A number of comments were received on this topic – these tended to reflect a few core themes as follows:

• Small industry, not enough users

• Not many people have a vested interest or care about this

• Possibly a costly exercise

• No (or minimal) need, impact, benefit or added value to doing it

• Possible loss of flexibility

• Other mechanisms might be available that could be cheaper or provide the same benefit

While the number of comments on this topic was statistically very small, the consensus appears to be generally negative or unsure about any possible move to put IMAS under or within the ISO framework. If there is any intent or desire to migrate to ISO, the Evaluation Team recommends that issue be the subject of a further detailed assessment to properly


of 68

evaluate the whole-of-life costs and the real net benefits that would accrue from any such move.

Gaps in the Process, Products, and Services

Legislation

IMAS on their own have little or no legal basis – it has always been expected that IMAS would be used as a basis to develop country-specific standards (NMAS). Even when country-specific standards have been developed, there is usually a need for these to receive some form of ‘official sanction’ from the state/country in the form of government legislation. The Evaluation Team feels that a ‘standard’ (most likely in the form of a ‘guidance’ or ‘best practice’ standard) is needed to help strengthen the legal basis of IMAS/NMAS and encourage the usage of IMAS.

The Evaluation Team notes that the GICHD has already issued a guidance note on this subject (‘A guide to developing mine action legislation’, GICHD, March 2006) however this is neither listed under ‘standards’ nor TNMA – this is a good example of a document that potentially has value as a ‘standard’ (guidance/best practice) but is ‘hard to find’!

Specific mine action/ERW legislation may not be needed – in many countries some form of legislative cover may already be in place in the form of OH&S Acts, various Acts related to military-like activities, Acts relating to explosives/explosive articles, ‘Dangerous Goods’ Acts and the like.

The development of sound mine action legislation could be linked to other ‘good governance’ initiatives and should ideally utilise specialists who have expertise in the development of sound national legislation (i.e. should not rely on MAC staff who often may not have this expertise).

National Standards

Many of current IMAS are specifically aimed at providing guidance on the development of the national standards. The Evaluation Team assesses that many of these IMAS are adequate at this time (but may need further refinements) however it should be noted that often single sentences in these IMAS may require significant time and effort to expand, develop and implement the equivalent national standard. For example, the current IMAS ‘standard’ for the setting of clearance depths advises that “The specified depth of clearance shall be determined by a technical survey, or from other reliable information which establishes the anticipated depth of the mine and ERW hazards, and an assessment of the intended land use”.

This is sound and reasonable advice but to achieve this may require a national MAC to expend weeks of time and effort to gather information from technical surveys or other sources to determine “the anticipated depth of the mine and ERW hazards” in all locations throughout the country. The national standard then has to be written, disseminated, and possibly followed-up with revisions or checks to determine the adequacy of this specification


of 68

– this may again take considerable time and effort to do. The same applies to many other ‘simple statements’ contained in the existing IMAS - if the effort required to implement these apparently simple statements was tallied up, the total time required to prepare NMAS to the requisite level of detail would likely be significant.

To date, the expectation has largely been that the national MACs will develop national standards however the Evaluation Team questions whether the staff in the already-overly-busy MACs have either the time or expertise to develop proper or effective national standards. Similarly, amendments or changes to IMAS can also require a significant investment of people and time to modify NMAS.

The Evaluation Team feels that many MACs would welcome ‘template’ or ‘example’ national standards which can be edited or modified to suit local circumstances (rather than having to ‘cut and paste’ from IMAS, or develop these ‘from scratch’)20. It is stressed that the Evaluation is not suggesting ‘template’ solutions for every country or situation – every country invariably has unique or slightly different requirements however it is felt that ‘templates’ or ‘examples’ could help accelerate the development of national standards. Furthermore, consideration should be given to providing additional support for this work – such as that provided by the GICHD in the past. This would likely result in these tasks being performed more expeditiously as the specialists would invariably become more proficient over time.

Non-‐ERW Standards

As discussed in earlier sections of this report, the Evaluation Team notes the existence of many ‘standards’ and other documents relevant to ERW in a wide variety of repositories. Examples include standards, guidance documents, research papers, technical evaluations, manuals, etc covering:

• risk management,

• OH&S/HSE,

• explosives/HAZMAT/Dangerous Goods,

• soil contamination,

• ‘high risk’/explosives/HAZMAT training,

• other developed countries ‘standards’ or practices

• ground surveys (non-ERW – e.g. geotech, etc)

• education, child/adult learning & behaviour, ‘changing risky behaviour’

20 Based primarily on feedback obtained during earlier evaluation/assessment/project design missions undertaken by the evaluators (e.g. Mozambique, BiH, Angola, Kosovo) coupled with personal experiences of running or supporting national MACs or their equivalent (notably Afghanistan, Cambodia & Russia).


of 68

The Evaluation Team feels there is merit in reviewing these types of documents which presently sit outside of ERW or outside of the humanitarian sector and, if applicable to the ERW industry, adopting more of these as ‘normative references’ or simply listing these as ‘information documents’ so as to improve education and understanding.

Training & Qualifications

The issue of ‘standardised’ training and qualifications is one which has long been discussed. The Evaluation Team notes the effort and significant progress made in standardising EOD qualifications (see CEN workshop agreement 15464:2005 ‘EOD Competency Standards’21) but finds it surprising that (a) this has not been adopted as an IMAS22 and (b) the same or similar approach has not been extended to all demining/ERW-related jobs (especially those dealing with ‘hazards’).

This issue was raised by a number of people interviewed during the evaluation and the Evaluation Team also notes that:

• there is evidence of increased mobility of ERW personnel between countries, programmes/projects and sectors;

• numerous ERW practitioners are members of ‘related’ industries (e.g. members of the Institute of Explosive Engineers) – even though some of these institutes are only partially relevant to the ERW industry;

• attempts have been made in the past to establish an ERW-specific ‘institute’ (notably the Institute of Munitions Clearance & Search Engineers) – with only limited success so far;

• a significant number of ERW practitioners received their original training from credible military institutions or, more recently, from a variety of companies offering ERW/EOD training but there is presently no mechanism to validate this training or the qualifications and no mechanism to ensure that practitioners remain current; and

• there is virtually no difference in the skills needed/required to perform hazardous ERW activities in the humanitarian, military, commercial and government sectors – both in developed and developing countries.

The Evaluation Team believes that some form of standardisation of training and qualifications coupled with some form of ERW industry licensing/accreditation body would be both desirable and welcomed. Furthermore, such a practice is quite common in other countries or other comparable non-ERW industries when hazardous articles or hazardous scenarios are involved (e.g. the explosives industry, the dangerous goods industry, the petro-chemical industry to name a few). While it may be tempting to put such responsibilities

21 http://www.mineactionstandards.org/cen-‐workshop-‐agreements/list-‐of-‐cwa/

22 The Evaluation notes that CWA 15464:2005 is cited as a ‘normative document’ in IMAS 09.30 ‘Explosive ordnance disposal’


of 68

down to the country level, the Evaluation Team believes that this is an international issue and is best handled by a single global body.

Given the international/inter-project mobility of many ERW practitioners – and the importance of having competent technical staff when dealing with hazardous items – the Evaluation Team recommends that GICHD give consideration to supporting the establishment of a global ERW body or institution that can take charge of this issue – specifically:

• standardisation of training;

• accreditation/licensing of personnel dealing with or managing hazardous articles or substances (possibly only applicable for those personnel who wish to have a globally-recognised qualification); and

• ensuring that technical personnel remain up-to-date in their skills.

Technical Issues

The following is a list of possible subjects (mostly technical issues) that the Evaluation Team feels may be of value to the humanitarian demining community and the wider ERW industry. Some of these may already exist on the GICHD (or other) website but again the Evaluation Team notes that many are not easy to find unless a person knows of their existence beforehand. The Evaluation Team believes that the ERW industry would welcome a ‘one-stop-shop reference library’ that provides standards or other information related to the following:

• risk management, risk assessments, Job Hazard Analysis (JHA), concept of ‘As Low As Reasonably Practicable’, risk management plans

• defining or managing clearance specifications and ‘residual risk’

• occupational health and safety (OH&S) related to explosives, chemicals, other hazardous materials/dangerous goods, hazardous situations, construction, oil and gas

• guidelines for preparing safety/HSE plans, quality plans, emergency/medical response plans and the like

• statistical data or information related to ERW accidents and incidents

• munitions technical data (e.g. ORDATA), munitions failure rates, projectile penetration depths and the like

• ‘non-conventional’ hazards (depleted uranium, chemical/biological agents, white phosphorus, carcinogens and other health hazards associated with explosives, etc)

• soil and sub-surface water contamination attributable or linked to munitions/UXO

• munitions in the maritime environment

• 1st aid & trauma management, field medical support, medical evacuation


of 68

• information management (including IMSMA)

• legal & contractual issues (including legislation, criminal/litigation exposures faced by personnel and operators, court cases, insurance issues, contractual issues and the like)

• results of equipment, etc test and evaluations, guidelines for use of various equipment

The above is not intended to be exhaustive list of subjects but merely ‘food for thought’ as to what a possible ‘ERW one-stop-shop reference library’ might contain. While some may argue that many of these are outside of the scope of IMAS, there is a wider issue being discussed here – namely the need to encourage ‘good practices’ (be it through IMAS/‘standards’ or through guidance & education). The ‘library’ does not necessarily need to hold physical copies of all documents – internet or other links to relevant documents or to other organisations’/industries’ web sites might suffice in many instances.

Example: The author attempted to find the normative reference ‘Care in the field for victims of war weapons, Management and health guidelines for health professionals; ICRC’ which is listed in IMAS 10.4 ‘Safety & occupational health - Medical support to demining operations’. It took the author quite time ‘googling’ for this document (which was eventually found). In the course of this exercise, the author found numerous other documents that were (a) more recent and (b) possibly more relevant. The key points to be noted are that (a) finding useful information related to ERW is not an easy task and (b) there is an ongoing need to ensure that references and internet links are kept current. These types of issues could be overcome (at least in part) by having agreed focal points for various topics who have a responsibility to keep the ERW ‘online library’ up-to-date industry.

Much of this information already exists in one form or another – much of it can be found by searching the GICHD and other websites. At stated earlier, the Evaluation Team notes that many of these are not easy to find unless a person knows of their existence beforehand. The Evaluation Team recommends that:

• GICHD reorganise and rationalise it’s significant online ‘library’ to make it easier and simpler for users to find relevant information pertaining to different ERW subjects;

• Consideration be given to ‘formalising’ many of the documents that already exist within GICHD into at least ‘TNMA’ (i.e. for information or guidance) rather than being hidden elsewhere on the GICHD website;

• The ERW industry (perhaps led by GICHD) actively look into other non-ERW industries to source relevant standards and information that have relevance to ERW work.

• GICHD act a focal point to encourage further discussion regarding the information needs (not just standards) of the ERW industry.


of 68

Outreach Programme

The Evaluation Team is of the view that there are two key dimensions to the ‘Outreach Programme’:

• The first – and traditional, more obvious dimension – relates to the dissemination and use of IMAS within the humanitarian mine action community i.e. ‘internal & downwards’ outreach. To date, it appears that this has been the main (and possibly exclusive) focus of IMAS/GICHD.

• The second – suggested by this Evaluation – relates to ‘lateral/horizontal’ outreach i.e.:

o encouraging ‘good practice’, harmonisation and standardisation among the wider global ERW industry;

o spanning not just developing countries but also including developing counties (most of whom have their own ERW issues – be it post-war cleanup or decontamination of former military firing ranges & munitions storage/dumping areas); and

o linking or working with other industries whose activities are of relevance to the ERW industry.

As discussed earlier, the extent to which the second approach is pursued is very much contingent on whether the ‘humanitarian demining’ sector wishes to broaden its involvement in the wider ERW industry.

‘Internal & Downwards’ Outreach

The Evaluation Team has identified a number of outreach issues within the ‘humanitarian demining’ sector that could or should be pursued. Most of these have been covered in more detail in earlier discussion and are therefore only summarised here (or provided with limited additional comment):

• encourage wider participation and involvement:

o separate the development of ‘operational/technical’ standards and ‘strategic/structural’ standards;

o encourage greater involvement of subject matter experts;

o outsource writing and development work;

o involve relevant stakeholders with relevant standards, encourage wider ‘ownership’ of ‘standards’

o re-think the best structure to manage IMAS; streamline the development and amendment processes;

o actively seek ERW industry comments and input;


of 68

o actively promote healthy discussion, encourage dissenting or different points of view

• training & education – comments were received during the evaluation that indicate that some (possibly many) users do no fully understand the different types of documents that may be called ‘standards’ (see earlier discussion: ‘What are Standards’ and ‘Types of Standards’) nor possibly the intent of IMAS; encourage better understanding of the types of standards and their application

• easier/better access:

o more documents available in different languages

o different/smaller formats to provide quicker download

o different modes of dissemination – mail, newsletter, ‘alerts’ etc

o re-organise the online ‘library’ – make it easier to find information related to various subjects

o improve links to reference materials and documents that are not located on the GICHD/IMAS sites

• provide more ‘technical’ standards, more detailed/‘how to’/’best practice’ standards and more supporting material

• increase personnel and technical support to national MACs to allow national standards to be developed quickly and in a coherent, consistent manner

• assistance with translation into other languages to encourage wider usage

• provide ‘template’ or ‘example’ national standards and SOPs

• develop consistency/harmonisation of humanitarian demining training, develop competency standards for all technical demining

‘Lateral/Horizontal’ Outreach

This ‘second dimension’ of outreach provides suggestions related to how the humanitarian demining sector could potentially benefit from looking further afield at the wider ERW industry and other industries. Similarly, most of these have been covered in more detail in earlier discussion and are therefore only summarised here (or provided with limited additional comment):

• ‘Don’t reinvent the wheel’ – if another industry or ERW sub-sector (commercial, military, etc) already has something in place or documents/practices/etc that may be relevant, investigate if these can be used for humanitarian or the wider ERW work

• Recognise that the humanitarian, commercial, military/peacekeeping and government ERW sub-sectors are – for all intents and purposes – the same thing. They essentially have the same practices (albeit to different customers and with


of 68

some minor variations) and there is potentially much benefit to be gained by working together.

• Recognise that promoting and adopting IMAS is another way of promoting ‘good governance’; encourage the development of good legislation that provides endorsement of IMAS/ERW industries.

• Broaden the view of IMAS - increase dialogue and cooperation with non-humanitarian sub-sectors and encourage their involvement to ‘harmonise’ ERW work across humanitarian, commercial, military/peacekeeping and government ERW sectors.

• Consider ‘re-branding’ IMAS – too many stakeholders (both inside and outside of the mine action/ERW industry) think these are exclusively focussed on ‘humanitarian demining’ rather than potentially being (if applied sensibly) a sound framework for any ERW work.

• Link to or develop dialogue and cooperation with non-ERW industries that have similarities or relevance to the ERW industry/humanitarian demining sector (explosives, dangerous goods, risk management, etc industries).

• Link to or develop dialogue with the demining/ERW industry’s clients and customers (commercial, military and governments):

o What do they want/expect/need from the ERW industry?

o Are we adequately catering for their needs?

o Are our processes, approaches, etc suitable, appropriate or compatible? If not, what do we need to change or what could we ask them to change?

o Have they got processes, approaches, etc which might be useful to the ERW industry? If so, can we adopt these?

o Work with and encourage the involvement of these key stakeholders to harmonise practices and develop (where possible) truly global/international standards.

• Develop or promote global, harmonised training and licensing of ERW practitioners.

• Supporting the establishment of a global ERW institute (GICHD could well be a prime candidate for this role!)


of 68

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS The Evaluation Team’s conclusions and recommendations are summarised as follows:

Overview:

• The original concept for IMAS emerged at a time when humanitarian demining in developing/post-conflict countries prevailed and little to no commercial ERW work was being undertaken. The ERW industry has since seen significant growth in commercial ERW work as well as growth in ERW activities in developed countries (e.g. clearance of former military live firing/training areas). At the same time, there has been a significant shift from purely ‘mine clearance’ to a situation where UXO remediation is on par with (or is possibly exceeding) its ‘demining’ cousin.

• The global ‘ERW industry’ now comprises humanitarian, commercial, peacekeeping, military and government actors. The industry as whole appears to be further evolving and maturing with some indications of both divergence and convergence in the area of ERW standards.

• There is a perception (possibly growing) that IMAS are primarily ‘UN standards’ or ‘humanitarian demining standards’. While there are some small differences between the various ERW sub-sectors (humanitarian, commercial, peacekeeping, military government), generally speaking most ERW activities are executed in a very similar manner regardless of whether they are done in a humanitarian, military/peacekeeping, commercial or government context. Thus, at least in theory, IMAS should be able to be applied in all ERW sub-sectors with minimal modification.

• Some 40% of the responses obtained during this evaluation came from the commercial / non-humanitarian sector (including consultants and organisations performing both commercial & humanitarian work). This clearly indicates that:

o The ‘non-humanitarian’ sector is genuinely interested in the development of IMAS; and

o In the absence of other standards or controls for commercial ERW work, there is a demand for some form of international ‘standards’ in the commercial arena and that IMAS are – rightly or wrongly - currently being used in this role (at least in part).

• There is some evidence that ‘standards’ are being developed for non-humanitarian ERW activities but these may be proceeding along either parallel or diverging paths. This may suggest that:

o the current IMAS may not suitable for the wider ERW industry

o There are ‘gaps’ in the current IMAS

o There are potential opportunities to widen the applicability of IMAS (e.g. by collaborating with others to develop global ERW standards)


of 68

• The Evaluation believes that IMAS (traditionally viewed as ‘humanitarian demining standards’) are at an important development junction and there is urgent need to decide whether IMAS should remain primarily ‘humanitarian demining standards’ or be expanded to become ‘global ERW standards’.

Objective 1: Assess usefulness, relevance, efficiency and effectiveness:

• Overall, considerable good work has been done with regard to IMAS – IMAS are generally ‘appreciated’, seen by users to be relevant/useful and appear to be contributing to improvement in safety and efficiency.

• There is insufficient global/industry-wide data to determine if the ERW industry is indeed becoming safer or more efficient – this may suggest that there is an important information ‘gap’ (which could be addressed by the GICHD).

• All IMAS appear to be being used (to varying degrees) thus the Evaluation concludes that IMAS are at least addressing issues relevant to users.

• Only a few issues in the current IMAS received relatively low ‘relevance’ scores – notably IMAS relating to ‘Procurement’ and ‘Remote Explosive Scent Tracing – REST’ (however this should not be taken as meaning that these IMAS are ‘unimportant’).

• IMAS appear to be most often used “as a reference document for procedural or safety reasons” and “as a basis for contractual agreements” (however the latter may simply be an extension of ‘procedural or safety reasons’). ‘Technical issues’ therefore appear to be more important to the users than ‘management/structural’ issues (although the difference in need does not appear to be significant).

• There is evidence that IMAS is increasingly being used or being considered as ‘standards’ outside of the ‘humanitarian demining’ sector (either used ‘as is’ or with modification) – a situation which presents numerous opportunities if well managed or potentially spell the death of IMAS if not well managed.

Objective 2: Identify gaps in the process, products, and services; Areas for improvement & strengthening of IMAS and the outreach programme:

• IMAS appear to be most often used as ‘technical references’ (for safety, procedural or contracting purposes) however many comments indicated that ‘technical’ subjects did not contain sufficient detail.

• Further to the above, the present IMAS appear to cover subjects of relevance to ‘customers’ however there is evidence of a possible need for additional IMAS covering both technical and non-technical subjects.

• The extent to which IMAS might be expanded is – to some degree – dependent on whether the ERW industry wishes to ‘join forces’ to develop global, multi-sectoral


of 68

standards. If this path is chosen, a wide range of additional subjects could be included under the IMAS banner ranging from highly technical subjects (e.g. underwater/maritime UXO) through to more generic subjects (e.g. risk management).

• There is likely two quite different groups IMAS users (‘strategic/structural’ and ‘operational/technical’) - IMAS appear to be adequately catering for the ‘strategic/structural’ group but more work is likely needed to cater for the ‘operational/technical’ group.

• There is a need to change the content, level of detail or style of some IMAS to support the different types of users with different needs (e.g. more detail for operational/technical users).

• The existing systems for developing and approving IMAS appear to have worked adequately for the past decade however, given the significant changes that have occurred within the global ERW industry in the same period, there is need to further review the way in which this should occur in the future.

• With regard to whether IMAS should be translated:

o There are equally valid arguments both ‘for’ and ‘against’ IMAS being translated into either the official UN languages or other languages, and

o The GICHD should gather more information on which a sound decision can be made by promoting further investigation and discussion of this issue.

• With regard to whether IMAS should be put under or within the ISO framework, there appears to minimal benefit to be gained and user feedback indicates a general lack of support for this. If there is any intent or desire to migrate to ISO, the Evaluation Team recommends that issue be the subject of a further detailed assessment to properly evaluate the whole-of-life costs and the real net benefits that would accrue from any such move.

• Increase support to the development of legislation in ERW-affected countries including:

o Issue a modified version of the existing ‘A guide to developing mine action legislation’, (GICHD, March 2006) as ‘best practice’ standard.

o Examine existing legislation in ERW-affected countries to determine if appropriate legislation is already in place in the form of OH&S Acts, various Acts related to military-like activities, Acts relating to explosives/explosive articles, ‘Dangerous Goods’ Acts and the like.

o Link the development of ERW legislation to other ‘good governance’ initiatives and ideally utilise specialists who have expertise in the development of sound national legislation (i.e. not rely on MAC staff who often may not have this expertise).


of 68

• Provide additional resources to national entities to accelerate the development of NMAS. This may include:

o ‘template’ or ‘example’ national standards which can be edited or modified to suit local circumstances

o additional short-term personnel support to write and ‘roll out’ NMAS

o personnel/financial support for the translation of NMAS

• Broaden the outlook of the IMAS by looking at how other relevant industries are ‘doing business’; if applicable and relevant, use other industries standards and technical information rather than ‘reinventing the wheel’.

• Encourage a wider involvement of subject matter specialists and the wider ERW industry in the development of ‘standards’ (e.g. actively seek ERW industry comment on draft IMAS and amendments to IMAS).

• Consider reducing the ‘heavy’ UN involvement in the approval/management process to eliminate the perception that IMAS are ‘UN standards’ and/or seek the involvement of non-UN actors to encourage usage of IMAS in non-UN settings.

• Offer different formats and delivery processes for information to take account of users’ circumstances (e.g. slow or non-existent internet access).

• Rationalise and centralise useful information (including IMAS) into a one-stop-shop/online library.

• ‘Rebrand’ IMAS to reflect its applicability to the wider ERW industry.

• Support the development of a global ERW institute (a role possibly suited to the GICHD).

• Consider developing a ‘global licensing/accreditation’ system for ERW personnel who are ‘internationally mobile’ or moving between different projects/programmes.

The Evaluation Team wishes to thank the GICHD and the many people who made contributions to this work – we trust that this report accurately conveys your thoughts, ideas and suggestions and those of the wider community.


of 68

ANNEXES:

A. Evaluation Terms of Reference

B. IMAS Evaluation – Survey Questionnaire

C. Expanded Results for Selected Survey Questions

D. IMAS Management Structure


of 68

Annex A – Evaluation Terms of Reference


of 68


of 68

Annex B – IMAS Evaluation Survey Questionnaire

(Published at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/XYHBZ2D)

IMAS Evaluation 1. What type of organisation do you currently work for?

National Mine Action Authority

International Organisation

Demining Organisation - non-profit

Demining Organisation – commercial

Contracting organisation

Government agency / donor organisation


2. How knowledgeable do you consider yourself on IMAS?

Expert – very knowledgeable on all or most IMAS

Expert on some, familiar with others

Adequate knowledge of those most relevant to my position

Understand purpose of IMAS but rarely use

Not familiar with IMAS

3. Do you have access to the most recent versions of IMAS in your current role?

Yes

No

Don't know

4. Since the advent of IMAS, do you think that mine action is:

Safer?

Less safe?

About the same?

I have no opinion


of 68

5. Since the advent of IMAS, do you think that mine action is:

More efficient?

Less efficient?

About the same?

I have no opinion

6. Rate the following IMAS according to relevance and frequency of use:

Relevance Frequency of Use

Answers Options: Highly relevant

Relevant Mostly relevant

Somewhat relevant Irrelevant

Highly irrelevant

Answers Options: Daily

Weekly Monthly Annually Seldom Never

01.10 - Guide for the application of IMAS

02.10 - Guide for the establishment of a mine action programme

03.10 - Guide to procurement of mine action equipment

03.20 - Procurement Process

03.30 - Guide to the research of mine action technology

03.40 - Test and evaluation of mine action equipment

04.10 - Glossary

06.10 - Management of Training

07.10 - Guide for the Management of Demining Operations

07.20 - Guide for the Development and Management of Mine Action Contracts

07.30 - Accreditation of Demining Organizations

07.40 - Monitoring of Demining Organizations

07.42 - Monitoring of Stockpile Destruction

08.10 - General Mine Action Assessment

08.20 - Land Release

08.21 - Non-technical Survey

08.22 - Technical Survey


of 68

7. Should IMAS be officially translated into languages other than English?

Yes

No

I have no opinion

08.30 - Post-clearance Documentation

08.40 - Marking of Hazards

09.10 - Clearance Requirements

09.11 - Battle Area Clearance

09.20 - Guidelines for Post Clearance Sampling

09.30 - Explosive Ordnance Disposal - EOD

09.40 - Guide for the Use of Mine Detecting Dogs

09.41 - Operational Procedures for MDDs

09.42 - Operational Testing of MDDs and Handlers

09.43 - Remote Explosive Scent Tracing - REST

09.44 - Guide to Occupational Health and General Dog Care

09.50 - Mechanical Demining

10.10 - S&OH General Principles

10.20 - Demining Worksite Safety

10.30 - Personal Protection Equipment - PPE

10.40 - Medical Support to Demining Operations

10.50 - Storage, Transportation and Handling of Explosives

10.60 - Reporting & Investigation of Demining Incidents

10.70 - Safety & Occupational Health - Protection of the Environment

11.10 - Guide for Stockpile Destruction

11.20 - Open Burning and Open Detonation (OBOD) Operations

11.30 - National Planning Guidelines for Stockpile Destruction

12.10 - Mine/ERW Risk Education

14.10 - Guide for the evaluation of Mine Action Intervention


of 68

8. If "yes", which languages?

Arabic

Chinese

French

Russian

Spanish


9. The current format of IMAS is:

Excellent - no need to change

About right - only small changes necessary

Repetitive - should be edited and simplified


10. How have you used IMAS? (please tick all that apply)

As a basis for the development of National Standards/Guidelines.

As a basis for contractual agreements.

As a reference document for procedural or safety reasons.


11. Please include comment on any issue that you feel is relevant to the evaluation of IMAS.

(Free form text box)


of 68

Annex C – Expanded Results for Selected Survey Questions

Table 1 (below): The table below shows the ‘relevance’ ratings of the various IMAS (provided by 36 of the 60 respondents to the survey questionnaire) sorted on the total score for a rating of “mostly relevant” or higher (i.e. “TOTAL “Relevant” column):

Relevance

Answer Options Highly relevant Relevant Mostly

relevant TOTAL -Relevant

MIDPOINT Somewhat

relevant

Not relevant

Highly irrelevant

TOTAL - Irrelevant

09.11 - Battle Area Clearance 21 12 2 35 0 0 1 1

08.30 - Post-clearance Documentation

15 16 4 35 0 1 0 1

10.30 - Personal Protection Equipment - PPE

21 10 3 34 1 0 1 1

10.40 - Medical Support to Demining Operations

20 11 3 34 2 0 0 0

09.10 - Clearance Requirements 19 13 2 34 1 1 0 1

08.40 - Marking of Hazards 17 15 2 34 0 1 1 2

07.40 - Monitoring of Demining Organizations

16 13 5 34 1 0 1 1

09.20 - Guidelines for Post Clearance Sampling

15 13 6 34 1 0 1 1

07.30 - Accreditation of Demining Organizations

14 16 4 34 1 0 1 1

08.22 - Technical Survey 20 10 3 33 2 1 0 1

09.30 - Explosive Ordnance Disposal

19 11 3 33 1 1 1 2


of 68

- EOD


19 10 4 33 1 0 2 2

08.21 - Non-technical Survey 18 11 4 33 2 0 1 1

04.10 - Glossary 17 12 4 33 3 0 0 0

10.20 - Demining Worksite Safety 16 14 3 33 1 0 2 2

08.10 - General Mine Action Assessment

12 17 4 33 2 0 1 1

12.10 - Mine/ERW Risk Education 18 10 4 32 2 1 1 2

09.50 - Mechanical Demining 12 16 4 32 3 1 0 1

10.10 - S&OH General Principles 11 16 5 32 2 1 1 2


11 14 6 31 4 0 1 1

11.10 - Guide for Stockpile Destruction

11 13 7 31 3 1 1 2

08.20 - Land Release 17 11 2 30 5 0 1 1


15 12 3 30 6 0 0 0


13 12 5 30 6 0 0 0

09.41 - Operational Procedures for MDDs

11 15 4 30 3 2 1 3

09.42 - Operational Testing of MDDs

11 13 6 30 2 3 1 4


of 68

and Handlers

09.40 - Guide for the Use of Mine Detecting Dogs

10 16 3 29 4 2 1 3


10 13 6 29 4 1 2 3


8 16 5 29 4 3 0 3


8 15 6 29 5 0 2 2

06.10 - Management of Training

8 13 8 29 6 0 0 0

01.10 - Guide for the application of IMAS

10 12 6 28 7 1 0 1


9 17 2 28 3 2 3 5


11 13 3 27 7 2 0 2

07.20 - Guide for the Development and Management of Mine Action Contracts

7 15 5 27 6 2 1 3

07.42 - Monitoring of Stockpile Destruction

6 14 7 27 7 0 2 2


5 15 7 27 5 1 3 4

03.30 - Guide to the research of mine

8 13 5 26 5 5 0 5


of 68

action technology


4 11 8 23 6 3 4 7

03.20 - Procurement Process

2 14 4 20 6 6 4 10

09.43 - Remote Explosive Scent Tracing - REST

6 11 2 19 6 6 5 11

Table 2 (below): The following table lists responses regarding how frequently IMAS are used (36 of the 60 survey respondents answered this question).

Frequency of use

Answer Options Daily Weekly Monthly Annually Seldom Never Response Count

01.10 - Guide for the application of IMAS 3 3 8 9 11 2 36


0 3 8 9 10 6 36


1 4 5 8 9 9 36

03.20 - Procurement Process 0 4 3 8 8 13 36

03.30 - Guide to the research of mine action technology

2 4 8 4 10 8 36


2 4 6 10 10 4 36

04.10 - Glossary 3 2 13 11 7 0 36 06.10 - Management of Training 1 3 7 13 10 2 36


1 3 8 13 11 0 36

07.20 - Guide for the Development and Management of Mine

1 2 6 11 13 2 35


of 68

Action Contracts 07.30 - Accreditation of Demining Organizations 0 3 10 13 9 1 36

07.40 - Monitoring of Demining Organizations 2 3 13 6 11 1 36

07.42 - Monitoring of Stockpile Destruction 0 4 7 8 14 3 36

08.10 - General Mine Action Assessment 1 3 10 11 10 1 36

08.20 - Land Release 0 5 10 12 9 0 36 08.21 - Non-technical Survey 1 4 14 7 10 0 36

08.22 - Technical Survey 0 6 13 8 9 0 36 08.30 - Post-clearance Documentation 2 3 12 10 8 1 36

08.40 - Marking of Hazards 3 4 8 12 7 2 36 09.10 - Clearance Requirements 5 4 12 7 7 1 36

09.11 - Battle Area Clearance 4 3 10 9 9 1 36

09.20 - Guidelines for Post Clearance Sampling 1 4 9 7 13 1 35

09.30 - Explosive Ordnance Disposal - EOD 3 5 13 5 7 3 36

09.40 - Guide for the Use of Mine Detecting Dogs 2 4 5 8 12 5 36

09.41 - Operational Procedures for MDDs 2 4 5 9 11 5 36

09.42 - Operational Testing of MDDs and Handlers

1 3 7 9 10 6 36

09.43 - Remote Explosive Scent Tracing - REST 1 3 4 5 9 14 36


5 2 3 6 12 8 36

09.50 - Mechanical Demining 3 3 9 9 10 2 36

10.10 - S&OH General Principles 2 3 9 11 7 4 36

10.20 - Demining Worksite Safety 4 4 7 12 8 1 36

10.30 - Personal Protection Equipment - 5 3 8 14 5 1 36


of 68

PPE 10.40 - Medical Support to Demining Operations 4 3 11 10 7 1 36


3 6 7 10 9 1 36


3 3 8 12 9 1 36


3 4 6 12 8 3 36

11.10 - Guide for Stockpile Destruction 0 4 8 10 10 4 36


4 1 6 10 10 5 36


0 1 7 7 16 5 36

12.10 - Mine/ERW Risk Education 4 5 5 14 8 0 36


1 3 4 9 16 3 36


of 68

Annex D – IMAS Management Structure

(Available at http://www.mineactionstandards.org/fileadmin/user_upload/MAS/documents/review-board/others/IMAS-Management-Structure-and-TOR-for-the-Review-Board.pdf)

General

The highest level of endorsement of IMAS is at the Inter-Agency Coordination Group for Mine Action (at the Principal’s level). Endorsement of IMAS at this level is noted in the Report of the Secretary General on Mine Action and authorizes IMAS to be published on the IMAS website as current documents.

A Steering Group provides Executive Direction to the IMAS Review Board (RB). This Group does not comment on technical input or changes to IMAS but will provide guidance and direction on more general issues of procedure.

The IMAS Review Board (RB) consists of individuals representing a broad collection of organisations/groups, donors and specialties, who themselves represent a broad cross section of the humanitarian mine action community. The RB identifies qualified organizations for membership and recommends them to the IMAS Steering Group for final approval.

A table of the specific responsibilities between the management structures involved in IMAS is at

Appendix 1 to this Annex.

IMAS Review Board

1. General Conditions

The RB is the highest level at which technical input to IMAS is debated and agreed and then forwarded, through the Steering Group, for final endorsement.


of 68

The RB is the official way that the cooperative basis, upon which the international mine action standards were originally written, and mine action is conducted today, can be maintained. As such it has a very responsible role to play.

2. Chair and Secretary

UNMAS is mandated to develop and maintain standards for mine action and has requested the GICHD to assist in this process. As such, the positions of Chair and Secretary are tied to UNMAS and GICHD respectively.

3. Members

Discrete organizations listed under clause 12.1 (IMAS 01.10) are members of the IMAS RB.

Members shall agree to represent the views of the wider field user community and other stakeholders, including donors, without allowing personal or organisational self-interest to take precedence over the interests of the mine action community. The invited organisation is requested to provide a qualified representative to represent that organisation. The organisation should ensure a qualified substitute is nominated in the event that the initial representative leaves the organisation or is unable to fulfill his/her responsibilities for a finite period. Other Members can be invited as individuals when his or her profile is applicable and beneficial to the Review Board.

Members of the RB can make suggestions for new or additional Members and can request a vote to terminate or extend a member’s representation for whatever reason. Suggestions and requests should be sent to the Chair, through the Secretary, by e-mail or at RB meetings. Additional or new Members, extensions and end of membership, if not voluntary, will be put to all Members of the RB by e-mail and agreed upon by a General Vote (see below).

If the named representative cannot attend a Review Board meeting, and a substitute is provided by the parent organisation/group, the attending person will have the right of a proxy vote on behalf of the named Member.

The maximum number of members on the RB, if it is to remain effective and manageable, is 30.

All changes to RB membership shall be submitted to the Steering Group for final endorsement.


of 68

RB Members, while selected as a representative from a functional group within mine action, are expected to officially represent that functional group. However, it is possible that the specific representative or Member may be asked by the RB to canvas the opinion of a selection of the functional group from which they have been selected, and for that opinion to be provided at a later meeting or at a later stage. For instance: A commercial company may be invited to be a Member of the RB. The individual selected to represent that company, should normally respond in a manner that reflects the company’s opinion (or the views/interests of the parent company if authorized) but he/she does not represent the views of all commercial companies involved in mine action. The representative, in certain circumstances, may be requested to seek a wider response from other commercial companies.

All Members including the representatives of the organisations on the RB are expected to respond to requests for comment from the Chair or Secretary and to attend RB meetings etc. The Chair reserves the right to request a Member or organisation to leave the RB if there is frequent lack of response to requests for comment. If this is contested the question will be put to the Members of the RB for a General Vote.

4. Non-affiliated members

To ensure a wide representation of the demining community the Review Board will also contain members that are not specifically affiliated with any organisation. Whilst they may work or have worked with any mine action organisation, their membership does not presume any current affiliation. Non-affiliated members should have wide experience that is considered of benefit to the IMAS process in general and the Review Board in particular.

5. Qualification

Nominees for the Review Board should fit the following profile:

• Works for an organization listed in clause 12.1 (IMAS 01.10) with demonstrable experience and expertise in mine action;

• Has worked for at least seven years on mine action issues in one or preferably more components of mine action;

• Has experience with the field and practical application of IMAS and can familiarize his/herself quickly with the Rules for the Structure and Drafting of IMAS.

• Is capable of providing high quality, substantive commentary on draft new or amended IMAS in English within two weeks of receiving them; and


of 68

• Is a good team player and communicator especially in electronic media, capable of providing constructive comments and innovative solutions to problems.

6. Tenure

The RB is mandated, in IMAS 01.10, to review IMAS at least once every three years and to suggest revision or new IMAS as necessary. When taken seriously this can be a time consuming task and so the opportunity for members to rotate off the RB should exist. Three years is therefore considered a reasonable normal working period for representation on the RB.

7. Specialists

Specialists, representing specific areas of interest within humanitarian mine action, will be considered on an as required basis for a specific period. They will be invited, with assisted attendance if funds are available, to the RB meetings if, and when, required and will be requested to provide comment by e-mail when relevant. Specialists are not considered Members of the IMAS RB and cannot take part in the decision-making process.

8. Observers

Observer status is available and, while comments are welcome from Observers, there can be no assisted attendance at RB meetings for Observers and they will not be asked or able to vote. The Chair will propose Observers for a General Vote by the RB.

9. Work procedures

Normal routine RB work will involve responding to requests for comments from the Chair or Secretary of the RB. These will be requested by e-mail and directed to specific IMAS and TNMA or specific sections of them. Members are expected to respond in some way, within a specific time frame, to these requests, preferably by submitting constructive comment (which can be either agreement or disagreement) and, preferably, by providing alternative suggestions to the text as required. After one month, no comment will be assumed to be agreement but RB members can request an extension if required.


of 68

The Secretary of the RB will coordinate the responses and, having consulted the Chair, will either re-submit a revised text for consideration or incorporate the majority agreement into the IMAS for further administrative processing.

Once a year, funds permitting, there will be physical meeting of the RB. All Members will be invited to RB meetings. A RB meeting will be cancelled if more than half of the invited members cannot attend. At the meeting, issues of relevance will be more openly and directly discussed and, where relevant, a decision on the way to proceed will be made – see voting procedure below.

10. Voting/Decision making

Before a decision is formally taken at a RB meeting it must be agreed whether the decision can be taken by a Simple Vote or should be considered by all members of the RB as a General Vote. A Simple Vote requires a majority view of the attending Members to carry the motion. Simple Votes are taken for matters generally considered to be routine and un-contentious that arise at, or during, the RB meeting. Contentious issues, or when one Member formally requests a General Vote, will be subjected to a General Vote. A request for a General Vote cannot be made after a Simple Vote because one or more members disagree with the result. A General Vote will involve every Member of the RB and must receive responses from more than two thirds of the full membership for the issue to be carried. If after, three attempts to obtain a response from a Member, no response is forthcoming, an abstention will be assumed. Two thirds of those then responding must be in agreement for the issue in a General Vote to be carried.

Major safety issues will always be subjected to a General Vote.

After any vote has produced a decision there is to be a minimum of 6 months shall elapse before

the same subject can be re-submitted for a vote.

In order to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and administration minor decisions and corrections

can be made by the Secretary and Chair in good faith and gauging the general opinion of the RB.


of 68

(Appendix 1 to IMAS Management Structure)

Terms of Reference for Members of IMAS Review Board

1. Terms of Reference for the Chair of the IMAS Review Board.

How selected - the Chair of the Review Board is nominated by the Director of the UN Mine action Service and provided by the UN Mine Action Service.

Tenure - indefinite.

Responsibilities:

• To Chair meetings of the RB, the dates of which are to be mutually agreed with the Secretary.

• To report to and to present relevant RB decisions of substance to the IMAS Steering Group for onward transmission to the Inter-Agency Coordination Group - Mine Action.

• To act as the Secretary of the IMAS Steering Group.

• To propose new Members.

• To provide guidance and advice as necessary to the Secretary.

2. Terms of Reference for the Secretary of the IMAS Review Board.

How selected - the Secretary of the Review Board is nominated by the Director of the Geneva

International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) and provided by the GICHD.

Tenure - indefinite.

Responsibilities:

• To plan and organize the annual meeting, in cooperation with the Chair.


of 68

• To produce the annual meeting agenda.

• To produce minutes of the physical meetings held. (The first drafts of the Minutes of the meetings are submitted to the Chair for initial approval and the second draft to the Members for their comment.)

• To publish the agreed Minutes on the IMAS website.

• To act as the point of coordination for all RB information circulation.

• To produce an annual Work Plan that ensures that each IMAS is reviewed at least once every three years.

• To circulate drafts and amendments to RB Members for comment and input as necessary and to coordinate replies.

• To amend IMAS in accordance with the recommendations of the RB.

• In conjunction with the Chairperson, to agree the content and publication of Technical Notes for Mine Action (TNMA).

• To procure funds as necessary to enable the RB to function.

3. Terms of Reference for the Members of the IMAS Review Board.

How selected - initially by invitation of the Chair of the Review Board and by general agreement between the Chair and the Secretary and, where feasible, the other Members of the RB. The Steering Group will provide the final decision on selection.

Tenure – member of the RB is normally selected for a period of 3 years. This does not include organizations with permanent membership e.g. UNDP, UNICEF, UNOPS, UNMAS and GICHD. Members will be requested to leave the RB after repeated lack of response to requests for comment or failure to attend RB meetings. Members may be permitted to remain on the RB beyond three years if their contribution has been active and constructive, and they themselves are willing to remain. This decision will be the subject of an electronic simple vote and decided by a simple majority i.e. the decision of more than half of those responding.

Responsibilities:

• To accept, or comment on, the IMAS review programme published by the Secretary of the RB.

• To respond to requests, from the Secretary or Chair, for comment and input into drafts for new IMAS, revision drafts of existing IMAS, voting procedures etc.


of 68

• To provide informed comment based on experience.

• To provide constructive comment proposing detailed new text or clear concerns when responding to requests for comment rather than general statements of opposition.

• To seek peer input as appropriate and if possible.

• To attend RB meetings.

International Mine Action Standards · International Mine Action Standards (IMAS) ......

Documents

Transcript of International Mine Action Standards · International Mine Action Standards (IMAS) ......