international mine action standards stakeholder analysis ... · a stakeholder analysis for the...

1

International Mine Action Standards Stakeholder Analysis

Executive Summary A Stakeholder Analysis for the International Mine Action Standards (IMAS) was conducted through the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) between March and May 2012. This analysis aimed to address gaps in information regarding the views of the IMAS Stakeholders through in-depth analysis of the opinions of a sample of 58 participants from pre-identified stakeholder groups. The analysis recorded viewpoints of stakeholders regarding the importance of the IMAS, their satisfaction with the IMAS documents’ format and content, with management structures for IMAS and with outreach and support efforts regarding IMAS. Key measures were recorded for stakeholder opinions both across and within the defined stakeholder groups. A few clear trends emerged from the study. The first was the overwhelming view that the IMAS are an essential component of a well-functioning mine action sector. The importance of standardisation and good practice to the sector was recognised by all groups and stakeholders identified multiple benefits arising from the IMAS. Second was the very high rate of overall satisfaction expressed by stakeholders regarding the format and the general content of the IMAS. Although participants expressed some criticisms of the IMAS format, it was generally recognised that the format allowed easy reference and substantial clarity. In terms of content, suggested changes and additions were highlighted, but participants provided an overall perspective of satisfaction with ensemble of standards. Unfortunately in terms of management structures, the trend was decidedly less positive. There appears to be a lack of clarity for stakeholders regarding what structures are in place for management, and how field level input arrives at the technical level in terms of IMAS development and review. Similarly, there is a lack of confidence that IMAS management structures are working effectively. This appears in part related to limited communications outside IMAS structures and to limited visibility regarding the outputs achieved by these various levels of management. Although stakeholders frequently highlighted the importance of minimising expenditures related to managing the IMAS, a number of areas were suggested where targeted outreach efforts could be made to assist certain groups such as new mine action programmes and military clearance operations, that may have more limited access to assistance regarding IMAS. In addition, a number of suggestions were made regarding taking advantage of advances in communications and social media, to better coordinate around issues of good practice and lessons learned, so that it could be fed into the IMAS management process. Finally, translating documents and limiting language barriers to contributions and consultations, was a key element raised by many stakeholders, but most notably National Mine Action Authorities.

2

Introduction Standards within the humanitarian mine clearance sector were first introduced in March 1997 by the United Nations. From that point, the International Mine Action Standards (IMAS)1 have evolved to encompass almost all pillars of mine action, across a broad set of topics and technical concerns. The IMAS are not static documents, but a continually-evolving framework for the establishment of a baseline of quality and efficiency for global mine action. The United Nations (UN) has undertaken the responsibility for issuing the IMAS and the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) has been asked to develop and maintain them on behalf of the UN and in consultation with the broader mine action community. Due to the importance of the IMAS for global mine action, they are reviewed on an on-going basis by a formal Review Board (RB) that includes representatives of key stakeholders in the mine action community in order to ensure that they remain current and relevant. A Steering Group (SG) made up of representatives from the United Nations and the GICHD establishes overall policy for IMAS and acts as a gateway for the approval of IMAS documents by the UN’s Inter-Agency Coordination Group for Mine Action. In its role as Chair of both the Steering Group and Review Board, the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS), in cooperation with the GICHD, commissioned an evaluation of the IMAS in 20112. A joint meeting of the IMAS Steering Group and IMAS Review Board was subsequently held on October 27-28 in Copenhagen, Denmark to review the document. During meeting discussions, participants expressed the fact that further detailed information was required in a variety of areas raised by the evaluation. As a result, one of the conclusions of the meeting was to conduct an IMAS Stakeholder Analysis to better understand stakeholder views and map their opinions regarding IMAS. The Stakeholder Analysis was commissioned by the GICHD in March 2012. The primary objectives of the Stakeholder Analysis were: identifying the groups most reliant on IMAS; achieving an understanding of how different groups use the MAS; assessing the importance of the IMAS for the work of different stakeholder groups; and describing the position of various stakeholder groups in relation to IMAS management. Secondary objectives for the analysis were related to the collection of information regarding the satisfaction of IMAS users. In particular, satisfaction with IMAS format, content, and support services were all areas to be explored during the analysis.

Methodology The overall methodology of the IMAS Stakeholder Analysis was to collect data from a pre-identified series of stakeholders based on a standardised questionnaire (see Annex 8). The data was then analysed to identify overall trends and to describe the views of stakeholder groups.

1 Please note that for the purpose of this study the term IMAS will refer to the ensemble of the series of International Mine Action Standards, accompanying Technical Notes, CEN Workshop Agreements and International Ammunition Technical Guidelines (IATGs). 2 The report, Evaluation of Mine Action Standards (IMAS) September 2011, is available on the International Mine Action Standards web site at: http://www.mineactionstandards.org/fileadmin/user_upload/MAS/documents/review-board/others/2011_Review_of_the_International_Mine_Action_Standards.pdf

3

Data collection for the Analysis was primarily carried out through a series of semi-structured, targeted interviews. The focus of interviews was on acquiring qualitative responses to a variety of open-ended questions, while some very structured closed-ended questions were used for ease of presenting quantitative data. The interview process allowed a greater freedom of response and solicited a wider spectrum of opinions than a closed-ended survey. In exceptional cases where communications were difficult (and in the case of most IMAS Review Board members that participated), answers to the questionnaires were collected in written form. While interviews permitted a greater depth of information to be collected, the option of written submissions allowed the inclusion of a wider diversity of individuals. The standardised questionnaire used was divided into five general areas: 1) participant identification, 2) use of the IMAS, 3) satisfaction with content, 4) satisfaction with management, and 5) satisfaction with outreach. These aspects formed the basis of the analysis structure.

Participants The process of stakeholder identification generated 11 groups (see table below). These categories were based on information from the IMAS evaluation, as well as feedback from GICHD staff. The number of interviews per category is based on perceived interest levels and impact of IMAS on the stakeholder, as well as on the group’s past access to IMAS management structures. For example, commercial companies were accorded a greater representation in the interview process due to their very limited representation on the international bodies that allow them to contribute their views. The number of participants is also based on the willingness of various groups to participate in the study.

Stakeholder Category Number of

Participants

UN Field Staff* 13

State-National Authority 10

Implementing Organisation-NGO 8

Implementing Organisation-Commercial 6

Implementing Organisation-Military 5

State-Donor 5

International Organisation 5

UN Headquarters (HQ) Staff* 2

Equipment Manufacturers 2

Research & Development (R&D) 1

Other Humanitarian 1

Total 58

*Note: UN Staff interviewed were from UNDP, UNICEF, UNMAS, and UNOPS

Data from 58 participants has been analysed for the purpose of this study. Participants in the Analysis were identified in order to respond to the following aspects:

Regional representation and balance; Representation of both national and international level representatives; and, Particular knowledge and exposure to IMAS and its structures.

4

As a result, field-based participants were selected from mine action programmes and mine action implementing organisation operations in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas3. Interviews were conducted in English, French and Spanish in order to target stakeholders that may be outside the predominantly Anglophone circles of mine action. (See Annex 1 for complete list of stakeholders).

Results of the Analysis How often do stakeholders use the IMAS? In mapping the position of stakeholders in relation to the IMAS, a key measure is the importance they place on IMAS as a tool for their work. In this regard, participants were first asked to describe the frequency of their use of IMAS. Across stakeholder groups, the most common response was that the IMAS were used “on a weekly or monthly basis”, followed “several times a year”.

Frequency of Reference to IMAS Across Stakeholder Groups

If we examine the use of the IMAS based on stakeholder group, the least frequent users were “Other humanitarian actors”, “Research & Development” and “Donors”. Among implementing organisations, the military were the most frequent users of IMAS. This is likely due in part to the fact that military professionals are not often trained to do

3 Participants were from programmes or were state representatives from the following countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Denmark, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecuador, France, Germany, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Jordan, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Nepal, Netherlands, Russia, Senegal, Somalia, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Switzerland, Thailand, United Kingdom, United States, Vietnam, Western Sahara, and Yemen.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Never

Once a year

Several times a year

On a weekly or monthly basis

Daily

Number of users

5

humanitarian demining and IMAS is their key reference document to adapt their working methods to the humanitarian context.

Frequency of Reference to IMAS by Stakeholder Group

How important are the IMAS to stakeholders? In terms of importance to their work, participants were asked to denote a value on a scale of 1 to 5. Across stakeholder groups, the average value designated by stakeholders was 4.0. The values assigned by stakeholders varied greatly between participants, based on the work of the individual and not always based on the stakeholder group. In those cases where respondents worked with a comprehensive series of national standards, or whose work was focused on more detailed organisational SOPs, references to IMAS were often markedly less prominent. Respondents in the UN HQ category recorded the highest average in terms of the importance to their jobs – however it should be noted that this number represents a very small sample size.

0 1 2 3 4 5

Other Humanitarian

Research &Development

State-Donor

State-National Authority

Implementing Org Commercial

International Org

UN Field Staff

Implementing Org-NGO

UN HQ

Equipment Manufacturers

Implementing Org Military

Frequency

1= never 2=once a year or less 3=several times a year 4=on a weekly or monthly basis 5=daily

6

Importance of the IMAS to the Work of Stakeholders by Group

(Unimportant) 1 ............... 2 ............... 3 ................. 4 ............... 5 (Necessary)

How important are the IMAS to mine action? Equally important to the analysis was the broader vision that stakeholders have of the importance of IMAS to the mine action sector generally. The average value assigned for the importance of IMAS to mine action generally was 4.7 -- considerably higher than the previous question. This is due to the fact that the importance value assigned to IMAS was consistently high across stakeholder groups (see Annex 2). Whereas IMAS was not very relevant to the tasks some stakeholders performed, participants almost universally described the IMAS as vital to proper functioning of the mine action sector globally. What are the benefits/disadvantages? In terms of assessing the perceived benefits of the IMAS, respondents could provide multiple answers (see Annex 3 for complete list). The most popular response in this regard was that the IMAS “establishes standardisation and records best practice” in the mine action sector, with 84% of respondents citing this as a key benefit. The fact that IMAS serves as a “recognised reference document” was also commonly cited (53%). The role of IMAS in establishing “confidence and a comfort zone” for mine action stakeholders was next in line (19%), followed by providing a “common language for dialogue” (17%). Other benefits as a result of the IMAS according to stakeholders are: “introduction of new concepts into operations”, “facilitation of quality management”, “reduced liability concerns”, “facilitation of document drafting” (especially national standards and SOPs)”, “better insurance rates”, “enhanced transparency”, “increased donor support”, and “keeping Treaty frameworks current”. During interviews, mine action was compared to other sectors, with stakeholders emphasising the fact that having basic rules for conduct is a requirement in the vast majority of public and private sectors – especially where the safety of personnel is a

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Other Humanitarian

R&D

State-Donor

Implementing Org-NGO

Implementing Org Commercial


UN Field

International Org

Implementing Org Military

UN HQ

Equipment Manufacturers

7

concern. One respondent also noted that within the humanitarian response sector, the development of the IMAS has set mine action apart since there is little or no standardisation of working methodologies in other humanitarian operations. Fewer than half of the respondents (48%) chose to state any disadvantages relating to the IMAS. Many categorically stated that they saw no disadvantages at all. The fact that the IMAS are often “misinterpreted”, or “not read” by individuals in the sector, and that their “status as a guideline is not understood” were the most common disadvantages cited by those who offered opinions. Other disadvantages included: they are “not translated” into relevant languages; there are many “gaps and grey areas”; they “change too often”; they “change to reflect technological advances too slowly”; they “have increased the cost of doing business” and that they sometimes it contains “impractical minimum requirements”. Why do stakeholders use IMAS? In terms of their use, stakeholders had a variety of objectives in mind as they referred to IMAS (multiple responses were permitted). The two most common motivations for referring to the IMAS were for the “drafting of National Standards” and the “implementation of quality management” aspects of mine action (43% respectively). Notably, many respondents highlighted that once the National Standards were completed, their use and reference to IMAS was also greatly diminished. Third in terms of purpose for using IMAS was “SOP development”, cited by 29% of respondents.

Purpose for Referring to IMAS Across Stakeholder Groups

Number of Respondents

0 5 10 15 20 25

National Standards development

Quality Management

SOP development

Tenders and Contracting

Reference for conceptual design

Technical and safety guidance

Accreditation

Demonstration of operation capactiy

Vocabulary standardisation

Training

Capacity development

Conflict resolution with National Authority

Programme set-up

Peacekeeping

Reporting

Treaty support

Accident investigation

Procurement

Recruitment

Resource mobilisation

8

Which chapters do stakeholders use? The chapter referred to most by users interviewed was that of 08.20 Land Release (45%). The overarching and general nature of the Land Release chapter, coupled with the fact that it is a somewhat controversial recent addition, has no doubt contributed to the frequency of stakeholder references. Other common reference chapters were 09.10 Clearance Requirements (43%), the 07.40 Monitoring of Demining Organisations (33%), the 04.10 Glossary of Terms, Definitions and Abbreviations (21%) and 08.22 Technical Survey (21%). References to specific chapters obviously varied given the job description of the individuals in question. Frequent references were not considered as an indication of perceived importance or quality. Some stakeholders indicated that over time, they had referred to all the standards (see full list of document references in Annex 4). Are stakeholders generally satisfied with IMAS? Overall satisfaction ratings for IMAS are quite high, however, part of this picture seems to stem from the fact that there is a degree of apathy regarding the IMAS documents. Newcomers to the business, regardless of the organisational affiliation often appreciated the comprehensive and accessible nature of the IMAS. However, in some cases, the IMAS are viewed as acceptable primarily as a result of their benign status as “guidelines only”. Relatively few assertions in favour of a quality product were voiced, though at the same time, very few opinions of dissatisfaction were expressed. The fear of wasting precious time and resources was the most common viewpoint expressed by participants favouring the status quo.

9

Format In terms of satisfaction regarding the format of the standards, users were generally satisfied. No participant expressed overall dissatisfaction with the format of IMAS. Over half the respondents (59%) said they were “fully satisfied” with the format, while 36% of stakeholders expressed some reservations regarding the format. Most often this was based on the fact that the format was “quite repetitive” and “not concise” enough, using many pages to communicate relatively little information. Other views expressed included the fact that the standards vary greatly in terms of approach and level of detail – in some cases containing broadly stated principles and in others getting into detailed technical information that approach the level of an SOP.

Satisfaction with the Format of IMAS

Content Similarly satisfied opinions regarding content were expressed by participants. Those interviewed were generally satisfied with the content, however, roughly 62% expressed reservations regarding a certain chapter or chapters, or identified that a chapter or technical note needed to be added to fill a perceived gap. Comments that emerged from consultations with stakeholders included a number of those who felt that the product was overall “good enough”. However, there was a minority view that the standards could be improved and made more professional with a concerted effort to “clean them up”. At the extreme of this category of response was the view that the standards should evolve into ISO Standards, which would add a extra degree of formality and professionalism to the sector. More common, however, was the view that significant changes would be far “too costly” and would put into question the large body of National Standards that have been written thus far. The fact that significant translation costs would result from substantial changes was also raised as a concern if comprehensive changes were carried out.

59%

36%

5%

Completed Satisfied

Satisfied but reservations

Don't know

10

Satisfaction with the Content of IMAS

In terms of what stakeholders viewed as in need of change, the chapter on Land Release (08.20) received the greatest number of citations (eight). Next in line was Monitoring of Demining Organisations (07.40), along with the ensemble of chapters referring to the Use of Mine Detection Dogs (09.40-3) (five references). Guidelines for Post-clearance Sampling (09.20) received three references. (See Annex 5 for full list of Chapters highlighted for revisions).

Perceived Need for Additions to IMAS

29%

62%

7%

2%

Completely Satisfied

Satisfied but suggested changes or additions

Not satisfied

Don't know

31%

53%

16%

Additions required

No additions required

Don't know

11

A variety of participants (31%) identified the need to add chapters, or in many cases Technical Notes, to the current list of topics. These suggestions were extremely varied, with only the topics of “Information Management” and “Improvised Explosive Devices” receiving more than one mention on the part of participants (see Annex 6 for complete list). How is IMAS management of IMAS viewed? The question of whether stakeholders were aware of the structures that manage IMAS provided an important first indication of the current degree of their involvement and engagement regarding IMAS. Overall, only a little more than half of respondents were familiar with what the management structures are for IMAS (59%), while a total of 41% of respondents had no idea how IMAS is managed. It must be noted that in interviews it was clear that participants were more likely to respond “yes” to this question, even though they revealed only a very basic idea of the manner in which IMAS is managed. This fact may have inflated the result for those that are “aware” of management structures.

Awareness of IMAS Management Structures

Number of Participants

When the issue is examined in terms of stakeholder groups, UN field and HQ participants understandably displayed the greatest awareness of how IMAS is managed. Among implementing organisations, NGO participants were the most familiar with how IMAS is managed, followed by military participants and finally commercial organisations (see Annex 7 for complete break-down by stakeholder group). During discussions, respondents expressed the least knowledge and understanding regarding the political levels of IMAS management – that is the Steering Group and the UN Inter-agency Coordinating Group for Mine Action at Principal’s level. Very few respondents knew of the Steering Group’s existence and overall had very little comment about the make-up of this particular level.

34

24

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Aware

Unaware

12

Assessing the effectiveness of management structures Overall views on the management of the IMAS are mixed. In terms of the efficiency and effectiveness of management structures, only 36% found the current system effective with 24% unsure and a notable 40% suggesting that the system was ineffective and changes should be made. The results for those satisfied and dissatisfied are fairly evenly matched, however it is notable that 24% feel unsure about whether structures are working well or not. During interviews it was clear that this result is partly due to the overall lack of familiarity and understanding regarding the way the IMAS are managed. It should be noted that many of the respondents that had indicated a lack of awareness regarding the management structures for IMAS, felt comfortable with stating an opinion regarding whether the management is effective. In these cases, respondents were more likely to state that they found the management “effective” rather than “ineffective”. Roughly 38% of respondents answered “don’t know” when asked the question of who should be represented on the Steering Group as the policy body for the IMAS. A total of 33% of respondents viewed the “status quo” as acceptable once the structures were explained to them. UN agencies involved in mine action were generally seen as the logical and most important actors at the political level in terms of the IMAS. The sentiment most often expressed by field personnel was that this political level was not of particular interest to them as long as the system continued to function.

Effectiveness of IMAS Management Across Stakeholder Groups

The Review Board was the most commonly-recognised aspect of the IMAS management structures. However, roughly a third of respondents were unsure if the Review Board was made up of the right organisations. Another 17% felt the Board reflected the correct organisations, but as many as 34% of stakeholders felt that changes were required to the Review Board in particular. These suggestions included a role for more “current technical personnel” on the Board, the desirability of “mini-Review Boards or consultation

36%

40%

24%

Effective management

Management not effective

Don't know

13

groups based on different languages” the inclusion of “more government representation”, the need for more “links to the structures of relevant conventions” (such as the Mine Ban Treaty’s Standing Committees), and an increased number of “specialised subject matter experts” to be included in the review process. In discussions with stakeholders – especially those in field-level jobs -- much of the dissatisfaction expressed with the management of IMAS lies in the application of IMAS between the Review Board process and the field. This frustration primarily turned on the fact that the process of change seemed very slow and bureaucratic, with little information available for field practitioners. Counter-balancing this viewpoint was the view that little extra effort or funding should be spent on the IMAS since they are now “done and dusted”. In particular National Authorities felt that there was a lack of visibility and transparency regarding the management process. There seems to be little clarity over key processes, such as how an IMAS gets drafted and who is involved, or regarding how Review Board members are selected. In particular, the feeling that the UN was less visible regarding the management of IMAS was expressed by several National Directors. For example, one National Director forwarded the opinion that “the UN should be more involved with IMAS again” to ensure coordination. Another Director voiced the point of view that “we used to be informed and consulted, but not any more”. The opinion that there was little feedback being given on what was happening with the IMAS during meetings and public fora was also expressed. Generally, among those who expressed awareness of management structures and dissatisfaction regarding the composition of the various bodies, the most common recommendations related to an expansion of the Steering Group (to include other stakeholders such as donors, national authorities and key implementing organisations) and a modification of the Review Board toward a more technical and issue-specific body. Indeed, a clearer separation of policy and technical coordination/review were advocated by several respondents. As previously noted, a more extreme change toward formal ISO management of the standards was advocated in one case. Consultations As previously noted, some dissatisfaction with the IMAS management is related to the perception that there is inadequate consultation. In terms of satisfaction levels, almost half the respondents (43%) expressed the view that they were not consulted appropriately regarding their views. Of those that felt they were satisfied with consultations (48%), many expressed the view that it was not necessary to consult them on IMAS drafts or revisions since views could be made known directly to the GICHD via their web site. Several of these participants highlighted the need to avoid having an excess of bureaucracy and wasting time with over-burdensome consultations. As a group, NGO participants were generally satisfied consultation process (that seemed to generally work well through their organisations), whereas many of those working with commercial operators did not feel that their experience was being taken into consideration (especially given the volume of work now completed by commercial operators).

14

Satisfaction with IMAS Consultations Across Stakeholder Groups

Among criticisms that emerged from interviews was the fact that the IMAS Review Board is a “closed club of friends”. Language also emerged strongly as an issue. Some participants suggested that there is not enough inclusion of non-native or non-fluent English speakers on the Review Board and that there is not enough effort made to incorporate their views. In addition, the lack of translations, not only of IMAS and related documents, but also other documents such as GICHD studies, was seen as a barrier to the participation in technical discussions of those who are not fluent English speakers. A number of suggestions emerged from stakeholder discussions on consultations. It would appear that a significant number of field operators in particular would welcome a more dynamic process of interaction within specific fields (such as mechanical clearance, EOD, and the use of MDD). In this same vein, the establishment of communities of practice to “promote constructive dialogue on technical problems and issues” was also suggested. It should be highlighted, however, that language considerations should be factored into such initiatives, based on the feedback received. If managed correctly, however, such initiatives could go a long way toward filling the gaps regarding consultations with subject matter specialists and addressing perceptions that language groups other than English ones are being ignored. Is IMAS accessible? The IMAS and other related technical notes and guidelines were overwhelmingly viewed as both accessible and available. All respondents except one, indicated that the documents were extremely easy to find and access. This one individual responded that difficulties with the internet and limited access to other materials led to challenges in accessing the IMAS materials.

48%

43%

9%

Yes, consulted as appropriate

No, never or rarely consulted

Don't know

15

The vast majority of stakeholders (88%) used the internet as their primary means to access information regarding IMAS. Many expressed the fact that this was the best way to ensure they had the most recent version of the documents. The main portal of entry for access to IMAS was the GICHD website (specified by 47% of internet users), followed by mineactionstandards.org (specified by 18% of users). A total of 10% of respondents indicated that they used a combination of the internet and a CD and only 8% of participants indicated that they used the CD alone. Difficulties related to language barriers and internet access were the only elements cited that limited access to the IMAS. In relation to internet users, one participant suggested that a “keyword search function” for rapid review of IMAS documents would be a useful element for internet users. Another participant highlighted the desirability of access of a Word version of IMAS so that sections could be copied and pasted into new documents more easily for drafting purposes. Finally, one respondent noted the desirability of having links to relevant documents or studies within the text of the IMAS chapters. Translation

The question of translation was generally seen as a key issue related to access and outreach regarding IMAS. As a result, it was almost universally supported (by 84% of respondents). There were, however, questions raised about who should be in charge of translation – national programmes, the UN, or another central body such as the GICHD. The most common response to this dilemma was that translation for major languages, such as French, Arabic and Spanish, or alternatively the UN languages, should be carried out centrally (by the UN or GICHD), while other less represented languages would have to be done by individual country programmes. One additional suggestion that emerged was that the Glossary (04.10) should be translated centrally so that subsequent translations could be carried more easily by mine-affected countries. Translation emerged as a very strong issue for National Authorities – some of which described significant barriers to using IMAS, but with no funding for translation. In addition, participants choosing to be interviewed in French or Spanish consistently raised this issue throughout the discussion as an important condition of conducting consultations and engaging with the broader mine action community. Is there enough outreach and support for IMAS? On the topic of outreach, stakeholders generally felt that most people in the mine action community were aware of the standards as a useful and important element for the health of the sector. However, among National Directors in particular, the view was expressed that IMAS had fallen off the agenda of many of the Geneva meetings and that it would be interesting to see regular updates regarding changes to IMAS and issues under discussion. A variety of other suggestions were made regarding potential areas to explore further. Most of these suggestions reflected the view that, at this point, outreach and support efforts should be targeted to certain key events and groups, instead of using a more generalised approach. Among those suggestions were:

Specialised materials and assistance for new mine action programmes; Efforts to target new staff of national programmes or UN agencies; “Roll-out” packages for new or heavily revised key standards (such as Land

Release);

16

Better use of international conferences to communicate new issues within IMAS (such as plenary presentations, side events, or bulletins);

Better use of new social media tools for communication and coordination; More links to academic publications; Links within the text of the standards to monitoring tools for programmes; More focus on outreach and materials in languages other than English; More recording of lessons learned that would be easily accessible to programmes; Particular outreach efforts to militaries (primarily those involved in demining for

peace-keeping); and, Communities of practice.

Notably, automatic updates about new developments or revisions to IMAS were also suggested as a useful service, despite the fact this element already exists. Some participants suggested that this service was not well-known and was not easily found on the GICHD website.

Conclusions A wide variety of stakeholders were consulted within the IMAS Stakeholder Analysis, however, conclusions are in part limited by the small sample size of the study. Despite this fact, a significant amount of information was collected that contributes substantial detail to current information surrounding the perspectives of stakeholders. The difficulty of finding the right policy mix for the IMAS was highlighted by the tremendous mix of often opposing perspectives on issues such as management structures and consultations regarding IMAS. It is clear there is no universal consensus on policy issues, but some compromises may have to be made to address stakeholder interests more fully. It must be said that viewpoints of IMAS stakeholders are generally quite supportive of the work that has been done to date on IMAS. These standards are considered to be a vital element of mine action and the overall satisfaction ratings for format and content across stakeholder groups are very high. However, two issues in particular that emerged from consultations are particularly troubling. The first is the general lack of awareness or understanding regarding how IMAS is managed. At least 41% of participants did not have any idea regarding how the IMAS are managed. Considering the importance of IMAS, this lack of information and interest is telling. The second issue is the fact that a large number of respondents (40%) felt that the management of IMAS is not effective. Given that an additional 24% of respondents were unsure of whether management was effective, the complete picture is not a very favourable one. A number of factors were cited (such as a lack of visibility, transparency and communications with stakeholders), but given the fact that the vast majority of stakeholders are generally satisfied with the standards themselves, the issue would appear to be more about process than substance. Additional clarity of procedures (such as easily available Terms of Reference) and even efforts to further explain the status of the IMAS themselves as a non-UN document would improve understanding of the current management processes. In addition, there was a notable expression of dissatisfaction from the community of non-native English speakers who feel somewhat excluded from decision-making. Although stakeholders voiced their opposition to major expenditures of resources on endless

17

meetings, there are some concrete measures that participants themselves have highlighted that would move in a positive direction in terms of addressing these concerns, such as more use of social media and language-based discussion groups. Paving the way for reviews and revisions of the IMAS with more dynamic subject-matter discussion fora would also go a long way towards engaging those field personnel who currently feel their views are not reflected in IMAS decision-making procedures. Related to this topic is the request on the part of several stakeholders for more data collection on good practice and access to lessons learned from the field. If this could be formalised through UN or GICHD leadership as an element of IMAS outreach. This added element would help make a better connection between IMAS and the field and could enhance the efficiency of current Review Board practices.

18

Annexe 1 Stakeholder Category Participant Function

United Nations Field Staff

United Nations Field Staff Chief Technical Advisor

United Nations Field Staff Programme Manager





United Nations Field Staff Advisor


United Nations Field Staff Advisor

United Nations Field Staff Operations/Quality Assurance

United Nations Field Staff Operations/Quality Assurance


United Nations Field Staff (RB) Chief Operations


National Authority Representative Director

National Authority Representative Head Policy Planning




National Authority Representative HQ Manager



National Authority Representative (RB) Advisor

National Authority Representative (RB) Director

Implementing Organisation NGO

Demining NGO Field manager

Victim Assistance NGO Country Director

Remote Sensing NGO Headquarters Manager

Demining NGO Programme manager

Demining NGO Programme manager

Demining NGO Information Management Advisor

Demining NGO Field advisor

Demining NGO (RB) Headquarters Manager

Implementing Organisation Commercial

Commercial Demining Headquarters Programme Manager

Oil and Gas Sector Demining Management Contracts Manager

Technical Training (EOD) Enterprise Field advisor

Commercial Demining Country manager

Commercial Demining Field operations/QA advisor

Commercial Demining (RB) Headquarters Manager

Implementing Organisation Military

National Military Demining monitor





State-Donor

Donor Country Representative Mine Action Advisor

19

Donor Country Representative Programme Manager



Donor Country Representative (RB) Mine Action Advisor

International Organisation

Regional Organisation Advisor (Forest Management)

Ottawa Convention Implementation Support Implementation Advisor

International Civil Society Organisation Programme manager

Regional Organisation Headquarters Programme Manager

Academic Centre Programme Manager

United Nations Headquarters

United Nations Headquarters Staff (RB) Manager

United Nations Headquarters Staff (RB) Manager

Equipment Test and Manufacture

Commercial Equipment Manufacturer (detection) Chief Marketing Officer

Commercial Equipment Manufacturer (demining

machines) Headquarters Manager

Research and Development

Research & Development (demining machines) Scientist

Other Humanitarian

Humanitarian and Development Assistance Victim Assistance Advisor

20

Annex 2

Importance of IMAS for Mine Action Globally

Stakeholder Groups

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

5

(Un

imp

ort

ant)

1 ..

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

. 5 (

Nec

essa

ry)

21

Annex 3

Benefits of IMAS Highlighted by Stakeholders

*Note: Respondents were free to cite more than one benefit

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Keeps Treaty Current

Living Document that Adapts to Circumstances

Reviewed Regularly

Translated

Justifies Costs

Facilitates Emergency Response

Framework for Market Evaluation

Enhances Donor Support

Enhances Transparency

Reduces Insurance rates

Facilitates the Drafting of National Standards

Reduces Liability

Facilitates Quality Management

Intro of new concepts

Provides Common Language for Dialogue

Increases Confidence/Comfort level

Recognised Reference Doc

Establishes Standardisation/Best practice

Number of participants that cited the benefits listed*

22

Annex 4

Reference of Stakeholders to Specific IMAS Chapters and Other Documents

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Guide for the Application of IMAS

IATGs

Safety & Occupational Health General Requirements Battle Area Clearance

CEN Workshop Agreements

Protection of the Environment

Evaluation of Mine Action Interventions

Guide for the Destruction of APM

Establishment of a Mine Action Progamme

Procurement Process

TNMA (various)

Marking of Hazards

Guide to Mine Action Contracts

General Assessment

Management of Demining Operations

Medical Support to Demining Operations

Demining Worksite Safety

Accreditation of Mine Action Organisations

Management of Training

Guidelines for Post-Clearance Sampling

Mine/ERW Risk Education

General Guide for the Use of Mine Detection Dogs

Explosive Safety

All

Mechanical Demining

EOD

Non-Technical Survey

Glossary of Terms, Definitions and Abbreviations

Technical Survey

Monitoring of Demining Organisations

Clearance Requirements

Land Release

Number of Participants that Referred to Chapters Listed

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Keeps Treaty Current

Living Document that Adapts to Circumstances Reviewed Regularly

Translated

Justifies Costs

Facilitates Emergency Response

Framework for Market Evaluation

Enhances Donor Support

Enhances Transparency

Reduces Insurance rates

Facilitates the Drafting of National Standards Reduces Liability

Facilitates Quality Management

Intro of new concepts

Provides Common Language for Dialogue Increases Confidence/Comfort level

Recognised Reference Doc

Establishes Standardisation/Best practice

23

Annex 5

Changes to IMAS Suggested by Participants Stakeholder Category Chapter Suggested for Revision*

Equipment Manufacturing Company (09.11) Battle Area Clearance (for cluster munitions)

(09.50) Mechanical Demining

Implementing Organisation,

Commercial

(09.30) Explosive Ordnance Disposal (levels)

(09.30) Remote Explosive Scent Tracing

All Chapters

Implementing Organisation, NGO (09.40-43) Use of Mine Detection Dogs

(07.40) Monitoring of Demining Organisations

(08.20) Land Release

(09.20) Guidelines for Post Clearance Sampling

(09.30) Explosive Ordnance Disposal (levels)


(04.10) Glossary of Terms, Definitions and

Abbreviations


(09.11) Battle Area Clearance (for cluster munitions)

State-Donor (07.40) Monitoring of Demining Organisations

State-Nat Author (06.10) Management of Training


(10.50) Explosive safety

(11.20) Open Burning Open Destruction Operations

(12.10) Mine/ERW Risk Education

UN Field (07.40) Monitoring of Demining Organisations

(08.10) General Assessment


(08.21) Non-Technical Survey

(08.22) Technical Survey

(08.30) Marking of Hazards

(09.20) Guidelines for Post-Clearance Sampling

(09.42) Operational Testing of MDDs and Handlers

(Series 10) Mine Action Safety and Occupational Health

(12.10) Mine/ERW Risk Education

UN HQ (01.10) Guide for the Application of IMAS

(09.40-43) Use of Mine Detection Dogs *Note: In some cases, chapters have been suggested by more than one respondent.

24

Annex 6

Additions to IMAS Suggested by Participants

Stakeholder Category* Addition Suggested

Equipment Manufacturing Company Measures for work efficiency

Measures for socio-economic impact

Improvised Explosive Device Clearance

Implementing Organisation, Commercial

Aerial survey

Technical Note on more precise information reporting

Implementing Organisation, NGO Clearance of ERW with Mine Detection Dogs

Stockpile Management

International Organisation Environmental policy, planning and impact measures

Technical note on the role of victim assistance in the Mine

Action Centre

Reporting annex for Land Release

Technical note on decision-making principles for Land Release

Technical note on stockpile management for cluster munitions

Community Liaison

Information Management

Military Trauma Evacuation

State-Donor Stockpile destruction through commercial means

Overall Quality Management

Technical note on risk management

State-National Authority Technical note on mountainous assessment

UN Field Manual Clearance

Chemical ordnance

Surveillance systems

Improvised Explosive Devices

*Note: Not all Stakeholder Groups proposed changes to the IMAS

25

Annex 7

Awareness of Management Structures by Stakeholder Group

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Research & Development

Other Humanitarian

Equipment Manufacturing Company

UN Headquarters


State-Donor

Military

Implementing Organisation Commercial

Implementing Organisation NGO


UN Field

0

0

1

2

2

2

3

2

5

7

10

1

1

1

0

3

3

2

4

3

3

3

Yes

No

26

Annex 8

Stakeholder Interview Questionnaire Identification

Organisation Title Brief job description IMAS Use 1. Do you use International Mine Action Standards (IMAS), Technical Notes for Mine Action (TNMAs) (including International Ammunition Technical Guidelines (IATGs) and other related documents (such as CEN Workshop Agreements)? Y/N 2. How often do you refer to IMAS?

1 never 2 once a year or less 3 several times a year 4 on a weekly or monthly basis 5 daily

3. For what purpose(s) do you use IMAS?

(For example: Technical/safety guidance for operations, Drafting of contracts or grant agreements, Demonstration of organisation’s operational capacity, Writing of NMAS, Writing SOPs, ...etc)

4. How would you describe IMAS in terms of its importance for your work? (on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being unimportant and 5 being absolutely necessary) 5. What are the benefits of IMAS for your work and your organisation? What are the disadvantages? 6. How do you view the importance of the IMAS to mine action generally? Why? (on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being unimportant and 5 being absolutely necessary) 7. Which IMAS/TNMA or other related documents do you refer to most often? 8. Which other IMAS do you refer to? Satisfaction Content 9. Are you satisfied with the current format of IMAS? Why/why not? 10. Are you generally satisfied with the content? 11. Would you change any of the current IMAS? Which ones? Why? 12. Would you add any IMAS ? Why? On which topic?

27

IMAS Management 13. Are you aware of the structures that manage the IMAS standards? Y/N

If yes: Do you feel that this process is effective? Do you feel your views are consulted and considered?

14. As a stakeholder, do you have any suggestions for how the process of consultation with IMAS stakeholders can be improved? 15. What management structure do you think would be the most effective to manage the IMAS? 16. What organisations and types of organisations do you think should be represented within the proposed management structures:

e.g. represented on the Policy Body (Steering Group) represented on the Technical Body (Review Board)? Consulted on IMAS-related decisions

Support and Outreach 17. How do you access information on IMAS, TMNAs and other related documents? 18. Do you use the IMAS CD? Which year? 19. Are you aware of the publication “A Guide to International Mine Action Standards”? Have you used this guide? 20. Have you had any difficulties accessing the IMAS/TNMA and other related documents or information regarding IMAS? Y/N (If yes, describe) 21. How do you think access to relevant information could be improved? 22. Do you think it is necessary to translate IMAS? Y/N Into which languages? 23. Have you ever tried to get assistance regarding IMAS/TNMAs and other related documents?

If yes, Where did you go for this assistance? How satisfied were you with this response in terms of the response you received (on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being poor and 5 excellent?)

What kind of assistance did you request?

24. Are there any additional products or services that would be useful to you? 25. How would you improve outreach efforts generally?

28

Annex 9

Glossary of Abbreviations

APM anti-personnel mine

CEN European Centre for Standardisation

CWA CEN Workshop Agreement

EOD explosive ordnance disposal

ERW explosive remnants of war

GICHD Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining

GMAA general mine action assessment

IATG International Ammunition Technical Guidelines

IMAS International Mine Action Standards

ISO International Organisation for Standardisation

MAC mine action centre

MDD mine detection dog

MRE mine/ERW risk education

NGO non-governmental organisation

NMAS National Mine Action Standards

NTS non-technical survey

OBOD open burning and open detonation

PPE personal protective equipment

RB Review Board

QA quality assurance

QC quality control

QM quality management

R&D research and development

REST Remote Explosive Scent Tracing

S&OH safety and occupational health

SG Steering Group

SOP standing (or standard) operating procedure

TN Technical Notes

TNMA Technical Notes for Mine Action

TS technical survey

TOR terms of reference

UK United Kingdom

UN United Nations

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

UNMAS United Nations Mine Action Service

UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services

USA United States of America