Post-ClearanceAssessment inUXO LAO

Marco Heuscher

TA Quality Management

About UXO LaoAbout UXO Lao

• Lao National Unexploded Ordnance Programme

• Established in 1996

• Work force: more than 1‘000 people

• Expenditures in 2008: USD 6.7 million

• Operating in 9 most heavily impacted provinces(Laos has 17 provinces, 15 of them impacted by UXO)

• Scope of Work:

� UXO Area Clearance (80% Agric., 20% Non-Agric.)

� UXO Roving EOD

� Technical Survey

� Community Awareness (MRE)

ContextContext

• UXO Lao mandate

1. Make cleared land available for agriculture and

development

2. Reduce the number of UXO casualties

• Present Task Selection & Prioritization System

1. Request based / bottom-up

2. Working at the Household/Land Owner Level

3. By Government and by UXO LAO

• Focus on UXO Clearance for Agriculture

PCA at UXO LaoPCA at UXO Lao

• PCA not PCIA

• PCA data evaluation and reporting by QM unit (central)

• PCA data collection by Survey Teams (de-central)

• PCA on 25 % of agricultural tasks and 100% of non-agricultural tasks

• PCA visit 6 to 12 months after Area Clearance or TS

PCA at UXO LaoPCA at UXO Lao

• 3-Page Questionnaire

� Pre-clearance and clearance information

� Interview section

� Observations from site inspection

� QC section

• Field Visit

� Interview with land owner/user/representative

� Site inspection

PCA at UXO LaoPCA at UXO Lao

Who benefits from PCA?

• Donors & Development Partners

• NRA � monitor effectiveness

• UXO LAO Prov. Mgmt � discuss S&P with Local Govt.

• UXO LAO HQ � refine internal task S&P system

• Survey Teams � feedback on pre-clearance survey

StatusStatus

• Done so far:

1. Developed Pre- and Post Clearance Questionnaire

2. Developed PCA Procedures

3. Carried out PCA Trials

• Present:

1. PCA Training (for Surveyors & Management)

• Next Steps:

1. Develop provincial work plans

2. Start implementation / field work (April 09)

3. First consolidated report (August 09)

ChallengesChallenges

• Cost (resistant to funding fluctuations)

• Qualitative vs. quantitative information

• How much detail / confidence is required?

• What changes/impacts are visible in 6 to 12 months?

• Attitude issues (tend to cut corners, lack of curiosity)

• Staff Capacity (analytical capacity)

• Trust of PCA Interviewee (fear from neg. consequences)

Addressing ChallengesAddressing Challenges

Keep it short and simple

• Small & simple questionnaire

• Cover only the most essential information

� Separate “Must Know” from “Nice to Know”

� Give priority to what UXO LAO needs to know

� Comply with National Standards

9

Addressing ChallengesAddressing Challenges

What is “most essential” information?

• Is the Land used?

� …as intended?

� …how much of it?

� …used in a safe manner?

• Is the Quality of Clearance OK?

� Have UXO been found since CL/TS?

� Is the Land Owner/Representative satisfied?

10

Addressing ChallengesAddressing Challenges

Depth of Analysis / Level of Confidence?

• When is it OK to work with assumptions?

• When do we need certainty and solid conclusions?

• Where is it useful to identify trends, indicators of change or simply 'issues to be further investigated'?

11

PCA Approach PCA Approach –– Example 1 (Assumption)Example 1 (Assumption)

Assumption:

“A household that shows signs of food insecurity and that

owns land which is not being used due to UXO contamina-tion, is likely to benefit much from clearance and is likely to

improve its food security situation.”

12

Question:

“Is it worthwhile to investigate at post-clearance stage

whether food security has indeed improved and whether this improvement is due to UXO clearance?”

PCA Approach PCA Approach –– Example 1 (Assumption)Example 1 (Assumption)

13

Considerations:

What we do:

1. Obtain information only during pre-clearance survey2. Use information for task selection & prioritization

3. No re-evaluation of food security at post-clearance stage

• If the assumption proves wrong, can we actually do something about it?

• How much effort would be needed to make a solid conclusion?

• How likely is it that our assumption is true?

PCA Approach PCA Approach –– Example 2 (Conclusion)Example 2 (Conclusion)

Conclusion:

“Those who ignore clearance limitations do this (not)

on purpose and are (not) aware of the risk they take”

14

PCA Questions:

1. Are land owners aware of clearance limitations?

2. Do land owners respect clearance limitations?

PCA Approach PCA Approach –– Example 3 (Trends/Issues)Example 3 (Trends/Issues)

Conclusion:

“Those who ignore clearance limitations do this (not)

on purpose and are (not) aware of the risk they take”

15

PCA Questions:

•Have UXO been found since the TS

•Does the land user understand the concept of TS?

(e.g. sampling, desk-assessment)

•Whether they feel safe using the land

PCA Approach PCA Approach –– Example 3 (Trends/Issues)Example 3 (Trends/Issues)

16

Scenario 1:

UXO have been found on TS-ed land.

•The TS system/methodology is flawed.

•The TS system has been applied incorrectly.

Possible Issues:

PCA Approach PCA Approach –– Example 3 (Trends/Issues)Example 3 (Trends/Issues)

17

Scenario 2:

•The TS system/methodology is not effective.

•The TS system is not well explained.

Possible Issues:

Land users may understand the concept of TS but still

feel unsafe

PCA Approach PCA Approach –– Example 3 (Trends/Issues)Example 3 (Trends/Issues)

18

Scenario 3:

•Effectiveness of TS may be based on misperception

•If land owners do not understand or misunderstand TS, can we say that it is effective?

Possible Issues:

Land users do not understand the concept of TS but

they do have faith in it.