Scoring Criteria for States Parties to the Cluster Munition Convention

To help affected states parties and their partners focus their capacity building and technical assistance efforts on areas of weakness, a performance scoring system is used by Mine Action Review. Seven areas with a particularly strong influence on the effectiveness and efficiency of a cluster munition remnant (CMR) survey and clearance programme are assessed.

The country-specific assessments of the seven criteria, which should be viewed alongside the Recommendations for Action, are intended as an implementation tool, offered in the spirit of openness and constructive dialogue, to assist states parties to identify and overcome challenges and fulfl their Article 4 obligations as effciently and effectively as possible.

A score of between 0 and 10 is accorded for each of the seven criteria (three of which carry a higher weighting) and an average performance score calculated. Average scores of 8.0 or above are considered “very good”, 7.0–7.9 is ranked “good”, 5.0–6.9 is ranked “average”, 4.0–4.9 is ranked “poor”,
while 0–3.9 ranks as “very poor”.

Criterion Performance Commentary

UNDERSTANDING OF CMR CONTAMINATION

(20% of overall score)

  • Has a national baseline of cluster munition remnant contamination been established and is it up to date and accurate?
  • If no national baseline, or only a partial or inaccurate baseline, exists, is survey and/or re-survey being conducted or is it planned?
  • Are cluster munition contaminated areas disaggregated from areas with other types of explosive ordnance (e.g. other UXO or landmines)?
  • Is cluster munition remnant contamination classified into suspected hazardous areas (SHAs) and confirmed hazardous areas (CHAs), based on whether there is indirect or direct evidence of cluster munition remnants respectively?
  • Is there a high ratio of CHAs to SHAs?

NATIONAL OWNERSHIP AND PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT

(10% of overall score)

  • Is there a national entity, such as a national mine action authority, overseeing mine action? 
  • Is there a national mine action centre coordinating operations?
  • Are the roles and responsibilities in mine action clear and coherent within the national programme?
  • Is the mine action centre adequately staffed and skilled?
  • Are clearance operators involved in key decision-making processes?
  • Does national legislation, or other suitable administrative measures, effectively underpin the mine action programme?
  • Have the authorities created an enabling environment for mine action?
  • Has the government facilitated the receipt and efficient use of international assistance?
  • Is there political will for timely and efficient implementation of Article 4 of the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM)?
  • Does the affected state contribute national resources to support the cost of the mine action centre and/or survey and clearance of cluster munition contaminated areas?
  • Does the affected state have a resource mobilisation strategy in place for Article 4 implementation?

GENDER AND DIVERSITY

(10% of overall score)

  • Does the national mine action programme have a gender and diversity policy and implementation plan? Do the main mine action operators have one?
  • Is gender mainstreamed in the national mine action strategy and national mine action standards?
  • Are all groups affected by anti-personnel mine contamination, including women and children, consulted during survey and community liaison activities?
  • Are survey and community liaison teams inclusive and gender balanced, to facilitate access and participation by all groups, including women and children?
  • Is relevant mine action data disaggregated by sex and age?
  • Are gender and diversity taken into account in the prioritisation, planning, and tasking of survey and clearance activities?
  • Is there equal access to employment for qualified women and men in survey and clearance teams, including for managerial level/supervisory positions?

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND REPORTING

(10% of overall score)

  • Is there a national information management system in place (e.g. IMSMA), and is the data accurate and reliable?
  • Are data collection forms consistent and do they enable collection of the necessary data?
  • Is data in the information management system disaggregated by type of contamination and method of land release?
  • Is the data in the information management system accessible to all operators?
  • Are ongoing efforts being made to ensure or improve the quality of data in the mine action database?
  • Does the affected state party to the CCM submit accurate and timely annual Article 7 reports on Article 4 progress?
  • Are Article 4 extension requests of a high-quality and submitted in a timely manner?
  • Is the survey and clearance data reported by the affected state party (e.g. in Article 7 reporting) accurate and disaggregated by type of contamination (i.e. cluster munition remnants from other UXO and landmines) and method of land release?
  • Does the affected state party report on progress in Article 4 implementation at the intersessional meetings and Meetings of States Parties, and is reporting accurate and consistent between reporting periods?

PLANNING AND TASKING

(10% of overall score)

  • Is there a national mine action strategy in place and does it include realistic goals for land release?
  • Is there a realistic annual workplan in place for land release?
  • Are there agreed and specified criteria for prioritisation of tasks?
  • Are key stakeholders meaningfully consulted in planning and prioritisation?
  • Is clearance of cluster munition remnants tasked in accordance with agreed prioritisation?
  • Are task dossiers issued in a timely and effective manner?
  • Where relevant, is there a plan for dealing with residual risk and liability? Is it realistic and sustainable?

LAND RELEASE SYSTEM

(20% of overall score)

  • Does the affected state have national mine action standards in place for land release? 
  • Do the standards enable or impede efficient evidence-based survey and clearance?
  • Are national standards reflected in SOPs?
  • Are standards and SOPs periodically reviewed against IMAS and international best practice, in consultation with clearance operators?
  • Is there an effective and efficient: i) non-technical survey capacity, ii) technical survey capacity, iii) clearance capacity in the programme? Does this include national capacity?
  • Are areas being cleared that prove to have no cluster munition remnant contamination?
  • Where relevant, is there national survey and clearance capacity in place to address cluster munition remnant contamination discovered after the release of mined areas or post completion?
  • Is there an appropriate range of demining assets (manual, mechanical, and animal detection systems) integrated into land release operations?
  • Is there an effective quality management system in place for survey and clearance operations?
  • Where an accident has occurred within a mine action programme was there an effective investigation? Were lessons learned shared between operators?

LAND RELEASE OUTPUTS AND ARTICLE 4 COMPLIANCE

(20% of overall score)

  • Is the affected state seeking to clear all cluster munition remnant contamination from territory under its jurisdiction or control, including contamination along national borders, in and around military installations, and in hard to access areas etc.?
  • Have national mine action authorities set a target date for the completion of cluster munition remnant clearance and is this within the state party’s Article 4 deadline?
  • Is the target date for completion realistic based on existing capacity?
  • Is the target date sufficiently ambitious?
  • What were the outputs of survey and clearance of cluster munition contaminated area in 2018, and were they greater or lesser than the previous year and why?
  • Are survey and clearance outputs in line with plans and Article 4 obligations?
  • Is the affected state on track to meet the target completion date and/or Article 4 deadline?