IMAS: Questionaire

Questionnaire Results
Online Questionnaire
Printable Questionnaire
Revision Process
Get Adobe Reader

REVIEW AND REVISION OF MINE CLEARANCE
STANDARDS AND QUALITY ASSURANCE

In July 1996, international standards for humanitarian mine clearance programmes were proposed by working groups at a conference in Denmark. These draft standards were subsequently developed by a UN-led working group into International Standards for Humanitarian Mine Clearance Operations. The document was formally issued and circulated by the UN Mine Action Service (UNMAS) in March 1997.

At the time the document was issued it was acknowledged that the standards should be reviewed every two years to reflect developing mine action practices and procedures.

The Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) has been invited by UNMAS to co-ordinate a review and revision of the standards. The first phase of this process involves the collection and collation of information from people and organizations who use the current mine clearance standards, and learning from those who use standards, guidelines and codes of practice in other related areas of work.

This questionnaire is being issued to all mine action centres, major demining NGOs and commercial contractors, and to other organisations who apply mine clearance standards. We are fully conscious that you will need to devote much time to complete this questionnaire, and we are most grateful for your help. But as I am sure you will recognise, the information which we will gather from the completed forms once analysed will establish the baseline for the revision. Your views and suggestions are therefore crucial to the success of the process.

Some of the sections in the questionnaire may not apply directly to you or your organisation; in such circumstances just leave that part of the form blank. But as a minimum, please complete the first section (giving information about yourself, the organisation you represent and your experience in the application of standards) and the final section (giving general comments and observations on the availability, utility, layout and ease of use of this document).

The results of the analysis of the completed questionnaires will be published by 15 March 2000 on the project website: www.mineclearancestandards.org. All detailed records will then be destroyed.

HOW TO COMPLETE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE

This questionnaire asks for your views on the document: 'International Standards for Humanitarian Mine Clearance Operations'. Depending on the way the question is framed you should either place a number in a box, select an option presented to you, or provide comments.

Where you are asked to make a choice from a number of options, you should choose the option which comes closest to your view. For example if you agree or disagree with a particular statement and the option 'Disagree strongly = 4' is closest to your view then you should write the number 4 in the box.
For other questions you are asked to check boxes for options or selections that may apply or which you prefer.
In some cases you may be asked to write your own comments or suggestions, and you should do this in the space provided.

If you have any questions about the questionnaire please contact Alastair McAslan at the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD): +41 22 906 1682; a.mcaslan@gichd.ch.

WHAT TO DO WHEN YOU HAVE COMPLETED THIS QUESTIONNAIRE

The Mine Action Information Center (MAIC) at James Madison University will be collecting and collating the information from the questionnaires. This information will be held in a database with restricted access, and all detailed records will be destroyed by 15 March 2000.

The questionnaire can be completed on line via the internet, or off-line. If you complete the questionnaire on line your details, selections and comments will be sent directly to the MAIC at James Madison University. This is the easiest option.

If you complete the questionnaire off-line you should forward it by fax or mail/post/courier as follows:

by fax (+1 540 568 8176).
by mail, post or courier to Mine Action Information Center, MSC 4003 James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA 22807, United States.

Click here to view a printable version of the questionnaire.

If you have any difficulty forwarding the questionnaire to James Madison University please contact Suzanne Fiederlein or Amanda Reeder at the MAIC (tel: +1 540 568 2718) or (e-mail: fiedersl@jmu.edu or whetstap@jmu.edu).

Your completed questionnaire should reach James Madison University by no later than Monday 14 February 2000.

Thank you for your assistance.

DEFINITIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS

The terms standard(s), guidelines, SOPs and standardization are applied in different ways by different people and organisations involved in mine action. For the purposes of the review of 'International Standards for Humanitarian Mine Clearance Operations' the following definitions have been adopted.

In completing this questionnaire, please relate your comments and suggestions to these definitions. This will assist us greatly in our analysis.

Standard(s)

A standard is .... a measure, or quality or object serving as a basis or example or principle to which others conform, or should conform, or by which the accuracy or quality of others is judged.' It is something which is agreed and fixed, and it enables tasks and activities to be conducted in a constant and consistent way '... and thus ensure that products, processes and services are fit for their purpose.' A standard provides a 'benchmark' against which progress and performance can be measured.

Guidelines

Guidelines are '.... general rules, principles or pieces of advice'. The use of guidelines may confer advantages or benefits, but there is usually no requirement or obligation for them to be to accepted or adopted (c.f. standards).

SOPs

Standing operating procedures (SOPs), sometimes referred to as standard operating procedures, are instructions which define the preferred method of conducting an operational task or activity. Their purpose is to establish recognizable and measurable degrees of uniformity, consistency and commonality within an organization, with the aim of improving operational effectiveness and safety. SOPs should reflect local requirements and circumstances.

Standardization

Standardization is a continuing process to establish measurable and recognizable degrees of uniformity, accuracy and excellence. It applies to policy, codes, practices, procedures, specifications and time. It aims to achieve and maintain the most appropriate and most effective levels of compatibility, interoperability interchangeability and commonality in humanitarian mine clearance programmes.

GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Your organization:

	a.	Name of organization:
	b.	Category of organization (please check appropriate box):

	(1)	Government
	(2)	Mine action centre
	(3)	NGO (engaged in mine clearance)
	(4)	NGO (other)
	(5)	Commercial demining organization
	(6)	Consultant
	(7)	Other (please specify):

Position / appointment in organization:

	(1)	Director / head of unit
	(2)	Senior technical advisor
	(3)	Deputy or assistant technical advisor
	(4)	Operations officer (or equivalent)
	(5)	Other (please specify)

2. Your involvement with standards:

Does your position / appointment within your organisation require you to use / apply international standards for mine clearance?

Does your position / appointment within your organization require you to prepare local mine clearance SOPs and / or codes of practice?

Have you used International Standards for Humanitarian Mine Clearance Operations to prepare local mine clearance SOPs and / or codes of practice?

Over the past 12 months, how often have you referred to International Standards for Humanitarian Mine Clearance Operations?

3. In completing this questionnaire, is your response:

	a.	the official view of your organisation, or
	b.	a representative view based on broad consultation, or
	c.	your individual views and comments

SECTION 1 - SAFETY

4. Scope.

To what extent do you agree with the following statements. Use the following grading:

1 = agree strongly; 2 = agree; 3 = disagree;
4 = disagree strongly; 5 = don't know / no opinion

a.	International standards and/or guidelines for safety in mine clearance operations are essential.
b.	The section needs to be more complete and/or appropriate to assist with the preparation of national/local SOPs.
c.	The section needs to differentiate more clearly between safety-critical standards and general safety guidelines.

5. Suitability (i.e. necessity and accuracy) of content

Indicate your views on the necessity and accuracy of the detail given in Section 1 and its annexes. Necessity: choose yes or no. Accuracy: use the following grading:

1 = entirely accurate; 2 = some errors or omissions; 3 = many errors or omissions;
4 = dangerously inaccurate; 5 = don't know / no opinion

		Necessity	Accuracy
a.	Personal protection levels and equipment (Paras 1.6 and 1.7)
b.	Safety distances (Para 1.8 and Annex A)
c.	Probing procedures (Para 1.9)
d.	Site standards and procedures (Paras 1.11 to 1.17 and Annex B)
e.	Storage of explosives (Para 1.18 and Annex C)
f.	Explosive storage construction (Para 1.19 and Annex D)
g.	Transportation of explosives (Para 1.20 and Annex E)
h.	Visitors(Paras 1.21 and 1.22)

i.	Are there any additional functions and activities which, in your opinion, require safety standards and/or guidelines:

6. Comments and recommendations.

Do you have any additional comments and recommendations (on safety standards and guidelines):

SECTION 2 - TRAINING AND QUALIFICATIONS

7. Scope.

To what extent do you agree with the following statements. Use the following grading:

1 = agree strongly; 2 = agree; 3 = disagree;
4 = disagree strongly; 5 = don't know / no opinion

a.	International standards and/or guidelines for training and qualifications are essential.
b.	The section needs to be more complete and/or appropriate to assist with the preparation of training courses.
c.	The section needs to differentiate more clearly between training standards and guidelines.
d.	There is a need for centralised accreditation of courses and a table of equivalence for accredited courses and qualifications.
e.	Too much emphasis is given to formal training and too little credit is given to field experience.

8. Suitability (i.e. necessity and accuracy) of content.

Indicate your views on the necessity and accuracy of the detail given in Section 2.
Necessity: choose yes or no. Accuracy: use the following grading:

1 = entirely accurate; 2 = some errors or omissions; 3 = many errors or omissions;
4 = dangerously inaccurate; 5 = don't know / no opinion

		Necessity	Accuracy
a.	Qualifications and experience (Paras 2.6 to 2.9)
b.	Training courses (Paras 2.10 to 2.22)

c.	Are there any additional training functions and activities which, in your opinion, require international standards and/or guidelines:

9. Comments and recommendations.

Do you have any additional comments and recommendations (on training standards and guidelines):

SECTION 3 - SURVEY

10. Scope.

This section will be completely re-written in conjunction with Section 9 (Information Management) to reflect the introduction of the UN's Information Management System for Mine Action (IMSMA).

To what extent do you agree with the following statements. Use the following grading:

1 = agree strongly; 2 = agree; 3 = disagree;
4 = disagree strongly; 5 = don't know / no opinion

a.	International standards and guidelines of survey are essential.
b.	The section needs to be more complete and/or appropriate to assist with the preparation of national/local SOPs.
c.	The section needs to differentiate more clearly between standards and guidelines.
d.	Survey should include a comprehensive assessment of the socio-economic impact of mines.
e.	Survey should include comprehensive risk assessments.
f.	Survey should include comprehensive environmental assessments.

11. Suitability (i.e. necessity and accuracy) of content.

Indicate your views on the necessity and accuracy of the detail given in Section 3.
Necessity: choose yes or no. Accuracy: use the following grading:

1 = entirely accurate; 2 = some errors or omissions; 3 = many errors or omissions;
4 = dangerously inaccurate; 5 = don't know / no opinion

		Necessity	Accuracy
a.	Definition of Level 1 (Paras 3.5 and 3.6)
b.	Definition of Level 2 (Paras 3.7 and 3.8)
c.	Definition of Level 3 (Paras 3.9 and 3.10)
d.	Information sources and classification (Paras 3.12 to 3.17)
e.	Team composition, training and qualifications (Para 3.18)
f.	Coordinate systems and GPS (Paras 3.19 and 3.20)
g.	Minefield marking and area reduction (Paras 3.21 to 3.25)
h.	Minefield information systems (Paras 3.28 to 3.30)

i.	Are there any additional survey functions and activities which, in your opinion, require new or revised international standards and/or guidelines:

12. Comments and recommendations.

Do you have any additional comments and recommendations (on survey standards and guidelines):

SECTION 4 - MINEFIELD MARKING

13. Scope.

To what extent do you agree with the following statements. Use the following grading:

1 = agree strongly; 2 = agree; 3 = disagree;
4 = disagree strongly; 5 = don't know / no opinion

a.	International standards and/or guidelines for the marking of mined areas is essential.
b.	The section needs to be more complete and/or appropriate to assist with the preparation of national/local SOPs.
c.	The section needs to differentiate more clearly between standards and guidelines for the marking of mined areas.
d.	Greater effort should be made to develop and use long-term marking (and fencing) for high-risk areas. Such marking (and fencing) should be mandatory.

14. Suitability (i.e. necessity and accuracy) of content.

Indicate your views on the necessity and accuracy of the detail given in Section 4.
Necessity: choose the yes or no. Accuracy: use the following grading:

1 = entirely accurate; 2 = some errors or omissions; 3 = many errors or omissions;
4 = dangerously inaccurate; 5 = don't know / no opinion

		Necessity	Accuracy
a.	Mine clearance marking (Paras 4.5 to 4.7)
b.	Minefield/UXO marking levels (Para 4.8)
c.	Marking specifications (Paras 4.9 to 4.12)

d.	Are there any additional minefield marking functions and activities which, in your opinion, require international standards and/or guidelines:

15. Comments and recommendations.

Do you have any additional comments and recommendations (on marking standards and guidelines):

SECTION 5 - MINEFIELD CLEARANCE OPERATIONS

16. Scope.

To what extent do you agree with the following statements. Use the following grading:

1 = agree strongly; 2 = agree; 3 = disagree;
4 = disagree strongly; 5 = don't know / no opinion

a.	International standards and/or guidelines for mine clearance procedures are essential.
b.	The section needs to be more complete and/or appropriate to assist with the preparation of national/local clearance standards and SOPs.
c.	The section needs to differentiate more clearly between standards and guidelines.
d.	The current definition of 'clearance' is being applied to the majority of clearance programmes.
e.	The current definition of 'clearance' is being achieved in the majority of clearance programmes.
f.	An alternative to the current definition of 'clearance' should be developed as part of the review process.
g.	The definition of an 'appropriate' level of clearance is not fully understood. There is a need to provide guidance on how to determine 'appropriate' clearance levels by using, for example, look-up tables based on an assessment of risk.

17. Suitability (i.e. necessity and accuracy) of content.

Indicate your views on the necessity and accuracy of the detail given in Section 5.

Necessity: choose yes or no. Accuracy: use the following grading:

1 = entirely accurate; 2 = some errors or omissions; 3 = many errors or omissions;
4 = dangerously inaccurate; 5 = don't know / no opinion

		Necessity	Accuracy
a.	Qualifications (Paras 5.4 and 5.5)
b.	Clearance standards and levels (Paras 5.9 to 5.10)
c.	Site layout and mapping (Paras 5.11 to 5.12)
d.	Clearance equipment, tools, methods and techniques (Paras 5.13 to 5.22)
e.	Marking (Paras 5.23 and 5.24)
f.	Location and destruction of mines and munitions (Paras 5.25 to 5.38).
g.	Medical (Para 5.39)

h.	Are there any additional clearance functions and activities which, in your opinion, require new or revised international standards and/or guidelines:

18. Comments and recommendations.

Do you have any additional comments and recommendations (on clearance standards and guidelines):

SECTION 6 - EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL

19. Scope.

To what extent do you agree with the following statements. Use the following grading:

1 = agree strongly; 2 = agree; 3 = disagree;
4 = disagree strongly; 5 = don't know / no opinion

a.	International standards and/or guidelines for EOD are essential.
b.	The section needs to be more complete and/or appropriate to assist with the preparation of national/local SOPs for EOD.
c.	The section needs to differentiate more clearly between EOD standards and guidelines.

20. Suitability (i.e. necessity and accuracy) of content.

Indicate your views on the necessity and accuracy of the detail given in Section 6.
Necessity: choose yes or no. Accuracy: use the following grading:

1 = entirely accurate; 2 = some errors or omissions; 3 = many errors or omissions;
4 = dangerously inaccurate; 5 = don't know / no opinion

		Necessity	Accuracy
a.	General disposal methods (Para 6.6)
b.	Disposal options (Para 6.8)
c.	Destruction levels (Para 6.9)
d.	Training, qualifications and authorization (Paras 6.10 - 6.11)
e.	Render safe procedures (Paras 6.14 - 6.15)
f.	Coordination and control (Paras 6.17 - 6.18)
g.	Safety procedures (Para 6.16)
h.	Medical support (Para 6.19)

i.	Are there any additional EOD functions and activities which, in your opinion, require new or revised international standards and/or guidelines:

21. Comments and recommendations.

Do you have any additional comments and recommendations (on EOD standards and guidelines):

SECTION 7 - MEDICAL

22. Scope.

To what extent do you agree with the following statements. Use the following grading:

1 = agree strongly; 2 = agree; 3 = disagree;
4 = disagree strongly; 5 = don't know / no opinion

a.	International medical standards and/or guidelines for mine clearance are essential.
b.	The section needs to be more complete and/or appropriate to assist with the preparation of national/local medical SOPs.
c.	The section needs to differentiate more clearly between medical standards and guidelines.
d.	International medical standards for mine clearance should be based on the standards prescribed in the Medical Support Manual for United Nations Field Operations.
e.	International medical standards for mine clearance should be based on the local needs and circumstances and not necessarily on the standards prescribed in the Medical Support Manual for United Nations Field Operations.

23. Suitability (i.e. necessity and accuracy) of content.

Indicate your views on the necessity and accuracy of the detail given in Section 7.
Necessity: choose yes or no. Accuracy: use the following grading:

1 = entirely accurate; 2 = some errors or omissions; 3 = many errors or omissions;
4 = dangerously inaccurate; 5 = don't know / no opinion

		Necessity	Accuracy
a.	Levels of medical support (Para 7.5)
b.	Medical training standards (Paras 7.6 - 7.8 and Annexes A and B)
c.	Medical equipment (Paras 7.9 - 9.10 and Annex C)
d.	Primary health care (Paras 7.11 - 7.12)
e.	Deployment of medical resources (Paras 7.13 - 7.14)
f.	CASEVAC and MEDIVAC (Paras 7.15 - 7.18)
g.	Rehabilitation surgery (Para 7.19)
h.	Communications and reporting (Paras 7.20 - 7.21)

i.	Are there any additional medical support functions and activities which, in your opinion, require new or revised international standards and/or guidelines:

24. Comments and recommendations.

Do you have any additional comments and recommendations (on medical standards and guidelines):

SECTION 8 - COMMUNICATIONS

25. Scope.

To what extent do you agree with the following statements. Use the following grading:

1 = agree strongly; 2 = agree; 3 = disagree;
4 = disagree strongly; 5 = don't know / no opinion

a.	International standards and/or guidelines for communications are essential.
b.	The section needs to be more complete and/or appropriate to assist with the preparation of national/local SOPs.
c.	The section needs to differentiate more clearly between communications standards and guidelines.
d.	International standards and guidelines for communications should reflect the increasing availability of satellite phones, mobile phone networks, internet access and e-mail in some mine affected countries.

26. Suitability (i.e. necessity and accuracy) of content.

Indicate your views on the necessity and accuracy of the detail given in Section 7.
Necessity: choose yes or no. Accuracy: use the following grading:

1 = entirely accurate; 2 = some errors or omissions; 3 = many errors or omissions;
4 = dangerously inaccurate; 5 = don't know / no opinion

		Necessity	Accuracy
a.	Frequency allocation (Para 8.5)
b.	Medical frequency (Para 8.6)
c.	Base stations (Paras 8.7 - 8.8)
d.	Vehicle and hand-held radios (Para 8.9)
e.	Call signs (Para 8.10)

f.	Are there any additional communication functions and activities which, in your opinion, require new or revised international standards and/or guidelines:

27. Comments and recommendations.

Do you have any additional comments and recommendations (on communications standards and guidelines):

SECTION 9 - INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

28. Scope.

This section will be completely re-written in conjunction with Section 3 (Survey) to reflect the introduction of the UN's Information Management System for Mine Action (IMSMA).

29. Comments and recommendations.

Do you have any additional comments and recommendations (on standards and guidelines for the application of management information systems to mine clearance):

GENERAL COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS

30. Availability of International Standards document

a.	Do you have a paper copy of the document in or close to your office or place of work?
b.	Do you make use of the electronic edition published on the UNMAS website: www.un.org/Depts/Landmine/Standard/s-index.htm?

Comments (on the availability of the document):</