Dr. Suzanne Fiederlein, the workshop coordinator for the MAIC, welcomed the participants and opened the workshop with introductions of the MAIC staff, including director Mr. Dennis Barlow; Department of State, Humanitarian Demining Programs Office director Mr. Pat Patierno; and Dr. Ken Rutherford of Southwest Missouri State University, who helped facilitate the workshop. She then reviewed the goal and tasks of the workshop.

The goal of the workshop was to make recommendations for the development of a global landmine casualty data collection and management system. This ambitious goal was broken into three specific tasks: 1) Make recommendations for a common core of data fields; 2) Make recommendations on data collection methodology, design of data collection forms, training and data reliability issues, and cultural and ethical considerations; and 3) Make recommendations on the implementation and use of a global landmine casualty database system.

Dr. Fiederlein pointed out some of the benefits of the project, such as promoting the collection and use of accurate landmine casualty data so that it can be aggregated globally and compared cross-nationally, something that is not now occurring across the mine-affected countries as evidenced by the ongoing debate and uncertainty over the number of annual landmine casualties around the globe. The information generated by improved casualty data collection also could facilitate program planning and funding decisions and the sharing of lessons learned.

Dr. Fiederlein went on to lay out plans for the outcome of the workshop, including the presentation of the recommendations to the Intersessional Programme of the Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and Socio-Economic Reintegration of the Mine Ban Treaty to be held in Geneva, May 27-28, 2002. The recommendations will be incorporated into a report on the workshop to be distributed to the U.S. Department of State, the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD), and other interested parties and then posted on the MAIC website.

The workshop participants were encouraged to consider the purposes of a global landmine casualty information system, in particular what the system can and cannot do, and how it relates to other sources and types of information that are used when planning and implementing victim assistance programs. Dr. Fiederlein noted the ambitious goal of the workshop and encouraged the participants to indicate “areas of concern that need more discussion” if they were not in a position to make specific recommendations on aspects of the workshop tasks. However, they were urged to make as many specific recommendations as they could.

Following the welcome and introductions, Dr. Rutherford made some comments about his views on the importance of the workshop. He pointed out that the global community has only recently focused on the impact of landmines, although the weapons have killed many people over a long period of time. Data collection played an important role in this growing awareness, as physicians who were assisting landmine victims began to publicize information on the extent of the problem. Dr. Rutherford noted that the framework, language and prescribed action on behalf of victims contained in the Mine Ban Treaty are all derived from data collection. While data collection on the impact of landmines has played an important role, what information is collected and the way it is collected need refinement so that landmine victims may be assisted more effectively.

Dr. Rutherford then asked the participants to introduce themselves and share their perspectives on or concerns about global landmine data collection and management. As their introductory comments indicated, the participants brought a great breadth of field and program planning experience to the workshop and reflected a variety of purposes for collecting casualty data.

After the introductions and opening comments by the participants, two formal presentations were made to the group in order to provide background information on the current state of casualty data collection and its potential future direction.

The most widely used software package for managing data on landmine victims is the Information Management System for Mine Action (IMSMA) developed by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurick (ETHZ) for the GICHD and in cooperation with the UN Mine Action Service (UNMAS). Its field module is now in use in 26 mine-affected countries. Mr. Reto Haeni, the IMSMA Project Coordinator from the ETHZ, presented an overview of the IMSMA system. He stated that the goal of IMSMA is to provide for “improved capabilities for decision-making and information policy related to mine action.” In addition, IMSMA strives to offer “support to the operational and management needs of mine action programs, by providing standardized data formats.” He discussed IMSMA’s many benefits to the mine action community, including quick production of accurate mine hazard maps and starting up Mine Action Centers more quickly. Casualty data collection is just one component of the data IMSMA is designed to manage. Mr. Haeni explained that IMSMA collects casualty data with three different tools: Impact Surveys, Accident Casualties, and Incident Casualties. Each form has a specific purpose and touches on various areas of victim information. Mr. Haeni illustrated how the data collected by IMSMA can be analyzed and presented in aggregate form via Web Reports, one of the newest of IMSMA’s developments. He presented to the group a sample of victim data from IMSMA’s use in Yemen. In the discussion that followed Mr. Haeni’s presentation, questions arose that became a major issue for the workshop participants: What is the proper relationship between mine action and victim assistance? What is the responsibility of operational mine action for collecting victim data?

The next presenter addressed another approach to improving the collection and exchange of landmine casualty data. Noah Klemm, maXML project leader of FGM Inc., presented his company’s plan for the development of a new information specification that will allow different mine action database systems to more easily exchange data with one another and with systems in other domains. The project, maXML, will improve the interoperability of mine action information systems around the world, primarily by overcoming the technical barriers to information exchange. Its goal is not only to facilitate the sharing of information amongst the landmine community members, but also to share data with humanitarian information centers, such as in the Horn of Africa, and other important locales, such as Afghanistan. The program includes an information glossary and will provide a method to encode collected data so that others may use it. Working group participants stated that maXML will help assist their mine action and victim assistance work, because “it will push for definitions,” “encourage people to collect data in common form,” and it could be a “useful tool to see what assistance a patient has received over the years, for what purpose, and when they are due for their next treatment.”

Afternoon Discussion Summary

In the afternoon, conference participants discussed two main issues: 1) The purposes and parameters of casualty data collection and management (facilitated by Dr. Ken Rutherford) and 2) The drafting of a common core of data fields, which, in turn, could be used as the basis for a global casualty data collection and management system (facilitated by Dr. Suzanne Fiederlein). The discussions involved all of the workshop participants sharing ideas and were designed to bring to light the issues of most concern to the participants and the range of perspectives represented by the group. On the second day the participants would be divided into three sub-groups which would draft specific recommendations on the different sets of issues set forth in the workshop tasks.

The discussion on the purposes and parameters of casualty data collection and management focused on seven mine casualty data collection issues. The purpose for collecting landmine casualty data was the first issue discussed. This issue generated considerable discussion that highlighted the concern raised by Eric Filippino of the GICHD about what data was appropriate for mine action operations to collect. The GICHD participants made the argument that data collection must remain focused on the needs of “operational” mine action – surveying, marking, clearance, etc. -- and not so much on follow-up, care-oriented victim information. Some victim data is useful for purposes of operational mine action, such as the location of the incident and who was involved, but details about victims’ injuries is less important They asserted that it is more properly the responsibility of the national ministries of health to collect the detailed data required to provide the full range of services required by victims and not the mine action centers (MACs) or national demining offices (NDOs). Nevertheless, recognizing the greater victim assistance community's information needs, IMSMA has been developed to collect some supplementary data on mine/UXO victims.

This question about the role of mine action in collecting victim data became a recurring topic of discussion that influenced the deliberations of the workshop. Discussion of the second issue, the design and length of the data collection form, continued to bring up issues of data relevancy and analysis. The participants agreed that a two-page Incident Victim Report form (as used by IMSMA) was appropriate but that an effort needs to be made to insure that what victim data is collected on that form is relevant for the purposes of victim assistance. It also was determined that the data collected must contribute to the analysis of information, i.e., why collect data that will not or cannot be analyzed?

This point relates to consideration of the methodology for data collection, the third issue discussed. IMSMA provides a centralized database of information about mine action which is essential for effective program management. It also can collect some important health information. A suggestion was made that it might be more appropriate to have the health ministry collect victim data and the mine action center go to it for the few relevant items it needs. While it was acknowledged that national health ministries have a responsibility for assisting mine victims, in many countries it is not able to fill this data collection role. The mine action center therefore is in the position to fill a gap by collecting what victim data it can and storing it in a central database which national health systems then can access for victim assistance programming needs. The workshop participants generally agreed that the MACs/NDOs play an important role in data collection and ought to continue to collect victim data.

The fourth issue was the training of data collectors and data entry personnel. It was determined that mine data collectors need to be trained in subtle ways and learn to collect information without intimidating communities. Effective training also requires coordination and cooperation among the variety of groups, particularly national and local entities such as government ministries, involved in the process, and this can be hard to achieve. This tied into the discussion of cultural and ethical issues, the fifth topic of discussion. The group discussed the importance of correct translation into and out of a foreign language to the data’s integrity. The value of using women and landmine survivors as data collectors in some countries also was discussed.

Discussion about data collection led to consideration of the sixth issue, how to encourage the dissemination of information. Data collection often is easy compared to getting people to share it, since information often is power in many countries and those that have it are reluctant to part with it. The host country needs to understand the benefits of providing the international community with mine action and victim assistance information, such as the potential for increased funding and improved program efficiency. The group also grappled with the question, how should the global data be used and shared, the seventh issue examined. Since coordination even on the village level is difficult in many cases, global collaboration will be even more challenging. However, some areas of the world have excellent transnational data collaboration, such as in the region of South Eastern Europe. Examples of successful data sharing should be studied more closely to see what lessons can be applied elsewhere. On a national level, data collectors could take action themselves to promote the exchange of information, such as taking a minister with them on their work missions and holding bi-monthly inter-agency meetings.

The afternoon’s second discussion concerned a common core of data fields for a global landmine casualty database system. Dr. Fiederlein reviewed the results of the recent survey she conducted concerning landmine casualty data. The survey was developed based on the analysis of nine casualty data collection systems in use in mine-affected countries and was sent out to victim assistance practitioners and landmine database managers who were asked to rate the importance of collecting various data fields. During this discussion, she compared IMSMA’s data fields to her survey results. Participants were invited to suggest any additions to and deletions from IMSMA’s current data fields, as making adjustments to the current forms is in order rather than developing completely new ones. IMSMA’s deployment so far in 26 countries attests to its effectiveness as an information management system that meets countries’ programmatic needs for information management. The participants discussed the overall satisfaction that users of IMSMA express with the system, and Mr. Haeni reported that the IMSMA office at the GICHD has conducted a customer satisfaction survey and offered to share its results (reprinted later in this report). However, this was an opportunity for the participants to build on the results of the MAIC survey which indicated some data fields that respondents thought should be included in a landmine casualty data collection form but were not part of IMSMA or that were in IMSMA but were not necessarily as important as other data fields.

The participants focused on the relevancy of items 4.7 and 4.8 of the Incident Victim Form: Did the person know that area was dangerous? If they knew area was dangerous, why did they go there? Some participants felt these questions were not only of questionable relevancy as far as planning mine awareness programs was concerned but that they were even “toxic” to ask victims. The relevancy of item 4.10 also was debated (Did the person receive mine awareness training?). The participants discussed for some time what were the measures of success for mine awareness programs and what information was needed for planning mine awareness programs. Some participants expressed the view that if the answers to certain questions would not change the way that you did your mine awareness work, then why include the questions. These “mine awareness” items received the most discussion but questions also were raised about items 4.13 and 4.14 on occupation (are both items needed: occupation and occupation prior to accident?), and there was some limited discussion about the use of the diagram of the human body, in particular as it relates to the need to distinguish between right and left side amputations (is the distinction necessary?).