Here are my general comments on casualty data collection and management:

I think there are different levels of casualty data collection that can serve different purposes. One must know the purpose of collecting information before deciding what to collect.

Data can be collected and aggregated to simply present a picture or profile of a given population/target group but it can also be collected for operational, planning, coordination and strategic direction purposes for mine awareness, for clearance and for VA. Here are some of the
requirements we identified as needed from our system:

Operational Requirements (day to day management and implementation of mine action activities):

(1) Mechanism to collect, enter and track new incidents/accidents (data      collection and entry)
(2) Mechanism to identify and track each victim through the system of services
(3) Quarterly, semi-annual and annual incidence, production and service reports
(4) Data analysis
(5) Mechanism to integrate or relate to the centers' databases
(6) Standardized victim identification mechanism ie. use national ID numbers to      ease identification of victims and prevent duplication
(7) Centers' databases should fulfill most day to day management requirements

Planning and Coordination Requirements:

(1) Data collection, entry and analysis
(2) Trend identification for mine awareness and increasing incidence in an area      not previously identified as a priority
(3) Ensure data consistency

Strategic Requirements (general oversight, long term planning and policy setting):

(1) Identification of future service and materials requirements
(2) Planning barometer to identify changing balance in type of client served or type of service      received
(3) Post impact assessment

Here are some examples of additions that were made to the N. Iraq program:

1) the Initial incident/accident report: we did not have control nor a comprehensive method to collect information on NEW incidents/accidents, other than reports from the 'Oil of food' funded centres. We learned that we were not counting immediate deaths in the minefield (burials would occur shortly after the incident, often with no official record of the death or the accident), which represented approx. 30% of incidents/accidents. Also we had no consistent way of knowing of a danger that could easily and rapidly be eliminated by experts e.g. a small stockpile of UXO's in a
village, a new mine or UXO found on a route to a school. And most importantly, because we had no records of locations of minefields, it was important to know if incidents/accidents occurred in a minefield already "known" to Mine Action or if it was a 'new' minefield that had not been previously recorded. (I've attached the 'process' we developed to follow up
on new incident reports).

Forms were distributed as widely as possible, with some training on how to complete it. They were being distributed to village anjumans, mayors, local hospitals, community health care centres etc. The extensive network of First-aid posts and Mine Action sub-offices were the depository forcompleted forms.

All cases were followed up within 24 hours by survey people who would gather additional information and assess whether the situation required any further action to prevent another incident/accident.

2) Field Assessment Form: because the N. Iraq program uses an integrated approach to demining, (all demining activities are done in multi-discipinary teams of Mine Awareness, clearance and VA in the highest-impact areas). The VA members of the team assess the "general daily living needs" of the victims, (and other disabled) and refer them to the appropriate resource ('other disabled' are referred when a service is available to assist them. In the absence of a service that can help, data is collected and shared with the appropriate authorities i.e. local
authorities, UN agencies, NGOs etc.) All technical and professional needs are assessed by expert field officers. The VA field officer from the team then follows and reports on each victim's progress through the system to ensure he/she is receiving the required service, to assess the response quantity and quality of the service and to catch any victims that may 'fall through the cracks'. The field officers are staff from the local first-aid and rehab centres, so they are able to troubleshoot as required and centers are most interested to know that their services are responsive and/or areas of weakness they can improve upon.

3) post-impact assessment form: about 6 months after an area has been cleared and the Mine Action Program's work is done, a post-impact assessment is done to determine if the work produced the required impact. This allows more accurate reporting and also to make adjustments to the process from lessons learned. The MA and VA post-impact assessments were prepared in a very short and rushed time-frame, and probably should be reviewed.

One of my major concerns is that Mine Action is so involved with data collection, but rarely has the appropriate professional capacity to ensure robust data collection nor the capacity to analyze it.

I have shared this info with Akiko and she will add these comments to her inputs at the workshop. She also has copies of the above-mentioned forms. Please don't hesitate to email should you have any questions.

Good luck with the workshop and best regards.