Enhancing the collective capability

of the mine action sector:

A strategic framing of a sector-wide Theory of Change and User Guide June 2021

Guide Description
This guide is centred around a Theory of
Change and a set of supporting
Theories of Action which covers all pillars
of mine action. The primary purpose is to
encourage collective responsibility of
all stakeholders for achieving mine
action outcomes and to introduce shared
indicators that can help measure whether
the sector is collectively achieving these.
Each Theory of Action is accompanied by a
set of indicators, common assumptions,
and ‘strategic connections’ that illustrate
how the Theories of Action support each
other to contribute to delivering the overall
Theory of Change. A combination of the
Theory of Change (ToC) and the Theories
of Action (ToA) will help to
distinguish between ‘implementation
failure’ (an intervention that is not
delivered well) and ‘theory failure’ (where
an intervention is done well but it still did
not lead to the outcomes hoped for).
The latter puts the emphasis on the sector
as a whole, and not just the implementers,
for when outcomes are not as good as they
could be.
The Guide sets out instructions for how
different sets of stakeholders can use
the ToC and ToAs to help improve the
collective impact of the mine action
sector.
The Guide is set out as follows:
Section One:
The Theory of Change
• Why a Theory of Change is important
• The Theory of Change diagram
• How to use the Theory of Change
• Illustrative examples: Zimbabwe and
Sudan
Section Two:
Theories of Action
• How do they add value?
• How to use them
• ToAs for each mine action activity
Annex 1: Suggested indicators by
activity
Annex 2: Assumptions
 Who could benefit from using a sector-wide Theory of Change and why
National Mine
Who?
Action Authorities
As a design and management tool to:
Why?
• Understand and explain the mine
action system
at a country-level and its
interdependencies
• Inform policy making
• Co-ordinate national and
international support and identify
gaps
• Identify and leverage wider
developmental and humanitarian
efforts to maximise results
Donors
As a design and evaluation tool to:
• Align international support with
country-level objectives
• Recognise where specific objectives
have interdependencies with other
stakeholders
• Identify the most strategic use of
resources and partners to achieve
objectives
• Identify and leverage wider
developmental and humanitarian
efforts to maximise results
Implementing
Partners
As a design and MEL tool to:
• Understand how specific activities
contribute to the sector overall
• Inform design of programmes that
understand interdependencies with
other stakeholders to maximise
results
• Distinguish between implementation
failure and theory failure and inform
adaptation and advocacy as needed
Section One:
Theory of Change Overview
The benefits of a sector wide Theory of Change
Theory of Change Overview – The benefits of a sector wide approach

The Theory of Change (ToC) presented below is part of a The following slide provides the sector-wide ToC diagram -
concerted effort by the Dutch Mine Action and Cluster which is complex - followed by an explanation for ease of Benefits of a sector-wide ToC
Munition Programme (MACMP) and the UK Global Mine understanding and is explained throughout the rest of the
Action Programme (GMAP) to better align the donor guide. The ToC is organized horizontally according to the
Alignment of
community around shared mine action objectives and common activities of the mine action sector, with advocacy stakeholders around
indicators, bringing greater coherence to the sector seen as an integrated activity. common objectives
overall. As such, the ToC captures the whole sector and it
is not expected that each stakeholder will cover all Vertically, the diagram illustrates the links from activities, to Increase collective
activities all of the time. outputs, to outcomes to impact, with an overarching vision responsibility for
statement.. delivery of those
Developing a shared ToC is an important contribution to
aligning the objectives of different stakeholders across the At the bottom of the diagram is a set of principles that
objectives
sector for greater collective impact but it is also important underpin the sector’s success, for example putting the
for aligning indicators between the Dutch and UK interests of the most vulnerable communities at its heart.
Distinguish between
programmes. In time this can ease the reporting burden on ‘theory failure’ and
implementers, and improve the ability of the sector to share, In the centre of the diagram are the National Mine Action ‘implementation failure’
aggregate and compare data – supporting the sector to Authorities (NMAAs). The NMAAs are considered to be for learning and
better use its available evidence base. integral to the success of the sector and have an accountability
amplification effect that can increase the quality of all
As a sector wide ToC crossing all pillars of mine action, the outcomes across the sector. Inform common
ToC is necessarily complex and is designed to increase
indicators, streamlining
the visibility of the strategic connections between The lines on the diagram indicate where there is a
different mine action pillars which collectively enhance relationship between one part of the diagram with another. reporting and making
one another. It’s purpose, therefore, is to encourage Typically these represent where one or more outputs may better use of evidence
strategic thinking across the sector and to encourage a link to different outcomes, and how combinations of these across the sector
collective responsibility for maximising the sector’s outcomes then serve different impacts.
success.
MINE ACTION THEORY OF CHANGE
Impact VISION STATEMENT:Increased peace and human security, and support towards development in countries affected by landmines and ERW

Self-reliance APMBC and CCM treaty

Conflict sensitive delivery of mine action Safer communities and reduced
contributes to obligations met and states’ Economic development and more resilient
services and increased national Mutually reinforcing deaths and injuries from mines/ERW
socio-economic strategic objectives communities contributes to SDGs
ownership contributing to stabilisation
development supported

Increased feeling of safety

Quality of life for Mine action integrated
Measurable with humanitarian & Risk of harm reduced
male and female Mine action better managed, regulated, Safe and productive land use improves
Outcomes

progress towards development plans through safer

survivors improves and coordinated with increased local livelihoods and basic services
APMBC and CCM mobilising Reduced behaviour and
implementation
treaty complementary resources socio-economic clearance
obligations pressure to
Development assistance from third parties take risks
Additional
assistance enhancing the benefits of mine action
Stockpile destruction, provided
clearance & land
Survivors better release contribute to Humanitarian assistance/assisted return to Stockpile
supported and Capable NMAAs more able to IDP/refugees Assistance provided for livelihoods destruction &
treaty obligations Capable NMAAs and local
integrated influence national policy and basic services clearance lead to
implementers are key to creating an a removal of risk
enabling environment for national Benefits of land release limited
ownership Collaboration and co-
ordination increases without third party assistance
Prevents use
additional assistance
of stockpiles Capable NMAAs Return of IDPs/refugees on voluntary basis
to fuel People retain risk
can amplify the overall and Land use dependent on investments of
education knowledge
conflict
strategic effect of the mine land user only
& behave in a safer
action sector manner
Outputs

Increased medical and Reduced stockpiles Contamination and pre &

Enhanced capacity of Enhanced capacity of Increased awareness
psychosocial care and of explosive post clearance data shared Land released for safe Risk from explosive
local implementers NMAA of the risk from
socio-economic ordnance and productive use hazards removed Mines/ERW
support
NMAA authorises formal release of land
Activities

Collaboration and
Victim Stockpile Capacity Development of Capacity Development of Non-technical survey, technical EOD spot Explosive Ordnance
coordination with national and
Assistance destruction local implementers NMAA survey and clearance tasks Risk Education
local stakeholders

Principles that create an enabling environment to put local communities and local leadership at the centre of mine action and maximise the sector’s strategic value
Conflict and gender sensitivity and other inclusivity considerations mainstreamed across all activities, including community liaison Governments, national mine action authorities, UN and IPs work together and are informed by a shared understanding of needs and
and other participatory processes that give voice to vulnerable groups and appropriately include men, women, girls and boys, including capabilities
those with disabilities.

Efforts by the donors, NMAA, UN agencies, implementing partners and local organisations at every level and activity to leverage opportunities and create pressure for advocacy, policy changes, implementation change and resource allocation.
Explaining the Theory of Change

Impacts capture the different strategic and long-

term aims of the sector and will be influenced by
factors beyond the sector’s control

Outcomes often rely on more than one output

and hence may be dependent on the collective
contribution of multiple stakeholders

Additional descriptions to describe the logic from

outputs to outcomes and capture some of the
assumptions that underpin the ToC and are further
elaborated in the ToA descriptions later in the guide

Outputs flow from the activities

Activities cover all mine action pillars and are not

expected to be delivered by all stakeholders all of
the time

The Principles are key to creating the The NMAAs are key to the sector and can Collaboration and co-ordination across
enabling environment that will maximise the enhance the quality of all mine action stakeholders is essential to the success of all
success of the sector. outcomes. activities.
NMAAs - How to use the ToC
The ToC can be used as a design, co-ordination and management tool, identifying where the critical interdependencies are between
activities and stakeholders inside and outside the mine action sector. This can be used to encourage co-ordination across government, donors
and implementers and identify any gaps in support. It should also be used to reflect on where progress is and is not being made, learn from
that and adjust NMAA policy and strategy where needed.

Guiding questions:
NMAA’s Strategic Planning Teams
- Are national strategic objectives reflected in the ToC? Are there particular
can use the ToC to identify their strategic
elements which are more important than others?
objectives and change pathways.
- Where are there important interdependencies with other parts of government
NMAA Senior Management can use the and is there a shared commitment with other government stakeholders to
TOC to link and leverage other achieving the mine action objectives? If not, what can be done to promote a
government initiatives shared commitment?

NMAA’s Donor Coordination Teams can
use the ToC as an overarching framework
to bring the different donor partners
together and manage coordination.
- Do donors understand the national strategic objectives and do their objectives
align to the ToC? What is the best way to co-ordinate donor support to achieve
the most critical strategic objectives?
- When we monitor our progress are we reflecting on the Theory of Change to
understand if there is implementation and/or theory failure?

- What are we learning and what does this tell us about the Theory of Change?
What does it tell us about how the mine action sector is collaborating (or not)?
Can we do more to improve co-ordination across government, donors and
implementers?
Donors - How to use the ToC
The ToC can be used to inform programme design, partnerships and monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) systems. It can be used to
align institutional strategic objectives to NMAA objectives and identify interdependencies with other stakeholders, leveraging co-ordination and
collaboration where needed – inside and outside the mine action sector. It is also a useful tool to understand where there may be implementation
or theory failure and what adjustments may be needed to maximise the collective impact of the sector at the programme and country level. Finally,
the ToC is an important tool to monitor and evaluate progress to make evidence-informed decisions about programming and policy.

Policy and programming teams Guiding questions:

can use ToC to help make funding and
programming decisions. ToC also to be
used as overarching framework to build
closer alliances and better coordination
between international partners as well as
national authorities.
Annual Review Team and MEL leads
can use ToC to guide a theory based
evaluation.
- What are the most important strategic objectives of the NMAAs? Are our
objectives aligned to these? Have we made clear the strategic objectives of
our programme to the NMAAs?
- Are we co-ordinating fully with the NMAAs and other donors to maximise the
potential collective impact of the sector?
- Where do we need to encourage our implementing partners – inside and
outside of mine action – to work together? How do we best do this? Are we
maximising value for money?
- Where are there gaps in the sector that can undermine the key NMAA strategic
objectives? How can we use our influence to leverage change?
- When we monitor our progress are we reflecting on the Theory of Change to
understand if there is implementation and/or theory failure?

- What are we learning and what does this tell us about the Theory of Change?
What does it tell us about how the mine action sector is collaborating (or not)?
Can we do more to improve co-ordination across government, donors and
implementers?
Implementation Partners - How to use the ToC
The ToC can be used to inform programme design and MEL. It can be used to identify interdependencies with other stakeholders where co-
ordination and collaboration is needed and to help all team members understand how their specific work contributes to the success of the sector
overall. Used alongside the ToAs outlined later in this guide, it can inform MEL systems and Results Frameworks, helping to identify
implementation failure and theory failure that can inform programme adjustments and be fed back to donors and NMAAs to inform future policy
and strategy of the sector as a whole.

Programme design teams can use the ToC to Guiding questions:

support design process, ensure alignment of
objectives to NMAAs/donors, and to see
where collaboration and co-ordination with
other stakeholders is necessary.
MEL Teams can use the ToC to reflect on
progress, identify implementation vs theory
failure and support programme teams in
adaptive management processes that will
optimise outcome level-change.
Management teams can use ToC alongside
Results Frameworks on a quarterly basis to
reflect on how well programmes are
contributing to strategic objectives of the
sector and when to join up activities to
achieve greater impact.
• Where does your programme fit within the overall ToC? What outcomes and
impacts are you contributing to? How does this fit with the priorities of the
NMAA?
• Who else outside your programme is contributing to these outcomes and
impacts? What are the interdependencies with your work? Are there particular
stakeholders you should co-ordinate with?
• Does everyone on the team understand their role within the ToC and the
interdependencies with other stakeholders to achieve outcomes and impact?
What does this mean for their work?
- When we monitor our progress are we reflecting on the Theory of Change to
understand if there is implementation and/or theory failure?
- What does it tell us about how the mine action sector is collaborating (or not)?
Can we do more to improve co-ordination across government, donors and
implementers?
Theory of Change Example: GMAP2 Sudan
The Theory of Change will differ
depending on the context and
its emphasis may change over
time. A ToC can be tailored for
each programme based on the
activities and strategic
objectives for that country.
This example demonstrates
how the ToC can be tailored for
GMAP2 in Sudan.
The highlighted yellow boxes
illustrate the GMAP2
programme in Sudan. It enables
stakeholders to see how they
are contributing to mine action
objectives in Sudan, where
there may be
interdependencies with other
stakeholders (inside and
outside the mine action sector)
requiring co-ordination and
collaboration, and where any
gaps may exist.
Theory of Change Example: MACMP Iraq
The Theory of Change will differ
depending on the context and
its emphasis may change over
time. A ToC can be tailored for
each programme based on the
activities and strategic
objectives for that country.
This example demonstrates
how the ToC can be tailored for
MACMP in Iraq.
The highlighted pink boxes
illustrate the programme in
Iraq. It enables stakeholders to
see how they are contributing
to mine action objectives in
Iraq, where there may be
interdependencies with other
stakeholders (inside and
outside the mine action sector)
requiring co-ordination and
collaboration, and where any
gaps may exist.
Section Two:
Theories of Action
Theories of Action: What they are and why they add value
The ToC is supported by a set of Theories of
Action (ToAs) which help individual
stakeholders see where their specific
interventions contribute to the ToC
outcomes. This recognises that individual
mine action operators can not always be
expected to deliver fully on the ToC outcomes,
but their actions should at least contribute to
those outcomes. Hence, the ToC and the ToAs
can be seen as follows:
- The Theory of Change represents the
understanding of how social, political,
economic and/or cultural change can be
influenced to achieve outcomes within the
mine action sector.
- The Theories of Action explain how a
particular project, programme or initiative
contributes to that change process, and is
informed by the broader Theory of Change.
The distinction between ToAs and the ToC is
important as it allows the sector to better
identify what is working, what is not and why;
distinguishing between ‘implementation
failure’ (an intervention that is not delivered
well) and ‘theory failure’ (where an
intervention is delivered well but it still did not
lead to the outcomes expected). The latter
extends accountability to the sector as a
whole, and not just the implementers, for
when outcomes are not as good as they
could be.
The ToAs in this guide are designed to
support programme teams who may only
work on a particular component of the ToC.
There are ToAs for most activities included in
the ToC; so if your focus is risk education, then
you only need to refer to the risk education
ToA. ToAs can be used by programme teams
to understand how their specific activities
feed into the bigger mine action picture –
i.e. the ToC - and where dependencies or
‘strategic connections’ with other
stakeholders may be enhancing or
hindering the success of the sector as a
whole.
Each ToA sets out a simple diagram of how
your activities will lead to a particular
output and set of outcomes. Each context is
different and the level of outcome ambition will
vary across different countries: this is a guide
to help stakeholders understand how they can
stay focused on the task in hand whilst
remaining alert to where and how they need to
work together with others.
The ToAs are also an important opportunity to
streamline indicators and avoid multiple
variations of similar indicators across the
sector, developed as part of a review across
the sector in collaboration with the Dutch
MACMP, UK GMAP and Geneva International
Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD).
Standardising core indicators can reduce the
reporting burden for implementers but it can
also help to provide a more reliable
evidence base from which to monitor the
sector and articulate collective results
across multiple stakeholders.
The components of the ToAs are described in
more detail below.
Theories of Action: How to use them
Assumptions
Underpinning the ToAs and ToC are a set of key assumptions;
conditions that are assumed to be present in order for the
intervention to be successful and link to the ‘strategic connections’
described below. These are important to understand and will need to
be expanded and refined for different contexts. These assumptions
are critical to the success of the ToC and ToAs and should be
monitored and reflected on periodically.
Strategic Connections
Accompanying the ToAs, set out in each slide, are the key inter-
relationships between mine action interventions – as illustrated in the
ToC - which enable the mine action sector to be more than the sum of
its parts. In other words, there are strategic connections that, when
acted upon, can enhance the outcome and impact level change
that the sector wishes to see. For each ToA representing each mine
action activity these strategic connections have been highlighted and
should be seen as the responsibility of all stakeholders to
consider. Through advocacy and coordination activities the
connections between mine action and the broader governmental, and
humanitarian and development sectors are made in order to maximise
the outcomes and impact of mine action.
The following slides outline the ToAs for the core activities included in the ToC.
Indicators
The ToAs also allow for a more detailed mapping of shared output
and outcome indicators and these are illustrated in the ToA slides for
each mine action activity which form part of this document.
Key Performance Questions
To encourage collective ownership of the strategic connections, each
ToA slide has a set of key performance questions. These are
designed as questions that the mine action sector within each
country should collectively ask itself. Potentially they could be
used within periodic sector-wide coordination and reflection meetings,
and in broader inter-departmental government coordination meetings
or coordination meetings within the humanitarian and development
sectors. The purpose of these questions is to bring together the
analytical capabilities of all relevant stakeholders to reflect on
where and why there may be theory failure and hence impede the
optimal value of the sector and where the sector may have
opportunities to enhance its collective outcome and impact level
change. The questions are generic but the answers should be context
specific.
 Theory of Action: Victim assistance
Theory of action diagram
Measurable progress towards APMBC APMBC and CCM treaty obligations met and
and CCM treaty obligations states’ strategic objectives supported
leads to…
Increased medical, rehabilitation and resulting in… contributing to…
Victim assistance
psychosocial care and socio-economic inclusion
Quality of life for EO survivors Economic development and more resilient
improves communities contributes to SDGs

Assumptions: For example, survivors have the opportunity to equitably benefit from socio-economic support and freedom to exercise self-reliance; also see annexed assumptions 1,2,4, 7, 13, 16, 21, 22, 27, 28, 31.

Output indicators Outcome indicators

Number of direct beneficiaries of victim
assistance activities (as per SBD version 2)
Number of indirect beneficiaries of victim
assistance activities (as per SBD V 2)
% of mine/ERW survivors surveyed reporting increased access to victim assistance [i.e. % of Community leaders reporting support from relevant government and non –
emergency and ongoing medical care; rehabilitation including prosthetics and orthotics; governmental actors for EO victims in communities affected by mines/ERW
mental health and psycho-social support and socio-economic inclusion – defined in SBD v2]
% of survivors surveyed reporting improvements in quality of life

Strategic Connections and Key Performance Questions

The above linear process illustrates victim assistance at its most basic. However, there are strategic connections with other aspects of mine action that can enhance outcome level change, as illustrated in the diagram
below. These strategic connections should be considered by all stakeholders in order to maximise the added value of the mine action sector.

Strategic connections to other elements of mine action Maximising the strategic value of Victim Assistance Cross-sector key performance questions
NMAAs can contribute to advocacy for Supporting NMAA with stockpile destruction Is land release leading to a reduction Do NMAA procedures improve the
EOD changes to legislation and financial support will help reduce the risk of stockpiles storage in the need to engage in risky response and support survivors
EORE
that supports survivors. close to vulnerable communities. behaviour for economic reasons? receive?

Land release Engaging local communities and organisations Capacity building support for NMAAs will
via EORE and community liaison can help help create clear and efficient procedures for Are communities aware of the risks of Is there sufficient coordination across
Victim CD of NMAAs
increase mine risk awareness and support the survivors, co-ordinating with the health ERW/mines and practicing safer the mine action and health sectors to
re-integration of survivors into communities. sector and NGOs to improve access services behaviour on an individual and improve the quality of life for
Assistance and understand their rights. community level? survivors?

CD of local IPs Land release reduces the risk of harm to a Engaging survivors in mine action advocacy, Are stockpiles being reduced and/or Are survivors involved in mine action,
community and reduces psychological impact EORE and prioritisation/planning can enhance secured to not pose a threat to in terms of advocacy, community
of mines/ERW for survivors and other the effectiveness of the intervention and help individuals and communities? liaison, risk education or prioritisation
Advocacy community members. their integration in the community. for land release?
Stockpile destruction
Theory of Action: Stockpile destruction
Theory of action diagram
Safer communities and fewer deaths and injuries from unplanned
Risks from explosive hazards Risk of harm reduced through safer behaviour and explosions of stockpiled EO
removed clearance (and removal of EO for conflict use)
leads to… resulting in… contributing to…
Stockpile destruction Conflict sensitive delivery of mine action services and increased
Reduced stockpiles of Measurable progress towards APMBC and CCM national ownership contributing to stabilisation
explosive ordinance treaty obligations
APMBC and CCM treaty obligations met and states’ strategic
objectives supported

Assumptions: For example, consensus and support for stockpile destruction provided by the necessary authorities; also see annexed assumptions 1,2,4, 7, 13, 16, 21, 22, 27, 28, 31.

Output indicators Outcome indicators

Number of items of EO destroyed through stockpile reduction
activities (disaggregated by category of EO)
Number of weapon and ammunition stores made safe through
weapon ammunition and management activities (where relevant)
Number of people surveyed reporting they feel safer from Explosive hazards. Number of communities with reduced risk of unplanned explosions of
munitions stores/stockpiles or reduced access to poorly managed stockpiles or
Number of beneficiaries (estimated number of those impacted by a UEMS which EO stores
has been prevented through stockpile reduction activities).

Strategic Connections and Key Performance Questions

The above linear process illustrates stockpile destruction at its most basic. However, there are strategic connections with other aspects of mine action that can enhance outcome level change, as illustrated in the
diagram below. These strategic connections should be considered by all stakeholders in order to maximise the added value of the mine action sector.

Strategic connections to other elements of mine action Maximising the strategic value of Stockpile Destruction Cross-sector key performance questions
NMAAs with enhanced capacity are better able to conduct advocacy for stockpile Is stockpile destruction reducing the Has the NMAA got sufficient support and
destruction. availability of weapons that could credibility to advocate for stockpile
EOD EORE CD of local IPs, strengthens national capacity for stockpile destruction.
undermine stabilisation? destruction?

Stockpile destruction alone will not reduce risks and needs to be accompanied Are stockpiles being reduced and/or Do national actors / implementing
Land release secured to not pose a threat to individuals organisations (e.g. police and military but
by removal of other mine/ERW threats through EOD spot tasks or clearance as a
part of land release. and communities? also CSOs) have the capacity to destroy
Stockpile stockpiles safely?
Stockpiles may not be cleared immediately and EORE is needed to help manage
destruction NMAA capacity the risks until they can be destroyed. Are weapons stores being managed safely Is the possibility of UEMS included in EORE
development and securely (i.e. unlikely for unplanned messaging (where appropriate)?
Abandoned ordnance (outside of storage areas) will be destroyed through EOD explosion?)
spot tasks or as part of clearance if on a confirmed hazardous area.
Are IPs implementing land release and/or EORE also coordinating and advocating for
Capacity development Advocacy and coordination with other sectors.
Advocacy stockpile destruction?
of local IPs
 Theory of Action: Capacity development of local implementers
Theory of action diagram

Capacity development of
local mine action
organisations
leads to… resulting in… Mine action better managed, regulated, contributing to… Conflict sensitive delivery of mine action services
Enhanced capacity of local
and coordinated with increased local and increased national ownership contributing to
implementers
implementation stabilisation

Assumptions: For example, local implementers have the opportunity to exercise leadership and increasingly deliver mine action services; also see annexed assumptions 1,2,4, 7, 13, 16, 21, 22, 27, 28, 31.

Output indicators Outcome indicators

CD score of local IPs’
operational plans, systems,
procedures and practices
CD score of Local IPs’
management skills and
knowledge
CD score of Local IPs’
Information Management
systems and data
Number of personnel from local
mine action organisations trained or
supported by CD activities
Number of local organisations
supported by CD activities.
Local mine action organisations have the Local mine action organisations have MA sector has transitioned
management capabilities to plan, implement the operational capacity to conduct towards national ownership
and quality manage their own work. mine action effectively, efficiently
and safely.

Strategic Connections and Key Performance Questions

The above linear process illustrates capacity development of local IPs at its most basic. However, there are strategic connections with other aspects of mine action that can enhance outcome level change, as illustrated
in the diagram below. These strategic connections should be considered by all stakeholders in order to maximise the added value of the mine action sector.

Strategic connections to other elements of mine action Maximising the strategic value of mine action Cross-sector key performance questions
Local implementers can be more able to Local implementers, along with NMAAs, Are national actors increasingly able Is there a reduction over time of the
access areas where international are an important part of increasing local to deliver high quality NTS, TS, need for external support to local
Advocacy and EORE operators cannot. voice within the mine action sector and clearance [including EOD spot tasks], implementers?
coordination help transition the sector to national EORE and victim assistance activities
Local IPs can work with NMAAs and civil ownership.
Land release using community liaison and
society to advocate for additional
inclusive participatory approaches?
humanitarian assistance to maximise the
CD of local CD of NMAAs
outcomes of mine action .

IPs Developing the capacity of local Local implementers can work with NMAAs Are local mine action implementers Are local implementers capable of
implementers can increase the quality and civil society to advocate for all given the opportunity to increasingly supporting advocacy and do they
Victim assistance and sustainability of mine action to components of mine action to be integrated lead in implementing mine action have the opportunity to do so?
reduce the risk from residual into formal national action plans and activities?
contamination in the long-term. budgets.
EOD Stockpile
destruction
 Theory of Action: Capacity Development of National Mine Action Authorities (NMAAs)
Theory of action diagram contributing to…
resulting in… APMBC and CCM treaty obligations met and states’ strategic
Measurable progress towards APMBC and CCM treaty obligations
objectives supported
leads to…
Capacity development of Enhanced management skills, Mine action better managed, regulated, and coordinated with Conflict sensitive delivery of mine action services and
NMAAs procedures and systems of NMAAs increased local implementation increased national ownership contributing to stabilisation

Mine action integrated with humanitarian & development plans Economic development and more resilient communities
mobilising complementary resources contributes to SDGs

Assumptions: For example, a capacity and needs assessment is conducted in partnership with NMAA to develop shared understanding of support needed; NMAA has the political will and authority to improve their
ability to regulate and manage mine action programmes; NMAA can influence national policy and planning outside the mine action sector; authorities are recognised by public as providers of valuable and transparent
services and not over shadowed by visibility of international actors; also see annexed assumptions 1,2,4, 7, 13, 16, 21, 22, 27, 28, 31.
Output indicators Outcome indicators

CD score of NMAA’s QM plans, systems, CD score of NMAA’s operations management NMAAs regulate the mine action NMAAs are managing and setting direction MA sector has transitioned towards
procedures and practices systems, procedures & practices sector more effectively of their own national mine action national ownership
strategies more effectively
CD score of NMAA’s information management CD score of NMAA’s programme management
systems, procedures and data systems, procedures & practices NMAAs coordinate the mine Documented evidence on how the mine
action sector more effectively action aligns with humanitarian and
Number of personnel from the NMAA trained or supported by capacity development activities. development plans

Strategic Connections and Key Performance Questions

The above linear process illustrates capacity development at its most basic. However, there are strategic connections with other aspects of mine action that can enhance outcome level change, as illustrated in the
diagram below. These strategic connections should be considered by all stakeholders in order to maximise the added value of the mine action sector.

Strategic connections to other elements of mine action Maximising the strategic value of mine action Cross-sector key performance questions
Sharing pre- and post-clearance data NMAAs can lobby for mine action to be Are National Mine Action Has mine action been integrated
EORE collected by IPs with humanitarian/ included in national humanitarian/ Authorities and local organisations into national humanitarian and
development agencies and NMAAs development plans, increasing likelihood of increasing able to manage and development plans?
encourages collaboration and integration assistance to complement clearance. implement MA without external
Land release of mine action in national development support? Are stockpiles being reduced
and humanitarian plans. and/or secured to not pose a
Are the rights of people with threat to individuals and
CD of
CD of local IPs Effective NMAAs can advocate within their NMAAs and civil society can advocate changes disabilities well protected and are communities?
NMAAs governments to encourage stockpile in legislation and government budget services improving?
destruction. allocations that promote the rights and
Victim services of people with disabilities. Are national action plans stimulating in practice additional assistance from
third parties to reduce incentives for people to engage in risky behaviour?
assistance
Stockpile
destruction
Theory of Action: Land release through non-technical survey (NTS)
Theory of action diagram

leads to… Land cancelled resulting in… contributing to… Conflict sensitive delivery of mine action
Mine action better managed, regulated, and coordinated
Non-technical survey through improved clarity of known contamination
services and increased national
SHA confirmed for technical survey and clearance ownership contributing to stabilisation

See ToA for technical survey and clearance

Assumptions: For example, information coming from activities (NTS, TS, clearance and EORE activities) is recorded and retained and utilized to maintain minimum information management standards for NMAA
records; Information stored by national authorities and/or contractors is used to prioritise land for clearance based on clear and transparent criteria; see also annexed assumptions 1,2,4, 7, 13, 16, 21, 22, 27, 28, 31.

Output indicators Outcome indicators

Number of new SHAs identified NMAA has improved clarity of mine/ERW contamination in IMSMA and in treaty compliance reporting.
land cancelled (m2)
Amount of SHA identified/confirmed (m2)

Strategic Connections and Key Performance Questions

The above linear process illustrates land release at its most basic. However, there are strategic connections with other aspects of mine action that can enhance outcome level change, as illustrated in the diagram below.
These strategic connections should be considered by all stakeholders in order to maximise the added value of the mine action sector.

Strategic connections to other elements of mine action Maximising the strategic value of mine action Cross-sector key performance questions
Community liaison and EORE can help IPs bring expertise and knowledge Is there sufficient productive land to reduce Are national actors increasingly able to
EORE determine priorities and reduce that can be shared with NMAAs and incentives to engage in risky-behaviour? improve their capacity for conducting land
pressures on clearance by reducing local IPs to improve their ability to release?
risky behaviour. provide mine action services,
alongside surge-capacity to clear Has mine action been integrated into national Are communities reporting that prioritization
CD of NMAAs humanitarian and development plans? is responsive to local needs?
ERW/mines at a faster rate.
Non-
technical CD of local IPs Community liaison and EORE activities A strong NMAA that can advocate for Are national action plans stimulating in Are NMAAs better able to conduct strategic
improves understanding of mine action to be integrated into practice additional assistance from third planning and manage mine action as a result
mines/ERW threat and improves national development plans to parties to reduce incentives for people to of known contamination?
survey Victim communication channels with increase support for IDP/refugee engage in risky behaviour?
assistance communities. return and investments in land use,
Is information on suspected and confirmed hazardous areas being used in EORE messaging EORE
maximising productivity from
Stockpile clearance. generating information which aids non technical survey and triggers EOD call outs?
destruction
Theory of Action: Land release through technical survey (TS) & clearance of mines and ERW
Theory of action diagram Mine action integrated with humanitarian &
resulting in… development plans mobilising complementary resources Safer communities and reduced deaths and
injuries from mines/ERW
leads to… Risk from
Technical survey and Land released for safe Risk of harm reduced through safer behaviour contributing to…
clearance and productive use explosive and land release Economic development and more resilient
hazards removed
communities contributes to SDGs
Safe and productive land use improves livelihoods and
basic services

Assumptions: For example, information stored by national authorities/ contractors used to prioritise land for clearance based on clear and transparent criteria; authorities ensure released land is handed over to
potential beneficiaries without delay; where land is already in use clearance leads to real/perceived safety benefits; cleared land remains available to beneficiaries and is not subject to expropriation or land seizure, and
based on principles of inclusivity, and conflict and gender sensitivity; some end-users have the capacity to use released land with no further assistance; also see annexed assumptions 1,2,4, 7, 13, 16, 21, 22, 27, 28, 31.

Output indicators Outcome indicators

Land reduced (m2)
Land cleared (m2)
Number of mines & ERW
destroyed through TS and
clearance
Number of direct beneficiaries from land cleared and
reduced (SADD) and percentage with disabilities.
Number of indirect beneficiaries from land cleared and
reduced (SADD) and percentage with disabilities
m2 of formerly contaminated land in use following land
release activities for i) residential purposes, ii)
agricultural/ pastoral purposes, iii) community
development / public services, iv) natural resources, v)
infrastructure, vi) roads, bridges, paths and other access
routes.
Number of direct beneficiaries surveyed reporting
improved livelihoods as a result of Mine Action activities
Number of direct beneficiaries surveyed reporting
improved access to services as a result of Mine Action
activities

Strategic Connections and Key Performance Questions

The above linear process illustrates land release at its most basic. However, there are strategic connections with other aspects of mine action that can enhance outcome level change, as illustrated in the diagram below.
These strategic connections should be considered by all stakeholders in order to maximise the added value of the mine action sector.

Strategic connections to other elements of mine action Maximising the strategic value of mine action Cross-sector key performance questions
Community liaison and EORE IPs bring expertise and knowledge Is there sufficient productive land to reduce Are national actors increasingly able to improve
EORE can help determine priorities that can be shared with NMAAs and incentives to engage in risky-behaviour? their capacity for conducting land release?
and reduce pressures on local IPs to improve their ability to
clearance by reducing risky provide mine action services, Is advocacy and coordination resulting in Is information on suspected and confirmed
CD of NMAAs additional assistance from third parties to hazardous areas being used in EORE messaging
behaviour. alongside surge-capacity to clear
Technical ERW/mines at a faster rate. maximising outcomes from land cleared? EORE generating information which aids non
technical survey and triggers EOD call outs?
survey & CD of local IPs Community liaison and EORE A strong NMAA that can advocate for
Are national action plans stimulating in practice Are NMAAs better able to conduct strategic
activities improves mine action to be integrated into
clearance understanding of mines/ERW national development plans to
additional assistance from third parties to planning and manage mine action as a result of
Victim reduce incentives for people to engage in risky known contamination?
threat and improves increase support for IDP/refugee
assistance communication channels with return and investments in land use,
behaviour?
communities. maximising productivity from Are communities reporting that prioritization is Has mine action been integrated into national
Advocacy and clearance. responsive to local needs? humanitarian and development plans?
Coordination
Theory of Action: Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) spot tasks
Theory of action diagram

leads to… resulting in… contributing to…

Risk from the specific explosive Risk of Harm reduced through clearance and safer Safer communities and fewer deaths and injuries
EOD spot task hazard removed behaviour from mines/ERW

Output indicators Outcome indicators

Number of items of EO destroyed through EOD spot tasks .
Number of direct beneficiaries of EOD (see SBD version 2) Number of indirect beneficiaries of EOD (see SBD version 2)
Number of EOD call outs

Assumptions: For example, information coming from activities is recorded and retained and utilized to maintain minimum information management standards for NMAA records; information stored by national
authorities and/or contractors is used to prioritise land for clearance based on clear and transparent criteria; authorities ensure released land is handed over to potential beneficiaries without delay; where land is
already in use clearance will lead to real and perceived safety benefits; also see annexed assumptions 1,2,4, 7, 13, 16, 21, 22, 27, 28, 31.

Strategic Connections and Key Performance Questions

The above linear process illustrates EOD at its most basic. However, there are strategic connections with other aspects of mine action that can enhance outcome level change, as illustrated in the diagram below. These
strategic connections should be considered by all stakeholders in order to maximise the added value of the mine action sector.

Strategic connections to other elements of mine action Maximising the strategic value of Stockpile Destruction Cross-sector key performance questions
NMAAs with enhanced capacities are better able to manage the response to Has the NMAA got the a means for the community to request an EOD call out and does it
requests for EOD (e.g. via a hotline). have the capacity to manage the response to EOD call out requests?
EORE
CD of local IPs, strengthens national capacity for EOD, which is increasingly Are IPs advocating for a national / Do national actors / implementing
importance as countries transition from a proactive to a reactive approach to nationally owned but locally managed organisations have the capacity to respond
Land release hazard removal post 2025 , as external funding declines and/or or as they EOD call out hotline and national response to EOD requests and conduct EOD spot
declare mine-free status. mechanism? tasks safely?
EOD EOD alone will not reduce risks and needs to be accompanied by removal of Is information on the number of EOD call Does EORE messaging include means for
NMAA capacity other mine/ERW threats through technical and clearance (as a part of land outs and the extent of contamination in the population to recognise EO and
release). the surrounding area included in EORE request an EOD call out?
development
Explosive hazards that are not known or reported or cannot be cleared messaging?
immediately means that EORE is needed to help manage the risks until the item Do national and international actors outside the mine action sector know EO risks, how to
can be destroyed. recognise an item of EO and how to request an EOD call out?
Advocacy and
coordination Advocacy and coordination with other sectors to ensure at humanitarian actors
and at risk populations know how to recognise EO (through EORE) and how to
request an EOD call out.
 Theory of Action: Explosive Ordnance Risk Education (EORE)
Theory of action diagram

leads to resulting in… contributing to…

Community liaison and explosive Men, women, boys and girls are more aware Risk of harm reduced through safer Safer communities and reduced deaths and
ordnance risk education of the risk of harm from mines/ERW behaviour and land release injuries from mines/ERW

Assumptions: For example, a risk analysis is conducted of different at-risk demographic groups informed by credible evidence; EORE approaches are tailored to different at-risk groups informed by evidence-based
analysis of risky behaviours; other socio-economic factors incentivizing risky behaviour are mitigated; following TS, clearance and/or EORE people feel sufficiently confident that the released land is safe to use; also see
annexed assumptions 1,2,4, 7, 13, 16, 21, 22, 27, 28, 31.

Output indicators Relevant Outcome indicators

Number of EORE sessions Number of direct beneficiaries Percentage of people surveyed who report feeling safer as a result of EORE and Percentage of impacted communities surveyed reporting an increase in people
delivered of EORE (SADD) and percentage land releases who behave in a safer manner
with disabilities

Strategic Connections and Key Performance Questions

The above linear process illustrates EORE at its most basic. However, there are strategic connections with other aspects of mine action that can enhance outcome level change, as illustrated in the diagram below.
These strategic connections should be considered by all stakeholders in order to maximise the added value of the mine action sector.

Strategic connections to other elements of mine action Maximising the strategic value of mine action
Residual contamination can continue to
pose a physical and psychological threat
CD of local IPs Land release to individuals and communities. Land
release reduces the risk of harm and
helps provide clarity on where the
residual contamination remains to inform
EORE messaging.
CD of NMAA
Residual threats can remain for decades
EORE after conflict. Building up national
capabilities to own the problem and
Victim
manage their own solutions and continue
assistance EORE to reduce the risk of harm is
important.
EOD spot Advocacy and EORE is way of getting feedback from the
coordination community to assist prioritization for land
tasks release and EOD spot tasks.
Productive land use and associated economic
benefits de-incentivises risky behaviour. A strong
NMAA that can advocate for mine action to be
integrated into national development plans can
increase assistance to use cleared areas more
productively and/ or find alternative livelihoods
to reduce risk-taking behaviour.
Advocacy and coordination with government,
NGO, UN and other partners ensures EORE is
embedded in curriculum, part of UN/NGO safety
training and that humanitarian and development
support can improve livelihoods to reduce risk-
taking behaviour.
Capable local implementers have access to
vulnerable at risk communities, providing a
credible and sustainable way to deliver EORE.
Cross-sector key performance questions
Is there sufficient productive land to
reduce incentives to engage in risky-
behaviour?
Are national actors increasingly able
to deliver all the various mine action
activities?
Has mine action been integrated
into national humanitarian and
development plans?
Do RE beneficiaries report that mine
action prioritization is responsive to
local needs?
Are national action plans effectively
stimulating additional assistance
from third parties to reduce
incentives for people to engage in
risky behaviour?
Are stockpiles being reduced and/or
secured to not pose a threat to
individuals and communities?
Are survey and clearance activities
enabling communities to have a
clearer picture of where there is
residual contamination?
Is advocacy and coordination
resulting in additional assistance
from third parties to reduce
incentives for people to engage in
risky behaviour?
Annex A
Indicators
Indicators
The indicators set out below are taken from each of the ToAs
and should be considered an indicator bank. Not every
indicator will be suitable or relevant for each programme.
These indicators help the theory of change to translate into
a Results Framework and by having a common set of
indicators it can potentially streamline reporting for
implementing partners whilst encouraging a shared evidence
base across the sector.
Output indicators by activity
Activity
1 Victim Assistance
2 Stockpile destruction
3 Capacity development
of local mine action
implementing
organisations
Output
1. Increased medical and
psychosocial care and socio-
economic support
2. Reduced stockpiles of Explosive
ordnance
3. Enhanced operational and
management procedures, skills and
systems of local implementing
organisations
Output Indicator(s)
1.1 Number of direct beneficiaries of victim assistance activities
1.2 Number of indirect beneficiaries of victim assistance activities
2.1 Number of items of EO destroyed through stockpile reduction activities
(disaggregated by category of EO)
2.2 Number of weapon and ammunition stores made safe through weapon
ammunition and management activities
3.1 Number of trained personnel from local mine action implementing
organisations
3.2 Number of local organisations supported by capacity development
activities.
3.3 CD score of local IPs’ operational plans, systems, procedures and
practices
3.4 CD score of local IPs’ operational plans, systems, procedures and
practices
3.5 CD score of Local IPs’ Information Management systems and data
Output indicators by activity
Activity
4 Capacity development of
national mine action
authorities
5 Land release (technical
survey and clearance)
6 Land release (Non-technical
survey)
Output
4. Enhanced management
skills, procedures and systems
of NMAAs
5. Land released for safe and
productive use
6. Extent of mine/ERW
contamination known
Output Indicator(s)
4.1 Number of personnel from NMAA trained or supported by CD activities
4.2 Extent of (using CD score) of NMAA’s programme management systems,
procedures & practices
4.3 Extent of (using CD score) of NMAA’s operations management systems,
procedures & practices
4.4 Extent of (using CD score) of NMAA’s quality management systems,
procedures & practices
4.5 Extent of (using CD score) of NMAA’s information management systems,
procedures & data
5.1 Number of items of EO destroyed through technical survey and
clearance
5.2 land reduced (m2)
5.3 land cleared (m2)
6.1 Land cancelled (m2)
6.2 Number of new suspected hazardous areas identified
6.3 amount of land identified as a suspected hazardous area (m2)
Output indicators by activity
Activity
7 Explosive ordnance disposal
spot tasks
8 Explosive ordnance risk
education
Output
7. Risk from the specific
explosive hazard removed.
8. Men, women, boys and girls
and more aware of the risk of
harm from mines and ERW
and know how to behave
safely
Output Indicator(s)
7.1 Number of items of EO destroyed through EOD spot tasks
7.2 Number of EOD call outs
8.1 Number of EORE sessions delivered
8.2 Number of direct beneficiaries of EORE with SADD and % of PWD
8.3 Percentage of EORE beneficiaries surveyed who demonstrate increased
knowledge of RE safety messages
Outcome indicators by activity
Outcome
1 Quality of life for EO
victims/survivors improves
2 Mine action better managed,
regulated, and coordinated with
increased local implementation
Outcome Indicator(s)
1.1 % of mine/ERW survivors surveyed reporting increased access to victim assistance [i.e.
emergency and ongoing medical care; rehabilitation including prosthetics and orthotics; mental
health and psycho-social support and socio-economic inclusion
1.2 % of Community leaders reporting support from relevant government and non –governmental
actors for EO victims in communities affected by mines/ERW
1.3 % of survivors surveyed reporting improvements in quality of life
2.1 Local mine action organisations have the management capabilities to plan, implement and
quality manage their own work.
2.2 Local mine action organisations have the operational capacity to conduct mine action
effectively, efficiently and safely.
2.3 Number of mine action activities (including EORE sessions, NTS tasks, TS and clearance tasks,
EOD call outs, victim assistance activities etc.) being implemented by local organisations [proxy for
MA sector has transitioned towards national ownership]
2.4 CD score for NMAAs regulate the mine action sector more effectively
2.5 CD score for NMAAs coordinate the mine action sector more effectively
2.6 CD score for NMAAs manage the mine action sector more effectively
2.7 NMAA has improved clarity of mine/ERW contamination in IMSMA and in treaty compliance
reporting.
Outcome indicators by activity
Outcome
3 Mine action integrated with
humanitarian & development
plans mobilising
complementary resources
4 Safe and productive land use
improves livelihoods and basic
services
5 Risk of harm reduced through
safer behaviour and clearance
Outcome Indicator(s)
3.1 Number of humanitarian & development plans with mine action integrated
3.2 Number of land release tasks where funding/resources have been allocated to maximise the
outcomes of land that will be released.
4.1 Number of direct beneficiaries surveyed reporting improved livelihoods as a result of Mine
Action activities
4.2 Number of direct beneficiaries surveyed reporting improved access to basic services as a result of
Mine Action activities
4.3 m2 of formerly contaminated land in use following land release activities for i) residential
purposes, ii) agricultural/ pastoral purposes, iii) community development / public services, iv)
natural resources, v) infrastructure, vi) roads, bridges, paths and other access routes.
5.1 Number of direct beneficiaries of land release and EOD (disaggregated)
5.2 Number of indirect beneficiaries of land release and EOD (disaggregated)
5.3 Percentage of people surveyed who report feeling safer as a result of EORE and clearance
5.4 Percentage of impacted communities surveyed reporting an increase in people who behave in a
safer manner
Outcome indicators by activity
Outcome
6 Measurable progress towards
APMBC and CCM treaty
obligations
Outcome Indicator(s)
6.1 M2 contaminated areas identified through assessment and survey of suspected areas
6.2 Number of at-risk civilians to whom EORE has been provided (same as output indicator for
EORE beneficiaries)
6.3 Number of Anti-Personnel mines cleared and destroyed.
6.4 Number of Cluster Munitions cleared and destroyed.
6.5 M2 of land released (disaggregated by land cleared, land reduced and land cancelled)
6.6 Percentage of resources mobilised by states that are contaminated with mines and cluster
munitions (nationally and internationally) to fulfil their international legal obligations under the
treaties.
6.7 Percentage of mine/ERW survivors surveyed reporting increased access to victim assistance
[i.e. emergency and ongoing medical care; rehabilitation including prosthetics and orthotics;
mental health and psycho-social support and socio-economic inclusion
Annex B
Assumptions
Assumptions
The assumptions set out below are taken underpin the
theory of change. They are the conditions required to make
the change work, in theory. The following assumptions have
been grouped into three categories:
1) Assumptions from activities to outputs
2) Assumptions from output to outcome
3) Assumptions from outcome to impact.

These three groups exist in addition to the underlying

principles that underpin the entire theory of change at every
level.
Assumptions – Activities to Outputs
The assumptions which enable the contractors’ planned activities to deliver predicted outputs efficiently and on
time.
Activity to output

1 Contractors have authority / suitable arrangements with the national authorities to operate in the country (MOUs and/or accreditation) for the
duration of the project and relevant donor embassies will support IPs in obtaining MOUs and national approvals/ permits for facilitating
operations.
2 Contractors are able to generate a suitable in-country capability in a timely manner, including the acquisition and importation of vehicles and
critical equipment.
3 A capacity and needs assessment is conducted in partnership with NMAAs to develop shared understanding of support needed.

4 Work is not interrupted by a natural, man-made, or disruptive event and the security and political situation allow work to continue
uninterrupted.
5 Consensus and support for stockpile destruction provided by the necessary authorities

6 Information coming from activities (NTS, TS, clearance and EORE activities) is recorded and retained and utilized to maintain minimum
information management standards for NMAA records.
7 There is cooperation and coordination between IPs and other key stakeholders (national and provincial authorities, local communities, and
relevant security forces)
8 NMAA have the political will and authority to improve their ability to regulate and manage mine action programmes.

9 NMAA ability to manage mine action programmes are contingent on sustained internal and/ or external financial and technical support.

10 A risk analysis is conducted of different at-risk demographic groups informed by credible evidence
Assumptions –Outputs to Outcomes
The assumptions which enable outputs from an activity to deliver an outcome effectively.
Output to Outcome
11 Information stored by national authorities and/or contractors is used to prioritise land for clearance based on clear and transparent criteria.
12 National and/or provincial authorities ensure released land is handed over to potential beneficiaries without delay
13 Work is not interrupted by a natural, man-made, or disruptive event and the security and political situation allow work to continue uninterrupted.
14 Where land is already in use clearance will lead to real and perceived safety benefits.
15 Other socio-economic factors incentivizing risky behaviour are mitigated.
16 Stakeholders outside mine action sector have the resources, mandate and opportunity to co-ordinate and provide interventions complementary to
mine action
17 Cleared land remains available to beneficiaries and is not subject to expropriation or land seizure, in accordance with underlying principle for conflict
and gender sensitivity and inclusive beneficiaries.
18 Local implementers have the opportunity to exercise leadership and increasingly deliver mine action services.
19 Following TS, clearance and/or EORE people feel sufficiently confident that the released land is safe to use
20 National Mine Action Authorities have the political will and authority to improve their ability to regulate and manage mine action programme(s)
21 Relevant donor Embassies are fully apprised of donor funded mine action activities in country, able and willing to act as advocates when necessary
and are aligning mine action to strategic interests of posts, ensuring value additionality.
22 There is cooperation and coordination between IPs and other key stakeholders (national and provincial authorities, local communities, and relevant
security forces)
23 NMAA ability to manage mine action programmes are contingent on/ sustained internal and/ or external financial and technical support.

24 EORE approaches are tailored to different at-risk groups informed by evidence-based analysis of risky behaviours.

25 Some end-users have the capacity to use released land with no further assistance.
26 NMAAs can influence national policy and planning outside the mine action sector
Assumptions – Outcomes to Impacts
The assumptions which enable the outcomes over time to achieve the intended change(s).
Outcomes to Impacts

27 The security, political, environmental and national health (eg national disasters and epidemics) situation allows the change(s) to be
realised

28 Mine action is sufficiently aligned to national strategic objectives that it contributes to SDGs and is integrated into relevant
stabilisation, humanitarian, development and peacebuilding plans, projects and financial investments.

29 Authorities are recognised by public as providers of valuable and transparent services and not over shadowed by visibility of
international actors.

30 Survivors have the opportunity to equitably benefit from socio-economic support and freedom to exercise self-reliance.

31 Mine action services and post-clearance benefits are actually – and perceived to be - delivered equally to all marginalised groups.