A realist evaluation of a humanitarian unexploded ordnance clearance program in the Lao PDR

Following violent conflict, the continued presence of landmines and unexploded ordnance (UXO) pose a barrier to rebuilding livelihoods. Mine action removes these explosive remnants of conflict to enable communities to safely... [ view full abstract ]

Following violent conflict, the continued presence of landmines and unexploded ordnance (UXO) pose a barrier to rebuilding livelihoods. Mine action removes these explosive remnants of conflict to enable communities to safely return contaminated land to productive use. There is limited understanding, however, of how, why, in what context and in what respects mine action contributes to livelihoods. Yet, such information is required for effective resource allocation, checking underlying program assumptions, understanding benefits and potential harms. This paper presents the results of a mixed methods evaluation of a mine action program in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. A mixed methods realist evaluation design was selected because of its potential to provide the outcome measures demanded by donors, but also because of its potential to strengthen our understanding of how mine action programs work, particularly in rural communities in low-resource settings and where livelihoods are often precarious. Initially, a typical program log frame, common in many development aid programs, was constructed with stakeholders and illustrated how program resources and strategies were expected to result in livelihood outcomes. A review of program documents, the logic model and initial interviews with program recipients, was used to articulate the essential elements of the program develop. These initial interviews also revealed three main stages in the delivery mechanism (i.e. decontaminating UXO land): 1) identification and prioritisation of UXO contaminated land; 2) decontamination of selected sites; and 3) cleared land returned to the land user and used to support livelihoods. The underlying assumption seemed to be that removing UXO from land would act as a motivating factor for program recipients to return the land to productive use to achieve economic returns. Based on these initial understandings we developed a questionnaire and interview guide to test our emerging hypothesis and the causal mechanisms in the outcomes chain. In total of 37 interviews with program staff and local government authorities, 38 individual interviews with program recipients and eighteen focus group interviews (9 with males, 9 with females), each with 6-9 participants and 1,485 structured questionnaires were administered.

The evaluation revealed that outcomes varied depending on context and that different mechanisms worked at different stages of the project. Two main mechanisms were identified through which the program ‘worked’: 1) communication pre- and post-clearance; and 2) the delivery of the product (cleared land). Many of the contextual factors were similar to those that have been found in other incentive programs.

The use of a realist approach to this evaluation helped us to unpack the context-mechanism-outcome configurations and provided a more refined explanation of how mine action works to enhance livelihoods and informed recommendations for the program. The resulting program theory was more developed and explanatory than the initial, somewhat simplistic and reductionist description of the program and helped explain why outcomes were different for different program recipients.