REFERENCE FRAMEWORK:MENU OF INDICATORS TO MEASURE THE
REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANSFROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN
POPULATED AREAS
CHRISTINA WILLE &ALFREDO MALARET BALDOVERSION 1

ABOUT UNIDIR
This reference framework should be considered a working document subject to changes,
additions, editions and corrections. The authors may revise and correct the text, without
announcing the edits or issuing a formal erratum. As such, users are encouraged to use the most
updated version of this research framework, as posted on the unidir.org site.
UNIDIR welcomes and encourages all feedback on improving the present menu of indicators andbuilding on it for future iterations. This is a UNIDIR Tool, designed to contribute to ongoing efforts
to protect civilians in conflict and attain the Sustainable Development Goals.
Please share comments and feedback with cap-unidir@un.org.
unidir.org | © UNIDIR 2020
For best viewing: go to View > Page Display > Two Page View

The United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) is a voluntarily
funded, autonomous institute within the United Nations. One of the few policy
institutes worldwide focusing on disarmament, UNIDIR generates knowledge andpromotes dialogue and action on disarmament and security. Based in Geneva, UNIDIR
assists the international community to develop the practical, innovative ideas needed
to find solutions to critical security problems.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Support from UNIDIR core funders provides the foundation for all the Institute’s
activities. This research area of the Conventional Arms Programme is supported by
the Government of Germany.

CONTRIBUTORSThis research framework recognizes the important work of the International
Committee of the Red Cross, Insecurity Insight, the Office of the United Nations HighCommissioner for Human Rights, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs, the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, and the World
Health Organization, on which this product is grounded. This research framework
also owes gratitude to the technical experts who helped review it, namely, Alma Al
Osta, Doug Weir, Eirini Giorgou, Grace Steffan, Hana Salama, Helen Buck, Hyo-Jeong
Kim, Iain Overton, Jerome Marston, John Borrie, Karl Blanchet, Katherine Prizeman,
Laura Boillot, Linsey Cottrell, Maciej Polkowski, Marika Tsolakis, Michael Spies, Michael
Talhami, Natalie Briggs, Norah Niland, Rafael Van den Bergh, Roger Lane, Simon
Bagshaw, Sonia Müller-Rappard and numerous serving officials who wish to remain
anonymous. The authors also thank the UNIDIR staff who supported and guided thisresearch, in particular Renata Dwan, Himayu Shiotani, and Eric Schulz.

NOTE
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication
do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariatof the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or
area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
The views expressed in the publication are the sole responsibility of the individual
authors. They do not necessary reflect the views or opinions of the United Nations,
UNIDIR, its staff members or sponsors.

ii

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORKREVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

iii

ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Christina Wille is the director of Insecurity Insight, an association ofexperts dedicated to improving data on living and working in dangerous
environments. Insecurity Insight monitors threats and violence affecting
the aid sector, health, education and protection. Christina serves on theSteering Committee of the Safeguarding Health in Conflict Coalition
and is a consortium member of the Researching the Impact of Attacks
on Healthcare project. Between 2003 and 2007, she worked as a seniorresearcher at the Small Arms Survey. Christina has carried out numerous impact
evaluations of small arms programmes in Africa for the European Commission and bilateral donors.
She was educated in Cambridge and Durham in the United Kingdom following her schooling inGermany.
Alfredo Malaret Baldo is a researcher with UNIDIR’s Conventional Arms
Programme. He coordinates the Urban Violence research portfolio. Alfredo
specializes in public policy analysis, armed violence in urban environments
reduction strategies, and linkages between security and development
efforts. Alfredo joined UNIDIR after working for the Stockholm International
Peace Research Institute; for the United Nations Regional Centre for
Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean;
and for Ret. US Ambassador Dennis Jett. He has a bachelor’s degree inpolitical science and master’s degrees in public affairs, from Brown University, andinternational affairs and economic development, from The Pennsylvania State University.

iv

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORKTABLE OF CONTENTS

1

SECTION 1
Introduction

9

SECTION 2
Methodological considerations in documenting andmeasuring the reverberating effects of explosive weapons use

17

SECTION 3
Tools to measure the reverberating
effects of explosive weapons in populated areas

20
20
26
26
38
62

3.1. 		SDG 16
3.2.
SDG 11
SDG 3
SDG 4

Measuring civilian deaths and injuries from explosive weapons
Peace, justice and strong institutions
Measuring the impact chain of explosive weapons use on civilian well-being
Sustainable cities and communities
Good health and well-being
Inclusive quality education, lifelong learning opportunities for all

79

SECTION 4
The Way forward

83

SECTION 5
Annexes

83
83
84
86

5.1. 		5.2. 		5.3. 		5.4. 		

Difference-in-differences statistical approach
Estimating excess mortality
Other research methods: Civilian harm based and instance based
What are explosive weapons, and who uses them?

REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS
REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREASvv

INTRODUCTION

The impacts of explosive weapons use inpopulated areas are much wider and longer
lasting than the shock waves of the explosive
blast. The use of explosive weapons in
populated areas sets in motion a series ofcomplex knock-on effects that spread out
over time and space in urban ecosystems,with negative consequences for civilian wellbeing and the environment in which people
live. These “reverberating effects” manifest
across a wide range of interlinked sectors,
including transportation networks, electricity,
waste and water management, public health,education, food security, housing and shelter,
displacement, culture and identity, economic
opportunity, environmental standards, andgender equality.1 These reverberating effects
can cause indirect -yet causally linkeddeaths from the use of explosive weapons,
and are often underestimated. The purposeof this document is to offer indicators to
document knock-on effects and potentiallyinform and influence the policy andpractice of parties to conflict. The indicators
outlined in this document aim to shed lighton the generalized pattern of harm fromthe use of explosive weapons in populatedareas (EWIPA). By using a standardized setof indicators, the data generated can beleveraged to build a comparable evidencebase reflecting the consequences to civilian
well-being of the use of EWIPA and to inform
high-level decision-making on policy andpractice.
This document also echoes the Joint Appeal
by the United Nations Secretary-General and
the President of the International Committeeof the Red Cross on the Use of Explosive

Weapons in Cities in calling for an end to
the devastation and civilian suffering and in
highlighting that,“The massive destruction caused by armed
conflicts in cities can set development
indexes back by years and even decades...
This is a major setback to the achievementof many of the Sustainable Development
Goals. Progress gained over decades canbe quickly reversed as once lively andprospering population centres turn into
ghost towns.”2
This document outlines indicators that, if
made available, collected, contextualized,
disaggregated and used in comparison to acontrol scenario or baseline data from before
the use of explosive weapons could shed lighton the reverberating effects that the use of
EWIPA has on civilian casualties and injuries,
sustainable cities and communities, health,and education. These areas are drawn froma select number of Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) and represent SDG 16, SDG 11,
SDG 3 and SDG 4, respectively. These selectSDGs and the ensuing indicators should beunderstood as a starting point to document
the causal pathways through which the use of
explosive weapons unleashes reverberating
effects and hinders development. The choice
was based on accessibility of information andprominence of causal pathways. This choice is
not necessarily an indication that the chosen
SDG areas are the most important, or the
only, causal pathways.

1 Adverse environmental impacts can include the risk to people from debris, hazardous materials (e.g. asbestos, industrial
chemicals, fuels, PCBs [polychlorinated biphenyls]) and waste. This includes debris from the destruction of buildings in whichbuilding materials are pulverized, as well as chemical spills and ground contamination arising from damage to industrial facilities, and pollution from the damage of wastewater sanitation or the collapse of other waste management infrastructure.
2 United Nations, Note to Correspondents: Joint Appeal by the UN Secretary-General and the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross on the Use of Explosive Weapons in Cities , 18 September 2019, https://www.un.org/sg/
en/content/sg/note-correspondents/2019-09-18/note-correspondents-joint-appeal-the-un-secretary-general-and-the-president-of-the-international-committee-of-the-red-cross-the-use-of-explosive-weapons.

vi

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORKREVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

1

Additional SDG areas, such as eradicating
poverty, food security, gender equality,
clean water and sanitation, energy, andeconomic growth (SDGs 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and
8, respectively) – among other areas –must also be considered moving forward

and in future iterations of this researchframework. The proposed menu of indicatorsthat follows (Chapter 3) is divided into four
independent “Tools”, one for each of theSDGs observed in this framework.

1.1 MAPPING AND PREVENTING THE INDIRECT EFFECTS OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS
Since 2011, at least 260,000 civilians havebeen killed or injured by explosive weapons,
and 357,000 people have been harmed
by such weapons in total.3 It is, however,widely recognized that this figure is anunderestimate and fails to capture the true
extent of the damage to civilians. This is
not least because the effects of explosive
weapons extend far beyond the direct lossof life by sparking a wide range of ripple
effects across time and space, identified as“reverberating effects”. For example, when
housing is destroyed, displacement follows.
When health infrastructure is affected,
mortality and morbidity increase. Whenschools close, children’s opportunities may
be reduced over their lifetime, accentuating
gender disparities and hindering the wider
socioeconomic development of individuals
and the community. In addition, damage towater or power supplies – the collapse ofsolid waste management facilities or runningwater, for example – has knock-on effects
on human health and the environment,
which creates a reinforcing loop. It is also
well documented that the use of explosive
weapons has serious physical and mental
health consequences for survivors, which canalso affect future generations. These effects
do not happen in isolation – they compoundand spur vicious cycles.
The use of EWIPA has foreseeable
consequences for urban ecosystems, andthe reverberating effects of such weapons
can further impede the attainment of

the SDGs. This is due in large part to thecomplex interdependence of critical services
and infrastructure in populated areas. The
International Committee of the Red Cross(ICRC) has led the efforts to record andhighlight how the impact of explosive weapons
disrupts urban services and reverberates
across space and time.4 Evidence on thepattern of harm from explosive weapons isa crucial building block to advance efforts
to protect civilians. However, work in thesepractical areas is hampered by the lack ofsystematic and comparable data on theseverity and variable impact of damage anddestruction of key facilities and infrastructure.
There is a growing body of evidence
demonstrating that the use of explosive
weapons has a particularly devasting impact
on civilian welfare, in particular in theprovision of health care and education. For
example, over 70% of all damage to hospitals
in 2018 reported by the Safeguarding
Health in Conflict Coalition (SHCC) was
attributed to explosive weapons use.5 To
explore this growing body of evidence, two
global coalitions concerned with monitoring
attacks on health and education, respectively,
have provided disaggregated data for thisreport. These data could allow users tomonitor changing impacts on health andeducation and thus better integrate arms
control mechanisms into the protection ofcivilians and civilian structures. For example,
a causal understanding of the foreseeable
reverberating effects of explosive weapons
ought to be included at all stages of the

3 Action on Armed Violence explosive weapons monitor: https://aoav.org.uk/explosiveviolence. Action on Armed Violence
data include casualties from all explosive weapons, including improvised explosive devices, reported in English-speaking
media since 2011.
4 For example, see M. Talhami and M. Zeitoun, The Impact of Explosive Weapons on Urban Services: Direct and Reverberating Effects across Space and Time , International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 98, no. 1, 2016, https://international-review.icrc.
org/sites/default/files/irc_97_901-6.pdf.
5 Working document prepared by Insecurity Insight for the SHCC.

2UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

planning and conduct of operations by allparties to conflict. That is, a clear pattern ofharm delineation is essential to understanding
where the risks and uncertainties lie in the“civilian protection life cycle”.6 Limitation ofcivilian harm is not related only to the choice ofweapon, though that is a critical component;
it is the cumulative effect of numerous risks
and decisions made from the early stages of

mandating and planning military operations,
all the way to the execution, assessment
and response phases. Therefore, a clear
understanding of reverberating effects andthe associated pattern of harm from the useof explosive weapons is critical to protecting
civilians and civilian structures.

1.2 THE UNIDIR MENU OF INDICATORSThe Tools (or menu of indicators) outlinedin this research framework are built on
research that divides the effects of explosive
weapons use into three levels: primary effects
from the blast wave and fragmentation,
secondary effects from the interaction of
the blast wave and fragmentation with thesurrounding environment, and tertiary orreverberating effects as the consequencesfrom the damage and destruction causedby explosive weapons. The Tools presented
in this document disaggregate the impact
chain of explosive weapons use even further,
into first-, second-, and third-level impacts:
respectively, (A) damage and destruction,(B) changes in key services caused by thedamage and destruction, and (C) changes
in civilian well-being as a result of thechanges in key services caused by thedamage and destruction. In this impact
chain disaggregation, first-level impacts areprimary or secondary effects, and secondand third-level impacts can be consideredreverberating effects. Finally, the Tools are
informed by the three essential elements
needed for urban services to function, as
identified by the ICRC: people, infrastructure
and consumables.7 The interconnectedness
between these three elements allows urban
environments to function and improve thehuman condition. However, the disruption of

one element has consequences for the entire
ecosystem.
Time and location are also critical inreverberating effects research. Whenlinking reverberating effects to damage
and destruction, it is crucial to consider thelocation and the radius of the impacts understudy, as well as developments over time,
as some impacts may only show or change
after a certain period. It is also important tocompare observed effects against baseline
data – data from before the use of explosive
weapons or against an unaffected location – as
it may allow for causal inference. In addition,
reverberating effects are interlinked and havea compounding effect, leading to additional
impacts that should not be discounted. For
example, displacement triggered by explosive
weapons use in urban areas often spurs acycle of reverberating effects for the affected
population, such as food insecurity and healthhazards. Therefore, this research frameworkurges users to consider the compounding or
cumulative nature of reverberating effects
when explosive weapons are used in urban
ecosystems.
The Tools to measure civilian harm8 proposedin this document build on work conductedby UNIDIR in 2016 that highlighted the link

6 UNIDIR, Opportunities to Improve Military Policies and Practices to Reduce Civilian Harm from Explosive Weapons in
Urban Conflict, 2019, https://unidir.org/publication/opportunities-improve-military-policies-and-practices-reduce-civilian-harm-explosive.
7 ICRC, Urban Services during Protracted Armed Conflict: A Call for a Better Approach to Assisting Affected People, 2015,
https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/topic/file_plus_list/4249_urban_services_during_protracted_armed_conflict.pdf.
8
Civilian harm is used in its broadest understanding possible to include direct harm to civilians as a result of a conflict,including the reverberating effects of explosive weapons in a population, such as preventable medical problems that affect all
members of a community, regardless of status, during the period of conflict. Other research efforts have used the term community harm . This framework finds both terms acceptable.

REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

3between the reverberating effects of EWIPA
and challenges in achieving the SDGs9
and called for the development of such aframework. Since then, several case studies
of reverberating effects have been produced

that helped deepen understanding. The Tools
were developed following a comprehensive
literature review in 2019 of current approaches
to documenting the reverberating effects.

1.3 OBJECTIVES
Information on how the reverberating effectsof the initial blast of EWIPA impact civilians
is needed to inform policy and practice in arange of key areas. For example:
•
•

•

•

•

To help identify, anticipate and prevent
foreseeable, yet generalized, patterns ofharm from the use of EWIPA
To assist parties to conflict in making theprotection of civilians a strategic priority
in the planning and conduct of military
operations in urban environments,
including by using all available evidence
and knowledge to inform new doctrines,
strategies and tactics10
To gauge the negative impact on theachievement of certain SDGs and facilitatea high-level reflection and analysis of theconsequences of explosive weapons use
To help humanitarian organizations
develop programmatic responses tocivilian harm from EWIPA and re-evaluate
preparedness and response mechanisms
in urban ecosystems
To inform the policies of governments,
international organizations and otherstakeholders that want to enhance theprotection of civilians in armed conflictand ensure compliance with international
humanitarian law (IHL)

Numerous studies have underlined theurgent need to address the use of EWIPA,
and standardized data on the reverberating
effects on civilians and society are needed tosystematically document and map the impact
chain. But collecting, collating, verifying andanalysing such information is often difficult.
Furthermore, assessing causal interlinkages

is notoriously complex. In addition, damage
and destruction from explosive weapons use
is not necessarily or consistently monitored orinvestigated. To complicate matters further,
impacts are interlinked and multifaceted,and at times it can be nearly impossible todistinguish in a meaningful way between theconsequences of explosive weapons use andthose of the wider conflict. Substantially morework will be needed before systematic dataon reverberating effects are widely available.
This document seeks to contribute to thedevelopment of a standardized evidencebase of the effects on civilians from the use of
EWIPA. The Tools in this reference document
outline initial options to quantify the damage
and destruction of infrastructure in urban
ecosystems and outline initial thinking on
mapping the consequences of the damage
and destruction using indicators linked to the
SDGs. To measure the damage and destructionof critical infrastructure, organizations would
have to either have direct access on the
ground to the asset of concern, use remotesensing capabilities, or employ a combinationof both. This methodology can inform theseapproaches by providing a high-level guide.
This document also aims to highlight thedifferential gendered impact of explosive
weapons use by encouraging the inclusionof gender-sensitive indicators and thecollection of gender-disaggregated data. It is
crucial to engage with all ongoing and futuredata collection efforts to emphasize theimportance of data disaggregated by genderand age, where appropriate and relevant,to highlight the differential impact at all

9 C. Wille, The Implications of the Reverberating Effects of Explosive Weapons Use in Populated Areas for Implementing the
Sustainable Development Goals, UNIDIR, 2016, http://www.unidir.org/files/publications/pdfs/ewipa-and-the-sdgs-en-651.
pdf.
10 Language drawn from the United Nations Secretary-General s report on the protection of civilians in armed conflict:
Security Council, S/2020/366, 2020, para. 35.

4

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

levels of explosive weapons use on different
demographic groups.11 This document
hopes to contribute to the mainstreamingof gender-disaggregated data by proposing
gender-sensitive indicators.

1.4 WHO CAN BENEFIT FROM THIS DOCUMENT?
The proposed indicators are intended for use
and testing by all stakeholders interested in
documenting the use of explosive weaponsand mapping the impact chain, mostnotably those working on documenting theindirect consequences of conflict. Different
communities need the findings from suchresearch in different formats. However,
all interested users can benefit from astandardized research framework to generatedisaggregated and comparable evidence.
Systematic evidence on how explosive
weapons affect civilians is important to support
efforts to bring about practical changes in thedoctrines and practices of parties to conflict.
Similarly, systematic evidence can contribute,by informing practical actions, to the United
Nations Secretary-General’s Agenda for
Disarmament.12 Nuanced mapping of how
particular practices affect people and theirlivelihoods can show general patterns ofcivilian harm. This supports the obligation
to prevent reverberating effects and ensurecompliance with existing international
standards and IHL. The evidence base can also
shed light on considerations that ought to be
included by parties to conflict throughout
the civilian protection life cycle of mandating,planning and conducting operations in urban
environments.
Improved data can also enable a moreevidence-informed and prioritized responsefromhumanitarian
actorsassistingcommunities affected by explosive weapons.
These actors include humanitarian mine

action organizations that carry out risk
education, victim assistance and explosive
ordnance clearance. A wider range ofhumanitarian actors, including those who
provide immediate response and assistancein emergency situations to civilians affectedby conflict and those who support service
providers in maintaining essential services,
could also benefit from this researchframework. Systematic evidence on thereverberating effects of the use of EWIPA canhelp all these stakeholders adjust projects
and improve preparedness for aid delivery,
contingency planning and wider response
efforts.
Users of this research framework will havedifferent information needs, dependingon their policy or programmatic focus.
For example, public policymaking requires
monitoring of trends over time. Responses
from on-the-ground organizations require
nuanced geolocations, as well as details on
the extent of the immediate damage andthe effect on service delivery associatedwith the failure of a physical asset. For an
IHL analysis, it is important to measurespecific patterns of harm, as this would make
impacts foreseeable and thus introduce andsupport considerations of civilian harm andreverberating effects under the thresholdof “reasonable foreseeability” in all relevant
standards of engagement.13 However, allthese users can benefit from the same
research framework to generate systematicand standardized evidence that maps causal
chains in patterns of harm to civilians from11
Sex-disaggregated data are data collected and presented separately for women and men, referring to their biologicalsex. Gender refers to a socially constructed set of norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman or a man in agiven society. Gender is non-binary and diverse; it refers to people of all gender identities and expressions. For the purpose ofthis document, the term gender-disaggregated data has been favoured to encourage data collectors to include and present
separately all forms of gender identity.
12 UNODA, Securing Our Common Future: An Agenda for Disarmament, 2018, https://www.un.org/disarmament/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/sg-disarmament-agenda-pubs-page.pdf.
13 For more details on reasonable foreseeability, see E. Nohle and I. Robinson, War in Cities: The 5 Reverberating Effects of Explosive Weapons , Humanitarian Law & Policy, 2 March 2017, https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2017/03/02/
war-in-cities-the-reverberating-effects-of-explosive-weapons.

REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

5the use of EWIPA. Having a common researchframework will make it easier to communicate
and exchange knowledge with one another,
facilitating multidisciplinary dialogue andagreements.
The goal of this document is to offer a
research framework for the systematic andstandardized collection of indicators that
could document the generalized pattern ofharm to civilians from the use of explosive
weapons, with attention to the reverberating
effects. This is done in the hopes thatknowledge will be leveraged to protect
civilians.

1.4.1 Building bridges with the development community
The Tools suggest using data fromdevelopment policy areas to measure andanalyse the reverberating effects of explosive
weapons and their reversal of development
processes. Systematic use of data can help
shed light on causal links between explosive
weapons use in populated areas and how thereverberating effects negatively affect civilian
well-being and development processes.
Exploring the impact of the use of explosive
weapons through the lens of sustainable
development may also help integrate theoften-siloed communities of development
and arms control. Use of the SDG indicators
can demonstrate how damage anddestruction from explosive weapons hinders
the attainment of sustainable development

objectives, beyond the tragic and immediateloss of human life from conflict. At present,
the SDG indicators on sustainable cities andcommunities, health and education do notdirectly refer to the challenges brought about
by conflict or the damage caused by explosive
weapons. SDG 16, which focuses on peacefuland inclusive societies, includes an indicator
on conflict-related deaths per 100,000
population (SDG 16.1.2) but otherwise focuseson other forms of violence, as well as ruleof law related indicators. Regular use of the
SDG framework to demonstrate the impact
of explosive weapons could shed light on key
obstacles to achieving the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development.

PROMOTE PEACEFUL AND INCLUSIVE SOCIETIES FOR SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT, PROVIDE ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR ALL AND BUILD
EFFECTIVE, ACCOUNTABLE AND INCLUSIVE INSTITUTIONS AT ALL LEVELS
MAKE CITIES AND HUMAN SETTLEMENTS INCLUSIVE, SAFE, RESILIENT
AND SUSTAINABLE

1.5 HOW IS THIS DOCUMENT STRUCTURED?
The Tools that follow (Chapter 3) suggest
ways of linking infrastructure damage anddestruction and disruptions of service
provision to indicators of human well-being.
The proposed Tools use the SDG framework
to outline a uniquely adapted menu of
indicators that covers, in the first part (section3.1), indicators to measure civilian casualties
from explosive weapons and, in the second
part (section 3.2), indicators to map the
impact chain of explosive weapons use on
civilian well-being, organized following
the chain of destruction: (A) indicators
on damage and destruction, (B) indicatorson the changes in key services caused by thedamage and destruction, and (C) indicatorson the changes in civilian well-being as aresult of the changes in key services causedby the damage and destruction.

Please note that the indicators under
the different SDG Frameworks have been
retrieved verbatim or near verbatim fromtheir respective custodian agencies or
responsible institutions, as outlined in the
publicly available SDG Indicators Metadata
Repository, published by the Statistics
Division of the United Nations Departmentof Economic and Social Affairs. When it was
not possible to fully retrieve the technicalguidance verbatim, slight modifications havebeen made, usually for consistency withthe rest of the document or clarity, but inkeeping with the original meaning or spirit of
the indicator.

The Tools are framed around the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development, inparticular conflict casualties from SDG 16 on
peace, justice and strong institutions; SDG 11
on sustainable cities and communities; SDG
3 on health; and SDG 4 on education. Where
possible, the Tools propose the direct use of
SDG indicators. Where necessary, the SDG
indicators are adapted, as specified in thetechnical section, to fit the requirements of
explosive weapons-related research. Whereno SDG indicators are available or where it
is unlikely that the data for the official SDG
indicators are going to be publicly available
at the subnational level, alternative research
approaches to documenting or measuring
the reverberating effects are discussed.

ENSURE HEALTHY LIVES AND PROMOTE WELL-BEING FOR ALL AT ALL AGESENSURE INCLUSIVE AND EQUITABLE QUALITY EDUCATION AND PROMOTELIFELONG LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL
6

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORKREVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

7

2. METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN
DOCUMENTING AND MEASURING THE REVERBERATINGEFFECTS OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS USE
2.1 EFFECTS OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS USE IN POPULATED AREAS
Blast effects from the detonation of
explosive weapons cause direct damage.
The interaction of the blast effect with theenvironment causes additional destruction.
Primary effects of explosive weapons
are those caused directly by the weapons’components. These effects are caused by thehigh-pressure blast wave that results from thedetonation, and from the fragmentation of theweapons system. Measures of primary effects
include blast overpressure, fragmentation,
heat and light (also referred to as “flash”).
Secondary effects of explosive weapons
result from the interaction of the blast wave
and fragmentation with the surrounding
environment. The most significant secondary
effects include secondary fragmentation,
firebrands, ground shock and cratering, fire,and flying and falling debris. Direct deaths
and injuries from explosive weapons arepart of the primary or secondary effects.
The reverberating (or tertiary) effects of
explosive weapons are the consequences(or product thereof) from the damage anddestruction caused by explosive weapons,
including indirect harm to civilians, but
excluding direct deaths and injuries.14 The

reverberating effects of explosive weapons
spread out in space and time after the initial
impact through a complex causal chain ofinterconnected and interdependent urban
structures. These effects are cumulative,
and they intersect and interact, spreading
into multiple areas of civilian life. The Tools
presented in this document disaggregate
the impact chain of explosive weapons use
further by subdividing it into first-second-and
third-level impacts: respectively, (A) damage
and destruction, (B) changes in key services
caused by the damage and destruction, and(C) changes in civilian well-being as a resultof the changes in key services caused by thedamage and destruction. In this impact chain
disaggregation, first-level impacts areprimary or secondary effects, and secondand third-level impacts are reverberating
effects.15

14 C. Wille and J. Borrie, Understanding the Reverberating Effects of Explosive Weapons: A Way Forward, UNIDIR, 2016, p. 5,
http://www.unidir.org/files/publications/pdfs/reverberating-effects-research-agenda-en-653.pdf.
15 Primary, secondary, and tertiary effects of explosive weapons shed light on the mechanisms through which explosive
weapons cause harm in populated areas, whereas the impact chain, first, second, and third level impacts, capture the sequence of how the harm from explosive weapons in populated areas happens.

8

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORKREVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

9FIGURE 1: Impact chain: Impact levels from instances of explosive weapons use16

THIRD LEVELDSECON LEVEL

Changes in civilian well-being
as a result of the changes in key
services caused by the damage
and destruction
Changes in key services caused by
the damage and destruction

FIRST LEVEL
Damage & destruction

Reverberating effects can be measured
in terms of civilian impact but have to beunderstood within the complex interlinked
systems in which societies function andessential services are delivered. While somereverberating effects can be quantified, others
are too complex and require complementary

qualitative and anecdotal treatment.17 In
addition, reverberating effects are notnecessarily a linear development and takeplace within interconnected, interdependentand dynamic civilian structures and urban
services.

2.2 ATTRIBUTION OF CAUSE AND EFFECT
The aim of reverberating effects research is
to explain what occurred and how it occurred
and to demonstrate the causal pathway to theuse of explosive weapons that unleashed theobserved impact chain. Yet, it is challenging
to causally link information on civilian harm
to instances of explosive weapons use.
That is, attributions of cause and effectare notoriously difficult. Methodologicallyrigorous reverberating effects researchshould include an in-depth description of thecausal chain connecting observed outcomeswith instances of explosive weapons use.

It is crucial to be able to demonstratethat the effects documented are a causal
consequence of explosive weapons use,as the sole or exclusive cause, and not of
the wider conflict. To do this, for research
purposes, the factors of location and time are
key, as they will provide some parameters toisolate observed effects and begin to map thecausal pathways. Considering the observed
effect against baseline service condition or
performance data is also key, since within asystem there may be redundancies that could
allow some nodes to fail without disrupting

16 This figure is only intended to illustrate a theoretical model perspective. It is intended to show a simplified and generalized sequence of impacts. This figure does not intend to suggest that there is a mathematical relationship between point of
detonation, distance, and impacts, which is manifestly not the case in urban environments, as pressure waves accelerate when
they move through confined spaces of a city and dissipate in more open areas. For example, building structures and construction materials, soil types , among other factors, all influence the overall distance in which effects are realised both above,
surface and sub-surface levels.
17 As an example of reverberating effects research with both quantitative and qualitive considerations, see Article 36
briefings on Health and Harm: Protecting Civilians and Protecting Health and Education and Conflict: Protecting Civilians andProtecting Education.

10

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

the delivery of the service or, contrarily, thesystem may have pre-existent fragilities andshortcomings that were only exacerbated-not caused- by explosive weapons. Similarly,
for research purposes, it is also important
to document “access” to services, in termsof the number of households, business, orinfrastructure served, from before the useof explosive weapons, in order to measurechanges in service provision, as opposed tojust the number of service plants rendered
inoperable. To be clear, comparing postshock indicators against pre-shock indicators(baseline data) could provide a “difference”
that may reflect observed changes
attributable to the use of explosive weapons.
Should a more exhaustive comparison bedesirable, it would be advisable to compare
observed effects against a “counterfactual”
or “control scenario”, allowing for a contrast
between an affected setting and one that haslargely remained unaffected by the use of
explosive weapons (for more on the use of acounterfactual, see annex 5.1).

of a relationship between the use of explosive
weapons and observed outcomes, but thecause and effect is not necessarily clear andneither is the existence of a relationship with
exclusive dependence, meaning that otherexogenous factors could be the driving factors.
However, the presumption is strong enoughthat qualitative and anecdotal evidence
is worth exploring to shed light on thepossibility of a causal chain. Some statisticalmethodologies that use a counterfactual orcontrol scenario might be useful in isolating
observed effects for drawing causal inference(for more, see annex 5.1).19
Nonetheless, the increasing availability of
information on instances of damage anddestruction by explosive weapons offers
opportunities to delineate the causal chainof the observed reverberating effects withina defined location and time period and tie
in a wider qualitative description of complex
interlinkages.

One approach to mapping causal chains is
to subdivide indicators into three categories,
depending on how closely they reflect causal
pathways, for example (a) demonstrable
causality, (b) reasonable association and(c) merits deeper EWIPA-related research.18“Demonstrable causality” can be defined as
the clear existence of a causal relationshipbetween observed cause and effect and alogical sequence between them – in this case,the observed effect being dependent on theuse of explosive weapons as the sole cause. To
demonstrate causality, statistical techniques
are available that offer researchers the ability
to isolate exogenous effects. “Reasonableassociation” can be defined as the existenceof a relationship between the observed cause
and effect, but causality is not necessarily
clear. Finally, “merits deeper EWIPA-related
research” can be defined as the presumption
18 These categories are intended solely as food-for-thought or for illustrative purposes. These categories should be understood as an invitation to think about detailed methodological efforts for causal inference. For example, methodologies thatrisk-adjust for contributing factors can also be useful in measuring causal consequences from the use of explosive weapons,
but a more detailed discussion on risk-adjusting methodologies falls outside the scope of this framework.
19 This framework suggests that reverberating effects research discusses impacts in terms of contribution or reasonableassociation as opposed to attribution , unless the causal chain is clearly proven. When the causal chain has been clearly
demonstrated, attribution is the preferred term.

REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

11

BOX 1: LOCATION AND TIME IN REVERBERATING EFFECTS RESEARCH
Location
For research purposes, reverberating effects are
more easily quantified within a specific locationand in a radius or in outward rings around theinstance of explosive weapons use. However,this does not mean to imply that reverberating
effects are limited by physical borders, follow
concentric circles, or necessarily follow a linear
progression. For example, if a health facility is
destroyed, the impacts may be felt not only inthe full catchment area the hospital services, butalso in overwhelmed medical facilities in otherjurisdictions as the flow of patients is redirected.
Similarly, the collapse of basic services can leadto population displacement to neighbouring
areas, countries or continents. Nonetheless, forquantitative research and mapping purposes,
it is important to delimitate the impact radiusand outward rings under study. Delimitating aradius of the affected urban ecosystems will set
the parameters to quantify observed outcomes.1
To be able to quantify the differential impact ofreverberating effects along spatial dynamics,
one possible research approach is to establish
several outward rings as parameters to gauge
how the reverberating effects spread across adefined geographical space. If done over time,
following spatial parameters could also shedlight on how these impacts change over time.
Time
Reverberating effects change over time and are
dynamic. Specific impacts may be stronger or
weaker in the immediate, medium or long-term(and there is no temporal limitation to whenthese effects truly end). Different reverberating
effects occur in the immediate, or the mediumor long-term, aftermath of explosive weaponsuse. Reverberating effects can also be the resultof cumulative damage from explosive weapons.
However, for quantitative research purposes, it
is important to clearly define and delimitate thetime frame under study. Since each context is
unique, “long term” can be defined differently
in each scenario. One approach is to establish
several parameters or windows of time
to gauge how the reverberating effects
continue to expand across time periods –for example, at one week after the use of
explosive weapons, at the one-month mark,and at the one-year mark and beyond – anddoing so systematically for each observed
indicator to gain comparable insights.
The research can be designed to capture thetemporal dynamics of these effects retroactively(as they happened in the past) or prospectively(as they are unravelling and into the future). It
is also important to compare observed effects
after the use of explosive weapons with thesame indicators in the same area before theuse of explosive weapons. Such a comparison
will give researchers the basis to argue thatobserved consequences are, to some extent,
due to the use of explosive weapons. Thus, it
is important to measure the consequences of
explosive weapons at different time periods
after their use, but always against a benchmark
or baseline of indicators from before the conflictor before the use of explosive weapons.

Note on limiting reverberating effects research in relation to location and time
From a legal perspective, in line withinternational humanitarian law, there are no
spatial or temporal limitations on reverberating
effects from the use of explosive weapons thatshould be considered in relation to obligations
for proportionality and precautions. Rather, thethreshold is the “reasonable foreseeability” ofsuch effects.
However, for research purposes, especiallyquantitative studies that aim to measure

12

these effects, it is important to define theradius under consideration and the temporal
limitations. Therefore, it may be important toinclude in the discussion of data limitations
that the restrictions of the study do not havelegal implications regarding the extent to whichindirect or reverberating effects must be taken
into account in legal assessments, and are thus
only illustrative of the full extent of the damage
and destruction.

1 Please note that the radius of the reverberating effects is much wider than the blast effect and do not follow a linear order, and that
there are no true physical limits to the reverberating effects.

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

2.3 SELECTED EXAMPLES OF DATA ON DAMAGE AND DESTRUCTION OF URBAN SERVICES
The ICRC has led the way in aiding ourcollective understanding of the complex andinterconnected nature of urban systems andthe devastating knock-on effects to civilians
from conflict in urban areas. In particular,
the ICRC identification of the three essential
elements needed to keep urban services
functioning – people, infrastructure andconsumables – has set the foundation formapping how disruption to urban structures
affects the civilian population.20 The ICRC
has also developed specific knowledge
products outlining the impact of explosive
weapons on urban services.21 In addition, theICRC has paved the way to considering thereverberating effects of explosive weapons
use in populated areas as reasonably
foreseeable effects that parties to conflict are
obliged to take into account.22
It is nonetheless challenging for explosive
weapons researchers to reference specificdamage and destruction of key infrastructure
owing to a general shortage of weaponsspecific and location-specific disaggregateddata. The data collected by the World HealthOrganization (WHO) through the Surveillance
System of Attacks on Healthcare (SSA) arereliable, standardized and systemic. However,the current disaggregation of attack types
makes it hard to isolate the impact of
explosive weapons. This is because categories
such as “violence with heavy weapons” and“violence with individual weapons” bothinclude firearms and explosive weapons.
The reason the weapons categories are notas strict as desk researchers would like isbecause the main reporters into the system
are health care workers and health partners,
and it is challenging for them to differentiate
in a detailed manner between different types
of weapons used, let alone under pressing
circumstances. In addition, these data do not
publicly disaggregate impacted personnel orpatients by gender or age. The Researching
the Impact of Attacks on Healthcare (RIAH)
project prepared a working paper discussing
conceptual issues and methodologicalconsiderations to evaluating the impact of
attacks on healthcare in conflict.23
Article 36 has produced research exploring
how the impacts of explosive weapons affectcivilians and communities across space
and time. Recently, Article 36 has released
briefings on health and harm,24 education andconflict,25 and protecting civilians and harmfrom weapons (with particular reference toIraq).26 These briefings enhance the collective
understanding of the impacts that explosive
weapons have on civilian well-being andcontribute to the goal of conflict prevention
and sustainable development. Similarly,
Action on Armed Violence has produced
research on the long-term harm to civilians
from explosive weapons. Action on Armed

20 ICRC, Urban Services during Protracted Armed Conflict: A Call for a Better Approach to Assisting Affected People, 2015,
https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/topic/file_plus_list/4249_urban_services_during_protracted_armed_conflict.pdf.
21 M. Talhami and M. Zeitoun, The Impact of Explosive Weapons on Urban Services: Direct and Reverberating Effects acrossSpace and Time , International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 98, no. 1, 2017, https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/
files/irc_97_901-6.pdf.
22 I. Robinson and E. Nohle, Proportionality and Precautions in Attack: The Reverberating Effects of Using Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas , International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 98, no. 1, 2017, https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/
default/files/irc_97_901-9.pdf.
23 Blanchet et al., Conceptual issues and methodological approaches to evaluating the wider and longer-term impactof attacks on healthcare in conflict , Researching the Impact of Attacks on Healthcare, 2020, https://riah.manchester.ac.uk/
wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Impact-Methods-Working-Paper-min-1.pdf.
24 A. de Courcy Wheeler, Health and Harm: Protecting Civilians and Protecting Health, Article 36, 2020, https://article36.
org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/A36-protecting-health.pdf.
25 A. de Courcy Wheeler and E. Minor, Education and Conflict: Protecting Civilians and Protecting Education, Article 36,
2020, https://article36.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/A36-protecting-education.pdf.
26 E. Minor, Protecting Civilians and Harm from Weapons: Illustrations from Iraq, Article 36, 2020, https://article36.org/
wp-content/uploads/2020/08/A36-protection-weapons-iraq-1.pdf.

REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

13

BOX 2: SELECTED ORGANIZATIONS PRODUCING DATA ON DAMAGE AND DESTRUCTION
OF HEALTH AND EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE BY EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS
These organizations monitor all attacks onhealth care and education. Damage anddestruction by explosive weapons are subsets
within larger data sets that could be madeavailable to the explosive weapons researchcommunity.
Global Coalition to Protect Education from
Attack (GCPEA)
GCPEA is an inter-agency coalition formed
in 2010 to address the problem of targeted
attacks on education during armed conflict.
Their political engagement centres on the
Safe Schools Declaration. GCPEA’s monitoring
includes attacks on schools, universities,
teachers and students by explosive weapons.
The data on education under attack forthe 2020 map are disaggregated by sex
and age and present clear evidence of thedifferential impact of explosive weapons on
girls, including incidence of sexual violence.
However, the data are not readily available
in a disaggregated format by weaponscategory, and data on explosive weapons
vary by country and by year.

Violence has produced a full report on thereverberating effects of explosive weapons,27
and several case studies linking the use of
explosive weapons to health, economic,
environmental, societal and cultural impacts.28
In addition to the examples outlined above,
two non-governmental coalitions, the SHCC
and the Global Coalition to Protection
Education from Attack (GCPEA), among
others, are currently focused on building
and expanding an evidence base mapping
damage and destruction of health andSafeguarding Health in Conflict Coalition
The Safeguarding Health in Conflict Coalition
is a group of international non-governmentalorganizations working to protect healthworkers, services and infrastructure. Theirpolitical engagements focus on United
Nations Security Council resolution 2286,
which addresses attacks on health services inarmed conflict. The report Impunity Remains,
published in 2019 covering 2018 data,
included a breakdown by weapons category.
While the weapon-disaggregated data for2019 exist, they have not been published.
Insecurity InsightInsecurity Insight is a not-for-profit
association that monitors attacks on healthand education, as well as aid, in protection
settings and disaggregates the data by
weapons category. Insecurity Insight engages
with aid agencies and other actors to support
them in evidence-based policymaking.
Data are shared on the HDX platform. The
weapons disaggregation information is not
yet systematically available to external users
but can be made available upon request.

educational infrastructure from explosive
weapons.
Finally, InterAction and Stanford Health Policy
have, after conducting a literature review
and interdisciplinary workshop, produced
a report on addressing the reverberating
effects of military operations on civilian
life.29 This report is intended to document
gaps and opportunities in understanding
and minimizing indirect effects on civilians
affected by conflict.

27 J. Dathan, When the Bombs Fall Silent: The Reverberating Effects of Explosive Weapons, Action on Armed Violence, 2018,https://aoav.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Reverberating-effects-v5.pdf.
28 Accessible at https://aoav.org.uk/reverberating-effects-of-explosive-violence.
29 InterAction and Stanford Health Policy, Building the Evidence Base: Addressing the Reverberating Effects of Military Operations on Civilian Life, 2020, https://www.interaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Building-the-Evidence-Base-Workshop-Report-October-2020-FINAL.pdf.

14

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

2.4 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOAL INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT
The
2030
Agendafor
Sustainable
Development recognizes that there can be nosustainable development without peace andno peace without sustainable development.
It includes an indicator (16.1.2) that focuses
on measuring deaths in situations of armed
conflict. However, the framework does notmainstream conflict or explosive weaponsrelated indicators across other goals as a wayof measuring how conflict, as well as damage
and destruction from explosive weapons,
hampers the achievement of the SDGs.
Many of the SDG indicators included in thisdocument have been under development
since 2015 within working groups for the
specific areas. The aim of the framework of
indicators put forward by the 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development is to monitor
global development processes based, to thegreatest possible extent, on comparable andstandardized national data. There is growing
momentum in localizing the SDGs, withvaluable granularity and disaggregation ofdata in public reporting.30 However, further
engagement with the SDG community isneeded to consistently bring to life moredisaggregated indicators at the subnational
and local levels to measure specific impacts,
as well as to consider the need for conflictrelated indicators beyond the 2030 Agenda.

developing SDG indicators, and with politicalforums tasked with revising those indicators,
is needed to expand on and make more
widely available subnational-level data inorder to map specific impacts of conflict andtheir relationship to development processes.
To facilitate engagement with the SDG
community, focal points for each of theindicators have been appointed by thecustodian agencies, reachable for queries
concerning
definitions,
methods
ofcomputation, data or other issues. EWIPA
researchers, in using the Tools discussed
below, are encouraged to engage with these
focal points. The full list is available from theUnited Nations Statistics Division.31

As useful as the SDG framework can be, mostof the current indicators cannot be used
“off the shelf” to measure the reverberating
effects of explosive weapons use. Most SDG
indicators are publicly available as nationallevel data, while reverberating effects researchrequires localized data for specific areas
where explosive weapons have damaged
and destroyed infrastructure. Therefore, theoptions outlined in this document use theSDG framework as a base to suggest ways togenerate indicators for specific areas. Further
engagement with custodian agencies andinter-agency working groups responsible for
30 See https://www.global-taskforce.org/roadmap-achieving-sdgs-local-level and https://www.local2030.org/library/tools/
monitoring-and-evaluation.
31 See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/dataContacts.

REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

15

3. TOOLS TO MEASURE THE REVERBERATING EFFECTS
OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS
WHAT ARE THE OBJECTIVES OF THE EWIPA REVERBERATING EFFECTS TOOLS?
••Introduce data, concepts and methods
that can be used for research into
reverberating effects and encourage
evidence-based exchanges between
different knowledge communities.
Encourage the arms control community
to use more quantitative data, as a meansof generating comparable and systematic
evidence.

••

Build bridges between the economic
developmentandarms
control
communities by using SDG indicators.
Inform the planning, conduct ofoperations, and assessments of parties toconflict with a view to protecting civilians.

WHO ARE THESE TOOLS INTENDED FOR?
•

These Tools are for researchers onreverberating effects and all interested
stakeholders. Using this document
is voluntary and carries no reporting
requirements, nor does it generate any
commitment. It is framed around the SDGs
to help researchers benefit from global

indicators and shed light on potential
disruptions to development processes,
but it should not be understood as limited
or exclusively tied to the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development.

HOW SHOULD THE TOOLS BE USED?
•••The Tools are a menu of ideas. Researchers
are free to pick and choose specific data
or indicators that fit their research projects
or focus areas.
The Tools are the starting point, not a full
blueprint.
The suggested indicators are meant totrigger ideas for new approaches. Whilesome of the suggested indicators are taken
directly from the SDG framework andtherefore follow established standards,
they do not need to be used exactly as
specified. Researchers may follow preestablished standards or otherwise adapt
the indicators to suit their needs.

••

The Tools are meant to contribute to theprocess of thinking of urban environments
as ecosystems. As more data becomes
available and more researchers use it,practices will evolve, ideas may be refined,
and this document might be updated.
This document should be considered asa food-for-thought menu of indicators,
meaning that its use does not guaranteethat observed outcomes are causally
linked to the use of explosive weapons.
Rather, it is an attempt to explore therelation.

WHAT CAN BE ACHIEVED WITH THESE TOOLS?
•

16
16

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORKUNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

An evidence base to support thedevelopment of enhanced policy andpractice aimed at protecting civilians andcivilian structures from explosive weapons
use•

Increased engagement with data to
generate systematic, disaggregated andcomparable evidence

REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS
REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

17
17

TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF INDICATORS TO MEASURE THE IMPACT CHAIN OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS USE, PER FOCUS AREA

FOCUS AREALEVEL OF EFFECT

INDICATORS

Primary and/or secondary effects: Direct civilian deaths and injuries
Reverberating effects: Indirect civilian
deaths and injuries

Number of direct civilian deaths and injuries from explosive weapons , disaggregated by gender and age

First level: Damage and destruction

Number or proportion of housing or shelter damaged or destroyed by explosive weapons
Number or proportion of cultural property damaged or destroyed by explosive weapons

Number of indirect civilian deaths and injuries from explosive weapons, disaggregated by gender and age

Number or proportion of service plants and installations damaged or destroyed by explosive weapons
Proportion of transport network damaged or destroyed by explosive weapons
Second level: Changes in key services
Number or proportion of key services disrupted, including water, wastewater and solid waste management,
caused by the damage and destruction
electricity, transport networks, and communications
Third level: Changes in civilian well-being Number or proportion of population displaced, disaggregated by gender and age
as a result of the changes in key services
Number of deaths, missing persons and persons affected by explosive weapons per 100,000 population, disagcaused by the damage and destruction
gregated by gender and age
First level: Damage and destruction
Number or proportion of health facilities damaged or destroyed by explosive weapons
Number of health workers killed or injured by explosive weapons, disaggregated by gender
Shortages in essential medical supplies
Number or proportion of ambulances destroyed (locally)
Second level: Changes in key services
Number or proportion of health facilities with service disruptions
caused by the damage and destruction
Health worker density and distribution per 10,000 population, compared with pre-conflict
Difference in proportion of births attended by skilled health personnel, compared with pre-conflict
Difference in proportion of the population with access to affordable medicines and vaccines, compared withpre-conflict
Third level: Changes in civilian well-being Difference in maternal, neonatal and under-five mortality, compared with pre-conflictas a result of the changes in key services
Difference in mortality rate attributed to cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes or chronic respiratory disease,caused by the damage and destruction
compared with pre-conflict
Difference in reported cases of and number of deaths from preventable diseases such as cholera, measles or
polio or changes in the life expectancy of HIV-positive patients, compared with pre-conflict
First level: Damage and destruction
Number or proportion of education facilities damaged or destroyed by explosive weapons
Number or proportion of educators killed or injured by explosive weapons, disaggregated by gender
Second level: Changes in key services
Number or proportion of education facilities with service disruptions, including Internet
caused by the damage and destruction
Number of schooling days lost
Number or proportion of children without access to schooling, disaggregated by gender and age
Third level: Changes in civilian well-being Number, proportion or rate of students who drop out of schooling, disaggregated by gender
as a result of the changes in key services
Proportion of students achieving at least a minimum proficiency level in reading and mathematics, disaggregatcaused by the damage and destruction
ed by gender
Proportion of population in a given age group achieving at least a fixed level of proficiency in functional (a)literacy and (b) numeracy skills, disaggregated by gender

18

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORKLEVEL OF CERTAINTY(ANTICIPATED)
Demonstrable causality
Merits deeper EWIPA-related
research

Demonstrable causality

Merits deeper EWIPA-related
research

Demonstrable causality

Reasonable association

Merits deeper EWIPA-related
research

Demonstrable causality
Reasonable association

Merits deeper EWIPA-related
research

REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

19

SECTION 3.1: MEASURING CIVILIAN DEATHS AND INJURIESFROM EXPLOSIVE WEAPONSSUMMARY TABLE: SDG 16 — PEACE, JUSTICE, AND STRONG INSTITUTIONSLEVEL OFEFFECT
Primary and/or secondary
effects:
Direct civilian
deaths andinjuries

Reverberating
effects:
Indirect civilian deaths
and injuries

20

SUGGESTED
INDICATOR
Direct civilian Indicator I:
deaths and in- Number ofjuries from the direct civilian
use of explo- deaths andsive weapons, injuries from
including from explosive
weapons,
blast or, forexample, from disaggregatfalling anded by gender
flying debris
and age
FOCUS

Indirect civilian deaths
and injuries
from the useof explosive
weapons

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

Indicator II:
Number ofindirect civilian deaths
and injuries
from explosive weapons,disaggregated by genderand age

REVERBERATINGEFFECTS CHAIN
The use of explosive weapons
kills and injures
peopleThese deaths andinjuries can be
primary effects (ifincurred directlyfrom the blast) or
secondary effects(if incurred fromfalling and flying
debris) of theuse of explosive
weapons

Damage and destruction causedby explosive
weapons contribute to elevatedmortality
These indirector excess deaths
and injuries result
from a loss ofaccess to essential
goods and services as a consequence of explosive weapons use

HOW TO USETEMPORALTHE INDICATOR OBSERVATION
To describe
Immediate
direct mortality –deaths andfrom the use of injuries caused
explosive weap- directly by theonsdetonation
To describe thelong-term consequences for
those injured by
explosive weaponsMedium term
–deaths frominjuries sustained in theblast or fromfalling and flying debrisLong term –lifelong disabilities frominjuries

To describe theexcess mortality
or indirect civilian losses andinjuries from thereverberating
effects of explosive weapons
use

Immediate, medium term, andlong term – directly or indirectly (throughthe damage
caused to civilian structuresor the wider
societal effects
from deaths
and injuries)

INTRODUCTION TO CASUALTY COUNTS FROM EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS USE
The blast and heat effects of explosive
weapons can kill and injure civilians. The
falling and flying debris and other materials
from urban areas damaged by explosive
weapons can also kill and injure. These arepart of the primary and secondary effects
of explosive weapons use in populatedareas. The reverberating effects of explosive
weapons that result in changes to key services
due to damage and destruction contributeto elevated mortality or excess deaths.
These effects can be considered a second or
third-level impact within the reverberating
effect impact chain. Death and injury havefar-reaching consequences for families andcommunities, ranging from economic tomental health impacts, and constitute a thirdlevel impact of explosive weapons use.
Casualty counts are one of the most common

ways to describe the direct impact ofviolence from explosive weapons. Within areverberating effects impact chain, casualty
counts can also be considered within thesecond and third level. For example, the death
rate among a particular population group,
such as health care workers or educators,
impacts the availability and quality of healthor education services. Further, when family
members are killed or injured, there areprofound implications for mental health andeconomic losses, among other consequences.
These second- and third-level impacts ofdeaths and injuries are considered within theindicators for the sectors of sustainable cities
and communities, health, and education(section 3.2).

INDICATOR I: NUMBER OF DIRECT CIVILIAN DEATHS AND INJURIES FROM EXPLOSIVEWEAPONS, DISAGGREGATED BY GENDER AND AGE
Definition: Absolute number of civilians
directly killed or injured by explosive
weapons, either from blast injuries or fromfalling and flying debris caused by, forexample, collapsing buildings, shatteredwindows, damaged vehicles, or damaged
road or pavement surfaces.

Rationale: The number of deaths provides
information on the direct loss of human life.
The number of people injured, and the typesof injury, captures the primary and secondary
effects of explosive weapons on the civilian
population.

INDICATOR II: NUMBER OF INDIRECT CIVILIAN DEATHS AND INJURIES FROM EXPLOSIVEWEAPONS, DISAGGREGATED BY GENDER AND AGE
Definition: Absolute number of indirect
deaths and injuries or excess civilian deaths
resulting from a loss of access to essential
goods and services as a consequence of
explosive weapons use.

Rationale: The number of indirect deaths
and injuries as a result of damage anddestruction caused by explosive weapons
provides information on the loss of humanlife and injuries through indirect pathways.
For example, a patient in critical care thatpasses away as a result of disruptions to theelectric grid from the use of EWIPA, would be
an immediate and indirect effect.

REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

21

SDG FRAMEWORKBOX 3: DIRECT DEATHS AND INJURIES AND THE REVERBERATING EFFECTS
The death of an individual can have lifealtering impacts on their family: loss of income,disputed property rights, mental healthconsequences, and more. Similarly, injuries
following the use of explosive weapons canlead to lifelong disabilities or hampered
economic opportunities, spurring additional

reverberating effects. The killing and injury
of people from the use of explosive weapons
are direct effects, while the consequencesof these killings and injuries are consideredreverberating effects.

Paediatric Blast Injury Partnership
Save the Children partnered with Imperial
College London and a host of medical andoperational experts to develop the Paediatric
Blast Injury Field Manual for treating blast
injuries in children. This field manual is madeavailable to first responders, doctors andsurgeons, and those providing aftercare forchildren in the most dangerous places in theworld. The associated 2019 publication Blast
Injuries: The Impact of Explosive Weapons onChildren in Conflict includes some data on
deaths among children caused by explosive
weapons.
Similar initiatives might have disaggregateddata on the reasons for the need forprosthetic devices. If such information isavailable, it could provide an approximate
32

22

number or estimate of life-altering injuries,
reductions in quality of life, costs associatedwith prosthetic devices, or costs associatedwith rehabilitation services (medium andlong term), in both children and adults.
Office of the United Nations
Commissioner for Human Rights•

OHCHR has developed Guidance on
Casualty Recording and regularly releases
data for specific countries (see the SDG
indicator 16.1.2 discussion).
OHCHR has made relevant data public
for SDG indicator 16.1.2 for the period
2015–17, covering some of the deadliest
armed conflicts in the world (see the SDG
indicator 16.1.2 discussion below).32

However, these reports do not disaggregate conflict-related deaths caused by explosive weapons.

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORKHighThe Office of the United Nations HighCommissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
has carried out casualty recording since2007, individually documenting and verifying
casualties. It has published casualty data fromAfghanistan, the Central African Republic,
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq,
Libya, Mali, Somalia, South Sudan, the State ofPalestine, Ukraine and Yemen, among otherareas. OHCHR continues to build on this workthrough its engagement with the Security
Council’s Protection of Civilians Agenda
and as a custodian for the SDG indicator on
conflict-related deaths (16.1.2).
•

SDG REFERENCE:
16.1.2, classified as “established methodology and standards are available, but data are notregularly produced by countries” (Tier 2)
DEFINITION:
This indicator is defined as the total count of conflict-related deaths divided by the total
population, expressed per 100,000 population.

AVAILABLE DATA ON CASUALTIES FROM EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS USE:
Action on Armed Violence
A commonly cited source of information
on casualties from the use of EWIPA is thedata collected by Action on Armed Violence.
These counts cover the direct casualties
from explosive weapons use, as reported in
English-speaking media, complemented withother qualitative research methods. Althoughcommonly cited, these data are likely to beunderestimates owing to the nature of themethodology used (media monitoring).
The information nonetheless can be used
to describe the known number of people
directedly affected.

INDICATOR 16.1.2:
CONFLICT-RELATED DEATHS PER 100,000 POPULATION, BY GENDER, AGE AND CAUSERATIONALE:
This indicator measures the impact of armed conflict in terms of loss of life.
COMPUTATION METHOD:
The indicator is calculated as the total count of conflict-related deaths of civilians divided by
the total resident population in a given situation of armed conflict for the year, expressed
per 100,000 population, occurring within the preceding 12 months.
The total count of conflict-related deaths includes, first, the total number of documented
direct deaths, using all potentially relevant data sources (e.g. United Nations peace missions,
national statistical offices, national human rights institutions, civil society organizations).
Depending on the magnitude of conflict-related deaths, the capacity of data providers, andother contextual and practical considerations, statistical estimation techniques are used
to include undocumented deaths directly linked to the armed conflict. Further work will
be needed to include deaths indirectly linked to the armed conflict through reverberating
effects (e.g. loss of access to essential goods and services). Existing data must be updated
regularly and retrospectively, reflecting the emergence of new data over time.
DATA DISAGGREGATION:OHCHR-recommended disaggregation:• Gender of person killed33• Age group of victim (adult [18 years and older], child [under 18 years], unknown)• Cause of death (heavy weapons and explosive munitions; planted explosives andunexploded ordnance; small arms and light weapons; incendiary weapons; chemical,
biological, radiological and nuclear weapons; electromagnetic weapons; less lethal
weapons; denial of access to or destruction of objects indispensable to survival; accidents
related to conflict; use of objects and other means; unknown)• Status of the person killed (civilian, other protected person, member of armed forces,
person directly participating in hostilities, unknown)

33 The SDG Indicator, as outlined by the custodian agency, recommended sex-disaggregated data. For the purpose of thisdocument, the recommended disaggregation has been adapted to favour gender-disaggregated data. The term gender-disaggregated data has been favoured to encourage data collectors to include and present separately all forms of gender
identity.

REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

23

CONCEPTS:
Conflict: According to IHL, two types of armed conflict exist: international armed conflict(IAC) and non-international armed conflict (NIAC).
IAC exists whenever there is resort to armed force between two or more States. An IAC does
not exist if the use of force is the result of an error (e.g. involuntary incursion into foreign
territory, a wrongly identified target) or when the territorial State has given its consent toan intervention.
NIAC comprises armed confrontations between governmental armed forces and the forcesof one or more armed groups, or between such groups, arising on the territory of a State.
The armed confrontation must reach a “minimum level of intensity”, and the parties involvedin the conflict must show a “minimum of organization”.
Conflict-related deaths: Direct deaths are deaths for which there are reasonable grounds tobelieve that they resulted directly from armed operations and that the acts, decisions and/or purposes that caused these deaths were in furtherance of or under the guise of armed
conflict.
These deaths may have been caused by (a) the use of weapons or (b) other means andmethods. Deaths caused by the use of weapons include those inflicted by firearms, missiles,
mines and bladed weapons. They may also include deaths resulting from aerial attacks andbombardments (e.g. of military bases, cities and villages), crossfire, explosive remnants ofwar, targeted killings or assassinations, or force protection incidents. Deaths caused byother means and methods may include deaths from torture or sexual and gender-based
violence, intentional killing through starvation, depriving prisoners of access to health care,or denying access to essential goods and services (e.g. an ambulance being stopped at acheckpoint).
Indirect deaths are deaths resulting from a loss of access to essential goods and services(e.g. economic slowdown, shortages of medicines or reduced farming capacity that result inlack of access to adequate food, water, sanitation, health care and safe conditions of work)that are caused or aggravated by the situation of armed conflict.
Cause: The weapons, means and methods, or pathways that caused the conflict-related
deaths.
Population: The total resident population in a given situation of armed conflict in a given
year in a particular area. Population data are derived from annual estimates produced by
the United Nations Population Division.34
ATTENTION:
The concept of indirect deaths is the same as deaths caused by reverberating effects. For
example, maternal, neonatal, cardiovascular or cancer deaths that can be linked to the
reduction in health services following the use of explosive weapons can be consideredindirect deaths.

34 Note that attention should be paid to include displaced persons living in an area deemed as a situation of armed conflictin all population estimates.

24

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORKCOMMENTS AND LIMITATIONS:In situations of armed conflict, a large share of deaths may not be reported. Often, registration
systems are heavily affected by the presence of armed conflict. Additionally, actors may
have incentives for misreporting, deflating or inflating casualties. In most instances, thenumber of cases reported will depend on access to conflict zones; access to information;and the motivation and perseverance of international and national actors, such as United
Nations peace missions and other internationally mandated entities, national institutions(e.g. national statistical offices, national human rights institutions) and relevant civil society
organizations.
NOTE:
The OHCHR data for 2015–17 include disaggregation at the level of “cause”, including“heavy weapons and explosive munitions”. These data, as reported for the 2015–17 period,
have considerable potential to serve as a baseline for analysis and for future research to
replicate and build on. Should other associated metadata be made available to independent,
government or United Nations researchers, including on location, it might be useful tocorrelate the use of such weapons in populated areas with other indicators. Importantly, themethodology for this indicator could be promoted to standardize similar data collected bythird parties, especially with respect to the disaggregation of “cause”.
For a more detailed methodological discussion, see SDG Technical Guidance for Indicator
16.1.2 and Technical Guidance Note on SDG Indicator 16.1.2.
Additional guidance and resources are available from the following sources:• Report of the Secretary-General, Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals
Statistical Annex, p. 151• The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2020
• The Sustainable Development Goals Story Map 2020
• Web story on Indicator 16.1.2 and indicators under OHCHR custodianship
LIST OF OHCHR REPORTS PER CONFLICT:• Afghanistan: Human Rights Service of the United Nations Assistance Mission in
Afghanistan, accessible here
• Central African Republic: Human Rights Division of the Multidimensional Integrated
Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic, accessible here
• Democratic Republic of the Congo: United Nations Joint Human Rights Office of the
Human Rights Division of the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, accessible here
• Iraq: Human Rights Service of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, accessible
here• Libya: United Nations Support Mission in Libya, accessible here
• Mali: United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali,
accessible here
• Occupied Palestinian territory and Israel: United Nations Office for the Coordinationof Humanitarian Affairs, accessible here
• Somalia: Human Rights and Protection Group of the United Nations Assistance Missionin Somalia, accessible here
• South Sudan: Human Rights Division of the United Nations Mission in South Sudan,
accessible here
• Ukraine: United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, accessible here
• Yemen: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Yemen,
accessible here
REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

25

SECTION 3.2: MEASURING THE IMPACT CHAIN OF EXPLOSIVEWEAPONS USE ON CIVILIAN WELL-BEING
SUMMARY TABLE: SDG 11 — SUSTAINABLE CITIES AND COMMUNITIESLEVEL OFEFFECTFirst level:
Damage anddestruction

FOCUS

SUGGESTED INDICATOR

Damage and destruction of housing or shelter

Indicator I: Number or proportionof housing or shelter damaged or
destroyed by explosive weapons

REVERBERATING EFFECTS CHAIN

HOW TO USE THE INDICATOR

Damage and destruction of housing and shelter caus- To describe the scale of urban
es civilian deaths and displacement
destruction

TEMPORAL OBSERVATION
Immediate –destruction of housing and shelter

Damage and de- Indicator II: Number or proportion Damage and destruction of cultural property affects
struction of cultur- of cultural property damaged or
the identity of people and place
al property
destroyed by explosive weapons

To describe the scale of the de- Immediate –destruction of cultural property andstruction of cultural property
loss of associated economic activity

Damage anddestruction ofservice plants andinstallations

To describe the scale of the de- Immediate – the destruction of service plants
struction of service plants and and installations
installations

Indicator III:
Number or proportion of service
plants and installations damaged
or destroyed by explosive weapons

Damage and de- Indicator IV:
struction of trans- Proportion of transport network
port networks
damaged or destroyed by explosive weapons

Damage and destruction of service plants and installations, which are interconnected to a larger infrastructural urban system, affects the services provided
and hinders progress in cities and communities
Damage and destruction of the transport network
affects the services provided and hinders the functioning of overall urban ecosystems

Long term –cultural identity

To estimate the extent to which
services are interrupted
Immediate –the destruction transport networks
To describe the scale of thedestruction of the transport
network

To estimate the extent to which
services are interrupted
Disruption of key Indicator V: Number or proportion Disruption of key services and transport networks af- To describe the scale of service Immediate –observable changes in public health,
Second level:services and trans- of key services disrupted, includ- fects the economy, public health and living standards disruption
living standards and economic activity
Changes in key
port services
ing water, wastewater and solid
services caused
waste management, electricity,
Medium term – for the duration of interruption
by the damagetransport networks, and commuof key services and transport networks
and destruction
nicationsLong term –the compounding effects on civilians
Displacement trig- Indicator VI: Number or proporDamage and destruction of housing, loss of access to To capture the reverberating
Immediate –displacement after specific events
gered by explosive tion of population displaced, dis- essential services, and a shrinking economy (including effect of displacement, which
weapons use
aggregated by gender and age
loss of income and depletion of savings), as well as
usually leads to additional reMedium term – numbers of displaced people
security risks, trigger or contribute to displacement
verberating effects
Third level:
Long term – the compounding effects experiChanges in ciDisplacement can lead to diminished economic earnenced by displaced populations and neighbourvilian well-being
ings, poor health or loss of educational opportunities
ing communities
as a result of the
Population affect- Indicator VII: Number of deaths,
This indicator provides a high-level overview of the
To measure the scale of civilian Immediate –the civilian impact of individualchanges in key
edby
explosive
missing
personsandpersons
proportion
of
a
given
populationthatisaffected,
diimpact in a form that allows for events
services caused
affected by explosive weapons per rectly or indirectly, by the use of explosive weapons
comparison between different
by the damage weapons per
100,000
people100,000
population,
disaggregatplaces or periods in time
Medium term – the civilian impact for a shortand destruction
ed by gender and age
This indicator is an adaptation of the SDG indicatorand particular period, such as a few months
intended to calculate harm to the population fromnatural disasters
Long term –the cumulative civilian impact fromthe use of explosive weapons
REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS
26 UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORKREVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS
26 UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

27
27

INTRODUCTION TO THE EFFECTS OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS ON CITIES AND COMMUNITIESSECTION A: INDICATORS ON DAMAGE AND DESTRUCTION

Widespread destruction of residentialbuildings and shelters by explosive weaponsdeprives people of safe, adequate, affordable
and available housing. Damage anddestruction of cultural property and civic
spaces severely affects the identity of cities andcommunities. Explosive weapons can damage
public services and transport networks.
Damage or destruction of electricity or water
installations has far-reaching effects on theeconomy and living standards and will spark
many downstream effects on access to food,water, public health and sanitation, healthcare, and communications, as well as damage
to the environment. Damage and destructionof water plants, wastewater treatment plants,
and solid waste management infrastructure
reduces living standards and engenders
health risks.

To measure the immediate effects of the use of
explosive weapons on cities and communities
in terms of damage and destruction, research
efforts can ask: What amount (number or
proportion) of housing or shelter is affectedby explosive weapons use in particularareas? Which cultural monuments have beendamaged or destroyed by explosive weapons?
Which service plants and installations, andwhat proportion of their service, have been
affected by explosive weapons use due todamage and destruction and to loss of trained
staff? To what extent has the transport network

The use of explosive weapons in urban areas
leads to casualties, injuries, displacement
health risks and disease outbreaks, among
other negative effects. Injuries from explosive
weapons, loss of life and displacement leadto additional reverberating effects. Someof these can be measured by looking at
the reverberating effects on health andeducation, using the SDG framework. The
indicators of SDG 11 do not include
suggested measurements for mortality or
displacement as a result of conflict, only
as a result of natural hazards and natural
hazard events. The SDG 11 indicator for
mortality is listed below, adapted fromnatural hazard events to capture theconsequences of the use of EWIPA.

28

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORKThe effects that explosive weapons haveon cities and communities can be primary,secondary and tertiary (or reverberating), andan adapted version of the SDG framework canbe used to capture these three levels of effects
of explosive weapons use. The following Tool
proposes indicators to measure the impact
chain of explosive weapons use on cities andcommunities, divided into three sections:(A) indicators on damage and destruction(B) indicators on the changes in key services
caused by the damage and destruction, and(C) indicators on the changes in civilian wellbeing as a result of the changes in key services
caused by the damage and destruction. In
this impact chain disaggregation, the firstlevel indicators (section A) look at primaryor secondary effects, and the second- andthird-level indicators (sections B and C) lookat reverberating effects.
In sections B and C, the suggested indicators
to measure the reverberating effects follow
three general focus areas: service disruption(immediate and medium-term oriented) due
to interrupted utilities; displacement triggeredby explosive weapons use (immediate,
medium, and long term oriented), focusing
on numbers of displaced people andneighbouring communities; and mortality,
missing persons, injuries and disabilities from
explosive weapons use (immediate, medium
and long-term oriented), focusing on thephysical harm from explosive weapons use.

been affected by the use of explosive weapons,
and how has the reduction in services affected
the catchment area?
Against this background, the suggested firstlevel effect indicators, explained in more detailbelow, capture the number and/or extent of
disrupted or unusable housing, utilities andtransport systems due to the use of explosive
weapons and the extent of damage anddestruction of cultural monuments.

INDICATOR I: NUMBER OR PROPORTION OF HOUSING OR SHELTER DAMAGED OR
DESTROYED BY EXPLOSIVE WEAPONSDefinition: Amount (number or proportion)of housing or shelter damaged or destroyed
by explosive weapons
Rationale: The scale of damage anddestruction of housing and shelter provides
information on the extent to which the useof EWIPA directly and immediately affects thesustainability of cities and communities.
Data on damage and destruction of
housing:
There is no readily available source ofdata on explosive weapons use affecting
housing, shelter, and human settlements
at present. Assessment of damage anddestruction are carried out for specific towns
or neighbourhoods by a wide range ofactors, from local authorities to aid agencies.
Potential information sources will be different
for each location and have to be identified
on a case-by-case basis. Depending on
the data available, the information can beused to describe damage and destruction
by geographic area, proportion of housing
and shelter affected, or number of people
affected.

Options to identify towns orneighbourhoods with significant
destruction by explosive weapons:• Review situation reports issued by United
Nations humanitarian agencies.
• Read Airwars reports for airstrikes on
specific towns (e.g. Seeing Through the
Rubble: The Civilian Impact of the Use of
Explosive Weapons in the Fight against
ISIS).
• Contact Airwars for data on specificlocations, such as Mosul or Raqqa.
• Review studies (e.g. Destruction of Raqqa)
from Amnesty International and Bellingcat
for relevant information on specific towns.
• Once the affected town or neighbourhood
is identified, search for local partners
who may have more detailed data on
the housing stock damaged by explosive
weapons.
• Consult national and local government
offices, including cultural ministries.
• Consider satellite imagery analysis
available from the the Operational
Satellite Applications Programme of theUnited Nations Institute for Training andResearch.
• Consider crowdsourcing data from open
sources.

REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

29

BOX 4: DESTRUCTION OF HOUSING AND THE POTENTIAL FOR CADASTRE AND PROPERTYOR LAND DISPUTES
Destruction of housing spurs a cycle of compounding impacts, including second- andthird-level (reverberating) effects on the displaced populations and the communities
that witness inflow or outflow of displaced
persons. One such possible impact is the potential for cadastre and property or land disputes. Property and land disputes are a complex issue for communities and are triggered,prompted or worsened when housing andbuildings are impacted and damaged by explosive weapons or after structural or urban
neglect post-destruction. Destruction, damage or neglect create opportunities for competing claims or sources of new grievancesleading to, potentially, community unrest or
conflict. Similarly, the impact of explosive

weapons – whether the immediate explosive blast, the effects of the blast, or as unexploded ordnance and explosive remnantsof war – in making arable land unusable or
unproductive accentuates or accelerates resource constraints and competition for scarce
resources; this in turn can lead to community
unrest or conflict. In addition, forced displacement creates further scenarios for competingclaims over land or properties and strain on
resources, which again can lead to community unrest or conflict. While these second- andthird-level effects are beyond the scope of
this framework, they ought to be consideredwhen documenting reverberating effects andare planned for inclusion in future iterationsof this framework.

INDICATOR II: NUMBER OR PROPORTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY DAMAGED OR
DESTROYED BY EXPLOSIVE WEAPONSDefinition: Absolute number or proportionof cultural property damaged or destroyed
by explosive weapons.
Rationale: The scale of damage anddestruction of cultural property provides
information on the extent to which theuse of EWIPA affects the cultural and wider
identity of cities and communities. While theobserved effect is direct and immediate, it canalso leave long-lasting consequences for thecultural identity of the affected community.
In addition, losing cultural property can affectlocal economies, as some installations can bea source of direct revenue for the affected
area, with positive externalities for the wider
economy.

30

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

Data on damage and destruction ofcultural monuments:
There is no comprehensive global source ofdata on damage and destruction of culturalproperty at present. Various organizations
monitor such damage and can provide
information on a case-by-case basis. If theappropriate information is available, it can beused to describe damage and destruction, as
well as the historical or cultural significance..
Sources to review for damage anddestruction of cultural propertys:• Blue Shield International• UNESCO• The news magazine of the American
Historical Association• Artnet News• National and local government offices,
including cultural ministries

INDICATOR III: NUMBER OR PROPORTION OF SERVICE PLANTS AND INSTALLATIONSDAMAGED OR DESTROYED BY EXPLOSIVE WEAPONSDefinition: Absolute number or proportionof service plants and installations damaged
or destroyed by explosive weapons.
Rationale: The scale of damage anddestruction of service plants and installations
provides information on how interconnected
cities and communities are affected by theuse of EWIPA. This indicator can be used todescribe or estimate the impact on the wider
economy, public health and quality of life,
including the immediate health consequencesfrom inadequate water treatment andwaste management. The service plants andinstallations in this indicator might include
water installations, wastewater treatment
installations, solid waste management
infrastructure, electricity installations, orother service plants and utilities. They could
be more broadly represented by grouping
them into water, energy (production anddistribution), and sanitation. This indicator
captures a large proportion of the destruction
and damage that causes many of the knockon effects and severe consequences of
explosive weapons use on civilians, as partof an interconnected system of cities andcommunities: the interruption of essential
services hinders economic activity, reduces
living standards, and engenders health risks.

Data on damage and destruction of service
plants and installations:
There is no readily available global data sourceon explosive weapons affecting service plants
and installations at present. Assessment ofdamage and destruction is carried out for
specific towns or neighbourhoods by a wide
range of actors, from local authorities to aid
agencies. Potential information sources will
be different for each location and have to be
identified on a case-by-case basis. In addition,
media reports can be used to document
where disrupted utilities are reported.
Depending on the data available, theinformation can be used to describe damage
and destruction by geographic area, how it
affects a particular sector of the economy or
human activity (including public health risks
and disease outbreaks) or the quantity ofservices lost and/or the number of people
affected by disruption or complete loss ofservices.
Sources that review damage anddestruction of urban utilities systems as
essential services:• M. Zeitoun and M. Talhami, “The Impact
of Explosive Weapons on Urban Services:
Reverberating Effects across Space andTime.” Also accessible here.
• World Bank Damage and Needs
Assessments, available for particularconflict-affected settings, for example
Iraq.

INDICATOR IV: PROPORTION OF TRANSPORT NETWORK DAMAGED OR DESTROYED BYEXPLOSIVE WEAPONSDefinition: The extent to which the transport
network has been damaged or destroyed
and the proportion of transport networks
that have reduced operations as a result of
explosive weapons use. This indicator could
include bridge and road damage, fuel orelectricity shortage or similar, and direct
damage and destruction of bus, train andtram systems.
Rationale: The scale of reduction in transport
services as a result of damage and destruction
provides information on how interconnected
cities and communities are affected by theuse of EWIPA. This information can be used
to describe or estimate the impact on the

REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

31

wider economy, public health and qualityof life. Transport networks are vital to theurban ecosystem and keep interconnected
systems functioning. Disruption of transport
networks (including delays) affect the entire
functioning of an urban space and havereinforcing consequences.
While transport networks tend to havealternatives that allow movement and accessto continue after damage, disruption or
destruction (with delays), when there are
no alternatives or the alternatives are notsufficient to mitigate significant delays,
the destruction of transport networks canalso impact the delivery of humanitarianassistance and the ability to operate, maintainand repair other essential services like water,
wastewater, electricity and health facilities. For
example, disruption of a bridge might preventthe delivery of spare parts and consumablesfrom a warehouse or a stockyard to a service
installation that needs repairing, creating areinforcing loop of negative consequences
for civilians and civilian structures.

Data on damage and destruction oftransport networks:
There is no readily available global data
source on explosive weapons disrupting
transport networks at present. Assessment ofdamage and destruction can be carried out
for specific networks. Potential information
sources will be different for each location,and they have to be identified on a caseby-case basis. Media reports can be used to
document damage to the transport networkfor high-profile events. An alternative way ofassessing the changes in transport services
could be comparing timetables and service
delivery before and after key explosive
weapons events.
Depending on the data available, theinformation can be used to describe delays or
reductions in available services for a particulargeographic area and how this affects accessto key essential services, including health andeducation as well as humanitarian access.

SECTION B: INDICATORS ON THE CHANGES IN KEY SERVICES CAUSED BY THE DAMAGE
AND DESTRUCTION
To measure the second-level effects that
resulted from the damage and destruction incities and communities, research efforts can
ask: Which key services have been affected?
Have service plants been destroyed? How
profound is the disruption to key services andthe transport service?
The extent of disruption to key services andthe transport network, following damage

and destruction by explosive weapons,
can then be used to describe the wider
effects on cities and communities and theirconsequences for the well-being of civilians.
Wider reverberating effects and negative
externalities for displaced populations canbe measured using indicators on health andeducation (see the sections on SDG 3 andSDG 4).

INDICATOR V: NUMBER OR PROPORTION OF KEY SERVICES DISRUPTED, INCLUDING WATER,WASTEWATER AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, ELECTRICITY, TRANSPORT NETWORKS,
AND COMMUNICATIONSDefinition: The number or proportion of key
services experiencing disruption, including adescription of how profound the disruption
is, and key elements that experience a
decline in services as a result of damage anddestruction by explosive weapons.
Rationale: The extent to which key services
32

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

have deteriorated as a result of explosive
weapons use is a key measure to capture
the wider reverberating effects on cities andcommunities from explosive weapons use.
Uninterrupted services and utilities are key
to urban ecosystems and facilitate economic
exchange, support public health mechanisms,

and improve living standards. Disruptions
to services will affect the interconnectedstructures of cities and communities. A
complementary approach to this indicator
would be to map and identify the number or
proportion of the civilian population affectedby the disruption of key services. Measuring
the affected population, using the documented
catchment area or technological mapping
advances, would provide important insights.
Data on service disruption following
damage and destruction by explosive
weapons:
There is no comprehensive global data sourceon damage and destruction of key services ortransport networks. The availability of suchinformation will depend on the situationon the ground. If available, these data are
key to describing the wider impact on cities
and communities from the use of explosive
weapons.
Sources to review for damage anddestruction of key services, the transport
network and other services experiencing
disruption:• Case studies of specific air strikes oncomponents of the transport network,
such as the school bus bombing in Yemen
in 2018. See work by Amnesty Internationaland Bellingcat.
• Media reports, which often documenttransport networks being attacked by
explosive weapons, for example:» New York Times on a passenger train
outside of Rehovoth» Los Angeles Times on a train bombing
in Peru» BBC on the bombing of a train in Sri
Lanka• Historical work on strategic bombing on

infrastructure, which exists but tends tolook at the issue from a perspective of war
strategies rather than impact on civilians.
For example, there is significant literature
on World War II bombing campaigns.
Alternative research approaches:
The information may not be readily available.
If so, research on the reverberating effects
can focus on generating related indicators.
The following questions could be pertinent:• Is it possible to use commercial software
to map key services or transport
networks within a city and gauge theinterconnectedness of these structures? If
so, can researchers identify the extent ofservice disruption for a specific area?
• Can system dynamics offer useful insights
into the consequences of disruption ininterconnected structures?
• Can qualitative interviews or surveys
be used to obtain information from theaffected community regarding the extent
to which the community experiences
disruptions in key areas of urban life due toreduced access to public transportation?
• Have aid or advocacy agencies compiled
any systematic reports?
• Can anecdotal information be found in
media sources?
• Is it possible to identify the extent to whichaccess to health, education and other key
services has been disrupted by damage
and destruction of the transport network?
If so, can the health consequences anddisease outbreaks be traced and linked tothe disruption of the urban ecosystem?
• Is it possible to identify to what extent
humanitarian access has been affected asa result of damage and destruction of thetransport network?

SECTION C: INDICATORS ON THE CHANGES IN CIVILIAN WELL-BEING AS A RESULT OF THE
CHANGES IN KEY SERVICES CAUSED BY THE DAMAGE AND DESTRUCTION
To measure the third-level effects, changes
in civilian well-being that resulted fromchanges in key services caused by damage
and destruction, research efforts can ask:
How many people have been affected? What

are the direct and indirect pathways leadings
to these effects? Are changes to the urban
ecosystem driving displacement?

REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

33

INDICATOR VI: NUMBER OR PROPORTION OF POPULATION DISPLACED, DISAGGREGATEDBY GENDER AND AGE

INDICATOR VII: NUMBER OF DEATHS, MISSING PERSONS AND PERSONS AFFECTED BYEXPLOSIVE WEAPONS PER 100,000 POPULATION, DISAGGREGATED BY GENDER AND AGE

Definition: Number or proportion of the
population who, as a result of explosive
weapons use, left the homes they lived in prior
to the start of the use of explosive weapons, orthe number or proportion of the population
who left a particular area following specificincidents of explosive weapons use.

Definition and design: In the SDG framework,
the comparable indicator measures thenumber of deaths, missing persons andpersons affected by natural disasters per
100,000 people. This can be adapted to thestudy of the reverberating effects of EWIPA
by substituting “natural disasters” with“explosive weapons use”. To some extent, it issimilar to indicator 16.1.2 on conflict-related
deaths per 100,000 (see discussion on SDG
16). However, this proposed EWIPA indicatorsuggests including the number of missing
persons and expanding what is meant by the“affected population”.

Rationale: The scale of displacement
provides information on the extent towhich life is interrupted following the use of
EWIPA. It is common for displaced people
to experience further displacements andincreased vulnerability to violence andother threats to their life and well-being. In
addition, displacement can bring changes
for the communities that host or receive thedisplaced populations, often neighbouring
settlements – thus shifting the humanenvironment in different settings.
Data on levels of displacement linked to
explosive weapons use:
Global data on displacement do not usuallyprovide information on the direct causes ofdisplacement, nor is displacement necessarily
caused by just one factor. Drawing causal
links between the reported numbers or
proportion of displaced individuals dueto the use of explosive weapons is a key
challenge. Nonetheless, if available, theinformation can be used to attribute thescale of displacement due to a shock eventor to the cumulative effects from the use of
explosive weapons. It could also be used to
calculate the wider reverberating effects that
follow displacement.
•
•

•
34

•

•

among displaced populations to identify
when and why they were displaced
to establish the extent to which theuse of explosive weapons triggered orcontributed displacement.
Consider measuring the additional(compounding) reverberating effects
experienced by displaced populations as
a result of explosive weapons use.
Interview host communities to gauge how
displaced populations have changed local
dynamics.

The indicator considers the affected
population to be those who have sufferedinjury, illness or other health effects; whowere evacuated, displaced or relocated; or
who have suffered direct damage to theirlivelihoods or their economic, physical, social,
cultural and environmental assets. As such,the proposed EWIPA indicator is conceptuallywider than 16.1.2, which focuses only on
deaths and injuries caused by conflict,because it includes missing and displaced

populations, as well as the public healthimpact and disease burden on the affected
populations. At the same time, the proposed
EWIPA indicator is more specific as it focuses
only on explosive weapons use rather thanon conflict as a whole. The proposed EWIPA
indicator conceptually mirrors SDG 11.5.1(see below).
Rationale: Calculating the number of deaths,
missing persons and persons affected per
100,000 population, disaggregated by genderand age, allows us to measure the civilian
impact of explosive weapons use in a suchway that information becomes comparable
between locations and across different
periods of time. If this is done systematicallyand in a disaggregated manner, it can be afoundational indicator to measure longerterm civilian harm.

Guidelines to operationalize theindicators of the reverberating effects
of explosive weapons:
Map the damage and destruction of
housing and the disruption of essential
services. Relate this information to thedates of specific events and identify postshock displacement data that can belinked to these specific events.
Use qualitative interviews or surveys
UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORKREVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

35

SDG FRAMEWORKINDICATOR 11.5.1:
NUMBER OF DEATHS, MISSING PERSONS AND DIRECTLY AFFECTED PERSONS ATTRIBUTEDTO DISASTERS PER 100,000 POPULATION
ADAPTED INDICATOR:NUMBER OF DEATHS, MISSING PERSONS AND PERSONS AFFECTEDBY EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS PER 100,000 POPULATION, DISAGGREGATED BY GENDER AND
AGE
SDG reference: 11.5.1, classified as “established methodology and standards are available,
but data are not regularly produced by countries” (Tier 2)
DEFINITION:
This indicator measures the number of people who died, went missing or were directly
affected by explosive weapons use per 100,000 population.
RATIONALE:
This indicator, as envisioned in the SDG framework, tracks deaths, missing persons andpersons affected by natural disasters, per 100,000 people, and is therefore not immediately
applicable to measuring the reverberating effects of explosive weapons. However, the same
principles can be applied if “disasters” is substituted with “explosive weapons use”.
CONCEPTS:
Death: The number of people who died during from the explosive weapons use, or directly
after, as a direct result.
Missing: The number of people whose whereabouts is unknown since the use of explosive
weapons. Includes people who are presumed dead, for whom there is no physical evidence
such as a body, and for whom an official report has been filed with the competent authorities.
Directly affected: The number of people who have suffered injury, illness or other healtheffects; who have been evacuated, displaced or relocated; or who have suffered direct
damage to their livelihoods or their economic, physical, social, cultural or environmental
assets.
Indirectly affected: The number of people who have suffered consequences other than orin addition to direct effects, over time, due to disruption or changes in economy, criticalinfrastructure, basic services, commerce or work, or social, health and psychologicalconsequences.
COMPUTATION METHOD:(A2 + A3 +B1)
x 100,000
X=
global population
Where:
A2 = number of deaths attributed to explosive weapons use.
A3 = number of missing persons attributed to explosive weapons use.
B1 = number of people directly affected by explosive weapons use.
global population = the total population living in the affected area (not the world’s
population).
36

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

To make a determination regarding the “global population” it is crucial to identify the numberof people living in areas affected by explosive weapons use, regardless of documentation
status, and taking into account the radius of explosive weapons impact and the outwards
spatial rings that will be studied in the research effort.
DATA DISAGGREGATION:• Number of deaths attributed to explosive weapons use• Number of missing persons attributed to explosive weapons use• Number of people directly affected by explosive weapons use
THESE FIGURES SHOULD BE BROKEN INTO:• Geography (administrative unit)• Gender• Age
For a more detailed methodological discussion, see: SDG Technical Guidance for
Indicator 11.5.1.
POSSIBLE RESEARCH APPROACHESStudies carried out following natural disasters may provide useful frameworks of how to
set up efforts to estimate the reverberating effects from explosive weapons use. The study
below, for example, estimated the real number of deaths in Puerto Rico after Hurricane
Maria by accounting for those who perished as a result of service disruption.
Using survey data, a Harvard study estimated a mortality rate of 14.3 deaths per 1,000
persons from 20 September to 31 December 2017. This rate yielded a total of 4,645 excess
deaths or excess mortality during this period, equivalent to a 62% increase in the mortality
rate compared with the same period in 2016. One third of the deaths were attributed todelayed or interrupted health care. Hurricane-related migration was also determined to be
substantial. To explore this “real” death count, the Harvard study used data from 2016 as a“control” and compared those data against the mortality data for 2017 (the “intervention”year). This research design allowed researchers to conclude that mortality had increased by
62% owing to the long-term effects of Hurricane Maria. The official death count in Puerto
Rico initially attributed to Hurricane Maria was 64, likely a significant underestimate now
that there are data on the reverberating effects.
NOTES ON MISSING PERSONS:
The inclusion of data on missing persons can provide valuable input for mortality estimateswhen there are (a) concerns that bodies may never be recovered because they are, forexample, completely burned or (b) damaged buildings that cannot be removed to uncoverdeceased persons. However, due diligence must be taken to avoid including people missing
because they were detained or forcibly disappeared by parties to a conflict.

REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

37

SUMMARY TABLE: SDG 3 — GOOD HEALTH AND WELL-BEINGLEVEL OFEFFECTFirst level:
Damage anddestruction

Second level:
Changes in key
services causedby the damage
and destruction

FOCUS
Damage and destruction of health facilities

Death and injury ofhealth workers

Reduction or otherchanges in access tobirth attendants

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORKREVERBERATING EFFECTS CHAIN

HOW TO USE THE INDICATORTEMPORAL OBSERVATION

Indicator I:
Damage to health facilities forces a reducNumber or proportion of healthtion in the available health care services,
facilities damaged or destroyed by and destruction forces closure of healthexplosive weapons
facilities, both of which affect access tohealth care

To describe the scale of damage and destruction ofhealth infrastructure

Immediate –damage and destruction

To provide information on affected areas

Death and injury among health workers
reduces the number of health workers andthereby affects access to and quality ofhealth care
Shortage, damage or destruction to warehouses or disruptions to distribution chainsthat deliver medical supplies affect bothaccess to and quality of health care

To describe the scale of human loss from explosive
weapons use, exemplified by one professional group

Medium term – cumulative
damage and destruction if
there are multiple air strikes on
the same facility over time
Immediate –human tragedies
and the effects on society

Lack of health transport hampers people’stimely access to emergency health carewhen needed

To calculate the affected population with reduced access Medium term – for the durato health care, in relation to a specific area (e.g. number tion of interruption of servicesof ambulances serving a particular hospital, or numberof ambulance providers within a town)

Reduction in services reduces access tohealth care, including specialized healthcare

To calculate the population affected by a reduction inaccess to health care

Medium term – for the duration of interruption of services

A fall in the number of skilled health professionals reduces access to and quality ofhealth care

To calculate the density of health workers per 10,000
population in a setting affected by explosive weapons,
which affects the availability and quality of health care

Medium term – for the duration of interruption of services

Indicator II:
Number of health workers killed
or injured by explosive weapons,disaggregated by gender
Shortage, damage or
Indicator III:
destruction of essential Shortages in essential medical
medical items, sparesupplies
parts or consumableneeds
Indicator IV:
Disruption of access
Number or proportion of ambuto health care as aresult of damage and lances destroyed (locally)
destruction of ambulances
Disruption of healthIndicator V:
care as a result of
Number or proportion of healthdamage and destruc- facilities with service disruptions
tion of health facilities
Reduction in quality
Indicator VI:
and quantity of health Health worker density and disservice due to loss oftribution per 10,000 population,
skilled personnel
compared with pre-conflict

Changes in access todisease prevention
practices38

SUGGESTED INDICATOR

To describe immediate limitations to the provision andquality of health services

Immediate –limitations in thedelivery and quality of healthcareThis indicator can also be used in comparison to an unaffected setting
To calculate how practices in birth attendance differ from Long term – to describe theprevious periods or other parts of the country not affect- changes over a long period of
ed by explosive weapons
time

Indicator VII:
A fall in the number of births attended byDifference in proportion of births skilled health personnel increases neonatal
attended by skilled health person- and maternal health risksnel, compared with pre-conflict
A change in the type of birth attendance
available affects neonatal and maternal
health risks
Indicator VIII:
A fall in the proportion of the population
To compare the health system after the use of explosive
Difference in proportion of thereceiving vaccines or HIV patients receiving weapons with how it functioned prior to the conflict or
population with access to afford- antiretroviral therapy after the use of explo- how the health system functions in other parts of theable medicines and vaccines, com- sive weapons could indicate that the health country not affected by explosive weapons use
pared with pre-conflictsystem has been affectedLong term – to describe thechanges over a long periodof time (e.g. the impact of
reduced vaccination rates isunlikely to be immediately
observable)

REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

39

Indicator IX:
When access to maternal health services
Difference in maternal, neonatal
is affected by the use
and under-five mortality, comof explosive weapons, pared with pre-conflictindicators on maternal,
neonatal or under-five
mortality can be used
to explore the humancosts of damage anddestruction
Third level:
Health outcomes relat- Indicator X:
Changes in cied to non-communica- Difference in mortality rate atvilian well-being ble diseases
tributed to cardiovascular disease,cancer, diabetes or chronic reas a result of the
spiratory disease, compared withchanges in key
pre-conflict
services causedby the damage
and destruction
Health outcomes relat- Indicator XI:
ed to preventable and Difference in reported cases oftreatable diseases
and number of deaths from preventable diseases such as cholera,
measles or polio or changes in thelife expectancy of HIV-positive patients, compared with pre-conflict

40

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORKWhen maternity hospitals reduce services
or close owing to damage from explosive
weapons, when the availability of healthtransport for pregnant women is affected,
and when the number of skilled birth attendants declines, maternal and neonatal
health risks increase

To describe parts of the human cost of the damage anddestruction of health systems

Long term – the changes will
happen over time

The change in mortality rate attributed to
cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes orchronic respiratory disease is an indicatorof the general availability and effectiveness of the health system, compared withpre-conflict

To show the impact of changes in health services either Long term – the changes will
for a specific hospital or for a population living within an happen over timearea experiencing explosive weapons use, and to compare different time periods

The difference in reported cases of diseases
for which there is a vaccine can be an indication of difficulties in vaccine coverage,
compared with pre-conflict

To show the impact of changes in health services either Long term –the changes will
for a specific hospital or for a population living within an happen over timearea experiencing explosive weapons use, and to compare different time periods

The number of deaths from preventablediseases and the life expectancy of HIV
patients is an indicator of the effectivenessof the health system

REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

41

INTRODUCTION TO THE EFFECTS OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS ON HEALTH
Explosive weapons undermine safe accessto health care by destroying health careinfrastructure such as hospitals, clinics
and health care transport and hindering
the quality of care. Hospitals under attack
frequently have to be evacuated or reduce thequantity or quality of services offered, whichplaces patients and staff at risk. The qualityof health care may also be undermined bydisruption to supply chains and by strain on
personnel. Aid agencies providing healthcare services in conflict zones may be forced
to close or limit operations in areas where
they suffer an attack or are threatenedby the use of explosive weapons. Areas
affected by conflict experience compounding
challenges in retaining qualified medical staff
and maintaining the same level of qualityof care as pre-conflict. The most valuable
resources in health care are the quality ofcare, the attention available from qualified
personnel to patients, and the continuity ofcare. However, quantifying quality of carerequires detailed descriptions, hospital-level
micro-disaggregated data, and indicatorsthat fall outside the scope of this framework.
Nonetheless, it is important for future studies
and iterations of this framework to attempt
to map changes in quality of care.
The effects that explosive weapons have on
health can be either first-, second- or thirdlevel impacts. The first-level impacts are
the damage and destruction of the healthinfrastructure, the death and injury of healthworkers, and shortages of medical supplies.
The second-level impacts are the effects
that infrastructure damage and destruction
as well as the death and injury of healthworkers have on the available health services(e.g. the extent to which consultations orservices are cancelled or reduced). The thirdlevel impacts are the health outcomes thatcan be directly linked to changes in levels of
health care provided as a consequence of thedamage and destruction caused by explosive
weapons. In addition, the use of explosive
weapons in one area can have consequences
for health care in neighbouring areas, as
damage and destruction of local health
42

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

facilities might lead to overwhelming thesurrounding health facilities and stretching
those resources as well. While indicators on
overcrowded neighbouring health facilities
and the associated potential health impacts falloutside the scope of this research framework,
it is important for future studies and iterationsof this framework to attempt to map changes
in quality of care in neighbouring facilities.
Data on damage and destruction of healthfacilities and health transport and the deathof health workers from explosive weapons
are being collected by the SHCC. The secondlevel effect data must be collected on acase-by-case basis by focusing on specifichospitals or defined geographic areas thatexperience explosive weapons use. Local data
availability will determine what information
to use to describe the impact of damage anddestruction on the available health services.
The SDG indicator framework outlines astandard indicator on health worker densitythat could be used. The reverberating effects
could be described through a mixture of SDG
framework indicators on health outcomes
combined with qualitative information. It is
important to use the second-level effects todemonstrate that there has been a change
in the specialized services needed for a
specific health outcome. As many of the wellestablished SDG indicators focus on maternaland child health outcomes, the second-level
effects work would need to demonstratechanges in maternal and neonatal healthservices to establish the link between thehealth outcome indicators and the use of
explosive weapons.
The following Tool proposes indicators
to measure the impact chain of explosive
weapons use on health, divided into three
sections: (A) indicators on damage anddestruction, (B) indicators on the changes
in key services caused by the damage anddestruction, and (C) indicators on the changes
in civilian well-being as a result of the changes
in key services

caused by the damage and destruction. In
this impact chain disaggregation, the firstlevel indicators (section A) look at primaryor secondary effects, and the second- andthird-level indicators (sections B and C) lookat reverberating effects.

SECTION A: INDICATORS ON DAMAGE AND DESTRUCTION
To measure the immediate effects of the useof explosive weapons on health, in terms ofdamage and destruction, research efforts can
ask: How many health facilities are affectedby explosive weapons use in particularareas? Where and when were these buildings
affected? Are medical facilities facing shortagein basic medical supplies? Have the storage

warehouses of medical supplies or the supply
chains suffered destruction or disruption?
How many health workers have been killed
or injured by explosive weapons? How many
ambulances are damaged or destroyed by
explosive weapons? Where and when was thishealth transport affected?

INDICATOR I: NUMBER OR PROPORTION OF HEALTH FACILITIES DAMAGED OR DESTROYEDBY EXPLOSIVE WEAPONSDefinition: Absolute number or proportionof health facilities damaged or destroyed by
explosive weapons.
Rationale: The scale of damage anddestruction of health facilities provides
information on the extent to which the useof EWIPA affects health care. Data on healthfacilities damaged and destroyed can capture
where and when health care has been directly
affected as a result of the use of explosive
weapons. Information on the location ofthese health centres can then be used to
identify the population in the catchment

area for the affected facility, whether
residents or transferred patients. Hospitals
tend to have the appropriate information
on number of patients and service areas,
which can be used to estimate the numberof people affected by reduced services.
Many health facilities are affected more thanonce by explosive weapons use. Informationon the date of damage and destruction, andrecording of the cumulative damage anddestruction, is important to establish the time
period during which health services wereinterrupted.

INDICATOR II: NUMBER OF HEALTH WORKERS KILLED OR INJURED BY EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS,DISAGGREGATED BY GENDER
Definition: Absolute number of healthworkers killed or injured by explosive
weapons.
Rationale: The death or injury of qualified
staff reduces the number of health workers
available. The number of health workers
killed or injured directly affects the provisionof health care and stresses the most valuable
resource in the provision of medicine.
Furthermore, according to a WHO study, as
many as 70% of health workers are women.35

Therefore, the impact of explosive weapons
on health care systems may affect women
disproportionately, hence the need for
disaggregated data. Further, the psychologicalimpact on other health workers often leads toa further reduction in available staff, as healthworkers might be unable to continue theirwork under such strenuous circumstances.

35 See M. Boniol et al., Gender Equity in the Health Workforce: Analysis of 104 Countries, WHO, Working Paper 1, 2019,https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/311314/WHO-HIS-HWF-Gender-WP1-2019.1-eng.pdf.

REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

43

INDICATOR III: SHORTAGES IN ESSENTIAL MEDICAL SUPPLIESDefinition: The percentage of essential
medical supplies, including medical items,
functioning equipment and consumableitems needed to provide health care accessand quality care that are currently unavailable.
Rationale: Medical supplies, including
medical items, functioning equipment andconsumable items, are needed to provide
quality care. When warehouses are destroyedor supply routes interrupted, the ensuing
shortages in essential medical supplies affectboth access to and quality of health care.

Should the destruction of warehouses or
disruptions in supply chains be attributed
to the use of explosive weapons, then theconsequences can be linked to their use.
This indicator on shortages relates back to
the ICRC literature on the three components
necessary for service delivery, namely,
people (staff), infrastructure (warehouses andequipment) and consumables (medical items).
When one of these components for service
delivery fails, health care is compromised.36

INDICATOR IV: NUMBER OR PROPORTION OF AMBULANCES DESTROYED (LOCALLY)
Definition: Absolute number or proportionof ambulances damaged or destroyed by
explosive weapons in a given area.
Rationale: Damage and destruction of
ambulances reduces access to health care andhinders emergency responses. A geographic
mapping of the extent to which the healthtransport system is affected following
explosive weapons use can paint a picture ofchanges in access to health care.37 This workrequires access to information on the total
number of ambulance service providers andthe number of ambulances they have within
an affected area, as well as the absolute
number of ambulances rendered unusable
following the use of explosive weapons. This
information can then be used to identify the
proportion of ambulances that are no longer
in service so as to describe the extent towhich ambulance services have been reduced
as a result of explosive weapons use at the
local level. Information on the changes inhealth transport can potentially be used tolink observed changes in health outcomesto the noted reduction in health transport.

Data on damage and destruction of healthfacilities, health transport, and healthworkers killed or injured by explosive
weapons:
The data collected by WHO through theSurveillance System of Attacks on Healthcare(SSA) are reliable, standardized and systemic.
However, the current disaggregation of attack
types makes it hard to isolate the impact of
explosive weapons. This is because categories
such as “violence with heavy weapons” and“violence with individual weapons” bothinclude firearms and explosive weapons.
The reason the weapons categories are notas detailed as desk researchers would like isbecause the main reporters into the system
are health care workers and health partners,
and it is challenging for them to differentiate
in a detailed manner between different types
of weapon used, let alone under pressing
circumstances.
Some data on the effects of explosive
weapons can be found in the SHCC products.
The annual report and data set record known
cases of attacks on health care, attempt
to disaggregate by weapon category, anddistinguish between damage and destructionof health infrastructure and transport. They

36 ICRC, Urban Services during Protracted Armed Conflict: A Call for a Better Approach to Assisting Affected People, 2015,
https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/topic/file_plus_list/4249_urban_services_during_protracted_armed_conflict.pdf.
37 Alternatively, changes in travel times due to the destruction of roads, leading to disruption of ambulance services, could
be used to map changes in services to civilians.

44

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORKTABLE 2: Data on attacks on health care with explosive weapons in 2017, 2018 and 2019 at
the global level, according to the Safeguarding Health in Conflict Coalition

Total attacks involving explosive
weapons
Events involving explosive
weapons damaging healthfacilities
Events involving explosive
weapons damaging healthtransport
Health workers killed by
explosive weapons

2017

2018

2019

192

272

143

76

156

100

51

60

21

155

88

42

Note: These data are also available by country, upon request to the Safeguarding Health in Conflict Coalition.

also include the number of direct deaths
among health workers from explosive
weapons. These data do not publicly
disaggregate affected health workers bygender.
The data from the SHCC can be used to describe
damage and destruction due to explosive
weapons in relation to the total numberof attacks on health facilities damaged or
destroyed in particular countries. Additional
work is required to identify the number ofhealth facilities affected. It is common thatthe same health facility is hit more thanonce by airstrikes. However, inconsistency inreporting over time can make it complicatedto identify the number of times individual
health facilities are damaged by explosive
weapons.
Data limitation:
The SHCC presents the limitations inherent in
the information provided by contributors to
the coalition’s work and notes that there are
more contributors from some countries thanfrom others. Moreover, not all contributors
provide access to their original sources; hence,
the ability to provide more accurate andconsistent classification, as well as verification,of the data is hampered. In particular, theevents provided by the WHO SSA, which areincluded in the SHCC data set, do not provide

details on the specific weapon used. Thus, theevents reported by the WHO SSA cannot beclassified by specific weapon category (unless
this information has been reported elsewhere)
and are consequently missing from thetotal count of health facilities damaged anddestroyed by explosive weapons. As a result,reported numbers of incidents by country
should not be considered in comparison withother countries without considering factorsof information flow. The indicators based onthese data provide an approximate overview,
one that will hopefully improve over time.
Options to build on these data:• Use the WHO SSA.
• Contact SHCC for detailed explosive
weapons data subsets. The data exist;
however,
additional
cleaning
andseparation by subcategories need tobe carried out before the data can bereleased to the public.
• Review Insecurity Insight’s Monthly News
Brief on Attacks on Healthcare, whichcontains information on the weapon
category used. Review Insecurity Insight’s
data on HDX. Contact Insecurity Insightfor specific country or year data: info@
insecurityinsight.org.
• Use the information from these data sets
to focus future research and collaborate
with local researchers to confirm hits and,

REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS45

•

in particular, multiple hits on the samefacility and to map the consequences ofthis damage and destruction.
Review reporting on United Nations
Security Council resolution 2286 (2016).

Data and research approaches to mapping
the changes to health transport and accessto health care as a consequence of damage
and destruction from explosive weaponsuse:
Mapping of areas where ambulances havebeen destroyed, combined with population
figures and qualitative information of when
and why ambulances are needed, could be
used to show the link between damage anddestruction of health transport and access tohealth care.
There is no standard global data source;
data would have to be collected locally.
Data would have to be used to assemble
the picture of how transport networks areaffected. Research could start by identifying
the key local ambulance providers. Data on

use of ambulances over time (before, during,
and after instances of explosive weaponsuse) could be plotted on maps to show howtransport routes or frequency of transport
have changed. This can be supplemented
by personal stories from ambulance drivers
and those who needed an ambulance so
as to describe some of the complexities inchanges to access to emergency health care.
Researchers may also want to explore how theneed for ambulances is linked to particular
health emergencies. This focus could beon pregnant women if maternal healthindicators are available. It could also focus on
people injured during instances of explosive
weapons use to explore the links between
health transport and death and injury ratios
among civilian populations during explosive
weapons use in populated areas. If it canbe shown how the lack of health transport
increased the death toll, then these data cancontribute to the discussion of indirect deaths
from the use of explosive weapons.

on whether the health facility offered generalor specialized services, a distinction can bemade, using household surveys, between the
directly affected population who would use thespecialized services and the wider population
affected by a family member having reduced
access to specialized services. For example, ifmaternity services are reduced, the directly
affected population would be females in a
reproductive age group (e.g. 15- to 49-yearolds) living within the catchment area, while
the wider effect would be on all families
that include women in the reproductive agegroup.
There is no
standardized global data source. Research
can start by identifying affected healthfacilities and then collaborating with local
health providers and other actors to map
the catchment area affected and gather thenecessary level of disaggregation. Healthfacilities may be able to provide data.
Interviews, questionnaires or surveys may be
used to identify key information.

SECTION B: INDICATORS ON THE CHANGES IN KEY SERVICES CAUSED BY THE DAMAGE
AND DESTRUCTION

INDICATORS VI, VII AND VIII: MEASURING THE HEALTH SERVICES AVAILABLE USING THE
SDG FRAMEWORK INDICATORSTo measure the second-level effects ofchanges in the quality and availability ofhealth services that resulted from the deathof health workers and the damage anddestruction of health facilities, ambulances,and key utilities (e.g. water plants, wastewater
treatment plants, solid waste management
infrastructure, electricity plants) caused by
explosive weapons, research efforts can ask:
Which health services have been affected

Violence against health workers combinedwith the effects of violence against healthcare infrastructure, as well as the effects of thewider conflict, affect health workers’ ability toeffectively perform their tasks. The numberof qualified health staff directly affects thequality and quantity of available services.
The SDG framework offers two standard
indicators that can be used to measure thesefactors: health worker density and proportionof births attended by skilled birth attendants.

by the damage and destruction and to what
extent? Who is affected by this reduction inservices? What are the overall changes inaccess to health care measured both in termsof available services and people’s ability toreach and access health care when needed?
How has the quality of care and attention
changed?

INDICATOR V: NUMBER OR PROPORTION OF HEALTH FACILITIES WITH SERVICE DISRUPTIONSDefinition: Absolute number or proportionof health facilities damaged or destroyed by
explosive weapons that experience disruptionof services.
Rationale: Damage and destruction ofhealth facilities disrupts health care. A
description of how health care is disrupted
and what kinds of service are interrupted
46

Data and research approaches to mapping
the reduction in health services as aconsequence of damage and destruction
from explosive weapons use:
From information on specific health facilities
damaged or destroyed or otherwise affectedby explosive weapons, researchers candocument how the shock contributed to a
reduction in services provided by a specifichealth facility. This mapping should include
qualitative information on the type ofservices offered (paediatric, maternity, cancer
care, etc.), combined with the health facility’scatchment area (including information
on whether there are alternative services
available within the area), and an assessmentof the impact on the influx of patients or the
reduction in patients because of fear to seek
care. Reduction in services could be measured
by the number of patients seen before andafter the explosive weapons event or otherproxy data the health facility may be able
to provide. Population figures for the healthfacility’s catchment area can be used to
identify the affected population. Depending

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

following explosive weapons use can paint a
picture of changes in access to health care.
Information on the changes in health careprovisions can potentially be used to linkobserved changes in health outcomes that
depended on the services offered by thehealth facilities damaged and destroyed.

Damage and destruction by explosive
weapons to service installations disrupts
health supply chains as well as healthservices. For example, systematic vaccination
depends on the supply of vaccines thathave been stored at the correct temperature(generally between 2°C and 8°C, but eachvaccine requires a specific temperature andsome may require continuous refrigeration
at sub-zero temperatures) to remain

effective when used. Disruption to electricity
supply can interrupt the refrigeration chain.
Furthermore, disruptions to consistent power
supply can affect blood products, which
are important commodities for health caredelivery, in particular in conflict-affectedareas, and are requires by a broad spectrumof the community. HIV-positive patientsrequire access to antiretroviral therapy (ART),
requiring a regular supply of a combinationof drugs. This treatment can be interrupted
by damage and destruction of health systems
or difficulties in accessing health care due
to damage and destruction. SDG indicator
3.b.1 on the proportion of the population
with access to affordable medicines andvaccines can be adapted to measure someof the changes in such access attributable toexplosive weapons use.

REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

47

INDICATOR VI: HEALTH WORKER DENSITY AND DISTRIBUTION PER 10,000 POPULATION,
COMPARED WITH PRE-CONFLICTINDICATOR VII: DIFFERENCE IN PROPORTION OF BIRTHS ATTENDED BY SKILLED HEALTHPERSONNEL, COMPARED WITH PRE-CONFLICTSDG FRAMEWORKSDG FRAMEWORKINDICATOR 3.C.1: HEALTH WORKER DENSITY AND DISTRIBUTION

INDICATOR 3.1.2: PROPORTION OF BIRTHS ATTENDED BY SKILLED HEALTH PERSONNEL

SDG reference: 3.c.1, classified as “internationally established methodology and standards areavailable, and data are regularly produced” (Tier 1)

SDG reference: 3.1.2, classified as “internationally established methodology and standards areavailable, and data are regularly produced” (Tier 1)

DEFINITION:
Density per category of health worker. The density of each subgroup of health workers(medical doctors and nurses, etc.) is defined as the number of these trained workers per
10,000 population in the given national or subnational area.

DEFINITION:
Percentage of births attended by skilled health personnel (generally doctors, nurses or
midwives). Traditional birth attendants, even if they receive a short training course, are notincluded.

RATIONALE:
The number of health workers per 10,000 people is an indication of the extent to which
health services are available and how their availability may have changed as a result of
explosive weapons use (should it be linked causally via survey or other research method).
The number of health workers available may decline if health workers leave the conflictarea or if health providers close their services. As such, this indicator could be evaluatedin comparison with the years before the use of explosive weapons in the same catchment
area. A difference between the number of health workers per 10,000, as compared to preconflict levels, might shed light on changes in health worker density as a consequence of
the use of explosive weapons.

RATIONALE:
Having a skilled attendant during childbirth is an important life-saving intervention for both
women and newborns. Not having access to this key assistance exacerbates health risks,
especially in vulnerable settings. The number of skilled personnel available may decline if
workers leave the conflict area (affected by explosive weapons) or when health providers
close their services owing to damage and destruction from the use of explosive weapons.
As such, this indicator should be evaluated in comparison with years before the use of
explosive weapons in the same catchment area.

COMPUTATION METHOD:• Number of medical doctors (including generalist and specialist medical practitioners).
Depending on the nature of the original data source, this may include practising medical
doctors only or all registered and practising medical doctors.
• Number of nursing and midwifery personnel. In many countries, practitioners trained withmidwifery skills are counted and reported as nurses. This makes the distinction between
nursing personnel and midwifery personnel difficult to draw.
• Number of pharmacists. Depending on the nature of the original data source, this may
include practising (active) pharmacists only or all pharmacists registered in the occupation.
For numbers on the official health workforce, use the Global Health Workforce Statistics, 2018
update from WHO.
For a more detailed methodological discussion, see SDG Technical Guidance for Indicator 3.c.1.

48

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORKCOMPUTATION METHOD:
The number of women aged 15–49 with a live birth attended by skilled health personnel(e.g. doctors, nurses, midwives) during delivery is expressed as a percentage of the total of
number of women aged 15–49 with a live birth in the same period.
For a more detailed methodological discussion, see SDG Technical Guidance for Indicator 3.1.2.
INDICATOR VIII: DIFFERENCE IN PROPORTION OF THE POPULATION WITH ACCESS TO
AFFORDABLE MEDICINES AND VACCINES, COMPARED WITH PRE-CONFLICT
Vaccination campaigns are often affected byconflict and hindered by a weakened healthsystem. For example, polio vaccinators havebeen attacked in Afghanistan and Pakistan,leading to the suspension of these campaigns.
Polio has re-emerged in the Central African
Republic and the Niger as a result of conflict
and the disruption of vaccination efforts.
Vaccination coverage is a general indicator of
the impact of violence against healthcare or,more generally, of a substantially weakened
health system as the result of violenceand destruction. It is currently unclear towhat extent the use of explosive weapons
affects vaccination coverage. To counter thisshortage of data, indicators of changes invaccination coverage compared with preconflict, where available, can be examined
and mapped retroactively to measure theimpact that explosive weapons may have
had in such areas. Nonetheless, this researchframework urges caution when linking
vaccination coverage to violence, whether
from the specific use of explosive weaponsor the wider conflict, unless the link has beenclearly identified.
It is important to highlight the difficulties
in attributing causal effects. Health worker
density or vaccination coverage may be

REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

49

strongly or only tangentially linked to the useof EWIPA. To avoid overestimations, it may
be more attainable to select a very specificarea where damage and destruction of healthfacilities and health transport, as well as injury
and death of health workers from explosive
weapons, are known to have occurred,even if anecdotally. Then, the indicators on
professional density and vaccination rates
could be obtained for these very specific areasand compared with similar areas not affectedby explosive weapons or with the years
before explosive weapons use in the same
areas. Afterwards, it is important to follow up
with qualitative work that describes how theuse of explosive weapons has reduced healthworker density or disrupted vaccination. It isalso important to document if other healthfacilities or health service providers are notfilling the gap that has been caused by theuse of explosive weapons.

SDG FRAMEWORKINDICATOR 3.B.1: PROPORTION OF THE TARGET POPULATION COVERED BY ALL VACCINESINCLUDED IN THEIR NATIONAL PROGRAMMESDG reference: 3.b.1, classified as “internationally established methodology and standards
are available, and data are regularly produced” (Tier 1)
DEFINITION:
Percentage of the target population for a given vaccine covered by such vaccine.
DEFINITION OF COVERAGE FOR RELEVANT VACCINES:• Coverage of DTP (diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus)-containing vaccine (third dose):
Percentage of surviving infants who received the three doses of DTP-containing vaccine ina given year.
• Coverage of measles-containing vaccine (second dose): Percentage of children who
received two doses of measles-containing vaccine according to nationally recommended
schedule through routine immunization services in a given year.
• Coverage of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (last dose in the schedule): Percentage
of surviving infants who received the nationally recommended doses of pneumococcal
conjugate vaccine in a given year.
• Coverage of HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccine (last dose in the schedule): Percentage
of 15-year-old girls who received the recommended doses of HPV vaccine. Currently, theperformance of the programme in the previous calendar year based on target age group is
used.
* Research efforts can also study changes in polio and cholera vaccination coverage.
Particular attention could be paid to cholera vaccinations given its incidence is linked to alack of access to fresh, clean water, which can be exacerbated by EWIPA events.
RATIONALE:
This indicator aims to measure access to vaccines, including the newly available or underused
vaccines, at the national level. For monitoring disease control and impact of vaccines, it isimportant to measure coverage from each vaccine in the national immunization schedule,
already in place for all national programmes. However, estimating the proportion of the
population covered with all vaccines in the programme is only feasible if the country has
a well-functioning national immunization registry; usually an electronic one will allow thiscoverage to be easily estimated.

CONCEPTS:
In accordance with its mandate to provide guidance to Member States on health policy
matters, WHO provides global vaccine and immunization recommendations for diseases
that have an international public health impact. National programmes adapt therecommendations and develop national immunization schedules based on local disease
epidemiology and national health priorities. National immunization schedules and thenumber of recommended vaccines vary between countries, with only DTP-, polio- andmeasles-containing vaccines being used in all countries. The target population for a given
vaccine is based on the recommended age for administration. Nonetheless, the primary
vaccination series of most vaccines are administered in the first two years of life.
••••

Coverage of DTP-containing vaccine is a measure of the overall system strength todeliver infant vaccination.
Coverage of measles-containing vaccine is a measure of the ability to deliver vaccines
beyond the first year of life through routine immunization services.
Coverage of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine is a measure of adaptation to new
vaccines for children.
Coverage of HPV vaccine is a measure of life cycle vaccination.

COMPUTATION METHOD:
WHO and UNICEF jointly developed a methodology to estimate national immunization
coverage from selected vaccines in 2000. The methodology has been refined and reviewed
by expert committees over time; relevant publications are listed below. The methodology
uses data reported by national authorities, as well as data from immunization or multiindicator household surveys.
•••

A. Burton et al., “WHO and UNICEF Estimates of National Infant Immunization Coverage:
Methods and Processes”, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, vol. 87, no. 7, 2009.
Available here.
A. Burton et al., “A Formal Representation of the WHO and UNICEF Estimates of National
Immunization Coverage: A Computational Logic Approach”, PLoS ONE, vol. 7, no. 10,
2012. Available here.
D. Brown et al., “An Introduction to the Grade of Confidence in the WHO and UNICEF
Estimates of National Immunization Coverage”, The Open Public Health Journal, vol. 6,
2013. Available here.

DISAGGREGATION:
By geographical location (i.e. regional, national and, potentially, subnational estimates).
DATA SOURCES:
Information on immunization records can be found in national health information systems
or national immunization registries. Alternatively, high-quality household surveys with an
immunization module could provide important information.
COLLECTION PROCESS:
Annual data collection through an established mechanism. Since 1998, in an effort tostrengthen collaboration and minimize the reporting burden, WHO and UNICEF have jointly
collected information through a standard questionnaire (the Joint Reporting Form) sent toall Member States. Available here.
For a more detailed methodological discussion, see SDG Technical Guidance for Indicator 3.b.1.

50

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORKREVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

51

Data and research approaches to using thesuggested SDG indicators in relation to
impacts of explosive weapons use:
The standard SDG indicators should beapplied to the specific health area affected by
explosive weapons use. However, the data areunlikely to be disaggregated at the local level,
and hence the SDG indicators might haveto be used as a general indication and thenadapted to the local context. Mapping of theavailability of health services can be carriedout through many research approaches,
including interviews and surveys. Researchers
can include questions on access to vaccinesand medicine and the connection to damage
and destruction of health infrastructure to
start exploring these complex connections.

SECTION C: INDICATORS ON CHANGES IN CIVILIAN WELL-BEING AS A RESULT OF THE
CHANGES IN KEY SERVICES CAUSED BY THE DAMAGE AND DESTRUCTION
To measure the third-level effects in the formof health outcomes that are linked to thechanges in access to health care services asa result of damage, destruction and deathcaused by explosive weapons, research efforts
can ask: What are the health consequences
for this population? How can the healthconsequences for the population be measured?
Is it possible to attribute the health outcomesto changes in access to health care? What
health indicators are available? Is it possible to
make a causal link between changes in accessto health care and observed health indicators?

INDICATOR IX: DIFFERENCE IN MATERNAL, NEONATAL AND UNDER-FIVE MORTALITY,COMPARED WITH PRE-CONFLICT
Maternal, neonatal and under-five mortality
indicators reflect, to some extent, accessto health care and quality of care. Without
professional health care, women might die
from pregnancy-related complications, morenew-borns might die, and fewer children
might reach the age of five.
Mortality rate among young children isa key outcome indicator for child healthand well-being and, more broadly, forsocial and economic development. It is a
closely monitored public health indicatorbecause it reflects the access of children andcommunities to basic health interventions
such as vaccination, medical treatment of
infectious diseases and adequate nutrition. It
is, at present, unclear how exactly these healthindicators are related to explosive weapons
use in populated areas. The following SDG
indicators can be used to explore thesequestions further.

SDG FRAMEWORKINDICATOR 3.1.1: MATERNAL MORTALITY RATIO (MMR)
SDG references: 3.1.1, classified as “internationally established methodology and standards
are available, and data are regularly produced” (Tier 1)

COMPUTATION METHOD:
The MMR can be calculated by dividing recorded (or estimated) maternal deaths by the
total recorded (or estimated) live births in the same period and multiplying by 100,000.
Measurement requires information on pregnancy status, timing of death (during pregnancy
or childbirth, or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy), and the cause of death.
The MMR can be calculated directly from data collected through vital registration systems,
household surveys or other sources. There are often data quality problems, particularly
related to the underreporting and misclassification of maternal deaths. Therefore, data areoften adjusted to take these data quality issues into account. Some countries undertakethese adjustments or corrections as part of specialized enquiries or administrative efforts
embedded within maternal mortality monitoring programmes.
RELATED CONCEPTS:• Maternal death: The death of a woman while pregnant or within 42 days of terminationof pregnancy, irrespective of the duration and site of the pregnancy, from any cause
related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management (from direct or indirect
obstetric death), but not from accidental or incidental causes.
• Pregnancy-related death: The death of a woman while pregnant or within 42 days oftermination of pregnancy, irrespective of the cause of death.
• Late maternal death: The death of a woman from direct or indirect obstetric causes
more than 42 days, but less than one year, after termination of pregnancy.
RELATED STATISTICAL MEASURES OF MATERNAL MORTALITY:• Maternal mortality ratio (MMR): The number of maternal deaths during a given time
period per 100,000 live births during the same time period. It depicts the risk of maternal
death relative to the number of live births and essentially captures the risk of death in asingle pregnancy or a single live birth.
• Maternal mortality rate (MMRate): The number of maternal deaths divided byperson-years lived by women of reproductive age. The MMRate captures both the riskof maternal death per pregnancy or per total birth (live birth or stillbirth) and the levelof fertility in the population.
• Adult lifetime risk of maternal mortality for women in the population: The
proportion of deaths among women of reproductive age that are due to maternalcauses, calculated as the number of maternal deaths divided by the total deaths among
women aged 15–49.
For a more detailed methodological discussion, see SDG Technical Guidance for Indicator
3.1.1.
FURTHER READING:WHO Maternal Mortality: Levels and Trends from 2000 to 2017

DEFINITION:
The maternal mortality ratio (MMR) is defined as the number of maternal deaths during agiven time period per 100,000 live births during the same time period.
RATIONALE:
The MMR depicts the risk of maternal death relative to the number of live births andessentially captures the risk of death in a single pregnancy or a single live birth.
52

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORKREVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

53

SDG FRAMEWORKINDICATOR 3.2.2: NEONATAL MORTALITY RATESDG reference: 3.2.2, classified as “internationally established methodology and standards
are available, and data are regularly produced” (Tier 1)
DEFINITION:
The neonatal mortality rate is the probability that a child born in a specific year or period
will die during the first 28 completed days of life if subject to age-specific mortality rates ofthat period, expressed per 1,000 live births.
RATIONALE:
Mortality rate among young children is a key output indicator for child health and wellbeing and, more broadly, for social and economic development. It is a closely watchedpublic health indicator because it reflects the access of children and communities to basic
health interventions such as vaccination, medical treatment of infectious diseases andadequate nutrition.
COMPUTATION METHOD:
The methods most frequently used to determine this rate are as follows:• Civil registration: Number of children who died during the first 28 days of life and thenumber of births used to calculate neonatal mortality rates.
• Censuses and surveys: Censuses and surveys often include questions on household
deaths in the last 12 months, which can be used to calculate mortality estimates.
For a more detailed methodological discussion, see SDG Technical Guidance for Indicator
3.2.2.

SDG FRAMEWORKINDICATOR 3.2.1: UNDER-FIVE MORTALITY RATESDG reference: 3.2.1, classified as “internationally established methodology and standards
are available, and data are regularly produced” (Tier 1)
DEFINITION:
Under-five mortality is the probability of a child born in a specific year or period dying
before reaching the age of 5 years, if subject to age-specific mortality rates of that period,
expressed per 1,000 live births.
RATIONALE:
Mortality rate among young children is a key output indicator for child health and wellbeing and, more broadly, for social and economic development. It is a closely watchedpublic health indicator because it reflects the access of children and communities to basic
health interventions such as vaccination, medical treatment of infectious diseases andadequate nutrition.

COMPUTATION METHOD:
The methods most frequently used to determine this rate are as follows:• Civil registration: The under-five mortality rate can be derived from a standard period
abridged life table using the age-specific deaths and mid-year population counts fromcivil registration data to calculate death rates, which are then converted into age-specificprobabilities of dying.
• Census and surveys: An indirect method is used that is based on a summary birth
history, a series of questions asked of each woman of reproductive age: how many
children she has ever given birth to and how many are still alive. The Brass method andmodel life tables are then used to obtain an estimate of under-five and infant mortality
rates. Censuses often include questions on household deaths in the last 12 months,
which can be used to calculate mortality estimates.
• Surveys: A direct method is used that is based on a full birth history, a series of detailed
questions about each child a woman has given birth to during her lifetime. Neonatal,
post-neonatal, infant, child and under-five mortality estimates can be derived from thefull birth history module.
For a more detailed methodological discussion, see SDG Technical Guidance for Indicator 3.2.1.
Data and research approaches to using
indicators on maternal and neonatal
mortality:
It is currently unclear to what extent and how
exactly the use of explosive weapons affects
maternal and neonatal mortality. To attributematernal and neonatal mortality to the useof explosive weapons, more work is needed
to uncover underlying complex connections.
Research that uses interviews and surveys
may be well suited to exploring complex
connections and how they are linked to
explosive weapons use. For example, from
anecdotal evidence from Yemen, it has beenreported that women avoid seeking help in
hospitals as they fear exposure to bombing.38
While in the Syrian Arab Republic, anincrease was reported in C-sections to allow
scheduling of births at times when hospitals
were not overwhelmed and when there
were no specific risks to travelling to healthfacilities.39 Further research could explore
the complex interaction between access toand availability of maternal health services asa result of explosive weapons use and how

this may be reflected in any indicators onmaternal mortality.
Research could ask the following questions:• Are there any changes in the quality oravailability of maternal health services asa result of the explosive weapons use?
If so, are there any changes in maternalmortality?
• Are there fewer midwives available? If so,in what way can this be linked to the useof explosive weapons?
• Are there changes in access to healthstructures due to explosive weapons use?
• Are there changes in the available services
or nature of services?

38 See T. Brooks-Pollock, Yemen: Women Giving Birth in Caves as Civilians Hide from Saudi Air Strikes , Independent, 2February 2016, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/yemen-women-giving-birth-in-caves-as-civilianshide-from-saudi-air-strikes-a6848456.html.
39 See Human Appeal, Risking Death to Give Birth, https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/syria-report-website.pdf.

54

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORKREVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

55

INDICATORS X AND XI: DIFFERENCE IN MORTALITY ATTRIBUTED TO NON-COMMUNICABLE
AND PREVENTABLE DISEASES
Mortality attributed to non-communicablediseases (NCDs) and preventable diseases
reflects, to some extent, access to health care.
Without good health care, the probability ofdying from cardiovascular disease, cancer,
diabetes or chronic respiratory disease ishigher. Without an effective public healthsystem, vaccination coverage will be lower
and preventable disease outbreaks can occur.

Without good health care, HIV-positive
patients will not receive the ART that can
extend their life. It is at present unclear how
exactly health systems that provide thesetreatments are affected by the use of EWIPA.
The following SDG and non-SDG indicators,
modelled on the SDG framework, can beused to explore these questions further.

INDICATOR X: DIFFERENCE IN MORTALITY RATE ATTRIBUTED TO CARDIOVASCULARDISEASE, CANCER, DIABETES OR CHRONIC RESPIRATORY DISEASE, COMPARED WITH PRECONFLICTSDG FRAMEWORKINDICATOR 3.4.1: MORTALITY RATE ATTRIBUTED TO CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE,CANCER, DIABETES OR CHRONIC RESPIRATORY DISEASE
SDG reference: 3.4.1, classified as “internationally established methodology and standards
are available, and data are regularly produced” (Tier 1)
DEFINITION:
Mortality rate attributed to cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes or chronic respiratory
disease. That is, the probability of dying between the ages of 30 and 70 years fromcardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes or chronic respiratory disease, defined as thepercentage of 30-year-old people who would die before their 70th birthday fromcardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes or chronic respiratory disease, assuming that theywould experience current mortality rates at every age and would not die from any othercause (e.g. injuries, HIV/AIDS). This indicator is calculated using life-table methods.
RATIONALE:
Treatment of NCDs requires access to health services to prevent deaths. Cardiovasculardisease, cancer, diabetes and chronic respiratory disease are the four main causes of NCD
burden. Measuring the risk of dying from these four major causes is important in assessing
the extent of burden from premature mortality due to NCDs in a population.
CONCEPTS:• Probability of dying: The likelihood that an individual will die between two ages, given
current mortality rates at each age, calculated using life-table methods. The probabilityof death between two ages may be called a “mortality rate”.
• Life table: A table showing the mortality experience of a hypothetical group of infants
born at the same time and subject throughout their lifetime to a set of age-specificmortality rates.

56

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORKCOMPUTATION METHOD:
There are several steps in the calculation of this indicator:
1. Estimation of WHO life tables, based on the United Nations World Population Prospects,
2012 revision.
2. Estimation of cause-of-death distributions.
3. Calculation of age-specific mortality rates or the four main NCDs for each five-year age
range between 30 and 70.
4. Calculation of the probability of dying between the ages of 30 and 70 years fromcardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes or chronic respiratory disease.
5. For the purposes of explosive weapons research, comparison of the same figures with
before conflict figures.
6. For the purposes of explosive weapons research, mapping of the link between any
potential changes and the use of explosive weapons.
The methods used for the analysis of causes of death depend on the type of data available
from countries:
For countries with a high-quality vital registration system including information on cause ofdeath, the vital registration that member States submit to the WHO Mortality Database canbe used, with adjustments where necessary (e.g. for underreporting of deaths).
For countries without high-quality death registration data, cause-of-death estimates canbe calculated using other data, including household surveys with verbal autopsy, sample orsentinel registration systems, special studies, and surveillance systems. In most cases, thesedata sources are combined in a modelling framework.
DISAGGREGATION:
By gender.
For a more detailed methodological discussion, see SDG Technical Guidance for Indicator
3.4.1.
INDICATOR XI: DIFFERENCE IN REPORTED CASES OF AND NUMBER OF DEATHS FROMPREVENTABLE DISEASES SUCH AS CHOLERA, MEASLES OR POLIO OR CHANGES IN THE
LIFE EXPECTANCY OF HIV-POSITIVE PATIENTS, COMPARED WITH PRE-CONFLICTDefinition: The difference in reported casesof and number of deaths from preventablediseases, compared with pre-conflict.

Rationale: Prevention of diseases requires
access to health services. The number ofreported cases of and deaths from preventablediseases is an indicator of the availability andeffectiveness of health services. If the changes
in the number of cases and deaths can belinked to reported damage and destruction,compared with pre-conflict, these numbers
can shed light on the indirect consequencesof explosive weapons use.

REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

57

Data and research approaches on
preventable diseases and the link to
explosive weapons use:
Data on various disease outbreaks can beobtained from WHO’s surveillance systems:• Data on cholera can be found here.
• Data on measles and rubella can be found
here.

•
•

Data on polio can be found here.
It is generally accepted that conflictweakens health systems. However, there
is a lack of data on the detailed causal
chain and how these changes are linked
to the use of EWIPA. Future research could
explore these connections.

BOX 5: EXAMPLES OF PREVENTABLE DISEASE OUTBREAKS THAT MERIT DEEPER EWIPARELATED RESEARCH –BASED ON ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE
CHOLERA IN YEMEN
A cholera outbreak began in Yemen in October
2016. According to the assessment of WHO,the cholera outbreak could be attributed to
two years of heavy conflict. Collapsing health,water and sanitation systems had cut off 14.5
million people from regular access to cleanwater and sanitation, increasing the abilityof the disease to spread. Rising rates ofmalnutrition had weakened children's healthand made them more vulnerable to disease.
An estimated 30,000 local health workers
who played the largest role in ending thisoutbreak had not been paid their salaries fornearly ten months.1 Yet causal attribution of
the cholera outbreak to the use of explosive
weapons against hospitals and critical wateror electricity infrastructure (or incidental
harm from such use) remains challenging.
Nonetheless, explosive weapons undoubtedly
contributed, through direct and/or indirect
pathways, to the challenges of addressing theoutbreak.
MEASLES IN UKRAINE
Measles remains a significant cause of deathamong children despite the availabilityof effective vaccination. Ukraine, which
experienced explosive weapons use in theeastern part of the country, reported anincrease in measles cases between 2015 and2019 due to the accumulation of significant
pockets of non-immune populations.2 While
researchers believe that there is a link to theconflict, the connections are not clear yet, andfurther work is needed to identify the chainof connections between the use of explosive
weapons and the ability of health systems
58

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

to ensure sufficient vaccine coverage.3 It isat present unclear whether the violence ineastern Ukraine affected health reporting
systems, whether displacement was asignificant factor in spreading the diseases
or whether other complex connections
contributed to the spread of the disease.
ERADICATION OF POLIO
A public health effort to permanently
eliminate all cases of poliomyelitis (polio)
infection around the world began in 1988.
Cases have been substantially reduced.
However, the 175 cases of wild poliovirus
detected in Afghanistan and Pakistan in
2019, represented the most cases reported
since 2014.4 Among the greatest obstacles
to complete global polio eradication are
shortcomings in basic health infrastructure,
which limits vaccine distribution and delivery;
the crippling effects of civil war and internal
strife; and the sometimes oppositional
stance that communities take against what
is perceived as outsiders. Another challenge
has been maintaining the potency of live
(attenuated) vaccines in extremely hot orremote areas. The oral polio vaccine must be
kept between 2– 8°C (36–46°F) for vaccination
to be successful. There is currently no clear link
between the polio eradications and the useof explosive weapons. However, should polio
resurface in a country that is experiencing
explosive weapons use, this link could be
explored.

DATA ON ANTIRETROVIRAL THERAPY
ART is the core of HIV/AIDS treatment andcare. Timely provision of ART to people
living with HIV saves lives and prevents
the development of infections, including
active tuberculosis. ART is also an effective
intervention in the prevention of sexualtransmission of HIV in discordant couples.
Changes in availability of ART would havean immediate impact on the population thatneeds it. Should changes in availability bemapped pre- and post-explosive weaponsuse, and the causal change demonstrated,then attributing an increase in HIV-positive
deaths to explosive weapons use could bepossible.

Attributing diseases or indirect deaths toconflict, and explosive weapons in particular,
is difficult. The field of conflict epidemiology is
exploring methods to measure deaths due tothe emergence and transmission of infectious
diseases during periods of violence, such as
Conflict and Emerging Infectious Diseases
by Michelle Gaver, Dominique Legros, Pierre
Formenty and Maire Connolly. The Global
Health Observatory by WHO provides anextensive number of global health indicatorsthat could be useful for conflict epidemiology
or in settings affected by explosive weapons
to measure changes in health outcomes.

1 See UNICEF, “Statement from UNICEF Executive Director Anthony Lake and WHO Director-General Margaret Chan on the
Cholera Outbreak in Yemen as Suspected Cases Exceed 200,000”, 2017, https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/statement-unicefexecutive-director-anthony-lake-and-who-director-general-margaret.
2 See R. Rodyna, “Measles Situation in Ukraine during the Period 2017-2019”, European Journal of Public Health, vol. 29, no. 4,
2019, https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/29/Supplement_4/ckz186.496/5623877.
3 See T. M. Fazal, “Measles, Ukraine, and Civil War: The Missing Links”, CSS ETH Zurich, 12 August 2019, https://isnblog.ethz.ch/health/measles-ukraine-and-civil-war-the-missing-links.
4 See WHO, “WHO Results Report Programme Budget 2018-2019: Driving impact in every country”, p. 4, https://www.who.int/
about/finances-accountability/reports/results_report_18-19_final1.pdf

REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

59

SUMMARY TABLE: SDG 4 — INCLUSIVE QUALITY EDUCATION, LIFELONG LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL
LEVEL OFEFFECTFirst level:
Damage anddestruction

FOCUS

SUGGESTED INDICATOR

REVERBERATING EFFECTS CHAIN

Damage andIndicator I: Number ordestruction of
proportion of education
school buildings facilities damaged or
destroyed by explosive
weapons
Death or injury
Indicator II:
of educators by Number or proportion of
explosiveeducators killed or injured
weapons
by explosive weapons,disaggregated by gender
Indicator III: Number or
proportion of education
facilities with service
disruptions, includingInternet

Damage to school buildings reduces
access to education, which affects educational attainment over time

To show the scale of the damage and destruction

The number and the physical and mental well-being of educators affects theavailability and quality of education

To show the impact on schools and students

Poor facilities negatively impact thelearning environment, which leads to
disruption of education, which affects
educational attainment over time

To link the reverberating effects on education to the wider
downstream effects of explosive weapons use

The number and proportion of students unable to access education due
to damage and destruction by, or fearof, explosive weapons reduces access tolearning opportunities and has a gendered impact, leading to possible lifelong consequences

To measure the number of children who are missing education

Second level:
Changes in key
services caused Educational disby the damage ruption
and destruction

Indicator IV: Number ofschooling days lost

Indicator V:
Number or proportion ofchildren without access toschooling, disaggregatedby gender and age

60

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORKHOW TO USE THE INDICATOR

To provide information on affected areas

To provide information on the affected communities andcatchment area

TEMPORAL OBSERVATION
Immediate – for the education facilities directly
affected by explosive weaponsMedium term – for the duration of closure as aconsequence of damage or destruction
Immediate – the educators who have been killed
or injured
Long term – the absence period of an educator
Medium term – for the duration of interruptionof utilities and Internet access

Must establish the time period to calculate, for example,
education days lost or to attribute attainment measures todamage from explosive weapons
To measure the number of schooling days lost from the per- Medium term – for the duration of the closure of
The number of schooling days lost
spective of the institution (e.g. the number of schooling days the education facility
owing to damage and destruction by,
an education facility was closed owing to damage or out ofor fear of, explosive weapons directly
affects students’ educational attainment safety concerns of students and teachers)
Medium term – for the period that students’ education was disrupted

To capture loss of education due to (a) school closure, (b)Long term –for the lifelong disadvantages ofstudents not attending school because of safety and security missing schoolingconcerns, (c) damage to transport networks or (d) displacement of students because of destruction of housing

REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

61

Indicator VI: Number,proportion or rate ofstudents who drop out ofschooling, disaggregatedby gender
Third level:
Changes incivilian well-being as a result
Educationalof the changes
achievements
in key services
caused by thedamage anddestruction

62

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

Indicator VII: Proportionof students achieving atleast a minimum proficiency level in reading
and mathematics, disaggregated by gender
Indicator VIII: Proportionof population in a given
age group achieving atleast a fixed level of proficiency in functional (a)literacy and (b) numeracy
skills, disaggregated bygenderDropping out of school will have lifeTo measure the long-term change compared with the medi- Immediate –for school-aged people currently out
long disadvantages for the students and um-term change of inability to access schoolingof the schooling system
for the community
Long term –for the lifelong disadvantages ofDropout rates will have a differential
missing a formal education
gendered impact
The impact of loss of education fromTo measure shortcomings in attainment levels, as a conMedium term – for the period that students aredamage and destruction can be measequence of the use of EWIPA, and estimate the genderedfalling behind in educational competences
sured through changing proportions of impact
children and adults who fail to achieve
Long term –for the lifelong disadvantages ofminimum proficiency in key educational
underperformance in educational competencescompetences
To measure shortcomings in attainment levels, as a consequence of the use of EWIPA, and estimate the gendered
impactThis indicator is only measurable several years after the useof explosive weapons
It is crucial to attribute observed proficiency levels to thedisruption of education as a direct consequence of explosive
weapons use in populated areas

REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

63

INTRODUCTION TO THE EFFECTS OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS ON EDUCATION
Explosive weapons can damage and destroy
education facilities and thereby undermine
the quality of and access to educationfrom primary through to university level.
When education facilities are damaged or
destroyed, or access to utilities is interrupted,
the facilities become inadequate for use,
and the situation hinders the learning
environment. Over an extended period oftime, disrupted schooling and school closures
affect educational attainment. This may leadto lifelong disadvantages for individuals andthe wider society, yet the causal relationshipbetween the use of explosive weapons andlong-term educational attainment andsocietal losses often goes undetected. The
SDG framework can provide a benchmark
to measure progress or lack of thereof ineducation. If these indicators are used tomeasure changes in areas affected by theuse of explosive weapons, they could shedlight on the long-term effects that explosive

weapons use has had on civilians.
The effects that explosive weapons have on
education can be either first-, second- or
third-level effects. The SDG framework canbe used to capture the third-level effects, yet
it can also inform options to measure firstand second-level effects. The following Tool
proposes indicators to measure the impact
chain of explosive weapons use on education,
divided into three sections: (A) indicators
on damage and destruction, (B) indicatorson the changes in key services caused by thedamage and destruction, and (C) indicatorson the changes in civilian well-being as aresult of the changes in key services causedby the damage and destruction. In this
impact chain disaggregation, the first-levelindicators (section A) look at primary or
secondary effects, and the second- and thirdlevel indicators (sections B and C) look atreverberating effects.

SECTION A: INDICATORS ON DAMAGE AND DESTRUCTION
To measure the immediate effects of the useof explosive weapons on educational facilities
in terms of damage and destruction, research
efforts can ask: How many education facilities
are affected by explosive weapons use inparticular areas? Where and when were thesefacilities affected? How many educators havebeen killed or injured by explosive weapons

use in particular areas?
The suggested first-level indicators, explainedin more detail below, capture the nominal
number of unusable educational facilities andthe number of educators killed or injured as aresult of the use of explosive weapons.

INDICATOR I: NUMBER OR PROPORTION OF EDUCATION FACILITIES DAMAGED OR
DESTROYED BY EXPLOSIVE WEAPONSDefinition: Absolute number or proportionof education facilities rendered unusable byexplosive weapons.
Rationale: The scale of damage anddestruction of education facilities provides
information on the extent to which the use of
EWIPA affects education. Data on education
facilities damaged and destroyed can capture
where and when education has been directly
affected as a result of the use of explosive
weapons. Further, information on the location
64

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORKof these education facilities can then be used to
identify the areas for which the reverberating
effects on access to education and education
outcomes can be collected. The aim of thisprocess is to better understand the long-term
impact that disruptions have on educational
attainment. It also provides information on
the time period for which loss of education
can be calculated.

TABLE 3: Attacks on education in 2018, as documented by the Global Coalition to Protection
Education from Attack
INDICATOR
Total number of schools or
education facilities attacked
Total number of schools or
education facilities damaged by
explosive weapons
Percentage of attacks on
education that involved
explosive weapons use among
all reported attacks on
education

AFGHANISTANSYRIAN ARAB
REPUBLIC

YEMEN

151

106

72

67

93

48

44%
(67/151)88%(93/106)

66%(48/72)

Data on damage and destruction of
education facilities:
There is no readily available source of dataon explosive weapons use against education
facilities at present. GCPEA includes
information on weapons use in its monitoringof all attacks on education. For the purposeof this document, GCPEA made data available
on the total number of schools damaged or
destroyed by explosive weapons, documented
in 2018, for Afghanistan, the Syrian Arab
Republic and Yemen (Table 3).
The data points presented above can beused to describe damage and destruction
due to explosive weapons in relation to
the total number of education facilities
damaged or destroyed, by country. Usedin conjunction with GCPEA’s global data on
attacks on education, these data points canalso be used to calculate the extent to which

explosive weapons are responsible for the
global burden of damage and destruction of
education facilities. Used over multiple years,
the data can be used to monitor the changing
impact of explosive weapons in education
facilities.
Options to build on these data:• Review GCPEA reports for additional
information for more recent years or
additional countries. GCPEA’s reporting
covers all attacks on education. Contact
GCPEA
for
country-specificdata,
disaggregated by weapon category.
• Review Insecurity Insight’s Monthly News
Brief on Education under Attack, whichcontains information on the weapon
category used. Review Insecurity Insight’s
data on HDX. Contact Insecurity Insightfor specific country or year data.

INDICATOR II: NUMBER OR PROPORTION OF EDUCATORS KILLED OR INJURED BY EXPLOSIVEWEAPONS, DISAGGREGATED BY GENDER
Definition: Absolute number or proportionof educators killed or injured by explosive
weapons.
Rationale: Educators being killed or injured
affects the availability and quality of education,with consequences ranging from the directloss of an educator to reduced attendance,increased dropout rates, and mental healthconcerns. The aim of this indicator is to
set the basis for understanding the longterm impacts on educational attainment
due to disruptions to the schoolingsystem from explosive weapons. As with

REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

65

health workers, in many countries, women
represent a large proportion of educators,
and disaggregated data by gender could
further clarify the differential impact
of explosive weapons on women. This
indicator would also provide information on
the time period for which loss of education
can be calculated. This indicator does notinclude information on students killed by
explosive weapons, because the impact
from these tragic deaths on the educational
system is less direct than those of educators.
However, this framework recognizes thatthe death and injury of students will affectdropout rates and mental health, and whereappropriate, such data should be includedin the discussion of attendance rates underindicator IV, for example.

are a direct consequence of educational
disruptions caused by destruction anddamage to the infrastructure. Such a causal

Data on damage and destruction of
educators:
There is no readily available source of dataon educators killed or injured by explosive
weapons. GCPEA includes information on
weapons use in its monitoring of all attacks
on education. Insecurity Insight publishes
some of these data in its Monthly News Brief
on Education in Danger.

INDICATOR III: NUMBER OR PROPORTION OF EDUCATION FACILITIES WITH SERVICEDISRUPTIONS, INCLUDING INTERNETSECTION B: INDICATORS ON THE CHANGES IN KEY SERVICES CAUSED BY THE DAMAGE
AND DESTRUCTION
To measure the second-level effects that
follow from the damage and destruction of
educational facilities, research efforts can
ask: Have many days of school have been lost?
How many children are out of school? How
many educational facilities have lost access toessential services?

of student proficiency can be used as longterm indicators of the reverberating effects
of damage to schools and infrastructure fromthe use of EWIPA. However, it is important todemonstrate the causal link between levels of
educational attainment and the interruptionof education due to explosive weapons use.

From information on where and whenschools have been damaged or destroyed
by explosive weapons, indicators on thereverberating effects caused by this damage
can be collected. It is important to identify
the areas of damage and destruction withincities and towns and use data for the specificcatchment area to describe the impact.

Explosive weapons are, on some occasions,used against school buildings after these havebeen taken over by parties to the conflict.
When schooling had already been interrupted
as a result of the military occupation, there
might be no immediate measurable effectfrom explosive weapons use on education.
However, the damage may contribute tolong-term disruptions in education (days lost,for example) when the structural damage tothe building hinders the return to normal
schooling after occupation ends.

In addition, temporal considerations are
particularly important for the reverberating
effects on education. Immediate impacts
occur when schools are damaged or access toutilities, such as electricity, water or Internet,
are interrupted, or from the loss of school
meals and protection that some educational
facilities provide. Medium-term impacts inthe form of days of lessons missed occur
for the duration of school closure due todamage, disrupted access to electricity, fearof further risks of explosive weapons use, or
displacement. Over a significant period oftime, the lack of access to education becomesapparent in educational attainment. Indicators
66

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORKThe suggested indicators on the reverberating
effects are divided into two general focus
areas: educational disruption (discussed
here in section B), including days lost,
students affected, and interrupted utilities,
and educational achievements (section C),
focusing on dropout rates and diminishedproficiency in reading and mathematics due
to reduced attendance. It could be argued,
under causally demonstrated conditions, thatshortcomings in educational achievements

Definition: The number and percentage ofschools by level of education (e.g. primaryeducation) without access to electricity andwater (referred to as “services” and “facilities”
in the SDG indicator) and without access to
the Internet.
Rationale: This indicator measures accessin schools to basic services and facilities

chain of events would highlight the ripple
effects of the use of EWIPA that yield long-term
negative consequences for development.

necessary to ensure a safe and effective
learning environment for all students.
Ideally, each school should have access to
all necessary services and facilities, but in
an interconnected environment the use of
explosive weapons can hinder educational
facilities’ connectivity to services and impede
progress in education.

SDG FRAMEWORKINDICATOR 4.A.1: PROPORTION OF SCHOOLS OFFERING BASIC SERVICES, BY TYPE OFSERVICESDG reference: 4.a.1, classified as “established methodology and standards are available,
but data are not regularly produced by countries” (Tier 2)
DEFINITION:
The percentage of schools by level of education with access to the given facility or service.
RATIONALE:
The indicator measures access in schools to key basic services and facilities necessary toensure a safe and effective learning environment for all students. A high value indicates that
schools have good access to the relevant services and facilities. Ideally, each school shouldhave access to all these services and facilities.
KEY SERVICES AND FACILITIES:
a. electricity,
b. nternet for pedagogical purposes,c. computers for pedagogical use,
d. appropriate infrastructure and materials (textbook and consumables) for all students,
including students with disabilities,
e. basic drinking water,
f. basic sanitation facilities, andg. basic handwashing facilities.
COMPUTATION METHOD:
The number of schools in a given level of education with access to the relevant facilities isexpressed as a percentage of all schools at that level of education.
(Sn,f)
PSn,f =x 100
Sn

REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

67

where:PSn,f = percentage of schools at level n of education with access to facility f
Sn,f = schools at level n of education with access to facility f
Sn = total number of schools at level n of education
DISAGGREGATION:• By level of education• By type of service
LIMITATIONS:
The indicator measures the existence in schools of the given service or facility, but not theservice or facility’s quality or operational state. In addition, a significant number of schools
might have not had these services to begin with or prior to the use of explosive weapons.
As such, it is crucial to use this indicator in comparison to available services in the sameschool or education facility under consideration from before the use of explosive weapons–in order to accredit the observed changes to the use of explosive weapons and avoid
confusing results with preceding shortcomings.
For a more detailed methodological discussion, see SDG Technical Guidance for Indicator
4.a.1.
Data and research approaches to map
schools’ access to electricity, Internet andwater:
Data for this indicator may not be readily
available at the national level or at the local
level. Hence, the data might have to becollected from scratch and then calculated forthe specific area that experienced explosive
weapons use.
If it is not possible to calculate the specificindicator, research on the reverberating
effects can focus on collecting absolute
numbers:• Is information available on the extent to

•

•

•

which utilities have been affected, overall,within in the city?
Is it possible to map whether schoolbuildings are within an affected area thatexperienced power cuts, water shortages
or wastewater problems? If so, how is thisaffecting attendance from both students
and teachers?
Can qualitative interviews provide
examples of how the absence of electricity
and water in schools affect children’s
learning?
Is anecdotal data published in media
reports?

INDICATOR IV: NUMBER OF SCHOOLING DAYS LOST
Definition: The number of schooling days lost
owing to school closure following damage
and destruction caused by explosive weapons
or as a precautionary measure out of concern
for student or teacher safety and security
due to explosive weapons use, measured byindividual institution or all institutions within
an education zone.

68

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

Rationale: This indicator measures the extent
to which education was disrupted by the useof explosive weapons, owing to both actual
damage and fear of the harm explosive
weapons may do.

Data and research approaches to map
schooling days lost within an area affectedby explosive weapons:This indicator is not part of the official SDG
indicators, and data may not be readily
available. In some countries, these data may
be available from the education cluster. In
other countries, the data might have to becollected and then calculated for individual
schools, schools within an education zone orfor a specific area that experienced explosive

weapons use.
Where such data are available, it is advisable
to classify school closures by causes,
distinguishing, for example, between closuredue to lack of utilities (power or water),closure due to structural damage and closure
as a precautionary measure to keep students
and teachers safe.

INDICATOR V: NUMBER OR PROPORTION OF CHILDREN WITHOUT ACCESS TO SCHOOLING,DISAGGREGATED BY GENDER AND AGE
Definition: The number or proportionof children who cannot access education
either because schools are closed owing
to damage or destruction, disruption ofservices, availability of teaching personnel,
safety concerns or fear or explosive weapons,or because transport networks have beeninterrupted through the use of explosive
weapons so that students are unable to reach
and/or stay in schools.
Rationale: This indicator measures theextent to which lost schooling days affect ageneration of children. The number of daysof schooling lost has a direct association withlonger-term negative consequences for theaffected students.
Data and research approaches to map thenumbers and proportion of children who
cannot access education:
This indicator is not part of the official SDG
indicators, and data may not be readily
available. In some countries, these data may
be available from the education cluster. In
other countries, the data might have to becollected from scratch.
There are different possible entry points forsuch research, which include identifying adenominator:• All children enrolled in one specific schoolor within a specific education zone
• All children living within a specificgeographic area

Both designs may miss children who have
moved out of the area, potentially as a resultof explosive weapons use.
If questionnaires or surveys are used, it isimportant to clearly specify the applicable
period for which the lost school days aremeasured. This time frame could run froma particular date (e.g. a well-known eventof explosive weapons use or the start of aparticular year) or be for a specific period (e.g.
last month). It is important to remember thatpeople may not accurately recall when they
took a particular decision or, if interruptions
are sporadic, how frequently they missed
school. Another option is to recruit study
participants for a school access dairy, where agroup of students is asked to daily report on
their access to school over a specific periodof time and then extrapolate to the entire
population.
If such data are collected, it is advisable toclassify the reasons why students were unable
to access school, distinguishing between
school closure or destruction, disruption ofservices, parental decision related to safety
and security or other environmental factors,
and to disaggregate these data by genderand age.

REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

69

SECTION C: INDICATORS ON THE CHANGES IN CIVILIAN WELL-BEING AS A RESULT OF THE
CHANGES IN KEY SERVICES CAUSED BY THE DAMAGE AND DESTRUCTION
To measure third-level effects that follow
changes in key services from the damage
and destruction of educational facilities,
research efforts can ask: What are the lifelong
implications for those whose education wasinterrupted? What are the gendered dynamics

of dropout rates? Is it possible to capture losses
in attendance due to damaged facilities?
Can reduced proficiency in key educationcompetences be attributed to the use of
explosive weapons?

Definition: The number, proportion or rateof students who drop out of schooling as aconsequence of the use of explosive weapons.

•

Rationale: This indicator measures thelonger-term impact of school closures anddisruptions, concerns over safety and security,and displacement on access to education.
Dropping out of school will have lifelong
consequences for the affected population.
Data and research approaches to map number
and proportion of students who drop out ofschooling:•

There are different possible entry points forsuch research, which include identifying adenominator:• The number or proportion of students
enrolled in a specific school at a particularpoint in time who dropped out before
finishing their education.

70

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORKDefinition: Proportion of students ingrades 2/3 achieving at least a minimum
proficiency level in reading and mathematics,
disaggregated by gender. (For the minimum
proficiency levels specific to grade 2/3
students, see the SDG indicator 4.1.1 box.)

the benchmark of basic knowledge in key
development domains such as mathematics
and reading, measured through learningassessments. However, until August 2018,
there was no globally agreed definition ofminimum proficiency level.

Rationale: Minimum proficiency levels are

INDICATOR VI: NUMBER, PROPORTION OR RATE OF STUDENTS WHO DROP OUT OFSCHOOLING, DISAGGREGATED BY GENDER

This indicator is not part of the official SDG
indicators, and data may not be readily
available. In some countries, these data may
be available from the education cluster. In
other countries, the data might have to becollected from scratch.

INDICATOR VII: PROPORTION OF STUDENTS ACHIEVING AT LEAST A MINIMUM PROFICIENCYLEVEL IN READING AND MATHEMATICS, DISAGGREGATED BY GENDER

The number or proportion of students
enrolled in a specific education zone at aparticular point in time who dropped out
before finishing their education.
A survey of a defined population living
in a specific area, including in sites fordisplaced persons, documenting thenumber of years of schooling completed
and dropout rates. Such surveys could
include all inhabitants under 30 years old,for example, if the time period covered issufficiently long.

If such data are collected, it is advisable
to classify the reasons students dropped
out of school and whether this decision
was preceded by prolonged educational
disruption or displacement or otherenvironmental factors, including financial. It
is important to disaggregate these data by
gender, as the impact of school closures or
educational disruption on dropout rates islikely to be highly gendered. A key challenge
is to map the observed dropout rate to theuse of explosive weapons rather than to otherconflict or personal factors.

SDG FRAMEWORKINDICATOR 4.1.1: PROPORTION OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE: (A) IN GRADES 2/3;
(B) AT THE END OF PRIMARY; AND (C) AT THE END OF LOWER SECONDARY ACHIEVING AT
LEAST A MINIMUM PROFICIENCY LEVEL IN (I) READING AND (II) MATHEMATICS, BY GENDER
SDG reference: 4.1.1, classified as “established methodology and standards are available,
but data are not regularly produced by countries” (Tier 2)
DEFINITION:
Percentage of children and young people achieving at least a minimum proficiency levelin (i) reading and (ii) mathematics during primary education (Grade 2 or 3), at the end ofprimary education, and at the end of lower secondary education, by gender.
RATIONALE:
The indicator aims to measure the percentage of children and young people who haveachieved the minimum learning outcomes in reading and mathematics during or at the endof the relevant stages of education.
CONCEPTS:
Minimum proficiency level (MPL) is the benchmark of basic knowledge in a domain(mathematics, reading, etc.) measured through learning assessments. In September 2018,an agreement was reached on a verbal definition of the global minimum proficiency level ofreference for each of the areas and domains of indicator 4.1.1 as described in the Minimum
Proficiency Levels (MPLs): Outcomes of the Consensus Building Meeting (the proposal for
MPLs is accessible for download following the link).
The global MPL definitions for the domains of reading and mathematics are presented in
the following table.

REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

71

MINIMUM PROFICIENCY LEVELS DEFINED BY EACH LEARNING ASSESSMENTREADINGEDUCATION LEVELDESCRIPTOR

MPt,n,s = number of children and young people at stage of education n, in year t, who haveachieved at least the minimum proficiency level in subject s
Pt,n = total number of children and young people at stage of education n, in year t, in any
proficiency level in subject s
n = the stage of education that was assesseds = the subject that was assessed (reading or mathematics)

GRADE 2

They read and comprehend most of written words,
particularly familiar ones, and extract explicit informationfrom sentences

GRADE 3Students read aloud written words accurately and fluently.
They understand the overall meaning of sentences and shorttexts. Students identify the texts’ topic

DISAGGREGATION:
Disaggregated by domain (reading and mathematics) and by gender.

GRADES 4 & 6

Students interpret and give some explanations about themain and secondary ideas in different types of texts. They
establish connections between main ideas on a text and theirpersonal experiences as well as general knowledge

For a more detailed methodological discussion, see SDG Technical Guidance for Indicator 4.1.1
and part B.

GRADES 8 & 9Students establish connections between main ideas on
different text types and the author’s intentions. They reflectand draw conclusions based on the text

MATHEMATICSEDUCATION LEVELDESCRIPTORGRADES 2-3

Students demonstrate skills in number sense andcomputation, shape recognition, and spatial orientation

GRADES 4-6

Students demonstrate skills in number sense andcomputation, basic measurement, reading, interpreting,and constructing graphcs, spatial orientation, and number
patterns

GRADES 8 & 9Students demonstrate skills in computation, application
problems, matching tables and graphs, and making use ofalgebraic representations

Source: UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS)Comments and limitations: Learning outcomes from cross-national learning assessment are
directly comparable for all countries that participated in the same cross-national learningassessments. However, these outcomes are not comparable across different cross-national
learning assessments or with national learning assessments. A level of comparability oflearning outcomes across assessments could be achieved by using different methodologies,
each with varying standard errors. The period of 2020–2021 will shed light on the standard
errors’ size for these methodologies.
The comparability of learning outcomes over time has additional complications, which
require, ideally, advance design and implementation of a set of comparable items as anchors.
COMPUTATION METHOD:
The number of children and/or young people at the relevant stage of education (n) in
year (t) achieving at least the pre-defined proficiency level in subject (s), expressed as apercentage of the number of children and/or young people at stage of education (n), in
year (t), in any proficiency level in subject (s).
MPLt,n,s =(MPt,n,s)
Pt,n

x 100

INDICATOR VIII: PROPORTION OF POPULATION IN A GIVEN AGE GROUP ACHIEVING AT
LEAST A FIXED LEVEL OF PROFICIENCY IN FUNCTIONAL (A) LITERACY AND (B) NUMERACYSKILLS, DISAGGREGATED BY GENDER
Definition: The proportion of youth (aged
15–24 years) and of adults (aged 15 years
and above) who have achieved or exceededa given level of proficiency in literacy andnumeracy. The minimum proficiency level will
be measured relative to new common literacy
and numeracy scales currently in development.

one threshold of proficiency: above or below
minimum level. The fixed level of proficiency
is the benchmark of basic knowledge in adomain (literacy or numeracy) measured
through learning assessments. Currently, there
are no common standards validated by theinternational community or countries. The
indicator shows data published by each ofRationale: The indicator is a direct measure of the agencies and organizations specialized in
the skill levels of youth and adults in the two cross-national learning assessments.
key areas: literacy and numeracy. There is only

SDG FRAMEWORKINDICATOR 4.6.1: PROPORTION OF POPULATION IN A GIVEN AGE GROUP ACHIEVING
AT LEAST A FIXED LEVEL OF PROFICIENCY IN FUNCTIONAL (A) LITERACY AND (B)NUMERACY SKILLS, BY GENDER
SDG reference: 4.6.1, classified as “established methodology and standards are available,
but data are not regularly produced by countries” (Tier 2)
DEFINITION:
The proportion of youth (aged 15-24 years) and of adults (aged 15 years and above) who
have achieved or exceeded a given level of proficiency in (a) literacy and (b) numeracy. The
minimum proficiency level will be measured relative to new common literacy and numeracy
scales currently in development.

where:
MPLt,n,s = percentage of children at a particular stage of education who achieve theminimum proficiency level in a determined subject
72

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORKREVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

73

RATIONALE:
The indicator is a direct measure of the skill levels of youth and adults in the two areas:
literacy and numeracy. Only one threshold divides youth and adults into above and below
minimum level:• Below minimum level is the proportion of youth and adults who do not achieve theminimum standard as set up by countries according to the globally defined minimum
competencies.
• Above minimum level is the proportion of youth and adults who have achieved theminimum standard. Owing to heterogeneity of performance levels set by national andcross-national assessments, these performance levels will have to be mapped to theglobally defined basic and proficiency levels. Once the performance levels are mapped,
the global education community will be able to identify for each country the proportionof youth and adults above and below minimum level.

OTHER SOURCES:• UNESCO Data for Sustainable Development Goal 4 (The Official Source of Internationally
Comparable Education Data)• OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies

CONCEPTS:
The fixed level of proficiency is the benchmark of basic knowledge in a domain (literacy
or numeracy) measured through learning assessments. Currently, there are no common
standards validated by the international community or countries. The indicator shows data
published by each of the agencies and organizations specialized in cross-national learningassessments.
COMMENTS AND LIMITATIONS:
The measurement of youth and adult skills requires some form of direct assessment. Usinghousehold surveys to measure learning can be costly and difficult to administer and mayunderestimate learning in areas that are critical to daily life but are harder to assess instandardized approaches. The result may be inaccurate representations of what youth
and adults know and can do, especially in relation to applying skills that may vary acrosscontexts.
COMPUTATION METHOD:
Proportion of population in a given age group achieving above the minimum threshold ofproficiency as defined for a determined large-scale (sample representative) adult literacy
assessment.
DATA SOURCES AND COMPUTATION METHOD:
This indicator, as reported by the UNESCO Institute for Statistics, compiles data fromdifferent sources, the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies
from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) being themost important one. The OECD programme is an international assessment survey thatmeasures key cognitive and workplace skills.
DISAGGREGATION:
By age group, gender, location, income and type of skill. Disability status is not currently
available in most national and cross-national learning assessments.40
For a more detailed methodological discussion, see SDG Technical Guidance for Indicators 4.6.1.
40 The SDG Indicator, as outlined by the custodian agency, recommended sex-disaggregated data. For the purpose of thisdocument, the recommended disaggregation has been adapted to favour gender-disaggregated data. The term gender-disaggregated data has been favoured to encourage data collectors to include and present separately all forms of gender
identity.

74

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORKREVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

75

GUIDELINES TO OPERATIONALIZE THE INDICATORS OF THE REVERBERATING EFFECTS OF
EXPLOSIVE WEAPONSPOSSIBLE APPROACHES TO ATTRIBUTE THE OBSERVED PROFICIENCY TO EXPLOSIVEWEAPONS USE:

•

•

•

•

Map the number of education facilities
damaged in a subregion.
Review the geolocation data on attacks on •education facilities with explosive weaponsthat GCPEA or Insecurity Insight might beable to provide.
Explore the use of satellite imagery, as it
may be helpful in determining the extent

of damage where the location of specificeducation facilities is known.
Measure changes in a representative subsetof the affected population and, with a valid
research design, explore extrapolating or
estimating outcomes for the larger universeof affected students.

•

BUILD ON THE DATA OF THE FIRST-LEVEL EFFECTS:•••

Map the extent to which utilities aroundeducation facilities are affected, including •education transport systems, such as schoolbuses and bus depots. This is particularly
important if education facilities are only
partially damaged and remain open.
Map the catchment area for affectededucation facilities. This can be used toestimate the number of students affectedby education facility closure.
Identify the period and extent of education •facility closure. This can be used to estimate
the number of schooling days, months or
years lost. It can also be a key factor in thedescription of how educational attainment
is linked to the loss of education following

the use of explosive weapons.
Measure levels of educational attainment
several years after the use of explosive
weapons. Educational attainment amongpeople affected by education facility
closure due to explosive weapons use
could be measured in the population livingin the catchment area for closed education
facilities or among populations displacedby explosive weapons use.
Assess the causal link between educational
attainment as a direct consequence of
explosive weapons use using a statisticalcounterfactual from a non-affected area.

ALTERNATIVE RESEARCH APPROACHES:
•

•

•
•
76

The indicators may not be readily available.
If so, alternative research can focus on
generating some conceptually related
indicators. For example:
Identify the affected radius, such as one or
two towns, or one or two neighbourhoods,
and conduct a detailed mapping tounderstand the extent of the damage
inflicted on education facilities and theircatchment areas. Once the precise area
is identified, review with local authorities
and organizations on the ground what
data are available that could help show thereverberating effects.
The UNESCO Data for Sustainable
Development Goal 4 can be a starting
point.
If no educational attainment data are
UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

available, collaborate with organizations
that can provide or administer attainment
tests among selected target groups –such as displaced or formally displaced
populations or cohorts of year groups –­ orby geographic area. Be sure to verify thatthe respondents included in the survey
were in education in this very area at thetime explosive weapons were used against
education facilities.

•

•

•

Can qualitative interviews be used to
explore the connection between skill levels
and the extent to which education wasinterrupted during periods of explosive
weapons use against education facilities?
Is it possible to compare the proficiency
level in education for two or more groups,
for which varying degrees of education
were interrupted as a result of explosive
weapons? And can this difference be clearly
established?
Are there possibilities to compare
educational attainment for different year
groups? For example, those who graduatedbefore the start of the use of explosive
weapons and those who graduated after
key years of their schooling were interrupted
through explosive weapons use?
Are there possibilities to compare
educational attainment among populationgroups who received education in different
geographic areas within the same country?
Is it possible to identify a sample of people
who received most of their educationin catchment areas heavily affected bydamage and destruction of education
facilities and compare their educational
attainment with a group of people withsimilarsocioeconomic
circumstances
within the same country who attended
school in an area unaffected by explosive
weapons use?

REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

77

4. THE WAY FORWARD
Measurable information on the reverberating
effects of explosive weapons is importantfor improving policy and practice to avoid
such effects in the future and/or for taking
meaningful steps to mitigate the humanitarianand developmental impacts that haveoccurred. Advances in research and casestudies within the explosive weapons use andrelated communities over the past years havegenerated valuable insights for building an

innovative framework to capture and measurethese effects. Still, substantially more work isneeded to systematically piece together causal
chains, and this document seeks to contributeto the discussion around the criteria andchallenges in mapping causal relations.
The way forward suggests efforts in thefollowing areas:

4.1 IMPROVING DATA AND INFORMATION
4.1.1 Recommendations for systematiccollection of data after instances of
explosive weapons use and documentationof the damage and destruction that
explosive weapons cause• Invest in long-term projects dedicatedto the collection of detailed data to help
shed light on the reverberating effects (e.g.
epidemiological data) and include datacollection practices into country offices
and field presences to ensure sustainabilityof data collection efforts.
• Engage with experts in the field of system
dynamics, since they have specialized
knowledge and techniques to understandcomplexproblems
arisingfrominterdependence, dynamic interactions,feedback loops and circular causality.
Such expertise will be useful to efforts tomore clearly map reverberating effects incomplex urban ecosystems.
• To develop consistency in data standards andfacilitate the exchange of methodologies,
where possible, provide substantial
support to interested stakeholders andrelease methodological approaches andlimitations with transparency.
• Engage with all data collectors on
the importance of collecting data
disaggregated by gender and age, whereappropriate and relevant, to highlight thedifferential impact at all levels of explosive

78

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

•

•

•

•
•

weapons use on different demographic
groups.
Engage with the SHCC and GCPEA to receive
regular documentation of instances ofdamage and destruction of health facilities
and transport, as well as death of healthworkers and damage and destruction of
education facilities.
Engage with communities and local service
providers who can help provide informationon the destruction of housing, culturalmonuments, public transport systems
and utilities. However, avoid duplicating
requests by coordinating with interested
international actors. Leverage information
to support local efforts to ensure thatessential services are still accessible to thecivilian population.
Engage with communities who document
displacement to encourage the use ofstandard questions that could help collectdata on where explosive weapons triggered
displacement. Consequently, leverage theinformation to identify the population
displaced as a direct result of explosive
weapons use.
Engage with the wider “conflict casualty
community” to discuss the benefit of data
disaggregated by weapons category.
Engage with on-the-ground aid providers
and develop standard questions that could
be included in surveys.

REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

79•Engage with the United Nations Systemand field missions to encourage thestandardization and systematization of •data collection efforts across this area ofwork.
Engage with the SDG data collection
community to improve access to subnational
data for researchers documenting EWIPA
reverberating effects.

•

4.1.2 Recommendations for using casestudies of causal chain research that aim
to link the documented damage anddestruction to indicators from or related •to the SDG framework for selected
reverberating effects• Review available instance data for possible
case studies and collaborate with local
researchers to test which and what kind ofindicators can be linked to the observed
damage, using a wide range of tools
from quantitative indicators to qualitative
studies. Case studies must explore thechain and causal connection between the
instance of explosive weapons use, damage

and destruction, disruption of service andthe impact on people’s well-being.
Consider two or more parallel studies indifferent locations or covering different
time periods for which the same selected
SDG indicators are calculated. Use instancedata to identify areas or time periodsof heavy, low, or no use of explosive
weapons and examine the differences in
the indicators. Use the area with no useof explosive weapons as a “control” or“counterfactual” to gauge differences inobserved outcomes.
When discussing the links between
observed reverberating effects from theuse of EWIPA, one possible approachis to subdivide indicators into three
categories, depending on how closely thecausal pathway is proven, for example:(a) demonstrable causality, (b) reasonableassociation, and (c) merits deeper EWIPArelated research.

4.2 PROCESS-RELATED RECOMMENDATIONSCollaboration between research communities
is encouraged to ensure that past work andmethodologies are available for future research
projects. This will require building relationshipsthat are based on the mutual benefit ofresearch collaboration and exchanges inmethodological practices. There is also a needfor better connection between researchers onreverberating effects and aid responders on •the ground, who could include additional key
questions in their surveys.
Possible actions:• Explore bridges with other knowledge
communities, since their methodologies •might be applicable to EWIPA research.
For example, research after natural hazard
events could be methodologically similar •to research aimed at measuring the impact
of explosive weapons.
• Explore emerging fields, such as forensic
architecture, which is currently being
41

80

pioneered at Goldsmith University in
the United Kingdom.41 This field brings
together open source investigation witha host of digital and architectural tools torecreate incidents of explosive weapons use
and their first- and second-level effects inorder to investigate claims of international
human rights law and IHL violations.
Consider a working group that meetsannually/biannually to establish long-term
permanent relationships of data exchange
between key communities and that
reviews, adjusts and updates the indicators
as needed.
Consider a data sharing site to bring
together the available data, possibly on the
Humanitarian Data Exchange (HDX).
Consider a web page where indicator data
can be shared publicly in a library to allow
researchers to compare their indicatorswith those generated by other projects.

For more about the field of forensic architecture and its relevance to EWIPA. see https://forensic-architecture.org/about.

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

4.2.1 Recommendations for influencing thedevelopment of policy and practice• Leverage information on reverberating
effects research in forums where
governments, international organizations
and other stakeholders discuss policies
on how to strengthen the protection ofcivilians and compliance with IHL.
• Leverage information from reverberating
effects research to identify the foreseeable
pattern of harm and thus introduce theseeffects under the reasonable foreseeability
threshold.
• Use newly generated data to assist users of
explosive weapons to review their relevant
policies and practices in order to reduce
civilian harm.
4.2.2 Recommendations on presentation ofreverberating effects research results forpolicy purposes• Streamline reverberating effects available
data in a single online library or platform •where those seeking information can findthe data, methodologies, conclusions andreferences easily and quickly.
• Explore the feasibility of formatting thegrowing body of knowledge on thereverberating effects into a checklist offoreseeable consequences that would
strengthen the protection of civilians in thecontext of operational decision-making by
militaries, as well as an understanding ofdiverse urban context and cultural patternsof civilian behaviour.
» Please note that under IHL, parties areunder an obligation to do everythingfeasible to anticipate the civilian harm
(direct or indirect/reverberating) of
their attack. So, while a checklist
could be useful, it cannot and should
not substitute further efforts by theparties to anticipate the effects of their
attacks (e.g. through collateral damage
estimation). Please note that there may
well be reverberating effects that are
not in the list but that are reasonably
foreseeable in certain cases and thechecklist cannot be used as justificationof failures to follow obligations.
Develop a list of indicators to include inbattle damage assessments that seek todetermine the wider impact of the strikes
and encourage the standard and systematicuse of such assessments.

4.3 ROLL-OUT AND UPTAKE RECOMMENDATIONS
4.3.1 Recommendations for internationalorganizations
andnon-governmentalorganizations• Pilot the suggested research framework in
partnership with country teams and seek
to work across different United Nations •offices in multidisciplinary teams. If it isdeemed valuable, pursue institutional
approaches that ensure the sustainabilityof data collection efforts.
• Share and aggregate findings and datafrom pilots in order to build a standardized
evidence base.
• Tailor existent data gathering practices(e.g. surveys, case studies, reports) to therequired level of disaggregation.
• Engage closely with the 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development as the datacollected may provide a starting point
to shed light on the challenges faced in

attaining the SDGs. In addition, since thesedata are already being collected, seek
to streamline efforts to avoid increasing
reporting requirements for national
authorities.
Engage with journalists and media outlets
that report on damage and destruction
from explosive weapons, since media
documentation and analysis could be an
important source of aggregate data.

REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

81

4.3.2 Recommendations for national
governments• Build awareness of the utility of collecting
these data through national committees(e.g. armed forces chiefs of staff,
development, and health committees).
• Encourage local offices to collectdisaggregated data on the suggested
indicators and by gender.
• Document civilian harm narratives andstories, as these might help clarify thereverberating effects of EWIPA.
• If applicable, announce interest in
partnering with research organizations to
conduct case studies.
• Consider the Protection of Civilians Allied
Command Operations Handbook, by theNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers
Europe (SHAPE), with a view to update andcontribute to the Protection of Civilians
mind-set in policy and practice.
This framework seeks to offer indicators to
document knock-on effects and potentiallyinform and influence policy and practice. The
reverberating effects that the use of EWIPA
have on civilians and civilian structures hinder
wellbeing and represent an impedimentto sustainable development processes. By
using the proposed indicators to identify
generalized patterns of harm from the use of
EWIPA, the community of practice can better
inform ongoing efforts aimed at enhancing
the protection of civilians and attaining the2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Finally, for any interested user, reach out to
UNIDIR to discuss ways to use this researchframework; share results after using it; suggest
updates, edits, or corrections; explore future
iterations with different SDGs; and startbuilding a standardized evidence base fromcase studies. Please share your interest with
cap-unidir@un.org.

5. ANNEXES
5.1 DIFFERENCE-IN-DIFFERENCES STATISTICAL APPROACH TO CAPTURE CAUSALITY
Most research on EWIPA focuses on the direct
observed urban structures.
and secondary effects of the detonation and 2. Repeating the exercise in a radius
blast. Little is known about the structural
unaffected by explosive weapons use in
implications of the reverberating (or tertiary)order to assess the counterfactual andeffects on urban ecosystems. Further,deduct any observed outcomes from thosecausality between observed reverberatingin the affected area. This second difference
effects is debatable since, in some instances,answers the question of what would havethe structures were precarious ex ante and/happened if the victimized area had not
or influenced by unaccounted exogenous
been bombed and, at the same time, cleans
factors.
the result of outcomes driven by exogenous
factors at the national level. In statistics, theTo counter this limitation, EWIPA researchcomparison with the counterfactual relies
could contribute to the community of policyon the assumption of parallel trends; thatand practice by generating knowledge
is, had the explosion not happened, bothon reverberating effects and presenting
radiuses would have maintained parallel
hypotheses based in empirical relations totrends for observed outcomes.
attribute causality, which would shed light on
exact patterns of harm and capture the extent In
short,
thedifference-in-differencesof such harm. To that end, the difference-in- methodology cleans the observed outcomesdifferences statistical approach assesses both twice in order to claim that the end result has
the conditions ex ante and the counterfactual. a causal relationship with the use of explosive
weapons in a determined radius.
This statistical approach relies on the following
steps:
To pilot the difference-in-differences statistical
1. Collecting data on specific indicators ex methodology, one area that seems promisingante and ex post in the radius affected by is educational attainment. Researchers might
explosive weapons to calculate outcomes be able to compare literacy rates in theafter explosive weapons use against affected zone before it was affected and then(minus) the conditions in situ before the after the shock. Afterwards, an unaffectedattack. This first difference cleans the result zone in the same region, if it complies with theof context-specific outcomes that were assumption of parallel trends, could be used asgoing to happen regardless, explosion or a counterfactual.
not. This is a filter that directly addresses
outcomes due to existent failures in the
5.2 ESTIMATING EXCESS MORTALITYAs described by the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD),
excess mortality looks at the total number ofdeaths over and above what could normally be
expected for the time of year [or the averageover the previous five years] .42 In otherwords, it is a numerical difference between
the observed number of deaths for a specifictime period and the baseline number of deaths
documented from a previous time period.
Computing excess mortality could be an
important measure to estimate the combined

42 Morgan, D., Ino, J., Paolantonio, G., and Murtin, F., OECD Health Working Paper No. 122 - Excess mortality: measuring the direct and indirect impact of COVID-19 , Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2020,
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/c5dc0c50-en.pdf?expires=1612275639&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=F3F55E516981A446B77D2E9BB59C3915

82

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORKREVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

83total of direct and indirect deaths from a shock
event, such as conflict or the change in useof explosive weapons during conflict. Thus,
excess mortality is a noteworthy measure as
it might shed light on the 84 full impact ofa shock event, at least regarding mortality, by
not only comparing deaths that are directly
attributable to the [shock], but also by taking
into account indirect mortality. 43 Computing
excess mortality could also lead to an
estimation of indirect deaths, if direct deaths
are known and if other exogenous factors arecontrolled for. When conducting quantitative
research, it is of utmost importance tocomplete an environmental scanning andcontrol for any other variables that might
be influencing the number of deaths to
avoid attributing unrelated casualties to theshock under study. As challenging at it is, for
explosive weapons research, the concept ofindirect deaths, and the efforts to estimate
it, are important. This is because indirect
deaths may reflect some of the fatalities fromchanges in key services caused by the damage
and destruction (second level impacts) andchanges in civilian well-being as a result of
the changes in key services caused by thedamage and destruction (third level impacts),
generally referred to in this framework as
reverberating effects. For example, the deathof a patient due to power losses in a hospital,
after the electric grid was shelled, could
be considered an indirect death due to theuse of explosive weapons, even though thepatient was not directly injured by the blast
or fragmentation from the explosive weapon.
Casualty counts or estimates, however, tend
to only capture direct deaths.
Excess mortality computation method:
observed deaths minus baseline deaths yields
excess mortality.
Indirect deaths computation method: If
the excess mortality figure is then reducedby the documented number of direct deaths(and other variables are controlled for) thenresearchers might have an estimation ofindirect deaths.44

5.3 OTHER RESEARCH METHODS: CIVILIAN HARM BASED AND INSTANCE BASED5.3.1 Research approaches to mapping
the reverberating effects of explosive
weapons use: Civilian harm based andinstance based
Research approaches aimed at mapping
reverberating effects could start with afocus on civilian harm or on the instancesof explosive weapons use. Reverberating
effects research that starts with a focus
on civilian harm (civilian harm-based
research) seeks to explain the origin of thisharm and retroactively map the links to theuse of explosive weapons. Research focusedon the instances of explosive weaponsuse (instance-based research) seeks todetermine how impacts from one or multiple
cases of explosive weapons use spreadoutwards into society.
Research that starts with a focus on civilian
harm requires access to information on harm,

which can be provided by individuals who
may have observed or experienced the harmthemselves. Qualitative research methods
can then be used to explain the connection
between the personal or societal experiencesand explosive weapons use.
Instance-based research requires structured
data on incidents of explosive weapons use
as well as data on civilian harm. Researchers
using an instance-based approach seek todemonstrate a causal chain from the use of
explosive weapons to the impact on civilians.

43 Ibid, p. 14.
44 Methodological discussions between the authors and health experts. Please note that controlling for other variables orexogenous factors is of utmost importance to reach reliable estimates.

84

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORKBOX 6: CIVILIAN HARM-BASED AND INSTANCE-BASED APPROACHES TO DOCUMENT THE
IMPACT OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS USE AGAINST MEDICAL FACILITIESThe two examples presented below highlight
how the two approaches can study broadly thesame health impacts from explosive weaponsuse. The examples focus on maternal andkidney failure mortality to illustrate the causal
chain that the research seeks to uncover.
Example 1: Civilian harm-based researchframework for reverberating effects on healthcare
The research may start with documenting
specific preventable medical problems,such as maternal or kidney failure mortality
rates. Research then focuses on identifying
the contributing factors that led to elevatedmortality rates. It can focus on access to
medical services and quality of care, forexample, seeking to identify whether areduction in dialysis of maternal services
and reduced availability of health specialists
in conflict settings contributed to theobserved excess mortality. Researchers
will then attempt to map retroactively the
impact chain from the use of explosive
weapons, seeking to document the extent towhich damage and destruction by explosive
weapons reduced access to health services
and hampered quality of care, if at all. This
research approach may identify a reduction
in services at the hospital but may also
capture wider factors, such as difficulties inregularly attending medical appointments
due to damage inflicted on the transport
network or power cuts forcing a reduction
in dialysis service in hospitals that did notexperience direct damage from explosive
weapons.
Strength and weaknesses
In civilian harm-based research, the starting
point is the civilian harm experience, andthe research describes or retroactively
maps how explosive weapons use may haveaffected the ability of individuals to accessthe necessary care. A key challenge of thecivilian harm approach is showing how theeffects, including in excess mortality or

indirect deaths, are related to the use of
explosive weapons, rather than the larger
conflict, general economic downturn,or overall weakened health systems.
Civilian harm-based research draws on an
implicit theory of change of how explosive
weapons cause harm. That is, causal links
are assumed because they seem to follow
a logical pattern, or the cause-and-effectrelationship has been described as such by
the affected community.
Example2:
Instance-based
research
framework for reverberating effects on healthcare
The research starts with documenting
instances of explosive weapons use thatcaused damage to, for example, a healthfacility. Research then focuses on identifying
which medical services had to be reduced,
and to what extent, as a direct consequenceof the damage. Afterwards, information on
the catchment area of the health facility andthe duration of the reduction or closure ofservice is used to estimate the number ofaffected patients, including excess death
rates. These calculations must control forsuitable alternative health services (if they
were available), changes in health-seeking
behaviour, impact of the conflict on thehealth of the population, and all relevant
factors that could have influenced excess
death rates in an attempt to isolate andmeasure the effect of the disruption to one
health facility. Based on the type of services
that are reduced, researchers can use
medical data to outline the consequences
for specific groups of patients, such as
pregnant women or patients requiring
dialysis treatment, as opposed to thegeneral population. This methodology canalso be applied to any other life-saving
specific service no longer offered. In the
instance-based research approach, thestarting point is the event of explosive
weapons use, and impact documentation
describes how this shock to the urban

REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

85

ecosystem affected the ability of systems
and professionals to provide the needed
services and thus sparked a chain of civilian
harm.
Strength and weaknesses
An instance-based research approach
focuses on demonstrating the specificoutcome of the use of explosive weapons
in a place and time, and then drawing thespecific causal link between an instance of
explosive weapons use and the impact on
the health care system, for example. As theresearch is set out along a linear cause-andeffect chain, an instance-based approach
may miss wider factors related to explosive
weapons use that were not included in theoriginal assumed impact chain, such as theimpact of damage to transport networks oroverall economic downturn. However, since
this research approach essentially examines
specific urban systems, what works, how, inwhich conditions and for whom, it might
be overall better suited to producing casestudies that allow for comparison between
different events or locations. By comparing
different time periods or using different
geographic areas as counterfactuals, thisresearch approach can show the specificlong-term damage caused by explosive
weapons use. In addition, as the focus ison the health care system rather than thepatient, it is also better suited to providing
recommendations on how to mitigate theconsequences of explosive weapons use andbuild resilient systems. If there are multiple
studies from different locations and periods
in time, all using the same indicators andmethodology, future studies interested
in the same indicator could use them asa benchmark. As such, every research
effort will represent a building block thattogether, over time, will construct a body ofevidence to support systematic evaluations
on specific civilian harm impacts causedby the use of explosive weapons.

5.4 WHAT ARE EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS, AND WHO USES THEM?45
There are many types of explosive weapons
currently in use. These include air-dropped
bombs, artillery projectiles, missiles androckets, mortars, and improvised explosive
devices. Some are launched from the air,while others are ground launched. Whiledifferent technical features dictate theiraccuracy of delivery and explosive effect,these weapons generally create a zone ofblast and fragmentation with the potential
to directly kill, injure or damage anyone oranything within that zone. This makes theiruse in populated areas
such as towns,
cities, markets and camps for refugees anddisplaced persons particularly problematic.
The problems increase further if the weapons
effects extend across a wide area either

because of the scale of the blast that they
produce, their inaccuracy, the use of multiple
munitions across an area, or a combination
thereof. For the purposes of this researchframework, the impacts of unexploded
ordnances and explosive remnants of war
should also be considered when conducting
research on the reverberating effects.
Explosive weapons are used by State andnon-State actors. Most explosive weapons
are either deployed in the context of armed
conflict or attacks commonly labelled by
States and the media as acts of terrorism .
The data collected systematically on civilian
casualties from explosive weapons show a
year-on-year increase in reported numbers ofcasualties.46

45 This definition and discussion was retrieved verbatim from C. Wille and J. Borrie, Understanding the Reverberating
Effects of Explosive Weapons: A Way Forward, UNIDIR, 2016, p. 7, http://www.unidir.org/files/publications/pdfs/reverberating-effects-research-agenda-en-653.pdf.
46 Action on Armed Violence explosive weapons monitor: https://aoav.org.uk/explosiveviolence. Action on Armed Violence
data include casualties from all explosive weapons, including improvised explosive devices, reported in English-speaking
media since 2011.

86

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORKREVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS

87

88

UNIDIR RESEARCH FRAMEWORKREFERENCE FRAMEWORK:MENU OF INDICATORS TO MEASURE THE
REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANSFROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN
POPULATED AREAS
The impacts of explosive weapons use in populated areas are much wider and longer lasting than theshock waves of the explosive blast. The use of explosive weapons sets in motion a series of complex
knock-on effects that spread out over time and space in urban ecosystems, with negative consequences
for civilian well-being and the environment in which people live. These “reverberating effects” manifest
across a wide range of interlinked sectors, including urban infrastructure, public health, education,
culture and heritage, food security, economic prospects, and adverse environmental impacts. The
purpose of this research framework is to offer indicators to document knock-on effects and potentiallyinform and influence the policy and practice of parties to conflict. This document aims to shed lighton the generalized pattern of harm from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas (EWIPA).
By using a standardized set of indicators, the data generated can be leveraged to build a comparable
evidence base reflecting the consequences to civilian well-being of the use of EWIPA and to inform highlevel decision-making on policy and practice.

VERSION 1