A new website is under construction

‘UN Syria study’: The Guardian asks EC to comment

First published 3rd Jan 2013

(The Guardian's Middle East Live blog invited Every Casualty to comment on the UN's report of 59,648 deaths in the Syria conflict.)

The methodology used in the UN-commissioned study into Syria's mounting death toll has been endorsed by Hamit Dardagan, co-founder of the respected Iraq Body Count.

On Wednesday immediately after the UN announced that 60,000 people had been killed in the conflict, Dardagan, who is co-director of the Every Casualty programme at the Oxford Research Group, called for greater transparency over how the figures were compiled.

Since then the UN's human rights body has released a preliminary analysis explaining the methodology used by Benetech, the consultancy which conducted the study (pdf).

Dardagan explains:

The UN figure was produced by the independent US-based research organisation Benetech. Their number represents not an estimate based on extrapolation but rather the integration of seven casualty databases, including from the Syrian government and activists. Only the individually named dead, with date and location, were included in the integration in order to prevent duplication. 

In an email to the Guardian he said this was the best method available given the circumstances:

This integrative approach is entirely justifiable in my view as it makes no sense to look only at a single documentary source when several exist, especially when these sources themselves are at pains to point out that they are incomplete. Integrating multiple (mostly media) sources is the very foundation of the work produced by Iraq Body Count (IBC), which assumes that no news source or agency provides full coverage – and sure enough, in nearly 10 years even the most comprehensive have never exceeded 60% of the coverage that IBC's integrative approach has allowed.

There are always wrinkles to this kind of work – for instance, the information being brought together needs to be correct in the first instance, and sources should ideally be independent of and not simply quoting each other – but that remains true whatever the origins of the casualty data, be it media, government, or on-the-ground networks. The UN has acted prudently in allowing none of this vital information to languish in various scattered databases and commissioning its integration into what is (unsurprisingly) a greater whole.