by J. J. van der Merwe, UNOPS

The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS).

Introduction

The mine action industry has grown out of one very specific technical area of interest relating to the physical destruction of mines and UXO. From there it has been forced to expand its horizon to look at the broad implications of what it does and to encompass peripheral activities that fall under the same general heading of mines, including survey, awareness and prioritization. It is also true that mine clearance resources are typically scarce and should be effectively utilized. This calls for correct application of available clearance technologies and careful targeting of these resources in order to have a critical impact on the problem.

Some major developments have been made recently in the field of demining. The International Mine Clearance Standards for Humanitarian Mine Clearance Operations have been revised and updated to take into account the progress in the industry, and the first Level One Impact Survey was completed in Yemen. The information that has become available as a result of the survey provides a better definition of the mine problem in a specific country and also allows for a better method to prioritize and rank impacted communities.

Many mine clearance organizations have traditionally publicized their efforts by focusing on the number of mines or unexploded munitions that have been found. This is in reality as meaningless as assessing the effectiveness of the clearance operation based purely on its size. It is becoming better understood that mine clearance is as much or more about the elimination of the negative socio-economic impact on communities as it is about clearance of the actual contamination.

Experience over the past few years has indicated that within a zone of probability for mine contamination in the majority of mine affected countries, the majority of the ground is not mined. In addition, most of the areas contain few mines. Out of the 18,000 mine records received from the former warring factions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 60 percent of the records indicated that the mined areas contained less than 10 mines, and in Yemen the Level One Impact Survey concluded that there was approximately a 40 percent exaggeration of the actual size of the contaminated area. Therefore, the faster the ground that is not mined is ruled out, the greater productivity and the impact of the clearance efforts will be. Linked to the need to rapidly rule out mine-free ground is the need to decide which ground needs to be freed up first. The size of these areas is a function of the subsequent users’ requirements. Defining the minimum areas ensures that mine clearance resources are not committed to clearing any more ground than what is actually required at the time. The Technical Survey, if applied in the correct manner, will help provide answers to the issues raised above.

Mine Free vs. Free From the Effects

Recently, there have been a number of discussions on what can be achieved practically in addressing a mine-affected country’s socio-economic problems caused by mines and UXO. There has to be a balance among the time spent on demining areas, the amount of impact being reduced and the amount of funds available to carry out the task. At the strategic level, there are two outcomes that could be sought. These two options are:
 

• Mine Free: A strict interpretation of the Ottawa protocols and other mine action documents would suggest that the desired end-state for all mine action programs is to make mine contaminated countries “mine free.” This implies that all mines in the entire country are to be removed from the land and therefore all possible risk related to mine and UXO contamination is to be removed as well. While such an idealistic end state may be desirable, a more realistic assessment indicates that it is not achievable, nor would pursuing it to this end be a good use of limited resources. The laws of diminishing returns, limitations on available donor resources and simple cost-benefit analysis all highlight that a mine free state is practically unobtainable. The cost of removing the last mine in a country would be considered prohibitively high and offers very little (if any) benefit as compared to the other possible uses for the same amount of money.
• Free from the Effects of Mines: During the planning process, consideration should be given to adopt a risk management approach focusing on controlling or mitigating the worst impacts of mines in order to make a country “free from their effects.” This approach may result in the occasional unfortunate accident; however, accidents will be rare, economic impacts will be negligible and the people will have learned to live with the residual level of contamination. The effects of mines and UXO can be reduced to a tolerable level through clearance of the most dangerous areas followed by a continual capacity to conduct limited clearance and/or Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) tasks, mine risk reduction education (MRRE) and maintenance of a marking system.

It is clearly beneficial to adopt the second option and address high-impact areas first and then proceed to address those areas more moderately impacted. Hazardous areas impacting communities should also be prioritized, and the solution selected to decrease the impact should be applicable to provide the greatest relief in the shortest time or in the most cost-effective manner.

Prioritization/Targeting

Prioritization is only the first step in the process that will lead to the eventual selection of sites to be demined. A number of other factors need to be taken into account before the final selection is made. For example, there could be seasonal factors to be considered, the security situation could have an influence and there may be a requirement to cluster tasks to allow for the efficient use of resources.

The key for humanitarian mine clearance in the future is the accurate targeting and then the subsequent allocation of resources to address the problem in a safe, productive and cost-effective manner. Programs should ask themselves where they could achieve the greatest impact with the available demining resources. It is no longer an option to tie resources down for long periods of time if they are only working on one site. It might be better to work on a number of lower order tasks but have a high turnover. Targeting should be done at the macro and micro level. The result of the General Mine Action Assessment (GMAA) Process includes the socio-economic impact that the mines and UXO have on communities in an impact-priority list, which should be used to develop a clearance works program. The same should be done on the micro level. Identified tasks should be unraveled to reveal the most critical areas that should be cleared as a first priority and then clearance should expand to address the other less critical areas. As a first step, the less critical areas should be marked or fenced off.

The process for prioritization and selection of sites for demining can be compared to a situation in which a medical doctor arrives at an accident scene finding a number of injured patients. Before any patient is treated, a doctor must assess each of their injuries. Patients are then divided into two groups: those with minor injuries and those with serious, life-threatening injuries. The injuries on these patients are then treated in order of priority, meaning some minor injuries might be left while the doctor moves on to another patient to treat cardiac injuries, loss of blood and pulmonary injuries. Targeting for mine clearance operations should follow the same principles. Communities are ranked according to the presence of mines/UXO, the number of “blockages” and the number of recent victims. In addition, there might be development priorities that the government has identified that also have to be taken into account before the final priority list can be produced. In order to prepare the work plan there should be another step similar to when the doctor in the example above takes the pulse of the patient, which is to carry out a Technical Survey to collect specific information on the suspect area.

Revision of the International Mine Action Standards

The term technical survey is not applied universally. Some mine action authorities and demining organizations consider the detailed examination of known or suspected hazardous areas and the related documentation and marking as defined in IMAS 08.10 to be merely the first stage of an integrated survey-clearance operation. However, as it is described here, technical surveys are an important part of the demining process, since they provide the information needed for safe, effective and efficient area reduction, clearance and marking.

To date, prioritization and clearance have generally been aimed at individual mined areas. With the introduction of the GMAA process, which includes an assessment on the socio-economic impact, there has been a shift in focus towards impacted communities. The old Level Two Surveys, by default, became associated with area reduction, and only after the area was reduced was an attempt made to plan the clearance activity. IMAS now reflects changes to operational procedures, practices and norms that have occurred over the past three years, and in a number of cases where new terminology was created, it also included an expansion of the old definitions. The changes in the different surveys and assessments are one example in which not only were the old terms replaced, but the definitions have also expanded considerably. The main differences between the old Level One and Two Surveys and the new Impact Assessments and Technical Surveys are outlined below:

Old Level One Survey: The objective of the old Level One General Survey was to collect information on the general locations of suspected or mined areas. Mined areas were prioritized according to the following criteria:

• Provision of emergency assistance.
• Settled land with high civilian casualty rates.
• Land required for the resettlement of refugees/IDPs.
• Land required for agriculture.
• Community development.

• Access to and free operation of health services.

• Reconstruction and infrastructure development.