Proceedings for the UNMAS/GICHD Technical Workshop 15 – 17 ... · Proceedings for the UNMAS/GICHD...

Proceedings for the UNMAS/GICHD Technical Workshop

15 – 17 February 2006

Geneva, Switzerland Introduction 15 Countries were represented along with 6 x NGOs and 4 X Commercial companies; a full list of attendees is at Annex A. Participants had been asked to provide information through a questionnaire, Annex B, prior to attending the meeting. A summary of the responses can be found at Annex C. The agenda was structured to enable discussions that related to operational sequence and touched all common technical components of programme work. The agenda was followed successfully during the workshop; a copy can be found at Annex D. This report will summarise the range of discussions that took place in the order of the agenda, and draw out requirements and recommendations where relevant. The format of the workshop was generally the same for each session with a short period of introduction and presentation to open the scope of the topic, followed by active discussion. The workshop progressed in an open and informal style with participants having ample opportunity to make interventions and were encouraged to do so. This was a good forum and for some participants the meeting was rated as the ‘most useful’ mine action meeting that they had been to. The aim of the meeting was to identify new requirements and to share information. Both aims were met as we discuss in this report. Consistent ‘requirement’ themes included:

• PPE, and whether adequate protection could be provided from lighter equipment.

• Road and route clearance and the speed of clearance. • A continued requirement for better detection discrimination. • Specific requirements for working in deep soft sandy soils and other specific

but difficult conditions such as forests and underwater.

Day 1 Welcome Address to Workshop Ambassador Stephen Nellen, Director GICHD, gave a welcome address which set the tone for the workshop. He emphasized the role that technology could play in “making mine action safer, cheaper, faster, and more effective, or in other words, to increase its productivity”. He noted that the topic of “technical user needs” had not been given specific focus for a number of years. He emphasized that the main purpose of the workshop was to share experience, ideas, and requirements to find technical solutions that will assist in improving effectiveness and efficiency of mine action operations. This was followed by introductory presentations by the Co-Chairs to further explain the rationale and logic behind the reasons for, and process of, the Meeting. Metal Detectors: Introduction. Al Carruthers (GICHD) introduced the session. From the questionnaire respondents indicated that some 7800 hand held metal detectors (MD) were in use by their programmes or organisations, which was extrapolated to suggest that the number of hand held metal detectors in use in mine action would be in the order of 12-14000. Six manufactures are the main suppliers, CEIA, MineLab, Vallon, Ebinger, Schiebel and Foerster. Several programmes had undertaken metal detector trials, six programmes were planning to conduct trials in the near future. From the discussions:

• ‘Brand loyalty’ is relevant to the choice of detectors in the programmes.

• The extensive trials that have been done do enable programmes to select a shortlist of detectors that can then be trialled before a decision is made to purchase.

• There is little knowledge of the CWA 14747 T&E of Metal Detectors and most

were not aware of standard tests that could/should be used in trials. This would permit better comparison between detectors.

• The importance of identifying soil characteristics as a major factor in the

selection of a detector was discussed and agreed.

• There is no recognized procedure in place for the collection and dispatch of soil samples for testing electromagnetic characteristics. Ideally this information could be collected during the mine action assessment or technical survey, by soil

tests conducted in country, or by a visitor to the programme or the operational site.

• Given the reasonably small mine action “market”, there might be some saving

made during procurement if orders from several programs were done at the same time.

• Problems concerning the management and use of rechargeable batteries were

aired and solutions shared. This issue remains a problem.

• Users should make more use of technical support available from manufacturers.

• Not many attendees knew about the Metal Detector Handbook but when asked they declared a need for some 700 copies! This may explain a lack of understanding about MDs. The participants were asked to identify their requirements for copies of the Metal Detector Handbook, and this was forwarded to the Joint Research Centre, Ispra/Dieter Guelle. A number of participants also indicated that they could provide reasonably priced translation services for translation of the book into other languages.(Secretarial Note: Within two weeks of receiving this list, Mr. Guelle had arranged for a reprint of the book and had started distribution to those who had requested copies.)

• Ideally, a single type of detector is required, within a programme or organisation,

as this provides simplicity in logistics and training. However, there are frequently external influences that force a variety of MDs onto a programme.

• The majority endorsed the value of centralized testing of MDs and publicized

results. This reduces the requirement for the users to conduct their tests. Access to test information from the comparative Systematic Test and Evaluation of Metal Detectors (STEMD) tests being undertaken by JRC was encouraged. Two interim reports on the STEMD project have been issued and participants were informed that these are available on the ITEP web site. (www.itep.ws)

• One programme raised the issue of guaranteed quality of technical training

advisors sent to help them; (they found that their technical advisor had not understood the equipment correctly). This is a matter of “recruitment policy” in the case of UN or other technical advisors and for the manufacturers in ensuring the technical competence of their own trainers.

Recommendations:

• In conjunction with ITEP, produce a simple methodology and implement a procedure whereby mine-affected countries can submit soil samples for determining the degree of soil difficulty that exists in a country. This would significantly aid the selection of suitable metal detectors.

• In conjunction with ITEP and the CEN, it is recommended that the CWA 14747

be simplified, especially for the trials that are conducted in mine affected countries. Another recommendation is the production of a guidebook for the planning and conduct of trials for users

Requirements:

• General desire for still lighter detectors that are physically better balanced. Better ergonomics can still be incorporated into detectors through use of other materials, etc.

• A primary requirement is still the provision of a detector with better

discrimination to reduce the false alarm rate.

• Cheap accelerometers incorporated into detectors to provide the operator with information regarding optimum sweep speed and whether or not he has missed an area in his search drill.

• Improved battery life is desirable.

• Given recent technical advances, a review should be made into the most suitable

method used to alert the operator of a target. More information could be given to the operator which might be made more “pleasing” to the ear, and the use of additional feedback such as tactile stimulation might be considered.

• The potential use of detection signals beyond the audio threshold should be re-

examined to see if greater information and discrimination potential was possible, this should be balanced with certainty of alarm and limiting operator decision points to a ‘reasonable’ level. There is evidence that there is a substantial amount of signal information that is being filtered or suppressed in many of the detectors being used today.

• A very clear requirement is the need for a wide area explosives detector with high

reliability and low false alarm rate due to the rejection of non-explosive items, i.e. the desire is to find explosive rather than metal.

Dual Sensors Al Carruthers introduced a presentation from Ian Dibstal from the UK research organization QINETIQ . A copy of the presentation is attached. The ERA(UK)/Vallon(Germany) MineHound detector and the USA HSTAMIDS were exhibited to the workshop with support from Dave Daniels of ERA and Kevin Johnson of Cyterra.

From the discussions:

• The projected costs of the HSTAMIDS-Humanitarian Demining version are likely to be in the order of USD 10-12,000. Projected costs for MineHound were not available but could be available from Vallon.

• HSTAMIDS is available today, if requested, under US export license controls. • MineHound is expected to be in production by the third quarter of 2006. • The projection for improved discrimination over metal detectors was in the range

of a factor of 3 to a factor of 5. CMAC reported recording figures of mines found and metal found with roughly 300,000 mines compared to 300,000,000 fragments or a ratio of 1000 fragments excavated for every mine that was found.

• ITEP are producing a standard for T& E for dual sensors. • Operational use and QA/QC procedures still need to be developed for dual sensor

detectors. Recommendations

• That the mine action community monitor the progress of the dual sensor technologies and share information to enable operational assessment and cost / benefit assessments to be made.

• The mine action community should now start to do some “what if” calculations to prepare for the actual availability of dual sensors. This will not only assist production estimates but will allow greater efficiency in the introduction of this new technology. The comments from the participants that are involved in the comprehensive trials of HSTAMIDS in Cambodia, Thailand and Afghanistan would be especially valuable in the drafting of procedures for the use of the new dual sensor detector technology.

Requirements:

• More detailed information on dual sensor performance should be made available in public fora.

• Efforts to reduce the weight, cost and power consumption of dual sensors should continue in the normal process of development.

Manual Demining Havard Bach (GICHD) introduced the session with an overview of aspects from the recent GICHD Study into Manual Demining. He demonstrated that alternative manual clearance methodologies could be considered and went on to explain the “Crab” and “Hybrid” methods that were described in the GICHD Manual Mine Clearance Study.

From the discussions:

• Not all had seen the GICHD manual study report. A feeling was that reports may go to organizational head offices and then not be distributed down within the organizations. Improvements in the distribution of information should be sought.

• Although some programmes sometimes still use two men on one lane, for specific and sometimes temporary reasons, it was generally agreed that the one man one lane was the most efficient method of operating. Main arguments in favour of one man one lane were: more responsibility and more effectiveness. The main arguments put forward for use of the two man, one lane drill was in areas of extensive vegetation and where they felt that better supervision was possible when using the two man drill. No other new or better method was offered or discussed.

• Yemen suggested that for a specific kind of mine the safety distance between operators could be reduced from 25m to 10 m. Yemen also said that with less distance you could use more deminers. IMAS will include guidelines on how to do better threat analysis. The national mine action authorities can already reduce the safety distance from that suggested in IMAS but they must take into account the risk and safety considerations that are applicable to their particular situation.

• Rakes, which are cheap, were promoted in many circumstances. Rakes are already used by MgM in Angola, by DDG in Somalia, and numerous organizations in Sri Lanka. The use of rakes is limited to those regions with suitable soil conditions and where the net explosive quantity of the individual mines is quite small.

• Several organizations spoke about the usefulness of using cheap and readily available hand magnets in manual clearance. Organizations were encouraged to conduct their own trials and report on the benefits of using the magnets in their clearance procedure.

• Standardized manual clearance tool kits were being used by many organizations. UN MACA/Afghanistan provided a description on the tool kit that they had developed and it is enclosed in the contributed papers section of these proceedings. Several other organizations reported that they had developed their own kits and it was reported that a commercially available kit was available but it was relatively expensive (180 Euros).

• That the mine action community monitors the progress of the dual sensor technologies and shares information to enable operational assessment and cost / benefit assessments to be made.

PPE Phil Bean (GICHD) introduced the session with reference to IMAS 10.30 Personal Protective Equipment and a selective quote relating to protection levels from clause 4.3 a) “tests for protection related to NATO STANAG ballistic body armour ratings and do not realistically replicate mine effects”. He went on to introduce the 2006 CEN CWA process focused on T&E for PPE which could lead to more appropriate protection equipments.

He introduced the current IMAS Review Board debate relating to the use short visor / eye protection as a realistic minimum compared to full face visors that were often too heavy and worn incorrectly. Of the last 50 accidents reviewed only 4 % could be possibly attributed to bad tools or procedures - 96% of them were attributable to bad drills and/or lack of supervision. From the discussion:

• Many agreed that realistic PPE trials had not been possible and that defining protection requirements specific to mine action would help this process.

• The long visors are too heavy and alternative solutions are needed. The workshop discussed the cooperative research between ROFI and the sports industry looking towards fitting protection in a similar way to ice hockey and paint ball players. It was mentioned that insurance companies may not pay when visors were not used correctly. Some expressed preference for minimum eye protection as a standard.

• Manufactures should be involved in analysis of how well PPE had performed in the event of an accident.

• The use of protective boots / and access platform boots were discussed with a view for use in emergency and maybe during survey operations. Sri Lanka and India make protective boots, but they only work with small AP mines and giving a pair to every deminer could be a difficult management decision. Inflatable boots are typically too expensive for personal issue (800 US$) but HI had used them.

• That organizations preparing to conduct PPE trials should let UNMAS/GICHD know the trial details to assist in information sharing.

• Many expressed concern over the comfort and practicality of using PPE (especially visors and protective aprons).

• The use of shields rather than aprons was discussed as well as the possibility of incorporating the visor onto the vest.

• Appliqué protective films, fitted as anti scratch or anti fog, are hard to remove and replace and better solvents or processes are necessary. Both sides of the visor must be provided with the protective material.

• Modelling blast / fragmentation effects to protection levels should be possible. • Part of the discussion related to hand protection and hand tools, and while many

programmes produced their own tools, the ROFI tool kit was praised (cost in the order of Euro180). It was recommended to those who had not used them, as an alternative to ‘re-inventing local alternatives’.

• Managers must confirm the service life of equipment in different environments to enable procurement and replacement before any degradation of protection levels.

• DDG was interested in hand protectors. They had tested various versions but people in the field didn’t like them. UNMACA said they have a kind of hand protector within their toolbox .(Refer to the description in their paper on the MACA manual clearance tool kit)

• Havard Bach added that garden gloves provide better protection than nothing and that they are very cheap.

Requirements:

• Definitive protection levels are required. • Manufacturers should be reminded of the serious and immediate requirement to

provide better protection from lighter and more comfortable PPE. Comfort is a major issue.

• Alternatives to the current range of full face visors should be investigated as a matter of urgency. There is a need for some kind of system that will allow deminers to see better and be more comfortable and yet still be protected over the full facial area.

• Trials information must be shared. • Manufacturers should be made aware of the performance of their PPE in the event

of an accident. Day 2 Mine Detection on Roads Eric Tollefsen (GICHD) introduced the session with a briefing on the Wide Area Detection System (WADS) a copy of the presentation is attached. From the discussions:

• It appeared that mine densities for roads were very varied and ranged from 1 in 14/15 km in Angola, to 1 in 30km in Sudan, to much greater densities in parts of Cambodia. The summary is varied but generally the density of mines in roads is very low.

• Some claims were that up to 50km of road per day could be driven and verified. A reality check, taking in to account road widths, surface contours, and post processing, would be that 15km per day should be more realistic. However, dogs and manual deminers cannot keep up with verification or Quality Management which is the limiting factor.

• The limitations of metal detection only for road verification and the need for complimentary detection assets were also discussed.

• The group endorsed that there is still a requirement for an effective route proving/clearance device that can operate faster than dogs.

• A MineLab system called “single transmit, multiple receive” was highly recommended and claimed to be more effective that other wide area metal detecting arrays available today. More details from their website.

• Despite there being several methods available today to clear roads (metal detection, sifting, earth moving, biosensors, manual etc.), none effectively work on their own and managers must combine several methods to achieve satisfactory results.

• A compelling endorsement of using ‘road graders’ and dogs on dirt roads was provided, with MGM having many years (10 years) experience from using the same machines.

• Again the need for a wide area detection device to detect explosives was one of the strongest declared requirements.

• Results of trials with the US-developed NIITEK ground penetrating radar were shared. From the trials in Angola, the results were 100% detection over several test areas. This appeared to be the most effective road clearing radar most people had seen.

• Interest centred on machines with a low ratio of false alarms. It was reported that the WADS has very few false alarms. It was argued by MgM that most AVMs don’t have metal cases, however, in some areas people know already the kind of AVMs they will find (metal or plastic).

• What all mines have in common is explosive. Explosive should be detected. ITEP said they have some test information on explosive detectors and that they can be very sensitive to moisture

Requirements:

• A device for wide area explosive detection that is not sensitive to moisture. The requirement is particularly relevant to the verification of roads and tracks.

• There is a need to test and evaluate the variety of wide array metal detectors that are being fielded.

REST Havard Bach (GICHD) introduced the session with an introduction to risk management in a mine survey and clearance context. The session then covered a number of issues related to survey and use of different animals including Mine Detecting Dogs (MDD) and rats. From the discussion

• The use of MDD in a survey role was discussed along with accreditation and test / QA challenges. The reliability of detection for dogs can be quite variable.

• Gas chromatographs (GC) are very expensive systems to analyze filters but are also very reliable. GCs are not as sensitive as a nose (dog or rat) in some scenarios.

• Rats are potentially cheaper to use than dogs. • Minetech explained the use of working MDD at night, with floodlights to take

advantage of better environmental conditions and thereby improving the efficiency of MDDs

• Mechem described their MEDDS programme working in Afghanistan, Sudan and a small project in the DRC.

• The challenges of verification, QA/QC of REST were introduced, and GICHD, APOPO, NPA will continue to work to try and confirm, or not, the operational utility and measurement of the system.

• Honey bees are being considered in Croatia and the US as possible detectors for mined areas. The US Montana University program will be tested in Canada at

CCMAT, Suffield in May/June 2006. It is already known that bees can be trained to locate explosives and the honey bees can be tracked. The question is how reliable is the detection and tracking of the bees for humanitarian demining situations.

• Requirements:

• Less expensive, more rugged, and more sensitive gas chromatographs as substitutes for less reliable but more sensitive biodetectors such as dog or rats.

• Confirmation of the validity of the REST system for detecting suspect areas.

Technical Survey tools By way of introduction Rune Engeset gave a presentation on a survey project utilising PDA devices that enable easier information management and route logging. A copy of the presentation is attached. From the discussion:

• The compatible use of PDA and the NPA / Rude Engeset experience in conjunction with IMSMA version 4 were discussed and seen to be very positive. GICHD will look closely at the advantages of the integration and expansion of the concepts.

• There was great interest in the quality and quantity of the information that could be included in maps.

• The standardized use of symbols in all these survey tools was regarded as a sensible thing.

• Access to work originally funded by the US with MgM involving another PDA system to assist various other management functions was discussed and if considered appropriate could be revisited.

Requirements: There were no specific requirements identified under this subject. Machines - BrushCutters The session was introduced by a presentation by Mr. Phumro Oum of CMAC, a copy is attached. The provision of 14 brush cutters, based on excavators, was declared the reason for a 100% increase in output in Cambodia in 2005. This is the clearest statement yet that the introduction of more machines can increase effectiveness and output. From the discussions:

• Many tool attachments are readily available in different industries today and can be utilized for mine action. Much experience is also already available, and CROMAC, MgM and The HALO Trust for example, have a great deal of historic

experience in adapting commercial engineering equipment into effective demining machines.

Requirements

• There is a need for more of the machines that are already proven to be able to work effectively.

• Donors should be aware of the direct connection between machines and output. • Specific dialogue between programmes, operators and donors should be

established and coordinated to identify where and which equipments could make dramatic improvements to output. This requirement is wider than the category of brush cutters but the Cambodian example illustrates the potential for return.

Machines – Flails, Tillers, Rollers etc. Eric Tollefson (GICHD) introduced the session. From the discussions:

• Flails had received criticism but yet many are still being used in the field today. Their usefulness for area reduction was recognized.

• The addition of a simple flail cover, if not provided by the manufacturer, was considered an important aid in reducing dust and restraining “throw outs”.

• Comments referring to the apparent successful use of MineWolf were both very instructive as well as important. However it is still considered to be an expensive item. The open tiller drum represents a significant improvement on the solid tiller drums of previous machines in terms of reducing the amount of damage caused by mine detonations.

• Magnets were considered an obvious addition to many machines, as well as hand tools, and all agreed that more work could be done on research into this subject.

• Many confirmed there was a use for rollers in the confirmation and confidence building role after clearance, as well as a means to identify where the mine belt was. However, there are few trial details to accurately determine their effectiveness in any role. One operator criticized the use of Caspirs with steel rollers.

• There is a gap in the machine tool box in that there is no Anti Tank Mine Roller that is effective today – not all, however, agreed that this requirement could realistically be filled.

Requirements:

• Research into the effectiveness of flail covers would be of value to many users. • More research into the use of and types of magnets would be appreciated. • More testing of the effectiveness of rollers is required. • A desk top study into the possibilities of anti-tank rollers could answer the

question of their value.

Neutralisation etc. Phil Bean (GICHD) introduced the session with a discussion on the costs of explosives. Averages of USD 0.8 to 1 for detonators and per meter of detonating chord, USD 7 -16, per kilo for TNT, USD 20-25 per kilo for plastic explosives, were considered reasonable prices for comparison. He then gave an introductory presentation of an Explosive Harvesting Project in Cambodia and on Flares and Torches. Copies of the papers are attached. A target cost of no more than USD 4 per shot for neutralization was considered the maximum acceptable. From the discussions:

• Many attendees confirmed the difficulty in obtaining explosives and that they were very expensive.

• Many attendees were interested in the Explosive Harvest Programme (EHP) currently being trialled in Cambodia. The Balkan region was identified as a possible follow on location.

• Attendees also confirmed that neutralization devices did have specific uses and that if they were provided at no cost they would be well received and used. However, most models are even more expensive than explosives.

• Pyrotechnic torches have been developed in the US and the UK and have had a mixed reception. Temperatures ranged from 1800 -2500 degrees centigrade, with the devices usually being classified HD 1.4G.

• A pyrotechnic torch, produced in the UK and called Dragon (commercially), can easily be produced locally and could be considered as a possible alternative to commercially purchased flares, explosives and other neutralization devices. It could also be considered as an alternative to the Explosive Harvest Programme. DFID may agree to fund the manufacturing facilities in some countries. However some commented that the dragon torch might be prohibited for environmental reasons – burning is not nationally permitted (Cromac, MgM) and also that is was expensive (UNIK). See ITEP website for evaluation reports of many of the common neutralization devices at http://www.itep.ws/reports/results1.php

• Similarly, a device that effectively provides cheaper detonations the more it is used was also referred to and details of the relevant website are at www.mineburner.com.

• The use of hydro abrasive water cutting was mentioned and the Afghan programme offered up a system that they did not use if other programmes had a use for it.

• All were reminded of the US DoD trials, conducted by Dr Patel in 2004, on various neutralisation devices and “safe” explosives – a copy of the Report is available on the US DoD website as well as the ITEP website.

• In summary, it was agreed that most neutralization devices were “nice to have” rather than essential. However, some countries may have to use them until a reliable source of explosives is found. (e.g. Burundi)

• (It was subsequently established that Switzerland has an unused budget for the provision of SM devices and attendees should make a claim if they require any.)

• The provision of good quality explosives was considered a useful way in which donors can positively contribute to mine action.

• Underwater demining was introduced with a question relating to whether the workshop thought we had a need for underwater demining standards. Iraq had potential clearance requirements for munitions that had been dumped in rivers and also in the ‘Marsh Arab’ areas in the south of the country. Croatia had some tasks in canals and rivers, Vietnam had tasks in lakes, Angola had tasks for pipe line clearance in coastal areas, DRC had requirements for clearance in rivers. More research would be needed but requirements for advice and standards appear to be justified.

Requirements:

• There is a need for a limited number of alternatives to explosives in nearly all programmes.

• Donors should consider donating explosives or neutralization devices as a very practical assistance project

• Continued tests on neutralisation devices would provide additional capability data for potential buyers/programmes.

• Devices and/or containers that are safe and economical for shipping is an ongoing requirement.

Medical From Discussions:

• Medical equipment used on demining sites was generally thought to be satisfactory by everyone.

• Central medical facilities and efficient medical evacuation are a problem in some countries.

• The value of including CPR dummies in medical training packs was stressed. • Malaria treatments were discussed and a Chinese herbal remedy called

ARTEMISIN from the herb Artemisia was declared very effective. WHO and Medecins sans Frontieres (MSF) have published an “Inter-Agency Field Handbook on Malaria Control in Complex Emergencies” in 2006. The Artemisin-based combinations therapy (ACT) is mentioned in several parts of the Handbook and more specifically in Chapter 5 on Case management. The Handbook could be found in the WHO website: www.who.int/malaria/docs/ce_interagencyfhbook.pdf

• Similarly, a simple and fast test for malaria involving only a drop of blood from the finger was shared. Information on rapid diagnostic test kits for malaria can be found at http://www.malariasite.com/malaria/rdts.htm.

• Several participants mentioned the use of “quick clotting” products to control severe bleeding.

Requirements:

• More information on how to deal with the problems of malaria would be appreciated.

Day 3 Vehicles and Communications Phil Bean introduced the session. Little had been highlighted in responses to the initial questionnaire. From the discussion:

• Discussion on the value and limitations of ballistic blankets concluded that while not being totally effective, care had to be taken in their choice and all operators and drivers had to be trained on their capabilities.

• Information on where to find details of armouring kits would be useful and should be researched and shared.

• A case was made for the easy way Land Rovers can be up-armoured (and that once armoured they could be effective protection against anti-tank mines) but it was recognized that Land Rover spares were not nearly as easily obtainable as those for Japanese manufactured vehicles.

• Better information on the armouring of light vehicles was requested by many and much research and experience could be found from Southern Africa.

• The value of filling tyres with a third of water to help absorb blast was suggested. (This has been subsequently contradicted by a research and development establishment.)

• Several participants had experience of having been in vehicles that had been hit by mines so the discussion was valid!

Recommendations:

• More information on armouring of light vehicles is requested and if possible trial reports made available.

• Details of the UN policy on the use of ballistic blankets should be made available to all.

• The need for all managers to train staff on the limitations of their vehicles and protection levels is essential to fully understand the threat and its mitigation.

Communications

• The advantages of Skype communications, which are free and use computer interfaces, were strongly encouraged.

• There are often numerous options available for communication but the availability and applicability can be highly variable. Several organizations benefited from

conducting a review of their communication requirements and alternative systems or providers.

Recommendations;

• All programmes should consider the use of SKYPE communications to cut costs. • A periodic review of communication requirements and options can result in

considerable savings to a programme. T&E Mr Alexander Keijzer (NL) introduced ITEP and showed how they contributed to Test and Evalation (T&E) of mine action equipment. His presentation is attached. Mr. Mark Buswell/MAG, Iraq gave a case history of accreditation of equipment at the National Programme level. A copy of his presentation is also attached. From the discussion:

• It was confirmed that the centralized testing of MDs was being conducted by JRC under the STEMD project. The trial report from Mozambique was considered to be most valuable and a thorough and honest evaluation of MDs in that area. The third test (South East Europe?) and trial report was eagerly awaited.

• The central testing of flails continues to be of value to the community and should be continually updated.

• Tests conducted into the effectiveness of PPE to assist in the reduction of weight and discomfort are urgently needed and would be greatly appreciated.

• International T&E can assist in the accreditation of equipment, at least at an organizational level, which could then be followed by operational accreditation in the field.

• Programmes and organisations should keep UNMAS / GICHD aware of forthcoming trials so that experiences can be shared and assistance provided if possible.

Requirements:

• The third area trial of STEMD should be conducted as soon as possible. • Further flail trials would be of value. • PPE tests are still required and should be directed towards lighter more

comfortable PPE with adequate protection. • Sharing of trial results must become the norm and should be made public through

posting on the internet or on sites such as the ITEP website.

Information Management There was no formal introduction to this session. Discussion ranged over a number of areas related to the management of information. From the discussions:

• The importance of programmes and operators ensuring that they have adequate back up storage facilities or locations for their mine information in case of fire or explosions in the HQ locations was stressed. It was also necessary to systematically make back up copies of all information to be stored.

• Apart from the survey tools already described above, which allow data entry at the technical survey site, MgM mentioned work that had been done on similar PDA equipment that allowed the collection of many management controls at the field level. This work had been funded by the US DoD but had not been completed. If considered of value, the US DoD agreed this information could be available for the demining community. The compatibility with IMSMA 4 would have to be guaranteed.

• Alan Arnold (GICHD) answered questions and briefed the workshop on aspects of the IMSMA Version 4 project. The biggest concern was the availability of IMSMA for all operators including commercial demining organizations, especially if and when operating in a country without a specific NMAA or centralized IMSMA. The GICHD can be contacted to assist in trying to make it accessible to relevant programmes. Mr. Arnold suggested that requests for getting access to information in IMSMA should highlight humanitarian reasons.

• Satisfactory answers were provided and IMSMA Version 4 will provide an improved capability that will permit easier modification to meet users needs.

• The GICHD could also assist in integrating GIS systems into IMSMA, but maps and data should be provided to GICHD.

Workshop Summary The attitude and the response from all the participants of the workshop were very positive. The timely completion of the questionnaire ensured that the agenda addressed those issues which were of the most importance to the users. The discussion was focused and the majority of the attendees offered their opinions, experiences and solutions to many of the problems tabled during the workshop. Clearly, there was an atmosphere of cooperation, mutual understanding of the issues, and a desire to provide assistance or guidance towards finding resolution to many of the technical issues. Many expressed satisfaction with the format of the workshop and all recommended that a similar workshop be held in two years time.

There were five themes that were heard throughout the workshop:

1. Many participants were satisfied with most of the technology being offered today. The real problem was to get enough of the appropriate technology into their program to make a difference. The economic reality within demining organizations is often the limiting factor on why more new technologies are not being introduced into programmes. 2. Many users tend to look only at the technology and underestimate the effort required to bring a new technology on line. Factors such as training, life cycle costs, modifications to an organizational structure and maintenance programme and rewriting of SOPs, must all be adequately planned and effectively implemented. This must be done before the benefit of high cost and complex technologies can be fully realized. 3. There is a growing realization that many programmes can benefit from new technologies such as the use of demining machines. Those programmes that are adaptable, well-managed, and have a clear plan will benefit the most from new techniques and new equipment. 4. Sharing of experiences and provision of expert advice will go a long way toward reducing the risk of the introduction of new methods and equipment into the field. 5. There is a lack of detailed information available to convince operators of the advantages of using machines and new technologies effectively. In addition there is an apparent lack of retention of what information is out there already. The solution is a continued effort to make information publicly available and easily readable.

Noel Mulliner UNMAS

Al Carruthers GICHD

List of Annexes: A. List of Participants B. Questionnaire to Participants C. Summary of Questionnaire Responses D. Agenda E. Selected Web Sites - Sources of Information

List of Presentations:

1. Advances in Multisensor Mine Detectors – Ian Dibsdall 2. Wide Area Detection System – Erik Tolefsen 3. PDA Survey Devices – Rune Engeset 4. Cambodian Mine Action Program – Brush Cutting Machines – Phumro Oum 5. International Test and Evaluation Program (ITEP) – Alex Keijzer 6. Accreditation of Demining Machines – Mark Buswell.

1

Annex A to

UNMASS/GICHD Technical Workshop

Geneva

15-17 February 2006

List of Participants 15 - 17 February 2006Technical WorkshopName AddressInstitution / Function Participation

Afghanistan

Kefayatullah EBLAGH +93 793 35 22 or 202 301 308

+93 202 301 [email protected]

Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

ATC

Director

Phouswe 22 24 Street no. 10Wazir Akbar Knan KabulAfghanistan

+93 (0)702 782 61Mobile :

Zahir PARSA +93 -

+93 [email protected]

Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

UNMACA

R & D Associate

House No. 95, Street JeemCharahi ZambagWazir Akbar Khan KabulAfghanistan

+93 70 280 331Mobile :

Azerbaijan

Adil ASLANOV +994 12 495 84 01

+994 12 497 44 [email protected]

Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

ANAMA

Supervision of Field Operations

Fizuly Street no. 69AZ1014 BakuAzerbaijan

+994 50 364 25 63Mobile :

Belgium

Kevin BRYANT +32 22 86 50 36


Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

HI

Senior Explosive Ordnance Clearance Technical Advisor

rue de Spa 671000 BruxellesBelgium

+44 (0)787 62 34 159 (UK)Mobile :

Page 1 of 9

Name AddressInstitution / Function Participation

Burundi

Antoine NIMBESHA +257 857 677


Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

MACC

Assistant Operations /MRE

29, avenue de l'UniversitéRohero 55 BujumburaBurundi

+257 25 21 80Mobile :

Cambodia

Phumro OUM +855 23 981 083 / 4


Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

CMAC

Director of Operations and Planning

P.O. Box 116 Phnom PehnCambodia

+855 12 50 7778Mobile :

Croatia

Ivica RAGUZ +385 31 250 824


Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

CROMAC

Quality Assurance Officer

Ante Kovacica 10P.O.Box 844 0000 SisakCroatia

+385 984 522 41Mobile :

Denmark

Danniel FERNANDEZ +45 3373 5113

+45 3332 [email protected]

Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

DDG

Senior Technical Advisor

c/o Danish Refugee CouncilBorgergade 101002 CopenhagueDenmark

+45 2014 7932Mobile :

Page 2 of 9


Eritrea

Haile ANDEGERGISH +291 20 09 15


Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

EDA

Chief of Training

St. Emba SoyraP.O.Box 4703 AsmaraEritrea

+2917( 0)7 132 456Mobile :

Guinea-Bissau

Joao Pedro GOMES +245 20 70 62


Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

LUTCANA NGO

Assistant Operations

CAAMIBarrio de Chau de PapelRua 10, no. 70 BissauGuinea-Bissau

-Mobile :

Iraq

Mark BUSWELL +44 1 61 236 43 11

+44 1 61 236 62 [email protected]

Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

MAG

Technical Operations Manager

47, Newton StreetMI 1FT ManchesterUnited Kingdom

-Mobile :

Lance J. MALIN +964 + 1 914 822 18 64 (USA)


Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

RONCO DEMINING

Project Chief of Staff & Operations Technical Advisor to the NMAA

RONCO Demining, APO AE 091 36 orRONCO Demining , BFPO 684 BaghdadIraq

790 19 19 861 (Iraqna)Mobile :

Lebanon

Cpt. Said GHANIME +961 49 82 702 or 14240 09


Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

LEBANESE ARMED FORCES-ENG. REG.

Company Commander

Engeneering Regiment CasernHazmiehDamascus Road, near hypermarket BouKhalil BeirutLebanon

+961 363 26 18Mobile :

Page 3 of 9


Mozambique

Milton E. Das Saudades PALOMBE +258 262 18 141


Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

IND

Head of Operations Department

IND NampulaMozambique

+258 824 55 690Mobile :

Namibia

Hendrik EHLERS +264 81128 52 52 (Secretary)

+264 61 243 [email protected] and [email protected]

Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

STIFTUNG MENSCHEN GEGEN MINEN E.V. (MGM DEMINING NGO)

Director

Deihlstreet 1 Herma CompoundSouthern Industria Aerea9000 WindhoekNamibia

+264 81 127 70 20Mobile :

Netherlands

Alexander KEIJZER +31 70 316 40 75


Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

ITEP MOD / NL

Excom Rep / Senior Staff Officer

P.O.Box 207012500 ES The HagueNetherlands

-Mobile :

Norway

Geir BJOERSVIK +47 220 377 00


Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

NPA

Advisor

Norsk Folkeltjelp P.O.Box 8844 Youngstorget0181 OsloNorway

+47 92 65 00 60Mobile :

Page 4 of 9


South Africa

Ashley WILLIAMS +27 12 620 33 22


Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

MECHEM

Operations Manager

MECHEM a Division of DENEL (Pty) LtdP.O.Box 148640140 LyttletownSouth Africa

+278 28 84 91 51Mobile :

Sri Lanka

Visuvalingam VELLUPPILLAI +94 023 22 322 34 / 5


Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

GOVERNMENT AGENT

Coordination of Demining Activities at District Level

District Secretariat MannarSri Lanka

+94 (0)71 27 27 109Mobile :

Sudan

Simon PORTER +249 91 21 744 29

+249 [email protected] or simonmsporter

Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

UNMAO

Deputy Programme Manager Sudan

+44(0)796 99 83 542 (UK)Mobile :

Switzerland

Al CARRRUTHERS +41 (0)22 906 16 79

+41 (0)22 906 16 [email protected]

Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

GICHD

Technology Officer / Co-chair

7 bis, avenue de la PaixCase postale 13001211 Geneva 1Switzerland

+41 (0)79 277 31 67Mobile :

John MORRISEY +41 (0)22 737 20 43

+41 (0)22 737 20 [email protected] or [email protected]

Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

FSD

Operations Officer

36, rue du XXXI-Décembre1207 GenevaSwitzerland

+46 76 10 759 56 (Sweden)Mobile :

Page 5 of 9


United Kingdom

Guy LUCAS +44 16 34 296 757


Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

BACTEC INTERNATIONAL LTD

Managing Director

37, Riverside Sir Thomas Longley roadME2 4DP Rochester KentUnited Kingdom

+44(0)785 03 18 053Mobile :

United States of America

Bob DOHENY +1 703 692 16 26


Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

OASD (SO/LIC) RESSOURCES

Principal Deputy, Technology and Resources

2500 Pentagon20301-2500 Washington DCUnited States of America

+1 571 212 64 90Mobile :

Noel MULLINER +1 212 963 22 67


Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

UNMAS

Technology Coordinator / Co-Chair

2, UN Plaza DC 2 RM 66610017 New YorkUnited States of America

-Mobile :

JJ VAN DER MERWE +1 212 457 12 83


Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

UNOPS

Technical Advisor

Farington AvenueSleepy Hollow10591 New YorkUnited States of America

-Mobile :

Yemen

Faiz MOHAMMAD +967 1 33 76 27

+967 1 33 76 25 / [email protected]

Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

YEMEN MAP / UNDP

Chief Technical Advisor

UNDP Mine Action Project P.O.Box 551 60 M Street Sana'aYemen

+967 7111 55 709Mobile :

Page 6 of 9


Zimbabwe

Maximilian Aiden DYCK +263 4 776 531 / 216 / 230


Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

MINETECH INTERNATIONAL

Operation Director

22, York Avenue Highlands HarareZimbabwe

+263 11 212 584Mobile :

Page 7 of 9


Speakers - GICHD Alan ARNOLD +41 (0)22 906 16 84


Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

GICHD

Program Manager Mine Action Information Systems


+41 (0)79 477 31 91Mobile :

Havard BACH +41 (0)22 906 16 70


Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

GICHD

Head Operational Methods


+41 (0)79 446 28 04Mobile :

Phil BEAN +41 (0)22 906 16 87


Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

GICHD

Head of Standards and Stockpiles Section


+41 (0)79 214 82 59Mobile :

Ian MANSFIELD +41 (0)22 906 16 74


Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

GICHD

Operations Director


+41 (0)79 337 98 09Mobile :

Eric TOLLEFSEN +41 (0)22 906 16 95


Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

GICHD

Mechanical Studies Specialist


+41 (0)79 445 99 41Mobile :

Speakers - QINETIQ Ian DIBSDALL +44 12 52 39 51 52

+44 12 52 39 60 [email protected]

Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

QINETIQ

ITEP Multi-Sensor Working Group Coordinator

Building A5Room 2012 / ASCody Technology ParkIvely Road, FarnboroughGU14 OLX HampshireUnited Kingdom

-Mobile :

Page 8 of 9


Other Attendies David J. DANIELS +44 1 372 367 084


Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

ERA TECHNOLOGY

Manager Sensor Systems Consultancy

Cleeve RoadLeatherheadKT22 7SA SurreyUnited Kingdom

-Mobile :

Kevin JOHNSON +1


Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

CYTERRA

Detector Manufacturer United States of America

-Mobile :

Max JONES +41 (0)22 906 83 09


Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

GICHD

Animal-Detection Specialist


+41 (0)79 830 46 56Mobile :

Klaus KOPPETSCH +41 (0)22 906 16 78


Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

GICHD



-Mobile :

Alan MACDONALD +41 (0)22 906 83 41


Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

GICHD



+41 (0)79 830 46 61Mobile :

Arnold SCHOOLDERMAN +31 03 740 793


Phone :

Fax :E-mail :

TNO

Researcher Observation Systems

P.O.Box 968642509 JG The HagueNetherlands

-Mobile :

Page 9 of 9

2

Annex B To UNMAS/GICHD Technical Workshop Proceedings

TECHNOLOGY WORKSHOP 15-17 February 2006

PRE-WORKSHOP INFORMATION

Please provide as much information as possible in response to the questions.

1. Organisation Title : 2. Detectors (hand held or vehicle mounted)

How many hand held detectors do you use in your programme / organisation? What types (makes and models) of detectors do you use? How many of each type? What is the average age of your detector fleet? When / how do you plan to change the detector fleet? Are you content with the performance of each type of detector? Do you require improved detector performance? If so, what improvements do you

want? Have you conducted detector trials? Are you planning to conduct any detector trials? Have you heard of the CWA 14747? Do you use it?

Answers to these questions will influence discussion on detector performance, the influence of soil on detection and the effort required for improvements. Please provide other comments or expanded answers if you think it necessary. 3. Mine Action Machines

What types of demining / mine action machines do you use? How many of each type do you use? How old are the machines? When do you plan to replace them? Why do you plan to replace them? What improvements would you like? Do you have any plans to conduct machine trials? Have you heard of the CWA 15044? Do you use it? Additional comments.

3

4. PPE

What PPE do you use (manufacturer and type, e.g. Rofi aprons, or Med Eng helmets and visors),

Do you have different PPE for different activities i.e. deminer or supervisor or dog handler etc?, please list the types.

How did you select which PPE to provide? When do you plan to replace the PPE? Have you conducted any trials? Do you intend to conduct PPE trials? Additional comments.

5. EOD/ disposal tools

What are the main types of explosive that you use? Approximately what quantity of demolition explosives do you use in a year? Do you have a problem providing or obtaining this quantity of explosives? What specialist EOD tools do you use? What specialist EOD tools would you like? Do you use pyrotechnic torches? If ‘No’, would you like to? Have you considered a local facility to recover explosives from ‘safe’ munitions

for re-use as demolition explosives? If ‘yes’ would you be interested in obtaining such a facility?

6. Hand Tools

Do you locally manufacture hand tools? Are there requirements or procedures for which you do not currently have the

right tools? Comment on any gaps, requirements.

7. Communications

Do you have problems communicating with your field units? Do you have problems with vehicle communications? Do you know of adequate software or communications equipment that would

solve your problems? Comment on any gaps, requirements.

8. Medical equipment

Do you have adequate trauma packs or equipment in your medical first aid packages?

Comment on any gaps, requirements.

4

9. Accidents

How many demining accidents have there been in the last year? How many demining accidents have there been since the beginning of the

programme/operation? How many accidents have been attributed to a demining tool or demining tool

failure? Which tools or techniques have been contributory factors to accidents?

10. Miscellaneous

Do you have any other known requirements for technology improvements to your operations or procedures?

5

Annex C to UNMAS/GICHD Technical Workshop Proceedings

Consolidated Summary – Technical Workshop Questionnaire

GENERAL Total Number of Respondents: 18 Number of MACs/NMAAs: 10 Number of NGOs 4 Number of Companies: 4 DETECTORS Total Number of Metal Detectors 7836 Types and Quantities of Metal Detectors: Some respondents did not give detector manufacturer; therefore the total number of detectors given below will not match the total number of detectors given above.

CEIA: Total 2235 MIL-D1 2235 MineLab: Total 2086 F1A4 1669 F3 417 F1A4 (UXO) 24 Schiebel: Total 847

AN 19 (All Mods) 779 ATMID 68

Vallon: Total 808

Unknown Model 14 ML1614C 34 ML1620B 30 ML1620C 137 VMH1&1.3 201

6

VMH 2&2.1&2.3 150 VMH 3 168 VMH 3 CS 74

Ebinger: Total 604 420 PI 8 420 SI 16 420 PB 35 420 GC 47 EBEX 420 139 EBEX 421 300 740 m (Large Loop) 59

Foerster: Total 106 Model not specified 58 Minex 2 FD 48

Quartel: Total 25 MD8 25

Schonstedt: Total 176 Model not specified 102 GA 72 74

Age of Detectors: Oldest 10 years Youngest New Typical Age 2-5 years Plans for replacing detectors:

3 respondents planned a systematic replacement. E.g., replaced after 5 years use. 5 respondents said as necessary through damage or wearing out. Many stated that they were replaced through donors or when new contracts were awarded.

Performance improvements required:

Most were satisfied with performance of their detectors. 3 respondents wanted improved ground compensation. Several recognized poorer performance from older detectors.

Detector Trials Completed:

9 respondents reported conducting trials. Several reported using trial results from other programs/agencies E.g. ITEP

Detector Trials Planned: 6 respondents said that they planned trials.

7

Number of Organizations aware of CWA on Metal Detectors 3 Respondents know about the CWA 14747 and use it or portions of it. 6 Respondents know of it but hadn’t used it. 10 Respondents hadn’t heard of it. General Comments

3 respondents wanted Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Some wanted ability to discriminate between clutter and mines CMAC Comment – In a given context a use of a detector should be standardized among all demining operators to obtain the same standard and quality. For instance, if one organization uses a detector which can detect up to 10 cm and another organization uses a detector which detects up to 15 or 20 cm, the cost and quality of operations will be different. This is even more important in the current competitive mine action environment. CMAC Comment – Another factor to seriously consider is the improvement of the GPR system. High fragmentation and non-mine metal pieces are the persistent problem in Cambodia, where in CMAC alone over 300 million fragments have been unearthed in the past 13 years. This was done when clearing over 140 million square metres and finding and destroying over 300,316 mines.

MINE ACTION MACHINES Total number of demining machines in use: (Does not Include Mine Protected Vehicles) 202 Total number of each type of demining machine in use.

Heavy Flails Scanjack 3500 3 Dokking MV 20 1 Hydrema 910 MCV 3 Aardvark (All Models) 9

Medium Flails Unknown Make 1 Mine Cat (All Models) 5 Sampson 1 RM KA 1 M-FV-2500 1 Armtrac 100 2 NOMA 2

8

Light Flails Unknown Make 1

Dokking MV4 22 MV3 2 Bozema 4 23 3 9 2 1 1 1 Armtrac 75 1 Tempest 6

Heavy Tillers Rhino 3 Zeus 1 Oracle 1 Mine Guzzler 1

Heavy Flail/Tiller Mine Wolf 3 Medium Flail/Tiller

Dokking MV10 1

Heavy Vegetation Cutters/Excavators Unknown Make 3 Komatsu 2 Hitachi (All Models) 25 MT 01 1

Light Vegetation Cutters Strimmer 1 Rotary Cutters 3 JCB/Case Backhoe 4 HIAB 2 HEC Max Plus 1

Other Vegetation Cutters (Unknown Weight Class) MVB 6 BGH-600-1 1 ZNB 01 1

Miscellaneous Earthmoving/Processing Machines Rotary Sifters 5 Gallion/CAT Armoured Graders 6 Dozers and Tracked Loaders 7 Wheeled Loaders with Backhoe 25

9

Wheeled Loaders 4 Age of Machines:

Oldest 20 Years Youngest New Typical Age: Highly variable 4-10 years

When do you plan to replace them: Most replaced as required, some are related to high operating and maintenance costs. One respondent tried to replace when machines were and average of 6 years operating time. Why are they replaced: When operating and maintenance costs are too high. Trials: 3 respondents said they were aware of CWA 15044 and used it. 6 respondents said they were aware of CWA 15044. 6 respondents said they were going to conduct trials. What improvements would you like to see:

-There is an urgent need for demining machines that can work in forested areas. -A practical integrated magnet system on machines -Vehicle Mounted Detections system with real time marking -3 respondents wanted AT mine resistant machines. -Many expressed the opinion that lighter machines are required for ease of transport and weak infrastructure such as roads and bridges. -Better wet ground mobility. -An excavating machine to help in detecting and clearing land with shifting sand and dunes. -One respondent wanted an integral water sprayer and air compressor to ease maintenance in the field. -3 organizations indicated that they wanted to start using demining machines and 1 organization was going to expand its demining machine program.

PPE What PPE is being used? By far the majority of respondents use body apron or vest with visor and headband/helmet. Manufacturers for each are listed below.

Apron/Vest Manufacturers/Providers ROFI Med Eng Borovo Rabintex

10

Tetranike UXB International Force Ware Security Devices LBA International Scavenger Envostar/Envotech South Africa Body Armour(?) Harsha TRZ Hadzici

Visors and Headbands/Helmets BACTEC Global Armour LBA International Med Eng Veplas Sestan and Busch ROFI Harsha

Do you have different PPE for different activities?

-One respondent said the dog handlers use goggles to enable better hearing -Several respondents said that EOD personnel sometimes used EOD suits and improved leg and groin protection. -One respondent reported that they used a hybrid between a vest and an apron for deminers. -One respondent reported using a lightweight PPE and visors for BAC.

How do you select PPE?

The selection is based upon the threat, previous experience, and what was donated to the program. Several respondents referred to STANAG 2920 and IMAS as standards. Several reported referring to manufacturers claims. One respondent stated that all manufacturers claim to provide adequate protection.

When do you replace PPE?

Mostly they are replaced as required, i.e., when they become damaged or worn. Several respondents referred to a life expectancy of visors and vest material. A respondent mentioned getting local repairs done with new Kevlar material.

Trials Conducted

Nine respondents reported conducting trials.

11

Several referred to manufacturer certification. Two respondents noted the results of military trials.

Trials Planned 5 respondents said they intend to conduct trials.

Other comments One respondent wanted better protection and less weight. One respondent said better hand protection was needed. Several respondents expressed satisfaction with the current PPE. EOD/Disposal Tools What are the types of explosive used?

PE 4/C4/Semtex/808 TNT HMX Commercial quarrying, mining, or civil engineering explosives.

What quantity is used per year? The quantities used were highly variable from 50 kg to 13000 kgs. Most were less than 500 kgs. Do you have any difficulties obtaining explosives? -Programs who received explosives from the Army reported few problems. -Those that had to import explosives reported numerous problems and several said that the UN system was slow and cumbersome. -Several programs have switched over to commercial suppliers. Specialist EOD tools used.

-Most programs use basic demolition charges and accessories. -Some programmes reported having available Swiss SM devices and expressed satisfaction in their performance. -Several programs reported use of de-armers, rocket wrenches, specialized shaped charges, fuze extractors. -One respondent was particularly well-equipped even down to a fuze X-ray.

What Specialized EOD equipment would you like to have. -The most common request was for a lightweight exploder. -One respondent wanted to get a full suite of EOD equipment including robots, vehicles, EOD suits, etc. One respondent expressed a need for an ultrasound UXO casing thickness measurement device.

12

Do you use pyrotechnic torches, would you like to use them?

-6 Respondents reported using flares. A further 5 said they would use them if they had them. -5 respondents said there was no requirement, and several said the need was very limited to special cases.

Considered explosive recycling facility? Would you like it? -Several respondents stated that they already recycle explosives from certain mines. -Numerous respondents showed interest in such a system.

Hand Tools Manufacture of hand tool locally. (Comment: This question may have been understood as some respondents took it to mean “Did their program manufacture tools?”

Most programs use locally manufactured tools and expressed general satisfaction with them.

Are there any requirements for which you do not have the right tools?

General satisfaction was expressed.

Other Comments

-One respondent requested a better pulling equipment them locally improvised items. -One respondent recommended addition of rakes in tool kits. -One respondent recommended that a standard tool kit with specifications for its contents be the subject for an IMAS. -

Communications Problems communicating with field units.

In general programs were satisfied with communications; one respondent each reported the following problems:

-totally reliant on mobile phones -a shortage in the number of channels/frequencies authorized -high costs of commercial systems -problems in mountainous areas

Two respondents reported a lack of radios.

Problems with Vehicle Communications

13

-General satisfaction with vehicle communications but one respondent each reported problems with:

-interference with other non-demining NGOs “hogging” the net. -lack of vehicle installations -shadow zones in specific areas -requirement to set up their own automatic repeater sites.

Are you aware of software or equipment available which would solve your problems?

Most did not specify any shortages or solutions but it was mentioned that cheaper forms of communication should be investigated and several wanted satellite communications.

Medical Equipment Trauma packs adequate? There was unanimous agreement that the trauma kits were adequate. One respondent reported a shortage of kits. One reported a shortage of handheld VHF radios for medical staff and ambulance vehicles. Another reported difficulty with local authorities to carry painkilling drugs in the kits. Comments

Suggestions for change included -provision of stretchers which could be adapted to different lengths of vehicles. -provision of emergency oxygen (EMOX kits) -provide airway kits to accommodate different sizes of patients

Accidents Accidents in the last year: Comment- There was some confusion with this question and some answered in terms of the number of casualties and others in terms of number of incidents. Some reported accidents to equipment while demining where no injuries occurred. As near as can be determined the number of personnel accidents resulting in injury or death was 34. Accidents since the beginning of the programme operation. Similar comment as given above. According to the responses received, there were 290 personnel accidents in years prior to 2005 but several respondents did not reply to the question. Accidents attributed to demining tool or demining tool failure. The responses to this question were sometimes difficult to interpret but in general, respondents did not attribute

14

accidents to the tools themselves. One notable exception was where the respondent believed that 37 of 39 accidents were attributable to a demining tool or tool failure. Another reported that the use of heavy rakes was a contributing factor. One respondent reported that a mine detection dog was a contributing factor. Most accidents were attributed to carelessness or failure to follows SOPs.

Tools or techniques that were contributing factors. As above. Miscellaneous

Some suggestions that were placed in this portion of the questionnaire have been moved to other sections above where they are more applicable. The following comments were expressed by one respondent each:

1. Development in the tool design and the procedure, to increase the clearance progress.

2. A Drager type air sampler that confirms the presence of explosives that will be used as a confirmation test for the abilities of residual explosive bio-detectors.

3. It is important to utilize the one man one lane demining drill as it is safer and increases productivity.

4. Improved area survey tools are required. 5. There should be more information on R&D projects that are funded in

the name of demining. It was believed that most of the money was wasted.

15

Annex D to UNMAS/GICHD Technical Workshop Proceedings

AGENDA NOTES

TECHNICAL WORKSHOP

15-17 FEBRUARY 2006

General Format This workshop is designed to address technical issues. It is not intended to be a forum where one solicits funds, puts forth personal agendas, or to describe country programs. The workshop will focus on issues such as experiences with new equipment, defining capabilities and limitations of equipment, identifying capability gaps, lessons learned, how to improve the exchange of technical information/experiences, and constructive advice on how to introduce new technologies into demining programs. We need to get maximum participation from the workshop attendees. If you need a computer/projector, vufoil projector, or flip charts to illustrate a point these will be available in the Conference Room. The workshop is split generally into four sessions:

Morning, 15 Feb – Welcoming addresses, introduction to the workshop, and a review of the comments provided in the questionnaires received from workshop attendees. Start discussion on detector equipment.

Afternoon, 15 Feb – Detection Equipment and Manual Demining /PPE Themes

All Day - 16 Feb –Clearance Theme including Demining Machines, Road Clearance, Survey Tools, EOD Tools, and Medical Equipment.

All Day - 17 Feb – Bring forward outstanding issues from the previous days plus Miscellaneous Technical Equipment Issues and Way Ahead.

16

UNMAS/GICHD TECHNICAL WORKSHOP

15 – 17 FEBRUARY, 2006

GENEVA, SWITZERLAND

Wednesday, 15 February

Time Activity Location Facilitator Remarks 0830-0900

Coffee Ground Floor Foyer

Al Carruthers

0900-0910

Welcome Address by Ambassador Nellen/GICHD

C2

0910-0940

Introduction, Aim and Objectives of the Workshop

C2 Noel Mulliner

0940-1000

Introduce Attendees

C2 Noel Mulliner/Al Carruthers

1000-1030

Coffee C2

1030-1100-

Confirmation of Agenda

C2 Al Carruthers/ Noel Mulliner

Take into account comments received from questionnaires

1100-1200

Hand-held Metal Detectors

C2 Al Carruthers Topics: Information

sources Performance Difficult Soils Logistics

1200-1300

Lunch Cafeteria Meal Voucher required

17

Wednesday, 15 February 2006 Time Activity Location Facilitator Remarks 1300-1400

Multi-Sensor Detectors

C2 Ian Dibsdall/QinetiQ

Topics: Performance Advantages Implications Display of

hardware 1410-1520

Manual Demining & Alternative Procedures

C2 Havard Bach Topics Adequacy of

Hand tools Rakes Drills and

Procedures 1530-1630

Discussions on PPE, Technology lessons from accident investigations,

C2 Phil Bean Topics Recent

changes in PPE

Accident statistics and their usefulness

1640-1740

Open discussion on Detection/ Manual Demining subjects

C2

1740-1800

Days Summary C2 Al Carruthers

18


15 – 17 FEBRUARY, 2006

GENEVA, SWITZERLAND

Thursday, 16 February

Time Activity Location Facilitator Remarks 0900-1000 Mine

Detection on Roads

C2 Erik Tollefsen Topics: Systems

available Operational

experience 1000-1030 Coffee C2 1030-1130 REST C2 Havard Bach Topics

Capabilities Limitations Employment

1130-1230 Survey Tools C2 Rune Engeset Topics

PDA Devices GPS GIS

1230-1330 Lunch Cafeteria Meal Vouchers

19

Thursday, 16 February Time Activity Location Facilitator Remarks 1330-1430

Demining Machines-Brush Cutters

C2 TBC Topics: Capabilities Limitations Employment

1440-1540

Demining Machines- Flails, Tillers and Rollers

C2 Erik Tollefsen

Topics Capabilities Limitations Employment

1550-1650

Neutralization/EOD Tools, Medical Equipment, and Underwater Demining?

C2 Phil Bean Topics Operational

requirements for EOD Tools

Storage and Transit

Adequacy of Medical Eqpt

1700-1745

Open Discussion for additional Issues raised during the day

C2

1745-1800

Days Summary C2 Noel Mulliner/

1900-2100

Hosted Dinner Edelweiss Restaurant

20


15 – 17 FEBRUARY, 2006

GENEVA, SWITZERLAND

Friday, 17 February

Time Activity Location Facilitator Remarks 0900-1000

Vehicles and Communications

C2 Phil Bean Topics: Vehicle/Crew

Protection Adequacy of

comms equipment

1000-1030

Coffee C2

1030-1130

Test & Evaluation and Trials in mine affected countries

C2 Mark Buswell

Topics: Exchange of

Information Priorities Field Trials Assistance

1130-1230

Information Management

C2 TBC Topics Imagery,

Maps GPS IMSMA Ver.

4

1230-1330

Lunch Cafeteria Meal Vouchers

21

Friday, 17 February Time Activity Location Facilitator Remarks 1330-1430

Way Ahead/Final Exam

C2 Noel Mulliner/ Al Carruthers

Topics Technology issues

that must be addressed

Priorities Recommendations

for Insertion of New technology into Demining Operations

1440-1540

Open Discussion on Issues raised during the day-Any Other Business

C2

1540-1600

Days Summary and Parting Comments

C2 Noel Mulliner/ Al Carruthers

22

Annex E to UNMAS/GICHD Technical Workshop Proceedings

Sources of Information

Selected Websites General Information

Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining www.gichd.ch United Nations Mine Action Service

http://www.mineaction.org/sitemap.asp James Madison University/Mine Action Information Center

http://maic.jmu.edu Land Mine Monitor http://www.icbl.org/lm/

Technical Subjects

International Test and Evaluation Program http://www.itep.ws/ European Union Demining http://www.eudem.vub.ac.be/ US Humanitarian Demining http://www.humanitarian-

demining.org/demining/default.asp Canadian Centre for Mine Action Technologies

http://www.ccmat.gc.ca/SiteMap/index_e.shtml Swedish EOD and Demining Centre http://www.swedec.mil.se/?lang=E Various Equipment Manufacturers

Miscellaneous Sites

People Against Landmines http://www.mgm.org/e/index.htm Inter-Galactic EOD Foundation http://www.igeod.org/

Proceedings for the UNMAS/GICHD Technical Workshop 15 – 17 ... · Proceedings for the UNMAS/GICHD...

Documents

Transcript of Proceedings for the UNMAS/GICHD Technical Workshop 15 – 17 ... · Proceedings for the UNMAS/GICHD...