FIELD SURVEY TO EXAMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF CLEARING LANDMINES IN THE FALKLAND ISLANDS (ISLAS MALVINAS) FIELD SURVEY REPORT CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY 9 JULY 2007 VERSION FOR PUBLIC DISSEMINATION The geographical names used in this report do not imply the adoption of any position by Cranfield University with regard to the sovereignty dispute over the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas), South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas. FIELD SURVEY TO EXAMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF CLEARING LANDMINES IN THE FALKLAND ISLANDS (ISLAS MALVINAS) FIELD SURVEY REPORT CONTENTS Page Executive Summary General framework of the project 1 Aim of field survey 1 Background 1 Definitions 2 Approach and methodology 3 Sources of information 3 Key findings 4 Strategic clearance options 5 Recommendations 6 Table 1: Summary of areas cleared, timings and costs of the five scenarios 7 Main Report: Part A Field survey requirement and method Section 1: Survey requirement 1.1 General framework of the project 1 1.2 Aim of field survey 1 1.3 Background 1 1.4 Field survey assumptions and constraints 2 1.4.1 Mined areas survey 2 1.4.2 Ecological survey 3 1.4.3 Soil assessment 3 1 1.4.4 Environmental remediation 3 1.5 Terms and definitions 3 Section 2: The setting 2.1 The landmine threat 5 2.1.1 The 1982 conflict 5 2.1.2 Clearance post-conflict 5 2.2 Socio-economic impact of the landmines 6 2.3 Ottawa Convention and International Mine Action Standards 6 2.3.1 Ottawa Convention 6 2.3.2 International Mine Action Standards 6 2.4 Lessons learned from international mine action 1982 to 2007 8 Section 3: Study methodology 3.1 Project organisation 9 3.1.1 Project team 9 3.1.2 Expert panels 9 3.2 Stage 1: Scoping study and document review 10 3.2.1 Scoping study 10 3.2.2 Understanding the immediate technical threat 10 3.2.3 Soil and vegetation studies 11 3.2.4 Mechanical equipment studies 11 3.2.5 Review of information held by JSEOD Detachment 11 3.3 Stage 2: Field surveys and assessments 11 3.3.1 Survey of mined areas 11 3.3.2 Survey of soils, vegetation and fauna 12 3.3.3 Information collected from local inhabitants 13 3.4 Stage 3: Review data from field survey and prepare draft report for JWP 13 3.4.1 Analysis of information and consideration of clearance options 13 3.4.2 Assessment of environmental implications of clearance options 15 3.4.3 Assessment of costs 15 3.4.4 Preparation of reports 16 3.5 Quality management of the study 16 Main Report: Part B Analysis, findings and recommendations 2 Section 4: Analysis of environment and climate of the Islands 4.1 Geographical position, size and features of the Islands 17 4.2 Geology of the Islands 18 4.3 Ecology of the Islands 18 4.3.1 General description of flora 18 4.3.2 Summary of avifauna interest of the Islands 19 4.4 Environment developments 19 4.5 Environmental standards 20 Section 5: Clearance methods 5.1 General mine action assessment 21 5.2 Technical survey 21 5.2.1 Technical data 21 5.2.2 Environmental data 22 5.3 The clearance process 22 5.3.1 Manual clearance 22 5.3.2 Mechanical assistance 23 5.3.3 Mine detection dogs 23 5.3.4 Combining clearance systems 23 5.3.5 Re-classification of land 24 5.4 Quality management 24 5.4.1 The quality approach 24 5.4.2 Internal quality management 24 5.4.3 External quality management 24 5.4.4 Post-clearance quality control 24 5.4.5 Handing over cleared land 25 Section 6: Remediation methods 6.1 General 26 6.2 Vegetation remediation protocols 26 6.2.1 Remediation Level 0: soil pre-treatment 26 6.2.2 Remediation Level 1: benign neglect 26 6.2.3 Remediation Level 2: addition of propagules, reseeding etc 27 6.2.4 Remediation Level 3: hydro-seeding 27 6.2.5 Remediation Level 4: direct planting of established seedlings 27 6.2.6 Remediation Level 5: addition of soil stability protocols 28 3 6.2.7 Additional comments on vegetation/habitat remediation protocols 28 6.3 Faunal remediation protocols 28 6.3.1 Invertebrates 28 6.3.2 Vertebrates 28 6.4 Clearance options and remediation protocols 29 Section 7: Analysis of mined areas 7.1 The Murrell Peninsula 31 7.2 Fitzroy Bridge 32 7.3 Port Howard Settlement 33 7.4 Fox Bay Settlements 33 7.5 Goose Green and Darwin Settlements 34 7.6 Stanley Area 1 35 7.7 Stanley Area 2 35 7.8 Stanley Area 3 36 7.9 Stanley Area 4 37 7.10 Islands clearance 38 7.11 Condition of mines 38 Section 8: Strategic options 8.1 Categorisation of mined areas 39 8.2 Strategic clearance options 40 8.2.1 General 40 8.2.2 Assessment of costs 40 8.2.3 Scenario 1 40 8.2.4 Scenario 2 41 8.2.5 Scenario 3 41 8.2.6 Scenario 4 41 8.2.7 Scenario 5 42 8.2.8 Risk assessment 42 Section 9: Recommendations 45 Annex A - Glossary of Terms and Definitions 47 Annex B - Study Terms of Reference 51 4 Annex C - Field survey timings and key events 59 Annex D - Assessment of potential movement over time of mines laid in peat 61 Annex E - Summary of the vegetation communities on the Islands 65 Annex F - Summary of information collected during the field survey and analysis 71 Annex G - Mined areas – summary 113 Annex H - Scope of work – Scenario 1 121 Annex I - Costs – Scenario 1 131 Annex J - Programme management 133 Annex K - Risk management of clearance programme 135 Annex L - Bibliography and references 137 5 FIELD SURVEY TO EXAMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF CLEARING LANDMINES IN THE FALKLAND ISLANDS (ISLAS MALVINAS) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY 9 JULY 2007 VERSION FOR PUBLIC DISSEMINATION The geographical names used in this report do not imply the adoption of any position by Cranfield University with regard to the sovereignty dispute over the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas), South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas. FIELD SURVEY TO EXAMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF CLEARING LANDMINES IN THE FALKLAND ISLANDS (ISLAS MALVINAS) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 of 7 General framework of the project On 11 October 2001, the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Argentine Republic agreed through an Exchange of Notes to examine the feasibility of clearing landmines remaining in the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas). The study is being carried out by both Governments by means of a British-Argentine Joint Working Party (JWP). On 3 August 2006 both Governments agreed by Exchange of Notes that the feasibility study should include all unexploded ordnance (UXO) within mined areas, and agreed the procedures for conducting the field survey using a contractor. These two Exchanges of Notes are covered by a formula which safeguards the British and Argentine positions on the sovereignty dispute on the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas), South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, and the surrounding maritime areas, and were concluded in the light of the obligations in the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction of December 1997 (referred to in this report as the “Ottawa Convention”). On 7 August 2006 an invitation to tender was issued by the JWP. The Resilience Centre of Cranfield University was selected by the JWP to carry out certain tasks of the main study of the Feasibility Study, including a field survey on the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas), and a contract was signed in Paris on 3 November 2006. Aim of field survey The aim of the field survey was to provide a detailed assessment of the availability and suitability of the methods and techniques normally used to detect, clear and dispose of land mines and UXO, to provide an assessment of the potential environmental risks, and to estimate the costs for each clearance method and for the environmental remediation. Background The Argentine Government has reported to the United Nations that some 20,000 anti- personnel mines and 5,000 anti-vehicle mines were laid by its armed forces during the conflict which took place on the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) in 1982. Most were laid on the approaches to Port Stanley, but others were laid in and around the settlements of Goose Green, Fox Bay and Port Howard, and in the coves of the Murrell Peninsula. During hostilities a large number of ordnance was used by the UK and Argentine military. Some UXO remains inside the mined areas and has not yet been recovered. It is not possible to calculate exactly how much and which types of UXO remain within the mined areas, although the Study Team advises that the clearance of UXO will not impact significantly on demining operations on the Islands. On 14 June 1982, Argentine forces handed over all minefield records available to them to the British forces. In the immediate aftermath of the conflict some mines were lifted by British Sappers. Argentine personnel assisted by providing essential information on the type and locations of mines. However, work was halted due to injuries. Battlefield area clearance (BAC) continued for two years with the aim of removing UXO, stockpiles of ammunition, the remains of destroyed aircraft and other hazardous debris of the war. Mine clearance was performed only when civilians were 1 of 7 in immediate danger, and to enable essential military tasks to be carried out.