DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Nongovernmental Organizations' Perspective On

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Nongovernmental Organizations' Perspective On 20th ASCOBANS Advisory Committee Meeting AC20/Doc.3.5 (S) Warsaw, Poland, 27-29 August 2013 Dist. 16 August 2013 Agenda Item 3.5 Review of New Information on Threats to Small Cetaceans Underwater Unexploded Ordnance Document 3.5 Environmental Nongovernmental Organizations’ Perspective on Underwater Munitions Action Requested Take note Comment Submitted by Secretariat NOTE: DELEGATES ARE KINDLY REMINDED TO BRING THEIR OWN COPIES OF DOCUMENTS TO THE MEETING Secretariat’s Note The enclosed paper was kindly provided to the Secretariat by German NGO Naturschutzbund Deutschland (NABU), in order to assist the Advisory Committee with its new Work Plan Activity No. 5, “Review knowledge about and potential adverse effects of underwater unexploded ordnance as well as methods for its environmentally-friendly removal and make appropriate recommendations to Parties and other relevant authorities”. The Advisory Committee may wish to note, as an additional extensive information resource on the issue, the pages of an international conference on the subject which was held in November 2010. All presentations, workshop reports and a summary of results of the conference MIREMAR: Minimizing Risks for the Environment in Marine Ammunition Removal in the Baltic and North Sea can be accessed online. COMMENTARY Environmental Nongovernmental Organizations’ Perspective on Underwater Munitions AUTHORS agents (Nehring, 2011). In the period taneous detonations, shock waves Kim Detloff before WWII, munitions were also can seriously injure marine ani- Ingo Ludwichowski dumped, but there are no official esti- mals or result in acoustic trauma Nature and Biodiversity Conservation mates of quantities (Nehring, 2009). (Koschinski, 2011). Union (NABU), Berlin, Germany Also, some types of rocket propel- The long-term environmental lants, solid or liquid, are carcinogenic effects of chemical substances (muni- Petra Deimer or mutagenic. In other seas, even tions constituents and their degrada- Hans-Jürgen Schütte radiologic and nuclear weapons or tion products) are extremely variable Society for the Conservation waste from their production have and not adequately investigated. The of Marine Mammals (GSM), been dumped. explosive compounds, such as trinitro- Hamburg, Germany The most pressing challenges are toluene (TNT) and royal demolition Ulrich Karlowski to develop a scientific basis to better explosive (RDX, hexogen), and their Society for Dolphin Conservation understand the potential impacts of degradation products are highly toxic (GRD), Munich, Germany all kinds of underwater munitions. and can even be carcinogenic, muta- Sven Koschinski This requires that we immediately ex- genic, or teratogenic (toxic for repro- Meereszoologie, Nehmten, Germany plore and map dump sites and assess duction) (e.g., Won et al., 1976). theriskstheyposeonacase-by-case Furthermore, heavy metals such as basis. There are still knowledge mercury (in its organic form) and lead, uropean waters, like others gaps, but time is too short to twiddle used in fuses and detonators, have an Eworldwide (e.g., Plunkett, 2003; one’s thumbs. Old underwater muni- extremely high bioaccumulation po- Bearden, 2007), are crammed with tions are ticking ecologic bombs, and tential, resulting in highest concentra- various types of unexploded ordnance an immediate strategic and inter- tions in marine top predators (e.g., (UXO) and sea-dumped discarded national approach is needed to address Atwell et al., 1998), adversely affect- military munitions (DMM) (HELCOM, this forgotten and mostly invisible ing their endocrine systems (e.g., 1995; OSPAR Commission, 2005; threat. Kakuschke et al., 2005). To illustrate Amato et al., 2006; Böttcher et al., this risk: the WW II munitions in 2011). Underwater munitions pose German marine waters contain about serious risks to the marine environ- Environmental Risks 500 tons of mercury (Nehring, 2011). ment and human health alike. As UXO and DMM can adversely im- Given the numerous exposure much as 1.6 million tons of conven- pact marine life in different ways: paths to various substances, it is often tional ammunition and chemical war- (1) When dissolved or particulate impossible to link adverse ecological fare (CW) material were dumped into chemical substances are spread in effects to certain substances. This the German waters of the North Sea the water body from corroded should not give rise to the assumption and the Baltic Sea after World War II munitions, these substances or that there is no problem if no direct (WWII) in order to demilitarize exist- their degradation products effects can be attested. The fact that ing arsenals of the German and allied can have toxic effects to various handling of substances of concern re- armies (Böttcher et al., 2011). These organisms. quires extensive safety measures in contain up to 500,000 tons of carcino- (2) During removal using blow- order to avoid serious adverse health genic explosives and other highly toxic in-place operations or from spon- impacts in humans shows that they January/February 2012 Volume 46 Number 1 11 should not be considered harmless in People accidentally come into contact 4-amino-2,6-dinitrotoluene in blue biological systems. with munitions or substances released mussels; Maser, 2011). The exposition Detonations are the loudest point from broken or corroded shells (in path to toxic compounds and their source of underwater noise with pres- solution or as particles of various movement through the marine food sure peaks of up to 300 dB (re 1 μPa sizes). A number of accidents with web is not well investigated, but it is 1 m) and can cause dramatic conse- old ammunition in Germany are conceivable that persistent substances quences for all marine life (on an indi- reported by Nehring (2007, 2008). could find their way into seafood vidual level and likely on an ecological Fishermen and workers in offshore products. Seafood is not monitored level) and marine vertebrates, in partic- businesses (e.g., diving, oil and gas, for munitions constituents. ular. The adverse effects range from offshore wind farming, cable and acoustic trauma damaging the cochlear pipe-laying, dredging) run a specific structure in the inner ear to deadly risk of encountering conventional The Legal Framework injury resulting from shock waves munitions or CW agents (HELCOM, There are different legal instru- (Koschinski, 2011). The full spectrum 1995; Böttcher et al., 2011). Conse- ments that potentially regulate inter- of adverse effects on all marine life is quently, it is conceivable that fish or national approaches to addressing poorly understood, in particular with other seafood from contaminated the problem of underwater UXO and respect to population level effects in hauls will find their way into the DMM, although munitions are not different species (e.g., the critically en- market. This has been officially docu- explicitly mentioned. The existing dangered harbor porpoise in the Baltic mented in Germany in a number of legal instruments suffer from incom- Sea). As a consequence, the precau- cases (Nehring, 2011). Because old plete data or unclear wording and tionary approach has to be applied to munitions fills or munitions fragments rarely keep pace with continuously comply with international environ- being washed up cannot be easily iden- increasing scientificknowledge.The mental law. This approach states that tified as being extremely hazardous, most relevant legislation relating to if a risk of causing harm to the environ- beachgoers and bathers are also at risk. European waters is presented here. ment is suspected but scientificcon- Bioaccumulation of toxic sub- The United Nations Convention sensus is missing, the burden of proof stances in fish and other seafood is a on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) falls on those taking an action (such as reason for human health concerns. defines rights and responsibilities of detonating a mine or bomb in the sea). Extended exposure to seawater and nations in their use of the world’s Underwater explosions can also corrosion is resulting in the release of oceans. It establishes guidelines for cause toxic effects. The detonation of substantial amounts of toxic com- business, the environment, and the munitions does not necessarily result pounds from ammunition into the management of marine natural re- inthecompletecombustionofall sea floor and surrounding waters over sources. Article 192 generally obliges munitions constituents. Especially a considerable time. There are sub- signatories to “protect and preserve low-order detonations with incom- stantial quantities of toxic compounds the marine environment.” In addition, plete combustion cause contamination in the ammunition and a concern is Article 194 calls on states to take all with dissolved (Pfeiffer, 2008) or par- whether the rate of release will remain appropriate measures necessary to ticulate toxic munitions constituents steady or will change significantly. ensure that activities in areas under such as TNT (ESTCP, 2002; Pfeiffer, This requires monitoring at specific their jurisdiction do not damage the 2009). By contrast, heavy metals con- sites in order to frequently reassess environment. These measures shall tained in munitions are always released risks. “prevent, reduce, and control pollu- into the environment by detonations Measurable quantities of explosive tion” in order to “minimize to the full- because they cannot be degraded or residues were detected in various est possible extent” potential adverse burnt. biota including fish from the vicinity
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Handbook on the Management of Munitions Response Actions
    United States Office of Solid Waste and EPA 505-B-01-001 Environmental Protection Emergency Response May 2005 Agency Washington, DC 20460 EPA Handbook on the Management of Munitions Response Actions Interim Final 000735 EPA Handbook on The Management of Munitions Response Actions INTERIM FINAL May 2005 000736 This page intentionally left blank. 000737 Disclaimer This handbook provides guidance to EPA staff. The document does not substitute for EPA’s statutes or regulations, nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it cannot impose legally binding requirements on EPA, States, or the regulated community, and may not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances. This handbook is an Interim Final document and allows for future revisions as applicable. 000738 This page intentionally left blank. 000739 TABLE OF CONTENTS GLOSSARY OF TERMS ..................................................... xiii ACRONYMS ...............................................................xxv 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1-1 1.1 Overview...................................................... 1-1 1.2 The Common Nomenclature ....................................... 1-2 1.3 Organization of This Handbook .................................... 1-5 2.0 REGULATORY OVERVIEW ........................................... 2-1 2.1 Regulatory Overview............................................. 2-2 2.1.1 Defense Environmental Restoration Program .................... 2-2 2.1.2 CERCLA ...............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Unexploded Ordnance: a Reference Guide for the Citizen
    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BRIEFS FOR CITIZENS by M. Lambert Unexploded Ordnance: A Reference Guide for the Citizen This publication is published by the Hazard- he Technical Outreach Services contain lead, which might contaminate ous Substance Research Centers as part of their Technical Outreach Services for Com- for Communities (TOSC) pro- firing ranges on military bases. How- munities (TOSC) program series of Environ- Tgram of the Great Plains/ ever, many “formerly used defense mental Science and Technology Briefs for Rocky Mountain Hazardous Sub- sites” (known as FUDS in military par- Citizens. If you would like more information stance Research Center (HSRC) acts lance) have been left with unexploded about the TOSC program, contact your re- gional coordinator: as a source of technical expertise for ordnance that present a special kind of citizens at formerly used defense sites hazard to those workers involved with Northeast HSRC undergoing environmental cleanup. cleaning up the site, and for any future New Jersy Institute of Technology Many communities across the United use of the area. Otto H. York CEES 138 Warren St. States are near former military bases Types of former military installa- Newark, NJ 07102 that have environmental problems. A tions where UXO may be encountered (201) 596-5846 complication in the cleanup of these during environmental cleanup typically sites is the potential presence of UXO include depots where ordnance may Great Plains/Rocky Mountain HSRC Kansas State University (unexploded ordnance). TOSC pre- have been stored and decommissioned, 101 Ward Hall sents this reference about UXO to help as well as bombing, artillery, and gun- Manhattan, KS 66506 provide the general public with a nery ranges used for firing practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Unexploded Ordnance
    Detailed Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) Threat & Risk Assessment Meeting the requirements of CIRIA C681 ‘Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) A guide for the Construction Industry’ Risk Management Framework PROJECT NUMBER P7462 ORIGINATOR L. Gregory VERSION NUMBER 1.0 REVIEWED BY B. Wilkinson (18th July 2019) CLIENT Campbell Reith RELEASED BY R. Griffiths (23rd July 2019) SITE Harrow (Northwick Park, HA1 3GX) RATING VERY HIGH - This Site requires further action to reduce risk to ALARP during intrusive activities. 6 Alpha Associates Limited, Unit 2A Woolpit Business Park, Bury St Edmunds, IP30 9UP, United Kingdom T: +44 (0)2033 713 900 | W: www.6alpha.com Contents Contents .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................................. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 3 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 5 STAGE ONE – SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION .............................................................................. 6 Proposed Works ............................................................................................................................. 6 Ground Conditions ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • MIL EOD STM Lesson 1.2.Pdf
    Lesson 1.2 Overview of United Nations Military Explosive Ordnance Disposal Units (MILEOD) 1 Lesson 1.2 Content • Terminology – key terms • UN use of the term EOD • Role of MILEOD • Aim of MILEOD deployment on Peacekeeping Missions • Direct support provided by EOD activities • EOD deployment considerations 2 Learning Outcomes Lesson 1.2 • Explain the key Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) terms • Explain the role and aim of MILEOD deployment in Peacekeeping Missions • Explain the direct support provided by EOD activities • Outline what planning considerations should be included when deploying a MILEOD 3 Abbreviations • AO: Area of Operation • IED: Improvised Explosive Device • AXO: Abandoned Explosive Ordnance • IEDD: Improvised Explosive Device Disposal • BAC: Battlefield Area Clearance • LOO: Lines of Operation • BCMD: Biological and Chemical • MILEOD: UN Military EOD units Munitions Disposal • OPCW: Organization for the • CBRN: Chemical, Biological, Radiological Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and Nuclear • PKO: Peacekeeping Operations • CMD: Conventional Munitions Disposal • ROE: Rules of Engagement • DtD: Defeat the Device • TCC: Troop Contributing Country • EO: Explosive Ordnance • UN: United Nations • EOD: Explosive Ordnance Disposal • UNMAS: United Nations Mine Action • ERW: Explosive Remnants of War Service • FP: Force Protection • UXO: Unexploded Ordnance • HN: Host Nation 4 Terminology – Key Terms • Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) • Explosive Ordnance (EO) • Conventional Munitions Disposal (CMD) • Improvised Explosive Device
    [Show full text]
  • Unexploded Ordnance a Critical Review of Risk Assessment Methods
    Unexploded Ordnance A Critical Review of Risk Assessment Methods Jacqueline MacDonald Debra Knopman J.R. Lockwood Gary Cecchine Henry Willis Prepared for the United States Army R Arroyo Center Approved for public release; distribution unlimited The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Army under Contract No. DASW01-01-C-0003. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Unexploded ordnance : a critical review of risk assessment methods / Jacqueline MacDonald ... [et al.]. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. “MR-1674.” ISBN 0-8330-3432-4 (Paperback) 1. Explosive ordnance disposal. 2. Military bases—United States. 3. Military base closures—United States. 4. Hazardous substances—Risk assessment—United States. I. MacDonald, Jacqueline. UF860.U55 2003 355.6'213'0973—dc21 2003012740 The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. R® is a registered trademark. Cover design by Barbara Angell Caslon © Copyright 2004 RAND Corporation All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from RAND. Published 2004 by the RAND Corporation 1700 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050 201 North Craig Street, Suite 202, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-1516 RAND URL: http://www.rand.org/ To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002; Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: [email protected] PREFACE This report documents the findings of a study that examined meth- ods for assessing the risks of unexploded ordnance (UXO) and muni- tions constituents on former military training land.
    [Show full text]
  • Spring Valley Partnering Meeting
    Page 1 of 3 Meeting Minutes, Community Interest Group Ricochet Area Munitions Response Site in State Game Lands 211, Pennsylvania October 27, 2011 ● East Hanover Township Building, Grantville, PA Community Interest Group Members and Project Staff Attendees Dennis Coffman Jim Rice Jo Anderson, Pennsylvania Army National Guard Debra Deis John Rossey Scott Bills, Pennsylvania Game Commission Larry Herr Dorman Shaver Kim Harriz, Army National Guard Directorate Randall Hurst Paul Shoop Emily Schiffmacher, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District Donald Kleinfelter Joseph Smith Jr. Major Edward Shank, Pennsylvania Army National Guard Mike Kneasel Ruth Smith LTC William Yearwood, Pennsylvania Army National Guard Joan Renninger Greg Daloisio, Weston Solutions, Inc. John Gerhard, Weston Solutions, Inc. Deb Volkmer, Weston Solutions, Inc. Other Attendees Peter Fisher Jay Megonnell Jan Sieger-Fisher Dreama O’Neal, Pennsylvania Army National Guard Sandy Herr Tom Powers David R. Keefer Shirley Shoop Galen D. Kleinfelter Sharon L. Southall, Lebanon Valley Hiking Club JoEllen Litz, Lebanon County Commissioner Handouts from the Meeting 1. Draft Meeting Minutes, Community Interest Group, Ricochet Area Munitions Response Site in State Game Lands 211, PA, June 30, 2011 2. Fact Sheet October 2011: Final Remedial Investigation Report Summary (Appendix A) 3. Community Interest Group/Public Meeting Evaluation Form Welcome Jo Anderson, Pennsylvania Army National Guard, welcomed the group, introduced the project team. A motion was made, seconded, and carried to approve the June 30, 2011 meeting minutes. Kim Harriz, Army National Guard Directorate, explained the tickets, drawing procedures, and prize ($30 gift certificate to the Appalachian Trail Conservancy store). Jim Rice asked if the Department of Defense (DoD) provided support to clear munitions when building the fire break on Second Mountain.
    [Show full text]
  • Cluster Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress
    Cluster Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress Updated February 22, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RS22907 Cluster Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress Summary Cluster munitions are air-dropped or ground-launched weapons that release a number of smaller submunitions intended to kill enemy personnel or destroy vehicles. Cluster munitions were developed in World War II and are part of many nations’ weapons stockpiles. Cluster munitions have been used frequently in combat, including the early phases of the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Cluster munitions have been highly criticized internationally for causing a significant number of civilian deaths, and efforts have been undertaken to ban and regulate their use. The Department of Defense (DOD) continues to view cluster munitions as a military necessity but in 2008 instituted a policy to reduce the failure rate of cluster munitions to 1% or less after 2018. In November 2017, a new DOD policy was issued that essentially reversed the 2008 policy. Under the new policy, combatant commanders can use cluster munitions that do not meet the 1% or less unexploded submunitions standard in extreme situations to meet immediate warfighting demands. In addition, the new policy does not establish a deadline to replace cluster munitions exceeding the 1% rate and states that DOD “will retain cluster munitions currently in active inventories until the capabilities they provide are replaced with enhanced and more reliable munitions.” Potential issues for Congress include cluster munitions in an era of precision weapons, other weapons in lieu of cluster munitions, and the potential impact of DOD’s 2017 revised cluster munitions policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Death and Injury from Landmines and Unexploded Ordnance in Afghanistan
    BRIEF REPORT Death and Injury From Landmines and Unexploded Ordnance in Afghanistan Oleg O. Bilukha, MD, PhD Context Afghanistan is one of the countries most affected by injuries due to land- Muireann Brennan, MD, MPH mines and unexploded ordnance. Bradley A. Woodruff, MD, MPH Objective To understand the epidemiological patterns and risk factors for injury due to landmines and unexploded ordnance. ANDMINES AND UNEXPLODED ORD- Design and Setting Analysis of surveillance data on landmine and unexploded ord- nance pose a significant public nance injuries in Afghanistan collected by the International Committee of the Red Cross health risk and economic threat in 390 health facilities in Afghanistan. Surveillance data were used to describe injury worldwide.1,2 Approximately 60 trends, injury types, demographics, and risk behaviors of those injured and explosive Lmillion to 70 million landmines are types related to landmine and unexploded ordnance incidents. placed in about 70 countries,3 and an esti- Participants A total of 1636 individuals injured by landmines and unexploded ord- mated 24000 individuals, mostly civil- nance, March 2001 through June 2002. ians, are killed or injured by landmines Results Eighty-one percent of those injured were civilians, 91.6% were men and boys, and unexploded ordnance worldwide and 45.9% were younger than 16 years. Children were more likely to be injured by every year.4 Unexploded ordnance unexploded ordnance (which includes grenades, bombs, mortar shells, and cluster mu- includes military explosive munitions nitions), whereas adults were injured mostly by landmines. The most common risk be- such as grenades, bombs, mortar shells haviors for children were playing and tending animals; for adults, these risk behaviors and cluster munitions, which have been were military activity and activities of economic necessity (eg, farming, traveling).
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX B BACTEC Explosive Ordnance Threat Assessment
    Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay Plc APPENDIX B BACTEC Explosive Ordnance Threat Assessment TLSB – 275Kv Cable Route Planning Application – CMS Appendix B Explosive Ordnance Threat Assessment in respect of Swansea Docks to Baglan Burrows for Atkins Limited 5603TA 8th September 2014 BACTEC International Limited 9 Waterside Court, Galleon Boulevard, Crossways Business Park, Dartford, Kent, DA2 6NX Tel: +44 (0) 1322 284550 Fax: +44 (0) 1322 628150 Email: [email protected] www.bactec.com Registered in England No. 2601923. VAT Registration No. GB 573 6627 13 Atkins Limited Swansea Docks to Baglan Burrows This document was written by, belongs to and is copyright to BACTEC International Limited. It contains valuable BACTEC proprietary and confidential information which is disclosed only for the purposes of the client’s assessment and evaluation of the project which is the subject of this report. The contents of this document shall not, in whole or in part (i) be used for any other purposes except such assessment and evaluation of the project; (ii) be relied upon in any way by the person other than the client (iii) be disclosed to any member of the client’s organisation who is not required to know such information nor to any third party individual, organisation or government, or (iv) be copied or stored in any retrieval system nor otherwise be reproduced or transmitted in any form by photocopying or any optical, electronic, mechanical or other means, without prior written consent of the Managing Director, BACTEC International Limited, 9 Waterside Court, Galleon Boulevard, Crossways Business Park, Dartford, Kent, DA2 6NX, United Kingdom to whom all requests should be sent.
    [Show full text]
  • Detailed UXO Risk Assessment
    Commercial in Confidence Detailed UXO Risk Assessment FIL Reference: Client: Project: Site Location: Report date: www fellowsint com Commercial in Confidence Document Control Version Date Version Authors Reviewer Comments 1.0 Original Document Approval Reviewed by Approved by Signature Print Name Date Distribution Date Copy No. Recipient Format 1 PDF 2 FIL Office PDF i www fellowsint com Commercial in Confidence Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations ...........................................................................................1 1. Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 3 2. Report Methodology ..................................................................................................6 3. Requirement for UXO Risk Assessment ................................................................. 8 4. Site Description (Current) ..........................................................................................9 5. Site History .................................................................................................................. 13 6. Site Environment ....................................................................................................... 30 7. Sources of Potential Unexploded Ordnance .................................................... 33 8. Aerial Bombing .......................................................................................................... 34 9. UXB Risk at the Site .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Landmines and Mine Action
    Understanding Landmines and Mine Action Robert Keeley September 2003 Understanding Landmines and Mine Action September 2003 Understanding Landmines and Mine Action Ser Item Page No 1 Introduction 1 2 Landmines and Unexploded Ordnance: definitions and 2 descriptions 3 How landmines are used 7 4 Typical landmine injuries 13 5 Mine action programs 15 6 Landmine clearance 19 7 The Application of Technology 23 8 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) 28 Annexes: Annex A: Generic landmine design 29 9 Annex B: Statement of principles for humanitarian mine action 31 10 Annex C: Anti-landmine campaigns and the 1997 Ottawa 32 Treaty The aim of this document In order to conduct any analysis of mine action programs, or to propose the use of new technologies, it is first important to review the background of the mine action sector since its first inception in 19881.These notes set out an introduction to the problems of landmines, explain how mine action programs are organised, and provide a short explanation of how mine clearance is carried out. A brief summary of the campaign to ban antipersonnel mines is also included. Any questions or requests for further technical advice may be submitted to the author via the following email address: [email protected] Note: this document is intended to provide an introduction to the issue of landmine contamination and the structure of mine clearance programs. It is not designed to provide safety advice and is not a replacement for formal safety training. 1 The first humanitarian mine clearance project was
    [Show full text]
  • Mine Action a Guide to Mine Action
    A Guide to Mine Action A Guide to Mine Action Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining 7bis, avenue de la Paix P.O. Box 1300 CH - 1211 Geneva 1 Switzerland Tel. (41 22) 906 16 60, Fax (41 22) 906 16 90 www.gichd.ch A Guide to Mine Action i The Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) supports the efforts of the international community in reducing the impact of mines and unexploded ordnance (UXO). The Centre provides operational assistance, is active in research and supports the implementation of the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention. Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining 7bis, avenue de la Paix P.O. Box 1300 CH-1211 Geneva 1 Switzerland Tel. (41 22) 906 16 60 Fax (41 22) 906 16 90 www.gichd.ch [email protected] A Guide to Mine Action, 2nd edition, GICHD, Geneva, January 2004. This project was managed by Davide Orifici, Assistant to the Director ([email protected]). ISBN 2-88487-021-0 © Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining The views expressed in this publication are those of the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining. 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 Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining concerning the legal status of any country, territory or area, or of its authorities or armed groups, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. ii Contents Foreword 1 An overview of A Guide to Mine Action 3 Chapter 1.
    [Show full text]