CSIR Minefield Marking Kit Project - PDF document

Download presentation
CSIR Minefield Marking Kit Project
CSIR Minefield Marking Kit Project


Embed / Share - CSIR Minefield Marking Kit Project

Presentation on theme: "CSIR Minefield Marking Kit Project"— Presentation transcript

1 CSIR Minefield Marking Kit Project Preliminary report – July 2003 This document reports on the Minefield marking User Focus Group workshop Held on 24/25 June 2003 at the ABSA Conference Centre,Pretoria, South Africa. 2 Above: J.T. (Theo) von Dyk leading a workshop session 3 Acronyms and abbreviations HD/HDC – Humanitarian Demining (Community) IMAS – International Mine Action Standards (UN) MAC – Mine Action Centre (Co-ordination Centre) MRE – Mine Risk Education NGO – Non-Government Organisation QA/QC – Quality Assurance/Quality Control R&D – Research and Development UFG – Mined-area marking User Focus Group UN – United Nations UNADP (PAD) – United Nations Accelerated Demining programme Mozambique Contents 1Mined-area marking User Focus Group 2User Focus Group Workshop 3Opening remarks 4Current Mined-area marking 4.1 Perimeter marking 4.2 Demining site marking 4.3 Permanent marking 5 Problems with current Mined area marking 5.1 Theft 5.2 Animals 5.3 Deliberate movement 5.4 Weather 5.5 Vegetation 5.6 Fire 5.7 Unwanted markers 5.8 Problems of misplacement and unintended permanence 5.9 Ideas for solutions 6Issues identified by the UFG 6.1 Prioritisation of those issues 6.1.1 Perimeter marking needs 6.1.2 Demining-site marking needs 6.1.3 Permanent marking 6.2 Achieving consensus 4 8UFG conclusions and recommendations Appendix A: Workshop programme 5 1Mined-area marking User Focus Group In order to determine the views of a broad spectrum of people with knowledge of currentMined Area marking systems and the problems associated with those systems, the CSIRselected a range of Humanitarian Demining (HD) exponents with varied field experience tojoin a Mined-area marking User Focus Group (UFG). Group members are drawn fromcommercial, UN and NGO demining groups, with additional selected consultants andrepresentatives of the R&D community. The User Focus Group was asked to consider the HD community’s needs regarding Mined-area marking, and to share their knowledge of current marking systems. The group wereinvited to consider problems with current marking systems and to suggest solutions andexamples of best-practice that they had experienced. It was decided to bring the grouptogether at a Workshop to accelerate communication and allow the CSIR to hear all sides ofthe discussions in open forum. 2User Focus Group Workshop UFG members were invited to attend a two-day workshop in South Africa during June 2003.The workshop was structured in order to provide a record of current practices in Mined-areamarking, and to lead towards a user-defined Statement of Needs. The workshop programmeis attached as Appendix A. The UFG members attending had recent HD experience in Croatia, Iraq, Kurdish Iraq,Thailand, Cambodia, Angola, Mozambique, Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan,Bosnia Herzegovina, Kosovo, Nicaragua, Somalia, Lebanon, Eritrea, and Ethiopia. An emailsurvey of other selected field representatives was also made. 3Opening remarks Mr Neo Moikangoa (Vice President CSIR Technology Development)) opened the workshopby welcoming those present and observing that science was often said to benefit from timesof war because that was when it attracted investment. He was uncomfortable with thisperception and anxious that the CSIR should help to reverse the association by showing howscience could help benefit the process of Humanitarian Demining, and so the promotion ofpeace. Observing that Southern Africa has a sadly intimate knowledge of the problemscaused by mines, he likened their indiscriminate effects to those of other weapons of massdestruction. Noting that Workshops were sometimes frustrating because of “radio-silence” after them, hesaid that they were positive because of the information exchanged and the experience,knowledge and insight shared during them. Thanking the attendees for their presence, heasked them to bear in mind that the beneficiaries of their efforts were the children who wouldavoid injury as a result. 6 4Current methods of Mined-area marking Concerned to ensure that the project was based on a sound understanding of current markingsystems and that the research effort should lead to results of use to the HD community, theWorkshop leaders asked participants to share their knowledge about marking systems in usearound the world. They were asked to report the methods used and any problemsencountered with them. The UFG identified three roughly separate phases of Mined Area Marking. The stages were:  Perimeter marking (“permanent”)  Demining site marking  Permanent post-clearance marking During the workshop several presentations were made by UFG members. Thesepresentations included pictures, many of which are reproduced in appropriate places duringthe rest of this document. Problems with the Mined-area marking systems in current use areidentified under paragraph 5 of this report. 4.1 Perimeter marking (“permanent”) Perimeter marking is usually achieved using one of the following: a) PRINTED/STENCILLED SIGNS Flat, red mine warning signs usually showing a skull and crossbones. These may be printedon metal or corrugated plastic – with the latter being widely used. They vary in size but all areprinted on one side only and are designed to be attached to a fence or one or more posts ortrees with the printed side facing away from the hazardous area. Above: perimeter marking signs from various countries. 7 Some signs are printed/painted with the symbol and lettering in red on a white background,but most are printed/painted with the lettering in white on a red background in accordancewith UN IMAS recommendations. Some must also meet unique National Standardsintroduced by local authorities. b) ORIGINAL SIGNS Perimeter marking may have been done by those laying the mines. When this markingincluded signs, these signs may have been improvised and rarely feature the skull andcrossbones symbol. minefield perimeter sign placed bysoldiers prior to the conflict in Kosovo. c) CONCRETE SIGNS Perimeter or hazard marking signs are sometimes made using concrete with a skull andcrossbones either embossed or painted onto them, or both. These have been cast aspyramids (Namibia), cubes (Cambodia) and as cast signs on stakes (Thailand). In Thailand,natural materials (bamboo) are used to reinforce the concrete. In other countries, the concreteis reinforced with steel. Above: Concrete sign in ThailandAbove: Concrete sign in Namibia Perimeter signs may also be painted onto existing walls 8 Above: Sign painted onto a concrete wall in Angola Survey signs are also sometimes cast in concrete. These may also serve as a hazardwarning but are not usually designed to do so. They survive beyond the clearance andbecome permanent markers of the area cleared. Left: Concrete survey sign in Thailand. d) FENCES Fences may also be used as perimeter marking. Demining groups do not routinely erectperimeter fences as a “permanent” barrier unless required to do so by National law (as inCroatia). Temporary perimeter fences are usually placed during an area-demining task.These fences are usually made using the same marking used inside the mined area for sitemarking. The same temporary marking may be used to mark a perimeter after survey,especially when rapid follow-up clearance is anticipated. 9 Above: temporary perimeter fence in Bosnia Herzegovina Above: permanent perimeter marking in Croatia Wire fences are found occasionally in other countries because the fences were placed bythose laying the mines. When they exist, they may be used by Humanitarian Deminers tohang signs from. In many cases, when wire fences were used to mark a mined area theyhave fallen into disrepair or become overgrown and so no longer present a visiblewarning to the general public. e) PAINTED ROCKS In some countries, perimeter marking may be achieved by using rocks painted red. Thepicture shows a cairn of rocks alongside a surveyor’s benchmark that has been painted ontoa section of concrete wall that was moved to the site by the surveyors. permanent marker made usingrocks and rubble in Afghanistan. f) STICKS AND TREES 10 Perimeter markers left by Mined-area surveyors prior to demining teams deploying to an areaare frequently a combination of signs and painted sticks. The painted sticks usually have redtops. Red bands may also be painted onto convenient trees. perimeter marking usingpainted sticks and trees in SouthernAfrica. 11 g) BERMS In some areas, ridges or mounds of earth are used to mark the edge of the cleared area. Thisis fairly common along the edge of cleared roads, but may also be used during area-clearance. earth marking the edge of theuncleared area in Afghanistan. The ground around the pylon was very softdue to recent heavy rain and the demininggroup marked the uncleared area with aridge of earth so that they could return laterto finish the task. 4.2Demining-site marking When deminers deploy to a site it is common for the perimeter (or if the mined area isextensive, parts of the perimeter) to be marked with the temporary marking system usedduring clearance. The marking systems used inside the suspect area during clearance varyaccording to the demining methods used and by country. The most common form of site marking employs wooden stakes and tape or string. The tapeis commonly thin plastic but may be fabric or fabric-reinforced. Colours vary and may bewhite, red/white striped, or have a printed mine warning message repeated on them. Thewooden stakes may be cut from local trees or sawn (often providing some local employment).Metal stakes are rarely used anywhere in the world. The wooden stakes are usually painted avariety of colours to indicate different uses within the suspect area, such as the areasubjected to internal QA, Safe Lane, site of device indicators, etc. The same system is usuallyused to mark site features such as the medical-post, explosives-store, rest- and toilet-areas,scrap-metal pit, etc. Markers are also used to delineate the working area at the end of a clearance lane, showmetal-detector indications, and to mark found devices prior to their destruction or removal.These are not usually made using the same “barrier” marking system, although “ties” ofplastic tape have been used as device markers in some places. Demining groups are usually obliged to make the best use of available and low-cost materialsin order to keep cost to a minimum, which is probably why painted rocks and temporary flagsare commonly used in countries where wooden stakes are not readily available. 12 Left: demining site marking in Cambodia The picture shows site marking at a mined village inCambodia. The perimeter is marked with paintedstakes and mine warning signs. The working lane ismarked with painted wooden stakes joined togetherby coloured string. Lane marking in Bosnia Herzegovina In thiscase, the wooden stakes are sawntimberand the tape plastic. Left: site marking in Mozambique. This picture (taken during QA) showsperimeter marking, safe-lane and clearance-lane marking. The tape is a white fabric. site marking in Afghanistan. The picture shows how red and white stones areused to mark the area. The pattern in which thestones are positioned is used to indicate the varied uses rather than different colours on painted sticks. 14 lane marking using unpainted stones andpainted sticks in Somalia. hillside site marking in Afghanistan White piles of stones indicate the cleared area. Left: temporary site marking in Afghanistan The temporary site marking is achieved using colouredflags. Clearance lane marking is often done using tape or string that is unrolled as the deminerprogresses. Metal-detector indications may be marked using twigs, coloured stones, plastic or metaltriangles or plastic discs. The end of the lane is marked using one or two sticks, usually 15 painted and 1.2 metres long. The painting may be in close stripes to provide the user with aguide to the recommended separation between each prodder insertion. They are frequentlymarked to show how they should overlap the one metre wide lane on both sides. 16 end-of lane marking in Mozambique. The deminer is using two sticks. The white one marks the endof the area he has cleared and provides a reminder to stop himinadvertently moving his foot over that line. The red stickmarks the extent of the area that he can reach with hisdetector and prodder to search . The lane marking on the left is achieved by unrolling the stringand moving the stake forward. markers used to indicate exposed devices. 4.3Permanent post-clearance marking Permanent marking of cleared areas is not required in all countries. Sometimes the clearedarea is recorded by reference to natural benchmarks and GPS records accompanying amore-or-less accurate map. When permanent marking in done it usually takes the form ofaltering painted signs on rocks or trees to indicate that the area has been cleared or puttingpermanent markers into the ground so that the extent of the area can be located later.Permanent markers in the ground are usually significant pieces of metal driven into theground at recorded points on the perimeter. These may be set into concrete with the concretetop exposed. When concrete is used, additional information can be cast into the top of theconcrete for future reference. These markers are usually cast in-situ and may be placedbefore or during actual clearance. 17 Above: concrete markers indicating turning points. 5 Problems with current marking systems In this case, the workshop found that the problems cut across the distinctions made betweenthe elements of mined-area marking. The following are not ranked in order of importancebecause that varied widely depending on the working area. 5.1 Theft Theft was the most common problem reported by UFGmembers, and occurred with all marking systems fromoriginal perimeter warning signs and fences, to tapes andstakes placed during actual clearance – and extended tothe metal content inside concrete permanent markers. Inmany rural areas, any material that might have a value orcould be used to make things would be taken, even if onlyfor its novelty value. Solutions that were universally agreed to be effectiveinvolved the involvement of the local community at allstages of the demining process. In Thailand, this includedhaving signs made locally using materials of no value –the concrete in perimeter signs was reinforced withbamboo rather than steel and the shape of the sign madeit unattractive as a building block. children playing with boat made using a mine warning sign in Cambodia. 5.2 Animals The movement of livestock can be particularly destructive of the fragile marking used duringsite clearance. This not only damaged marking systems but also placed the livestock and anyherders at risk. The solution universally agreed to be effective was the involvement of the local community sothat they understood the importance of the marking system for their own and the deminers’safety. 5.3 Deliberate movement This was widely reported and it seemed that it may be done because of hostility between localpeople and the relatively well-off deminers, out of mischief or from self-interest. In some areas, not all local people want the mines removed and some may have an incentiveto keep the deminers on-site. For example, in one country the MAC insists on demining-sites 18 having night guards. The hostility among locals means that the guard must be the landowneror one of the family who theoretically stands to gain most from clearance. The guard is paidand that cash income may be more than the income that the land can generate. This givesthe guard an interest in delaying the deminers’ departure. In the same area, the discovery of missed mines in cleared areas can attract compensation,so the movement of signs or mines could lead to cash income. The solution universally agreed to be most effective was greater communication between thedemining authorities, the demining group, and the local population. Working alongside locals,the demining group often has a better understanding of the local situation, economy, culturallyacceptable behaviour, etc., than the authorities in a remote MAC. It was also stressed thatevery populated area had a formal or informal “local authority” system and that it wasessential for communication to be carried out through those authorities in order for “self-policing” of agreements to occur. That authority might be historical or emergent, but whateverits form the demining groups must work in co-operation with it. 5.4 Weather Extremes of weather could have varied effects onmarking systems. Heavy snowfall, for example,could temporarily erase marking systems. Highwind could break and scatter component parts,especially if signs are large. Floods could alsodamage, move or bury marking. Everywhere, thepassage of time and changing seasons rusts, rots,bleaches and generally has a detrimental effecton all marking systems. A mine-warning sign with colour bleachedfrom it by exposure to sunlight. The UFG agreed that the only practical solution to these problems was to try to cater for localconditions when choosing and placing permanent signs. 5.5 Vegetation In some parts of the world, vegetation growth israpid and perimeter signs, fences, etc., can berapidly concealed. The dense vegetation may then 19 become an indication to locals that others avoid the area. Mine warning sign concealed by vegetation in Angola. The solution universally agreed to be most effective was the involvement of the localcommunity in the maintenance of perimeter markers. 5.6 Fire Where undergrowth occurs around marking systems, plastic, wood and paint can bedestroyed or so discoloured as be ineffective. For permanent markers, the UFG agreed that concrete was more durable and that embossingthe symbol and message onto the concrete mean that a visible sign can be effectively fire-proof. 5.7 Unwanted markers Several examples were cited from around the world about the undesirability of permanentconcrete markers placed around cleared ground. In agricultural areas, they may bedeliberately removed because they impede the use of machinery. End-users have askeddemining groups NOT to leave them behind for this reason. The UFG agreed that permanent markers can only be placed with the agreement of the end-users and questioned the need for them if adjacent areas are not suspected of being mined.With the increased use of GPS with increased accuracy, the requirement for permanentground markers that were only of use to the HDC was questioned. Local people did not needthe markers, and so it would be difficult to engage them in their maintenance. Also, thepresence of the markers could mislead end-users into believing that the area was unsafe. 5.8 Problems of misplacement and unintended permanence Markers that are moved or wrongly placed can lead to the population learning to distrust signsand so ignoring others where the danger is real. This can also occur when warning signs arenot removed after an area has been cleared. All sticks, tapes, painted stones and warningsigns should be removed but this does not always occur. Lengths of lightweight plastic tapethat blow around are commonly found in some areas after the demining group has departed.Painted stones are sometimes found littering areas when clearance is over. The UFG determined that this was an internal HD management problem, best addressed bybetter demining group management systems and improved MAC controls. Improvised signs placed by local people areusually short-lived – but may live on beyond 20 clearance and the demining group management should ensure that these signs are alsoupdated. an improvised sign that was left when the area was cleared. 21 5.9 Ideas for solutions A number of ideas were raised as possible solutions during this exercise, most of which arerecorded below. Some of these are “off-the-cuff” ideas and are not presented as beingnecessarily viable. To deter theft…. 1) Involve the local authorities at every level in the marking process. 2) Use MRE materials with local people so that they understand the importance of themarking systems. 3) Use vegetable reinforcing in concrete so that there is no scrap-metal to attract theft(bamboo, sisal and hemp were suggested). 4) Manufacture concrete signs in shapes that do not make them attractive as building blocks. 5) Make signs unattractive by: a) Making signs that will break into pieces if attempts to steal them are made. b) Painting marking with a gel that releases a bad odour or stains the handswhen disturbed (or other non-lethal deterrent). c) Paint wooden markers with chemical that stinks if burned. d) Seat wooden markers on a chemical flare that ignites and illuminates the thief at night, or insert a chemical core that stinks when broken. d) Make signs an irregular shape or badly finished. To increase local involvement and “ownership”…… 1) Use local people to manufacture perimeter signs: make this sustainable and support the(re)development of the region by supporting production of bricks and other items wantedlocally. 2) Use local people to manufacture low-cost soil/cement (compressed) barriers instead offencing. The mix should be friable, allowing the barrier to be easily broken up after it hasserved its purpose. To increase durability….. 1) Use high quality fire-proof/resistant paint and materials. 2) Only paint permanent markings on trees with the agreement of local people – so ensuringthat the tree is not cut-down in an untimely way. 3) Use metal oxides to colour concrete. General…… 1) Grow particular plants along the perimeter to make a “vegetation” fence. 2) Place (fire?) permanent markers deep into the ground so that they do not get in the way ofend-users. Markers using chips and chemicals/isotopes allowing them to be located laterwere suggested. 22 3) Prevent migration of concrete markers on hillsides by anchoring properly. 4) Avoid legislation that can make it advantageous for locals to move signs and getcompensation from those who originally placed them. 5) Before worrying about night-time visibility, gather data about when civilian accidents occur. 23 6Issues identified by the UFG During the presentations and summaries of current Mined-area marking systems, the mainissues that arose about those systems were listed as the first stage towards giving thoseconcerns some priorities. The main issues were recorded as: # Summarised as: 6.1 Any new system must be acceptable to the HD community. Accepted by HDC 6.2 Any marking system must be low-cost. Low cost 6.3 Any new system must be adaptable for use anywhere. Adaptable toregions/environment All marking systems must be resistant to predictable weather. Weather resistant 6.5 All marking must be unattractive to theft. Unattractive-resistanceto pilferage 6.6 A marking system must have no resale value. No commercial value 6.7 Marking systems must be maintainable. Maintainability Any new system must conform to IMAS. Conform with standards 6.9 A new system should be able to be used as permanentmarking. Used as permanentmarking-legal Perimeter marking should be visible by day and night. Visible-day/night A new system should cover all marking needs. Survey/Clearance/Postclearance Marking should be fire resistant. Fire proof 6.13 Perimeter marking should be designed to allow localinvolvement and “ownership”. Localinvolvement/ownership Any marking must be designed to remain where it was placed. Remain in fixed position 6.15 Any new system must have HD credibility and built-insustainability. Credibility/sustainability No proposed solution should risk making the current imperfectsituation any worse. Must not worsensituation Any proposed solution should include MRE elements. Contain mine riskeducation There is some overlap between these issues, as might be expected, and there was livelydiscussion about the degree of importance that should apply to each issue. 6.1Prioritisation of those issues In open forum, the UFG considered the key question of whether a new and universalMinefield Marking Kit was actually needed. The UFG opinion was that a “one size fits all”universal solution for all marking in mined areas was not likely to achieve acceptance withinthe HD community because it was not actually wanted. Acknowledging the identifiedproblems with current systems, the UFG believed that those problems could be addressedwithout the adoption of a new “kit”. For any new system to actually achieve universal 24 applicability, it would have to be better than current methods in all areas and respects. Whilethis might be possible, the parts and alternatives required would dictate a marking kit that wasenormous, impractical and not at all cost-effective. The UFG decided that the title “Minefield Marking Kit” was a misnomer for two reasons. Thefirst was that the term “minefield” was often inappropriate, and the term “mined area” hadlargely replaced it within the HDC. The second reason was the increasing involvement of theHD community in the clearance of areas where mines are not the major hazard, or notpresent at all. The term “Dangerous Area Marking” was agreed as an alternative, with thesuggestion that the common use of the word “mine” on signs be phased out. The alternativephrase “Hazardous Area” was rejected because it was less accessible to non-Englishreaders. Examining the HDC’s marking needs, the group looked at “Perimeter marking”, “Demining sitemarking” and “Permanent marking” as separate entities. There was some disagreement aboutthe need for permanent marking of cleared areas at all, but the IMAS requirement that thisshould be done led everyone to consider whether the current system was workingadequately. 6.1.1 Perimeter marking needs Perimeter marking to warn the population of the presence of a dangerous area was a concernto the entire UFG. Perimeter marking as a part of “demining site marking” did not give rise tothe same concerns because the demining group was present to maintain systems currently inuse. The group found it unacceptable that perimeter marking is not placed during Level 1 andImpact Survey when dangerous areas are first identified. The UFG believes that civilian injurywould be reduced if it were. It was agreed that Level 1 survey should include the capacity toplace warning signs outside the suspect area, and also include those elements of MRE andcommunity liaison likely to ensure their maintenance. It was agreed that a “Dangerous AreaMarking Kit” designed for use during survey would be a very appropriate and welcomeaddition to the marking that is currently available. 6.1.2 Demining-site marking needs Problems associated with demining site marking were considered and it was decided thatmost could be effectively addressed by improved community liaison and better management.It was thought that any alternative system would suffer the same problems unless it includedmeans to improve community involvement. Those problems that could not be addressed thisway were things like extremes of weather or fires, and while it would be desirable to design to 25 limit the effects of these, the community would not welcome any change that involved anincrease in cost. 6.1.3 Permanent marking The requirement for permanent marking of cleared areas as required by the IMAS and bysome National MACs is usually being met using the ground-based metal markingrecommended in the IMAS. The fact this is not always “permanent” was acknowledged, but itwas felt that this failing was ameliorated by the improved mapping and GPS in use in manycountries. While some of the UFG felt that it would be desirable to devise better permanent marking, allagreed that this was not a priority and should not involve increased cost. 6.2 Achieving consensus An appropriate prioritisation matrix was produced to assist the UFG to reach a consensusabout the relative importance of the issues already raised and recorded. The prioritisation matrix asks for each issue to be scored against every other issue, soallowing an agreed prioritisation of each issue to be reached. The UFG were divided into fourworking groups and completed the matrix by agreement in each group. Every issue to be prioritised was considered important, so a negative score does not implythat an issue is unimportant, merely that it is has a lower priority than those with positivescores. Scoring was achieved by comparing one issue against all other issues one after the other. Ineach case the first issue was rated as being of more of less importance than the issue it wascompared with. Scoring the issues arising Much More Important 2 More Important 1 Equal Less Important -1 Much Less Important -2 The results of the Prioritisation matrix exercise are shown on the following page. 26 cepw coto regions/evironmentWeather resitantUnattractive-resistance to pilferageNo commercal valueainabilinform ith staards as penighg levelsvey/CaranceleavolRemaitionContain mine risk educationTotal Accepted by HDCLow costAdaptable to regions/environmentWeather resistantUnattractive-resistance to pilferage 6 No commercial valueMaintainabilityConform with standards-25Used as permanent marking-legalVisible-day/nightMarking levels: Survey/Clearance/Post clearanceFire proofLocal involvement/ownership-31Remain in fixed position-52Credibility/sustainability-27Must not worsten situation-75Contain mine risk education Total-35-21-2-10- -20-2325-24-37-30-58315227755 WEIGHTMuch More Important2More Important1Equal0Less Important-1Much Less Important-2 27 28 8UFG conclusions and recommendations The UFG concluded that while current marking systems are imperfect, most of thoseimperfections could be addressed procedurally without the introduction of any newequipment. The action most likely to relieve the failings of current systems was the greaterinvolvement of the leaders of the local community before and during the placement ofmarkers. The import of any manufactured items and materials not available locally would belikely to worsen problems of pilferage and reduce contact with the local community. Their deliberations led them to decide that the “Minefield Marking Kit” project was most likelyto achieve its aims if it were restricted to the perimeter marking of dangerous areas as a partof a Level 1 survey – something which is not currently done. It was felt that this wouldenhance current marking systems and would be appreciated within the HDC. The resulting kitshould also be useful during Technical Survey. Such an approach would provide a kit thatwas appropriate for use in immediate post-conflict situations, when its use would improvesafety for civilians and make subsequent Technical Survey and area-clearance easier. The UFG was concerned that any generic kit designed should not lead to any reduction in theeffectiveness of current marking systems, and should not increase cost. As a result, the groupstrongly recommended that such a kit should have the following features as a minimum: 1) A kit should contain generic MRE materials and the means to produce area specific MREmaterials, including training templates and guidance for achieving success in cross-cultural,post-conflict training scenarios. 2) Such a kit should be a generic perimeter marking kit, including generic advice for the safeplacement of markers outside the suspect area. If a barrier with a long life is required,provision for the manufacture of the barrier using local materials should be considered. 3) Any actual markers must be designed to remain in a fixed position. This is more importantthan all other features they may have. The next most important feature is that the markersshould conform with the IMAS. 4) The design of the kit should show concern to involve the local population as much aspossible, taking great care not to disturb the local economy, unrealistically increaseexpectations or inadvertently give any person reason to deliberately interfere with themarkers. 29 Appendix A: Programme for User Focus Group Workshop Minefield Marking WORKSHOP PROGRAMME Monday 23 June 2003 Arrival of overseas participants during the day- (Transport will be available fromJohannesburg International Airport to the CSIR and ABSA Conference Centre.) 19H00 Informal get-together and dinner at ABSA Conference Centre. Tuesday 24 June 2003 08H00-08H30 Morning coffee 09H00 Opening address-Mr. Neo Moikangoa (Vice President CSIR Technology for Development) 09H15 Workshop and admin arrangements-J T van Dyk Session 1: Feedback from the field 09H30South East Asia (Cambodia/Thailand)-J M van Zyl 09H45Balkans- V Majetic/J Tulitic 10H00Africa (Angola)- H Bach 10H15Middle East (Lebanon)-L Dyck 10H30Africa (Mozambique)-J de Almeida 10H45Middle East (Iraq)-A Williams 11H00Tea/Coffee break 11H15General discussion regarding regional requirements regarding minefield marking 13H00Lunch Session 2: Establishment of design/development requirements 14H00NVESD Contract requirements & CSIR project approach-J T van Dyk 14H30Group discussions- Groups 1 to 4. 15H30Tea/coffee break 15H45Feedback from groups 16H30Consolidation of requirements 30 19H00Informal get-together and dinner Wednesday 25 June 2003 08H00Morning coffee 08H30Admin arrangements-J T van Dyk Session 2: Establishment of design/development requirements (cont) 08H45Prioritising design/development requirements-J T van Dyk (establishing a value system) Session 3: Identifying concepts 09H30Group discussions-groups 1 to 4 10h30Feedback from Groups 11H00Tea/Coffee break 11H15Rating of identified concepts in terms of requirements and value system-J T van Dyk 13H00Lunch 14H00Evaluate CSIR questionnaire-M Barnard 14H30Wrap-up and admin-J T van Dyk 15H00Closing-J T van Dyk

By: min-jolicoeur
Views: 83
Type: Public

CSIR Minefield Marking Kit Project - Description

1 Preliminary report ID: 122673 Download Pdf

Related Documents