Understanding IMAS 09.60: Humanitarian Underwater Survey and Clearance

The management question

Explosive ordnance (EO) is a broad term for explosive weapons and related items covered by mine action terminology. A report of possible EO in water creates questions for authorities and communities: What evidence exists? Who uses the area? What action would reduce risk without causing disproportionate harm? IMAS 09.60 sets out basic principles and requirements for addressing such questions through underwater survey and clearance programmes. It is a framework for authorised organisations, not an operating manual for members of the public.

Scope and limits

The first edition of IMAS 09.60 addresses underwater EO in a nation's territorial and inland waters, including coastal waters, ports, rivers and lakes, within the depth limit stated in its scope. Its definition of humanitarian underwater operations excludes water deeper than 50 metres. The text also identifies situations requiring different specialist arrangements. A site outside its defined scope should not simply be described as compliant with IMAS 09.60.

Source and status: IMAS 09.60, first edition, Introduction and sections 1 and 3. IMAS may be revised; check the current standards website and national requirements before professional use.

Illustrative example

A coastal municipality hears a historical account that EO may be present near a proposed public waterfront. The account is evidence to assess, not proof that every part of the waterfront is hazardous. The municipality's useful first step is to refer the report to the responsible authority and clarify the available evidence and intended use of the site.

Activity: choose the responsible statement

Read the example. Which statement would you put in an initial project brief?

1. Historical accounts establish that the entire waterfront must be cleared.
2. The report warrants an evidence-led assessment with the responsible authority before defining any intervention.
3. Because the report concerns water, it lies outside mine action standards.

Statement 2 is the sound starting point. Statement 1 treats suspicion as confirmed contamination; statement 3 overlooks the standard's underwater scope. Record one additional question you would ask local water users.

Lesson summary. Begin with a reported problem, identify the responsible authority and affected users, and establish what is known before specifying survey or clearance.

Practical Exercise

Write two sentences for a fictional municipality: one describing the reported concern without claiming it is confirmed, and one identifying the authority and community information needed next. Allow approximately five minutes.

Summary

IMAS 09.60 provides a management framework for humanitarian underwater EO survey and clearance within its defined scope; reports must be assessed before action is specified.

Two labels that matter

A suspected hazardous area (SHA) has reasonable suspicion of EO contamination based on indirect evidence. A confirmed hazardous area (CHA) has direct evidence of EO contamination. These are evidence categories, not descriptions of how worried a community feels. Clear records of what supports a classification help authorities prioritise action and avoid presenting an unverified claim as a finding.

Two survey phases

Neither phase should be reduced to a promise that an area is safe. An organisation's findings need documented evidence, appropriate confidence and review under the applicable national system. IMAS 09.60 distinguishes an area cancelled after non-technical survey, an area reduced after technical survey and an area cleared to a specified requirement. These outcomes describe different evidence and work; they are not interchangeable.

Illustrative case

An old chart marks a former military activity area near a harbour. A fisher reports an unusual object elsewhere in the bay but has no verified identification. A proposed quay extension would bring construction into the marked area. The chart and account justify assessment; neither, on its own, should be described as a completed technical survey.

Activity: classify the evidence

For the case above, write down: (1) which facts create suspicion; (2) what evidence you would seek through non-technical survey; and (3) who should decide whether specialist technical survey is warranted. Avoid suggesting that unqualified personnel investigate the object.

The chart and report support suspicion. A non-technical survey could examine the provenance of the chart, other records, accounts from water users, present use of the area and the planned works. The responsible authority should determine follow-on requirements with an appropriately accredited organisation. The case does not provide enough verified information to declare the whole bay confirmed or cleared.

Source: IMAS 09.60, sections 3 and 4.2.

Lesson summary. Use survey to progressively improve the evidence for a decision. Match the claim made about an area to the evidence and approved process supporting it.

Practical Exercise

Complete the three-part case analysis in the lesson. Allow six minutes, then compare your reasoning with the model response.

Summary

SHA and CHA are distinct evidence categories. Non-technical and technical surveys answer related but different questions and support different documented outcomes.

What should a decision balance?

IMAS 09.60 links further action to evidence, safety and socio-economic impact. A location that substantially affects community activities may merit greater attention than one with little interaction. The standard also recognises options for managing a site without clearance where impact is low. Such decisions require the responsible authority and qualified organisations; this course cannot determine the correct intervention for a real site.

Who is responsible?

The National Mine Action Authority (NMAA), or the relevant government ministry acting on its behalf, establishes national requirements and is responsible for oversight, accreditation, monitoring and acceptance within the national system. An accredited survey organisation undertakes its authorised survey functions. An accredited clearance organisation undertakes its authorised clearance functions. Survey accreditation alone should not be treated as authority to perform clearance. National diving rules, specialist qualifications and approved organisational procedures also matter, but this course provides no operational instruction.

Illustrative commissioning dilemma

A donor is asked to finance immediate clearance near a disused structure. The submission includes a decades-old report, no account of present community use, no indication of environmental review and no confirmation of the proposed organisation's accreditation. A responsible funding decision would seek those missing elements and the national authority's direction before committing to an intervention.

Activity: draft a decision note

Write a four-line note with these labels: Known evidence; Missing information; Responsible decision-maker; Next management step. Base your answer only on the illustrative dilemma. Do not choose a clearance technique.

Known evidence: A historical report exists. Missing information: Current use, verified site evidence, environmental considerations and accreditation status. Responsible decision-maker: The relevant national authority, informed by qualified organisations and stakeholders. Next management step: Seek an authorised evidence-led assessment and agree the questions that it must answer. No conclusion about the need for clearance follows from the available facts.

Source: IMAS 09.60, sections 4.1, 4.3, 5, 6, 9 and 10.

Lesson summary. A sound programme decision states the evidence, the affected interests, the missing information and who is authorised to decide what happens next.

Practical Exercise

Produce the four-line decision note described in the lesson. Allow six minutes and compare it with the model before proceeding.

Summary

Community needs, environmental consequences and changing water conditions affect priorities. National authorities oversee the process; accredited organisations work within their approved functions.

What must a manager be able to trace?

Information management means identifying information needs, collecting and analysing data, and sharing results with authorised stakeholders. In an underwater EO programme, documented locations, the source and limitations of observations, area decisions and relevant site conditions support planning and later review. A map without its evidence and stated limits is an incomplete management record.

Quality management concerns whether competent people use approved processes, whether work is monitored and whether shortcomings are identified and corrected. It does not mean assuming that a completed activity proves a particular area is safe for every future use. IMAS 09.60 calls for an assessment of whether post-clearance monitoring is required because underwater conditions may change.

Illustrative handover review

A project report states that work near a small harbour is complete and attaches a map. It does not identify the approved task boundary, explain the evidence behind its conclusions, record whether monitoring was considered or name the authority accepting the site. These are management gaps. They do not, without further information, establish that the technical work itself failed.

Activity: request the missing record

Draft three concise questions to send through the appropriate project channel before accepting the report. Include one question about evidence, one about authority or quality, and one about future conditions.

1. Which approved task boundary and specified requirements does the map represent, and where is the supporting evidence recorded?
2. What quality review was completed, and which national authority will formally accept the handover?
3. Was the need for post-clearance monitoring assessed, and what conditions should future users be told about?

Other well-founded questions are possible. The aim is to request a traceable decision record, not to make a technical judgement beyond your competence.

Source: IMAS 09.60, sections 7, 8, 9 and 10. The AI prompt is an instructional example, not a requirement of the standard.

Lesson summary. Before accepting a result, establish what work was approved, what evidence supports the outcome, who reviewed and accepts it, and how any future conditions will be managed.

Practical Exercise

Draft the three handover questions in the lesson and compare them with the suggested questions. Allow six minutes.

Summary

Information management and quality management make decisions traceable. Formal handover and an assessment of monitoring needs help authorities manage a site after the project ends.