Understanding IMAS 09.60: Humanitarian Underwater Survey and Clearance

Lesson 1

1.1 What IMAS 09.60 covers

Understanding IMAS 09.60 · Lesson 1 of 4

A report of possible explosive ordnance in water is the start of a decision, not the decision itself. In this lesson you learn what IMAS 09.60 helps a programme decide, where its scope ends, and when a proposed activity needs specialist advice.

15 minutes
6 min reading
5 min activity
4 min feedback and reflection

🎯 By the end of this lesson you can

Explain what IMAS 09.60 is for, and what it is not.
Name the three considerations every underwater programme starts with.
Recognise when a site falls outside the standard's defined scope.
Write an initial project brief that does not overstate the evidence.

🔁 The decision sequence

From a report to a reviewed action

The whole course follows one sequence. This lesson concentrates on the first two steps.

Report — A concern is raised
Assess — Establish what is known
Decide — The authority sets the response
Act and review — Work is done, checked and handed over

📘 Core content

The management question

Explosive ordnance (EO) (A broad term for explosive weapons and related items covered by mine action terminology.) reported in water raises the same three questions for authorities and communities:

What evidence exists?

Who uses the area?

What response is justified?

IMAS 09.60 sets out basic principles and requirements for answering these questions through underwater survey and clearance programmes.

⚠️ What the standard is not

IMAS 09.60 is a framework for authorised organisations. It is not an operating manual for members of the public, and this course does not qualify anyone to conduct survey, diving or clearance operations.

📘 Core content

Three considerations for every programme

Before anyone specifies survey or clearance, a programme needs to understand the people, the place and the authority involved. Select each tab.

01 · People

Understand use

Identify how residents, fishers, port users and others use the water. Seek their views through community liaison: they often know things a map does not show.

02 · Place

Understand conditions

Water conditions, the seabed and ecological or cultural resources all affect two things: the quality of the evidence you can gather, and the consequences of any intervention.

03 · Authority

Confirm responsibility

The relevant national authority sets requirements and oversees the organisations undertaking the work. Every later decision traces back to it.

📘 Core content

Scope and limits

The first edition of IMAS 09.60 draws a clear boundary. Check every site against it.

Within scope

Underwater EO in a nation's territorial and inland waters, including:

coastal waters
ports
rivers
lakes

50 m

Outside the definition

The standard's definition of humanitarian underwater operations excludes water deeper than 50 metres. It also identifies other situations that need different specialist arrangements.

💡 Management principle

A site outside the standard's defined scope should not simply be described as compliant with IMAS 09.60.

🧭 Practical example

A waterfront and a historical account

📍 Illustrative case

The proposed public waterfront

A coastal municipality hears a historical account that EO may be present near a proposed public waterfront.

The account is information to assess.
It does not prove that every part of the waterfront is hazardous.
The municipality refers the report to the responsible authority, and clarifies the available evidence and the intended use of the site.

Notice what the municipality did not do: it did not commission clearance, and it did not dismiss the report.

❓ Knowledge check

Choose the responsible statement

Q1. Which statement belongs in the municipality's initial project brief?

Historical accounts establish that the entire waterfront must be cleared.
Not quite.
This treats suspicion as confirmation. A historical account justifies assessment; it does not establish the presence or extent of contamination.
The report warrants an evidence-led assessment with the responsible authority before any intervention is defined.
Correct.
The report warrants assessment, but it does not establish the presence or extent of contamination. The responsible authority leads what happens next.
Because the report concerns water, it lies outside mine action standards.
Not quite.
IMAS 09.60 exists precisely for underwater EO in territorial and inland waters. This statement overlooks the standard's scope.

Q2. A proposed survey site lies in water deeper than 50 metres. How should the project describe it?

As compliant with IMAS 09.60, because the standard covers all underwater work.
Not quite.
The first edition's definition excludes water deeper than 50 metres, so the site should not simply be described as compliant.
As outside the standard's definition of humanitarian underwater operations, requiring specialist advice on the applicable arrangements.
Correct.
The site is outside the defined scope. Say so plainly and seek specialist advice rather than claiming compliance.
As not requiring any standard, because deep water poses no risk to communities.
Not quite.
Being outside one standard's scope does not mean no requirements apply, and it says nothing about risk to people.

✍️ Apply it to your work

Draft two sentences for the municipality

⏱️ About 5 minutes

Write in your own notes, then tick each item when done

Sentence 1: describe the reported concern — Without claiming that contamination is confirmed.
Sentence 2: name what is needed next — The authority to involve, and the community information to gather.
Reflect — Which part of my note is established evidence, and which part is a question requiring investigation?

📝 Example answer — Open after you have written your own

"A historical account suggests explosive ordnance may be present near the proposed waterfront; this has not been confirmed. We will refer the report to the responsible national authority and gather information on how residents, fishers and other users currently use the water."

The first sentence states a concern, not a fact. The second names who decides and what the community can tell you.

⭐ Key takeaways

IMAS 09.60 supports evidence-led, authorised decisions about underwater EO.
Start with the reported concern, the responsible authority and the people who use the water, and establish what is known before specifying survey or clearance.
Water complicates assessment, and conditions may change over time.
Check both the standard's scope and its current status before relying on it.

➡️ Next: Lesson 2. Survey as an evidence pathway: how to tell what a piece of evidence can and cannot establish.

📚 Source and status: IMAS 09.60, first edition (1 December 2014), Introduction and sections 1 and 3. IMAS may be revised; check the current standard and national requirements before professional use. The United Nations Mine Action Service is responsible for developing and maintaining IMAS, with support from the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining.

Further reading: International Mine Action Standards website (opens in a new tab).

Resources for this lesson

Web link

Understanding the International Mine Action Standards (IMAS)Open separately

Lesson 2

2.1 Survey as an evidence pathway

Understanding IMAS 09.60 · Lesson 2 of 4

Every claim about an underwater area should match the evidence behind it. In this lesson you learn to tell suspicion from confirmation, choose the survey phase that answers the next question, and describe outcomes accurately.

15 minutes
6 min reading
6 min case activity
3 min checking and reflection

🎯 By the end of this lesson you can

Distinguish a suspected hazardous area from a confirmed hazardous area.
Explain what non-technical and technical survey each contribute.
Use the terms cancelled, reduced and cleared correctly.
Classify the evidence in a realistic case without overstating it.

📘 Core content

Two labels, two levels of evidence

SHA

Suspected hazardous area

There is reasonable suspicion of EO contamination based on indirect evidence.

CHA

Confirmed hazardous area

The presence of EO contamination is supported by direct evidence.

💡 Remember

These labels describe the evidence behind an area classification. They do not describe how worried a community feels. Record the source and limits of the evidence before making any claim about an area.

📘 Core content

Two survey phases

Each phase answers a different question. Select each tab.

01 · Non-technical survey

Collect and analyse information, without technical intervention

Draws on sources such as:

existing records
credible accounts
the current use of the water
other information that helps refine the suspected area and inform priorities

02 · Technical survey

Collect and analyse evidence, through technical intervention

Carried out by an accredited specialist organisation using appropriate technical means. Its findings help define where contamination is, and where it is not.

The decision pathway

Record the report
Assess it through non-technical survey
Technical survey, if warranted
Document the authorised decision

Not every site requires every phase.

📘 Core content

Describe the outcome accurately

Three outcome terms are easy to confuse. Open each one.

Cancelled — After non-technical survey

A defined area is concluded not to contain evidence of EO following non-technical survey.

Reduced — After technical survey

A defined area is concluded not to contain evidence of EO following technical survey.

Cleared — After clearance to a specified requirement

All specified EO hazards have been removed or destroyed from a defined area to a specified requirement.

⚠️ Not interchangeable

Each outcome requires a documented basis and review under the applicable national system. None is a promise that an area is safe for every possible future use.

🧭 Practical example

The harbour extension

📍 Illustrative case

A chart, a fisher's report and a planned quay

An old chart marks a former military activity area near a harbour.
A fisher reports an unusual object elsewhere in the bay, with no verified identification.
A proposed quay extension would bring construction into the marked area.

The chart and the account justify assessment. Neither is a completed technical survey.

⏱️ About 6 minutes

Classify the evidence

Answer each question in your notes before opening the model response. Tick each one when done.

Which facts create suspicion, and what remains unverified?
What would you seek through non-technical survey?
Who should decide whether technical survey is warranted?

⚠️ Boundary

Do not suggest that unqualified personnel investigate the reported object.

📝 Model response — Open after completing the activity

Suspicion

The historical chart and the fisher's account merit assessment. The object's identity, position and relationship to the charted area remain unverified.

Non-technical survey

Check the chart's provenance, other available records, accounts from water users, present use of the bay and the proposed construction footprint.

Decision

The responsible authority should determine follow-on requirements with an appropriately accredited organisation. The available facts do not justify declaring the whole bay confirmed hazardous, or cleared.

❓ Knowledge check

Match the claim to the evidence

Q1. Based only on the old chart and the fisher's account, how should the harbour area be classified?

As a suspected hazardous area, pending assessment.
Correct.
The chart and the account are indirect evidence. They support reasonable suspicion, which assessment should now test.
As a confirmed hazardous area.
Not quite.
Confirmation needs direct evidence. Neither the chart nor an unverified sighting provides it.
As cancelled, because the object was never identified.
Not quite.
Cancellation is a documented conclusion reached through non-technical survey. An unidentified object is a reason to assess, not a basis for cancelling.

Q2. After technical survey, a defined area is concluded not to contain evidence of EO. Which term applies?

Cancelled
Not quite.
Cancelled applies to conclusions reached through non-technical survey.
Reduced
Correct.
Reduced describes an area concluded to contain no evidence of EO following technical survey.
Cleared
Not quite.
Cleared means specified EO hazards have been removed or destroyed to a specified requirement. Survey alone does not clear an area.

⭐ Key takeaways

Match every claim to its evidence: indirect evidence supports suspicion, direct evidence supports confirmation.
Non-technical and technical surveys serve different purposes and support different documented outcomes.
Cancelled, reduced and cleared are not interchangeable, and none promises safety for every future use.
State what is known, what remains uncertain and which approved process supports the outcome.

➡️ Next: Lesson 3. Making a defensible programme decision: why a report of EO does not, by itself, determine whether clearance is needed.

📚 Source: IMAS 09.60, Underwater survey and clearance of explosive ordnance, first edition (1 December 2014), sections 3 and 4.2. Check the current standard and national requirements before professional use.

Further reading: International Mine Action Standards website (opens in a new tab).

Resources for this lesson

Web link

Link

Lesson content: 2.1 Survey as an evidence pathway

Lesson 3

3.1 Making a defensible programme decision

Understanding IMAS 09.60 · Lesson 3 of 4

A report of explosive ordnance does not, by itself, determine whether clearance is needed. In this lesson you learn what a sound decision weighs, who is responsible for each part of it, and how to write a decision note that a donor or authority can rely on.

15 minutes
6 min reading
6 min decision activity
3 min review

🎯 By the end of this lesson you can

Name three factors, beyond the EO report itself, that a decision must consider.
Distinguish the roles of the national authority, survey organisations and clearance organisations.
Spot the gaps in a funding request for immediate clearance.
Write a four-line decision note.

📘 Core content

What should a decision consider?

IMAS 09.60 connects decisions about further action to evidence, safety and socio-economic impact. A site used by fishers, or affected by planned construction, may need different attention from a site with little human interaction. The responsible authority must assess the circumstances before specifying an intervention. Open each factor.

01 · Community impact — Who uses the area?

Identify who needs access to the water, how they use it, and whether planned works will change that use. Community liaison helps reveal impacts that a site map alone may miss.

02 · Environment and heritage — What else could be affected?

Consider habitats, fisheries, infrastructure and cultural heritage. Identify the information, and the relevant authorities, needed to assess potential effects.

03 · Changing conditions — Is earlier evidence still reliable?

Storms, currents and changes in use can alter an underwater site. Earlier survey findings may need review, and a completed project may need a decision about subsequent monitoring.

💡 Management principle

The presence or suspicion of EO calls for an authorised assessment. It does not automatically establish that immediate clearance is the appropriate response.

📘 Core content

Who has which responsibility?

National authority

The National Mine Action Authority (NMAA) (Or the relevant government body exercising its functions.) establishes national requirements and oversees accreditation, monitoring and acceptance within the applicable system.

Accredited survey organisation

Undertakes survey within its approved scope, and documents the evidence and findings for review.

Accredited clearance organisation

Undertakes clearance within its approved scope. Accreditation for survey alone does not authorise an organisation to conduct clearance.

⚠️ Boundary

Applicable diving rules, specialist qualifications and approved organisational procedures must also be considered. This introductory lesson does not provide operational instructions.

🧭 Practical example

A funding request

📍 Illustrative case

Immediate clearance near a disused coastal structure

A donor is asked to finance immediate clearance near a disused coastal structure. The submission includes:

a decades-old report
no account of present community use
no indication of environmental review
no confirmation of the proposed organisation's accreditation

⏱️ About 6 minutes

Write a decision note

Write one short line under each heading, using only the information in the case. Do not select a clearance technique. Tick each line as you write it.

Known evidence
Missing information
Responsible decision-maker
Next management step

📝 Model note — Open after completing the activity

Known evidence

A historical report exists concerning the area near the structure.

Missing information

Current use of the area, verified site evidence, environmental and heritage considerations, and the proposed organisation's accreditation status.

Responsible decision-maker

The relevant national authority, informed by qualified organisations and affected stakeholders.

Next management step

Request an authorised, evidence-led assessment and agree the questions it must answer. The available information does not yet establish a need for clearance.

❓ Knowledge check

Test the decision

Q1. What is the most defensible response from the donor to the funding request?

Fund the clearance now, because any report of EO justifies immediate action.
Not quite.
Suspicion calls for authorised assessment; it does not automatically establish that immediate clearance is the right response.
Reject the request, because a decades-old report is no longer relevant.
Not quite.
An old report is still information to assess. Dismissing it is as unsupported as acting on it straight away.
Ask for an authorised, evidence-led assessment and the missing information before deciding on clearance.
Correct.
The request lacks evidence of current use, environmental review and accreditation. An authorised assessment closes those gaps before any intervention is defined.

Q2. An organisation accredited for underwater survey offers to clear the site as well, to save time. What should you check?

Whether it holds accreditation for clearance within an approved scope, because survey accreditation alone does not authorise clearance.
Correct.
Survey and clearance are separately accredited. The national authority oversees accreditation within the applicable system.
Nothing further: survey accreditation covers related clearance work.
Not quite.
Accreditation for survey alone does not authorise an organisation to conduct clearance.
Only its price, since accreditation is a matter for the organisation itself.
Not quite.
Accreditation is overseen by the national authority, and checking it is part of a defensible decision.

⭐ Key takeaways

A defensible decision identifies both the evidence and the gaps.
Consider community use, environmental and cultural effects, and changing conditions before defining further action.
Confirm who is authorised to decide, and that each organisation is accredited for the specific work proposed.
A sound decision states what is known, whose interests may be affected, what is missing and who decides the next step.

➡️ Next: Lesson 4. Review a project before accepting its results: four checks before accepting a handover.

📚 Source: IMAS 09.60, Underwater survey and clearance of explosive ordnance, first edition (1 December 2014), particularly sections 4–6 and 9–10. Check the current standard and applicable national requirements before professional use.

Further reading: International Mine Action Standards website (opens in a new tab).

Resources for this lesson

Web link

Link

Lesson content: 3.1 Making a defensible programme decision

Lesson 4

4.1 Review a project before accepting its results

IMAS 09.60: Four checks before accepting a handover

Understanding IMAS 09.60 · Lesson 4 of 4

"Work complete" is a claim, not a handover. In this lesson you learn what a manager must be able to trace in a project report, and the four questions to ask before the responsible authority accepts a result.

15 minutes
5 min reading
6 min review activity
4 min feedback and reflection

🎯 By the end of this lesson you can

Explain what information management, quality management and handover each contribute.
Apply four acceptance questions to a project report.
Separate management gaps from technical judgements beyond your role.
Draft clarification questions that produce a traceable decision record.

📘 Core content

What must a manager be able to trace?

Three areas make a decision traceable. Select each tab.

01 · Information

Information management

Identify information needs, collect and analyse data, and share results with authorised stakeholders. Record:

locations
the source and limits of observations
area decisions
relevant site conditions

A map without its supporting evidence and defined limits is an incomplete management record.

02 · Quality

Quality management

Establish whether competent people followed approved processes, whether the work was monitored, and whether identified shortcomings were addressed.

Completing an activity does not, by itself, establish that an area is suitable for every possible future use.

03 · Handover

Handover and future conditions

Clarify who accepts the result, what area and requirements the result covers, what information is transferred, and whether changing underwater conditions call for subsequent monitoring.

📘 Core content

Four questions before acceptance

Use this as a working checklist on any report you review.

1. What was the approved task and area? — Interpret results against the defined boundary and specified requirements.
2. What evidence supports the outcome? — Check the underlying records and the limits of what they establish.
3. Were quality issues addressed? — Identify the review completed and how any findings were resolved.
4. Who accepts the handover? — Record the responsible authority and any conditions on access, use or monitoring.

🧭 Practical example

An incomplete harbour report

📍 Illustrative case

"Work near the harbour is complete"

A report states that work near a small harbour is complete and includes a map. It does not:

identify the approved task boundary
explain the evidence behind its conclusions
record whether monitoring was considered
name the authority that will accept the site

These are management gaps. On the information available, they do not establish whether the technical work succeeded or failed.

⏱️ About 6 minutes

Request the missing record

Draft three concise questions to send through the appropriate project channel before accepting the report. Tick each one as you write it.

One question about the task boundary or supporting evidence
One question about quality review or acceptance authority
One question about future conditions or monitoring

Your aim is a traceable decision record, not a technical judgement beyond your role.

📝 Suggested questions — Open after the activity

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

Other well-founded questions are possible if they address the gaps in the report.

➕ Optional

AI support for document review

🤖 What AI can and cannot do here

AI can help organise clarification questions. It cannot verify field evidence, validate a site or accept a handover. Use only documents you are permitted to share, and check every output against the report and applicable national requirements.

Illustrative prompt

Review the following authorised project summary under these headings:
approved scope, supporting evidence, accreditation and authority,
quality review, environmental considerations, handover and monitoring.

For each heading, separate information explicitly present from
information missing. Do not infer that an area is safe or recommend
an operational method. Draft no more than five clarification
questions and identify the passage supporting each finding.

This prompt is a learning example, not a requirement of IMAS 09.60.

❓ Knowledge check

Accept, or ask?

Q1. What does the incomplete harbour report establish?

That the technical work failed and must be repeated.
Not quite.
The gaps are in the record, not proof of failure. Judging the technical work is beyond what the report allows.
That the site is ready for handover, because the report says the work is complete.
Not quite.
A completion statement and a map are not a traceable record. Boundary, evidence, monitoring and the accepting authority are all missing.
That there are management gaps to resolve before acceptance; it says nothing either way about technical success.
Correct.
Ask for the missing record through the project channel. Accept a result only against its defined scope and evidence.

Q2. An AI tool summarises the report and concludes that "the area is safe for public use". What should you do?

Include the conclusion in the handover note, since the tool read the whole report.
Not quite.
AI cannot verify field evidence, validate a site or accept a handover. That conclusion has no basis in an authorised process.
Disregard that conclusion: AI cannot validate a site or accept a handover. Use the tool only to organise questions, and check them against the report.
Correct.
Acceptance belongs to the responsible authority, on the basis of the defined scope and supporting evidence.

⭐ Key takeaways

Accept a result only against its defined scope and evidence.
Establish what was approved, what supports the reported outcome, who reviewed it and who accepts it.
Assess whether changing underwater conditions call for monitoring after the project ends.
Information management and quality management are what make a decision traceable.

🎓 Course complete

You have followed the full sequence: report, assess, decide, act and review. Remember that this introductory course does not qualify anyone to conduct survey, diving or clearance operations, and that IMAS 09.60 may have been revised since its first edition.

📚 Source: IMAS 09.60, Underwater survey and clearance of explosive ordnance, first edition (1 December 2014), sections 7–10. Check the current standard and applicable national requirements before professional use.

Further reading: International Mine Action Standards website (opens in a new tab).

Resources for this lesson

Web link

Link

Lesson content: 4.1 Review a project before accepting its results