A risk management approach to opening and clearing roads

1
A risk management approach to opening and
clearing roads

• Examples from Angola and Sudan

2
MAG Angola

• Route Assessment and Road Threat Risk Reduction

3
Background

• Regular requests for assessments of suspect roads
  from UN and humanitarian agencies
• Request from OCHA for standard description of
  risk from mine action agencies
• Repeated incidents of anti-vehicle mines and IEDs
  on roads

4
Problem 2004

• No internal methodology for measuring or
  assessing risk on roads
• No common agreed language for describing risk and
  threat on roads
• No external reporting format for presenting
  information about roads

5
Principles of key elements

• Traficability/Non-traficability
• Versus
• Red/Yellow/Green (UN)
• Mined/Suspect/Low risk (Halo Trust)

6
Risk / Threat reduction

• If the road is classed as non-trafficable what
  action do MAG take?
• Determine the nature of the risk and the
  appropriate action(s) in order to reduce the risk
  to a tolerable level

7
Risk reduction treatments

• Target clearance of high risk areas
• Known accident sites
• Approaches to bridges
• Potholes, broken roads etc
• Road widening and passing points

8
Tools

• Dedicated Road Operations Team (12 staff per
  team)
• Armoured vehicle with Ebinger Large Loop
• Armoured John Deere with front mounted Roller
  Pressure System

9
Information Verification

• Expert Opinion - FAA, other mine action agencies
• Data Gathering - route assessment
• Local information civilian traffic, community
  leaders
• Internal Information MAG staff
• Note MAG will always seek to confirm the Route
  Assessment Report with expert opinion prior to
  general release

10
The End Result

• In October 2004 MAG adopted
• Route Assessment statement
• Road usage guidelines
• Mine Incident report format
• Route Assessment report format

11
Risk a tolerable level

• This statement of trafficability is NOT
• A guarantee of safety
• A declaration that the route is free of mines.

12
MAG Road Usage Guidelines

• Trafficability means that the road can be used
  if the users stick to the guidelines
• These guidelines recommend how you may
• Reduce the risk of road travel
• Prepare for the journey with current information
• Prepare for the journey with appropriate
  equipment
• Be clear on procedures so will know how to
  continue a journey or not
• Prepare for a possible emergency
• The key message is stay in the tracks

13
Summary for Angola approach

• It must be accepted that given the nature of the
  mine problem in Angola that there is an inherent
  risk involved in travelling on roads
• The decision to use or not use a road must be
  taken with the full knowledge that it is not
  possible to declare any road completely risk-free
  in terms of the mine threat.
• However, if the guidelines are followed, the risk
  of being involved in a mine incident in Angola
  will be greatly reduced following the assessment
  and action taken by the MAG team

14
MAG South Sudan

• Risk AssessmentWFP Road Clearance Project

15
MAG Concept of Operations presented to the
Nairobi conference on road verification in August
2005

• Information from UNRMAO
• IMSMA including maps and reported DAs
• Previous clearance / survey by other
  organizations
• REST information from MECHEM when assessing 8
  meter corridor
• NTSG and SOP
• Survey Procedures as per NTSG and SOP
• Road Assessment Forms as per NTSG and IMSMA

16
MAG Concept of Operations presented to the
Nairobi conference on road verification in August
2005

• Road Traffic Census/Usage
• Information is gathered from a variety of sources
  by MAG Community Liaison staff. Informants
  included
• People using the route
• Local community members
• Local administration staff
• Military personnel
• Ex-combatants
• Hospital/Health facility staff
• NGO, UN and other agency staff working in the area

17
(No Transcript)
18
Planning for release of road sections

• Emergency Road Survey is divided into the major
  sections that the team operates on. The section
  lengths were then divided into sub sections (the
  default section length is being 100 metres).
  However, if necessary this can be adjusted in
  response to the following factors
• Quality Assurance (QA) requirements
• Geography sections to coincide with key points
  e.g. towns, bridges, junctions
• Access points and detours
• Data gathering / intelligence information
• Risk ratings

19
Planning for release of road sections (continue)

• The sub sections were assessed as
• Low risk
• Normally, a section of road corridor will only
  be assessed as Low-risk where
• Interviews have confirmed that it is outside the
  conflict area, or
• It has already been cleared, graded, farmed or
  some form of reconstruction has already been
  undertaken
• High risk
• This will be given to the remainder of the road
  (corridor) surveyed. Internally it will be
  categorised as to whether it requires BAC only or
  mine clearance.
• In this way, sections of road classified as
  low-risk were able to be released for use where
  necessary and practicable

20
For road corridors to be assessed as low risk and
where completions reports have to be compiled to
discredit a section of road at least ten of the
following criteria must be satisfied

• The history of the conflict must be ascertained
  for that area
• The road has been regularly trafficked
• Traffic census to be conducted to make sure at
  least 3 vehicles pass every day
• No reported animal, people, vehicle accidents in
  the area.
• Existing clearance records to be checked
• Minimum of two community members who have lived
  in the community for a minimum of one year to be
  interviewed
• Local army commander to be interviewed
• Community leader to be interviewed
• At least two ex-combatants interviewed if
  feasible
• Local hospital and medical facilities casualty
  records to be examined
• Local cattle and/or goat herders to be
  interviewed if available
• Visually inspect the area for signs of mines and
  UXO, packaging, fragments
• Names of all interviewees to be recorded and
  attached to completion reports.
• These criteria must be accepted by the client.
• (MAG SUDAN SOP 1 Survey Operations, Para 17)

21
Action Options Based on Risk Assessment

• In areas identified as Low risk areas are treated
  with a large loop detection system attached to
  the front of a Landcruiser or operated manually
  (The large loop system can also be used on High
  risk areas which have been trafficked)
• Areas identified as High Risk from UXO only, are
  cleared by a MAT (Mine Action Team) with BAC
  clearance capacity supported by local labour to
  clear the vegetation. Areas known to contain AT
  mines only can also be cleared using this method.
• Suspected or known mined areas are cleared by a
  MAT supported by a Mechanical Clearance Machine.
  MAG use Bozena 4 for this task where it clears
  the vegetation first and flail the area to a
  minimum depth of 15 cm. If mines are detonated by
  the machine that area is manually searched as for
  standard demining. Areas where there are no
  evidence of mines after flailing is visually
  checked by the manual team for remnants of any
  mines and UXO and searched by the large loop for
  deeply buried UXO.
• Operations supported by the Community Liaison
  team who liaise with and brief local authorities,
  contractors, other agencies, road users and local
  communities along the route where the work is
  being done and on feeder roads. They are
  responsible for gathering any new information
  concerning the road status (new mines/UXO
  reports, accidents, safe transits etc.). This
  information is monitored and used to update the
  risk assessment as necessary.

22
Summary Risk Assessment

• All areas identified as High Risk will receive
  technical follow up
• All areas identifies as Low Risk receive no
  technical follow up but the decision is backed up
  by a formalized decision making process
• All low risk areas are discussed with the client
  and RMAO in order to make a quality control on
  the decision
• All high risk areas are QAd following technical
  intervention as per RMAO procedures

23
Summary

• Angola
• CL Driven process
• No pre- process clearanc
• Higher risk during processing
• Aim to provide access
• Trafficable non trafficable (advisory)
• MAG developed and accepted by end users
• No commitment to verify low risk areas
• Higher risk tolerance end users understand risk
  and advised on risk reducing behaviour. Do not
  require all hazard removed standards

• Sudan
• CL Driven Process
• Routes have 8m corridor completed by Mechem
  (MEDDS)
• Overall lower risk during process
• Aim to facilitate route reconstruction
• Safe Unsafe
• Formally accepted process by NMAO
• Formal QA/QC external with Client RMAO
• Low Risk Area verified by LL
• Lower risk tolerance, end user requires higher
  degree of risk reduction, non acceptance of risk
  want all hazards removed standards

24
Lessons Learned Road Assessment

• Experienced Technical and Community Liaison field
  staff are essential
• Improvements could be made through the use of
  technology to digitize the process i.e. DGPS/ GIS
• Reinvention of the wheel- MAG needs to look at
  off the shelf mapping and GIS packages
• Recording and training of existing MAG road
  assessment/ clearance procedures throughout the
  organization

25
Thank you for the opportunity to present our
approach

• Any questions?