07.11/04

Foreword

Management practices and operational procedures for mine action are constantly evolving. Improvements are made, and changes are required, to enhance safety and productivity. Changes may come from the introduction of new technology, in response to a new explosive ordnance (EO) threat, and from field experience and lessons learned in other mine action projects and programmes. This experience and lessons learned should be shared in a timely manner.

Technical Notes for Mine Action (TNMAs) provide a forum to share experience and lessons learned by collecting, collating and publishing technical information on important, topical themes, particularly those relating to safety and productivity. TNMAs complement the broader issues and principles addressed in International Mine Action Standards (IMAS).

The preparation of TNMAs follows a rapid production and approval process. They draw on practical experience and publicly available information. Over time, some TNMAs may be “promoted” to become full IMAS standards, while others may be withdrawn if no longer relevant or if superseded by more up-to-date information.

TNMAs are neither legal documents nor IMAS. There is no legal requirement to accept the advice provided in a TNMA. They are purely advisory and are designed solely to supplement technical knowledge or to provide further guidance on the application of IMAS. TNMAs are published on the IMAS website at www.mineactionstandards.org.

Introduction

The release of land affected by explosive ordnance (EO) contamination is a core objective of mine action programmes. Land release enables communities to safely regain access to land and infrastructure while ensuring that contamination risks are appropriately managed.

The second edition of IMAS 07.11 Land Release, published in 2026, strengthens the evidence-based approach to land release and places greater emphasis on evidence-based decision-making, continuity across the land release process, and the importance of establishing nationally defined criteria to support consistent and transparent land release decisions. This TNMA provides guidance for implementing land release in accordance with IMAS 07.11 Land Release.

1. Scope

This TNMA provides guidance for implementing land release in accordance with IMAS 07.11 Land Release, with a particular focus on the assessment and application of evidence and criteria used to support land release decisions.

It is intended to assist national mine action authorities and implementing organizations in applying consistent, transparent, and effective land release decisions, particularly for cancellation and reduction of suspected or confirmed hazardous areas.

2. Normative references

A list of normative references is given in Annex A. Normative references are important documents to which reference is made in this technical note and which form part of the provisions of this technical note.

3. Terms and definitions

A complete glossary of all the terms, definitions and abbreviations used in the International Mine Action Standards (IMAS) series is given in IMAS 04.10.

In the IMAS series, the words “shall”, “should” and “may” are used to indicate the intended degree of compliance:

• “shall” is used to indicate requirements, methods or specifications that are to be applied in order to conform to the standard. This term is not used in TNMAs, as their contents are purely advisory.
• “should” is used to indicate preferred requirements, methods or specifications; and
• “may” is used to indicate a possible method or course of action.

3.1
all reasonable effort
minimum acceptable level of effort to identify and document contaminated areas or to remove the presence or suspicion of explosive ordnance

Note 1 to entry: All reasonable effort has been applied when the commitment of additional resources is considered to be unreasonable in relation to the results expected.

3.2
cancelled land
suspected or confirmed hazardous area concluded not to contain evidence of EO contamination, based on reliable information that meets established cancellation criteria

Note 1 to entry: Cancellation may occur at any stage of the land release process, when it is reasonably established that there is no evidence of EO contamination.

Note 2 to entry: Cancelled land is measured in square metres (m²).

3.3
cleared land
area where all specified EO hazards have been removed and/or destroyed to a specified clearance depth

Note 1 to entry: Cleared land is measured in square metres (m²).

3.4
confirmed hazardous area
CHA
area where the presence of contamination by explosive ordnance has been confirmed on the basis of direct evidence

3.5
direct evidence
verifiable information that confirms the presence of explosive ordnance with certainty

3.6
explosive ordnance
EO
interpreted as encompassing mine action’s response to the following munitions:

• mines;
• cluster munitions;
• unexploded ordnance;
• abandoned ordnance;
• booby traps;
• other devices (as defined by CCW APII);
• improvised explosive devices

Note 1 to entry: Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) meeting the definition of mines, booby traps, or other devices fall under the scope of mine action when their clearance is undertaken for humanitarian purposes and in areas where active hostilities have ceased.

3.7
explosive ordnance disposal spot task
EOD spot task
disposal of single or multiple explosive ordnance discovered outside a suspected or confirmed hazardous area

3.8
fade out
the gradual reduction of clearance activities in an area contaminated with EO as a result of achieving a prescribed distance from the last known EO without finding any other evidence of EO in that area.

3.9
indirect evidence
information that suggests the possible presence of explosive ordnance but does not confirm it with certainty

3.10
intrusive intervention
action involving the active investigation of the ground, structures, or objects in a suspected or confirmed hazardous area, undertaken to detect, confirm, or mark explosive ordnance hazards

Note 1 to entry: Intrusive intervention includes activities that disturb the ground or actively investigate the subsurface (such as ground-penetrating radar or other sensor technologies), followed by the analysis of the collected data to support evidence-based decision-making. It does not include the use of camera-equipped drones.

3.11
land release
process of applying all reasonable effort to identify, define, and remove all presence or suspicion of explosive ordnance through non-technical survey, technical survey, and/or clearance

Note 1 to entry: The criteria for “all reasonable effort” is defined by the national mine action authority.

3.12
mine action organization
MAO
organization (government, military, commercial, or non-governmental organization/civil society) responsible for implementing mine action projects or tasks

Note 1 to entry: The mine action organization may be a prime contractor, subcontractor, consultant, or agent.

3.13
national mine action authority
NMAA
government entity, often an inter-ministerial committee, in country affected by explosive ordnance, charged with the responsibility for broad strategic, policy and regulatory decisions related to mine action

Note 1 to entry: In the absence of an NMAA, it may be necessary and appropriate for the UN, or some other body, to assume some or all of the responsibilities of an NMAA.

3.14
non-technical survey
NTS
collection and analysis of data, without intrusive interventions, about the presence, type, distribution and surrounding environment of EO contamination, in order to define better where EO contamination is present, and where it is not, and to support land release prioritization and decision-making processes through the provision of evidence

3.15
reduced land
suspected or confirmed hazardous area concluded not to contain evidence of contamination by explosive ordnance, based on reliable information that meets established reduction criteria

Note 1 to entry: Reduction may occur at any stage during the land release process, when it is reasonably established that there is no evidence of contamination by explosive ordnance through the use of intrusive interventions.

Note 2 to entry: Reduced land is measured in square metres (m²).

3.16
residual contamination
<mine action> potential presence of explosive ordnance that may not have been identified or addressed after applying all reasonable effort in accordance with the land release process

3.17
residual risk
<mine action> risk that remains despite having applied all reasonable effort during the land release process

3.18
suspected hazardous area
SHA
area where there is reasonable suspicion of contamination by explosive ordnance on the basis of indirect evidence

3.19
technical survey
TS
collection and analysis of data, using appropriate intrusive interventions, about the presence, type, distribution and surrounding environment of EO contamination, in order to define better where EO contamination is present, and where it is not, and to support land release prioritisation and decision-making processes through the provision of evidence.

4. Planning for land release

4.1 Planning considerations

Planning for land release requires the establishment of criteria that are context-specific, reflect the principle of all reasonable effort, and are adaptable to varying types of evidence. These considerations should be documented in national mine action standards (NMAS) to ensure consistency and transparency in decision-making.

While flexibility is necessary to allow the application of professional judgement, decisions should always be supported and justified by evidence. Professional judgement should be exercised by competent personnel, supported by documented evidence, and applied in accordance with nationally established criteria. Decisions should always be supported and justified by evidence. Planning should be carried out at multiple levels, by the various actors involved, at the strategic and operational levels by NMAAs (sometimes also by regional or local authorities), and at the operational level by mine action operators. Operational planning can be carried out for large-scale geographic areas (that is, at the country level) for regions or areas, or down to the level of the individual task. An effective planning process requires an understanding of the nature of contamination, the impact of EO, the context in which mine action activities take place, the required resources, and established national and local priorities.

Land release is a non-linear, evidence-based process. Within a single land release task, the application of NTS, TS, and clearance may evolve in response to emerging evidence. The outcome of a land release activity (cancellation, reduction, or clearance) is determined by the evidence obtained and the nationally defined criteria, and not only by the initial activity type specified in the task order.

Accredited operators may switch between NTS, TS, and clearance methods within the same task when operational evidence justifies doing so, provided that:

• the organization is accredited for the activity performed;
• the rationale for the change is documented;
• quality assurance and quality control requirements are met;
• applicable NMAA approval processes are applied.

4.2 Gathering information

4.2.1 General

Information gathering is vital at all stages of a mine action programme to ensure that new hazards and changes to the operating context may be integrated and planning adjusted accordingly. It is even imperative at the outset of a mine action programme (when new institutions are established and new operators set up in a newly affected context) as it defines the framework that will guide and shape land release operations.

Incorrect and inadequate information may lead to higher risks for communities and operators during land release.  It can also be difficult and costly to change and correct information once it is recorded in mine action information systems. Information gathering should therefore provide:

• an evidence-based indication of the size and scope of the problem (if any),including its socioeconomic impact;
• an assessment of the resources needed to meet the goals;
• the national capabilities and potential to address the problem; and
• an assessment of the need for external assistance (including financial, human skills, material, and information).

The information collected should be sufficient to enable a national authority to establish priorities and to begin setting out the framework for a national mine action programme and strategic and operational planning.

Mine action authorities and operators should make every effort to fully involve the mine-affected communities within the general information flow and management process. This can be done through the establishment of formal community-based reporting mechanisms (such as hotlines or training community representatives, platforms for engagements with local authorities, community liaison) and commitment to community involvement throughout the national mine action process. Inclusive community involvement taking into consideration sex, age, culture, among other diversity factors, improves both accuracy and trust in the land release process.

Once the initial structures are established and land release progresses, information generated through NTS, TS and clearance may yield evidence that refines knowledge of the nature and extent of contamination. Continuous updating of information supports adaptive planning and strengthens confidence in decision-making.

4.2.2 Country assessment

As soon as practical, the planning process should start with a formal assessment of the country’s situation. This assessment should draw heavily on existing information provided by former warring factions and from agencies and organizations familiar with the EO-affected countries or regions. Where UN assistance is requested, a multi-disciplinary assessment team may deploy to the country to validate and update existing information in the aftermath of renewed conflict. The country assessment should determine whether a national mine action programme is required. Full recognition should be given to ongoing work, including informal demining projects.

In order to develop the initial planning framework, the decision to implement comprehensive national survey efforts should be taken so that the magnitude of the problem, as well as prioritization and funding considerations, can be quantified. Key information requirements are outlined in IMAS 05.10 Information Management for Mine Action; however, they relate primarily to the nature, location, and extent of the EO contamination.

4.3 Long-term planning

Land release is a process that requires long-term commitment from national government entities, NMAAs, and other stakeholders. Long-term planning should be based on a structured, evidence-based approach that progressively reduces contamination while maximizing efficient use of available resources. NMAAs and mine action organizations should develop coherent strategies integrating NTS, TS, and clearance within a unified planning framework. Planning should be informed by reliable and recent data, including baseline information and ongoing survey outputs, to enable prioritization based on needs, socio-economic impact and national priorities.

Long-term planning should include:

• establishing coordination and cooperation mechanisms across state authorities involved in, or otherwise related to, issues of EO contamination;
• ensuring adequate resources are available to capture the full extent of contamination from as early as practicable;
• preparing and sharing evidence-based long-term plans with government stakeholders, donors, UN agencies, and implementing partners;
• integrating risk education programmes for the duration of land release activities;
• establishing processes to review, amend, and update NMAS as the programme evolves;
• ensuring that NMAA resourcing (human, equipment, and funding) remains sufficient and sustained throughout the implementation of the national land release strategy;
• building and maintaining a long-term national technical response capability to deal with subsequent residual contamination;
• continued assessment of possible residual contamination to ensure the establishment of an adequate residual-risk management strategy.

5. Considerations for national frameworks

5.1 Alignment with IMAS

National standards on land release need to contextualize, rather than replicate, IMAS text since IMAS use broad and generic language for global applicability. Effective development of NMAS on land release requires national authorities to interpret IMAS provisions and translate them into clear and practical requirements that support safe, efficient, and nationally appropriate land release processes. If IMAS are reproduced verbatim, NMAS risk:

• failing to reflect national legal frameworks, institutional arrangements, or operational responsibilities;
• creating inconsistencies or gaps where national interpretation and operational direction are required but not provided;
• including provisions that are not relevant to the national contamination context or operational environment;
• omitting nationally defined criteria and thresholds necessary for implementation, such as:
  • clearance depth requirements for different contamination types or land use categories;
  • criteria for cancellation, reduction, and clearance requirements;
  • requirements for the use of direct and indirect evidence;
  • minimum required documentation and reporting requirements;
  • requirements for quality assurance and quality control activities;
  • conditions for the use of specific methodologies or technologies, such as mechanical assets, remote sensing, or animal detection systems.

The NMAA should lead working groups comprising all stakeholders to draft and review NMAS, when needed.

5.2 Evidence requirements within NMAS

Land release decisions are based on evidence derived from multiple sources of information and supported by the application of all reasonable effort. When reviewing or updating NMAS, authorities should consider whether national standards clearly articulate how evidence is understood and applied in practice.

EXAMPLE: Authorities may compare the result of TS and clearance with the initial classification of hazardous areas to assess if the use of evidence for the identification of hazardous areas is efficient.

5.3 Documentation

Traceability is important in land release decisions. National standards should therefore consider whether appropriate documentation is available to support the land release process, including:

• standardized documentation provided by the tasking authority to the operator (task order, implementation plan, prioritization);
• survey recording;
• evidence assessment;
• handover documentation;
• any other documentation about the rationale for decision-making, including the information that supported decisions and who authorized them.

National standards should contain a comprehensive list of documentation on land release activities to be retained, together with defined retention periods. This facilitates the demonstration of compliance with land release requirements, supports quality assurance activities and the application of all reasonable effort.

6. Triangulation of information

Triangulation of information is the process of verifying findings through the systematic comparison of information from three independent sources, where available. The assessment should consider the relevance, reliability, and independence of the available information when determining the confidence that can be placed in the findings. It therefore relies on confidence in the information and reliability of the source. It takes place throughout all steps described in sections 7 and 8 and aims to increase the reliability of conclusions, reduce bias, and ensure evidence-based decision-making.

The triangulation process starts by clearly defining the key question or finding that needs verification. Relevant and independent sources are then identified (for example, community feedback, operational records, direct observation, or quantitative data). Information from these sources is compared to identify whether it converges, partially diverges, or contradicts itself.

When conducting triangulation, it is important to distinguish between independent and non-independent sources.

• Independent sources gather or produce information separately and can corroborate a finding without relying on the same origin.

EXAMPLE: CCTV footage, vehicle telematics, and independent witness statements supporting the same account of an incident.

• Non-independent sources originate from the same information. The key consideration is the number of independent lines of information, not simply the number of reports available.

EXAMPLE: Several news articles or witness reports based on a single person’s account are treated as a single source of information rather than multiple independent sources.

The consistency, independence, and reliability of sources should be considered collectively. Triangulation is intended to strengthen confidence in findings by comparing information from multiple sources and identifying areas of agreement, discrepancy, or uncertainty. The following considerations may assist in assessing the outcome of the triangulation process.

• If sources contradict each other, or if information is derived from only one source, additional verification should be undertaken before conclusions are drawn.
• Discrepancies should be analysed rather than ignored, as they may reflect differences in perspective, gender, location, timing, or access to information.
• Care should be taken to avoid common errors, including relying on multiple sources that originate from the same information, overlooking contradictory information, treating triangulation as a box-ticking exercise, failing to document how conclusions were reached, or drawing conclusions without sufficient independent information.
• The triangulation process should be documented, including the sources consulted, any discrepancies identified, and the rationale for the final assessment.

7. Evidence for decision-making

7.1 General

As per IMAS 07.11 Land Release, NMAAs establish criteria for the definition of SHAs and CHAs in national standards. Criteria should define how documented direct and indirect evidence is used to support the classification, reclassification, and release of SHAs and CHAs.

Annex B gives examples of evidence.

7.2 Collection of information

7.2.1 General

Evidence may be obtained from diverse sources of information at any time before and during the land release process. Activities that may generate evidence include, but are not limited to:

• analysis of open-source reporting showing past military operations in an area, EO accidents, or visible EO;
• analysis of documented findings of previous survey(s);
• analysis of satellite imagery containing visual signatures of EO or contextually significant associated features, such as military positions or trench systems;
• use of drones with various sensor systems (visual, thermal, multispectral, magnetic, etc.);
• physical observation (whether through the naked eye or through the use of visual enhancement or optical aids such as binoculars);
• interaction with witnesses;
• analysis of findings and observations generated through ongoing land release activities;
• analysis of information and evidence from adjacent areas.

The collected information is analysed, interpreted, and combined with deductive reasoning to generate findings and evidence. However, the method of collection alone does not determine whether the resulting evidence is direct or indirect. The reliability or type of technology used to collect the evidence affects the confidence assigned to it, but not its classification.

7.3 Categorization of information and evidence

Information and evidence used in land release should be systematically categorized to support transparent, consistent, and evidence-based decision-making. This helps clarify the strength of evidence, how it can be used, and the level of confidence that can be placed in it.

Categorization is not intended to be applied as a strict linear sequence. Depending on available information, and operational requirements, some steps may occur simultaneously, be repeated, or not be required in all cases.

Evidence in land release can be categorized based on its type (see 7.4) or its nature (see 7.5). In addition, the quality and strength of information can be assessed based on confidence in the information (classification of information) and reliability of the source (see 8).

Together, these considerations help determine the overall strength of evidence and its suitability for supporting land release decisions. Information and evidence should rarely be considered in isolation. Rather, multiple sources and types of evidence should be combined and analysed to build a coherent and defensible assessment.

7.4 Evidence type

As stated in IMAS 07.11 Land release, all collected evidence is categorized as either direct or indirect evidence (see 3.5 and 3.8). The process of identifying and analysing information sources, assessing the nature of the source, and evaluating source reliability and confidence in the information supports this categorization.

These evidence types determine whether the information is sufficient to confirm the presence of EO and establish a CHA, or whether it only indicates a suspicion of contamination and therefore supports the establishment of an SHA.

Annex B gives examples of evidence.

7.5 Nature of evidence

All evidence can be categorized and reported by their nature according to the following categories.

• Physical: Any tangible evidence that indicates the potential or confirmed presence of EO.

EXAMPLE: Visible EO, EO craters, mine signs, etc.

• Documentary: Recorded information that indicates the potential or confirmed presence of EO, including time-related and technology-derived evidence.

EXAMPLE: Maps, reports, datasets, etc.

• Testimonial: Information provided by witnesses indicating the potential or confirmed presence of EO, including behavioural and socio-economic indicators.

EXAMPLE: Land use patterns, avoidance, or changes in land use.

8. Confidence in information and reliability of sources of information

8.1 General

Confidence should reflect the quality of evidence and source reliability. The extent to which this can be demonstrated or established should determine whether the information collected or evidence is used in the land release decision-making process. Several methods may be used to assess and classify both the reliability of sources and the confidence in information.

8.2 Confidence in information

Confidence in information is the degree to which available information is considered accurate, consistent, and reliable for supporting land release decisions. It reflects an assessment of the internal coherence of the information, its alignment with known context, and the extent to which it is supported or contradicted by other available information. As a result, confidence in information may change as further information becomes available. Levels of confidence help determine how much weight is given to specific information when analysing evidence and ensure that decisions are based on a transparent and structured assessment of confidence. The confidence levels presented in Table 1 are intended to support evidence assessment and the application of professional judgement. Confidence levels should not be interpreted as prescriptive decision thresholds for land release (see Table 1).

Table 1 – Confidence in information