Comment:
Rakes in Sri Lanka

Send me in your comments, and I will update this page........
I will add opposing views unedited. EMAIL me.

The following was written at the end of 2003. At the end of 2004, having studied the NPA Rake Excavation and Detection System (REDS) developed by Luke Atkinson, I have come to really like rakes.

See Raking it all up after ten years. See also the REDS system (as a complete system) which gives me more confidence of complete clearance to a specified depth than any metal-detector based clearance system, and any other excavation system.....

The use of garden rakes as detector and excavation tool in Sri Lanka has raised a few eyebrows..... The picture shows an HDU deminer using a rake as a mine detector in Sri Lanka.

Rakes have been used in other places. Like pickaxes, hoes and enxadas, their use raises safety issues. There is evidence that uncontrolled pickaxe and hoe use has led to accidents - which illustrates the fact that SOPs that restrict their use are essential. The existence of local military SOPs do not give confidence - given that we all accept that clearance in conflict situations does not have to reach the standard of humanitarian demining.

Use of pickaxes, rakes and hoes as a tool is one thing - using a rake as the ONLY detector and tool is quite another.

Let's assume that the major risk is of letting off a blast mine with the tines of the rake. If the mine is the P4-MK1 (30g Tetryl) and the deminer is wearing his visor down and his body is two meters away, he probably could expect to dust himself off. It even happens when excavating with shorter tools - sometimes. With a TS/VS-50, (43-50g RDX) the risk of being unlucky gets higher. With box mines using 200g TNT blocks, the risk gets much higher - and it really does not matter if the wooden box has fallen apart. The fuze is still in place and (if an MUV style fuze is used) could be easily initiated when raking. Fuze parts have penetrated visors. 200g TNT will shatter the wooden rake handle, separate the head and throw it back - perhaps in separate parts.

Even if there is complete confidence that only the smaller mines are in an area, there is a risk of hearing damage - and light environmental frag-damage to areas not covered with PPE.

The injury radius from a small mine is usually small, but when larger blast mines may be around, a 10 metre safety distance may not be enough to ensure that the spread of injury is limited.

The picture above shows that 10m safety distances are ignored by the Sri Lankan army - but it may be that the picture was "posed" (I hope so given the apparent "random" raking). Of course, if frag-mines are around, 10 meters is a bad joke. Bounding frag mines are not always easy to see - and I would not like to see the result of raking over a PROM or Valmara fuze. Wearing the visors shown in the picture (scratched), the raker may not even see an obvious fuze.

Safety for the deminer is not the only issue. In humanitarian demining, a major concern is that mines and ERW are not left in an area declared clear. About 10% of recorded accidents occur because of inadequate marking of the division between cleared and uncleared areas. At least another 10% occur when deminers carelessly ignore their markings. When the Sri Lankan army do not mark at all - there is a high risk of missing the corners where small mines lurk or even missing much larger areas.

When the only tool used is a rake - all the lessons learned over the years about washouts, cautious excavation of detector signals, deep-checks for mines missing from a pattern etc, are not possible. If the mine is not virtually on the surface, it will be missed. This is really unacceptably "dodgy" - just as it was in the Gulf. Humanitarian Demining allows for no "acceptable losses" of deminers or civilians - and any responsible HD exponent must demonstrate that they have TRIED to achieve that.

With no effective QA and no reliable self-check system (a bigger rake does not convince me), they cannot be said to be clearing to humanitarian standards. Someone might like to point out to them that when they have declared the area clear - they may be held liable to compensate for subsequent injuries that occur in that area (under current or future laws) and their only reliable legal defence would be to have demonstrably cleared to international standards by employing the IMAS. Do them a favour and point out what is happening in Bosnia - where there is far less reason to question the mine action competencies.

If locals paid at local rates can use the IMAS to devise locally appropriate SOPs that include effective QA and achieve the IMAS requirements - Wonderful. If they cannot and funding is provided by the international community - the funders have a moral obligation to ensure that the work is done to humanitarian standards - for the sake of the deminers and the end-users of the cleared area. SOPs derived using the IMAS may allow for the use of purpose-designed rakes - just as many groups allow the use of pick-axes and hoes - but must surely limit their ABUSE and insist on adequate safety distances and marking systems.