Based on a comprehensive study on the humanitarian and development impact of anti-vehicle mines (AVMs) in 2014, the GICHD and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) have collaborated to improve evidence of the humanitarian and developmental impact of AVMs.
Since 2015, this research has focused on monitoring and mapping AVM incidents globally. This project gathers data on new incidents and displays them on an interactive and regularly updated map.
The Story Map above is the most recent product from this collaboration, using the latest tools from Esri to visualise the deep impact of these weapons on communities around the world.
If you would like to request the data for this research or report AVM incidents, please contact info(at)gichd.org.
In 2016, the GICHD and SIPRI recorded 181 incidents related, or suspected to be related, to anti-vehicle mines (AVMs) in 22 states and territories*, an increase of 2 per cent compared to 2015. These incidents caused 423 casualties, including 228 injured and 195 killed, a decrease of 29 per cent in comparison to 2015.
Afghanistan, Cambodia, Mali, Pakistan, and Ukraine were the five states with the most recorded AVM incidents in 2016. All states, besides Afghanistan, featured among the top five states with the most incidents in the previous year.
Afghanistan, Mali, Pakistan, Syria and Ukraine were the states with the highest casualty rates in 2016. The 101 casualties recorded in Ukraine represent a 4 per cent increase since 2015 and account for 24 per cent of global casualties.
In post-conflict situations, 87 per cent of casualties were civilians, while in conflict settings, this number drops to 40 per cent.
All the findings and analysis of AVM incident data in 2016 can be accessed here.
*Non-Self-Governing Territories as defined by the United Nations
The published findings of AVM incident data in 2015 can be accessed here.
Data for the interactive maps of AVM incidents come from two primary sources, although they vary between states:
Data reported by states and organisations remain insufficient for a number of reasons. In some instances, states with suspected AVM incidents do not release any information at all. In other cases, data remain incomplete due to the inability of the national mine action authority or organisations to access certain areas of the territory. This is at least a challenge in current conflict areas where data collection and verification are particularly difficult.
Therefore, data from states and organisations were complemented by media reviews conducted in Arabic, English, French, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish and Urdu. Press articles were included, either because an incident was specially identified as AVM-related, or because an incident corresponded to a set of criteria that strongly indicated an AVM-related incident. These included incidents such as those on roads outside of a city involving a vehicle, but excluding remotely-detonated bombs, and causing multiple casualties. In cases where the criteria strongly suggested an AVM-related incident, the incident is referred to as a suspected AVM incident. In some instances, mine action authorities and organisations were able to assess the relevance and accuracy of retrieved press articles.
Incidents with an unknown number of casualties were categorised as incidents that resulted in casualties, but without specifying any absolute number. For incidents referring to a minimum number of casualties (“at least [number] casualties”), this minimum number was retained in this research. Furthermore, unless clearly attributed in the source, the vehicle category for incidents involving other combatants was defined as “unknown”.
The nature of these weapons, and the fact that AVM incidents often take place in rural areas, also make their reporting challenging, specifically regarding the exact location of incidents. Recorded incidents are located as accurately as possible. In the absence of confirmed coordinates, the research team approximates the location to the greatest possible extent. Where reports do not contain any geographical reference, they are mapped at the capital of the country/territory and disclaimed accordingly.
This research provides an estimate of recorded AVM incidents and casualties in 2016, but actual figures are expected to be higher. This caveat applies in particular to current conflict contexts for which data collection and verification are challenging. Incidents considered to be caused by pressure-plated improvised explosive devices (PP-IEDs) are currently not reflected in the maps.
The GICHD-SIPRI wish to thank all partners who replied to the survey and provided data in 2015 and/or 2016, in particular the United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Mine Action Service, Ambassadors for Development without Borders Iran, APOPO, “Dales Voz a Las Víctimas” platform, Danish Demining Group, Fondation Suisse de Déminage, Handicap International, iMMAP, Landmine Monitor, Mines Advisory Group, Norwegian People’s Aid, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Project Co-ordinator in Ukraine, Peace Sharing Association/Korean Campaign to Ban Landmines, Sustainable Peace and Development Organization Pakistan, The HALO Trust, To Be Foundation for Rights & Freedoms Yemen, Zamin Pak Persia International Company.
The following mine action programmes also provided valuable responses and data: Albanian Mines and Munitions Coordination Office, Azerbaijan National Agency for Mine Action, Bosnia and Herzegovina Mine Action Center, Cambodian Mine Action and Victim Assistance Authority, Centre National de Déminage Tchad, Center for Humanitarian Demining and Expertise Armenia, Centre National d’Action Antimines au Sénégal, Centro Peruano de Acción contra las Mines Antipersonal, Comisión Nacional de Desminado Humanitario de Chile, Comissâo Nacional Intersectorial de Desminagem e Assistência Humanitária Angola, Croatian Mine Action Centre, Dirección para la Acción Integral contra Minas Antipersonal Colombia, Direction de l’Action Humanitaire contre les Mines et Engins non explosés du Burundi, Executive Secretariat for Mine Clearance and the Development of the North West Coast Egypt, Instituto Nacional de Desminagem Mozambique, Iraqi Kurdistan Mine Action Agency, Israeli National Mine Action Authority, Kosovo Mine Action Centre, Lebanon Mine Action Center, Mine Action Coordination Centre of Afghanistan, Ministère de la Défense du Cameroun, National Mine Action Center Sri Lanka, Palestine Mine Action Centre, Serbian Mine Action Centre, South Sudan National Mine Action Authority, STC Delta Georgia, Sudan National Mine Action Center, Tajikistan Mine Action Centre, Thailand Mine Action Centre, The National Committee for Demining and Rehabilitation Jordan, Yemen Executive Mine Action Center, Zambia Mine Action Centre, Zimbabwe Mine Action Centre.
Combining GICHD-SIPRI data (2015-2016) and Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor data (1999-2014) yields a total of 7,472 casualties of AVMs were recorded in 63 states and territories* (including in former Yugoslavia) from 1999-2016. These casualties included 3,723 injured; 2,363 killed; and 1,386 instances where the outcome of the incident could not be determined**. While these figures provide a rough indication of the impact of AVMs, the actual casualty rates are likely to be significantly higher. As indicated in the heat map, the five states most affected by AVMs during that period, representing 59% of recorded casualties globally, include:
|State||Number of |
|% of total |
In recent years, some states/territories have seen a sharp increase in AVM casualties such as Mali, Ukraine, Syria or Yemen associated with the increased use of AVMs due to armed conflict. In Cambodia in 2010, total casualties from AVMs exceeded those from anti-personnel mines for the first time.
While not included in the GICHD-SIPRI data collection, pressure-plated improvised explosive devices (PP-IEDs), acting de facto as anti-vehicle mines, increasingly affect some other countries. Their massive use in states such as Afghanistan, Mali, Somalia or Syria leads to a significant level of further casualties not captured by GICHD-SIPRI. In 2015, 1,051 civilian casualties from PP-IEDs were, for example, documented in Afghanistan, compared to 34 confirmed or suspected AVM casualties (UNAMA, Annual Report 2015. Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, p. 38; GICHD-SIPRI data).
The GICHD-SIPRI wish to thank the Landmine Monitor for sharing their historical data.
* Non-Self-Governing Territories as defined by the United Nations
** Casualties for whom it was not known if the person survived