Explosive Ordnance Incidents

Outcome

average monthly number of explosive ordnance accidents / incidents reported in area of operation

This indicator tracks trends in the reported number of explosive ordnance (EO) accidents / incidents in the area of operation over time. It is used to understand whether EO-related harm and risk are changing (e.g., after risk education, marking, clearance, safer behaviour, improved reporting), while recognising that the number of reported incidents is also influenced by reporting coverage and data quality. It should be interpreted as an outcome trend rather than direct attribution to a single intervention.

Determine the indicator value by using the following methodology:

 

1) First, define what you will count as an “accident / incident”:

   - Decide and document what is included in the count, for example:

          - explosive ordnance (EO) accidents / incidents resulting in injury or death (EO casualties)

          - EO accidents / incidents without casualties (e.g., detonation, handling incident, discovery followed by unsafe interaction), depending on how your system records events

   - Use standardised definitions and consistent classification across the reporting period.

 

2) Define the “area of operation” and reporting period:

   - Specify the geographic scope (districts, municipalities, camp areas, etc.).

   - Define the time period over which you will calculate the monthly average (e.g. in the past 6 months).

   - Use the same boundaries at baseline and follow-up.

 

3) Identify data sources and set the primary source: Use one primary source and, where possible, triangulate with secondary sources.

Primary source: National mine action / UN mine action incident database

   - incident records managed by the national mine action authority / mine action centre, typically in an information management system such as IMSMA / IMSMA Core

Secondary sources (triangulation, context checks):

   - health facilities (trauma registries, emergency department records)

   - community focal points / protection monitoring

   - police / civil defence / local authorities

   - UN / security incident reporting channels (where appropriate)

 

4) Clean the data to avoid double counting: Before counting incidents:

   - remove duplicates reported from multiple sources (same date / location / victim / event)

   - ensure each record meets your definition

   - separate EO incidents from other weapon-related incidents

   - document any major changes in reporting practices during the period (e.g., new hotline, expanded community reporting)

 

5) Calculate the “average monthly number”:

   - count the total number of eligible EO accidents / incidents in the defined area during the chosen period

   - divide the result by the number of months in that period

 

6) Interpret trends carefully: When interpreting changes, consider:

   - changes in exposure (new displacement, returns, access to contaminated areas)

   - seasonality (e.g., farming / collection seasons)

   - changes in contamination patterns

   - improvements or deterioration in reporting systems (which can increase or decrease “reported” incidents independent of risk)

Disaggregate where feasible and useful for analysis and action planning (do not overburden partners if data quality is low). Common disaggregation options in mine action / protection reporting include:

   - location (admin unit, community, hotspot)

   - type of EO (mine, explosive remnants of war, improvised explosive device) where recorded and safe to classify

   - outcome severity (fatal, non-fatal injury, no casualty)

   - victim category (civilian, deminer / EO worker, etc.)

   - age and sex of casualty (where the incident involves casualties and data protection permits)

   - activity at time of incident (e.g., travelling, farming, collecting scrap, playing)

   - population group (IDPs / returnees / host) where relevant and safe

1) This is one of DG ECHO’s Key Outcome Indicators. As of December 2025, ECHO has not released guidance on how to measure this indicator. The guidance above is IndiKit’s suggestion for how you can determine the indicator value. We welcome your feedback on how we can improve it further. If ECHO releases its own guidance, please follow it and inform IndiKit so we can update this site accordingly.

2) This indicator measures reported incidents. A rise can reflect better reporting, not necessarily worsening safety; a fall can reflect under-reporting, not necessarily improvement.

3) This is an outcome trend indicator and should not be used alone to claim attribution. Interpret alongside activity outputs (reach of explosive ordnance risk education, marking, clearance, hotline usage) and contextual factors. Keep in mind that changes in reported incidents may also be driven by changes in exposure to EO or changes in reporting practices / coverage, not only by risk reduction.

 

4) Use consistent definitions and classification rules throughout the project; document any changes in sources, coverage, or definitions.

 

5) Where possible, triangulate mine action incident data with health facility trauma records to check plausibility of trends (while respecting confidentiality and do-no-harm principles).

6) This is a protection-specific indicator rather than a protection-mainstreaming indicator. However, since IndiKit does not have a section dedicated to protection-specific programming, it is listed under the Protection Mainstreaming section.