From Clearance to Outcomes: Rethinking Mine Action in Ukraine

Ukraine does not need a clearance plan alone. It needs an outcome-led land strategy supported by mine action evidence, with human security as the central purpose. Technical tasking and planning decisions should be driven by outcomes: reduced risk, protection from harm, restored power, viable farming, safe return, access to water, cultural use, economic production, environmental recovery and stabilisation.

Full clearance will sometimes be essential. In other cases, partial land release, access corridors, land-use control, compensation, substitute land, repurposing or long-term residual-risk management may be more appropriate.

The French Zone “Rouge” demonstrates that states can protect people through classification, land-use control, exclusion, prioritised clearance and permanent response capacity rather than attempting to remove every explosive item from every hectare. Ukraine now needs that same realism adapted to active conflict conditions and recovery priorities.

The aim is not a threat-eradication pipeline, but defensible land-use decisions that reduce vulnerability and ensure an acceptable residual-risk end state. 

A Landscape of Unprecedented Contamination

Ukraine faces a contamination challenge of historic scale, with land suspected to contain mines, unexploded ordnance and other explosive hazards. But suspected land is not the same as confirmed contamination, and not all land requires full clearance.

The distinction between suspected, confirmed, and truly hazardous areas is essential to avoid inefficient recovery and misallocated resources.

The Zone “Rouge” Precedent: When States Choose Classification Over Clearance

After the First World War, France created the Zone “Rouge” for land too devastated for normal use. Areas were classified by damage and future function, with some excluded, some reforested, and others gradually returned to civilian life.

France did not treat all contaminated land equally.

The significance of the “Zone Rouge” was not simply that France identified dangerous land. It was that the state accepted different land needed different futures. Some areas were returned to civilian use after treatment; some were reforested or kept as memorial landscapes; some remained restricted because normal use was not realistic. France continued to manage residual explosive risk through public warning, reporting and specialist response rather than pretending every hazard could be removed from every hectare.

Ukraine now faces similar conditions in parts of its territory: trench systems, mine belts, artillery saturation and destroyed settlements. While the context differs, the static and attritional nature of parts of the war makes the precedent highly relevant.

The policy question is not only clearance capacity, but how land is classified, sequenced and used: what is cleared, what is controlled, what is repurposed and what is compensated.

Mine action must shift from outputs to outcomes: protection, access, services, livelihoods, and recovery.

Ukraine as the Next Mine Action Transformation

Mine action has evolved from military clearance to humanitarian action, then to standards-based systems and responses to modern explosive threats. Ukraine may represent the next transition.

AI, drones, robotics, digital mapping and precision GPS are now operational tools. Ukraine has the scale and urgency to integrate them at system level.

Drones map terrain in minutes. AI identifies contamination patterns. Sensors and robotics reduce exposure. Combined, they enable faster prioritisation and safer decisions.

Ukraine is not inventing these tools but combining them in ways that may redefine global mine action.

Mine Action as the Foundation of Recovery

Mine action is often measured in hectares cleared or items destroyed, but its real purpose is enabling recovery: agriculture, infrastructure, education, investment and return.

Without clearance, reconstruction slows. Without reconstruction, recovery stalls.

Ukraine’s contamination also has global implications. As a major agricultural producer, disruptions affect global food supply and prices, with consequences far beyond Europe.

Mine action in Ukraine is therefore both recovery policy and global stability policy.

Financing for Impact, Not Just Activity

Mine action is expensive, but impact depends on allocation. Some land may cost more to clear than its economic value.

This does not negate clearance, but requires evidence-based, outcome-driven decisions.

New financing models combining public funding, guarantees and development finance can help scale impact beyond traditional grants.

Success should be measured not only in outputs, but in outcomes: safe return, restored services, reduced exposure and social recovery.

The Zone “Rouge” Principle: Not All Land Is Equal

The Zone Rouge lesson is that not all contaminated land must return to its previous use. Some land is excluded, controlled or repurposed.

The key is classification based on risk, evidence and intended use.

Ukraine needs differentiated management: full clearance in some areas, controlled use in others, and compensation or exclusion where appropriate.

Residual risk is part of long-term safety management, not programme failure.

Defining Outcomes, Not Just Clearing Land

Mine action should enable:

• Safe return of populations
• Infrastructure recovery
• Agricultural and industrial production
• Access to essential services
• Environmental rehabilitation
• Social normalisation

Different outcomes require different levels of clearance. Some require full clearance; others require targeted intervention, access corridors or partial release.

A Dynamic Classification Model for Ukraine

A practical system can support this approach:

• Red zones: long-term controlled or excluded areas where use is unrealistic.
• Orange zones: managed-risk areas allowing conditional or partial use.
• Green zones: no evidence of contamination after assessment.
• White zones: no reason for suspicion.
• Blue overlays: critical infrastructure and public-use corridors requiring priority clearance.

This is not a map of abandonment, but a system for honest risk classification and land-use decisions.

Evidence, Survey and Smarter Prioritisation

Effective mine action requires separating suspected land from confirmed contamination and from land requiring no intervention.

Survey systems must enable cancellation, reduction, clearance or control based on evidence.

AI, satellites and drones support prioritisation but must be validated by field evidence and professional judgement.

Choosing the Right Method for the Right Risk

Different tools provide different confidence levels:

Remote sensing and AI enable large-scale screening. Drone imagery supports terrain assessment. Non-technical survey captures community evidence. Technical survey refines hazard areas. Manual clearance provides maximum certainty but at highest cost.

Methods should be selected based on required confidence for intended land use, not default technical pathways.

Farmland: A Differentiated Reality

Farmland includes gardens, access routes, orchards, machinery paths and remote plots. These must not be treated as a single category.

Full clearance may be justified in some cases. In others, compensation, land swaps, fencing, marking or repurposing may deliver better outcomes.

Public value and human security must guide decisions, not only economic return.

Infrastructure First: Faster Recovery Through Targeted Clearance

Infrastructure often delivers higher immediate value than large agricultural areas.

Targeted clearance can restore electricity, water systems, schools, clinics, transport routes and emergency access faster than full-area clearance.

Partial clearance can therefore accelerate recovery for more people.

Reducing Vulnerability, Not Only Removing Threats

Risk is shaped by both hazard and vulnerability. People are exposed through daily activities such as farming, transport, firewood collection or return movements.

Reducing vulnerability can be as important as removing threats. Where exposure cannot be reduced, exclusion and long-term control may be necessary, supported by compensation and alternatives.

Incentives, Governance and Evidence-Based Decisions

Mine action systems must avoid incentives that reward hectares cleared rather than risk reduced.

Operators should be able to challenge weak tasks. Donors should support evidence-based prioritisation. Data systems must support, not replace, professional judgement.

Strengthening governance and aligning incentives with actual risk reduction is essential to ensure resources are directed where they generate the greatest protection and recovery impact.