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, not by hectares cleared or items destroyed. 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 scale of the task makes this distinction urgent. Ukraine faces a contamination challenge of historic scale, with vast areas of land suspected to contain mines, unexploded ordnance and other explosive hazards. But suspected land is not the same as confirmed contamination, and not all of it requires full clearance. The distinction between suspected, confirmed, and truly hazardous areas is essential to avoid inefficient recovery and misallocated resources. As Ukraine moves from active conflict toward recovery, the choices made now about how to classify, sequence and use contaminated land will shape the country's future for generations.

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: 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 that 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 that 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 one of clearance capacity, but of 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, and Ukraine has the scale and urgency to integrate them at system level. Drones can map terrain in minutes; AI can identify contamination patterns; sensors and robotics reduce exposure for clearance personnel. Combined, these tools enable faster prioritisation and safer decisions. Ukraine is not inventing these technologies, but the way it is combining them may redefine global mine action practice.

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.

This has implications well beyond Ukraine's borders. As a major agricultural producer, disruptions to Ukraine's farmland affect global food supply and prices, with consequences far beyond Europe. Mine action in Ukraine is therefore both recovery policy and global stability policy, a fact that should inform how the international community prioritises and finances it.

Financing for impact, not just activity

Mine action is expensive, and impact depends on how resources are allocated. Some land may cost more to clear than its economic value justifies. This does not negate the need for clearance, but it requires evidence-based, outcome-driven decisions about where resources go. New financing models combining public funding, guarantees and development finance can help scale impact beyond traditional grant mechanisms.

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 central lesson of the Zone Rouge 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 should be understood as part of long-term safety management, not as programme failure.

Defining outcomes, not just clearing land

Mine action should be designed to enable a set of concrete outcomes: the safe return of populations, infrastructure recovery, agricultural and industrial production, access to essential services, environmental rehabilitation, and social normalisation. Different outcomes require different levels of clearance. Some require full clearance; others require only targeted intervention, access corridors or partial release.

A dynamic classification model for Ukraine

A practical system can support this outcome-led approach, organised around five categories. Red zones would be long-term controlled or excluded areas where normal use is unrealistic. Orange zones would be managed-risk areas allowing conditional or partial use. Green zones would have no evidence of contamination after assessment. White zones would carry no reason for suspicion at all. And blue overlays would mark 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 at all. Survey systems must enable cancellation, reduction, clearance or control based on evidence, not assumption. AI, satellites and drones can support prioritisation, but they must be validated by field evidence and professional judgement, technology should inform decisions, not replace the people making them.

Choosing the right method for the right risk

Different tools provide different levels of confidence. Remote sensing and AI enable large-scale screening; drone imagery supports terrain assessment; non-technical survey captures community evidence; technical survey refines hazard areas; and manual clearance provides maximum certainty, but at the highest cost. Methods should be selected based on the confidence required for the intended land use, rather than defaulting to the same technical pathway regardless of context.

Farmland: a differentiated reality

Farmland is not a single category. It includes gardens, access routes, orchards, machinery paths and remote plots, each with different risk profiles and different value to the people who depend on them. Full clearance may be justified in some cases. In others, compensation, land swaps, fencing, marking or repurposing may deliver better outcomes for communities. Public value and human security must guide these decisions, not economic return alone.

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 would. Partial clearance, prioritised around infrastructure, can therefore accelerate recovery for far more people than an approach that insists on clearing every hectare before any benefit is realised.

Reducing vulnerability, not only removing threats

Risk is shaped by both hazard and vulnerability. People are exposed through everyday activities, farming, transport, firewood collection, return movements, and reducing that vulnerability can be as important as removing the threat itself. Where exposure cannot be reduced through behaviour change or land-use adjustment, exclusion and long-term control may be necessary, supported by compensation and viable alternatives for affected communities.

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 or poorly justified tasks. Donors should support evidence-based prioritisation rather than output targets. 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.

Conclusion

The case for rethinking mine action in Ukraine rests on a simple distinction: clearing land and reducing risk are not always the same thing. A clearance plan measured in hectares can produce excellent statistics while leaving the people who actually live, farm and rebuild on that land no safer or better off. An outcome-led strategy, by contrast, asks a harder but more useful question at every stage: what does this specific piece of land need to become safe, productive and useful again, and what is the most efficient way to get it there?

The Zone Rouge precedent shows that this is not a new problem, nor an admission of failure. A century after the First World War, France still manages residual risk on land it chose never to fully clear, and that choice, grounded in classification and honest risk communication rather than denial, is what allowed the rest of the country to recover. Ukraine's contamination is larger, more complex, and unfolding in active and recently active conflict conditions, but the same logic applies: full clearance everywhere is not a realistic or even desirable end state. Differentiated management, full clearance where it matters most, controlled use, compensation or exclusion where it does not, combined with new technology, evidence-based survey and governance aligned to real risk reduction, offers a faster, more honest and ultimately more humane path to recovery. Given Ukraine's role in global food production, the stakes of getting this right extend well beyond its own borders.

By Paul Heslop and Paul Davies