ACLED defaults to conservative estimates based on the best available information at the time of coding in line with our specific event-based methodology and review process. 1 Tracking fatalities is one of the most difficult aspects of conflict data collection in general, as fatality counts are frequently the most biased, inconsistent, and poorly documented components of conflict reporting, and this is especially true of active conflict environments impacted by high levels of mis/disinformation and severe access constraints. For these reasons, the Monitor will not be providing regular fatality estimate updates at this time. ACLED fatality numbers are conservative event-based estimates, and the full death toll in such contexts is likely higher than the number of reported fatalities currently attributed to the type of distinct incidents that can be captured in the dataset. This means that aggregate tallies provided by sources such as hospitals and government agencies, for example, which cannot be broken down and connected to individual conflict incidents, are not included in the ACLED dataset. Due to the methodological limitations of event-based data collection, in addition to the broader challenges around fatality reporting in fast-moving conflict contexts like Ukraine, fatality estimates in the ACLED dataset pertain specifically to those fatalities reported in connection with distinct events that meet ACLED’s catchment and minimum threshold for inclusion (i.e.

Ukraine conflict 2020