Source description last updated: 6 June 2018
In brief: Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) is a project collecting, analysing and mapping information on crisis and conflict in Africa, South & Southeast Asia and Middle East and provides datasets on conflict incidents.
Coverage on

Analysis (SR); Conflict Trend Reports (PR); Reports (SR); Maps (Maps)
Covered monthly on, for countries of priorities A, B1, B2, C.

“ACLED’s aim is to capture the forms, actors, dates and locations of political violence and protest as it occurs across states. The ACLED team conducts analysis to describe, explore and test conflict scenarios, and makes both data and analysis open” for public use. (ACLED website: About ACLED, undated)
Since 2014, ACLED is a US NGO based in Wisconsin. Earlier, ACLED was based at the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO). ACLED’s director is affiliated with the University of Sussex.

ACLED receives funding from the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations (CSO), U.S. Department of State. ACLED has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013). (ACLED website: About ACLED, undated)
Scope of reporting:

Geographic focus: Africa, South & Southeast Asia, Middle East
Thematic focus: Political violence and protests (“Political violence and protest includes events that occur within civil wars and periods of instability, public protest and regime breakdown” (ACLED website: About ACLED, undated)

“ACLED data are coded by a range of experienced researchers who collect information primarily from secondary source information and apply the guidelines outlined in the codebook to extract information from news reports. ACLED data are collected each week after individual researchers have scrutinized the information from reports; they are then aggregated and revised by the first coding reviewer, investigated and cross-checked by the second reviewer and then event notes and details are inspected by the third and final reviewer. The process is designed to assure:
1. Validity through intra- and inter-coder checks;
2. Accuracy to correct mistakes in coding; and
3. Relevance by determining whether each compiled event constitutes an act of political violence or protest.
Details of the review process can be found on the Resources page of the website. […]
Further, we aim to capture how disorder occurs within states, so events are included regardless of whether they generate fatalities or not.” (ACLED: ACLED Methodology, p.1, 28 December 2017)
“ACLED collects information from a variety of primary and secondary sources. By aggregating local and international news sources using various databases, ACLED coders track reporting on events concerning political violence and protest in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Coders use local, state, and international media sources, plus private reports, to capture events ranging from protests to battles.
Overall, ACLED sources material in three ways: (1) information from local, regional, national and continental media is reviewed daily; (2) NGO reports are used to supplement media reporting in hard to access cases; (3) regionally focused news reports and analyses are integrated to supplement daily media reporting.” (ACLED: Sourcing, 28 December 2017)
Spatial coordinates for an event’s location are found using several geo-information services. An event’s location is coded with varying degrees of precision: if sources note a particular town and coordinates are available for it, the highest precision level (“1”) is used. If only the region or a nearby town is known, level “2” is used. For larger regions or if only the event’s province is known, the provincial capital is chosen as location and precision level “3” is recorded. (ACLED: Codebook – Version 8, 2017, p. 25-26)
ACLED began coding data for 9 African states in 2005 (ACLED: ACLED History, 28 December 2017, p. 1). The most recent coverage extension so far took place in January 2018, including several countries of the Middle East.
ACLED provides extensive methodological information, please visit
“ACLED advises caution in using all fatality numbers from its, or any other conflict data source. Fatality information is the most biased, and least accurate, part of any conflict report and extreme caution should be employed when using any fatality number to show patterns.” (ACLED: Fatalities, 28 December 2017)
Language(s) of publications:
Further reading / links:  
All links accessed 6 June 2018.
All documents available on from this source