Which trafficking routes are most dangerous right now — and what happens if you shut one down? Score and rank supply corridors using OSINT data, model disruptions, and test how sensitive your rankings are to different assumptions. All scores 0–100 with full source attribution.
TRACE scores and ranks trafficking corridors using two complementary indices. The base index measures the severity of a route using six OSINT-sourced indicators: volume of seizure data, number of arrests, frequency of interdiction, transit state cooperation, estimated economic value, and violence/crime rate along the corridor.
The Route Importance Factor (RIF) adds a second layer: how much traffic does the route carry, how often is it used, what is its strategic value to trafficking networks, and how connected is it to other routes? The final score blends both indices, so a route can score high on severity but low on importance, or vice versa.
All indicator weights are adjustable. The sensitivity analysis shows how stable your rankings are — if changing one weight by ±20% flips the top route, that tells you something about how confident you should be in the ranking. The disruption simulator models what happens when you take a route offline: where does the traffic go, and which corridors absorb the displacement?
Data sources include UNODC World Drug Report, UNODC regional route reports, CAR field investigations, GI-TOC Organized Crime Index, Small Arms Survey, ACLED, and UN Panel of Experts reports. Every route links back to its source.
Add routes below to see comparison visualization
Adjust the relative importance of each indicator. Weights are automatically normalized to sum to 1.0.
Add trafficking routes with observed indicator values. Each route is scored independently and ranked.
| Rank | Route | Region | Period | Base (0-100) | RIF (0-100) | Final (0-100) | Severity | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No routes added yet | ||||||||
See how route rankings change when individual indicator weights are increased by 50%. Highlights which indicators have the most influence on final scores.
| Route | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Add at least 2 routes to see sensitivity analysis | ||||||
Scatter plot of base threat score vs. route importance. Quadrant position determines operational priority.
Model the impact of disrupting a route. When a route is taken offline, its traffic redistributes to connected routes proportionally. See which routes absorb the most pressure.
Auto-generated analytical summary from current data. Preview below, export via email.
Add routes and data to generate an executive briefing
Enter your email to receive the full executive briefing with route rankings, severity classifications, and methodology documentation.
Commission a full threat assessment with custom indicator sets, proprietary data integration, calibrated weights from field expertise, and analyst-written recommendations. Available for government agencies, think tanks, NGOs, and research institutions.
Sample datasets are derived from the following authoritative open-source publications. All figures are unclassified OSINT.
UNODC World Drug Report 2024/2025 — Global seizure volumes, production estimates, market values
UNODC Balkan Route Report (2025) — 9.6t pure heroin equivalent to EU, $20B annual market value
UNODC Northern Route Report (2018) — $13B market, 80t heroin + 15t opium through Tajikistan
UNODC Afghan Opium Survey 2023/2025 — 296t production, price data ($570-750/kg opium)
EUDA EU Drug Markets: Heroin (2024) — 9.5t EU seizures (2021 peak), EUR 5.2B retail market
FATF Financial Flows — Afghan opiate financial networks
Conflict Armament Research (2023) — 700+ weapons investigated in Sahel, diversion analysis
UNODC TOCTA Sahel: Firearms (2023) — 12M illicit arms in West Africa, 105% seizure increase
Small Arms Survey (2023-2024) — Afghan/Pakistan weapon pricing, cross-border dynamics
GI-TOC Organized Crime Index (2021/2023) — Libya 9.5/10, Syria/Iraq 9/10, Pakistan 8.5/10
UN Panel of Experts on Libya (2023) — 12,000 pistols seized, embargo violations
ACLED Armed Conflict Data — Geo-referenced incident counts by province/region
TRACE-N quantifies the significance of narco-trafficking supply routes by aggregating weighted, min-max normalized OSINT indicators into a composite score on a 0-100 scale.
Why min-max normalization? Raw indicator values span incompatible scales (kg, USD, counts, 1-10). Without normalization, whichever indicator has the largest absolute values dominates the score regardless of weight. Min-max normalization (standard in UNDP HDI, Global Peace Index, Fragile States Index) rescales each to 0-100 within the dataset, ensuring weights operate as intended.
Why geometric mean? Arithmetic mean allows a high base score to compensate for low route importance. The geometric mean penalizes imbalance — a route must score well on both dimensions to rank highly. This better reflects operational reality where even a high-volume route matters less if it has low strategic significance.
| Indicator | Abbrev | Unit | Default Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Volume of Seized Drugs | VSD | kg | 0.25 |
| Number of Arrests | NAR | count | 0.15 |
| Freq. of Identified Routes | FITR | count | 0.20 |
| Technological Sophistication | TS | 1-10 scale | 0.10 |
| Economic Impact | EI | USD | 0.20 |
| Violence & Crime Rate | VCR | incidents | 0.10 |
TRACE-A applies the same normalized weighted-sum methodology to quantify arms trafficking activities. Scoring follows the identical 4-step process: min-max normalization, weighted base score, RIF computation, and geometric mean combination. All scores output on a 0-100 scale.
| Indicator | Abbrev | Unit | Default Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Volume of Seized Arms | VSA | weapons | 0.30 |
| Number of Arrests | NARAT | count | 0.20 |
| Freq. of Identified Routes | FITR | count | 0.15 |
| Technological Sophistication | TS | 1-10 scale | 0.10 |
| Economic Impact | EI | USD | 0.15 |
| Violence & Crime Rate | VCR | incidents | 0.10 |
The RIF is a multiplier that adjusts the base index score by the strategic importance of the specific route.
| Indicator | Abbrev | Unit | Default Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Volume of Traffic | VT | units | 0.30 |
| Frequency of Use | FU | times/period | 0.30 |
| Strategic Value | SV | 1-10 scale | 0.20 |
| Connectivity to Other Routes | CR | connections | 0.20 |
Normalized scores (0-100) are classified into severity tiers for operational prioritization:
| Tier | Normalized Score | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | 75 - 100 | Highest priority; active disruption recommended |
| High | 50 - 74 | Significant threat; enhanced monitoring required |
| Moderate | 25 - 49 | Notable activity; standard surveillance |
| Low | 0 - 24 | Minimal activity; periodic review |
| Score | Level | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1-3 | Low | Basic methods, unencrypted communication, manual processes |
| 4-6 | Medium | Some technology use, encrypted communications, established networks |
| 7-10 | High | Advanced methods, drones, sophisticated encryption, complex logistics |
| Score | Level | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1-3 | Low | Rarely used, easily replaceable, low operational importance |
| 4-6 | Medium | Moderately used, some strategic benefits, regional significance |
| 7-10 | High | Frequently used, critical for operations, high strategic value |
All indicators are derived from Open Source Intelligence (OSINT):
| Source Type | Examples |
|---|---|
| Law Enforcement | Seizure reports, arrest records, intelligence bulletins |
| News & Media | Investigative journalism, incident reporting, conflict monitoring |
| Financial Intelligence | Asset seizure records, sanctions data, financial disclosures |
| Geospatial | Satellite imagery, route mapping, border crossing data |
| Academic | Research papers, think tank reports, policy analyses |