A dot can locate an interception. A line between dots introduces a claim about movement. Neither tells us how much cocaine went undetected.
Sahel Futures6 September 20265 min readResearch cut-off: 6 September 2026
A map of the Sahel’s drug trade can make scattered evidence look complete. A reader sees connected cities and starts following a journey. The editor needs to show which parts of that journey investigators established and which parts remain an interpretation.
Start with the date beneath the number
UNODC’s 2024 assessment records an annual average of 13 kilograms of cocaine seized in the Sahel countries during 2015–2020, followed by 1,466 kilograms in 2022. The report says Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger accounted for the bulk of the latter total. These are historical seizure figures, not a measurement of September 2026 traffic. See the report’s printed pages 6 and 14 in the source desk.
Our earlier cocaine article used 2013–2020 for the comparison period. The correction restores the dates in the underlying report. That matters because a baseline defines the comparison: two extra years cannot enter it through repetition in secondary coverage.
Separate the market from the part authorities observe
Consider a simplified example. Suppose 1,000 kilograms pass through a region and authorities seize 10 per cent, recording 100 kilograms. If the same quantity passes through the next year but the interception share rises to 20 per cent, recorded seizures double. Traffic has stayed constant. The reverse can happen if enforcement weakens.
Those numbers are illustrative; they estimate nothing about the Sahel. They show why a seizure series needs evidence about reporting and enforcement before an analyst uses it to estimate market growth. A large load also can dominate a small annual series. Counting cases alongside weight helps a reader see that concentration.
UNODC interprets the larger seizures alongside other evidence as a sign of large-scale trafficking. Quoting that assessment is reasonable. Treating the seizure ratio as the growth rate of the whole market goes beyond it.
EDITOR’S CHECK
Four claims to keep separate
What a reader sees
What it can support
What needs more evidence
An interception point
Where an agency reported finding a load, on a stated date.
That every shipment passes through the same place.
Several points joined by a line
A proposed connection to examine against case records.
That investigators followed one shipment along the whole line.
A rise in recorded weight
An increase in the quantity reported seized.
The same percentage increase in total trafficking.
A seizure in an armed group’s area
A location that may justify further investigation.
That the group owned the drugs or received the proceeds.
A connected map needs connected evidence
An interception at one border and an arrest in another country may belong to separate cases. Joining them can help formulate a research question, but the line needs a label. Was the connection described in a court record, reported by a source, or inferred from geography?
The Sahel Futures route map combines reporting from different dates. Its lines describe broad corridors. Readers should not use it to follow one consignment or judge which crossing carries the largest volume. The Algeria-facing continuation has an explicit evidence gap; drawing it with a dashed line makes that gap visible but does not resolve it.
A confidence label also needs an object. An editor may have strong evidence that an interception happened and weak evidence about the intended destination. Giving the whole route a single “high” rating merges those separate judgements. A caption should tell the reader what the rating covers.
Territory does not establish ownership
A seizure in territory influenced by an armed group does not identify the seller, financier or beneficiary. Investigators need evidence connecting people to acts. A payment record could support a claim about taxation. A court finding about a consignment could support a claim about ownership. Neither should silently stand in for the other.
This distinction matters for ordinary residents as well. A transport worker’s home district cannot establish involvement in trafficking. A map that turns location into guilt can spread an allegation much further than the evidence warrants.
Publish a record that someone else can check
For each mapped case, keep the source and event date beside the broad location. State whether the weight came from an agency announcement or a later finding. Keep an allegation separate from a conviction. If purity or destination remains unknown, leave it unknown.
For each line, identify the source that connects its endpoints. Keep different reporting periods visible. Add a review date when a new case changes the interpretation. Readers then have enough information to challenge a line instead of having to accept the map as a finished account.
SOURCE DESK
Method and limits
Research cut-off: 6 September 2026. The historical baseline was checked against the full UNODC report linked here. The arithmetic example and editorial tests are explanatory analysis. This note does not estimate trafficking volume.
AI-assisted research and drafting produced this note and the linked correction. The source desk identifies the underlying report and separates the historical data from the explanatory example. Read the method policy.