The watchlist for 2025

ACLED Conflict Index

ACLED (Armed Conflict Location & Event Data) is an amazing organisation which monitors conflict related events around the world, maps the trends and indexes the conflicts based on four key indicators:

• Deadliness (civilian fatalities)
• Danger (to civilians)
• Diffusion (how widespread the conflict it)
• Fragmentation (of non-state armed groups active in the conflict)

They recently held a webinar to share information on this and on their 2025 watchlist. The link is here if you want to watch (and I really recommend it).

What I am going to talk about here is a summary of some of the points from this, and how it might relate to commercial aviation because ACLED mainly focuses on the conflict impact to civilians within the countries affected, but as we know, conflict often moves upwards… And aviation often only considers the airspace risk, and sometimes we move downwards…

While states, authorities and operators may be running risk assessments for aviation, little information is really being passed onto the crew (and probably even less to the public). So this is intended only to help share the information to pilots and crew to help us all build up more awareness of situations. I think this is needed is that we can all focus more on contingency plans, safety and security (airborne and on the ground) in a practical way.

Summary

Conflict in the world is rising. In 2024, it increased some 25% and nearly 200,000 conflict related events were recorded. The number of armed groups involved in many conflicts is rising leading to more fragmentation, and harder to resolve conflicts.

The 10 countries which ACLED rated highest on the index are as follows:

• Palestine
• Myanmar
• Syria
• Mexico
• Nigeria
• Brazil
• Lebanon
• Sudan
• Cameroon
• Columbia

The countries ACLED have on their watchlist for 2025 are these:

• Mexico and Columbia
• Sahel and Coastal West Africa
• Sudan
• Ukraine
• Iran and their allies
• Great Lakes region (Africa)
• Israel and surrounding countries
• Pakistan
• Myanmar

Interstate conflicts like the Russia/Ukraine conflict and the Israel/Palestine conflict tend to see the most widespread levels of damage and destruction, with a focus on infrastructure damage and the use of airstrikes.

Local insurgency is increasing and becoming more fragmented. Internal conflicts like those seen in Mexico, Columbia, Myanmar etc tend to be very fragmented, with more ground based danger to civilians.

Africa (Great Lakes Area) is seeing some increase in IS and Islamic Militants. These conflicts do not tend to “feed” across the borders as much, but in recent months have been more so.

There is a lot of reliance by states on the use of airstrikes, and where states are involved, the technology available within the conflicts tends to be much more advanced (so higher risk). Israel, Nigeria, Yemen and Ukraine all see increasingly high levels of air strikes and aerial warfare.

Across all actors, there is a big increase in the use of weaponised drones. These can often bypass air defence systems. Mexico, Myanmar, the Arabian Peninsula have particularly seen big increases in this.

So what this might mean for aviation?

WHAT ARE THE RISKS?

Civil aviation pays a lot of attention to airspace risk, but I wonder if it is doing enough? The recent shoot down of an Azerbaijan Airline suggests it is not! We need to consider whether the risk is being normalised too much, or if the balance between cost and safety is too skewed.

Likewise, the risk of diversions into countries where safety and security on the ground is degraded, or utilising airspace where descent due engine failure/depressurisation would place aircraft below recommended altitudes, needs more discussion. There is often limited focus on this, and minimal awareness with crew over contingencies if they do experience it.

Likewise, crew, passenger and asset safety and security on the ground, and disruption to operations is sometimes a ‘secondary’ consideration, particularly in countries with internal conflict, or gang related conflict.

AIRSPACE SAFETY

Conflicts where actors have access to anti-aircraft weaponry are a critical concern already. Missile impacts became the primary cause of fatalities in commercial aviation because of recent shoot downs.

At lower altitudes, the use of weaponised drones is a major concern. It is widespread and they present a high risk to aircraft. A secondary risk which is increasing due to this is GPS Interference. Additionally, the widespread use of air strikes means an increased number of military aircraft in regions, and a heightened risk of misidentification or ‘crossfire’ for civilian aircraft, not limited to just the intended air strike regions.

The chance of sudden airspace closure should be considered, and contingency plans should be considered prior to operating through.

Crew should be briefed properly on no fly and high risk airspaces, with proper awareness provided in their briefing packs (a state NOTAM hidden 100 pages in isn’t enough!). Consideration to diversion options, routes in case of lower altitude requirements, and awareness of proximity (in case of weather deviations) should be briefed.

GROUND BASED SAFETY

Conflict countries represent a risk to crew and passengers, and assets on the ground. Operators need to assess the risks to their crew both during layovers, but also overflights and the risk of diverting into conflict zone countries.

Particularly in countries “only” seeing internal conflict, consideration to the threat levels, security and safety on the ground should be taken both for layovers and as potential diversion options. Often this seems to be given less focus than the overflight risk.

Crew should be given proper guidelines regarding their safety and security on the ground, and operators should ensure they have contacts in place in advance, in case of diversions into places that may be higher risk.

INFRASTRUCTURE

Damage to infrastructure may impact aviation operations. Attacks often target public places such as airports, or state infrastructure. Ground based events including riots can disrupt operations, as well as present a safety risk to crew and passengers, and news of these can be slow to spread.

An awareness of the situation on the ground should be taken into account when planning operations into these countries, or if they may be used as alternates, and should consider potential escalations and contingency plans in the case of them. Again, crew should be given more briefings on ground based situations to increase their awareness, to encourage contingency planning, and so they can manage their own safety and security on the ground.

Country focus

This is just considering countries where potential change in the situation, or risk levels, may occur, or has with limited information provided on it. Again, it is just intended to provide crew with more information to help improve awareness.

Pakistan is seeing increasing levels of conflict, and this includes cross border conflict with Iran and Afghanistan. There has been a rise in Islamic militant violence in the country and both safety/security on the ground, and airspace safety should be assessed carefully.

• Currently, EASA advises air operators not to conduct flights over FIR Karachi (OPKR) and FIR Lahore (OPLR) below FL 260. Consideration to the risk of diversions into the country should also be taken.

Somalia has seen a rise in Al Shabaab and Islamic State activity. Currently, an anti-insurgency campaign is active, supported by the US. If the US reduce their support, this may result in changes to the current situation in the country and the needs to be monitored.

• EASA recommends air operators not to conduct flights over Somalia at or below FL 260. Diversions into the country would be highly inadvisable, and changes should be monitored particularly with regards to the availability of ATC services should the situation change.

Lebanon rose 13 places on the index. Airstrikes cause an increasingly high risk to civilian traffic, while the safety and security on the ground are a high concern.

• Currently, EASA recommend no flight in Lebanese airspace at all levels.

Myanmar has seen rising levels of extremely fragmented conflict. This means multiple non-state armed groups are active across a wide area, and information on their access to weapons might be limited. Damage to infrastructure could result in loss of ATS, and security and safety levels on the ground may be unknown.

The conflict here is sometimes considered “forgotten” but in reality it is evolving and with it the risk is as well.

• Currently, EASA does not have a CZIB for the Myanmar region

Syria saw the fall of the Assad regime, after 53 years in power. Following this, the number of airstrikes by Israel increased drastically. December 2024 saw as many airstrikes along the western borders, as there were in total in 2023!

There are still multiple actors involved in the internal conflict and the border areas, particularly western and northern remain extremely high risk, as does the central north eastern region. Despite news reports suggesting lifting of sanctions, and some flying by local airlines/opening of airports, the country remains incredibly volatile and is unlikely to improve quickly.

• EASA recommend no flight in Syrian airspace at all levels.

Afghanistan is still extremely volatile. It is no longer on a watch list, or in the top 10 (it is currently 29, but worsening), and this is due to a relative state of “no change” for those within the country. For aviation, has the risk really changed though?

Extremist non-state actor groups remain active and might sporadically target aviation facilities in multiple ways, including direct rocket or mortar attacks, indirect fire or suicide bombers. Additionally, there is an aviation safety concern due to the absence or limited Air Traffic Service (ATS) capacities across the entire country.

• EASA recommend no flight below FL320 anywhere in the Kabul (OAKX) FIR. Many airlines are flying across the country and in the event of an engine failure/depressurisation requiring a descent, or an emergency requiring a diversion, the risks are extremely high.

Sahel countries refer to Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso and neighbouring regions. These are growing increasingly volatile, with increasing Jihadist and Mercenary activity. In 2024, there was an increase in high-impact and mass-casualty attacks.

In particular, there has been an increase in air and drone strikes, IED attacks, and rocket and mortar shellings. These represent a lower altitude risk but a very high one! The conflicts are starting to impact bordering countries including Benin and Togo, and Nigeria.

• EASA recommend no flight in the FIR Niamey (DRRR) and FIR Dakar (GOOO) within the territory and airspace of Mali below FL260. Consideration to descent and diversion in this area should be taken in advance of operations through it.

Rwanda and ‘The Great Lakes’ region of Africa has seen increasing conflict of late, and this is expected to evolve and potentially escalate over the coming months.

• There are no active airspace warnings for this region, but there is a higher risk to safety and security on the ground, and potentially to ATS if the situation does change.

I’m no expert…

I am really not, but I do think crew need to take a more active interest in building their awareness and understanding of situations which have a very direct impact on our safety, security and the efficiency of the operations we are involved in. So I hope this helps!

Reading the EASA CZIBs, following sites like ACLED, Osprey Flight Solutions etc is important for staying up to date both on what current airspace warnings are, but also on evolving situations on the ground… because we might find ourselves down there, and an airspace warning (or state NOTAM) often doesn’t cover that information.

Building contingency plans prior to entering airspace, understanding which airports might present a higher risk to safety and security, and thinking about what to do (in advance) if an airspace closes or ATS are lost, or if you experience GPS interference is really critical. As is knowing what to do on the ground both in the event of a diversion, or just on a standard layover.