Composite Risk Score
A 0–100 conflict risk score for each of the 54 AU Member States, integrating 18 indicators from 10+ international data sources.
CRCA Knowledge Hub
Flagship Analytical Framework
African Conflict Risk Index (ACRI)
A transparent, replicable, continent-specific measure of the structural, governance, security, and humanitarian conditions that shape conflict risk across all 54 African Union Member States.
The African Conflict Risk Index (ACRI) is CRCA's flagship analytical framework for measuring structural conflict risk across Africa. Published annually as a core component of the Africa Peace and Conflict Outlook (APCO), ACRI provides transparent, evidence-based country risk assessments to support research, policy, and conflict prevention.
Framework Edition · PilotInaugural · 2026
54
African Union Member States
4
Analytical Domains
18
Core Indicators
Annual
Publication
0–100
Composite Risk Score
Overview
Purpose, users, and outputs
ACRI serves three distinct analytical purposes. First, it generates comparable risk scores and rankings that allow decision-makers to identify which states face the most acute conflict risk. Second, it tracks change over time, enabling users to monitor whether conditions in a given country are improving or deteriorating. Third, by disaggregating risk across four analytical domains, ACRI identifies the specific drivers of risk in each context — making it an instrument not only for diagnosis but for the design of targeted prevention strategies.
Important
ACRI is a composite index, not a conflict prediction model. It expresses relative risk across African states within a given year and must be interpreted alongside qualitative country assessments and contextual analysis.
Why CRCA developed ACRI
CRCA developed ACRI in response to the limits of existing global conflict risk instruments for African peace and security work. Global indices designed for cross-continental comparability necessarily sacrifice contextual depth, are largely governed by institutions based in the Global North, and do not integrate structural vulnerability, governance quality, active conflict dynamics, and humanitarian stress in a single measure calibrated to the African context. ACRI is therefore both an intellectual contribution to conflict risk assessment and an institutional statement: Africa's peace and security challenges deserve African-led, African-grounded analytical infrastructure.
Key outputs
Domain Sub-Scores
Disaggregated scores across Structural, Governance & Institutions, Security & Conflict, and Humanitarian domains that identify the specific drivers of risk in each country.
Continental Rankings
Comparative rankings and four risk categories — Very High, High, Moderate, and Low — enabling prioritisation and comparison.
Trend Assessments
Year-on-year tracking of improving or deteriorating conditions across editions, based on changes in relative score position.
Continental Coverage
All 54 African Union Member States assessed under a single, consistent, Africa-normalised framework.
Prevention Insights
Domain-level disaggregation identifies where preventive investment is most needed — an instrument for diagnosis and for the design of targeted prevention strategies.
How ACRI differs from other indices
| Feature | ACRI (CRCA) | Fragile States Index | Global Peace Index | INFORM Risk Index |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Geographic scope | Africa only (54 AU states) | Global (179 states) | Global (163 states) | Global (191 states) |
| Primary unit of analysis | Conflict risk (relative) | State fragility | Positive peace / absence of violence | Humanitarian risk |
| African conflict data integration | ACLED + UCDP + GTI (core) | Limited event-level data | Partial | Partial |
| Climate–security nexus | ND-GAIN (dedicated indicator) | Partial (environmental indicator) | Ecological threat component | Partial |
| Linked operational tool | ACRI Sentinel (early warning) | None | None | None |
| Institutional base | African research institution (CRCA) | Fund for Peace (US) | IEP (Australia/US) | UN OCHA / EU JRC |
| Publication cycle | Annual (within APCO report) | Annual | Annual | Annual |
Intended users
- African Union institutions, including the Peace and Security Council and the Continental Early Warning System (CEWS)
- Regional Economic Communities (ECOWAS, IGAD, SADC, EAC, CEN-SAD, ECCAS, AMU)
- National governments and security ministries, particularly in high-risk states
- International donors and development finance institutions
- UN agencies including OCHA, UNHCR, UNDP, and UN political missions
- Academic researchers and civil society organisations engaged in conflict prevention
- Media and public affairs professionals seeking a credible African assessment
Framework
The CRCA conflict risk cascade
CRCA understands conflict risk as a dynamic property of socio-political systems, shaped by the interaction of deep structural forces, governance arrangements, active security dynamics, and humanitarian conditions. The framework is structural-dynamic: durable conflict risk assessment must simultaneously examine the long-term structural foundations of vulnerability, the medium-term governance conditions that mediate risk, and the near-term security dynamics that signal escalation or de-escalation.
Note
The conflict risk cascade is CRCA's own conceptual framework for structuring conflict risk analysis. It draws on and synthesises the academic conflict studies literature, including foundational contributions by Collier and Hoeffler, Fearon and Laitin, Hegre and Sambanis, and the structural prevention frameworks developed by OECD and the UN.
The conflict risk cascade
CRCA conceptualises the relationship between conflict risk factors as a sequential but non-linear cascade of analytical layers. Resilience factors act across all layers as the analytical variable that most distinguishes high-risk contexts that remain stable from those that descend into conflict.
Layer 1 — Structural Vulnerabilities
Deep background conditions generating long-term risk: poverty and underdevelopment, horizontal inequalities, demographic pressures, climate vulnerability, historical legacies of violence, and state fragility.
Layer 2 — Sources of Conflict
Structural and political cleavages along which violence organises: ethnic, religious, and regional grievances; competition over land, resources, and political power; group-based marginalisation; and unresolved historical grievances.
Layer 3 — Drivers of Conflict
Medium-term processes that activate vulnerabilities and grievances: governance failure and state delegitimisation, economic deterioration and unemployment, political exclusion, external interference, and small-arms proliferation.
Layer 4 — Proximate Drivers and Triggers
Immediate-term accelerants and igniting events: electoral disputes, coups, sudden economic shocks, the emergence of armed groups, and specific triggering incidents such as an assassination, massacre, or election dispute.
Moderating Layer — Resilience Factors
Institutional, social, and political capacities that absorb, contain, or reverse conflict dynamics: institutional quality and legitimacy, civil society strength, inclusive political processes, early warning systems, and traditional authority structures.
Four-domain architecture
The cascade underpins ACRI's four-domain structure. The domains are not independent: structural vulnerabilities amplify governance failures; governance failures allow security conditions to deteriorate; deteriorating security generates humanitarian crises; and humanitarian crises deepen structural vulnerability. This feedback dynamic means the composite score captures systemic risk in ways that no single domain can represent alone.
Structural
Weight 40%
Governance & Institutions
Weight 25%
Security & Conflict
Weight 25%
Humanitarian
Weight 10%
Important
ACRI prioritises comprehensive coverage of conflict risk factors over strict statistical independence between indicators. Domain scores should be interpreted as analytical lenses on different dimensions of risk, not as independent causal variables.
Methodology
How ACRI is constructed
ACRI's methodology follows a transparent, replicable pipeline from indicator selection through normalisation, weighting, and composite scoring to risk classification. Every stage is documented so that independent researchers can interrogate, replicate, and where appropriate extend the framework.
01
Theoretical Foundations
Grounded in a structural-dynamic understanding of conflict risk drawn from the conflict studies literature: structural conditions create vulnerability, governance mediates resilience, security dynamics reflect current instability, and humanitarian pressures both result from and contribute to escalation.
02
Indicator Selection
Guided by four criteria applied across all domains: (i) theoretical grounding in African conflict dynamics; (ii) data quality and reliability from established, regularly updated sources; (iii) geographic coverage across all or the great majority of the 54 AU states; and (iv) comparability in forms that allow meaningful cross-country comparison.
03
Data Collection
18 indicators drawn from 10+ international datasets, aggregated at the country-year level for the reference period (1 January to 31 December). Sources include ACLED, UCDP GED, World Bank WGI/WDI, UNDP HDR, UNHCR, OCHA, FAO/FSIN, ND-GAIN, Fund for Peace FSI, Polity5, Freedom House FitW, and GTI.
04
Normalisation
All indicators normalised to a 0–100 scale using Africa-only min–max normalisation: (X − X_min) / (X_max − X_min) × 100. Indicators where higher values represent lower risk (HDI, WGI, Polity5) are inverted. Normalisation is conducted separately for each annual edition using the distribution of values across the 54 African states.
05
Weighting
Two-level weighting structure. Domain weights: Structural 40%, Governance 25%, Security 25%, Humanitarian 10%. Indicator weights within each domain reflect the relative empirical salience of each driver, informed by the conflict studies literature, CRCA institutional expertise, and in-country analyst inputs.
06
Composite Scoring
Stage 1: indicator normalised scores are aggregated using indicator weights to produce domain scores. Stage 2: ACRI Score = (0.40 × Domain A) + (0.25 × Domain B) + (0.25 × Domain C) + (0.10 × Domain D). Scores are expressed on a 0–100 scale where higher scores indicate higher relative conflict risk.
07
Risk Categories
Composite scores are classified into four bands: Very High (60–100), High (50–59.99), Moderate (40–49.99), and Low (0–39.99). Thresholds are analytical classification aids for the inaugural edition, calibrated to cover the full 0–100 scoring range and reflect known variation across African states rather than derived from formal statistical optimisation.
08
Data Gaps and Missing Values
Where a primary source is unavailable for a specific country, CRCA seeks a credible alternative source measuring a comparable concept. Where no alternative exists, values may be estimated using regional averages or transparent imputation. Countries with substantial data limitations are identified in the relevant country risk profile.
09
Validation
The inaugural ACRI does not present formal statistical validation. Future editions will pursue cross-validation against ACLED conflict event trajectories, comparison with independent analyst rankings, sensitivity analysis of the weighting framework, and retrospective testing as longitudinal data accumulates.
10
Limitations
Composite indices simplify complex realities. ACRI captures risk probability, not certainty. Scores reflect relative risk within Africa in a given edition and are not designed for cross-continental comparison. Publication lags of up to 18 months apply to some indicators. Sub-national variation is not captured; ACRI Sentinel and APCO country risk profiles address these gaps.
11
Versioning
Significant methodological changes — domain weight revisions, indicator additions or removals, normalisation changes, or threshold adjustments — are documented in the corresponding APCO edition and accompanied by retrospective re-scoring of the previous edition. Minor refinements are recorded in the ACRI Version History document.
Risk categories
| Category | Score Range | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Very High Risk | 60–100 | Countries experiencing severe conflict dynamics or exhibiting very high levels of conflict risk. |
| High Risk | 50–59.99 | Countries with significant conflict drivers, persistent insecurity, or elevated risks of escalation. |
| Moderate Risk | 40–49.99 | Countries exhibiting notable structural vulnerabilities and localised sources of instability. |
| Low Risk | 0–39.99 | Countries demonstrating comparatively lower conflict risk and greater resilience to conflict drivers. |
Assessment Domains
Four analytical domains
The four ACRI domains reflect the theoretical architecture of the CRCA conflict risk cascade and are designed to be jointly sufficient — together they capture the principal structural, institutional, security, and humanitarian conditions that the empirical conflict studies literature identifies as the most robust predictors of conflict in the African context.
Domain A · Weight 40%
Structural Factors
Captures the deep background conditions that generate long-term conflict risk. Structural factors operate over extended time horizons, change slowly, and represent the soil in which conflict takes root: material conditions, demographic pressures, environmental stresses, and accumulated fragilities.
Domain A · Weight 40%
Structural Factors
Captures the deep background conditions that generate long-term conflict risk. Structural factors operate over extended time horizons, change slowly, and represent the soil in which conflict takes root: material conditions, demographic pressures, environmental stresses, and accumulated fragilities.
Purpose
Provides the stable foundation of the ACRI, reflecting the robust empirical finding that poverty, underdevelopment, climate vulnerability, and social marginalisation are among the strongest and most durable predictors of conflict onset in Africa.
Why it matters
The highest weight (40%) reflects the durability and predictive power of structural conditions. Unlike security indicators, which can fluctuate sharply year-to-year, structural factors provide a stable foundation for risk assessment that is less susceptible to short-term data noise.
Indicators (6)
| Indicator | Primary Source | Domain Weight |
|---|---|---|
State fragility score Multidimensional state weakness across cohesion, economic, political, and social dimensions. | Fund for Peace FSI | 20% |
Human Development Index Aggregate development deficit integrating health, education, and living standards. | UNDP HDR | 15% |
Economic marginalisation (GNI per capita, Gini) Captures both absolute poverty and inequality. | World Bank WDI | 15% |
Climate vulnerability Exposure to climate hazards and readiness to adapt; ND-GAIN vulnerability sub-score. | ND-GAIN Index | 20% |
Population displacement rate Degree to which populations are already displaced. | UNHCR Global Trends | 15% |
Food insecurity prevalence Structural vulnerability and proximate conflict trigger. | FAO / FSIN | 15% |
Relationship to other domains
Structural vulnerabilities condition but do not determine conflict outcomes. Their translation into violence is mediated primarily by governance quality (Domain B). Domain A should be read in conjunction with Domain B.
Domain B · Weight 25%
Governance and Institutions Factors
Captures the quality, legitimacy, and inclusiveness of state institutions and political processes. Governance is the primary mediating variable in the CRCA conflict risk cascade — it determines whether structural stresses generate political grievances and whether grievances can be managed peacefully.
Domain B · Weight 25%
Governance and Institutions Factors
Captures the quality, legitimacy, and inclusiveness of state institutions and political processes. Governance is the primary mediating variable in the CRCA conflict risk cascade — it determines whether structural stresses generate political grievances and whether grievances can be managed peacefully.
Purpose
Governance functions as both a direct driver of conflict (through political exclusion, corruption, repression) and as the primary institutional resource for prevention (through legitimate authority, rule of law, inclusive political processes).
Why it matters
The most conflict-affected states in Africa are almost universally states in which governance has failed to manage structural vulnerabilities and where institutions have lost political legitimacy. Conversely, some of the continent's most stable states maintain peace despite significant structural vulnerabilities because governance institutions remain functional and legitimate.
Indicators (5)
| Indicator | Primary Source | Domain Weight |
|---|---|---|
Rule of law Consistent enforcement of rules, protection of property rights, access to justice. | World Bank WGI | 20% |
Control of corruption One of the most potent drivers of political grievance and state delegitimisation. | World Bank WGI | 20% |
Political stability and absence of violence Bridges Governance and Security domains analytically. | World Bank WGI | 20% |
Regime type (Polity5) Captures the non-linear relationship between regime type and conflict risk; anocracies face highest risk. | Centre for Systemic Peace | 20% |
Civil and political liberties Political repression, restrictions on opposition and media, curtailment of civic space. | Freedom House Freedom in the World | 20% |
Relationship to other domains
The principal mediating layer between structural vulnerability (Domain A) and security outcomes (Domain C). Governance strengthening is the primary lever for long-term conflict prevention.
Domain C · Weight 25%
Security and Conflict Dynamics
Captures the current and near-term state of violence, insecurity, and armed actor activity within each country. Where Structural and Governance measure conditions and capacities, the Security domain measures realities: what is actually happening on the ground.
Domain C · Weight 25%
Security and Conflict Dynamics
Captures the current and near-term state of violence, insecurity, and armed actor activity within each country. Where Structural and Governance measure conditions and capacities, the Security domain measures realities: what is actually happening on the ground.
Purpose
The most proximate domain in ACRI's analytical architecture, responding more rapidly to changes in the conflict environment than structural or governance indicators. Essential for accurate near-term risk characterisation.
Why it matters
A country with strong structural and governance scores but deteriorating security indicators may be in the early stages of a conflict spiral not yet captured by slower-moving data. Conversely, persistent structural vulnerability with improving security signals may indicate a stabilisation trajectory.
Indicators (5)
| Indicator | Primary Source | Domain Weight |
|---|---|---|
Conflict event frequency Distinct conflict events per 100,000 population over 12-month reference period. | ACLED | 20% |
Conflict fatality rate Reported fatalities per 100,000; conservative average applied where sources diverge. | ACLED / UCDP GED | 20% |
Violence against civilians Deliberate targeting of civilians by armed actors — a powerful signal of conflict character. | ACLED | 20% |
Terrorism incidents and impact Frequency and impact of terrorist attacks; operational capacity of extremist groups. | ACLED / GTI | 20% |
Cross-border conflict exposure Ordinal indicator capturing regional conflict contagion. | ACLED / UCDP (derived) | 20% |
Relationship to other domains
Both an outcome of structural and governance failures and a potential driver of humanitarian crises. High Security scores in states with already-weak structural and governance conditions indicate entrenched, potentially protracted conflict.
Domain D · Weight 10%
Humanitarian Factors
Captures the scale and severity of humanitarian distress associated with conflict and fragility. Humanitarian conditions are simultaneously a consequence of conflict and a driver of further escalation.
Domain D · Weight 10%
Humanitarian Factors
Captures the scale and severity of humanitarian distress associated with conflict and fragility. Humanitarian conditions are simultaneously a consequence of conflict and a driver of further escalation.
Purpose
Severe humanitarian conditions erode social cohesion, generate resource competition, fuel grievances, and create the desperate conditions that armed groups exploit for recruitment.
Why it matters
The 10% weight reflects the domain's dual analytical status: it is partly downstream of conflict (a consequence of other domains) and partly an independent driver of escalation. The lower weight also reflects the reality that humanitarian data is often least reliable precisely where humanitarian risk is highest.
Indicators (3)
| Indicator | Primary Source | Domain Weight |
|---|---|---|
Humanitarian needs severity Aggregate severity score capturing scope and intensity of humanitarian need. | UN OCHA HNO | 40% |
Humanitarian access constraints Physical, administrative, and security impediments to aid delivery. | OCHA Access Monitoring | 35% |
Refugee and IDP burden ratio Displaced population as a proportion of total population. | UNHCR | 25% |
Relationship to other domains
The most downstream of the four domains, but it feeds back into structural vulnerability through effects on human development and into governance through demands on state capacity. Improving humanitarian conditions is therefore a conflict prevention investment.
Indicator Framework
Searchable indicator catalogue
The inaugural ACRI uses 18 indicators across its four domains, drawn from established, regularly updated international datasets. Index weights are calculated as Domain Weight × Indicator Weight within Domain, and sum to 100%. Use the search to filter by indicator name, domain, description, or data source.
| Indicator | Domain | Description | Data Source | Update Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State fragility score | A. Structural (40%) | Multidimensional state weakness across cohesion, economic, political, and social dimensions. | Fund for Peace FSI | Annual |
| Human Development Index | A. Structural (40%) | Aggregate human development integrating health, education, and living standards. | UNDP HDR | Annual |
| Economic marginalisation (GNI per capita, Gini) | A. Structural (40%) | Absolute poverty combined with income inequality as drivers of relative deprivation. | World Bank WDI | Annual |
| Climate vulnerability | A. Structural (40%) | Exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards (ND-GAIN vulnerability sub-score). | ND-GAIN Index | Annual |
| Population displacement rate | A. Structural (40%) | Total displaced population as a proportion of national population. | UNHCR Global Trends | Annual |
| Food insecurity prevalence | A. Structural (40%) | Acute food insecurity prevalence following IPC/CH classifications. | FAO / FSIN | Annual |
| Rule of law | B. Governance & Institutions (25%) | Consistent enforcement of rules, contract honouring, property rights, and access to justice. | World Bank WGI | Annual |
| Control of corruption | B. Governance & Institutions (25%) | Extent to which public power is exercised for private gain, including grand and petty corruption. | World Bank WGI | Annual |
| Political stability and absence of violence | B. Governance & Institutions (25%) | Perceived likelihood of political instability and politically motivated violence. | World Bank WGI | Annual |
| Regime type (Polity5) | B. Governance & Institutions (25%) | Authority characteristics of states; captures elevated conflict risk associated with anocracies. | PRIO / Centre for Systemic Peace | Annual |
| Civil and political liberties | B. Governance & Institutions (25%) | Aggregate assessment of political rights and civil liberties. | Freedom House Freedom in the World | Annual |
| Conflict event frequency | C. Security & Conflict (25%) | Distinct conflict events (battles, VAC, explosions/remote violence, riots, protests) per 100,000 population. | ACLED | Weekly (annualised) |
| Conflict fatality rate | C. Security & Conflict (25%) | Reported fatalities from conflict events per 100,000 population; conservative average across ACLED/UCDP where needed. | ACLED / UCDP GED | Weekly / Annual |
| Violence against civilians | C. Security & Conflict (25%) | Deliberate targeting of civilians by armed actors. | ACLED | Weekly (annualised) |
| Terrorism incidents and impact | C. Security & Conflict (25%) | Frequency and impact of terrorist attacks. | ACLED / GTI | Annual |
| Cross-border conflict exposure | C. Security & Conflict (25%) | Ordinal indicator capturing generation of, or exposure to, cross-border conflict effects. | ACLED / UCDP (derived) | Annual |
| Humanitarian needs severity | D. Humanitarian (10%) | Aggregate severity score of humanitarian need. | UN OCHA HNO | Annual |
| Humanitarian access constraints | D. Humanitarian (10%) | Physical, administrative, and security impediments to aid delivery. | OCHA Access Monitoring | Continuous |
| Refugee and IDP burden ratio | D. Humanitarian (10%) | Displaced population as a proportion of total population. | UNHCR | Annual |
Data Sources
Internationally recognised evidence base
ACRI integrates data from ten or more established international datasets, each providing a validated and regularly updated measure of one or more dimensions of conflict risk. Every source is used as an input to CRCA's own analytical framework — all indicator transformations, normalisation, composite scoring, and risk classifications are CRCA's own work.
ACLED
Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project
Disaggregated, georeferenced conflict monitoring; the most granular and timely conflict event database available for Africa.
Role in ACRI
Primary source for three Security domain indicators (event frequency, violence against civilians, terrorism impact) and contributor to cross-border conflict exposure.
UCDP GED
Uppsala Conflict Data Program — Georeferenced Events Dataset
Peer-reviewed conflict event and fatality data from Uppsala University; different sourcing methodology to ACLED, valuable for cross-validation.
Role in ACRI
Cross-validation source for the conflict fatality rate indicator; contributor to cross-border conflict exposure.
Fund for Peace FSI
Fragile States Index
Annual composite fragility scores for 179 states across 12 conflict and instability indicators; published continuously since 2005.
Role in ACRI
State fragility indicator in Domain A (20% domain weight).
UNDP HDR
Human Development Report / Index
Aggregate human development across health, education, and standard of living — one of the most widely used development indicators globally.
Role in ACRI
Human development indicator in Domain A; inverted during normalisation.
World Bank WDI
World Development Indicators
The most comprehensive cross-country database of development statistics, covering 1,600+ indicators for over 217 economies.
Role in ACRI
GNI per capita and Gini coefficient combined into the economic marginalisation indicator in Domain A.
ND-GAIN
Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative Country Index
Vulnerability to climate change and readiness to adapt; ACRI uses the ND-GAIN vulnerability sub-score.
Role in ACRI
Climate vulnerability indicator in Domain A (20% domain weight, equal-highest).
World Bank WGI
Worldwide Governance Indicators
Annual estimates of six governance dimensions for ~215 countries, drawing on 30+ underlying data sources.
Role in ACRI
Three indicators in Domain B: Rule of Law, Control of Corruption, and Political Stability & Absence of Violence.
Polity5
Polity5 Dataset (Centre for Systemic Peace)
Codes authority characteristics of states on a 21-point scale (−10 to +10); the most widely used quantitative measure of regime type in political science.
Role in ACRI
Regime type indicator in Domain B; captures the elevated conflict risk associated with anocracies.
Freedom House FitW
Freedom in the World
Annual assessment of political rights and civil liberties in 195 countries and territories.
Role in ACRI
Civil and political liberties indicator in Domain B; inverted during normalisation.
GTI
Global Terrorism Index
Annual measurement of terrorism impact across 163 countries by the Institute for Economics and Peace; draws on the Global Terrorism Database.
Role in ACRI
Contributes to the terrorism incidents and impact indicator in Domain C alongside ACLED classifications.
UN OCHA HNO
Humanitarian Needs Overview & Access Monitoring
Annual severity assessments of humanitarian need and tracking of physical, administrative, and security constraints on humanitarian access.
Role in ACRI
Primary source for two Domain D indicators: humanitarian needs severity and access constraints.
UNHCR
Global Trends in Forced Displacement
Authoritative annual data on the global forced displacement situation — refugees, asylum seekers, IDPs, and stateless persons.
Role in ACRI
Population displacement rate (Domain A) and refugee & IDP burden ratio (Domain D).
FAO / FSIN
Food and Agriculture Organization / Food Security Information Network
Global Report on Food Crises; the most comprehensive cross-country assessment of acute food insecurity, following IPC classifications.
Role in ACRI
Food insecurity prevalence indicator in Domain A.
Independent CRCA Product
The Africa Conflict Risk Index (ACRI) is an independent analytical framework developed by CRCA. While it incorporates data from multiple internationally recognised datasets, including ACLED, all conflict risk scores, rankings, classifications, and analytical outputs are generated through CRCA's own methodology and are not products of any individual data provider.
Downloads
Documents and datasets
CRCA is committed to methodological transparency and open access to the documentation underpinning ACRI. The library below is designed to support a range of users, from policymakers seeking an accessible introduction to quantitative researchers requiring full technical specifications. Additional publications will be added over time.
PDF
ACRI Framework Overview
Conceptual framework, domain architecture, and design rationale — non-technical summary for policymakers, media, and general readers.
2026|v1.0 (Pilot)
PDF
ACRI Methodology Paper
Full methodology: indicator selection, normalisation, weighting, scoring, risk categories, data gaps, and limitations for researchers and peer reviewers.
2026|v1.0 (Pilot)
PDF
ACRI Indicator Catalogue
All 18 indicators with definitions, sources, update frequency, coverage, transformation protocols, and known limitations.
2026|v1.0 (Pilot)
PDF
ACRI Technical Documentation
Normalisation formulae, composite score construction, sensitivity analysis guidance, and data pipeline specifications for quantitative researchers.
2026|v1.0 (Pilot)
XLSX
ACRI Country Data File
Raw and normalised indicator scores, domain scores, composite ACRI scores, and risk categories for all 54 AU Member States.
Forthcoming|Annual Edition 2026
PDF
ACRI Version History
Record of methodological changes, indicator additions/removals, weighting revisions, and threshold adjustments across ACRI editions.
2026|v1.0
PDF
Africa Peace and Conflict Outlook (APCO)
Annual APCO report containing ACRI rankings, regional assessments, thematic analysis, and policy recommendations. ACRI methodology appears in Appendix B.
Forthcoming|2026 Edition
Note
All ACRI documentation is updated with each annual APCO edition. Users are advised to ensure they are working with the documentation corresponding to the ACRI edition they are using. Version identifiers are included in all documents.
Version History
Framework evolution
CRCA commits to transparent versioning of ACRI. Any significant methodological change — domain weight revision, indicator addition or removal, normalisation change, or threshold adjustment — is clearly documented in the relevant APCO edition and accompanied by retrospective re-scoring of the previous edition to enable year-on-year comparability.
2026
Inaugural Edition — Framework and Methodology (v1.0 Pilot)
First publication of the ACRI framework, methodology, indicator catalogue, and Knowledge Centre. Establishes the four-domain structure, 18-indicator framework, Africa-only min–max normalisation procedure, two-level weighting, composite scoring, and four risk categories.
Forthcoming — 2026
Africa Peace and Conflict Outlook (APCO) 2026
First full country scoring and rankings across the 54 African Union Member States, with regional assessments, thematic analysis, and policy recommendations. Appendix B carries the authoritative methodology for the 2026 edition.
Planned — 2027
Second Edition
First longitudinal edition. Retrospective re-scoring of the 2026 baseline (if methodology changes) and initial trend assessments. Empirical validation work begins as longitudinal data accumulates.
Planned — 2028+
Methodological Refinements
Planned lines of development include indicators capturing social cohesion, horizontal inequalities, gender dimensions of conflict risk, and sub-national variation; sensitivity analysis of the weighting framework; and cross-validation against conflict event trajectories.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
What is ACRI?
The Africa Conflict Risk Index is CRCA's flagship analytical instrument for the systematic, evidence-based assessment of conflict risk across all 54 African Union Member States. It integrates 18 indicators from 10+ international datasets into a composite risk score and four domain sub-scores (Structural, Governance, Security, Humanitarian).
Is ACRI a prediction of conflict?
No. ACRI is a composite index of relative risk within Africa in a given year — not a prediction of conflict outbreak. No composite index can fully capture the complexity, contingency, and human agency that shape conflict trajectories. ACRI provides a rigorous, systematic signal of relative risk that must be interpreted alongside qualitative country assessments and contextual analysis.
Why did CRCA develop ACRI?
Existing global indices sacrifice contextual depth for global comparability, are largely governed by institutions based in the Global North, and do not integrate structural vulnerability, governance, active conflict dynamics, and humanitarian stress in a single measure calibrated to Africa. ACRI addresses these gaps as an African-led, African-grounded analytical framework.
Which countries does ACRI cover?
All 54 African Union Member States. Normalisation is conducted using the distribution of values across the 54 states in each annual edition, so scores reflect relative risk within Africa rather than an absolute global benchmark.
How often is ACRI updated?
Annually, as a core component of the Africa Peace and Conflict Outlook (APCO). ACRI Sentinel — CRCA's operational conflict intelligence platform — provides continuous monitoring between annual editions.
How are domain weights determined?
Structural 40%, Governance 25%, Security 25%, Humanitarian 10%. Weights are informed by the conflict studies literature, CRCA institutional expertise, and in-country analyst inputs. They are baseline analytical weights for the inaugural edition and will be reviewed as longitudinal data accumulates.
How are missing data handled?
Where a primary source is unavailable for a specific country, CRCA seeks a credible alternative source measuring a comparable concept. Where no alternative exists, values may be estimated using regional averages or transparent imputation. Countries with substantial data limitations are identified in their country risk profile.
Is ACRI an ACLED product?
No. ACLED is one of ten or more data sources used in the construction of ACRI. All conflict risk scores, rankings, classifications, and analytical outputs are generated through CRCA's own methodology and are not products of ACLED or any other individual data provider.
How does ACRI relate to ACRI Sentinel?
ACRI provides the annual structural baseline; ACRI Sentinel operationalises it. Sentinel ingests continuous data streams (weekly ACLED events, monthly CAST API updates) to generate near-real-time alerts, threat assessments, and decision-support briefs. Countries flagged as Very High Risk on ACRI receive elevated monitoring priority within Sentinel.
Can ACRI be used for cross-continental comparison?
No. ACRI scores reflect relative risk within Africa in a given edition and are not designed for cross-continental comparison. Africa-only normalisation produces a more sensitive and contextually meaningful differentiation of risk within the continent.
How can I access ACRI data or replicate the framework?
The Country Data File (Excel) will be published with each annual edition and provides raw and normalised indicator scores, domain scores, composite scores, and risk categories for all 54 AU Member States. CRCA supports independent replication and validation and welcomes engagement from the research community via its Research Department.
Citation Guidance
How to cite ACRI
Users of ACRI data, scores, and rankings are requested to use the citation format below. When citing specific domain scores or indicator data, note the edition year and consult the relevant Appendix B in the APCO report for full methodological details applicable to that edition.
Suggested citation
Conflict Research, Consulting & Advocacy (CRCA) (2026). Africa Conflict Risk Index (ACRI) 2026. In: Africa Peace and Conflict Outlook 2026. CRCA.
Data access and enquiries
Requests for access to underlying ACRI data files, collaboration on ACRI methodology development, or enquiries about the use of ACRI data in research or policy applications should be directed to CRCA's Research Department. CRCA supports independent replication and validation of ACRI results and welcomes engagement from the research community.
Licensing and use
ACRI framework documentation is published under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence. Users may reproduce, adapt, and build on the documentation for any purpose, including commercial use, provided appropriate credit is given to CRCA. ACRI country data files are made available for non-commercial research and policy use; commercial licensing should be discussed with CRCA.
ACRI and ACRI Sentinel
ACRI and ACRI Sentinel are two distinct but deeply integrated components of CRCA's conflict intelligence architecture. ACRI provides the annual structural baseline; Sentinel operationalises it through continuous monitoring, horizon scanning, and predictive analytics. Both use ACLED data — ACRI as annual aggregates, Sentinel as weekly event streams — but neither is an ACLED product. All scores, alerts, and assessments are CRCA's own analytical work.