MODERATEAn attack is possible, but not likely.Reviewed September 2026

Eritrea security risk assessment

Low reported criminal and armed threat to foreign civilians, but a tightly controlled operating environment where the principal risks are administrative, legal and informational rather than violent.

Analyst assessment from public sources, written for practitioners. Threat levels describe the general environment for a civilian organisation; they are not a substitute for an organisation's own assessment of its own exposure.

Operating environment

Asmara-based staff and visitors, and permitted movement to regional towns.
Any movement near the Ethiopian or Sudanese borders.
Digital exposure: devices, files and communications carried into and out of the country.

Threats

State control of movement, communications and information, with travel permits required for movement outside Asmara.
Surveillance and the risk of detention over perceived political activity, reporting or contact with certain individuals.
Unresolved border tension with Ethiopia, and proximity to the Sudan conflict on the western border.
Low but non-zero risk of landmines and explosive remnants in former border conflict areas.

Vulnerabilities

Assessments and reporting written on the assumption of private communications, in a context where that assumption is unsafe.
Staff unbriefed on what constitutes a legal risk locally, including photography, mapping and unauthorised movement.
Programme plans that depend on permissions with no committed timeline.
Little independent public reporting to corroborate any assessment.

Operational considerations

Written legal and behavioural briefing for all staff and visitors: photography, mapping, movement permits, and what not to discuss or carry.
Information-handling discipline: minimum data on devices, no lists of local contacts held in-country, and an assumption of non-private communications.
Movement only with valid permits, planned around processing time rather than hoping for it.
Explosive-ordnance awareness and adherence to marked routes near former conflict areas.
A documented plan for what happens if a staff member is detained, including consular routes and family liaison.

If it happens

Detention, questioning or expulsion of staff, and loss of permission to operate.
Harm to local contacts and staff whose association with the organisation is documented.
Injury from explosive remnants in former border-conflict areas.

Rated risks

Ref	Risk	L	I	Rating	Mitigation
ER-A1	Detention or questioning of staff over movement, photography or perceived political activity	3	4	SUBSTANTIAL	Legal and behavioural briefing; permit discipline; detention plan with consular and family liaison.
ER-A2	Harm to local staff or contacts through documented association	2	5	SUBSTANTIAL	Minimum data held in-country; no contact lists on devices; informed-consent approach to naming anyone.
ER-A3	Movement or programme blocked by withheld permissions	4	2	MODERATE	Plan around permit timelines; contingency activities that need no movement; no commitments contingent on unissued permits.
ER-A4	Injury from explosive remnants of war near former border-conflict areas	2	5	SUBSTANTIAL	Explosive-ordnance awareness briefing; marked routes only; local mine-action information before any field visit.

Residual risk

Medium. Violent risk is low; the residual risk sits in legal, administrative and information security, which are the controls that most organisations under-resource here.

Confidence

Low to moderate. Independent public reporting is sparse, so this assessment leans on a small number of sources and should be treated as indicative.

Sources

· ACLED conflict event data
· UN OCHA situation reports and ReliefWeb country pages
· Insecurity Insight aid-security incident data
· UK FCDO and US State Department travel advice
· National and regional media monitoring
· UN human rights reporting on Eritrea
· Regional mine-action reporting

Other assessments

Somalia Ethiopia Sudan South Sudan Djibouti Kenya Uganda Tanzania Rwanda Burundi