2019

Humanitarian Access Overview
Created: 02/05/2019 +

Overview

We looked into nine indicators to rank and compare the humanitarian access levels worldwide. Affected populations in more than 50 countries are not getting proper humanitarian assistance due to access constraints. Humanitarian access has deteriorated in Colombia, Iraq, Myanmar, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Somalia over the past six months. 13 new countries entered the ranking since the latest ACAPS Humanitarian Access report released in August 2018. Physical constraints and restriction/obstruction of access to services and assistance are the most common challenges.

2018

CrisisInSight: Global Risk Analysis
Created: 17/12/2018 +

Overview

The Global risk analysis outlines 18 contexts where a significant deterioration is expected to occur within the next six to nine months, leading to a spike in humanitarian needs. This report comes as a result of ACAPS daily monitoring and independent analysis of the globe to support evidence-based decision-making in the humanitarian sector.

Considering the diversity and complexity of the crises, combined with the number of contexts included in the report, it has not been possible to cover each crisis in detail. Instead, we have highlighted the broad evolution of the crises to flag potential deteriorations and inform operational, strategic, and policy decision-makers.

Did you find this report useful? Help us improve our analysis, take our survey!

Humanitarian Access Overview
Created: 09/08/2018 +

Overview

This report compares current humanitarian crises based on their level of humanitarian access. Affected populations in more than 40 countries are not getting proper humanitarian assistance due to access constraints. Out of 44 countries included in the report, nearly half of them are currently facing critical humanitarian access constraints, with four countries (Eritrea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen) being considered as inaccessible. Moderate humanitarian access constraints are an issue in eight countries, and 15 face low humanitarian access constraints.

2016

Crisis Overview 2015: Humanitarian Trends and Risks for 2016
Created: 22/04/2016 +

Overview

The Crisis Overview 2015: Humanitarian Trends and Risks for 2016, outlines the countries considered to be in greatest humanitarian need as we approach the end of 2015.

Based on our weekly Global Emergency Overview (GEO), and three years of data on humanitarian needs across 150 countries, we have identified eleven countries where humanitarian needs are likely to be highest in 2016, as well as seven that merit attention, as they face a potential spike in needs. A final section considers the potential impact of the current El Niño event across a number of regions.

 

 

Ukraine Multi-­‐Sector Needs  Assessment  (MSNA) report
Created: 22/04/2016 +

Overview

The Multi-­‐Sector Needs Assessment (MSNA) provides an overview of needs in Eastern Ukraine, based on reports from households (HHs) and key informants (KIs). It is an initiative of the Ukraine NGO Forum to seek greater understanding of needs across the affected area. The support of ACAPS1 was requested the for this. The assessment covered the five eastern oblasts in an attempt to provide a more comprehensive overview of the humanitarian situation than was available. This would help identify the overall priorities and needs by using a consistent approach across all 5 oblasts so that findings could be compared. It did not focus on assessing only the areas known to be worst impacted by the crisis, rather it considered the entire area (including badly affected areas)2. The assessment uses three distinct areas and the target population in them as the basis for the analysis, and presents information based on key differences between them:

• IDPs living in Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkiv and Zaparizhia, oblasts not affected by active fighting but host to a large number of IDPs.

• IDPs living in areas that remain under the control of the GoU in Donetsk and Luhansk.

• People living in parts of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts that are under the control of non-­‐government actors (both IDPs and people in their place or origin).