HUMANITARIAN ACCESS OVERVIEW

1 HUMANITARIANACCESS OVERVIEWD ecember 2021 ACAPS analysts considered nine variables to rank and compare HUMANITARIAN ACCESS levels world-wide. Crisis-affected populations in more than 70 countries are not receiving the HUMANITARIAN assistance they need because of ACCESS constraints. No new countries have entered the ranking since the last HUMANITARIAN ACCESS OVERVIEW from July 20211. In line with the previous report, the indicators restrictions and obstruction to services and assistance and environmental constraints are the most common challenges throughout the crisis, scoring the highest among the considered report includes scoreboards for all the countries assessed (see page eight).

2 Analytical narratives are provided only for countries scored between levels 3 5 ( high, very high, and extreme constraints).AFGHANISTANCAMEROONERITREAE THIOPIAMALINIGERIAPALESTINESYRIAVENEZUEL AE xtreme ConstraintsCENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC (CAR)COLOMBIADEMOCRATIC PEOPLE S REPUBLIC OF KOREA (DPRK)DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO (DRC)IRAQMYANMARNIGERSOMALIASOUTH SUDANUKRAINEYEMENVery High ConstraintsBANGLADESHBURKINA FASOCHADHAITIHONDURASINDONESIAIRANK ENYALEBANONLIBYAMEXICOMOZAMBIQUENICARAGU ASUDANTHAILANDTURKEYHigh ConstraintsINTRODUCTIONACAPS HUMANITARIAN ACCESS OVERVIEW provides a snapshot of the most challenging contexts for HUMANITARIAN OVERVIEW is a comparison of the overall level of HUMANITARIAN ACCESS between the last report published in July 2021 and the current assessment: HUMANITARIAN accesshas deterioratedALGERIACAMEROONCOLOMBIADPRKE SWATINIINDONESIAIRANK ENYATRINIDAD AND TOBAGOUKRAINEVENEZUELA1.

3 Countries assessed are those that are presently experiencing crisis and have met the criteria of the INFORM Severity Index. In this case, no crises have opened in a new country since July accesshas remained stableAFGHANISTANAZERBAIJANBANGLADESHBUR KINA FASOBURUNDICARCHADCONGODJIBOUTIDRCECUADO REGYPTEL SALVADORERITREAETHIOPIAGREECEGUATEMALAHA ITIHONDURASIRAQITA LYLEBANONLESOTHOLIBYAMADAGASCARMALAWIMAL IMAURITANIAMEXICOMOROCCONICARAGUANIGERNI GERIAPALESTINERWANDASENEGALSOUTH SUDANSPAINSYRIATANZANIATHAILANDTURKEYUGA NDAZIMBABWEH umanitarian ACCESS has improvedARMENIABRAZILCOSTA RICAINDIAJORDANMAL AYSIAMOZAMBIQUEMYANMARNAMIBIAPAKISTANPER UPHILIPPINESSOMALIASUDANTUNISIAYEMENZAMB IA2 ACAPS HUMANITARIAN ACCESS OVERVIEW DECEMBER 2021 INTRODUCTIONWHAT ARE OUR SOURCES?

4 The HUMANITARIAN ACCESS methodology uses qualitative information sources together with relevant datasets. It collates these in a structured way to quantify the level of HUMANITARIAN ACCESS . ACAPS analysts col-lect information from a range of credible and publicly available sources, including UN agencies, governments, international and local NGOs, in-ternational and local media, and humanitarians working in the countries and areas analysed. Some of the most relied-upon sources are: Aid Worker Security Database by HUMANITARIAN Outcomes Aid in Danger project by Insecurity Insight Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project OCHA s HUMANITARIAN Needs Overviews and Situation Reports Landmine MonitorRead more about our methodologyLIMITATIONSACAPS HUMANITARIAN ACCESS OVERVIEW faces the same limitations that all secondary data reviews are confronted with.

5 Information might not be available without physical presence in the countries analysed, and information by third parties might come with a certain degree of de-lay, especially in very volatile contexts. When possible, analysts cross-check available information with humanitarians working in countries of in the HUMANITARIAN ACCESS OVERVIEW are most often assessed on the country level, meaning that some indicators might represent a sum of the crises present in the country. A more detailed granularity is available in the published deterioration or increase in ACCESS constraints recorded in some countries might be the result of new information previously not avai-lable rather than actual changes in the ARE ACCESS LEVELS CALCULATED?

6 ACAPS methodology groups nine indicators under three dimensions:PILLAR 1 ACCESS of people in need to HUMANITARIAN aid Denial of existence of HUMANITARIAN needs or entitlements to assistance. Restriction and obstruction of ACCESS to services and 2 ACCESS of HUMANITARIAN actors to affected population impediments to enter the country (bureaucratic and administrative). Restriction of movement within the country ( impediments to freedom of movement and/or administrativerestrictions). Interference into implementation of HUMANITARIAN activities. violence against HUMANITARIAN personnel, facilities, and 3 Security and physical constraints Insecurity or hostilities affecting HUMANITARIAN assistance.

7 Presence of landmines, improvised explosive devices, explosive remnants of war and unexplodedordnance. Physical constraints in the environment (obstacles related to terrain, climate, lack of infrastructure, etc.).>For definitions and examples of the indicators used, along with details about the data model behind themethodology, please, please see scoring model rates indicators on a scale of 0 3, then combines them in pillars where they get a final score on a scale of 0 5. The overall ACCESS score by country is rankedaccording to the following scale:Extreme constraintsVery high ACCESS constraintsHigh ACCESS constraintsModerate ACCESS constraintsLow ACCESS constraintsNo significant ACCESS constraintsSEE THE MAPSEE THE MAPSEE THE MAP3 ACAPS HUMANITARIAN ACCESS OVERVIEW DECEMBER 2021 Date created.

8 01/12/2021 HUMANITARIAN ACCESSSCORE MAPDECEMBER 2021 Global ACCESS rankingExtreme constraints Very high ACCESS constraintsHigh ACCESS constraintsModerate ACCESS constraintsLow ACCESS constraintsNo significant ACCESS constraints4 ACAPS HUMANITARIAN ACCESS OVERVIEW DECEMBER 2021 RankingExtreme constraints Very high ACCESS constraintsHigh ACCESS constraintsModerate ACCESS constraintsLow ACCESS constraintsNo significant ACCESS constraintsPILLAR 1 ACCESS of peoplein need to aidThis map illustrates the global rankingof the scores in the first pillar ACCESS of people in need to aid .PILLAR 2 PILLAR 3 PILLAR 1 Denial of existence of HUMANITARIAN needs or entitlements to assistance.

9 Restriction and obstruction of ACCESS to services and created: 01/12/20215 ACAPS HUMANITARIAN ACCESS OVERVIEW DECEMBER 2021 RankingExtreme constraints Very high ACCESS constraintsHigh ACCESS constraintsModerate ACCESS constraintsLow ACCESS constraintsNo significant ACCESS constraintsPILLAR 2 ACCESS ofhumanitarian agenciesto people in needThis map illustrates the global ranking of the scoresin the second pillar ACCESS of HUMANITARIAN agenciesto people in need . impediments to enter the country (bureaucratic and administrative). Restriction of movement within the country ( impediments to freedom of movement and/or administrative restrictions).

10 Interference into implementation of HUMANITARIAN activities. violence against HUMANITARIAN personnel, facilities, and 2 PILLAR 3 PILLAR 1 Date created: 01/12/20216 ACAPS HUMANITARIAN ACCESS OVERVIEW DECEMBER 2021 RankingExtreme constraints Very high ACCESS constraintsHigh ACCESS constraintsModerate ACCESS constraintsLow ACCESS constraintsNo significant ACCESS constraintsPILLAR 3 Physical, environmental,and security constraintsThis map illustrates the global ranking of the scores in the third pillar physical, environmental,and security constraints . Ongoing insecurity or hostilities affecting HUMANITARIAN assistance. Presence of landmines, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), explosive remnants of war (ERW), and unexploded ordnance (UXOs).