Crisis Overview 2015: Humanitarian Trends and Risks for 2016

Report
from Assessment Capacities Project
Published on 09 Dec 2015

Introduction

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.

Country Selection

The 11 countries identified to be in highest humanitarian need in this report are those that have consistently been at Level 3 (Severe Humanitarian Crisis) in the ACAPS GEO for the 12 weeks preceding the report (mid-July to early October). The GEO measures underlying vulnerability, access constraints, and current needs to determine overall need for humanitarian assistance, and ranks countries according to three levels.

The second list adds those countries that our monitoring determines to be at significant risk of a new or increased humanitarian crisis within the coming six months.

Our overview does not attempt to predict sudden-onset disasters, rather to analyse the broad evolution of the situation in countries hit by longerterm, more complex crises. We focus on countries, despite the regional nature of many crises, because data collection and response is generally country-focused.

Comparing disasters is an intricate and controversial endeavour, and we cannot fully account for the complexity and diversity of the many crises around the world. This report is not therefore intended to rank or compare the humanitarian situation in different countries directly, but simply to summarise the evolution in the most pressing humanitarian needs. See the methodology, at the end of the report, for details on how the analysis was undertaken.