2026 HNRP – Response Strategies Peer Review �[SP#1 Frontline Response]

27 October 2025

0

0

0

Strategic Priority Framing (cont.)

​

• Population Groups vulnerability analysis:
• Older persons and people with disabilities often unable to evacuate due to mobility or health issues
• Women and girls face high risks of GBV/CRSV and lack access to R/MNCH services
• Children and adolescents experience trauma, disrupted education, and family separation
• Displaced people frequently re-displaced, lacking documents and relying on overstretched services
• People with low SES heavily reliant on humanitarian assistance

​

• Delineation and connectedness with other strategic priorities:
• SP1 = (0-50km) anchors the response continuum - people close to hostilities
• SP2 = (0-20km) people evacuating (SP1 assists with targeting and information support to facilitate evacuations)
• SP4 = (20 km+) people stabilizing (SP1 provides targeted assistance for vulnerable IDPs 0-20 and info support to facilitate evacuations)
• SP3= (0-50 km+ countrywide; deduplication at the operational level)

​

• Cash:
• Context-specific, needs-based modality: Humanitarian cash transfer is applied for basic needs where markets function and access is safe, allowing vulnerable households to meet basic needs. Where feasible, this can be complemented with sectoral cash for specific needs that cannot be included in the humanitarian cash transfer value.
• Flexible across the frontline: In the 0–20 km zone, assistance is primarily in-kind; in the 21–50 km zone, cash and in-kind are combined depending on access, security, and market reliability – although cash is distributed across the 0-50 km frontline.
• Targeting driven by service fragility and vulnerability: Assistance prioritizes populations most affected by system breakdowns rather than geography alone, ensuring alignment with state recovery capacity and humanitarian access feasibility.

​

​

Strategic Priority Framing 

• SPWG 1: (7 UN agencies, 6 INGOs, 3 NNGOs, 6 Clusters, 3 AoRs)

​

• Principles of SP1# Frontline response
• Needs-based: Interventions are driven by severity and urgency of humanitarian needs. 
• People-centered: Planning is organized around what affected populations require to survive and live with dignity, rather than by sectoral silos. 
• Decentralized decision-making: Operational partners determine the most appropriate response modality—cash, in-kind, or service delivery—based on local feasibility and security context. 
• Flexible and adaptive: The response allows for rapid adjustments as access, markets, and risks evolve. 
• Frontline
• The frontline refers to the 0–50 km belt from the active line of hostilities, where civilians face the highest intensity of conflict, displacement, and service disruption.
• It is a humanitarian access and impact zone, not a military designation. The 0-50 km boundary was designated by the HCT.
• The frontline is diverse in character: static in the north, defined by the Dnipro River in the south, and fluid and shifting in the east. 
• Across all segments, it encompasses areas where civilian survival depends on humanitarian presence to sustain essential health, protection, education, shelter, food, and WASH services amid collapsing or inaccessible public systems. 
• Urban vs rural areas
• Urban
• High population density; heavy dependence on centralized heating, water, and power networks vulnerable to strikes and outages.
• Health and education facilities concentrated but frequently damaged or overcrowded.
• Markets and rental housing often functioning but unaffordable or saturated.
• Assistance focuses on maintaining utilities, repairing services, improving housing insulation, community outreach and protection support to the most vulnerable..
• Rural
• Dispersed settlements; reliance on wells, solid fuel, subsistence farming, and limited institutional presence.
• Fewer fixed health and education facilities; greater reliance on mobile teams and home-based care.
• Access constrained by mines, damaged roads, and lack of transport, limiting market and service access.
• Assistance focuses on mobility, outreach, agricultural and off-farm livelihoods, winterized WASH, mobile protection responses.

​

Complementarity. �

Summary of �Key needs

Context and Overview: In the 0–50 km frontline zone, households face the highest severity of needs according to the 2025 MSNA, with widespread damage to housing, limited health access, disrupted livelihoods, and high protection risks. Communities report restricted movement, loss of income, and inadequate access to safe water, heating, and medical care, requiring sustained life-saving support and rapid winterization needs – which is a cross-cutting issue across the 0-50km frontline.�

Multisectoral Response Package 1: Critical Frontline Assistance

Package 1 : Life-saving, multi-sectoral support focused on people directly exposed to shelling, displacement, and service collapse within 50 km of the front line → SO1: This package delivers rapid, principled, and life-saving multisectoral assistance to those most exposed to conflict and displacement, directly fulfilling SO1’s mandate for timely emergency response that safeguards safety and dignity.

�Rationale: Targets populations in areas of active hostilities where systems have collapsed and access is limited, delivering time-critical multi-sector assistance to prevent excess mortality and protection risks.

�Modality: Predominantly in-kind and direct delivery (mobile teams, kits, convoys, rapid NFIs), inter/agency convoys, some cash (0-20). Cash/sectoral cash/vouchers where feasible and multi-sector mobile/static services and in-kind delivery.

​

Activities: Mobile health and protection teams; provision of NFIs, emergency shelter sealing-off kits, winter heating and NFIs, shelter insulation improvements, humanitarian repairs (light/heavy & IDP house repair), cash (HCT)/sectoral cash/voucher; emergency WASH and hygiene distributions; rapid food and livelihood inputs; and inclusive protection case management.�

Winter activities:

Winter Heating (energy, utilities, heating appliances) for households, collective centers, health facilities.

Essential NFIs (household items, appliances, winter NFIs)

Emergency shelter for sealing building envelope for damaged shelters and apartments

Cold-chain equipment and backup power to preserve vaccines and essential medicines and treat winter-related illnesses 

Mobile power or heating units for schools, clinics, and shelters used as civilian safe spaces.

AAP (communicating with communities)

Multisectoral Response Package 2: Ensuring Essential Services Where the War Has Weakened Local Capacity

​

Package 2 : Life-sustaining and dignity-focused humanitarian assistance that keeps essential services functioning where the war has disrupted state delivery, ensuring people retain safe, equitable access to health, protection, education, and basic utilities while preventing further deterioration of humanitarian conditions.→ (S02) This package delivers life-sustaining, inclusive assistance that keeps essential services running and safeguards dignity, directly advancing SO2’s goal of safe, equitable access for the most vulnerable.

​

Rationale: Complements Package 1 by sustaining the continuity of essential services—health, protection, WASH, food, shelter, and education—in areas where the war has made it impossible for state institutions to reliably function. Partners fill immediate operational gaps in staffing, utilities, and supplies to prevent further deterioration of humanitarian conditions and ensure safe, dignified access for civilians who remain near the front line.�

Modality: Delivery combines embedded, system-support approaches with flexible assistance tailored to access and functionality.

Humanitarian partners work through or alongside local institutions to sustain essential services where state systems are present but unable to operate reliably due to war damage. Assistance blends in-kind, cash, and service delivery modalities—supporting repairs, heating, staffing, and essential supplies—to maintain service continuity, ensure household access, and uphold dignity across frontline communities.

​

Activities: Keeping existing frontline clinics, protection desks, and referral pathways operational; winterization of health, education facilities, collective & transit sites; repair of water networks, and heating systems; shelter insulation & repair of damaged homes, collective & transit sites, common spaces, social infrastructure; assistance for winter heating, essential NFIs, and other basic needs; and localized food and livelihood support.

​

Winter activities:

District-heating support, maintenance of boilers, and backup power for health and education facilities

Conditional cash or vouchers for winter heating to sustain household access to warmth

Humanitarian repairs, rental support & shelter insulation support to protect dwellings and public buildings

Refurbishments of collective sites ensuring dignified living

Provision of winterized WASH facilities to avoid freezing of water systems.

AAP (communicating with communities)

�

​

​

​

​

Critical differences between response

packages 1 & 2

State capacity is fluid, changing from day to day. Dynamic-local operational monitoring required to determine movement from one package to the other.

Risks and assumptions

Assumptions

​

• Static delineation: The response framework currently assumes a fixed frontline band of 0–50 km from active hostilities, used to define Strategic Priority 1 operational zones.
• Predictable intensity: Planning presumes that conflict intensity and population movement patterns will remain roughly consistent with current levels — not dramatically worsening or improving.
• Operational flexibility in principle: The framework assumes partners can “adjust and scale up” and coordination mechanisms remain agile, if conditions change, though the mechanisms for doing so are not yet operationalized.
• Market & Access Functionality: Markets remain functional, enabling mixed-modality response.

​

Risks

​

• Scenario volatility: A sudden escalation or ceasefire would make the current 0–50 km framing obsolete, requiring a contingency plan for rapid re-mapping and re-prioritization.
• Fluid front line: The frontline is not static; it shifts daily, meaning households can move from “51 km” to “frontline” status overnight, which has implications for assistance.
• Targeting and accountability gaps: Because eligibility and planning are tied to a fixed 50 km cut-off, newly affected or re-affected populations risk falling outside coverage until the next cycle.
• Equity and inclusion risk: Populations living within or just beyond the current 50 km delineation — especially older persons, PwDs, children and those in rural settlements — may face equal or higher needs but lack formal coverage.
• Monitoring & Accountability: Due to shifting population dynamics, access constraints, and fluid frontlines, monitoring of response activities and outcome indicators may remain partially subjective, limiting the ability to accurately measure reach, progress, and overall achievements in frontline priority areas.�

Questions for HCT feedback/Key Messages

• Frontline volatility: The assumption of a static 0–50 km frontline underestimates population movement and the fluidity of the frontline which escalates changing needs; flexible targeting and contingency planning are urgently required.

​

• Robust Prepositioning: Need for robust pre-positioning of essential items and cash assistance to enable rapid adaptation as the frontline shifts.

​

• Modalities along the frontline: Markets show partial recovery (≈60% functionality) but remain fragile due to insecurity and damaged infrastructure. Systematic, evidence-based modality decisions (e.g., cash feasibility tools) and regular reassessments are needed to keep assistance flexible, context-appropriate, and data-driven.

​

• Shared Risk Tolerance: A shared understanding and acknowledgment that operations in SP1 areas may entail higher financial and programmatic risks. Flexible risk-management approaches enable principled, life-saving access in frontline contexts.

​

• Lifeline Support to Essential Services: Sustaining basic water, health, and energy systems in the 0–50 km zone requires “humanitarian-plus” interventions that bridge humanitarian and early recovery objectives.

​

• Adaptive Reporting: Promote acceptance of aggregated reporting for SP1 (0–50 km) activities, complemented by qualitative analysis of sub-geographic trends. This approach reflects the fluid and highly constrained operational environment, where precise quantitative disaggregation may not accurately capture real-time implementation dynamics.

​

• Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP): Investing in and resourcing AAP mechanisms ensures the voices of those who remain in frontline areas continue to guide response priorities, even when direct contact is limited.

​

• Empowering National Partners: Direct, predictable funding and capacity support for national NGOs - often the first and last responders—are essential to sustaining presence and continuity of assistance in high-risk zones.

​

Red flag: The fixed delineation of SP1 risks excluding highly vulnerable groups in 51–70 km zones who remain exposed to shelling and service collapse but fall outside current eligibility criteria. This highlights the need for real-time monitoring and adaptive funding.

Strategic Priority Framing 

• Introduction: Provide the overview of:
• SPWG 1: (7 UN agencies, 6 INGOs, 3 NNGOs, 6 Clusters, 3 AoRs): Subnational consultations, SPWG consultations, co-chair check-ins,
• Framing Briefly describe how this strategic priority has been conceptualized or defined.
• Covers 0–50 km where civilians face the highest intensity of conflict and service disruption.
• Diverse - the frontline is static in the north, defined by the Dnipro River in the south, and fluid and shifting in the east.
• Focuses on life-saving assistance and continuity of life sustaining essential services for populations who remain.
• Serves as the anchor of the response, balancing the humanitarian imperative with Protection concerns for civilians and humanitarians (do-no-harm) - linking SP2 (evacuations) in 0–20 km and SP4 (displacement support) in 20–50 km.
• Adapts constantly to changing access, security, and population movements along a diverse, volatile frontline.
• Boundary
• Areas beyond 50 km from the frontline • Evacuation operations and forward caseloads 0-20 km (SP2) • Assistance to displaced and host communities 21-50 km (SP4) • Responses to infrastructure damage from strikes beyond the frontline (SP3) • Recovery and development-oriented interventions
• Population Groups vulnerability analysis: Identify the main affected population groups and highlight their specific vulnerabilities
• Older persons and people with disabilities often unable to evacuate due to mobility or health issues and lacking community support
• Women and girls face high risks of GBV/CRSV and lack access to R/MNCH services
• Children and adolescents experience trauma, disrupted education, and family separation
• Displaced people frequently re-displaced, lacking documents and relying on overstretched services
• People with low SES heavily reliant on humanitarian assistance
• Delineation and connectedness with other strategic priorities: SP1 = (0-50km) anchors the response continuum - people close to hostilities→ SP2 = (0-20km) people evacuating → SP4 = (20km+) people stabilizing. The PiN mirrors the spatial and temporal evolution of need. SP3= (0-50km) majority of strikes occurring

Summary of �Key needs

Context and Overview: In the 0–50 km frontline zone, households face the highest severity of needs according to the 2025 MSNA, with widespread damage to housing, limited health access, disrupted livelihoods, and high protection risks. Communities report restricted movement, loss of income, and inadequate access to safe water, heating, and medical care, requiring sustained life-saving support and rapid winterization needs – which is a cross-cutting issue across the 0-50km frontline.�

Multisectoral Response Package 1: Critical Frontline Assistance

Package 1 : Life-saving, multi-sectoral support focused on people directly exposed to shelling, displacement, and service collapse within 50 km of the front line → SO1: This package delivers rapid, principled, and life-saving multisectoral assistance to those most exposed to conflict and displacement, directly fulfilling SO1’s mandate for timely emergency response that safeguards safety and dignity.

�Rationale: Targets populations in areas of active hostilities where systems have collapsed and access is limited, delivering time-critical multi-sector assistance to prevent excess mortality and protection risks.

�Modality: Predominantly in-kind and direct delivery (mobile teams, kits, convoys, rapid NFIs), inter/agency convoys, some cash (0-20). Cash/sectoral cash/vouchers where feasible and multi-sector mobile/static services and in-kind delivery.

​

Activities: Mobile health and protection teams; provision of NFIs, emergency shelter sealing-off kits, winter heating and NFIs, shelter insulation improvements, humanitarian repairs (light/heavy & IDP house repair), cash (HCT)/sectoral cash/voucher; emergency WASH and hygiene distributions; rapid food and livelihood inputs; and inclusive protection case management, PSS and basic social support.�

Winter activities:

• Winter Heating (energy, utilities, heating appliances) for households, collective centers, health facilities
• Essential NFIs (household items, appliances, winter NFIs)
• Emergency shelter for sealing building envelope for damaged shelters and apartments
• Cold-chain equipment and backup power to preserve vaccines and essential medicines and treat winter-related illnesses
• Mobile power or heating units for schools, clinics, and shelters used as civilian safe spaces.
• AAP (communicating with communities)

Multisectoral Response Package 2: Access to Essential Services & Dignity

​

Package 2 : Life-sustaining, essential, and dignity-focused humanitarian assistance that maintains access to basic services and prevents further deterioration of humanitarian conditions → (S02) This package delivers life-sustaining, inclusive assistance that keeps essential services running and safeguards dignity, directly advancing SO2’s goal of safe, equitable access for the most vulnerable.

​

Rationale: Complements P1 by ensuring continuity of essential services and protection preventing further deterioration of humanitarian conditions. �

Modality: Primarily in-kind support and mobile service delivery where access and infrastructure are compromised (0–20 km); Combination of in-kind and cash-based assistance (for repairs, heating, and basic needs) to maintain functioning services and household access.

​

Activities: Keeping existing frontline clinics, protection desks and community engagement, and referral pathways operational; winterization of health, education facilities, repair of water networks, and heating systems; shelter insulation & repair of damaged homes, common spaces, social infrastructure; assistance for winter heating, essential NFIs, and other basic needs; and localized food and livelihood support.

​

Winter activities:

District-heating support, maintenance of boilers, and backup power for health and education facilities

Conditional cash or vouchers for heating fuel to sustain household access to warmth

Humanitarian repairs & shelter insulation support to protect dwellings and public buildings

Refurbishments of collective sites ensuring dignified living

Provision of winterized WASH facilities to avoid freezing of water systems.

AAP (communicating with communities)

​

​

​

​

Overall Key Figures

Please provide the key figures on:

• Number of Affected People – disaggregated by sex and age
• Number of People in Need – disaggregated by sex and age
• Preliminary Planned Reach – disaggregated by sex and age - & Financial Requirements

Risks and assumptions

Assumptions

• Static delineation: The response framework currently assumes a fixed frontline band of 0–50 km from active hostilities, used to define Strategic Priority 1 operational zones.
• Predictable intensity: Planning presumes that conflict intensity and population movement patterns will remain roughly consistent with current levels — not dramatically worsening or improving.
• Operational flexibility in principle: The framework assumes partners can “adjust and scale up” if conditions change, though the mechanisms for doing so are not yet operationalized.
• That the conflict's intensity and nature will not escalate to a level that makes any humanitarian presence in the 0-50km zone untenable.
• That partners (especially NNGOs) have the capacity and willingness to operate in these high-risk environments and that their security can be reasonably managed.
• That the coordination mechanism is agile and effective enough to manage the constant adaptation required.
• That populations who remain in the 0-50km zone are doing so by choice or due to immovable constraints (e.g., disability, age), which is verified through needs assessments, and that their primary need is for life-saving assistance and essential services.
• Markets in 21- 50 km zone will remain partially functional, enabling mixed-modality response.

​

​

Risks

• Scenario volatility: A sudden escalation or ceasefire would make the current 0–50 km framing obsolete, requiring a contingency plan for rapid re-mapping and re-prioritization.
• Fluid front line: The frontline is not static; it shifts daily, meaning households can move from “51 km” to “frontline” status overnight, which has implications for assistance.
• Targeting and accountability gaps: Because eligibility and planning are tied to a fixed 50 km cut-off, newly affected or re-affected populations risk falling outside coverage until the next cycle.
• Equity and inclusion risk: Populations living within or just beyond the current 50 km delineation — especially older persons, PwDs, children and those in rural settlements — may face equal or higher needs but lack formal coverage.
• Monitoring & Accountability Challenges: It may become difficult to monitor the response and ensure adherence to Do No Harm due to deteriorating security situation, continuous population movements, access constraints, fluid frontline and push / pull factors

​

�

Questions for HCT feedback/Key Messages (Optional)

1. Frontline volatility: The assumption of a static 0–50 km frontline underestimates population movement and the fluidity of the frontline which escalates changing needs; flexible targeting and contingency planning are urgently required.
2. Coverage and accountability gaps: Shifting frontlines risk leaving newly affected populations temporarily excluded, highlighting the need for real-time monitoring and adaptive funding.
3. Robust Prepositioning: Need for robust pre-positioning of essential items and cash assistance to enable rapid adaptation as the frontline shifts.
4. Red flag: The fixed delineation of SP1 risks excluding highly vulnerable groups in 51–70 km zones who remain exposed to shelling and service collapse but fall outside current eligibility criteria.
5. Modalities along the frontline: Markets show partial recovery (≈60% functionality) but remain fragile due to insecurity and damaged infrastructure. Systematic, evidence-based modality decisions (e.g., cash feasibility tools) and regular reassessments are needed to keep assistance flexible, context-appropriate, and data-driven.
6. Risk Tolerance: Encourage donors acknowledgement that operating in SP1 involves higher financial and programmatic risks and that a zero-risk approach means zero assistance.
7. Lifeline Support to Essential Services: Advocate for "humanitarian-plus" interventions that support the minimum operational costs of critical service providers (water, health, energy) within the 0-50km zone, recognizing that pure humanitarian assistance is insufficient to keep these systems functioning.
8. Acceptance of aggregated SP1 (0-50km) reporting with qualitative explanations of sub-geographic trends, rather than rigid, quantitatively precise disaggregation that may not accurately reflect the shifting operational reality.
9. Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP): Strengthen and resource AAP mechanisms ensuring the voices of those who remain guide the response, even when face-to-face interaction is limited.
10. Support for National Partners: Direct funding and capacity-building to NNGOs who are often the first and last responders in these areas.

SPWG #1: Frontline response��13 October 2025 ��Meeting n.9 – Feasibility of Cash 0-20 km from the Frontline

20

MEETING OUTLINE

SPWG #1: Frontline response��29 September 2025 ��Meeting n.7

22

Mykolaiv Subnational Consultation – 10 October 2025

• IDPs face compounded challenges due to limited access to services, especially those near front lines, requiring clear articulation of their needs in humanitarian planning 
• Special attention is needed for vulnerable groups such as people with disabilities, older adults, men and male survivors of violence, with calls for age- and disability-aware health and psychosocial support 
• The principle of "do no harm" was highlighted, balancing support for those near front lines without encouraging them to remain in dangerous areas 
• Flexibility and adaptability in assistance modalities are critical, with a push for standardized minimum levels combined with context-specific adjustments 
• Children are mostly evacuated from frontline areas, but some remain behind -- activities for such children remain important
• Donors seem hesitant to fund repairs or arrangements for bomb shelters, impacting child protection and education infrastructure 
• The group discussed balancing humanitarian needs with security risks, including the use of shelters in hospitals and community-based protection activities 
• Food provision challenges for collective centers (CCs) were highlighted, with suggestions for mobile kitchens and institutional feeding to improve cost-effectiveness and sustainability
• Support for institutions and early recovery initiatives, including social entrepreneurship and microgrants, were considered essential for displaced populations and stability 
• Price inflation, security, availability of goods - reduce the accessibility and purchasing power of cash assistance, necessitating case-by-case assessments and potential top-ups to ensure equitable support 

​

​

​

​

23

Modality Feasibility on Frontlines in Ukraine

​

13 October

SPWG1

Problem framing

• Modality choice should be based on feasibility assessment which shall determine or confirm:
• Market functionality and access
• Financial institutional capacity
• Beneficiary preference
• Cost-efficiency

​

• Three broad questions to use CVA:
• Are the goods and services that people need available locally?
• Are markets able to respond to an increased demand for commodities?
• Can cash be delivered and spent safely?

• What should be in place:
• Supply (and re-supply) of goods
• Sellers with resources
• Physical access
• People with purchasing power
• Trader willingness and capacity
• Reliable payment systems
• Reasonable and stable prices

​

• Further questions:
• What might the entry points for a response be?
• Could our response harm the market?
• Might there be multiplier effects for markets?
• What risks can be anticipated? (inflation, price distortion, security)

• Under the Grand Bargain, organizations shall implement cash assistance as default modality, wherever appropriate and unless contextual considerations preludes it.
• The question is not ‘why cash?’ but ‘why not cash?’: the burden of proof shall be place on in-kind, not on cash.
• Humanitarian reset: We should shift towards cash assistance where possible, in line with Grand Bargain Commitments

General context

• A large market functionality in nearly all assessed areas of the country by customer:
• 97% to 99% report full availability of food
• 95% to 97% full availability of hygiene items.
• 87% to 92% report full availability of medicine.
• 75 to 85% report full availability of warm clothing

​

• Nevertheless, obstacles have been reported in accessing stores, mostly in frontline areas of Donetska and Khersons'ka oblasts.

​

• The three most frequently reported barriers limiting access to stores are:
• Movement restrictions
• Feeling unsafe
• Shelling.

• Accessibility to financial service providers remained largely unchanged during the first six months of 2025
• The main payment modalities accepted by retailer KIs throughout the first half of 2025 nationally were as follows:
• Cash (varied from 99% to 100%)
• Credit cards (93%-96%)
• Debit cards (79%-87%)
• Mobile apps (61%-67%)
• Vouchers from UN or NGOs (<1%)
• The level of ATM availability remains high. 75-83% of customer KIs reported full ATM availability. Reports of the inability to use ATMs available in hromadas were quite rare. Those were located in Zaporizhzhya, Mykolaivska, and Khersons'ka oblasts).
• Ukrposhta maintained a stable level of accessibility of its services to the population.

Market Functionality

NRC Monitoring

January 2025 May 2025 September 2025

Analysis

• While functionality remains dynamic and varies across settlements, a majority of markets are reportedly fully functional in the different ranges assessed of the frontline.
• Market recovery has been assessed as increasing overtime, particularly since 2023. In 2025, the trend continued, with 60.6% markets fully functional in January, 62.9% in May and 64.7% in September.

Market Access in settlement

WFP Frontline Assessment

August-September 2025

Analysis

• While functionality remains dynamic and varies across settlements, a majority of people have access to a shop/market in their settlement whenever it is needed.

Market Access in settlement

WFP Frontline Assessment

August-September 2025

Analysis

• Challenges remain in some settlements, mostly related to (i) feeling of insecurity and (ii) higher closure of shops.

Affordability

JMMI Monitoring

June 2025

Analysis

• Affordability challenges are encountered in frontlines, mostly for non-food items. Overall, prices are 8.33% higher in frontline areas, which makes CVA feasible but requires consideration.
• In this regard, the CWG is suggesting adding a corresponding ‘Shock modifier’ of 8.33% against the calculation of the unified cash value for SPWG1.

Income

MSNA - WFP Frontline Assessment - DTM - Partners PDM

August-September 2025 (MSNA, WFP), April 2025 (DTM), whole of 2025 (NRC, ERC, ACTED)

Median income of HHs with income under ASM

Analysis

• No significant loss of income is observed in frontline areas compared to non-frontline, despite slightly lower trend. Overall, median incomes are comparable.

Beneficiary preference

MSNA

June 2025

Analysis

• Cash was the preferred assistance type indicated by households in frontline oblasts. Need for cash assistance was higher among households living within the 0-20km zone, compared to those living beyond 50km.
• Among demographic groups, this preference for cash is reported more often by single women with children (73%), compared to multiple adults with children (52%), and older households (63%) compared to younger households (53%).

Conclusion

• The majority of the evidence on market functionality, affordability, income, cost-efficiency and beneficiary preference points towards the feasibility and use of cash assistance, for activities that can be monetized. This situation does not justify changing the humanitarian community’s commitment to the ‘use of cash by default’.
• Cash assistance to frontlines areas, particularly on the 0-10 km, also remains a key priority for the government (Office for the President), including for generic needs and winter assistance.
• In those areas, the most vulnerable profiles also continue to receive their pensions and disability benefits, hence are already receiving cash transfers.
• Nevertheless, a number of settlements in the 0-5 or 0-10 km will continue to require in-kind assistance as alternative to cash, as the situation remains dynamic and several markets remain disrupted and/or under shelling, with highest occurrence in Donetska and Mykolaivska oblasts.
• Market functionality varies significantly by settlement. As a general rule, modality choices should remain pragmatic, flexible, and based on conclusions from assessments.
• More generally, the first driver of decision should always be what the people we serve prefer. There is a need to avoid ‘patronizing’ and stop ‘deciding what is in the beneficiaries’ best interest’:

= No-one else more than the people we serve knows best what they need.

Conclusion: perform market analyses

Market Indicators (0 – 20km zone)

Findings from the MSNA, HSM and JMMI

13 October 2025

Partners

Donors

Contents

Research and Analysis Design

​

Market Indicators 0 – 20km

​

​

​

​

01

02

01

MSNA research and analysis design

MSNA Coverage and Sampling – 2025 General Population

Collected between 22 July and 18 August 2025 through randomized Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews by a third-party provider (KIIS).​

Re-prioritized approach

Findings on general population are representative for:

• (i) 0-50 kilometer zone and (ii) beyond 50 kilometer zone from frontline/border for re-prioritized oblasts (Chernihivska, Dnipropetrovska, Kharkivska, Mykolaivska, Sumska)
• Macroregion level in the West, Center, and North (Zhytomyrska and Kyivska combined together)
• Oblast level for Odeska, Donetska, Zaporizka and Khersonska
• Kyiv city

Across each strata, the data is representative at least at the 95% confidence level with a ±9% margin of error.

Further information can be found in the Terms of Reference (ToR).

Representativeness of 2025 MSNA data�OCHA units of analysis

• 255 settlements assessed.
• In each settlement, expert key informants (KIs) are called to report on the settlement’s needs. Reports are thus based off Kis and indicative.
• Depending on the settlement size, 3 – 5 KIs are called per settlement.
• KI responses are then aggregated so each settlement has one data point per indicator.
• Aggregation rules:
• Numeric questions are averaged
• Select multiple options, the majority of KIs
• Oblast centres, raion centres, hromada centres and other large settlements included .
• Data collection every 12 weeks.

Humanitarian Situation Monitoring: Quarterly data collection in frontline areas

Scope

Most recent data collection: 19 August to 2 September 2025

Government controlled areas within 50 kilometres of the front line / border with Russian Federation

Areas temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation since the full-scale invasion in February 2022

Methods overview

Dashboard for Government- controlled areas to explore the data is available per round

Sample and coverage

Methodology

Providing data on price trends and market functionality indicators

Data collection is a joint, partner-led exercise

​

Monthly basis

Per assessed hromada:

​

• 3 prices per item

​

• 5 customer KI interviews

Quantitative, structured interviews:

retailer and customer key informant (KI) interviews

Limitations:

The results should be considered as indicative.

Only the price of the least expensive commonly purchased brand or variety is recorded for each JMMI item.

Some changes in the overall median prices may be driven by shifts in coverage rather than by true price.

​

02

Market Indicators in 0 – 20km

Market Indicators – Coverage by assessment

Key Takeaways – Market Indicators within the 0 -20km zone

Examining proxies for market functionality in the MSNA (missing NFIs), households more often were completely lacking essential NFIs within the 0-20km zone, particularly in the East and South, and particularly for rural and lower income households.

In HSM, settlements where more than 50% of residents had challenges access markets and financial services was substantially higher in the 0 – 20km zone. The most common barrier overall for such settlements where residents reportedly had challenges accessing markets was lack of markets in the settlement within the 0 – 20km zone.

JMMI data demonstrates the specificity of hromada-level market functionality near the front line.

For example, Orihivska hromada experienced challenges with both availability of goods in markets and financial service providers, while Kramatorsk hromada experienced full-range of physical barriers, but fairly good availability of goods in stores. Every frontline hromada likely has its own specific functionality to respond to.

Access to markets and financial services was a particular challenge in the 0 – 50km zone in Khersonska and Donetska according to HSM, with the former aligning with the MSNA data reporting missing NFIs was most severe in the South and East.

Households within the 0 – 20km practicing on-farm livelihoods, more often faced market challenges related to a non-functioning or low functioning market.

Despite HSM, JMMI and MSNA indicating potential challenges with market access and functionality, cash remained the preferred form of modality for those living within the 0 – 20km range.

Missing NFIs (MSNA, August 2025)

Households reporting missing NFIs by proximity to FL / RB

Households reporting missing NFIs by proximity to FL / RB, by macroregion

Households reporting missing NFIs by proximity to FL / RB and urbanity

Households reporting missing NFIs by proximity to FL / RB and income quartiles

Barriers – Income from own production (MSNA, August 2025)

Households reporting income by own production (n=110), by reported challenge experienced

Although a small sample size, households practicing on-farm livelihood challenges in the 0 -20km zone more often cited access to markets as a challenge, as well as other market-related indicators (lack of / price of agri-inputs, lack of tools / equipment).

Access to markets (HSM, September 2025)

KIs reporting that 50% or more of residents had challenges accessing markets in settlement

KIs reporting that 50% or more of residents had challenges accessing markets in settlement, by proximity to FL / RB

Of settlements where KIs reported that at least some residents had challenges accessing markets in settlement, main barriers reported by proximity to FL / RB

Of settlements where KIs reported that at least some residents had challenges accessing markets in settlement, main barriers reported overall

Access to markets as barrier (HSM, September 2025)

Of settlements where KIs reported that at least some residents could not access food, main barriers reported by proximity to FL / RB

Of settlements where KIs reported that at least some residents could not access healthcare in settlement / medicines in settlement, those who reported lack of place to spend as main barrier

Of settlements where KIs reported that at least some residents were missing NFIs, main barriers reported by proximity to FL / RB and urbanity

Access to ATMs, cash (HSM, September 2025)

Of settlements where KIs reported that at least some residents could not access food, main barriers reported by proximity to FL / RB

KIs reporting that 50% or more of residents had challenges accessing financial services in settlement

KIs reporting that 50% or more of residents had challenges accessing financial services in settlement, by proximity to FL / RB

Market functionality – Orihivska Hromada, Zaporizka oblast (JMMI June 2025 (<10km to frontline))

% of customers Kls reporting availably of functioning FSP

% of customer KIs reporting access barriers to stores factors that affected their ability to buy from usual stores and marketplaces due to the full-scale war

% of retailer KIs reporting difficulties keeping their stores operational and well-stocked due to the full-scale war

% of retailer KIs reporting anticipating new challenges due to the full-scale war

Market functionality – Orihivska Hromada, Zaporizka oblast, (JMMI, June 2025 (<10km to frontline))

% of customer KIs reporting availability of functioning banks

100%

No, full-service bank branches and mobile bank offices are unavailable in this community, but are accessible in nearby communities

% of customer KIs reporting availability of functioning ATMs

100%

No, there are no ATMs in my community

% of customer KIs reporting availability of functioning Ukrposhta offices

100%

Yes, Ukrposhta offices work daily and deliver payments regularly

% of retailer KIs reporting availability of payment options

Given the proximity to military activities and the unsafe conditions in the community, only Ukrposhta branches are available for providing financial services.

​

At the same time, all surveyed shops do not accept debit or credit card payments. Only cash transactions are available, and 3 out of 4 shops accept money transfers via mobile applications.

Market functionality – Kramatorska Hromada, Donetska oblast, (JMMI, September 2025 (~20km to frontline))

% of customers Kls reporting availably of functioning FSP

% of customer KIs reporting access barriers to stores factors that affected their ability to buy from usual stores and marketplaces due to the full-scale war

The hromada faces the full range of possible physical barriers that limit buyers’ access to shops.

​

Despite the difficult access conditions to shops, the availability of essential goods and fuel remains at a fairly high level. Residents of the hromada are able to meet their needs by purchasing all necessary items at the local market.

Market functionality – Orihivska Hromada, Zaporizka oblast (JMMI, June 2025 (<10km to frontline))

% of customer KIs reporting availability of functioning banks

100%

Yes, bank branches are available but they are facing temporary interruption due to air alerts

% of customer KIs reporting availability of functioning ATMs

80%

There are ATMs, but they are facing temporary interruption due to power outages

% of customer KIs reporting availability of functioning Ukrposhta offices

Yes, bank branches are available but they are facing temporary interruption due to power outages

60%

There are ATMs, but they are facing temporary interruption due to air alerts

60%

The number of functional ATMs is highly limited

40%

60%

Ukrposhta offices are available but they are facing temporary interruption due to air alerts

Yes, Ukrposhta offices work daily and deliver payments regularly

40%

Ukrposhta offices are available but they are facing temporary interruption due to power outages

20%

All groups of financial service providers are present in the hromada. The main obstacles to using their services are power outages and air raid alerts.

Preferred modality of assistance (MSNA, August 2025)

Cash remained the main preferred modality of assistance for all households even within the 0 – 20km zone. Thus, despite the challenges cited by both HSM KIs and MSNA respondents, cash remains preferred.

Preferred type of assistance by demographics (MSNA, August 2025)

Preference for types of assistance vary depending on the demographic profile of households, with IDP households more likely to prefer cash, shelter/housing and NFI assistance. Disability and gender seemed to have an impact for healthcare only:

• 34% of households with a member with a disability reported a preference for healthcare
• 28% of female-only households reported a preference for healthcare (10% for men-only households).

Preferred type of support by IDP status

Preferred type of support by age of adults

Preferred type of support by gender of adults

Preferred type of support by disability

Key Takeaways – Market Functionality within the 0 -20km zone

Examining proxies for market functionality in the MSNA (missing NFIs), households more often were completely lacking essential NFIs within the 0-20km zone, particularly in the East and South, and particularly for rural and lower income households.

In HSM, settlements where more than 50% of residents had challenges access markets and financial services was substantially higher in the 0 – 20km zone. The most common barrier overall for such settlements where residents reportedly had challenges accessing markets was lack of markets in the settlement within the 0 – 20km zone.

In HSM, lack of facilities for “spending” as a common barrier reported across sectors.

For example, KIs cited this as a reason for food challenges and healthcare challenges.

Access to markets and financial services was a particular challenge in the 0 – 50km zone in Khersonska and Donetska according to HSM, with the former aligning with the MSNA data reporting missing NFIs was most severe in the South and East.

Households within the 0 – 20km practicing on-farm livelihoods, more often faced market challenges related to a non-functioning or low functioning market.

Despite HSM and MSNA indicating potential challenges with market access and functionality, cash remained the preferred form of modality for those living within the 0 – 20km range.

Any questions?

Mackenzie.seaman@impact-initiatives.org

Market Functionality in the Frontline�Frontline Food Security Assessment (WFP)

59

Market Functionality in the Frontline

Frontline Food Security Assessment�WFP-assisted population in frontline areas, August – September 2025

13 October 2025

SPWG #1

Methodology

Kharkivska, Donetska, Zaporizka, Dnipropetrovska, Mykolaivska, Khersonska oblasts

Stratification:

0 (2)-10 km; 10-20 km, 20-30 km settlement proximity* / oblast

Data collection:

CATI, August 15 – September 15, 2025

Aimed representativity:

WFP beneficiaries, per strata, 90% CL, 7% MoE

General population:

​

WFP-assisted (currently or formerly) people, living within 30 km from the frontline,

Up to 45% of HHs in some oblast within 0-10km do not have access market

In last 30 days, could you access shop/market to buy essential items in your settlement whenever it is needed?

Safety is the major barrier to accessing market within 0 – 10km

• In Dnipropetrovska K0_10, 78% said it is unsafe In Khersonska K0_10, 65% said it is unsafe
• in Donetska K0_10, 35% said market it is closed In Kharkivska K0_10, 57% said market is damaged
• In Mykolaivska K0_10, 28% said no store In Zaporizka K0_10, 30% said closed, damaged, unsafe

What are the barriers to accessing shops/markets freely?

Most HHs living in areas with limited market access within 0-10km depend on in-kind aid

Without market access, how do you get essential food and non-food items?

Even where market is accessible, more than 40% of HHs cannot buy certain items due to unavailability

Are there any item that you cannot buy in your settlement because of their unavailability?

Medicine and food are highly mentioned as unavailable in stores in 0-10km to the frontline

Are there any item that you cannot buy in your settlement because of their unavailability?

More than half of the HHs in frontline cannot travel to other settlements to access market

If there is a need, can you travel to other settlements by public transport?

Lack of public transportation, safety and irregularities prevent frontline HHs from traveling

Reasons for no access to transportation

Reasons for no access to transportation can also vary by location

Reasons for no access to transportation

Cash is not always the answer: More than a third of HHs do not have access to financial service

What options for withdrawing personal funds are available to you in your settlement?

For more than 65% of HHs in 0-10km in Zaporizka, Kharkivska and Donetska, it not possible to withdraw cash

What options for withdrawing personal funds are available to you in your settlement?

Key Conclusion

WFP, RAM unit, Assessment team�chinedu.obi@wfp.org

hanna.kurovska@wfp.org

Oksana.sokolenko@wfp.org

2026 HNRP Timeline – Key Milestones & Next Steps

74

дякую вам! 

75

MEETING OUTLINE

76

Multi-Sector Needs Assessment

(MSNA) 2025

SP1: Sectoral and Dimensional needs in frontline areas

29 September 2025

Partners

Donors

Contents

Research and analysis design

​

Overview of needs in frontline oblasts

​

Results from the Dimensional and Indicator analysis

​

​

​

01

02

03

01

MSNA research and analysis design

Coverage and Sampling

Collected between 22 July and 18 August 2025 through randomized Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews by a third-party provider (KIIS).​

Re-prioritized approach

Findings on general population are representative for:

• (i) 0-50 kilometer zone and (ii) beyond 50 kilometer zone from frontline/border for re-prioritized oblasts (Chernihivska, Dnipropetrovska, Kharkivska, Mykolaivska, Sumska)
• Macroregion level in the West, Center, and North (Zhytomyrska and Kyivska combined together)
• Oblast level for Odeska, Donetska, Zaporizka and Khersonska
• Kyiv city

Across each strata, the data is representative at least at the 95% confidence level with a ±9% margin of error.

Further information can be found in the Terms of Reference (ToR).

Analysis Framework

• The CCIA measures the magnitude and complexity of humanitarian needs across sectors. It categorizes each household based on the severity of its needs into five categories.
• Households in severe need have a severity score higher than 3, and households in extreme need have a score of 4 and 4+.
• The CCIA takes a Mosaic Approach. That means, the highest sectoral score becomes the final CCIA.
• Given the re-prioritization efforts, this year the analysis focuses on the dimensions that constitute each sectoral score, rather than the sectoral scores themselves.

Contextualized Composite Indicator Analysis (CCIA)

Framework developed by REACH Ukraine to conduct in-depth country-level analysis.

The framework combines indicators into separate dimensions. The dimensions are in turn combined to create a composite score per sector and then overall.

Health

Protection

Food Security

Education

WASH

Etc.

HH1

HH2

HH3

Etc.

Final CCIA

Sectoral CCIA Severity Score

In extreme need

None / minimal

Stress

Severe

Extreme

Extreme +

1

2

3

4

4+

In need

02

Overview of needs

Overview of humanitarian needs (severe and above)

Across frontline oblasts, the primary dimensions driving needs are:

​

1. Exposure to conflict* (drones/missile/shelling)
2. Livelihoods dimensions, focusing on income quantity and utilization of coping strategies
3. Missing Shelter NFI
4. Housing, land and property concerns.

​

The ranking changes between oblasts and the distance from the frontline/border.

​

*This dimension is primarily driven by geographic proximity to the frontline and exposure to drone/missile route. It represents the main dimension driving needs in frontline oblast and it is not depicted on the map.

Map ranking top 3 needs by dimension and by analysis strata (0-50km, >50km)

Overview of extreme humanitarian needs

In frontline oblasts, households are more frequently classified in “extreme needs” in the following dimensions:

​

1. Exposure to conflict*
2. Unmet health needs
3. Chronic conditions and access to medication
4. Issues with drinking water quality
5. HLP concerns

​

*This dimension is primarily driven by geographic proximity to the frontline and exposure to drone/missile route. It represents the main dimension driving needs in frontline oblast and it is not depicted on the map.

Map ranking top 3 needs by dimension and by analysis strata (0-50km, >50km)

Extreme needs in the 0-50 zone, by demographics

Age of adults

Disability Status

Caregiving status

Household composition

Location

Displacement status

Proportion of HHs with extreme needs in the 0-50 zone, by demographics

03

Results from the dimensional and indicator analysis

Livelihoods – Income Quantity and Debt

Donetska

Khersonska

Chernihivska

Sumska

Zaporizka

Mykolaivska

Kharkivska

Dnipropetrovska

Income quantity, by distance from frontline/border (n=2,476)

Households indebted since 2024, by reason and by distance from frontline/border (n=454)

• HHs living in Donetska, Khersonska, Sumska and Dnipropetrovka are showing higher economic needs related to income quantity and debt

​

• HHs living within 0-20km are more likely to earn incomes below the cost of food basket (33%) compared to those living in the 21-50km zone (21%)

​

• These households also reported taking on debt for essential needs more frequently than others, particularly to cover health-related expenses and basic domestic consumption

Percentage of households in need and extreme need in Income Quantity and Debt, by distance from the frontline/border

Livelihoods – Utilization of Coping Strategies

HHs living in the 0-20 km zone in Donetska, Dnipropetrovska, Khersonska are notably more likely to resort to crisis and emergency coping strategies to cope with a lack of money.

​

Within both the 0-20km zone and the 21-50km, the most frequently adopted coping strategies are (i) spending savings or consuming stocks, and (ii) reducing health expenditures.

Donetska

Khersonska

Chernihivska

Sumska

Zaporizka

Mykolaivska

Kharkivska

Dnipropetrovska

Percentage of households in need and extreme need in Utilization of Coping Strategies, by distance from the frontline/border

Health – Health needs

HHs living within 50 km in Donetska, Dnipropetrovska and Kharkivska are facing heightened unmet health needs.

​

Demographics (age and disability) correlate with higher health needs. In the 50 km zone:

​

• Households with a member with reported or registered disability are three times more likely not to be able to meet health needs (15%) compared to households without members with disability (5%)

​

• Older households are twice as likely not to be able to meet health needs (13%) versus younger households (6%)

Donetska

Khersonska

Sumska

Chernihivska

Zaporizka

Mykolaivska

Kharkivska

Dnipropetrovska

Proportion of HHs with unmet health needs in the 0-50 zone, by disability and age

Percentage of households in need and extreme need in Unmet health needs, by distance from the frontline/border

Health – Chronic conditions and access to medication

Donetska

Khersonska

HHs living within 50 km in Donetska, Dnipropetrovska, and Khersonska are more likely to have chronic health conditions and be unable to access medication/cures.

​

Demographics (age and disability) correlate with a higher prevalence of chronic conditions/accessibility to medication. In the 50 km zone:

​

• Households with a member with a reported or registered disability are four times more likely not to be able to meet health needs (24%) compared to households without members with disability (5%)

​

• Older households are twice as likely not to be able to meet health needs (16%) versus younger households (7%)

Chernihivska

Sumska

Zaporizka

Mykolaivska

Kharkivska

Dnipropetrovska

Proportion of HHs in need due to chronic conditions and limited access to medication in the 0-50 zone, by disability and age

Percentage of households in need and extreme need Chronic conditions and access to medication, by distance from the frontline/border

Health – Main barriers and travel to health facilites

Households by barriers to access healthcare and by distance from frontline/border (n=2083)

• Within the 0-20 km zone, households need more time to access functional health facilities, compared to the 21-50km zone. In Donetska 0-20km (22%), Kharkivska and Khersonska 0-20 km (20%), a higher proportion of households need more than 60 minutes to access healthcare.

​

​

• Households living in the 0-20 km zone report more frequently security and availability barriers, including: security concerns (14%), damaged or non functioning health facilties (6%), transport barriers (10%) and time barriers (7%)

​

• Access and time barriers are exacerbated for rural households compared to urban households.

Percentage of households needing 60 minutes or more to access to the nearest functional health facility, by distance from frontline/border (n=2708)

Protection – Exposure to Conflict and Protection concerns

Donetska

Khersonska

Chernihivska

Sumska

Zaporizka

Mykolaivska

Kharkivska

Dnipro-petrovska

Percentage of households by top 5 reported safety and security concerns, by distance from frontline/border:

Women (n=2741)

Men (n=2755)

Children (n=2578)

Percentage of households in need and extreme need in Exposure to conflict, by distance from the frontline/border

Protection – HLP concerns

Khersonska

Donetska

Households reporting HLP concerns, by distance from frontline/border (n=2766)

• HHs living in Donetska and Khersonska are more likely to report Housing, land, and property concerns.
• IDP households located in the 0-20km zone (52%) and the 21-50km zone (68%) are notably more likely to report HLP needs compared to non-displaced households in the same zone (22% and 13%).
• The most frequently reported concerns are (i) damaged/destroyed property in non-occupied areas and (ii) housing/land/property not accessible.
• In the 20km zone, 6% of households reported that the land is contaminated with EO.

Chernihivska

Sumska

Zaporizka

Mykolaivska

Kharkivska

Dnipropetrovska

Percentage of households in need and extreme need in HLP concerns, by distance from the frontline/border

Food Security

Donetska

Khersonska

Chernihivska

Sumska

Zaporizka

Mykolaivska

Kharkivska

Dnipropetrovska

Food Consumption Score by frontline oblasts (n=2319)

• In frontline oblasts, the percentage of households classified in moderate/severe food insecurity is similar across the 0-20km and the 21-50km: 14% in both areas.

​

• HHs living in Donetska and Khersonska are more likely to be moderately and severely food insecure (26% and 21%, compared to 12% overall)

​

• HHs living in Donetska and Khersonska are more likely to display borderline and poor food consumption (16% and 12%), compared to the overall (8%), and utilize coping strategies to maintain consumption, especially relying on less preferred/less expensive food, and limiting the portion size of meals.

Percentage of households in need and extreme need in Food Security, by distance from the frontline/border

Shelter - Damage caused by the war

Donetska

Khersonska

HHs reporting damage to current shelter was NOT repaired by distance from frontline/border (n=609)

HHs reporting damage to current shelter was NOT repaired, by reason and distance from frontline/border (n=222)

• Households reported non-repaired moderate and severe shelter damage more often in Khersonska (23%) and Donetska (22%).

​

• HHs living in the 0-20km zone are more likely to report that damage to their shelter was not repaired (45%), compared to those living in 21-50km (32%). This is mostly due to the unaffordability of repairs and the security situation preventing them.

​

• In the 21-50km zone, households reported delayed eRecovery funds (19%) and ineligibility to eRecovery (18%)

Chernihivska

Sumska

Zaporizka

Mykolaivska

Kharkivska

Dnipro-

petrovska

Percentage of households in need and extreme need due to shelter damage, by distance from the frontline/border

Shelter - Missing NFIs

Donetska

Khersonska

• HHs living in Donetska and Khersonska are more likely to report completely lack essential NFIs (39% and 29%).

​

• Overall, households living in the 0-20km zone more often reported completely lacking clothing and heating NFIs (26%) compared to those living in the 21-50km zone (17%).

​

• In both zones, IDP households are more likely to lack entirely essential NFIs, compared to non-displaced households in the same zone.

Chernihivska

Sumska

Zaporizka

Mykolaivska

Kharkivska

Dnipropetrovska

HHs completely lacking essential NFIs, by type and distance from frontline/border (n=2795)

Percentage of households in need and extreme need due to missing Shelter NFIs, by distance from the frontline/border

Shelter - Electricity and Heating

Donetska

Khersonska

Chernihivska

Sumska

Zaporizka

Mykolaivska

Kharkivska

Dnipropetrovska

HHs reporting issues with electricity, by distance from frontline/border (n=2803)

HHs reporting utility interruptions (excl. electricity), by distance from frontline/border (n=2803)

• Households living in Khersonska (10%), Donetska (9%), and Sumska (6%) more frequently report lacking electricity, and having no heating last winter.

​

• HHs living in the 0-20km zone more often report having issues with supply/strength of electricity (56%), compared to those living in 21-50km zone (36%)

​

• In the 0-20km zone, households more often report utility interruptions (water supply, internet, sewage, heating) compared to those living in the 21-50km zone

Percentage of households in need and extreme need in Electricity and Heating dimension, by distance from the frontline/border

WASH - Drinking Water Quality

Donetska

Khersonska

Chernihivska

Sumska

Zaporizka

Mykolaivska

Kharkivska

Dnipro-petrovska

• Households living in Donetska (25%), Zaporizka (22%), and Mykolaivska (16%) more frequently report issues with the quality of drinking water, e.g. unimproved water sources or the water quality is not acceptable, and the household cannot treat the water.

​

• HHs living in the 0-20km zone and in the 21-50 km zone equally report issues with drinking water quality (16%).

​

• Urbanity and distance from the frontline impact households’ main source of drinking water: tap drinking water and bottled water are more common in urban areas, while protected wells and springs are more common in rural areas. Trucked-in water is common in rural areas in the 0-20km zone.

HHs by main source of drinking water, by urbanity and distance from frontline/border (n=2812)

Percentage of households in need and extreme need in drinking water quality, by distance from the frontline/border

Education needs

Needs in the education sector are driven by education disruption events:

​

In the 50km zone:

• 62% of households with school-aged children reported that the education of the children was disrupted by prolonged/repetitive air alerts

​

• 6% of the school-aged children had their education disrupted by displacement/evacuation/return

​

• 5% of the school-aged children had their education disrupted by school damage

Zaporizka

Sumska

Mykolaivska

Kharkivska

Percentage of school-aged children (3-17 y.o) by reasons for not attending school in 2024-2025, within the 0-50km zone (n=38)

Percentage of households with children with Education needs, by distance from the frontline/border

Accountability to affected populations

Households reporting challenges, by type of support they would like to receive and distance from frontline/border (n=1537)

Households by last time aid was received, by distance from frontline/border (n=2813)

Households reporting barriers to access aid, by type and distance from frontline/border (n=2812)

• Households living in the 0-20km zone and 21-50 km zone report similar preferred types of assistance (predominantly cash, food, healthcare) and modalities (mostly cash assistance).

​

• Households living in 0-20km are more likely to report needing fuel sources (16%) versus households in the 21-50km zone (7%)

​

• Households living in the 0-20km zone are more likely to have recently received aid.

​

• Households in both zones report similar prevalence of information, availability, and eligibility barriers.

Zoom on oblast center: Kharkiv

• The top dimensions of need in Kharkiv are (i) utilization of coping strategies, (ii) HLP concerns, and (iii) missing NFIs.

​

• In terms of extreme needs, specific attention should be given to health needs, with an indication of households with members with chronic conditions unable to access medication.

Percentage of households in need and extreme need in Kharkiv, by sector and dimension (n=149)

Any questions?

Carla.curreli@impact-initiatives.org

Mackenzie.seaman@impact-initiatives.org

Response Planning Timeline

104

Frontline response concept DRAFT

Food Security

Frontline Response Multisectoral Packages

1. Lifesaving Health & Protection for Frontline Communities
2. Critical Support to Enable Access to Dignified, Safe Housing & Essential Services
3. Frontline Household & Livelihood Support

Packages complement each other: acute life-saving → service continuity → household & livelihood support

Activity Distribution

Strategic Objective Alignment

Questions for clusters to ask themselves as they finalize the matrix�

• For my cluster, is entry point (life-saving) clear enough?
• Are we integrating sectoral cash/voucher or MPCA where feasible, or defaulting to in-kind?
• Does our package show a logical flow (P1 → P2 → P3) for the same activity (where relevant), or do we “jump in and out” without continuity? (e.g., (P1) MH/PSS services, (P2) MHGaP/Facility Support (P3) Vouchers for specialized care)
• Are there cross-cluster dependencies (e.g., Protection referrals into Health, WASH enabling Health and Education) that need to be explicitly designed, not just assumed?

​

SPWG #1: Frontline response��22 September 2025 ��Meeting n.6

110

SPWG #1 MEETING N.7 OUTLINE

SPWG #1 Frontline response Progress

HSM 0–50 km – key needs, trends & geographic differentiation to June 2025 (REACH)

IDP needs 21–50 km zone (REACH)

​

01

02

03

Any Other Business (AOB)

04

Timeline & Deliverables

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

2026 Humanitarian Needs & Response Plan �Strategic Priority 1: Frontline Response�

Aug-Dec 2025

150

Strategic Priorities (recommendations)

SP #1 Frontline Response

• Scope: Populations within 0–50 km of the frontline face collapsed services and extreme vulnerability.–20 km zone (daily shelling, FPV drones, no services) – all affected. In 21–50 km, needs vary by exposure, with highest risk for those who stay despite danger (elderly, children, PwD, chronically ill).
• Response adapts by zone; high-risk missions and remote delivery in 0–20 km; mixed fixed/mobile/preparedness in 21–50 km. Overlaps reflect cyclical displacement and evolving needs, with populations counted by exposure. SP1 balances people’s choice to remain with active risk mitigation.
• Some cities (e.g., Kherson, Sumy, Kharkiv, Zaporizhzhia, Mykolaiv) may require separate analysis.

​

SP #2 Evacuations

• Scope: Organized evacuations (humanitarian/state-led), people from occupied territories, plus vulnerable self-evacuees
• Geographic Coverage: Countrywide, prioritizing newly displaced IDPs wherever identified
• Vulnerability Focus: All organized evacuees + occupied territory IDPs included; only vulnerable self-evacuees targeted

​

SP #3 Airstrikes

• Focus: Address immediate needs of civilians affected by damage, service disruption, or institutional breakdown
• Geographical scope: Triggered when strikes exceed local/state response and community coping capacity
• Emergency response packages capped at 3 months, with immediate rollout within days

​

SP #4 Support to vulnerable IDPs

• Focus: Humanitarian support for vulnerable IDPs left behind by government systems, not requiring new displacement-related emergency aid
• Response: Transitional Support Package linking vulnerable IDPs to government services and reducing reliance on humanitarian aid
• Geographic Scope: Needs-based, wherever vulnerable IDPs reside (excluding 20km frontline radius); prioritization through individual protection assessments, including “islands of vulnerability”
• Sectors: Limited to a few key areas (e.g., Protection, Health, Education, Shelter) as sectors transition toward recovery and development

​

​

151

SP #1 Frontline Response Linkages with other Strategic Priorities (recommendations)

152

Cash in the 2026 HNRP

153

(HCT)

SP #1 Frontline response (Health example)

Frontline response concept DRAFT

Next steps

• Clusters to create 1 slide with their proposed response packages including cash using the provided template
• Using activities already approved for the 2026 HNRP
• SPWG #1 to compile and present in the next Frontline response meeting

156

SP #1 Frontline response CLUSTER/SECTOR

SPWG #1: Frontline response��01 September 2025 ��Meeting n.4

158

Meeting Outline

Timeline & Deliverables

Shock-based Boundary Setting�

Recommendations on Protection-oriented Frontline Programming (Protection)

01

02

03

Next Steps

AOB

04

05

Timeline & Deliverables

160

Shock-based Boundary Setting�

Gov of Ukraine

Strategic Priorities Working Groups Narrative Template

�

NEXT STEPS

Strategic Priority Working Group #1: Frontline response

~ Place-based response in sustained high-risk zones ~

4. Vulnerability Criteria
1. The frontline population within 0 to 50 km is considered affected (vulnerable) by the conflict, with 0 to 30 km automatically classified as most affected (most vulnerable) due to extreme conditions.
2. SPWG#1 with REACH FPs will select relevant 2025 NDCA indicators to further refine targeting for 2026.
3. Further clarify terminology around "vulnerable" versus "needs" and how these relate to PIN and targeting

​

​

​

​

3. Delineation or overlaps with other strategic priorities�

Scope by modality

• 0–20 km: Short/high-risk missions, mobile teams, or remote modalities
• 21–50 km: Mix of fixed and mobile services, serving residents + displaced

​

Who

• Populations who remain including elderly, children, disabled, chronically ill
• Overlaps with evacuees/IDPs through cyclical displacement

​

Delineation principle

• Place-based in sustained risk (frontline), not triggered by events (strikes), movement (evacuations), or displacement status (IDPs)

​

Overlap realities

• Cyclical displacement: Same people move between frontline, evacuation, and IDP phases multiple times
• Count by exposure, not labels: 0–30 km = all vulnerable; 31–50 km = refine by indicators
• One person, many phases: Needs change over time — requiring different interventions as people remain, evacuate, or resettle

​

5. Key questions for HCT guidance or common position�

• 0–20 km risk posture: How do we balance the rights and needs of those who remain with evacuation imperatives versus humanitarian mandate to deliver?
• Accounting rule for PiN/People Reached: Flexibility in a sector-based, harmonized person-centric approach that counts one individual across different experiences of the war (remaining, evacuating, displaced, returning)?
• Response to strikes: Should responses to strikes within the frontline (0–50 km) be considered part of SP #1 Frontline response?

Frontline response concept DRAFT

Recommendations on Protection-Oriented �Frontline Programming ��Protection Cluster

166

дякую вам! 

167

2026 Humanitarian Needs & Response Plan �Strategic Priority 1: Frontline Response�

Aug-Dec 2025

168

SPWG 1: FL Response�Mtg n.03 18 Aug 2025

169

Outstanding Issues for the 19 Aug ICCG

• Defined the Scope and Distinctive Features of the Frontline Response: SPWG1 clearly articulated what sets Strategic Priority 1 apart from other response areas, including its focus on high-risk zones within 0–50 km of the front line, entrenched structural vulnerabilities (e.g. repeated attacks on infrastructure), response modality, and the unique population profile (e.g. elderly, disabled, chronically unwell, isolated civilians unwilling/unable to evacuate). This clarity is foundational to planning and targeting.
• Treatment of Food Insecurity in the SDR: There is concern about treating food insecurity solely as a crosscutting issue—potentially under livelihoods, socioeconomic factors, or both—rather than maintaining it as a standalone category within the SDR. This risks diluting the severity of the situation in frontline areas, where food insecurity was previously classified as catastrophic or emergency in the HNRP.
• Approach to Evacuation Figures in PiN Calculations: There is consensus that people frequently evacuate and then return, creating overlapping caseloads. A shared approach is needed to ensure this dynamic is reflected and responded to in the other SPs as a protection concern first, then as a matter of efficiencies. 
• Flexible Targeting Based on Delivery Modality, Not Population Labels: Individuals frequently shift between frontline resident, evacuee, and IDP. SPWG1 recommends that targeting and response planning be based on activity type (recognizing that the type of response will differ according to the situation of the person, and delivery modality), not rigid categories. This would better reflect the fluid reality of affected populations.
• Recognition of Operational Constraints in 0–20 km Zone: While the 0–20 km zone is where severity is highest, direct access and sustained delivery remain extremely limited. A common approach is needed to link response planning in the 21–50 km zone to the unmet needs of populations sheltering closer to the frontline.

​

170

Vulnerability Criteria

171

Next steps: Validation Needs Profile (Deliverable 1) & Vulnerability Criteria – 02 Sep 2025

SPWG 1: FL Response

• Mtg n.01 04 Aug 2025
• Mtg n.02 11 Aug 2025

​

172

173

Humanitarian Needs & Response Plans (2022-2025)

Timeline to Issue Based Response

2026 HNRP Planning Assumptions

175

2026 HNRP Strategic Priority Working Groups

SPWG TOR

• Define needs profiles and vulnerability criteria
• Propose response packages and delivery modalities
• Identify overlaps across strategic priorities and modalities
• Generate validated inputs for ICCG/HCT consultation
• Produce consolidated packages for peer review and eventual HC endorsement

​

176

HNRP 2026 Working Groups

177

SPWGs (Strategic Priority Working Groups)

• Time-bound groups under ICCG to develop issue-based response packages aligned with four strategic priorities: frontline support, evacuations, post-strike response, and vulnerable IDPs.
• Primary penholders for defining scope, activities, inter-cluster linkages, and cross-cutting issues.
• Prepare narrative inputs for ICCG and HCT.

​

DCG (Data Coordination Group)

• Permanent group that coordinates assessment and monitoring efforts.
• Provides PiN, severity, joint analysis, and evidence base for SPWGs and HCT decisions.
• Co-chaired by OCHA, IOM-DTM, and REACH.

​

HNRP Analysis Group (Sector-Based Working Group)

• Coordination body ensuring coherence across all SPWG outputs.
• Reviews content alignment with strategic framing, flags duplication or gaps, and guides cross-priority consistency.
• Led by OCHA, not a drafting body.

HNRP WGs Interaction and Output Dependency

178