Nigeria

Presence Country
November 2018

IPC 2.0 Acute Food Insecurity Phase

1: Minimal
2: Stressed
3: Crisis
4: Emergency
5: Famine
Concentration of displaced people
Would likely be at least one phase worse without current or programmed humanitarian assistance
Food security outcomes for displaced populations would likely be at least one phase worse without current or programmed humanitarian assistance.FEWS NET classification is IPC-compatible. IPC-compatible analysis follows key IPC protocols but does not necessarily reflect the consensus of national food security partners.

IPC 2.0 Acute Food Insecurity Phase

1: Minimal
2: Stressed
3+: Crisis or higher
Would likely be at least one phase worse without
current or programmed humanitarian assistance
FEWS NET classification is IPC-compatible. IPC-compatible analysis follows key IPC protocols but does not necessarily reflect the consensus of national food security partners.
FEWS NET Remote Monitoring countries use a colored outline to represent the highest IPC classification in areas of concern.

IPC 2.0 Acute Food Insecurity Phase

Presence countries:
1: Minimal
2: Stressed
3: Crisis
4: Emergency
5: Famine
Concentration of displaced people
Remote monitoring
countries:
1: Minimal
2: Stressed
3+: Crisis or higher
Would likely be at least one phase worse without
current or programmed humanitarian assistance
FEWS NET Remote Monitoring countries use a colored outline to represent the highest IPC classification in areas of concern.

CIF 2.0 Fase de Insegurida d Alimentaria Aguda

1: Minimo
2: Acentuada
3: Crisis
4: Emergencia
5: Hambruna
Concentración de personas desplazadas
Se estima que seria al menos una fase peor sin ayuda humanitaria actual o programada
Los resultados de la seguridad alimentaria de las personas desplazadas serian al menos una fase peor sin ayuda humanitaria actual o programadaLa manera de clasificación que utiliza FEWS NET es compatible con la CIF. Un análisisque es compatible con la CIF sigue los protocolos fundamentales de CIF pero nonecesariamente refleja el consenso de los socios nacionales en materia de seguridad alimentaria.

CIF 2.0 Fase de Insegurida d Alimentaria Aguda

1: Minimo
2: Acentuada
3+: Crisis o peor
Se estima que seria al menos una fase
peor sin ayuda humanitaria actual o programada
La manera de clasificación que utiliza FEWS NET es compatible con la CIF. Un análisisque es compatible con la CIF sigue los protocolos fundamentales de CIF pero nonecesariamente refleja el consenso de los socios nacionales en materia de seguridad alimentaria.
Para los países de Monitoreo Remoto, FEWS NET utiliza un contorno de color en el mapa CIF que representa la clasificación más alta de CIF en las áreas de preocupación.

CIF 2.0 Fase de Insegurida d Alimentaria Aguda

Países presenciales:
1: Minimo
2: Acentuada
3: Crisis
4: Emergencia
5: Hambruna
Concentración de personas desplazadas
Países de monitoreo remoto:
1: Minimo
2: Acentuada
3+: Crisis o peor
Se estima que seria al menos una fase
peor sin ayuda humanitaria actual o programada
Para los países de Monitoreo Remoto, FEWS NET utiliza un contorno de color en el mapa CIF que representa la clasificación más alta de CIF en las áreas de preocupación.

IPC 2.0 Phase d'Insécurité Alimentaire Aiguë

1: Minimale
2: Stress
3: Crise
4: Urgence
5: Famine
Concentration de personnes déplacées
Serait probablement pire, au moins une phase, sans l'assistance humanitaire en cours ou programmée
Les résultats de la sécurité alimentaire concernant les personnes déplacées serait probablement pire, au moins une phase, sans l'assistance humanitaire en cours ou programméeLa manière de classification que FEWS NET utilise est compatible avec l’IPC. Une analyse qui est compatible avec l’IPC suit les principaux protocoles de l’IPC mais ne reflète pas nécessairement le consensus des partenaires nationaux en matière de sécurité alimentaire.

IPC 2.0 Phase d'Insécurité Alimentaire Aiguë

1: Minimale
2: Stress
3+: Crise ou pire
Serait probablement pire, au moins une phase, sans
l'assistance humanitaire en cours ou programmée
La manière de classification que FEWS NET utilise est compatible avec l’IPC. Une analyse qui est compatible avec l’IPC suit les principaux protocoles de l’IPC mais ne reflète pas nécessairement le consensus des partenaires nationaux en matière de sécurité alimentaire.
Pour les pays suivis à distance par FEWS NET, un contour coloré est utilisé pour représenter la classification de l’IPC la plus élevée dans les zones de préoccupation.

IPC 2.0 Phase d'Insécurité Alimentaire Aiguë

Pays de présence:
1: Minimale
2: Stress
3: Crise
4: Urgence
5: Famine
Concentration de personnes déplacées
Pays suivis à distance:
1: Minimale
2: Stress
3+: Crise ou pire
Serait probablement pire, au moins une phase, sans
l'assistance humanitaire en cours ou programmée
Pour les pays suivis à distance par FEWS NET, un contour coloré est utilisé pour représenter la classification de l’IPC la plus élevée dans les zones de préoccupation.

CIF 2.0 Fase de Insegurança Alimentar Aguda Baseado

1: Minima
2: Stress
3: Crise
4: Emergência
5: Fome
Concentração de pessoas deslocadas
Poderia ser pior sem a assistência humanitária em vigor ou programad
Os resultados da segurança alimentar para as populações deslocadas provavelmente seriam pelo menos uma fase pior no IPC, na ausência da assistência humanitária atual ou programada.A maneira de classificação que utiliza FEWS NET é compatível com a CIF. A análise compatível com a CIF segue os protocolos fundamentais da CIF mas não necessariamente reflete o consenso dos parceirosnacionais com respeito a segurança alimentar.

CIF 2.0 Fase de Insegurança Alimentar Aguda Baseado

1: Minima
2: Stress
3+: Crise ou pior
Poderia ser pior sem a assistência
humanitária em vigor ou programad
A maneira de classificação que utiliza FEWS NET é compatível com a CIF. A análise compatível com a CIF segue os protocolos fundamentais da CIF mas não necessariamente reflete o consenso dos parceirosnacionais com respeito a segurança alimentar.
Para os países de Monitoreo Remoto, FEWS NET utiliza um contorno de cor no mapa CIF para representar a classificação mais alta da CIF nas áreas de preocupação.

CIF 2.0 Fase de Insegurança Alimentar Aguda Baseado

Países com presença:
1: Minima
2: Stress
3: Crise
4: Emergência
5: Fome
Concentração de pessoas deslocadas
Países sem presença:
1: Minima
2: Stress
3+: Crise ou pior
Poderia ser pior sem a assistência
humanitária em vigor ou programad
Para os países de Monitoreo Remoto, FEWS NET utiliza um contorno de cor no mapa CIF para representar a classificação mais alta da CIF nas áreas de preocupação.

November 2018 - January 2019

Most of the country is in phase 1. Parts of Zamfara, Katsina, Plateau, Nasarawa, Benue, Taraba Yobe and Adamawa are in Phase 2. Borno is in phases 3 and 4.

February - May 2019

Most of the country is in phase 1. Parts of Zamfara, Katsina, Plateau, Nasarawa, Benue, Taraba Yobe and Adamawa are in Phase 2. Borno is in phases 3 and 4.

IPC 2.0 Acute Food Insecurity Phase

1: Minimal
2: Stressed
3: Crisis
4: Emergency
5: Famine
Concentration of displaced people
Elevated Risk of Famine - Phase 5 cannot be confirmed nor disproven with available evidence
Would likely be at least one phase worse without current or programmed humanitarian assistance
FEWS NET classification is IPC-compatible. IPC-compatible analysis follows key IPC protocols but does not necessarily reflect the consensus of national food security partners.
Key Messages
  • In late November, intensified attacks by insurgents on military checkpoints, worship centers and population have resulted in increased fatalities and displacement in the northeast. Crop harvest, livestock grazing, markets and other livelihood activities remain disrupted and dry season activities will likely remain substantially below average. Most affected populations are facing Crisis (IPC Phase 3) and Emergency (IPC Phase 4) outcomes. Areas that remain inaccessible to humanitarian actors are likely facing similar or worse outcomes relative to adjoining areas.

  • IOM Round 25 assessment report covering October 1 through 20 identifies 2,026,602 across the six northeast states of Nigeria, with five percent increase to the previous round. Almost 90 percent of the IDPs were in Adamawa, Borno and Yobe states. Borno state, continue to host the highest IDPs population (1,475,605) in Nigeria. 

  • As at 29th October 2018, the NCDC reported a total of 42,466 suspected cholera cases including 830 deaths across 20 states. Flooding has receded in most areas but remains concerning in Bayelsa and Rivers states. Additionally, the herder/farmer conflict remains active throughout the country resulting in increased fatalities and threatening the ongoing main harvest in affected areas. 

  • Favorable crop harvest is underway in most areas outside northeast Nigeria. Most households are consuming own food as market and household stocks increases and market demand declines. Thus, staple food prices are stable or declining as labor opportunities relatively increased. Consequently, most areas are facing Minimal (IPC Phase 1) outcomes, except households impacted by the herders/farmers conflict and flooding, are facing Stressed (IPC Phase 2) outcomes.

Weather, Climate, and Agriculture

Seasonal Calendar

About FEWS NET

The Famine Early Warning Systems Network is a leading provider of early warning and analysis on food insecurity. Created by USAID in 1985 to help decision-makers plan for humanitarian crises, FEWS NET provides evidence-based analysis on some 34 countries. Implementing team members include NASA, NOAA, USDA, and USGS, along with Chemonics International Inc. and Kimetrica. Read more about our work.

USAID logoUSGS logoUSDA logo
NASA logoNOAA logoKimetrica logoChemonics logo