East Africa

February 2023

IPC 2.0 Acute Food Insecurity Phase

1: Minimal
2: Stressed
3: Crisis
4: Emergency
5: Famine
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
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: Mínima
2: Acentuada
3: Crisis
4: Emergencia
5: Hambruna
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.

CIF 2.0 Fase de Insegurida d Alimentaria Aguda

1: Mínima
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: Mínima
2: Acentuada
3: Crisis
4: Emergencia
5: Hambruna
Países de monitoreo remoto:
1: Mínima
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
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.

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
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
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.

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
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.

January 2023

February - May 2023

IPC v3.1 Acute Food Insecurity Phase

Presence countries:
1: Minimal
2: Stressed
3: Crisis
4: Emergency
5: Famine
National Parks/Reserves
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
Concentration of displaced people – hover over maps to view food security phase classifications for camps in Somalia, Sudan, and Uganda.
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.
Key Messages
  • A historic, five-season drought, recent and ongoing conflict, and macroeconomic challenges continue to drive high levels of acute food insecurity across the East Africa region and Yemen. Four consecutive years of widespread floods are also contributing to acute food insecurity in South Sudan. The humanitarian emergency in the eastern Horn of Africa remains of highest concern, where Crisis (IPC Phase 3) and Emergency (IPC Phase 4) outcomes are widespread and there are households in Catastrophe (IPC Phase 5). In parts of southern Somalia and parts of southern and south-eastern Ethiopia, humanitarian food assistance is most likely preventing more extreme outcomes. In February, FEWS NET joined humanitarian partners in assessing that the risk of Famine (IPC Phase 5) remains credible in Somalia through at least June 2023 if poor gu rainfall results in crop failure and if humanitarian food assistance is not delivered as planned, specifically in rural areas of Burhakaba district of Bay Region and among the displaced populations in Baidoa and Mogadishu towns.

  • In the Horn of Africa, the October to December 2022 short-rains/deyr rainfall season culminated in a fifth consecutive below-average rainfall season. While rainfall deficits were not as severe as initially forecast, the cumulative impact of drought resulted in significantly below-average January/February 2023 harvests in Somalia and Kenya, including localized instances of crop failure. Livestock deaths continue to be reported in the worst drought-affected locations, and many surviving livestock have unsalable, poor body conditions with low to no milk production. While staple food prices are starting to subside from their peak, staple food prices are still well above average across the region due to national and regional cereal production deficits, together with high food, fuel, and agricultural input prices linked to the Ukraine crisis. Conflict is also contributing to food insecurity, as highlighted by the displacement of 185,000 people in Laas Caanood, Somalia. High levels of humanitarian assistance remain critical to mitigating the severity of food consumption gaps, acute malnutrition, and mortality amid widespread Crisis (IPC Phase 3) and Emergency (IPC Phase 4) outcomes in Somalia, southern and south-eastern Ethiopia, and northern and eastern Kenya. The areas of highest concern include rural areas and IDP settlements in Bay Region and Mogadishu of Somalia; Borena, Afder, Dawa, and Liban zones of Ethiopia; and Turkana and Marsabit counties of Kenya.

  • In northern Ethiopia, the aftermath of the 2020-2022 conflict – which devasted local agricultural production and market systems – continues to result in Crisis (IPC Phase 3) and Emergency (IPC Phase 4) outcomes. However, relative calm has allowed for the expansion of food assistance delivery, with WFP reaching over 535,000 people from late December to late January. As of early February, OCHA reported new areas are becoming accessible in Central, Eastern, and Northwestern zones, but some areas remain inaccessible, primarily those along the Eritrean border. Basic services, including banking, telecommunications, electricity, and transportation services, are also gradually being restored in major towns.

  • In South Sudan and Sudan, conflict, floods, and poor macroeconomic conditions remain key drivers of acute food insecurity. Emergency (IPC Phase 4) outcomes are widespread in conflict- and flood-affected areas of South Sudan, as most households were unable to engage in normal livelihood activities, and market functioning is significantly disrupted. Most recently, conflict between state and non-state armed groups in the Upper Nile-Jonglei border region and inter-communal conflict in Pibor Administrative Areas displaced tens of thousands of people away from their typical cultivation and livestock grazing areas. In southern Unity, several hunger-related deaths have been reported. Meanwhile, in Sudan, many conflict-affected and poor households in Darfur, Blue Nile, Kordofan, Kassala, and Red Sea states continue to face Crisis (IPC Phase 3) outcomes, while Stressed (IPC Phase 2) persist more broadly across the country. While the conclusion of the 2022 main harvest is improving food availability and driving a decline in food prices, cereal prices are expected to remain more than three times the five-year average in the coming months, limiting household purchasing power and access to food among households that primarily purchase their food.

  • The conclusion of the second-season rains and harvests in Uganda, Burundi, and Rwanda, and are largely expected to support Minimal (IPC Phase 1) outcomes; however, poor rainfall performance and high staple food prices are driving Stressed (IPC Phase 2) and Crisis (IPC Phase 3) outcomes in northern Uganda and northern and eastern Burundi. Karamoja, Uganda, is of highest concern, where FEWS NET estimates the late 2022 harvest was 50-80 percent below normal, and around 40 percent of households harvested little to no own-produced stocks. Additionally, insecurity in Karamoja – largely characterized by livestock raids and theft – is disrupting normal livelihood activities, hindering households’ access to crop fields, livestock grazing areas, and markets. In Burundi, households in the Eastern and Northern Lowlands livelihood zones are expected to have food consumption gaps during the April-May lean season due to a locally poor harvest and associated reductions in labor income, coupled with high food prices.

  • In Yemen, the protracted impacts of conflict and the economic crisis are expected to result in widespread Crisis (IPC Phase 3) outcomes, in addition to Emergency (IPC Phase 4) outcomes in Marib and Hajjah. While an informal state of cease-fire is generally holding, an uptick in conflict and displacement in frontline areas was recorded in January. Additionally, oil exports from areas controlled by the internationally-recognized government (IRG) remain on hold due to the threat of drone strikes directed by the Sana’a-based authorities (SBA), contributing to a negative outlook for foreign exchange revenue and, given a heavily import-dependent economy, food and non-food commodity prices. Despite ongoing food assistance, millions of households in Yemen are likely facing food consumption gaps due to significantly above-average food and non-food prices and insufficient income-generating opportunities.

  • Reduced food consumption in terms of both quantity and quality for an extended period is contributing to extremely high levels of acute malnutrition in many areas of the region. This is exacerbated by high disease prevalence and frequent disease outbreaks (diarrhea and measles), limited or disrupted access to health services and sanitation facilities, and sub-optimal maternal and childcare and feeding practices. Recent survey data indicate the prevalence of Global Acute Malnutrition (GAM) exceeds the WHO emergency threshold of 15 percent in many areas in Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Yemen. Moreover, analysis of standard and proxy nutrition survey data confirms or projects the prevalence of Extremely Critical levels (GAM ≥30 percent) in parts of Tigray and southern/south-eastern Ethiopia; parts of Turkana and Marsabit counties and Mandera county in Kenya; and spread in several governorates in Yemen.  

Food Security

East Africa Food Security Classification (December 2022 - May 2023)

Near term (December 2022 - January 2023) food security outcomes and forward-looking analysis representing the most likely food security outcomes for medium term (February 2023 - May 2023) periods.

Downloads

Livelihoods

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 approximately 30 countries. Implementing team members include NASA, NOAA, USDA, USGS, and CHC-UCSB, along with Chemonics International Inc. and Kimetrica.
Learn more About Us.

Link to United States Agency for International Development (USAID)Link to the United States Geological Survey's (USGS) FEWS NET Data PortalLink to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Link to National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Earth ObservatoryLink to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Weather Service, Climage Prediction CenterLink to the Climate Hazards Center - UC Santa BarbaraLink to KimetricaLink to Chemonics