East Africa

February 2020

IPC 2.0 Acute Food Insecurity Phase

1: Minimal
2: Stressed
3: Crisis
4: Emergency
5: Famine
Not mapped
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
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
Not mapped
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 only maps the Eastern half of DRC.
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
Sin mapa
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: 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
Parques y reservas
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
Sin mapa
La manera de clasificación que utiliza FEWS NET es compatible con la CIF. Un análisis que es compatible con la CIF sigue los protocolos fundamentales de CIF pero no necesariamente refleja el consenso de los socios nacionales en materia de seguridad alimentaria. FEWS NET presenta el mapa para el este de la RDC solamente.
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
Non cartographié
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
Parcs et Réserves
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
Non cartographié
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. FEWS NET ne cartographie que l’est de la RDC.
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
Não mapeado
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
Parques e reservas
Países sem presença:
1: Minima
2: Stress
3+: Crise ou pior
Poderia ser pior sem a assistência humanitária em vigor ou programad
Não mapeado
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 parceiros nacionais com respeito a segurança alimentar. FEWS NET mapeia apenas a metade leste da RDC.
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 2020

February - May 2020

IPC v3.0 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
Not mapped
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 continues to monitor food security conditions in areas mapped in gray.
FEWS NET Remote Monitoring countries use a colored outline to represent the highest IPC classification in areas of concern.
Key Messages
  • Crisis (IPC Phase 3) or worse outcomes persist in several areas of the East Africa region due to protracted conflict, macroeconomic shocks, and ongoing recovery from recent drought and floods. Food insecurity also remains high among the internally displaced population, who number more than 12 million people and are located in Yemen, South Sudan, Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Burundi. The severity of food insecurity remains highest in Yemen and South Sudan, where Emergency (IPC Phase 4) outcomes are present. In South Sudan, the January 2020 IPC concluded that Catastrophic (IPC Phase 5) outcomes are likely in Akobo, Duk, and Ayod counties of Jonglei state, where some households that faced multiple shocks were cut off from food and income sources by severe floods for a prolonged period of time.

  • The desert locust upsurge is driving heightened concern for crop and livestock production in the March to June 2020 season and impacts on food security in the latter half of 2020. Ecological conditions have been favorable to the pests’ spread and control measures have been largely inadequate, permitting their proliferation in Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, and Sudan and their arrival in northeastern Uganda and southeastern South Sudan. Although there were no large-scale, adverse effects on food security in the late 2019/early 2020 production season, it is currently anticipated that desert locust will drive crop losses in marginal agricultural areas and pasture loss in pastoral areas in 2020 – particularly in areas where the concentration of desert locust is high and control measures are minimal. Areas of greatest concern include southern and central Somalia, Somali region of Ethiopia, and northeastern Kenya, where insecurity limits efforts to carry out aerial spraying of pesticides.

  • Macroeconomic shocks, including severe depreciation or rapid devaluation of local currencies, foreign exchange deficits, and high inflation rates, continue to drive well above-average food and fuel prices in early 2020 in Yemen, South Sudan, Sudan, and Ethiopia. In December and January, staple cereal and fuel prices reached up to 320 percent above the five-year averages in each country, with Sudan experiencing the highest price increases at 150-320 percent above average. Low fuel imports in Yemen, large national cereal deficits in Sudan and South Sudan, and poorly functioning markets in conflict-affected areas are additional contributing factors that have driven sharp increases in food commodity prices. As a result, household purchasing power and food access among poor and conflict-affected households is highly constrained, leading to food consumption gaps indicative of Crisis (IPC Phase 3) or worse outcomes.

  • The Greater Horn of Africa Climate Outlook, supported by the multi-model ensemble forecast models, predicts elevated odds of above-average March to May 2020 rainfall performance over most of the East Africa region, except in parts of northeastern Ethiopia. On the one hand, the rainfall forecast is favorable for the consolidation of food security gains, driving enhanced production in breadbasket areas where relatively colder temperatures are less conducive to locusts, increased demand for agricultural labor, and suppressed resource-based conflict. On the other hand, there is an increased likelihood of additional breeding of locusts in warmer marginal agricultural and pastoral areas, increased incidence of vector and water-borne diseases, and flooding in areas already inundated by the previous season’s heavy rains. A scale-up in desert locust control efforts and enhanced flood-response preparedness are necessary to prevent the reversal of recent food security gains.

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 some 28 countries. Implementing team members include NASA, NOAA, USDA, USGS, and CHC-UCSB, along with Chemonics International Inc. and Kimetrica. Read more about our work.

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