Ethiopia

Presence Country
April 2022

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
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: Mínima
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
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
Concentración de personas desplazadas
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
Concentration de personnes déplacées
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
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
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.

April - May 2022

June - September 2022

IPC v3.0 Acute Food Insecurity Phase

1: Minimal
2: Stressed
3: Crisis
4: Emergency
5: Famine
Outcomes may be worse than mapped, but available evidence is insufficient to confirm or deny
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 Tigray, although some improvement in humanitarian access has led to around 3,400 MT of assistance entering Tigray in April, millions of households still face extreme difficulty accessing sufficient food. Available information from key informants suggests some households are engaging in severe coping strategies, such as begging and migrating in search of food, notably to Amhara. At a minimum, Emergency (IPC Phase 4) outcomes exist in Tigray, with households in Catastrophe (IPC Phase 5). It is possible outcomes are worse, but given access constraints, information is insufficient to confirm or deny this. In bordering areas of Amhara and Afar, Emergency (IPC Phase 4) outcomes are expected to persist as households have minimal access to food and income, notably among displaced populations. 

  • Very limited rainfall and hot temperatures mark the ongoing March to May gu/genna season in southern and southeastern areas. Pasture and water availability are minimal, and regional government reports suggest increasing livestock deaths, low livestock milk production, and decreasing livestock values in markets. According to regional and zonal governments in southern and southeastern pastoral areas, over 2.2 million livestock died between October and mid-April. With limited access to livestock for sale, pastoralists across these areas face extreme constraints in purchasing sufficient food, leading to wide consumption gaps. Emergency (IPC Phase 4) outcomes are widespread, with some populations in Catastrophe (IPC Phase 5). If humanitarian assistance is limited and the gu/genna season fails, more extreme outcomes are possible. Forecast models and research conducted by FEWS NET science partners also indicate an increased likelihood of a below-average October to December deyr/hageya season, which would constitute an unprecedented fifth consecutive below-average season.

  • February to May belg rainfall started over a month late and has been significantly below-average, negatively affecting land preparation and planting activities. According to regional governments, as of April, the area planted is around 60 percent below average across belg areas of Sidama, SNNP, and Amhara regions. As a result, 2022 belg production is likely to be delayed by at least a month and significantly below average, driving an atypically long lean season in belg-dependent areas. Furthermore, the poor belg rainfall has reduced land preparation and planting of long maturing meher crops. 

  • Food prices, notably for staple food and cooking oil, have significantly increased, associated with poor macroeconomic conditions and the war in Ukraine. According to the Central Statistical Agency (CSA), annual inflation in March was 34.9 percent, 14.3 points percentage higher than in March 2021. While the government is likely to continue subsidizing many imported staple foods and fuel, this is not expected to stabilize prices. While livestock prices are expected to remain near or somewhat above average due to inflationary market pressures, food prices will continue to increase, driving declining terms of trade. 

Food Security

Ethiopia Food Security Classification (April 2022 - September 2022)

Near term (April 2022 - May 2022) food security outcomes and forward-looking analysis representing the most likely food security outcomes for medium term (June 2022 - September 2022) periods.

Downloads

Livelihoods

Livelihoods Zone Narrative

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