Kenia

País donde estamos presentes
Enero 2020

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: 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
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
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
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.

Enero 2020

Febrero - Mayo 2020

CIF v3.0 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
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.
Mensajes clave
  • In January, the ongoing short rains harvest and above-normal gains in livestock sale values and milk productivity are driving widespread improvement to Stressed (IPC Phase 2) outcomes. However, staple food prices remained atypically high in December and households in riverine and low-lying areas are still recovering from extreme rainfall and floods during the short rains season. According to the Government of Kenya, the floods affected about 470,000 people, displaced more than 145,000 people, destroyed more than 10,000 acres of cropland, and resulted in the deaths of 266 people and more than 28,000 heads of livestock. In Tana River, Mandera, Wajir, and West Pokot counties, households in areas that were worst affected by floods likely remain in Crisis (IPC Phase 3).

  • Desert locusts entered Kenya from Somalia through Wajir and Mandera in late December and quickly spread to 15 additional counties (Garissa, Marsabit, Isiolo, Lamu, Meru, Samburu, Laikipia, Kirinyaga, Tana River, Embu, Kitui, Baringo and Machakos). Although the impact on crops and rangelands are relatively limited to date, locusts pose a significant threat to ongoing cash crop production and the cereal production season that begins in February and March. Together with partners, the national government is implementing aerial control measures to combat the locusts. However, there are access challenges in insecure areas in the northeast. Based on conducive ecological conditions for breeding and spreading, the FAO Locust Watch warns that the infestation is likely to persist through June.

  • In southeastern marginal agricultural areas, green and dry harvests of beans, green grams, cowpeas and pigeon peas are ongoing while maize is nearing maturity. Despite localized crop losses from floods, the maize harvest is likely to range between average to above average on the county level. However, coastal marginal agricultural areas such as Kilifi and Kwale expect a delayed harvest, supported by a forecast of atypical rainfall in January that will be conducive for late crop development. Short-cycle legume production is likely to range from average to below average, given flooding and excessive soil moisture that led to rotting.

  • In pastoral areas, forage conditions and water resources are above normal in most areas, which has generally led to good livestock body conditions, above-average milk production, and a reduction in trekking distances to domestic and livestock water sources. In Isiolo and Marsabit counties, daily household milk production is nearly double the average amounts. In parts of Mandera, however, forage availability is more varied and livestock body conditions are fair as they slowly recover from the preceding drought. 

  • The delayed long rains harvest in western Kenya’s high and medium production areas and low cross border imports continued to drive high staple food prices in many key reference markets in December. Maize prices in urban reference markets were 20-48 percent above the five-year average, while maize prices in most rural markets were 12-55 percent above average. However, maize prices are likely to drop from January through March as harvests from high and medium production areas and marginal agricultural areas reach the market.

  • Livestock prices in most pastoral key reference markets ranged from near average to 42 percent above average in December. Above-average livestock prices are driving gains in household purchasing power despite high maize prices. In Mandera, however, livestock prices were 23 percent below average, attributed in part due to market oversupply as households were seeking income for school fees and in part due to market disruptions caused by insecurity. The goat-to-maize terms of trade were 6-23 percent above average in December, except in Turkana and Mandera where they remained near average and 24 percent below average, respectively.

Mercados y comercio

Observatorio de Precios
Boletines de Precios
Informes sobre el Comercio Transfronterizo

Medios de vida

Livelihoods Zone Narrative

Mapa de zonas de medios de vida

.

About FEWS NET

La Red de Sistemas de Alerta Temprana contra la Hambruna es un proveedor de primera línea de alertas tempranas y análisis sobre la inseguridad alimentaria. Creada por la USAID en 1985 con el fin de ayudar a los responsables de tomar decisiones a prever crisis humanitarias, FEWS NET proporciona análisis asentados en evidencia sobre unos 35 países. Entre los integrantes del equipo ejecutor figuran la NASA, NOAA, USDA y el USGS, así como Chemonics International Inc. y Kimetrica. Lea más sobre nuestro trabajo.

  • USAID Logo
  • USGS Logo
  • USDA Logo
  • NASA Logo
  • NOAA Logo
  • Kilometra Logo
  • Chemonics Logo