Malawi

Pays où nous sommes présents
Juillet 2020

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: Minimo
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: 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
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
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.

Juillet - Septembre 2020

Octobre 2020 - Janvier 2021

IPC v3.0 Phase d'Insécurité Alimentaire Aiguë

1: Minimale
2: Stress
3: Crise
4: Urgence
5: Famine
Parcs et Réserves
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.
Messages clés
  • Due to an above normal production year, most rural households are experiencing Minimal (IPC Phase 1) outcomes as they consume food from own production and earn income from cash crop sales. However, poor households in urban and peri-urban areas of Blantyre, Zomba, Lilongwe, and Mzuzu continue to face food and income gaps due to disruption of their normal livelihood activities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Given impacts of COVID-19 globally and the general economic slowdown within Malawi, disruptions to typical formal employment, labor availability, and trading are causing many poor households to be earning little or no income. As a result, Crisis (IPC Phase 3) food security outcomes are expected in Malawi’s four major cities.

  • Between June 30 and July 30, 2020, the total COVID-19 caseload in Malawi rose from 1,265 positive cases and 16 associated deaths to 3,858 cases and 107 deaths, with cases also beginning to emerge in rural areas. At the same time, concern is mounting among citizens and among local government authorities, who recently issued revised guidance including reiterating social distancing protocols, suspending mobile markets, and strengthening enforcement of other measures. This is expected to increase constraints in employment, business, and other income-earning activities. Though enforcement ability in rural areas remains limited, increased and prolonged control measures would likely mean prolonged impacts on economic activity and Crisis (IPC Phase 3) outcomes in urban areas past September 2020. 

  • Prices for the maize staple remained stable in June, as per typical seasonal trends, in most of the markets across the country. This is largely due to favorable market supplies from the harvests that took place in the April to June 2020 period. Despite this, maize grain prices in June 2020 were trending between 6 to 43 percent higher than the same time last year and 9 to 41 percent higher than the five-year average. In Mitundu market (the national reference market), prices for maize grain increased 9.8 percent between May and June to reach MWK 163 per kilogram, as traders from other markets and Lilongwe City are buying maize grain in bulk to stock for future sales. Prices at Mitundu market in June were 30 percent higher than the same time last year and 34 percent higher than the five-year average. 

Marchés et commerce

Observatoire des Prix
Bulletins des prix
Bulletin de Commerce Transfrontalier

Production & Trade Flow Maps

Supply and Market Outlook

Enhanced Market Analysis

Moyens d’existence

Livelihoods Zone Narrative

Carte des zones de moyens d'existence

About FEWS NET

Le Réseau des systèmes d’alerte précoce contre la famine est l’un des principaux prestataires d’alertes précoces et d’analyses de l’insécurité alimentaire. Constitué par l’USAID en 1985 pour aider les décideurs à planifier pour les crises humanitaires, FEWS NET fournit des analyses factuelles  concernant quelque 35 pays. Les membres des équipes de mise en œuvre incluent la NASA, la NOAA, le département américain de l ‘Agriculture (USDA) et le gouvernement des États-Unis (USGS), de même que Chemonics International Inc. et Kimetrica. Vous trouverez d’autres informations sur notre travail.

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