Ethiopia

Presence Country
October 2021 to May 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: 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.

October 2021 - January 2022

February - May 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 2022, conflict and drought, coupled with poor macroeconomic conditions, will drive extremely high and persistent food assistance needs. In northern Ethiopia, food insecurity is expected to be most severe, with Extremely Critical levels of acute malnutrition and likely hunger-related mortality concentrated in Tigray. If conflict intensifies, the livelihoods of millions more people will be disrupted, with attendant rises in food insecurity including in typically food secure areas of the country.

  • Many areas of Tigray remain cut off from commercial and humanitarian supplies and agricultural activities, and income for market purchases is low while the de facto humanitarian blockade continues. Displaced populations face significant difficulty accessing food due to low income and limited supplies. As a result, Emergency (IPC Phase 4) outcomes are expected with worst-affected households in Catastrophe (IPC Phase 5). In Tigray, it is possible outcomes are worse than mapped, but evidence is insufficient to confirm or deny. 

  • Conflict continues to spread in Amhara and is occurring at especially high levels in northeastern Amhara. The harvest is ongoing but is estimated to be well below-average and unlikely to lead to significant improvements in food security. In Afar, large-scale livestock losses are substantially limiting households' capacity to earn income. Across both these areas, market functioning is significantly disrupted, reducing access to a vital food source. While some aid has been distributed in areas of Afar, reports indicate that assistance has not been distributed in the last four months to areas of Amhara, particularly North Wollo and Wag Himra zones. In worst-affected areas of both regions, Emergency (IPC Phase 4) outcomes are anticipated with worst-affected populations likely in Catastrophe (IPC Phase 5). In northeastern Amhara, it is possible that more severe outcomes could emerge if conflict restricts harvesting activities even more significantly than currently anticipated, there is prolonged substantial contraction of economic and market activities, and limited assistance reaches populations in need. 

  • In southern and southeastern pastoral areas, October to December deyr/hageya rainfall is delayed and significantly below-average through mid-November. In some areas, rainfall deficits are substantial, marking the driest conditions for October in forty years and a third consecutive poor season. The impacts of drought are already visible, with diminishing pasture and water. Atypical livestock deaths have been reported in some southern areas such as Borena Zone of Oromia egion and Dawa Zone of Somali Region, and minimal to no improvements in livestock conditions are expected through late 2022 given the forecast for a poor March to May gu/gana season. Crisis (IPC Phase 3) outcomes are expected to be widespread, with worst-drought affected areas likely to face Emergency (IPC Phase 4) outcomes starting in February 2022. 

  • While the ongoing meher harvest is improving food access for many households across the country, the harvest is notably below average in areas of SNNPR, central Oromia, and the highlands of East and West Hararghe, and Stressed (IPC Phase 2) and Crisis (IPC Phase 3) outcomes are present in the post-harvest period. On top of conflict and poor rainfall, poor macroeconomic conditions – driven by high government spending and low foreign reserves – are driving food prices higher across the country. High food prices – which are expected to persist throughout 2022 – are further limiting the capacity of many poor households across the country to purchase sufficient food to meet their needs.

  • *The year in which the highest level of humanitarian food assistance needs was recorded between 2014 and 2022, the time frame for which FEWS NET has comparable national needs estimates. Previously, the highest recorded needs were in 2016 following the El-Nino drought.

Food Security

Ethiopia Food Security Classification (October 2021 - May 2022)

Current (October 2021) food security outcomes and forward-looking analysis representing the most likely food security outcomes for the near term (October 2021 - January 2022) and medium term (February 2022 - May 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