Nigeria

Presence Country
November 2019

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. FEWS NET only maps the Eastern half of DRC.

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
Not mapped
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. FEWS NET presenta el mapa para el este de la RDC solamente.

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
Sin mapa
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. FEWS NET ne cartographie que l’est de la RDC.

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
Non cartographié
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. FEWS NET mapeia apenas a metade leste da RDC.

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
Não mapeado
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.

November 2019 - January 2020

Map of Projected food security outcomes, October 2019 to January 2020: Most of country in Minimal (IPC Phase 1), Areas of the northwest, central east, and Yobe state of the northeast in Stressed (IPC Phase 2), Areas of the northeast in Crisis (IPC Phase 3

February - May 2020

Map of Projected food security outcomes, February to May 2020: Most of country in Minimal (IPC Phase 1), Areas of the northwest, central east are in Stressed (IPC Phase 2), Areas of the northeast in Crisis (IPC Phase 3) and Emergency (IPC Phase 4) with th

IPC v3.0 Acute Food Insecurity Phase

1: Minimal
2: Stressed
3: Crisis
4: Emergency
5: Famine
Concentration of displaced people
Elevated Risk of Famine - Phase 5 cannot be confirmed nor disproven with available evidence
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
  • Humanitarian food assistance declined from July to September 2019 across Borno, Adamawa and Yobe states and food assistance provisions in September 2019 are 36 percent lower than at the same time last year. Recent IOM report reveals a five percent increase in the displaced population and food assistance needs remain elevated at about 73 percent since the previous year. Combined with restricted livelihood opportunities, populations in conflict-affected areas of the northeast are facing Crisis (IPC Phase 3) and Emergency (IPC Phase 4) outcomes. Population in inaccessible areas are likely facing similar or worse outcomes relative to adjoining accessible areas.

  • Armed banditry and kidnapping in Katsina, Sokoto and Zamfara states, as well as communal conflict in the central states (Plateau, Benue, Nasarawa, Niger, Kaduna and Taraba) persist. Recent attacks by bandits in parts of Gumi and Gusau LGAs of Zamfara state on November 17 and 18 led to the displacement of over 6,400 persons, 14 casualties, and destruction of shelters and properties. As a result, affected households in worse affected areas of these states are experiencing Stressed (IPC Phase 2).

  • The most recent IOM-ETT report covering November 4 to 10 revealed a total of 1,626 population movements within the period, which were composed of 1,264 arrivals and 362 departures from and to various locations in the northeast. Arrivals consisted of 233 persons in Ngala, 128 persons in Askira, and 116 individuals in Bama LGA, in Borno state. 108 others arrived in Ganye LGA of Adamawa state. At least 100 refugees mainly from Cameroon and Niger also arrived Nigeria within the same period. Most of these arrivals are due mainly to poor living conditions, improved security and voluntary relocations.

  • The main harvests of cereals, tubers and legumes are underway across the country and are providing increased food access, labor, and income opportunities. Household food stocks and market supplies are increasing as a result and are leading to relatively lower household demand at markets and a gradual decline in staple prices. As a result, over 80 percent of the households in less conflict and flood prone areas of the country are experiencing Minimal (IPC Phase 1) outcomes.

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, and USGS, along with Chemonics International Inc. and Kimetrica. Read more about our work.

USAID logoUSGS logoUSDA logo
NASA logoNOAA logoKimetrica logoChemonics logo