South Sudan

Presence Country
September 2019

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.

September 2019

October 2019 - January 2020

IPC v3.0 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.
Key Messages
  • According to the August 2019 IPC analysis, Crisis (IPC Phase 3) and Emergency (IPC Phase 4) outcomes remain pervasive in South Sudan, but the proportion of the population experiencing Crisis (IPC Phase 3) or worse outcomes during the May-August lean season slightly declined from 59 percent in 2018 to 54 percent in 2019. An estimated 6.35 million people faced Crisis (IPC Phase 3) or worse outcomes at the July-August peak of the lean season in the presence of humanitarian assistance. Of greatest concern is Yirol East county of Lakes state, where an estimated 10,000 people are in Catastrophe (IPC Phase 5). Food security is expected to seasonally improve in several areas with the availability of the main harvest through January, but Crisis (IPC Phase 3) outcomes or worse will likely remain prevalent. A risk of Famine (IPC Phase 5) will continue to persist in areas already classified in Crisis (IPC Phase 3) or worse.

  • Humanitarian food assistance continues to prevent more extreme outcomes in parts of Greater Upper Nile, Greater Bahr el Ghazal, and Western Equatoria. However, despite lower conflict events and improvements in humanitarian access, the number of beneficiaries reached with humanitarian food assistance has declined since May. Assistance continues to remain below the estimated need and is slightly lower than the same time last year.

  • Food security improvements through January are expected to be facilitated by the decline in conflict events and driven by similar to slightly better crop production compared to 2018. The decline in conflict has facilitated some improvements in trade flows and household movement, which is permitting greater engagement in livelihoods activities, access to markets, and seasonal declines in food prices. In areas where households lost crops to flooding or did not plant and where households still face limited access to markets or food assistance, Emergency (IPC Phase 4) outcomes are expected to endure, as will a risk of Famine (IPC Phase 5).

  • Despite the decline in conflict and anticipated improvement in food security, many households have lost key livelihood assets and coping strategies as a result of the protracted conflict. Consequently, high levels of acute food insecurity and a risk of Famine (IPC Phase 5) will persist. Based on past trends, Famine (IPC Phase 5) would be likely if conflict shifts and prevents populations from moving in search of food sources or restricts humanitarian access for a prolonged period of time. In order to sustain long-term food security improvements and end the risk of Famine (IPC Phase 5), full implementation of the September 2018 peace deal, an end to the conflict by all parties, and a scale-up of assistance is needed.  

Livelihoods

Livelihood Zone Map
Seasonal Monitoring Calendar

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