Malawi

País com presença
Março 2019

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.

Março - Maio 2019

Junho - Setembro 2019

Fases de Insegurança Alimentar Aguda baseadas em IPC v3.0

1: Minima
2: Stress
3: Crise
4: Emergência
5: Fome
Parques e reservas
Poderia ser pior sem a assistência humanitária em vigor ou programad
A maneira de classificação que utiliza FEWS NET é compatível com a IPC. A análise compatível com a IPC segue os protocolos fundamentais da IPC mas não necessariamente reflete o consenso dos parceirosnacionais com respeito a segurança alimentar.
As mensagens-chave
  • Heavy rainfall at the beginning of March led to flooding in southern and parts of central Malawi resulting in infrastructure and crop damage, loss of livestock, collapse of houses, and cutting off of roads as well as damage to clean water sources. Preliminary reports indicate over 860,000 people were affected with close to 87,000 displaced to about 173 IDP camps and about 672 injuries and 60 deaths. Households in IDP camps are receiving humanitarian assistance, while many non-displaced households are still benefiting from the humanitarian assistance delivered in January and February as it was not destroyed or washed away by heavy rains or flooding.

  • Households severely affected by flooding have lost their livelihood source and may require humanitarian food assistance beyond the end of the typical lean season. Preliminary results of a FEWS NET led joint assessment estimate in southern areas 25,000 to 35,000 hectares of matured crop were destroyed, significantly decreasing production estimates across the south. Households who lost crops, livestock, and household assets including displaced households are in Crisis (IPC Phase 3) and will likely experience these outcomes for the rest of the consumption season. Although the number of households in Crisis (IPC Phase 3) will most likely not be sufficient to change the area level phase classification and Stressed! (IPC Phase 2!) outcomes are present as humanitarian food assistance is mitigating outcomes.  

  • Minimal (IPC Phase 1) outcomes are present in most northern areas as households consume food from own stocks and started accessing the green harvest.  Most central areas are in Minimal! (IPC Phase 1!) as humanitarian assistance continues. Food security outcomes were previously anticipated to improve to Minimal (IPC Phase 1) across the country with the harvest. However, food insecurity outcomes in districts severely affected by flooding will not improve as earlier projected. In Nsanje, Phalombe, Chikwawa, Machinga, Mangochi, Zomba and Mwanza outcomes are most likely to be Stressed (IPC Phase 2) with many households facing Crisis (IPC Phase 3) based on the extent of crop destruction and loss of assets due to the flooding.

  • Mitundu the national representative market had a 5 percent increase from February to March for maize meal prices. Current, prices are 70 percent higher than the previous year and about 15 percent above the five-year average. This is due to the increased number of households relying on market purchases amidst dwindling supplies. In southern Malawi, price increases were more significant. The observed maize grain prices were much higher in local markets than in ADMARC markets. Maize prices in southern Malawi markets increased by about 57 percent in a couple weeks due to increased demand and market disruptions caused by flooding.

Mercados e Comércio

Monitoria dos Preços
Boletins de Preços
Boletim de Comércio Transfronteiriço

Production & Trade Flow Maps

Supply and Market Outlook

Enhanced Market Analysis

Formas de vida

Livelihoods Zone Narrative

Mapa das zonas de formas de vida

About FEWS NET

A Rede de Sistemas de AlertaPrecoce de Fome é líder na provisão de alertas precoces e análises relativas à insegurança alimentar. Estabelecida em 1985 com o fim de auxiliar os responsáveis pela tomada de decisões a elaborar planos para crises humanitárias, a FEWS NET provê análises baseadas em evidências em cerca de 35 países. Entre os membros implementadores refere-se a NASA , NOAA, USDA e o USGS, assim como a Chemonics International Inc. e a Kimetrica. Leia mais sobre o nosso trabalho.

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