Central African Republic

Remotely Monitored Country
December 2018

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.

December 2018 - January 2019

February - May 2019

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.
Key Messages
  • Violence against civilians remains a chief concern in the last trimester of 2018, which was marked by attacks on internally displaced persons (IDPs) in the displacement sites of Batangafo and Alindao. Humanitarian food assistance remains underfunded and inconsistent. Without reliable access to rations, food consumption deficits exist among IDPs, returnees, and host communities in the most vulnerable areas. As a result, Crisis (IPC Phase 3) or worse outcomes are likely to be sustained through May 2019.

  • Given ongoing harvests, food availability and income from crop sales for poor households not located in IDP sites are seasonally high but below the pre-crisis average. Household food stocks are expected to be depleted by March, leading to an early start of the lean season. Many households continued to be affected by racketeering and illicit taxes imposed by armed groups. An increasing number of households are unable to cope with essential non-food expenditures, including health and education, and are Stressed (IPC Phase 2).

  • In sites with a high number of IDPs (Alindao, Bambari, Bria, Kaga Bandoro, Batangafo), most households have limited access to fields to engage in agricultural activities and are dependent on humanitarian food assistance and market food purchases. Given the early start to the lean season, food prices are expected to increase earlier than normal. An increasing number of IDPs and host community households are likely to adopt crisis consumption and livelihoods coping strategies to meet their minimum food needs.

Zones Current Anomalies Projected Anomalies 
National
  • In October, there were a total of 547,814 IDPs, 309,826 returnees from within CAR, and 107,724 returnees that had repatriated from neighboring countries. (IOM/DTM, October 2018). The prefectures of Mbomou, Bangui, Basse-Kotto and Nana-Gribizi host the highest numbers of IDPs.
  • The UN Security Council renewed MINUSCA’s mandate until November 19, 2019. The resolution prioritizes support for the ongoing peace process, transparency in the electoral process, the Armed Forces of CAR (FACA), disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration, human rights, and justice and rule of law.
 
  • Clashes between armed groups, attacks on IDP sites and other communities by armed groups, intercommunal conflict, attacks on humanitarian actors, and instances of racketeering, theft, and roadblocks remain widespread, but occur most frequently in Nana-Gribizi, Ouaka, Ouham, and Haute-Kotto prefectures.
  • Security incidents are likely to continue given the recent fragmentation of armed groups. Similarly, clashes between armed groups and the risk of intercommunal conflict are likely to continue to cause new population displacement. 
 
  • Although the security situation is volatile, relative stability in some parts of CAR led to a higher number of returnees (172,206) than newly displaced (115,422) from January to September 2018. However, the rate of returns decreased in the third quarter (11,300 per month) compared to the second quarter (21,400 per month).
  • Due to below-average harvests, the lean season is expected to begin early. The lean season is expected from March to September in the north and from March to June in the rest of the country. Armed conflict is expected to continue to restrict household access to their fields.
   
  • Although IDPs sheltering in sites remain a priority for planned humanitarian food assistance, food aid is significantly underfunded. Consequently, food distributions are likely to continue to be inconsistent and are unlikely to mitigate food consumption gaps. 

 

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 some 34 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