《国际食物政策研究所(IFPRI):2023中国与全球食物政策报告(英文版)(213页).pdf》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《国际食物政策研究所(IFPRI):2023中国与全球食物政策报告(英文版)(213页).pdf(213页珍藏版)》请在三个皮匠报告上搜索。
1、2023FSINJoint analysis for better decisionsFood Security Information Network2|GLO BA L R E PORT ON F OOD CR ISE S 2 02 3Required citation FSIN and Global Network Against Food Crises.2023.GRFC 2023.Rome.All rights reserved.Reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product for edu
2、cational or other non-commercial uses are authorized without any prior written permission from the copyright holders provided the source is fully acknowledged.Reproduction of material in this information product for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission.Applica
3、tions for such permission should be addressed to the Food Security Information Network Secretariat,email:fsin-secretariatwfp.orgThe designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food Securit
4、y Information Network(FSIN),its constituent parties and its partners concerning the legal or development status of any country,territory,city or area,or of its authorities,or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.FSIN 20233|GLO BA L R E PORT ON F OOD CR ISE S 2 02 3Acknowledgeme
5、ntset Nutritionelleet Nutritionellede la scurit alimentairede la scurit alimentairey Nutriciny Nutricinen Fases en Fases Clasifcacin Integrada de la Seguridad Alimentaria en FasesClasifcacin Integrada de la Seguridad Alimentaria en FasesCLUSTERGlobalNUTRITIONThis report would not have been possible
6、without the generous support of the European Union.This report was made possible in part through support provided by the U.S.Agency for International DevelopmentsBureau for Humanitarian Assistance.The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
7、U.S.Agency for International Development.The collaborative process that produced the seventh annual Global Report on Food Crises 2023 started in December 2022 and was made possible through the commitment of individuals and partner organizations.The drafting and review process of the GRFC is facilita
8、ted by the Secretariat of the Food Security Information Network and relies on the contribution of data,technical expertise,feedback and participation of individuals from the 16 GRFC partner organizations.Special thanks to the FSIN team who once again worked tirelessly to produce the document,listen
9、to reviewers and enrich the product based on their feedback;the Senior Committee who provided guidance;the Technical Working Groups who brought their knowledge and expertise to deepen the analysis;and the communications colleagues who ensure that the findings and messages of the GRFC are known.Thank
10、s are also extended to all the individuals based in regions and countries who brought their expertise to the product.The names listed below are by no means exhaustive for a product of this nature:FSIN Secretariat Federica Carfagna,Lynn Clark,Carlos Manuel Estevez Reyes,Giulio Fabris,Maria Paola Guer
11、ra,SueMacDonald,Sara Mchattie,Patricia Velasco,Emily Olsson,Anna-Leena Rasanen,Annika Stanley and Katy Williams.GRFC partners Anteneh Dobamo,Lavinia Antonaci,Immaculate Atieno,Vicente Anzellini,Andrew Beckingham,HeleneBerton,Eric Branckaert,Ennie Shonhiwa Chikwanha,Sophie Chotard,Alessandro Costanti
12、no,Anne Celine Delinger,Nana Dlamini,Abdi Fidar,Gwenaelle Garnier,Valerie Gatchell,Nick Goetschalckx,Shannon Hayes,Nikki Alexandra Herwanger,Tim Hoffine,Lena Hohfeld,Arif Husain,Baoua Issoufou,Sally James,Douglas Jayasekaran,Damien Joud,Kudzayi Kariri,Brenda Lazarus,Jos Lopez,OliverMaes,HamadounMahl
13、amoudou,Abdul Majid,Williams Massaoud,Aurlien Mellin,QuraishiaMerzouk,NaserMohmand,CharityMumbua,Anuradha Narayan,Mary Njenga,TheuriTerryNjeri,Cinzia Papavero,Jonathan Pound,Hasina Rakotomanana,Felix Rembold,BrendanRice,Javier Rodriguez Corrales,Vanessa Roy,Jos Ruiz Esp,Luca Russo,Mohamed Salem,Dunc
14、an Samikwa,Edgar Scrase,Ricardo Sibrin,JungEun Sohn,Christine Strassmaier,AhmedSulaiman,Felicia Takavarasha,Gaolathe Thobokwe,Philippe Tomas,Laura Tosi,Monika Tothova,Jose Manuel Veiga Lopez-Pena,RoosmarijnVerstraeten,Joseluis Vivero,Rob Vos,Anne Wagner,Lisamarie Zammit and Mario Zappacosta.4|GLO BA
15、 L R E PORT ON F OOD CR ISE S 2 02 3WastingPregnant and lactating womenContentsForeword.6THE GLOBAL REPORT ON FOOD CRISES 2023|IN BRIEF .7CHAPTER 1 A GLOBAL OVERVIEW OF FOOD CRISES .8What is the Global Report on Food Crises?.9Spotlight|The impact of the war in Ukraine on global food crises .13Spotli
16、ght|Timely action saves lives and money.16Acute food insecurity overview,202223.17Table of acute food insecurity estimates,202123 .30CHAPTER 2 REGIONAL OVERVIEWS OF FOOD CRISES IN 2022 .35Central and Southern Africa.36East Africa.39West Africa and the Sahel,and Cameroon.43Asia.48Latin America and th
17、e Caribbean.51Middle East and North Africa.55Spotlight|Countries of concern with data gaps.59CHAPTER 3 MAJOR FOOD CRISES IN 2022 .62Introduction.63Afghanistan.64Angola(Cunene,Hula and Namibe).67Bangladesh(Coxs Bazar).69Burkina Faso.70Burundi.73Cameroon.75Central African Republic.78Chad.81Colombia(re
18、fugees and migrants).84Democratic Republic of the Congo.85Dominican Republic.88Eswatini.89Ethiopia.91Guatemala.93Guinea.95Haiti.97Honduras.99Kenya.101Lebanon.104Madagascar(Grand Sud and Grand Sud-Est).107Malawi.109Mali.111Mauritania.114Mozambique.116Myanmar.118Namibia.119Niger.120Nigeria.123Pakistan
19、(Balochistan,Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Sindh).126Palestine.128Sierra Leone.129Somalia.131South Sudan.134Sri Lanka.137Sudan.138Syrian Arab Republic.140United Republic of Tanzania.143Uganda.144Ukraine.147Yemen.149Zambia .152Zimbabwe.154TECHNICAL NOTES .156APPENDICES .170The Global Network Against Food Cr
20、ises.171Glossary.172Trends graphs for numbers of people in IPC/CH Phase 2 or above.175BIBLIOGRAPHY .191Map disclaimerThe boundaries and names shown and the designations used on all the maps in this document do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.Dotted line represents
21、approximately the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir agreed upon by India and Pakistan.The final status of Jammu and Kashmir has not yet been agreed upon by the parties.Final boundary between the Republic of Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan has not yet been determined.Final status of the Abye
22、i area is not yet determined.A dispute exists between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over the Falkland Islands(Malvinas).Acutely food-insecure peopleHost communitiesConflict/insecurityDisplacement campsInfectious disea
23、sesWeather extremes/droughtWeather extremes/floodingHealth and nutrition servicesFood insecurity/lack of access to healthy dietsMaternal and child-feeding practicesNutritionEconomic shocksAgricultural pestsLivestockDisplacement ReturneesDisplacement RefugeesDisplacement Internally displaced people(I
24、DPs)Key to icons 5|GLO BA L R E PORT ON F OOD CR ISE S 2 02 3 3RP Regional Refugee and Resilience Plan ACAPS Assessment Capacities Project ACLED Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project ALG LiptakoGourma Authority(Autorit de Dveloppement Intgr de la Rgion du Liptako Gourma)AMN Acute malnutriti
25、on AML African migratory locusts ARI Acute respiratory infection ASAL Arid and semi-arid lands ASAP Anomaly Hotspots of Agricultural Production AWD Acute watery diarrhoea BAY Borno,Adamawa and Yobe states(Nigeria)CADC Central America Dry Corridor CARI Consolidated Approach to Reporting Indicators of
26、 Food Security CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CEPAL United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean CH Cadre Harmonis CILSS Permanent Interstate Committee for Drought Control CONASUR Conseil National de Secours dUrgence et de Rhabilitation,(National Emergency R
27、esponse and Rehabilitation Council),Burkina Faso COVID-19 Coronavirus disease 2019 CPI Consumer Price Index DEVCO International Cooperation and Development of the European Commission DGPC Direction Gnrale de la Protection Civile(Haiti)DHS Demographic and Health Survey DRC Danish Refugee Council DRPI
28、A Direction Rgionale de la Protection Industrielle et Animalire DTM Displacement Tracking Matrix ECHO European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations of the European Commission EC-JRC European Commission Joint Research Centre ECLAC United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and t
29、he Caribbean ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States(Communaut conomique des tats de lAfrique de lOuest(CEDEAO)EFSA Emergency Food Security Assessment ENCOVI Encuesta Nacional de Condiciones de Vida EIU Economist Intelligence Unit ENA Essential Needs Assessment E-VAC Emergency Vulnerability
30、 Assessment Committee FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FAO-GIEWS FAO Global Information and Early Warning System on Food and Agriculture FCS Food Consumption Score FCT Federal Capital Territory FEWSNET Famine Early Warning Systems Network FSC Food Security Cluster FSIN Food Security Information
31、 Network FSNAU Food Security and Nutrition Assessment Unit FSNMS Food Security and Nutrition Monitoring System FSNWG Food Security and Nutrition Working Group GAM Global Acute Malnutrition GDP Gross Domestic Product gFSC Global Food Security Cluster GHO Global Humanitarian Overview GNAFC Global Netw
32、ork Against Food Crises GNC Global Nutrition Cluster GRFC Global Report on Food Crises HDI Humanitarian Development Index HIV/AIDS Human immunodeficiency virus infection and acquired immune deficiency syndrome HNAP Humanitarian Needs Assessment Programme HNO Humanitarian Needs Overview HRP Humanitar
33、ian Response Plan ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross IDMC Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre IDP Internally displaced people IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute IFRC International Federation of the Red Cross IGAD Int
34、ergovernmental Authority on Development(in Eastern Africa)ILO International Labour Organization IMF International Monetary Fund INGD National Institute for Disaster Management(Mozambique)IOM International Organization for Migration IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification IPC FRC Integrated
35、 Food Security Phase Classification Famine Review Committee ISCG Inter Sector Coordination Group(Bangladesh)IYCF Infant and Young Child Feeding JME Joint Malnutrition Estimates JMP Joint Monitoring Programme JRP Joint Response Plan LGA Local government area MAD Minimum Acceptable Diet MAM Moderate A
36、cute Malnutrition MCNA Multi-Cluster Needs Assessment MDD Minimum Dietary Diversity MENA Middle East and North Africa MFB Minimum Food Basket MICS Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey MoH Ministry of Health MPI Multidimensional poverty index MUAC Mid-Upper Arm Circumference NFSS Nutrition and Food Secu
37、rity Surveillance NGCA Non-Government-Controlled Area(Ukraine)NNS National Nutrition Survey NRC Norwegian Refugee Council OAS Organization of American States OCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OHCHR Offi
38、ce of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights PCBS Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics PDM Post-Distribution Monitoring PLW Pregnant and lactating women R-ARCSS Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan REVA Refugee influx Emergency Vul
39、nerability Assessment RMRP Refugee and Migrant Response Plan RPCA Food Crisis Prevention Network(Rseau de Prvention des Crises Alimentaires)RRM Rapid Response Mechanism(Yemen)SADC Southern African Development Community SAM Severe Acute Malnutrition SBA Sanaa-based Authority(Yemen)SDG Sustainable Dev
40、elopment Goal SEFSEC Socio-Economic&Food Security Survey(Palestine)SENS Standardised Expanded Nutrition Survey SFSA Seasonal Food Security Assessment SICA Sistema de la Integracin Centroamericana SISAAP Systme dInformation sure la Scurit Alimentaire et dAlerte Prcoce SMART Standardized Monitoring an
41、d Assessment of Relief and Transitions SMEB Survival Minimum Expenditure Basket SNNPR Ethiopian Southern Nations,Nationalities,and Peoples Region SOFI The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World TWG Technical Working Group UBOS Uganda Bureau of Statistics UEMOA Union conomique et montaire
42、ouest-africaine UN United Nations UNAMA United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNICEF United Nations Childrens Fund UNRWA UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East USAID United States Agency for International Deve
43、lopment USD United States dollar VAC Vulnerability Assessment Committee VASyR Vulnerability Assessment of Syrian Refugees in Lebanon WASH Water,Sanitation and Hygiene WB World Bank WFP World Food Programme WHO World Health Organization WoAA Whole of Afghanistan Assessment ZimVAC Zimbabwe Vulnerabili
44、ty Assessment CommitteeAcronyms6|GLO BA L R E PORT ON F OOD CR ISE S 2 02 3More than a quarter of a billion people are now facing acute levels of hunger,and some are on the brink of starvation.Thats unconscionable.This seventh edition of the Global Report on Food Crises is a stinging indictment of h
45、umanitys failure to make progress towards Sustainable Development Goal 2 to end hunger,and achieve food security and improved nutrition for all.In fact,we are moving in the wrong direction.Conflicts and mass displacement continue to drive global hunger.Rising poverty,deepening inequalities,rampant u
46、nderdevelopment,the climate crisis and natural disasters also contribute to food insecurity.As always,it is the most vulnerable who bear the brunt of this failure,facing soaring food prices that were aggravated by the COVID-19 pandemic and,despite some declines,are still above 2019 levels due to the
47、 war in Ukraine.All this,while humanitarian funding to fight hunger and malnutrition pales in comparison to what is needed.This crisis demands fundamental,systemic change.This report makes clear that progress is possible.We have the data and know-how to build a more resilient,inclusive,sustainable w
48、orld where hunger has no home including through stronger food systems,and massive investments in food security and improved nutrition for all people,no matter where they live.With collective action and a commitment to change,we can ensure that every person,everywhere,has access to the most basic of
49、human needs:food and nutrition.Antnio Guterres Secretary-General of the United NationsForewordUN PHOTO/MARK GARTEN7|GLO BA L R E PORT ON F OOD CR ISE S 2 02 3Source:IPC TWG 2022,CH 2022,HNO 2022 and 2023,REACH 2023.DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO ETHIOPIAAFGHANISTANNIGERIA YEMENMYANMARSYRIAN ARAB R
50、EPUBLICSUDANUKRAINEPAKISTAN3.8M23.6M15.2M18.3M13.8M6.1M5.6M11.7M22.6MCountries/territories with the highest numbers of people in IPC/CH Phase3 or above or equivalent in 2022 and the share of analysed population in these phasesIPC/CH Phase5Non IPC/CH moderate+severe acute food insecurityIPC/CH Phase3
51、+Non IPC/CH moderate+severe acute food insecurityIPC/CH Phase4IPC/CH Phase3Numbers of people in:Share of analysed population in:8.9M12.1M8.6M3.1M26%21%12%46%55%27%55%24%25%43%1.2M6.0M2.6M31000IPC/CH Phase1+2and non IPC/CH food secure+marginally food secureIPC/CH Phase 3+and non IPC/CH moderate+sever
52、e acute food insecurityTotal population of GRFC countries/territoriesThe Global Report on Food Crises 2023|In briefThe findings of the GRFC 2023 suggest that achieving the goal of ending hunger by 2030 is ever more challenging as the population facing high levels of acute food insecurity has increas
53、ed for the fourth consecutive year.Nearly 258 million people in 58 countries/territories were in Crisis or worse acute food insecurity(IPC/CH Phase 3 or above,or equivalent)in 2022 up from 193million in 53 countries/territories in 2021.As the graph(top right)shows,while there has been an increase in
54、 the population analysed,this is the highest on record since the GRFC started reporting these data in 2017.This marks the fourth consecutive year of rising numbers of people in IPC/CH Phase 3 or above or equivalent due to persistently high numbers in some countries,worsening situations in others,as
55、well as increased analysis.More than 40 percent of the population in IPC/CH Phase 3 or above or equivalent in the GRFC 2023 resided in just five countries/territories the Democratic Republic of the Congo,Ethiopia,Afghanistan,Nigeria(21 states and the Federal Capital Territory(FCT)and Yemen.People in
56、 seven countries faced extreme lack of food even after full employment of coping strategies at some point during 2022.More than half of the 376400 people in Catastrophe(IPC/CH Phase5)were in Somalia(214100),but these extreme conditions also affected populations in SouthSudan(87000),Yemen(31000),Afgh
57、anistan(20300),Haiti for the first time in GRFC history(19200),Nigeria(3000)and Burkina Faso(1800).Around 35 million people were in Emergency(IPC/CH Phase 4)in 39 countries.No disaggregated data by IPC phase were available for Ethiopia or Zimbabwe in 2022.Households in this extremely severe situatio
58、n face large food gaps,which are either reflected in high acute Source:IPC TWGs,2022.253M people were in Stressed (IPC/CH Phase2)in 41 countries/territories with IPC/CH analyses258M people 22.7%of the analysed population in 58 countries/territories faced high levels of acute food insecurity in 2022N
59、umber of people in GRFC countries/territories facing acute food insecurity,20162022Source:FSIN,using data from 20162022.The Global Report on Food Crises 2023 estimates that over a quarter of a billion people were acutely food-insecure and required urgent food assistance in 58 food-crisis countries/t
60、erritories in 2022.This is the highest number in the seven-year history of the GRFC.What is the GRFC?The GRFC 2023 is a collaborative effort among 16 partners to achieve an independent and consensus-based assessment of acute food insecurity that informs humanitarian and development action.Published
61、by the Food Security Information Network(FSIN)in support of the Global Network against Food Crises(GNAFC),the GRFC is the reference document on global,regional and country-level acute food insecurity in 2022.The analysis is based mainly on data obtained through the Integrated Food Security Phase Cla
62、ssification(IPC)or the Cadre Harmonis(CH),which estimate the populations in need of food,nutrition and/or livelihood assistance.When data from these sources are not available,the GRFC utilizes the Famine Early Warning Systems Network(FEWS NET),the World Food Programmes(WFP)Consolidated Approach for
63、Reporting Indicators(CARI)and country-specific Humanitarian Needs Overviews(HNO).MILLIONS4000200022105.0123.5112.7134.8155.3192.8257.848countries51countries53countries55countries55countries53countries58countries8|GLO BA L R E PORT ON F OOD CR ISE S 2 02 3malnutrition
64、 rates and excess mortality or mitigated by use of emergency coping strategies.Around half of the total population identified in IPC/CH Phase 4 was found in four countries Afghanistan,Yemen,the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Sudan.Recurrent shocks are driving up acute food insecurityThe fo
65、od crises outlined in the GRFC are the result of interconnected,mutually reinforcing drivers conflict and insecurity,economic shocks and weather extremes.In 2022,these key drivers were associated with lingering socioeconomic impacts of COVID-19,the knock-on effects of the war in Ukraine and repeated
66、 droughts and other weather extremes.Conflict/insecurity was the most significant driver in 19 countries/territories where 117.1million people were in IPC/CH Phase 3 or above or equivalent.This is fewer than in 2021 when conflict was considered the main driver across 24countries/territories with 139
67、million people in these phases of acute food insecurity.The lower estimate is because economic shocks surpassed conflict as the main driver of acute food insecurity in three countries still affected by protracted crises Afghanistan,South Sudan and the Syrian Arab Republic.Six of the seven countries/
68、territories with populations facing Catastrophe(IPC Phase 5)Afghanistan,Burkina Faso,Nigeria,Somalia,South Sudan and Yemen have protracted conflicts,while the very severe levels of acute food insecurity in Haiti are attributable to escalating gang violence in the capital.Economic shocks(including th
69、e socioeconomic impacts of COVID-19 and the repercussions of the war in Ukraine)became the main driver in 27 countries with 83.9 million people in IPC/CH Phase 3 or above or equivalent up from 30.2million people in 21 countries in 2021.The economic resilience of poor countries has dramatically decre
70、ased,and they now face extended recovery periods and less ability to cope with future shocks.Weather extremes were the primary driver of acute food insecurity in 12 countries where 56.8million people were in IPC/CH Phase 3 or above or equivalent,more than double the number of people(23.5 million)in
71、eight countries in 2021.These extremes included sustained drought in the Horn of Africa,devastating flooding in Pakistan,and tropical storms,cyclones and drought in Southern Africa.High levels of child wasting in foodcrisis countries curbs development and wellbeingMalnutrition is multidimensional,an
72、d child nutritional status is determined by multiple factors.The GRFC demonstrates that areas with high levels of acute food insecurity tend to have high levels of child wasting,which,when combined,stymie the development and wellbeing of populations in the short,medium and long term.In 30 of the 42
73、major food crises analysed in the GRFC 2023 where data on malnutrition were available,over 35 million children under 5 years of age suffered from wasting,with 9.2million of them severely wasted(the most lethal form of undernutrition and a major contributor to child mortality).Out of the total estima
74、ted children with wasting in those countries,about 65 percent lived in nine out of the ten countries with the highest number of people in IPC/CH Phase 3 or above or equivalent.The global food crisis has worsened the undernutrition Primary drivers of acute food insecurity in countries with food crise
75、sFood crises are the result of multiple drivers.The GRFC has based this infographic on the predominant driver in each country/territory.*Number of people in IPC/CH Phase 3 or above or equivalent.Source:FSIN,GRFC 2023.58countries/territories19 countries/territories (117.1M people*)27 countries(83.9M
76、people*)12 countries (56.8M people*)Conflict/insecurityWeather extremesEconomic shocksThe impact of the war in Ukraine on food crises around the worldPercentage increase(December 202122)in the price of staple foods in GRFCqualifying countriesThe war in Ukraine has had an outsized impact on global fo
77、od systems due to the major contributions Ukraine and the Russian Federation make to the production and trade of fuel,fertilizers and essential food commodities like wheat,maize and sunflower oil.The timing of the war also contributed to this impact as higher international commodity prices in the fi
78、rst half of 2022 compounded the macroeconomic challenges that countries continued to face after the COVID-19 pandemic.This was particularly true for GRFC countries/territories as they were more likely to be exposed to commodity market volatility given many of their positions as low-income net food-i
79、mporting countries.Although global food prices had fallen by the end of 2022,they remained well above pre-pandemic levels.Domestic food prices,by contrast,experienced an increase but have yet to decline.In fact,food prices increased in all GRFC countries/territories in 2022,with food inflation being
80、 over 10 percent in 38 out of the 58 countries/territories with food crises by the end of the year.Their governments abilities to mitigate risks and insulate citizens from food price inflation through policy measures,such as stimulus payments and subsidies,was limited given their over-extended publi
81、c budgets after the COVID-19 pandemic.Nearly all of the countries whose currencies lost value at an abnormally fast rate in 2022 were GRFC countries/territories.The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.
82、Final boundary between the Republic of Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan has not yet been determined.Final status of the Abyei area is not yet determined.Source:WFP Dataviz,2023.100percent1120percent51100percentCountry not selected for analysisData unavailable9|GLO BA L R E PORT ON F OOD CR ISE
83、S 2 02 3situation of adolescent girls and women whose livelihoods,income and access to nutritious food have been disproportionately affected by conflict,climate change,poverty and other economic shocks,including that of the COVID-19 pandemic from early 2020(UNICEF,March 2023).Number of forcibly disp
84、laced people in foodcrisis countries is the highest in GRFC historyDisplacement is both a driver and a consequence of food insecurity.People forced to flee their homes lose access to their livelihoods(including safe access to food,water and other necessities)while also facing major barriers to incom
85、e,humanitarian aid,healthcare,and other essential services,exacerbating their vulnerability to food insecurity and undernutrition.By mid-2022,the number of displaced people globally,including refugees,asylum seekers,Internally Displaced People(IDPs)and other people in need of international Source:GR
86、FC Displacement TWG,2023.53.2M IDPs in 25food-crisis countries/territories72.8Mdisplaced people19.7M Refugees and asylum-seekers in 55food-crisis countries/territoriesNumber of forcibly displaced people in foodcrisis countries/territories,2022protection,had reached 103 million,around 14 million more
87、 people than at the end of 2021(UNHCR;IOM,December 2022).In 2022,displacement was caused by(i)major conflicts,including the ongoing war in Ukraine and persisting conflicts in the Central Sahel,the Lake Chad Basin and the Middle East;(ii)severe economic crises pushing people to migrate,such as from t
88、he Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and(iii)climate change and weather extremes including the atypical La Nia phenomenon that began in September 2020 and persisted to late 2022,exacerbating drought conditions in the Horn of Africa and causing unusually heavy rainfall and flooding in Asia,East Africa
89、 and WestAfrica.By the end of 2022,nearly 53.2 million people were internally displaced in 25 countries/territories identified as food crises in the GRFC 2023.The countries with the highest numbers of IDPs in 2022 nearly mirrored the list of the 10 food crises with the largest numbers of people in I
90、PC/CH Phase 3 or above or equivalent.In 2022,about 19.7 million refugees and asylum seekers were hosted in 55 out of the 58 food-crisis countries/territories identified in this GRFC edition,marking a significant increase from 15.3 million people in the 52food-crisis countries/territories in 2021.Acc
91、ording to projections available for 38 of the 58countries/territories as of March 2023,up to 153.4million people are projected to be in IPC/CH Phase 3 or above or equivalent in 2023.However,the acute food insecurity situationin these food-crisis countries/territoriesis likelyto befurther affected by
92、a number ofshocks that occurredin early 2023 and were notfactored intothe current available estimates.These includetropical cyclone Freddy in Madagascar,Malawi and Mozambique,the earthquakes in the Syrian Arab Republic andTrkiye,and the escalating conflict in theSudan.Around310 000 people are projec
93、ted to be in IPC/CH Phase 5 across six countries/territories Burkina Faso,Haiti,Mali,Nigeria(26 states and theFCT),Somalia and South Sudan with almost three quarters of them in Somalia.Noprojection data are available for Yemen.In Nigeria(26 states and the FCT),Somalia and Kenya,Numbers of children w
94、ith wasting in countries with largest numbers of people in IPC/CH Phase3 or above or equivalent in 2022Estimates for Nigeria cover only the Northeast and the Northwest states while estimates for Democratic Republic of the Congo cover 150 health zones and 189 territories.Data were not available for U
95、kraine.Source:GRFC Displacement TWG,2023.5.93M4.80M3.22M2.78M2.75M2.20M0.64M0.36M0.29MChildren under 5 years with severe wastingChildren under 5 years with moderate wastingNIGERIA(Northeast and Northwest states)ETHIOPIAAFGHANISTANDEMOCRATIC REPUBLICOF THE CONGOSUDANYEMENPAKISTANSYRIAN ARAB REPUBLICM
96、YANMARIn Afghanistan,very high levels of acute food insecurity and child wasting persisted,underpinned by the lingering impacts of decades of conflict on livelihoods,high food prices and widespread drought.WFP/PARASTO HAKIM152.0153.4M people 18%of the analysed population in 38 countries/territories
97、projected to face high levels of acute food insecurity in 2023ACUTE FOOD INSECURITY PROJECTION 2023Source:IPC TWGs,2022 and 2023,Cadre Harmonis.251.0M people were projected to be in Stressed(IPC Phase2)in 34 countries/territories with available IPC/CH analyses1 0|GLO BA L R E PORT ON F OOD CR ISE S
98、2 02 3a total of 8 millionadditional people are projected to facehigh levels of acute food insecurity in 2023 compared with 2022.In Nigeria,this is primarily due to conflict as well as an increase inanalysis coverage,while in Kenya and Somalia it islargely due to theprolonged drought in the Horn of
99、Africa.Economic shocks are projected to be the main driver of acute food insecurity in most ofthesecountries/territories as national economic resilience has been severely underminedby a slow recoveryfrom the COVID-19 pandemic,further exacerbated by the war in Ukraine.Persisting high food prices coup
100、led with unsustainable debt levels ina number of food-crisis countries amid high interest ratesand currencydepreciation are expected to further erodehouseholds food access and constrain the fiscalcapacityof governments to deliverassistance.As of March 2023,food prices were at exceptionally high leve
101、ls in Ethiopia,Ghana,Malawi,Myanmar,Namibia,Pakistan,Somalia,South Sudanand Zimbabwe.Conflict/insecurity is expected to be the main driver in many countries/territories,including the Democratic Republic of the Congo,Nigeria,Yemen,Myanmar and Ukraine.Forecast to return in June 2023,the El Nio phenome
102、non is likely to result indry weather conditions in key cropping areas of Central America,SouthernAfrica and Far East Asia,while excessive rainfall andpossible floodingisforeseen inNear East Asia and East Africa.In Central and Southern Africa,conflict/insecurity are expected to remain the primary dr
103、iver of acute food insecurity in the Central African Republic,the Democratic Republic of Congo and Mozambique,while economic shocks,compounded by the knock-on effects of the war in Ukraine,are likely to further erode the purchasing power and resilience of households.Weather extremesincluding the Feb
104、ruary 2023 tropical cyclone Freddy in Madagascar,Malawi and Mozambique will undermine food security throughout 2023.In East Africa,weather extremes including the severe,three-year drought across the Horn of Africa,economic challenges,and conflict and insecurity affecting livelihoods,markets and huma
105、nitarian access continue to drive dire levels of acute food insecurity across many countries in 2023.Significant efforts in the scale-up of multi-sectoral humanitarian assistance,supported by slightly more favourable than foreseen rains are contributing to a moderate improvement insome areas,althoug
106、h livelihood recovery will take time.In the Sudan,the onset of clashes between the Sudanese Armed Forces and Rapid Support Forces in mid-April triggered asuspension of humanitarianassistance and will likely lead to a deterioration of livelihoods,internaldisplacement and acute food insecurity.In West
107、 Africa and the Sahel(including Cameroon),the levels of acute food insecurity during the JuneAugust 2023 lean season are projected to be the highest on record,driven by worsening conflict and insecurity,particularly in the Central Sahel and Lake Chad Basin areas,and increased economic shocks,includi
108、ng rampant inflation and currency depreciation,notably in Nigeria,Ghana,Sierra Leone and Liberia.At the country level,the number of people in CH Phase 3 or above is projected to increase in Nigeria(also due to expanding analysis coverage),Burkina Faso,Senegal,Liberia and Gambia and decline in nine o
109、thers.Burkina Faso and Mali have populations projected to be in IPC Phase 5.In Asia,economic malaise including high food,fertilizer and fuel prices along with transport and supply chain disruptions,and limited resources to respond to increasing social and economic demands,will continue to drive acut
110、e food insecurity inAfghanistan,Bangladesh(Coxs Bazar),Myanmar andPakistan.Weather extremes,conflict in Myanmar and the repercussions of decades of conflict in Afghanistan will remain important drivers.In Latin America and the Caribbean,the number of people in IPC Phase 3 or above or equivalent in 2
111、023 is projected to decline at the regional level,largely due to increased food availability from the 2022 harvests in some countries,but this could be short-lived due to high food prices and low householdpurchasing power.In Haiti,the population facinghigh levels of acute food insecurity was project
112、ed to increase slightly due to urban insecurity and gang violence,high inflation as well as the lingering impacts ofprevious natural disasters.In the Middle East and North Africa,acutefood insecurity is expected to worsen for Lebanese residents and Syrian refugees inLebanondriven by further deterior
113、ation of the economic situation and rampant inflation.Even before the devastating February 2023 earthquakes,the 2023 food security outlook for theSyrian Arab Republicwas precarious.Earthquake-affected areas were home to almost 3 million IDPs,and the destruction and losses of physical capital(especia
114、lly in agriculture)are estimated at USD 5.2 billion.In Yemen,significantly above-average prices of food and essential non-food commoditiesare expectedtodrive large food consumption gaps.Even thoughactive fightinghas abated in the Syrian ArabRepublic andYemen,theimpacts of conflict and mass displacem
115、ent are expected to persist throughout 2023.The way forwardThe magnitude of people facing IPC/CH Phase 3 or above is daunting,but it is that very scale that drives urgency.Earlier intervention can reduce food gaps and protect assets and livelihoods at a lower cost than late humanitarian response.Yet
116、 too often the international In Somalia,Famine has not materialized so far and is not expected in the first half of 2023 due to many factors including slightly better-than-expected early 2023 agricultural production and scaled-up multisectoral assistance.WFP/PATRICK MWANGIcommunity waits for a Famin
117、e(IPC/CH Phase 5)classification before mobilizing additional funding.By this stage,livelihoods have collapsed,lives and futures have been lost,and social networks disrupted with deleterious impacts on the lives of an unborn generation.Populations in IPC/CH Phase 3 are already unable to meet their mi
118、nimum food needs or are compelled to protect food consumption by engaging in coping strategies that will harm their future ability to access food and sustain their livelihoods.In IPC/CH Phase4,households face large food gaps,which are either reflected in high acute malnutrition levels and excess mor
119、tality or mitigated by using emergency coping strategies that severely corrode their wellbeing and livelihoods.Urgent action is needed for households in IPC/CH Phase 3 and 4 to ensure immediate wellbeing,to support their ability to sustain themselves,and to protect families from making choices that
120、are likely to lead to worse outcomes.CHAPTER 1 A G LO B A L OV E RV I E W O F F O O D C R I S ESChapter 1|A global overview of food crises9|GLO BA L R E PORT ON F OOD CR ISE S 2 02 3report and the GRFC 2023 Mid-Year Update.In 2023,we anticipate producing a GRFC 2023 regional report for West Africa a
121、nd the Sahel.The GRFC as a global public good:partnership,consultation and consensus The production of the GRFC is coordinated by the Food Security Information Network in support of the Global Network Against Food Crises.It is the product of a collaboration among 16 partners consisting of regional i
122、ntergovernmental bodies,donors,technical bodies,clusters and UN agencies.The result is an independent reference document that aims for consensus-driven analysis and that has been validated and endorsed by global and regional experts in the fields of food security,nutrition and displacement.All 16 pa
123、rtners participate in the following:Technical Working Groups(displacement,food security,nutrition)consisting of technical experts from each of the partner agencies who contribute data and analysis,participate in the review of content,and make recommendations to the Senior Committee for endorsement.S
124、enior Committee consisting of senior representatives from each partner agency who make the final decision on content and coordinate institutional clearance.What is a food crisis?A food crisis occurs when levels of acute food insecurity and malnutrition rise sharply at local or national levels,raisin
125、g the need for emergency food assistance.The GRFC processes aim to distinguish a food crisis from chronic food insecurity based on the interaction of shocks experienced in 2022,and that affect one or more of the pillars of food security:food availability,food access,food utilization and food stabili
126、ty.Food crises are more likely among populations already suffering from prolonged food insecurity and malnutrition,and in areas where structural factors increase their vulnerability to shocks.What is the Global Report on Food Crises?The Global Report on Food Crises 2023(GRFC 2023)provides an overvie
127、w of the worlds worst foodcrisis countries for which external humanitarian assistance was necessary in 2022.It refers more specifically to a subset of these countries that had available data on which GRFC partners agreed.Its purpose is to be a useful and evidence-based reference document for food se
128、curity and nutrition analysts,policymakers,decision-makers and advocates.To inform policies and programming that respond to these multidimensional crises,policymakers require clear,timely and reliable data and analyses.However,information is often conflicting and derived from various sources and bas
129、ed on different methodologies that lack a consensus-based standard.The GRFC responds to these constraints by providing information based on a rigorous methodology and a highly consultative process.It provides detailed information about regions,countries and populations experiencing high levels of ac
130、ute food insecurity in 2022,and projections for 2023.It examines the main drivers of these food crises,and provides analysis of seven years of GRFC data and the latest available information on displacement and nutrition.This global report(GRFC 2023)is part of an annual suite of products,which includ
131、es the GRFC 2023 IGAD regional The foundation of the GRFC:an evidencebased public goodA strong partnership A highly consultative process A compilation of multiple consensus-based food security and nutrition analyses A technical document of reference on food crises The GRFC provides several levels of
132、 analysis in each chapter.In this 2023 edition,there are three Spotlights to provide a more indepth analysis and draw the readers attention to three major issues:the impact of the war in Ukraine on global food crises;the importance of timely humanitarian action in foodcrisis contexts;and countries o
133、f concern with data gaps.Chapter 1|A global overview of food crisesThis section presents a thematic analysis of the global food crises of 2022 and projections for 2023,based on the peak estimates for both years.It provides aggregate figures on acute food insecurity,identifies the key drivers and fac
134、tors contributing to food crises,and presents a focused analysis of the most severe acute food insecurity situations since the GRFC began publication in 2017.In a table,it provides 2021,2022 and 2023 peak estimates for all GRFC selected food crises.A global brief on displacement and nutrition is als
135、o included.Chapter 2|Regional overviews of food crisesThis section presents a consolidated food security analysis for six regions Central and Southern Africa;East Africa;West Africa and the Sahel,and Cameroon;Asia;Latin America and the Caribbean;and the Middle East and North Africa for 2022 and proj
136、ections for 2023 where available.It also presents nutrition and displacement analyses.Europe is not included since Ukraine is the only country selected and it is included as a major food crisis in chapter 3 while the global impact of the war in Ukraine is included as a spotlight within chapter 1.Cha
137、pter 3|Major food crises in 2022This chapter features individual analyses of the 42 countries/territories identified as major food crises.All of them have at least 1 million people or 20percent of their country population or migrant/refugee population in IPC/CH Phase3 or above or equivalent.These co
138、untry briefs present the 2022 peak estimate of populations in IPC/CH Phase3 or above or equivalent,and the highest available projection for 2023.They include maps,a brief narrative on year-on-year changes and seven-year trends where possible,key drivers,as well as information on forcibly displaced p
139、opulations and nutrition.Technical NotesThis section provides the technical details regarding the information described in the GRFC including key terminology,data sources and methodologies,GRFC processes and protocols,as well as comparability challenges and limitations.It also contains references fo
140、r the categorization of undernutrition and acute food insecurity indicators.AppendicesAll key terms and terminology used in the GRFC are listed in the Glossary for easy reference.As the GRFC refers to peak estimates of acute food insecurity,appendix 2 provides all available IPC/CH results for specif
141、ic countries/territories dating back to 2016 where available thus providing additional information to the chapter 3 country briefs,which helps the reader consider the seasonal aspect of acute food insecurity.HOW TO READ THE REPORTFBack to Contents Chapter 1|A global overview of food crises1 0|GLO BA
142、 L R E PORT ON F OOD CR ISE S 2 02 3Country selection and coverage The GRFC follows a specific process to identify countries and populations within a country for inclusion in the report,to identify which faced food crises and which are major food crises.The consideration of countries/territories for
143、 potential inclusion in the GRFC 2023 identified those that experienced a shock in 2022 and for which there was evidence that the magnitude and/or severity of the food crisis exceeded local resources and capacities to respond.Reference is made to countries that requested assistance,as monitored by F
144、AO-GIEWS,or hosted refugee populations.As in past years,the GRFC 2023 did not longlist high-income countries,even if they had populations facing high levels of acute food insecurity,nor did it include countries that did not request humanitarian assistance for populations facing high levels of acute
145、food insecurity.A rigorous selection process has been employed over the seven years of the GRFCs existence.The selection process for the GRFC 2023 considered 73 qualifying countries/territories for potential inclusion.Following a review of the evidence,the GRFC Technical Working Group validated acut
146、e food insecurity estimates for 58 countries/territories,of which 42 were identified as major food crises.In all seven years,38countries consistently qualified as food crises,of which 19 were identified as major food crises.See Technical Notes.The selection of countries/territories for inclusion in
147、the GRFC 2023 was based on the availability of data and their methodology meeting the GRFC partners specific requirements for acute food insecurity estimates,further described in the Technical Notes.Major food crises were then identified based on the magnitude and severity of acute food insecurity.S
148、ee table,right.PRE-SELECTION OF QUALIFYING COUNTRIES/TERRITORIESSELECTION AND GROUPING OF COUNTRIES/TERRITORIESIDENTIFICATION OF MAJOR FOOD CRISES 48 countries/territories that requested external assistance for food and/or faced shocks as assessed by FAO-GIEWS:i n 2022 or at least once in the past 3
149、 years or for at least 3 years in the past 10 years25 low-or middle-income countries/territories were not selected for analysis by FAO-GIEWS,but requested external assistance as a result of:hosting refugee populations who were assisted by UNHCR and WFP having over 1 million or at least 20 percent of
150、 its population forcibly displaced having populations affected by conflict and insecurity,weather extremes and/or economic shocksCountries were excluded if they were high-income countries,if they did not ask for FAO or WFP assistance,or if the shocks had little impact on food security.42 of the sele
151、cted countries/territories were identified as major food crises in 2022 based on meeting one or more of the following criteria:at least 20 percent of the country population in Crisis or worse(IPC/CH Phase3 or above)or equivalent at least 1 million people in Crisis or worse (IPC/CH Phase3 or above)or
152、 equivalent any area in Emergency(IPC/CH Phase4)or above included in the IASC humanitarian system-wide emergency response level 3countries/territories identified73countries/territories identified58countries/territories identified4212315 of the 73 countries/territories identified had data gaps or did
153、 not meet GRFC partners requirements to produce estimates of people in Crisis or worse(IPC/CH Phase 3 or above)or equivalent.The remaining 58 food-crisis countries/territories are grouped into 7 regions:Central and Southern Africa East Africa West Africa and the Sahel,and Cameroon Asia Europe(Ukrain
154、e)Latin America and the Caribbean Middle East and North Africacountries/territories identified58FBack to Contents Chapter 1|A global overview of food crises1 1|GLO BA L R E PORT ON F OOD CR ISE S 2 02 3Geographical coverageCountries that requested external assistance for food and/or faced shocks as
155、assessed by FAOGIEWS in 2022,at least once in the past three years or for at least three years in the past ten years Afghanistan,Bangladesh,Burkina Faso,Burundi,CaboVerde,Cameroon,Central African Republic,Chad,Congo,Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea,Democratic Republic of the Congo,Djibouti,Eritr
156、ea,Eswatini,Ethiopia,Gambia,Guinea,Haiti,Iraq,Kenya,Lebanon(residents and Syrian refugees),Lesotho,Liberia,Libya,Madagascar,Malawi,Mali,Mauritania,Mozambique,Myanmar,Namibia,Niger,Nigeria,Pakistan,Senegal,Sierra Leone,Somalia,South Sudan,SriLanka,Sudan,Syrian Arab Republic,Uganda,Ukraine,UnitedRepub
157、lic of Tanzania,Venezuela(Bolivarian Republic of),Yemen,Zambia,Zimbabwe.Countries/territories that were considered for inclusion in the GRFC 2023Countries/territories that did not meet GIEWS criteria but experienced a shock or shocks to food security in 2022,for which they requested external assista
158、nce from FAO and/or WFP Angola,Colombia(residents,refugees and migrants),Cuba,Dominican Republic,Ecuador(residents,refugees and migrants),ElSalvador,Ghana,Guatemala,Honduras,Lao Peoples Democratic Republic,Nepal,Nicaragua,Palestine,Papua New Guinea,Peru(residents,refugees and migrants),Philippines,T
159、ajikistan,Togo,Tonga.Countries that did not meet GIEWS criteria but had populations in need of humanitarian assistance as a result of hosting refugee populations who were assisted under the WFP/UNHCR Memorandum of Understanding Algeria(Sahrawi refugees),Egypt(Syrian refugees),Iran(Afghan refugees),J
160、ordan(Syrian refugees),Rwanda(refugees),Trkiye(Syrian refugees).The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.Final boundary between the Republic of Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan has not yet been det
161、ermined.Final status of the Abyei area is not yet determined.Source:FSIN,GRFC 2023.MAP 1.1Countries that requested external assistance for food and/or faced shocks as assessed by FAO-GIEWS in 2022,at least once in the past three years or for at least three years in the past ten yearsCountries/territ
162、ories that did not meet GIEWS criteria but experienced a shock or shocks to food security in 2022,for which they requested external assistance from FAO and/or WFPCountries that did not meet GIEWS criteria but had populations in need of humanitarian assistance as a result of hosting refugee populatio
163、ns who were assisted under the WFP/UNHCR MoUIndicates migrants/refugee populations(colour coding as shown in this key)FBack to Contents Chapter 1|A global overview of food crises1 2|GLO BA L R E PORT ON F OOD CR ISE S 2 02 3*A Famine classification requires evidence on food security,nutrition and mo
164、rtality at or above IPC Phase5 thresholds.If there are insufficient data for Famine classification but the available information indicates that Famine is likely occurring or will occur,then the Famine classification is called Famine Likely.It is important to note that Famine and Famine Likely are eq
165、ually severe.IPC/CH acute food insecurity phase description and response objectivesPhasePhasedescription and priority response objectivesPhase1 None/MinimalHouseholds are able to meet essential food and non-food needs without engaging in atypical and unsustainable strategies to access food and incom
166、e.Action required to build resilience and for disaster risk reduction.Phase2 StressedHouseholds have minimally adequate food consumption but are unable to afford some essential non-food expenditures without engaging in stress-coping strategies.Action required for disaster risk reduction and to prote
167、ct livelihoods.Phase3CrisisHouseholds either:have food consumption gaps that are reflected by high or above-usual acute malnutrition;or are marginally able to meet minimum food needs but only by depleting essential livelihood assets or through crisis-coping strategies.URGENT ACTION required to prote
168、ct livelihoods and reduce food consumption gaps.Phase4 EmergencyHouseholds either:have large food consumption gaps which are reflected in very high acute malnutrition and excess mortality;or are able to mitigate large food consumption gaps but only by employing emergency livelihood strategies and as
169、set liquidation.URGENT ACTION required to save lives and livelihoods.Phase5 Catastrophe/FamineHouseholds have an extreme lack of food and/or other basic needs even after full employment of coping strategies.Starvation,death,destitution and extremely critical acute malnutrition levels are evident.(Fo
170、r Famine classification,area needs to have extreme critical levels of acute malnutrition and mortality.)*URGENT ACTION required to revert/prevent widespread death and total collapse of livelihoods.Acute food insecurity data sourcesSince food security data are derived from varied sources based on dif
171、ferent methodologies,the GRFC relies primarily on data from Integrated Food Security PhaseClassification(IPC)and Cadre Harmonis(CH)analyses.These are government-endorsed,multistakeholder,consensus-based processes that result in a classification of the magnitude and severity of acute food insecurity
172、based on a convergence of evidence and are comparable across countries,i.e.phase classification in one country is equivalent to phase classification in another.They categorize populations into five phases of severity,from Phase1(no or minimal acute food insecurity)to Phase5(Catastrophe/Famine).See t
173、able,right.Through a consensus-based process,country IPC/CH multistakeholder Technical Working Groups generate an estimate of populations in each phase,based on a convergence of available evidence.The GRFC primarily presents populations in Crisis or worse(IPC/CH Phase3 or above),who face high levels
174、 of acute food insecurity and need external humanitarian assistance to reduce food consumption gaps,and to protect and save livelihoods and lives.NonIPC/CH sourcesWhen an IPC/CH analysis is not available,the Technical Working Groups evaluate the use of other sources of evidence.These include:FEWS NE
175、T analyses which are IPC-compatible;WFP Consolidated Approach for Reporting Indicators(CARI),which uses household-level analysis to report moderate and severe levels of acute food insecurity,but without comparable disaggregation into Phases 3,4 and 5(populations that face moderate acute food insecur
176、ity and severe acute food insecurity as per WFPs CARI methodology are reported as an approximation to populations facing IPC/CH Phase3 or above);and food insecurity data contained in Humanitarian Needs Overviews(HNOs),which are based on different methodologies and on government-endorsed multistakeho
177、lder processes.Not all these methodologies underlying the HNOs Population in Need(PIN)estimates are endorsed as acute food insecurity estimates by the GRFC partnership:for example,in the case of Myanmar and Palestine,estimates of acute food insecurity were based on data that did not meet GRFC partne
178、rship requirements.However,the partnership gave more weight to the HNO multistakeholder endorsement of PIN estimates for those two countries/territories,which resulted in their inclusion in the report.The GRFC does not include information based on other methodologies that have not been endorsed by t
179、he GRFC partnership.These include Household Economy Assessments,the Food Insecurity Experience Scale,rCARI(remote data collection)and single indicators,such as the Food Consumption Score,that only report on one dimension of food insecurity.Desk research complements this acute food insecurity data wi
180、th other information sources to provide a more comprehensive analysis of each countrys food,nutrition and/or displacement crisis.The global and regional overviews,presented in chapters 1 and 2,collate the country/territory-level data and,in doing so,illustrate the regional and global interconnectedn
181、ess of the drivers and consequences of food crises.Peak estimatesThe GRFC 2023 reports the highest estimate of people in Crisis or worse(IPC/CH Phase3 or above)for each country/territory included in the GRFC also known as the peak estimate out of all potential analyses available during the year.As a
182、cute food insecurity can be seasonal or the consequence of a shock,the peak figure does not necessarily reflect the situation throughout the year in that country and can be based on a projection.In some cases,the analysis spans two calendar years,therefore the peak estimate may straddle both 2021 an
183、d 2022,or 2022 and 2023.Data gapsSome countries were considered for inclusion but not analysed for the GRFC 2023 because they faced data gaps,as in the case of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea and Eritrea.Data gaps can also be driven by lack of processes to systematically collect information
184、 and lack of funding to conduct assessments,as well as lack of access due to insecurity.Projections for 2023IPC,CH and FEWS NET methodologies project the acute food insecurity situation based on the most likely expected scenario by developing assumptions on the evolution of food security drivers and
185、 their impacts on food security outcomes.As of March 2023,projections were available for 38 of the GRFC 2023 countries/territories.Six countries had analyses for which the 2022 peak came at the end of the year and extended into 2023.All data presented in the GRFC 2023 are the latest available as of
186、17 March 2023.FBack to Contents Chapter 1|A global overview of food crises Spotlight1 3|GLO BA L R E PORT ON F OOD CR ISE S 2 02 3Spotlight|The impact of the war in Ukraine on global food crises While the war in Ukraine has had devastating impacts on the country and its people,it has also created ri
187、pple effects around the world.When the war began in February 2022 after eight years of conflict in the eastern parts of the country the global economy was still recovering from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic,and many low-and middle-income countries had limited capacity to cope with an addition
188、al shock due to growing debt,high inflation,rising commodity prices,slower growth and tightened financial conditions.These macroeconomic challenges intensified with the start of the war and jeopardized the food and nutrition security of millions beyond Ukraines borders.Already high prices rose furth
189、er with the onset of the warThe Russian Federation and Ukraine were major suppliers of agricultural commodities,exporting around a quarter of the worlds wheat and barley and more than two-thirds of its sunflower oil in 2021(FAOSTAT,February 2023).The war,subsequent closure of Ukrainian Black Sea por
190、ts and increase in protectionist trade policies led to a sharp contraction in the global supply of staple goods,causing food prices to rise beyond their pre-war high.In March 2022,the global food price index reached its highest level since FAO records began,with the largest spikes seen in the cereal
191、 and vegetable oil indices(FAO,February 2023).The war also caused already-elevated fertilizer and freight costs to surge,indirectly placing additional upward pressure on food prices by increasing the cost of production and transport.In 2021,the Russian Federation was the top exporter of nitrogen fer
192、tilizers,the second leading exporter of potassic fertilizers and the third leading exporter of phosphorous fertilizers(FAO,December 2022).Although sanctions did not target food or fertilizers,full or partial bans on imports of Russian energy commodities and increased transport and insurance costs co
193、ntributed to higher fertilizer prices,especially nitrogen-based ones,for which natural gas is a key production input.In response,the Russian Federation imposed a series of export restrictions on food and fertilizers,1 including exports of nitrogen and complex-nitrogen fertilizers,which further compl
194、icated the situation(USDA,June 2022).Freight costs also rose dramatically with the lack of access to Black Sea ports,destruction of infrastructure,1 See the full list of Russian export restrictions here:https:/www.foodsecurityportal.org/tools/COVID-19-food-trade-policy-tracker.trade restrictions,inc
195、reased insurance costs and higher fuel prices.Countries compensated by importing critical components and commodities from different markets,which often increased transit times and costs.Between February and May 2022,the price of transporting dry bulk goods,such as grains,increased by nearly 60percen
196、t and was expected to lead to a nearly 4percent increase in global food prices(UNCTAD,June 2022).To address potential supply disruptions shortly after the war began,countries introduced export restrictions on food and fertilizers in the form of bans,quotas,licensing requirements and taxes,which were
197、 meant to protect domestic supply and contain price increases.However,these measures came at the expense of global markets,fuelling disruptions and further unsettling prices.At this trends peak in May 2022,nearly 17percent of global food Percentage increase(December 202122)in the price of staple foo
198、ds in GRFC-qualifying countries/territoriesAlgeria,Egypt,Iran,Jordan,Rwanda and Trkiye were selected for inclusion in the GRFC only because they were hosting refugee populations in need of humanitarian assistance.The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply offic
199、ial endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.Final boundary between the Republic of Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan has not yet been determined.Final status of the Abyei area is not yet determined.Source:WFP Dataviz,2023.100 percent1120 percent51100 percentCountry not selected for analy
200、sisData unavailableMAP 1.2FBack to Contents Chapter 1|A global overview of food crises Spotlight14|GLO BA L R E PORT ON F OOD CR ISE S 2 02 3and feed exports(expressed in calories)were affected by restrictions implemented across 23 countries(IFPRI,January 2023).International commodity prices have de
201、clined but remain well above prepandemic levelsPrices for food,fertilizers,energy and freight began to recede mid-2022 due to a variety of factors,but they remain well above pre-pandemic levels.The reduction in commodity exports from the Russian Federation2 and Ukraine was partially offset by export
202、s from countries such as Argentina,Australia,Brazil,the United Kingdom and the United States of America(UNCTAD,June 2022),and from the European Union.The expiry of some countries protectionist policies helped to ease upward pressure on commodity prices(IFPRI,January 2023).An additional factor in the
203、 fall in global prices and stabilization of commodity markets was the signing of the Black Sea Grain Initiative by the Russian Federation,Trkiye and Ukraine in July 2022.The agreement allowed for the renewal of agricultural commodity exports from selected Black Sea ports in Ukraine,and the concomita
204、nt memorandum of understanding facilitated food and fertilizer exports from the Russian Federation(UN,July 2022).The initiative was extended for 120 days in November 2022 and then again in March 2023 for an unspecified amount of time(UN,March 2023).Knockon impacts have contributed to a costofliving
205、crisisThe current global inflationary surge started with global supply chain bottlenecks linked to the socioeconomic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and was then exacerbated by the war in Ukraine.Global inflation has been pushed higher since 2021 due in large part to the increase in food prices,rea
206、ching a four-decade high of 8.8percent in 2022(IMF,October 2022).The International Monetary Fund(IMF)estimated that,from 2021 to mid-2022,food price inflation alone eroded global living 2 The Central Bank of Russia stopped publishing detailed trade data with the start of the war in Ukraine,making it
207、 difficult to gauge the countrys trade position.The data available suggests that the volume of Russian commodity exports decreased during the first half of 2022 and then increased during the second half.standards at the same rate that headline inflation did over the five years that preceded the COVI
208、D-19 pandemic(IMF,September 2022).While every country was negatively impacted by food price inflation and cost-of-living increases(WB,August 2022;WB,February 2023),the magnitude of these impacts was not homogeneous and greatly depended on countries exposure and coping capacity.Low-and middle-income
209、countries were more vulnerable(CGIAR,March 2023;IMF,September 2022)and,as a result,millions of people in food-crisis countries/territories were driven back into poverty(UNDP,July 2022).High food prices adversely affect low-income populations,as they spend a larger share of their incomes on food.Thes
210、e households also tended to rely more heavily on cereals and other cheaper,energy-dense foods,which left them more open to the market volatility witnessed during 2021 and 2022(CGIAR,March 2023).Increasing magnitude and severity of food crises The war in Ukraine intensified the magnitude and severity
211、 of food crises by exacerbating food access issues at both the macro and household levels.At the start of 2022,many GRFC countries/territories economies were under fiscal pressure and vulnerable to additional shocks,and were dragged further into a cycle of high prices,inflation,increasing debt burde
212、ns and currency depreciation with the onset of the war.3 The ability of governments to mitigate risks and insulate citizens from food price inflation and cost-of-living increases through policy measures,such as stimulus payments and subsidies,was limited given their overextended public budgets after
213、 the COVID-19 pandemic.In 2022,78 percent of the 42 countries/territories identified as major food crises in the GRFC 2023 were net food importers.Many,especially those in Africa and the Middle East,sourced staple foods from the Russian 3 Many of the countries with food crises had additional underly
214、ing drivers that contributed to acute food insecurity and malnutrition,such as conflict and climate shocks.Shares of wheat import volumes from the Russian Federation and Ukraine in 2021,tonnesShares of sunflower oil import volumes from the Russian Federation and Ukraine in 2021,tonnesALGERIADEMOCRAT
215、IC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGOLEBANONNICARAGUASIERRA LEONEDEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGOEGYPTLEBANONMADAGASCARPAKISTAN42%(2.40M)87%(0.35M)88%(16 493)25%(18 635)84%(695)93%(460)12%(0.09M)42%(0.07M)21%(0.53M)25%(1.46M)1%(0.006M)11%(2 000)77%(930)43%(32 320)74%(0.56M)21%(0.03M)54%(1.35M)33%(2.36M)12%(0.05M
216、)1%(229)23%(270)32%(24 221)16%(135)7%(35)14%(0.11M)37%(0.06M)25%(0.61M)Imports from other countriesImports from UkraineImports from Russian FederationImports from other countriesImports from UkraineImports from Russian FederationSource:FAOSTAT.Source:FAOSTAT.FIGURE 1.1FIGURE 1.2FBack to Contents Cha
217、pter 1|A global overview of food crises Spotlight1 5|GLO BA L R E PORT ON F OOD CR ISE S 2 02 3Federation and Ukraine in 2021,which further increased their exposure to the price fluctuations in global markets.See figures 1.1 and 1.2.4 GRFC country/territory import dependence extended to fertilizers
218、from the Russian Federation and Belarus too,with more than 60percent of them being fully reliant on imports of nitrogenous,phosphate and potash fertilizers over half of which were countries with major food crises(IFPRI,February 2023).Unlike with food imports,fertilizer dependence was spread across L
219、atin America,Africa,the Middle East and Asia.Elevated international commodity prices in 2022 meant that GRFC countries/territories were spending more to import less food and fertilizers,which is particularly detrimental to the net food importers(FAO,November 2022).These widening trade deficits then
220、weakened local currencies.The US dollar appreciation compounded currency devaluations as most commodities on the global market are priced in US dollars.As a result,food and fertilizer imports became even more expensive in these domestic markets,fuelling overall price inflation and restarting the hig
221、h price cycle(UNCTAD,June 2022).By the end of 2022,food prices had increased in all GRFC countries/territories,with food inflation being over 10percent in 47 out of the 73 countries/territories(WFP,February 2023).See map 1.2.The rate of change varied throughout the year as prices for certain foods a
222、djusted with crop seasonality,currency fluctuations and/or policy actions.Moreover,nearly all of the countries whose currencies lost value at an abnormally fast rate relative to the US dollar in 2022 were GRFC countries/territories(WFP,February 2023).See map 1.3.As GRFC countries/territories sunk de
223、eper into the high price cycle,the ability of governments to cope with the compounding effect of the war in Ukraine was limited by import reliance and high debt obligations after the COVID-19 pandemic.Before the onset of the war,high volumes of debt qualified over 70 countries to participate in the
224、G20 Debt Service Suspension Initiative,and 36of the eventual 48 participants experienced food crises 4 Total domestic supply of wheat and wheat products,as well as sunflower seed oil,are from 2020.This is the latest data available and indicative of the total supply in 2021 in these countries.in 2022
225、(WB,February 2023).By the end of 2022,over a quarter of GRFC countries/territories had public debt over 60percent of Gross Domestic Product(GDP)(IMF,October 2022).Governments took some measures(mostly temporary ones)to lessen the burden of high prices on vulnerable households.Several GRFC countries/
226、territories were part of the group that imposed export restrictions to improve domestic availability and prices of certain goods.For instance,Lebanon is imposing an export ban on milled grain products,bread,sugar,fruits and vegetables through the end of 2023.Another group of GRFC countries/territori
227、es enacted domestic policies to support vulnerable households.A June 2022 survey by the IMF found that low-and middle-income countries were more likely to implement subsidies,customs duties and/or price freezes rather than cash transfers or voucher programmes(IMF,September 2022).For instance,Ethiopi
228、a,Kenya,Nigeria and the United Republic of Tanzania provided production support through fertilizer subsidies while the Government of Honduras distributed seeds and fertilizers to households in extreme poverty in vulnerable regions.Despite the implementation of policies to insulate citizens,vulnerabl
229、e households in GRFC countries/territories bore the brunt of the impacts.Many had previously taken on debt,sold assets and/or depleted food stocks to cope with the livelihood losses and inflation from the COVID-19 pandemic and had to continue these practices into 2022(WB,September 2022).To cope with
230、 the further reduction in purchasing power,populations with low incomes in both developed and developing countries may be forced to make trade-offs,such as reducing portions and skipping meals,that negatively affect current and future food and nutrition security(FAO,December 2022).A 2022 analysis fo
231、und that food inflation was associated with higher risks for wasting and severe wasting:across all children aged under 5 years,a 5percent increase in the real price of food was associated with a 9percent higher risk of wasting and a 14percent higher risk of severe wasting(IFPRI,December2022).Foodcri
232、sis countries with the largest local currency depreciation relative to the US dollar,December 2022February 2023The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.Source:WFP,February 2023.UKRAINE29%SYRIAN ARAB REP
233、UBLIC92%PAKISTAN54%SRI LANKA79%ZIMBABWE549%DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO81%GHANA88%SIERRA LEONE72%SOUTH SUDAN63%ETHIOPIA56%EGYPT94%MAP 1.3FBack to Contents Chapter 1|A global overview of food crises Spotlight1 6|GLO BA L R E PORT ON F OOD CR ISE S 2 02 3Spotlight|Timely action saves lives and mon
234、eyFollowing the devastating famine in Somalia in 2011,the international community sought to ensure that there would be no repeat of the failures that led to it.Yet more than a decade on,too often the international community waits for a Famine(IPC/CH Phase5)classification before mobilizing additional
235、 funding.Decisionmakers should not wait for Famine declarations before scaling up assistanceAn area classification of Famine(IPC/CH Phase5)is reached when one in five households face an extreme lack of food,about one in three children suffer from acute malnutrition,and two adults or four children in
236、 every 10000 die each day due to starvation or due to the interaction of malnutrition and disease.But areas classified in IPC Phase3 or 4,particularly if for a sustained period,already have higher-than-average levels of excess mortality and morbidity.In 2011,Somalia experienced a devastating famine
237、that killed over a quarter of a million people half of them children under the age of 5(FSNAU,May 2013).Some 43percent of these deaths primarily children occurred before IPC Phase5 criteria were met and many occurred outside the areas classified in IPC Phase5(Maxwell et al.,2018).In Somalia in 2022,
238、an estimated 43000 excess deaths occurred half among children under 5 years old even after a relatively big scale-up in humanitarian response,due to the impacts of the prolonged severe drought in the Horn of Africa as well as global price rises,ongoing insecurity and the aftermath of the COVID-19 pa
239、ndemic(UNICEF&WHO,March 2023).The high levels of acute food insecurity already faced by the 143.7 million people in Crisis(IPC/CH Phase3)and 35million people in Emergency(IPC/CH Phase4)in 2022,combined with the high burden of acute malnutrition in most of the food-crisis countries,already contribute
240、d to loss of livelihoods and even death.Equally important is the future impact in terms of peoples physical and mental development,and that of their offspring,and the human and social capital of communities,even nations.Urgent food and livelihood assistance is required for populations in IPC/CH Phas
241、e3 and 4In IPC/CH Phase3,households are already unable to meet their minimum food needs and either suffer from those food deficits outright or are forced to make the choice to protect food consumption by engaging in coping strategies that will harm their future ability to access food and sustain the
242、ir livelihoods.For example,they may sell significant productive assets,forgo essential healthcare,or withdraw children from school so that they can eat.As households start to resort to coping mechanisms,the most nutritionally vulnerable children,and pregnant and breastfeeding women will start to bea
243、r the consequences of food consumption gaps,resulting in high or above-average acute malnutrition levels.It is at this point that action is needed to ensure immediate wellbeing,support households ability to sustain themselves and protect families from the dilemma of making choices that are likely to
244、 lead to worse outcomes in the future.Over time,sustained pressure from drivers such as conflict,economic shocks and weather extremes,as well as lack of social support or opportunity to recover from shocks,exhausts peoples abilities to cope.This,in turn,drives further deterioration in household food
245、 security and increases reliance on external assistance to manage growing consumption gaps.Under such circumstances,and without successful recovery and development initiatives,there will be a perpetual need for urgent humanitarian action and a growing risk of deteriorating into Emergency(IPC/CH Phas
246、e4).In IPC/CH Phase4,households face large food gaps,which are either reflected in high acute malnutrition levels and excess mortality or mitigated by using emergency coping strategies that severely corrode their wellbeing and livelihoods.For instance,households may turn to eating seeds intended to
247、be used for the next planting season,selling their last breeding animal,or selling their land or house to access food.Assistance is urgently needed in these cases to save households from mortgaging their futures and livelihoods to avoid hunger.Early investment and action not only saves lives it save
248、s money A 2020 study in Ethiopia found that routine support provided under the Ethiopia Productive Safety Net Programme and humanitarian assistance saved an estimated USD 859 million in one year in reduced aid costs as well as avoided income and livestock losses at the household level.Increased cash
249、/resilience investments would have increased savings to USD871million(Cabot Venton C.,2020).A 2012 modelling study in Wajir county in Kenya estimated the total cost of late humanitarian response to be USD257million in a high-magnitude drought affecting 367000 people(Cabot Venton et al.,June 2012).Fo
250、llowing the identification of Risk of Famine in Somalia in 2017,USD 1.1 billion of emergency funding was mobilized and in 2022 the projection of Famine in some areas and among some population groups raised USD980 million.Despite the evidence about the cost-effectiveness of anticipatory investment,in
251、 2016,2018,2019,2020 and 2021,only around half of that amount was allocated,despite 0.40.6 million people remaining in IPCPhase4 each year(GNFC,2022).Timely action mitigates intergenerational impactsA Famine classification or projection attracts political attention and resources,but it also signifie
252、s political and humanitarian failure.By this stage,lives and futures have already been lost,livelihoods have collapsed,and social networks disrupted with deleterious impacts on the lives of an unborn generation.The Dutch famine birth cohort study that followed children born during the 194445 famine
253、found that children who were born or inutero during the famine experienced lifelong challenges including higher mortality and morbidity,and mental health conditions,and that these effects were passed on to the next generations(BMJ,accessed 10 April 2023).The failure to accelerate progress on address
254、ing the drivers of acute food insecurity and undernutrition is perpetuating a system of reliance on humanitarian aid that was not designed or resourced to respond to cyclical and predictable shocks at such scale(Save the Children International and Oxfam International,May 2022).Indeed,the magnitude o
255、f people facing IPC/CH Phase3 or above is daunting,but it is that very scale that drives urgency.Earlier intervention can reduce food gaps and protect assets and livelihoods at a lower cost than late humanitarian response.Urgent action is needed for populations experiencing IPC/CH Phase 3 or aboveSo
256、urce:IPC.Households are able to meet essential food and non-food needs without engaging in atypical and unsustainable strategies to access food and income.Phase 1MinimalPhase 2StressedPhase 3CrisisPhase 4EmergencyPhase 5Catastrophe/FamineHouseholds have minimally adequate food consumption but are un
257、able to afford some essential non-food expenditures without engaging in stress-coping strategies.Households have food consumption gaps with high or above usual acute malnutrition OR accelerated depletion of livelihoods assets OR resort to crisis coping strategies.Households have large food consumpti
258、on gaps resulting in very high acute malnutrition and excess mortality OR face extreme loss of livelihood assets OR resort to emergency coping strategies.Households have an extreme lack of food and/or other basic needs.Starvation,death,destitution and extremely critical acute malnutrition levels are
259、 evident.Action for disaster risk reduction and livelihoods protectionUrgent action requiredFBack to Contents Chapter 1|A global overview of food crises17|GLO BA L R E PORT ON F OOD CR ISE S 2 02 3Acute food insecurity overview,202223In 2022,258 million people faced high levels of acute food insecur
260、ity in 58 countries/territories with available data,up from 193 million in 53 countries in 2021.This marks the fourth consecutive year of rising numbers of people in Crisis or worse(IPC/CH Phase 3 or above or equivalent)due to persistently high numbers in some countries/territories,worsening situati
261、ons in others,as well as increased analysis.Between 2021 and 2022,there was a 25 percent increase in the total population analysed and a 34 percent increase in the number of people facing high levels of acute food insecurity,indicating a year-on-year rise in the magnitude of acute food insecurity in
262、 the food crises identified in this GRFC.The prevalence of the population in IPC/CH Phase 3 or above or equivalent increased from 21.3 percent of the overall analysed population to 22.7 percent between the two years.When comparing the same 48 countries/territories analysed in 2021 and 2022,the popul
263、ation facing IPC/CH Phase 3 or above or equivalent increased from 191.4million people to 228.6 million and the share of people in these phases from 21.8 percent to 22.5percent in 2022.There were differences in analysis coverage at country levelresulting in a 15.5percentincrease inthe analysed popula
264、tionbetween the two years in these countries.See Technical Notes.Out of the 58 food-crisis countries included in the GRFC,42 were identified as major food crises because they had more than 1 million people or 20 percent of the population in IPC Phase 3 or above or equivalent.In the majority of these
265、,levels of acute food insecurity increased and were the highest in the history of the report while in some numbers were stable or declined.Seven food-crisis countries/territories were included in the report as major food crises for the first time Colombia(refugees and migrants),Dominican Republic,Gu
266、inea,Mauritania,Myanmar,Sri Lanka and Lebanon either because data became newly available or levels of acute food insecurity increased to the extent that they met the inclusion thresholds.*This includes people facing IPC/CH Phase 5 outside of the peak period of acute food insecurity in Afghanistan,Bu
267、rkina Faso and Nigeria.*No data disaggregated by phase are available for these countries/territories.Source:IPC TWGs,2022;HNO;WFP CARI;FEWS NET.Source:IPC TWGs,2022.54.2M of them were in seven countries/territories with HNO analyses*19.0M of them were in seven countries with WFP CARI analyses*5.5M o
268、f them were in three countries with FEWSNET analyses*253.0M people were in Stressed (IPC Phase2)in 41 countries/territories with IPC/CH analyses179.0M of them were in 41 countries/territories with IPC/CH analyses258.0M people 22.7%of the analysed population in 58 countries/territories faced high lev
269、els of acute food insecurity in 2022143.7M 35.0M 0.38M*ACUTE FOOD INSECURITY PEAK 2022Populations in Catastrophe (IPC/CH Phase5)in 2022Seven countries/territories had populations in Catastrophe(IPC/CH Phase5)at some point during 2022.Of the 376000people in this phase,57percent of them were in Somali
270、a and 23 percent in SouthSudan.In Yemen,Afghanistan,Haiti,Nigeria and Burkina Faso,populations in this phasehave also been identified in the course of 2022.See figure 1.3.Famine(IPC/CH Phase 5)is used to classify an area in which there is evidence that levels of acute food security,acute malnutritio
271、n and mortality are widespread and critical at or above IPC/CH Phase 5 thresholds.In localized parts of Somalia and Yemen,a Risk of Famine was identified in 2022 according to worst-case scenarios,although it did not materialize in either country.In Somalia,scaled-up humanitarian assistance and bette
272、r-than-forecast(though still below average)OctoberDecember rains gave the country some respite from the prolonged droughtand benefitedcrops and livestock.In Yemen,the return to almost normal functioning of Al Hodeidah port,the truce in hostilities,seasonality and humanitarian assistance prevented a
273、worst-case scenario.Populations in Emergency (IPC/CH Phase4)in 2022The population in Emergency(IPC/CH Phase4)reached 35.0million people in 39countries or 4percent of the analysed population with IPC/CH data.Around half of the total population identified in IPC/CH Phase4 were in four countries,each w
274、ith more than Phase3Phase5Phase4Countries/territories with over 1 million people in IPC/CH Phase4 in 2022 Source:IPC TWGs,2022;and CH.AFGHANISTANYEMENDEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO SUDANSOUTH SUDANPAKISTANHAITISOMALIAKENYANIGERIA6.1M3.8M3.1M2.6M1.8M1.5M1.2M1.2M2.9M5.6MFIGURE 1.414%18%4%6%23%13%18%
275、9%8%1%Share of analysed population in Phase4Numbers of people in Phase4Numbers of people facing Catastrophe in(IPC/CH Phase5)in 7 countries in 2022 *This is not the same analysis as the one showing the acute food insecurity peak in 2022.No new information by IPC phase was available for Ethiopia in 2
276、022.Source:IPC TWGs,2022;and CH.SOMALIASOUTH SUDANYEMENAFGHANISTAN*HAITINIGERIA*BURKINA FASO*FIGURE 1.3214000 in OctDec 202287000 in AprJul 202231000 in JanMay 202220300 in MarMay 202219200 in Sep 2022Feb 20233000 in OctDec 20221800 in OctDec 2022FBack to Contents Chapter 1|A global overview of food
277、 crises1 8|GLO BA L R E PORT ON F OOD CR ISE S 2 02 33million people in this phase Afghanistan,Yemen,the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Sudan.In South Sudan,Yemen,Haiti,Afghanistan and the Central African Republic,at least 10percent of the analysed population was in IPC Phase4,reaching ove
278、r 20percent in South Sudan.Between 2021and 2022,the population in IPC/CH Phase4increased by more than half a million in six countries:Pakistan(+1.5million),Nigeria(+0.9million),Somalia(+0.9million),Kenya(+0.8million),Haiti(+0.7million)and Yemen(+0.6million).In relative terms,the population in IPC/CH
279、 Phase4more than doubled in Kenya,Mali,Mauritania,Pakistan,the Niger,Nigeria and Somalia.When an area is classified in IPC/CH Phase4,it means at least 20percent of its population is experiencing IPC/CH Phase4 or aboveacute food insecurity.In 2022,151of the 41countries/territories with IPC/CH analyse
280、s had areas classified in IPC/CH Phase4.Kenya,the Niger,Somalia and Pakistan all had new areas classified in IPC Phase4that were classified in lower phases in 2021.For some major food crises identified in 2022,data cannot be disaggregated by IPC phase:Bangladesh(Coxs Bazar),Colombia(refugees and mig
281、rants),Ethiopia,Myanmar,Palestine,Sri Lanka,the Syrian Arab Republic,Uganda,Ukraine and Zimbabwe.Yearonyear changes in the population facing IPC/CH Phase 3 or above or equivalentEight countries experienced at least 1million additional people in IPC/CH Phase3or above,between 2021 and 2022:Nigeria(+6.
282、5million),Pakistan(+3.9million),Somalia(+2.1million),Kenya(+2million),the Sudan(+1.9million),the Niger(+1.8million),Yemen(+1.2million)and Malawi(+1.2million).Besides capturing the impact of major shocks on the acute food insecurity status of vulnerable households,this can also be attributed to an in
283、crease in the analysed population in Pakistan,Somalia,the Sudan,Yemen and 1 Afghanistan,Angola,Burkina Faso,Central African Republic,Democratic Republic of the Congo,Haiti,Kenya,Madagascar,Niger,Nigeria,Pakistan,Somalia,South Sudan,Sudan and Yemen.Source:IPC TWGs,2022;HNO,2023;WFP 2022 and 2023.ANGO
284、LACunene,Hula,NamibeMADAGASCARGrand Est,Grand Sud-EstPAKISTAN Balochistan,Khyber Pakhtunkhwa,Sindh58%43%36%SOUTH SUDANSYRIAN ARAB REPUBLICYEMENHAITIAFGHANISTANCENTRAL AFRICANREPUBLICLEBANON(residents)SOMALIANAMIBIA63%55%55%48%46%44%33%33%30%30%of the analysed population in IPC Phase3 or above or equ
285、ivalent,2022Countries with:35%of the analysed population in localized areas in IPC Phase3 or above,202245%of the analysed refugee/migrant population in IPC Phase3 or above or equivalent,2022Moderate+severe acute food insecurityPhase3+Analysed population Malawi and was also linked to population growt
286、h in Somalia and Yemen.See Technical Notes.In Ethiopia and Ukraine,deteriorations in acute food security were observed between 2021 and 2022,but were not quantifiable due to changes in methodology.See Technical Notes.Countries with the highest number of people in IPC/CH Phase3or above or equivalent
287、in 2022In ten countries/territories,163million people were in IPC/CH Phase3or above or equivalent.These countries accounted for 63percent of the total number of people in these phases.Five of these countries the Democratic Republic of the Congo,Ethiopia,Afghanistan,Nigeria(21 states and the FCT)and
288、Yemen accounted for more than 41 percent of the total population in IPC/CH Phase 3 or above or equivalent.See figure 1.5.Six of them have consistently populated this list since 2016 Afghanistan,the Democratic Republic of the Congo,Ethiopia,Nigeria,the Syrian Arab Republic and Yemen and the Sudan sin
289、ce 2018,and Pakistan since 2021.In 2022,the countries with the largest numbers of people in IPC/CH Phase 3 or above included,for the first time,Myanmar(due to newly available data)and Ukraine.Countries with the highest share of people in IPC/CH Phase3or above or equivalent in 2022In terms of share o
290、f the analysed population,in three countries South Sudan,the Syrian Arab Republic and Yemen more than 50percent of the analysed population faced IPC Phase3or above or equivalent.Seefigure 1.6.An additional three countries(Afghanistan,the Central African Republic and Haiti)had more than 40percent of
291、their population in IPC Phase3or above.In addition,selected areas in Angola and Pakistan,and refugee populations in Algeria,Bangladesh,Colombia,Congo,Ecuador,Jordan and Lebanon,had more than 40percent BANGLADESHJORDANALGERIACONGOCOLOMBIA ECUADORLEBANON89%82%74%65%62%60%46%FIGURE 1.6Source:IPC TWGs,2
292、022;HNO,2022 and 2023;CH;and REACH 2023.DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO ETHIOPIAAFGHANISTANNIGERIA YEMENMYANMARSYRIAN ARAB REPUBLICSUDANUKRAINEPAKISTAN3.8M23.6M15.2M18.3M13.8M6.1M5.6M11.7M22.6MCountries/territories with the highest numbers of people in IPC/CH Phase3 or above or equivalent in 2022 a
293、nd the share of analysed population in these phasesFIGURE 1.58.9M12.1M8.6M3.1M26%21%12%46%55%27%55%24%25%43%1.2M6.0M2.6M31000IPC/CH Phase5Non IPC/CH moderate+severe acute food insecurityIPC/CH Phase3+Non IPC/CH moderate+severe acute food insecurityIPC/CH Phase4IPC/CH Phase3Numbers of people in:Share
294、 of analysed population in:FBack to Contents Chapter 1|A global overview of food crises1 9|GLO BA L R E PORT ON F OOD CR ISE S 2 02 3of the analysed population facing high levels of acute food insecurity.Drivers of food crises in 202223The food crises profiled in the GRFC are caused by multiple driv
295、ers that tend to be mutually reinforcing in most contexts.In 2022,they become even more entangled,in particular for major food crises,and were increasingly driven not only by the occurrence of a shock,but the succession of shocks particularly the global shocks of the socioeconomic impacts of COVID-1
296、9 and the war in Ukraine,with knock-on effects at the national and regional levels.In terms of numbers of people facing high levels of acute food insecurity,conflict was still the main driver in 2022.But economic shocks became the main driver in a higher number of countries/territories.See figure 1.
297、8.The GRFC 2023 aims to identify the most prominent driver of acute food insecurity for each country/territory.Although the relative weight of each driver is difficult to estimate at country level and even more so at global level the increase in acute food insecurity observed in recent years may be
298、attributed in part to the increased significance of secondary drivers global economic shocks and climatic phenomena.Conflict/insecurity remained the most significant driver for around 117million people facing high levels of acute food insecurity in 19countries/territories.This was 22million fewer pe
299、ople than in 2021(139million people across 24countries/territories)largely because economic shocks were considered a more prominent driver in Afghanistan,South Sudan and the Syrian Arab Republic.However,the long-term impacts of protracted conflict as well as pockets of persisting insecurity in these
300、 countries continued to limit livelihood opportunities and agricultural production,particularly for millions of internally displaced people(IDPs).Fifteen countries/territories remained primarily affected by conflict/insecurity between the two years mainly in West Africa and the Sahel,and the Middle
301、East.Haiti became more prominently affected by insecurity and gang violence in 2022compared with 2021.Data became available for Algeria(refugees),Congo(refugees)and Myanmar in 2022 in all these situations conflict was identified as the primary driver.The impact of conflict/insecurity by regionCentra
302、l and Southern Africa Agricultural activities were hampered by insecurity and population displacements in the Central African Republic and in eastern areas of the Democratic Republic of the Congo(FAO-GIEWS,December 2022).In Mozambique,repeated attacks by non-state armed groups in Cabo Delgado led to
303、 a rise in IDPs,who face the highest levels of acute food insecurity,while violent incidents hindered the delivery of essential humanitarian assistance(FAO-GIEWS,January 2023).East Africa Localized conflict continues to affect households particularly across Ethiopia,Somalia,South Sudan and the Sudan
304、(WFP,December 2022).In Tigray and Amhara regions of Ethiopia,security improved after the ceasefire agreement in November 2022,but remained volatile,and plantings of 2023 crops are likely to be reduced(FAO-GIEWS,March 2023).West Africa and the Sahel,and Cameroon Continued insecurity in the Lake Chad
305、Basin and the Liptako-Gourma region as well as the increase in violent incidents in northern parts of coastal countries disrupted agricultural livelihoods,pastoral movements,labour migration flows and the delivery of humanitarian assistance,reducing the availability of and access to food.In Burkina
306、Faso,for instance,conflict in conjunction with lack of basic social infrastructure is driving permanent population displacement and disrupting agropastoral activities(CH,March 2023).Asia In Bangladesh,about 1million Rohingya refugees from Myanmar,who reside mostly in Coxs Bazar and the island of Bha
307、san Char,remain highly dependent on humanitarian assistance(FAO-GIEWS,March 2023).In Afghanistan,although conflict incidents and related population displacement reduced considerably since August 2021,decades of conflict have significantly reduced households resilience particularly for the millions s
308、till displaced internally(IPC,May 2022).Europe In Ukraine,most of the people in need are located in war zones where disruptions to income-earning activity,interruptions to supply chains,and damage to essential infrastructure,including water and heating,have occurred(FEWS NET,September 2022).Middle E
309、ast and North Africa In the Syrian Arab Republic,while large-scale hostilities have subsided following the March 2020Idleb ceasefire agreement,localized hostilities and lasting impact from previous Numbers of people in IPC/CH Phase3 or above or equivalent by primary driver,201822 2018 2019 2020 2021
310、 2022Conflict/insecurity 73.9M 77.1M 99.1M 139.1M 117.1M 21countries 22 countries 23 countries 24 countries 19 countriesEconomicshocks 10.2M 24.0M 40.5M 30.2M 83.9M 6 countries 8 countries 17 countries 21countries 27 countries Weatherextremes 28.8M 33.8M 15.7M 23.5M 56.8M 26 countries 25 countries 1
311、5 countries 8 countries 12 countriesEconomic shocks include the indirect impact of COVID-19 in 2020 and 2021and the effects of the war in Ukraine in 2022.Source:FSIN,GRFC 20192023.clashes continued throughout 2022(OCHA,December 2022).In Libya,although there was no relapse into large-scale armed conf
312、lict in 2022,localized clashes between armed groups,particularly in the western region,continued(OCHA,December 2023).In Yemen,despite the six-month truce and lull in hostilities,the impact of eight years of conflict loss of life,disruption of livelihoods and crippling of the economy has contributed
313、to unprecedented levels of acute food insecurity(IPC,October 2022).Economic shocks(including COVID-19socioeconomic impacts and the ripple effects of the Ukraine war)became the main driver for 83.9million people in 27countries almost tripling the 2021figure of 30.2million people and an increase from
314、21countries.This is the result of successive years of global shocks marked by the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on economies and livelihoods starting in 2020,followed by the start of the war in Ukraine in 2022,which triggered significant food and fertilizer price shocks on international markets,a
315、ffecting prices at the country level.The economic resilience of poor countries has thus dramatically decreased and they face extended recovery periods and have diminished the ability to cope with future shocks.Economic shocks became the primary driver in 2022 in four countries in which conflict had
316、been identified as FIGURE 1.7FIGURE 1.8Key drivers of acute food insecurity in countries/territories with food crisesFood crises are the result of multiple drivers.The GRFC has based this infographic on the predominant driver in each country/territory.*Number of people in IPC/CH Phase 3 or above or
317、equivalent.Source:FSIN,GRFC 2023.58countries/territories19 countries/territories (117.1M people*)27 countries(83.9M people*)12 countries (56.8M people*)Conflict/insecurityWeather extremesEconomic shocksFBack to Contents Chapter 1|A global overview of food crises20|GLO BA L R E PORT ON F OOD CR ISE S
318、 2 02 3(FAO-GIEWS,March 2023)in every country in the region in 2022.By late 2022,food price inflation ranged from 1550 percent in 11 countries(Trading Economics).Asia Afghanistans economic crisis is widespread,with more than half of households experiencing an economic shock in the second half of 202
319、2.The drivers of humanitarian needs shifted from COVID-19and conflict in 2021,to drought,climate change and economic shocks in 2022(OCHA,January 2023).In 2022,vulnerable populations in Sri Lanka were affected by the countrys protracted economic crisis.In Pakistan and Bangladesh,prices of staple food
320、s were at high levels,underpinned respectively by high agricultural and transportation costs and by considerable slowdown in imports in 2022(FAO-GIEWS,March 2023).Latin America and the Caribbean In Central America,annual food inflation was above 11percent in El Salvador,Guatemala,Honduras and Nicara
321、gua(WFP,March 2023).In Haiti,a succession of crises and increasing violence have paralysed the economy,and sustained currency depreciation provided additional upward pressure on prices of imported items.In South America,the severe and prolonged macroeconomic crisis in the Bolivarian Republic of Vene
322、zuela has created a refugee and migrant crisis of 7.1million people,with the largest groups in Colombia,Peru and Ecuador(R4V,January 2023).Middle East and North Africa In the Syrian Arab Republic,a crippled economy is the main driver of acute food insecurity.High domestic inflation fuelled by curren
323、cy depreciation and high import costs has severely eroded purchasing power(OCHA,December 2022).Lebanon is facing an economic and financial crisis that has undermined the food security of already vulnerable Lebanese and Syrian refugees(IPC,December 2022).Yemens economy remains frail;according to the
324、World Bank,economic and social prospects remain highly unstable and hinge on a resolution to the conflict.Weather extremes were the primary driver of acute food insecurity in 12countries where 56.8million people were in IPC/CH Phase3or above or equivalent,a doubling in the number of people from 23.5
325、million in eight countries in 2021.These extremes included sustained and exceptionally severe drought in the Horn of Africa,devastating flooding in Pakistan,tropical storms and cyclones and drought in Southern Africa.Even though the conflict in Tigray remained active until the ceasefire in November
326、2022,weather extremes were deemed to be the main driver in Ethiopia where the drought affected more people than conflict that year.Weather extremes also became the primary driver in Iraq,Pakistan,Uganda and Zambia.In seven countries,weather extremes were the primary driver in both years.The impact o
327、f weather extremes by regionCentral and Southern Africa Several areas have been affected by rainfall deficits and high temperatures,including northern parts of Madagascar,Mozambique and Namibia,and southern areas of Angola and Zimbabwe,curtailing yield prospects.Furthermore,the impact of tropical st
328、orms and cyclone Freddy in February 2023,which had caused flooding in Madagascar and Mozambique,is expected to result in crop damages(FAO-GIEWS,March 2023).In the analysed areas of the United Republic of Tanzania,acute food insecurity is driven primarily by a prolonged dry spell and erratic rainfall
329、 that has contributed to failure in crop and livestock production and has negatively affected pasture and water availability(IPC,December 2022).East Africa The Horn of Africa has faced drought since late 2020,resulting in widespread livestock deaths in pastoral areas of southern Ethiopia,central and
330、 northern Somalia,and northern and eastern Kenya.In Somalia,the early 2023harvests are the sixth consecutive season,and in southeastern Kenya the fifth,with reduced cereal production.South Sudan experienced a fourth consecutive year of unusually widespread flooding.West Africa and the Sahel,and Came
331、roon Widespread floods led to crop losses(FAO-GIEWS,March 2023)particularly affecting the Inner Niger Delta in Mali,Senegal,the Lower Niger River Basin in Nigeria,and the Lake Chad Basin Chad,the Niger and Nigeria.The the primary driver in 2021 Afghanistan,Lebanon,South Sudan and the Syrian Arab Rep
332、ublic.For the Sudan,weather extremes were the primary driver in 2021,but economic shocks became more prominent in 2022.In seven countries in the GRFC 2023that did not have sufficient evidence last year(Cabo Verde,Colombia(refugees and migrants),Dominican Republic,Ecuador(refugees and migrants),Ghana
333、,SriLanka and Togo),economic shocks were the main driver.In 15 countries.they remained the primary driver in both years.The impact of economic shocks by regionCentral and Southern Africa Across the region,high food prices and transport costs,due to the lingering impact of COVID-19related-restrictions and the ripple effects of war in Ukraine,coupled with very limited employment opportunities,have s