Tag: IPC

U.S. Food for Peace (Part 1): Reflections about Development Food Assistance

July 7, 2026    by Mara Russell     This is the first in a series of articles by Hunger Notes about the U.S. Food for Peace (FFP) Program.  “Food for Peace Title II Non-Emergency Programs: What are they and Why are they needed?”

In the United States, government-funded “Food for Peace” (FFP) programs  transitioned from USAID to the State Department when the former agency was dissolved  in 2025. Several months later, the Food for Peace program was transferred to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), a large federal agency that had not managed this program previously. Soon after this transition, $452 million in FFP resources was awarded directly to the U.N. World Food Programme (WFP) for food activities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), El Salvador, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Haiti, Kenya and Rwanda.[i]

Then, as recently reported in Hunger Notes, in 2026, USDA released a “Notice of Funding Opportunity” for nonprofits (NGOs) for new Emergency Food for Peace programs, naming the same set of countries that were eligible for food assistance.  These upcoming programs are scheduled to be worth $357 million in total.[ii]  Since a total of $1.2 billion was appropriated by Congress for Food for Peace in FY26,[iii], USDA is now considering how to implement the rest of the funding for “development” or non-emergency food programs, referred to during the past seven years as Resilience Food Security Activities or “RFSAs.”[iv].

One critical variable that non-emergency programs have leveraged during recent cycles of USG funding is timeframe. These NGO-administered programs are generally five years in length, while emergency programs only last for a maximum of two years. Emergency programs are designed to address the impacts of acute (wasting) malnutrition and severe food insecurity. Resources in emergency programs are provided to address short- to medium- term impacts of a severe shock. This can be due to a natural disaster such as an earthquake, a severe storm, drought, or  severe conflict. The spread of an epidemic or pandemic disease can also result in such impacts, either due to a breakdown of production and markets, or due to people being at greater risk of malnutrition due to the impacts of a disease. Or shocks can result from a combination of several things.

On the other hand, non-emergency programs focus on preventing emergencies.   They address the underlying causes of hunger that tend to become more serious when conditions are such that food supplies become limited, or people lose access to food due to the types of shocks outlined above. These underlying causes, such as poverty, cultivation practices that result in poor yields, inadequate services or limited safety-nets that result in food insecurity and malnutrition, lack of income earning opportunities, poor access to water for agriculture and for drinking and inadequate sanitation that can cause water-borne disease- a significant underlying cause of acute and chronic malnutrition, lack of attention to the special nutrition needs of women of childbearing age, pregnant women and young children, and lack of capacity to prepare for potential shocks that impact food security and nutrition. These are complex issues that call for a combination of access to goods and services, while adopting of behaviors and practices within households.  Programs also ensure that the food consumed meets the standards of a healthy diet, prevent water-borne disease, and build resilience to unexpected shocks.

This takes time. There is a limit to what can be done in only one or two years. This is especially the case because according to the 2026 USDA Emergency funding opportunity, it takes between 45 and 90 days from the award of a program until food aid from the Food for Peace program can be exported from the United States, and then up to another 6 months for commodities to arrive in the country where they will be distributed.[v]

A second factor has to do with geography.  Emergency food aid programs are in countries and locations where there is an active ongoing shock, and large concentrations of people, including refugees and internally displaced people, living in a situation of extreme food and nutrition insecurity that should be addressed immediately.  Identification of these locations is guided by early warning systems or methodologies that classify people based on the degree to which they are currently food insecure or malnourished. The system that tends to be most respected internationally is the U.N.’s Integrated Phase Classification or IPC system. During its existence, USAID utilized this system, and now USDA is using it also as a way of designating where and among whom an emergency program should be implemented. In its recent funding request, USDA stated that a minimum of 20% of the population to be targeted with food aid should be living at IPC 3 or higher. The IPC classifies populations at levels 1 through 5 based on the severity of food insecurity as follows: 1 = None/Minimal, 2 = Stressed, 3 = Crisis, 4 = Emergency and 5 = Famine. The “shorthand” clarification used for those populations needing immediate assistance are those at IPC 3+.[vi]

However, non-emergency programs aim to reduce the likelihood that people living in a particular geographic area will experience conditions at or above IPC 3. Countries prioritized for these programs may already have sizeable populations at IPC 3+, but there may not be significant active shock conditions causing this situation. Sometimes, populations may be at IPC 3+ due to a shock that has previously increased food insecurity and malnutrition. For instance, after the Haiti earthquake in 2010, there were emergency programs that addressed food insecurity, malnutrition, reconstruction and access to food for the people impacted by this shock.  However, by 2013, many of the immediate impacts of the quake, such as food insecurity and displacement were initially addressed, but there was a need to address long-term root causes of malnutrition and vulnerability.  At that time USAID implemented a non-emergency program that sought to address these underlying causes and increase the ability of the country to cope with severe shocks.[vii]

Many countries where non-emergency programs are implemented experience cyclical shocks that recur on a periodic basis. They do not always exist in shock situations but may be impacted by droughts or floods during serious weather events, such as El Niño or La Niña events. During the El Niño event in 2023-2024, most of the harvest of the country of Zimbabwe was ruined due to inadequate and poorly timed rainfall.[viii]  However, on-going non-emergency programs continued to increase yields, increase incomes and reduce malnutrition, while emergency programs supported households and communities as necessary with additional food and other emergency assistance. Most of these countries also experience an annual “hunger season”, which tends to occur anywhere from 3-6 months prior to the next harvest when food stocks and cash earned from the prior harvest have been depleted.  Thus, while non-emergency programs are not implemented in contexts where active shocks occur, they may be targeted within fragile environments where hunger seasons make life very tenuous for people living in those geographies.

Another important element in these programs are the participants who are targeted. In emergency programs, large portions of the population are highly vulnerable due to the impacts of a disaster, such as an earthquake, a hurricane or other cyclonic storm, or severe conflict. In these cases, those targeted for assistance may have been displaced, or otherwise lost everything – including their health. In such emergency situations, it does not matter whether people were rich or poor prior to such shocks.

However, Title II non-emergency program participants tend to be those who are poorest, receive the fewest services, and are at greatest risk of malnutrition and food insecurity.  Often the focus is on those who have the least to fall back on when shocks occur and tend to be those most impacted by annual hunger seasons and other severe shocks.  A case in point is the Ethiopia Productive Safety-Net Program (PSNP), which has been supported by Title II non-emergency food aid since its inception in 2005.[ix] The PSNP targets people who are impacted by the annual hunger season through a Cash or Food for Assets (FFA) activity that creates a safety-net during the period of greatest vulnerability in normal years while developing assets that communities can use during good years and fall back on in bad years. The PSNP is supported by the Ethiopian government as well as several other donors. During normal years, a certain number of households are targeted for the program based on their chronic food insecurity and malnutrition. However, during years when poor crop yields and impacts increase the number of households needing food assistance, the number of households targeted increases to also address the needs of those who would not normally be included in the PSNP program.

In addition to selecting participants based on their food insecurity, there is a difference between how emergency and non-emergency programs select participants when it comes to malnutrition. In the case of emergency programs, care is taken to address the needs of people who are acutely malnourished, mainly children under 5 and pregnant and lactating women. In the case of emergency programs, acute malnutrition, in which the body loses weight rapidly, becomes a major risk. Moderate acute malnutrition exists when body weight for height among children under 5 falls below 2 standard deviations from the global mean, and severe acute malnutrition exists when this falls to 3 standard deviations below the mean.  If the rate of wasting malnutrition in a population reaches or exceeds 10%, this is deemed a humanitarian emergency requiring immediate rehabilitation using ready to use therapeutic and supplementary foods  that provide concentrations of fat, calories, protein and other nutrients all aimed at ensuring survival and rapid weight gain. Women of childbearing age, including those who are pregnant or breastfeeding as well as men also benefit from rehabilitation with RUTF or ready to use supplementary foods (RUSF), designed to also rehabilitate people in these conditions. These products are available via Title II.

However, in the case of non-emergency programs, participants are targeted based on the rate of “Stunting”, or chronic malnutrition, which exists when height-for-age among children under the age of 5 falls below 2 standard deviations under the global mean. The logic behind this is that there are milestones for linear growth that children need to reach before the age of 2 to avoid being developmentally disabled and to ensure a healthy life. Infants and young children under age 2 in this condition can recover from this and their linear growth can catch up to normal levels before they reach age 2.  However, after these children reach age 2, it becomes extremely difficult for their growth to catch up.  It is possible for a child to be both chronically and acutely malnourished (also known as “wasted”). It is also possible for stunted children not to be wasted and wasted children not to be stunted. However, there are certainly connections between these different types of malnutrition.  Nonetheless, stunting and wasting are indicative of different situations based on how and when they occur within the population. High levels of acute malnutrition indicate the existence of an acute shock as it does not take long for children to become acutely malnourished. This occurs when children are deprived of the food they need for a period of days or weeks (at most). However, it can take a long time for a child to become stunted. Children become stunted because they lack sufficient nutrients in their diet (both macro- and micro-nutrients) to fulfill their daily requirements. It takes months for a child to become stunted, and it also takes a long time for them to overcome this problem. If there are a lot of stunted children in the population, this indicate that the population is chronically food insecure and poor.

Thus, non-emergency Title II programs target populations with high chronic malnutrition rates among children under 5 as this is a clear red flag that there is a significant poverty and food insecurity problem within these populations. Targeting participants from these areas indicates that while there may not an active shock situation, there may still be a lot of food insecurity – which left unaddressed – could lead to more serious problems.  People living in these contexts are on the edge, and one missed harvest due to a storm or drought or earthquake or locust swarm or violent attack could result in them becoming part of the emergency case load of Title II programs.

Non-emergency Title II programs focus on ensuring that infants are exclusively breastfed until they are six months old, and that beyond that time their diets consist of the types of diverse foods that children of their age need to meet their linear growth milestones by age two. At the same, these programs  also address the underlying causes of chronic malnutrition. They train mothers to feed their children properly, including exclusive breastfeeding, take care to prevent water-borne disease through handwashing and use of clean water. At the same time, these programs recognize that mothers will be unable to feed their children the types of food they need if they are not able to produce or purchase it throughout the year. Raising these issues among all community members can build support and solidarity to ensure that children’s and women’s dietary needs are met. In addition, creation of clean water access and sanitation – including installation of accessible working water points and household latrines – support practices such as frequent handwashing with soap, and reduction of open defecation. These practices in turn reduce water-borne disease from hindering the absorption of the nutritious food being consumed. And, integrating these practices into people’s lives takes a long time, thus the longer timeframe of these programs is critical.

Non-emergency programs also provide a few more benefits that make them important to reduce the emergency caseload of Title II. They target countries and regions that are fragile and shock prone. They can detect changes in conditions,  both positive and negative, which can reduce time lags on responses. If the number of acutely malnourished children begins to escalate – this could easily occur within the areas where populations are most food insecure. If harvests begin to fail due to weather impacts, many farmers in the geography where the program is implemented (they may or may not be participants) will experience these conditions first.  The presence of an implementer (NGO) in these areas can ensure the monitoring of IPC levels, levels of acute malnutrition, impacts on harvests and prevalence of diseases – including those that are water-borne.

At the same time, these programs seek to enable participants to anticipate and cope better with the types of shocks that normally impact these geographic areas. Reviewing the history of the targeted population, it is possible to learn more about the major shocks that typically impact them, and they are sometimes cyclical. For instance, locust swarms may occur every so often in parts of East Africa. Working with communities likely to be impacted by these swarms during years when they don’t occur to prepare for when the locusts return will help participants to cope more effectively when this happens. There are now many agricultural technologies that enable farmers to adapt to drought. This could range from water-harvesting, to irrigation, to use of drought-adopted seeds, to reorienting productive systems through methods such as Resilient Design and Perma-gardening.[x]  The last two types of systems prevented farmers from losing their crops during the El Niño drought event in Zimbabwe mentioned above.[xi] It was a non-emergency Title II programs that provided training to farmers to enable them to maintain their crops in the face of this severe drought.

Finally, one of the key underlying causes of food insecurity is poverty.  Farmers may depend on their crops for food, but they need cash to fall back on when their crops fail, and they need to purchase food from markets. Also, for farmers to maintain their land and plant crops, they need cash for inputs and often to pay for land,  either as the owner or as a renter or lease holder.  It also costs money for children to attend school, and it costs money to get to markets, visit health centers, buy fertilizers and crop-protection products. Maintaining water points and latrines can also cost money because spare parts and their installation is not free. And when the program is over after five years of investment, ensuring that people not only achieve but also sustain their food security will mean that people have a secure source of cash and savings to fall back on.  Otherwise, closing the program will be commensurate to a shock for those who have benefitted from it.

A methodology that has proven itself over the years, and within the past nine years in Title II non-emergency programs has been the Graduation Approach.[xii]  Developed and initiated by BRAC in Bangladesh, this approach has been tested throughout the world in fragile contexts where large numbers of poor and food insecure people live.[xiii] The approach targets extremely poor people, provides them with food assistance safety-nets  and then links them to a savings and loan group where they meet others in their situation and obtain peer group support. At the same time, they are provided training in a livelihood opportunity for which there is demand within their context. This livelihood training could be agricultural (crops or livestock) or non-agricultural in nature and offers people the opportunity to become employed or operate their own business. After their training is complete, participants  receive small grants or assets (such as equipment or animals) that enable them to start their activities until they become viable. During this time, they continue to receive coaching and mentoring so that they can be successful within their chosen livelihood. They also receive training and support with respect to nutrition, water and sanitation and learn to anticipate and respond effectively to shocks. The Graduation Approach has been shown to ensure a high return on investment and results are sustained over time after the end of the program.[xiv]

Now that the program has moved to USDA, the leadership is reviewing the program and will likely make changes that will increase the cost  of food and ocean freight versus what is provided to those in need.[xv]  The recent Emergency Program set of funding opportunities stipulated that at least 50% of program budgets must be devoted to commodities and ocean freight.[xvi] This reduced the funding that could be provided to internal transportation storage and handling to distribute commodities. It also reduced the funds that could be provided for technical interventions such as monitoring of severe food insecurity and levels of acute malnutrition, training mothers about how to monitor and refer their children, and enabling technical interventions that will help people to recover from emergency situations. It is possible that the same 50% requirement may be put in place by USDA for future Non-Emergency Programs, and this could reduce the resources available to enable the sustainable improvement of food security and nutrition in extremely poor and fragile contexts as described above.

Changes in the legislation over the years made it possible to integrate international disaster assistance funds  with emergency Food for Peace programs enabling the use of cash, vouchers and local, regional and international procurement  to ensure that the right resources were available at the right time to address peoples’ needs. This prevented the need to wait 6 – 8  months for U.S. commodities to arrive in country to begin addressing acute malnutrition.  As noted above, the impact of acute malnutrition is rapid and if not addressed quickly will lead to death.

Similarly, U.S. legislative changes enabled the coordinated use of Development Assistance funds with non-emergency Food for Peace programs, which covered the cost of the complex interventions discussed above. These resources also provided the opportunity for programs to transition people away from dependence on U.S. food aid and foreign assistance.  While food aid has been important for non-emergency programs to build stability for those suffering chronic food insecurity, we will not ultimately accomplish Title II’s objectives if people remain dependent on food aid at the end of each program.

As global conditions worsened around the turn of the century, the need for emergency food aid programs increased around the world.  These needs began to reduce the funds available to pay for non-emergency programs. Thus, in the 2008 U.S. Farm Bill, a Non-Emergency “Safe Box” was integrated into Title II legislation to establish minimum funding to ensure that these programs could continue to be implemented. Currently $365 million is designated for the implementation of these programs.  $700 million of USG  funding from FY26 and FY27 allocations may be made available soon for these programs.[xvii]

While much remains unclear about the future of U.S. Title II non-emergency food aid programs, the need for activities that reduce and prevent high levels of acute and chronic food insecurity and malnutrition has not diminished,  and perhaps has increased, during the 18 months since the 2025 Executive Order to pause foreign assistance was announced.[xviii] It is also clear that addressing the underlying causes of food and nutrition insecurity is still important. Hopefully, USDA will hold true to this fundamental mandate of these programs. This will entail implementing these programs over a 5-year timeframe, in fragile geographies where shocks are frequent, among participants who are chronically poor and/or malnourished, while increasing peoples’ ability to cope with shocks, and producing outcomes that are sustainable.  If these are not the Title II mandate’s parameters for non-emergency programs, they run the risk of violating legislation..

Further Reading:

Food for Peace / U.S. Food Aid

Global Hunger, IPC, and Malnutrition

Country-specific articles relevant to your examples (Haiti, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, DRC, etc.)

REFERENCES:

[i] Miolene, Elissa, USDA takes over Food for Peace with $452M World Food Programme deal, 29 January 2026.

[ii] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food for Peace Notice of Funding Opportunity, Fiscal Year 2025, May 13, 2026

[iii] Miolene, Elissa, House locks Food for Peace into USDA with 50% commodity requirement,1 May 2026,

[iv]  These progras were known variously as Development Activity Programs (DAPs), Multi-Year Activity Programs (MYAPs), Development Food Assistance Programs (DFAPs), Development Food Security Activities (DFSAs) and Resilience Food Security Activities (RFSAs). There were differences between these programs, but those differences were not necessarily associated with the names given to them.

[v] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food for Peace Notice of Funding Opportunity, Fiscal Year 2025, May 13, 2026, https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/362375.

[vi] Integrated Phase Classification, https://www.ipcinfo.org/ipcinfo-website/ipc-overview-and-classification-system/en/?__cf_chl_f_tk=vmmArOlbSf51oWrK_G0UqCVyP0w6jSuy9SVydqdsIlk-1783098737-1.0.1.1-XKb_PsSY1mVf1b2u8K3Udd85lbGsjDgfDcO0yyY9UrE,

[vii] https://borgenproject.org/kore-lavi-provides-food-security-in-haiti/; accessed July 3, 2026.

[viii] United Nations, UN News, Zimbabwe faces worsening food crisis due to El Niño droughts, 7 August 2024, https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/08/1152936.

[ix] IFPRI, Productive Safety-Net Program, https://essp.ifpri.info/productive-safety-net-program-psnp/, accessed July 3, 2026

[x] FANRPAN, Scaling up Resilience Design in Zimbabwe: Position Paper, https://fanrpan.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Takunda_CareSlideDeck-1.pdf.

[xi] Chitsa, Tanaka, Growing Hope: Community gardens flourish amidst El Nino challenges, 27 August 2024, https://www.carezimbabwe.org/growing-hope-community-gardens-flourish-amidst-el-nino-challenges/.

[xii] AVSI, Graduating to Resilience, https://www.avsi.org/en/graduating-to-resilience

[xiii] BRAC, Graduation Out of Ultra Poverty, https://www.brac.net/solutions/development/ending-poverty/ultra-poor-graduation/

[xiv] Abrams, William, Joshua Goldstein, Larry Reed, Carine Roenen, and Jean Francois Tardif, The Business Case for Investing in Graduation, September 2017, ultra-poverty.org, https://www.ultra-poverty.org/blog-post/the-business-case-for-investing-in-graduation/#.

[xv] Miolene, Elissa, House locks Food for Peace into USDA with 50% commodity requirement, 1 May 2026,

[xvi] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food for Peace Notice of Funding Opportunity, Fiscal Year 2025, May 13, 2026,

[xvii] Miolene, Elissa, US Dept of Agriculture to reboot Food for Peace’s ‘safe box’ programs,

[xviii] The White House, Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid, January 20, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/reevaluating-and-realigning-united-states-foreign-aid/.

Mara Russell is a career programmer of Title II food aid.

Most of Yemen is Now Hungry

June 17, 2026   Yesterday, the UN was advised that the extent of food insecurity in Yemen had ratcheted up further:  “The hunger crisis in Yemen is worsening sharply, with the share of people unable to meet basic food needs rising from about half to nearly 60 percent within a month,” UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator Tom Fletcher warned on Tuesday, calling for urgent funding to prevent further starvation.  “The number of Yemenis facing the most severe levels of deprivation has increased from one in four to nearly one in three. More than 18 million people, …are now experiencing acute hunger, ” Fletcher told the UN Security Council during a June 16 briefing.

Over 2.2 million children under five are acutely malnourished, including more than half a million in the severe, life-threatening form. Nearly half of all children under five suffer chronic malnutrition (stunting), locking in lifelong disadvantages for a generation. In hard-hit areas, half of households with young children report at least one malnourished child, while one in four has a malnourished pregnant or lactating woman.

The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification System (IPC) of famine predicts and projects a growing number of regions moving into Phase 4 — Emergency, shown in red in the map at right — for the period September to December 2026.  The Orange Zones are very food insecure and Red are emergency.

The 2026 Yemen Humanitarian Needs and Response Plan of the U.N. requested $2.16 billion for aid in order to reach 12 million of the 22.3 million people in need of assistance.  Yet, donor fatigue and competing global crises threaten another shortfall. Recent floods have destroyed displacement camps and livelihoods, while economic pressures and regional shipping tensions continue to inflate food and fuel prices. In government-controlled areas alone, nearly half the population now are now suffering crisis-level acute food insecurity, with emergency levels expected to climb through the lean season.The country’s arid climate, limited arable land, and chronic water scarcity have always constrained domestic production. Yemen has long depended on imports for over 90 percent of its food, especially wheat, of which it imports around 96 percent, leaving it acutely vulnerable to global price spikes, shipping disruptions, currency collapse, and fuel shortages that drive up transport costs.  War has only deepened this dependency.

The current civil war, fueled by Iranian support to Houthi rebels, has made humanitarian aid more difficult.  NGOs that had been building long-term food resilience for years had to shift to more short-term life-saving aid.  Damaged irrigation, lost livestock, displacement of farmers, and soaring input costs have left cereal production well below average. Even when commercial imports through Red Sea ports remain adequate in volume, economic collapse and rial devaluation put basic staples beyond reach for millions.

The chart at right comes from the CEOBS Report: Yemen’s agriculture in distress – ceobs.org

What is new and especially alarming in 2026 is the sharp contraction of the humanitarian response itself. In January, the World Food Programme announced it was terminating operations and contracts for its 365 staff in Houthi-controlled northern Yemen, home to roughly 70 percent of the country’s humanitarian needs—after repeated obstructions, arbitrary detentions of aid workers, and an increasingly impossible operating environment. This followed earlier suspensions and adds to chronic underfunding.  The 2025 appeal was only 29 percent funded, forcing agencies to scale back nutrition, health, and food programs nationwide.

Yemen’s food insecurity has deep roots, but the convergence of aid cutbacks, operational halts in the areas of greatest need, economic freefall, and climate shocks risks erasing fragile gains in nutrition and pushing more families beyond their breaking point.

Aid agencies helping to address malnutrition in Yemen include:  the International Committee of the Red Cross, Action Against Hunger, Save the Children, the International Rescue Committee, Médecins Sans Frontières, CARE, Norwegian Refugee Council, Danish Refugee Council, Oxfam, Islamic Relief, Medair and the Adventist Development and Relief Agency.  Relief International is working with WFP in food aid in the south of Yemen.  UNICEF coordinates much of the nutrition programming for children and mothers, and the U.N. Nutrition Cluster (led by UNICEF), which reports for 44 operational nutrition partners in Yemen.

Further information, see:  https://www.nutritioncluster.net/country/yemen

and https://fscluster.org/yemen

 

Kenya’s Arid Lands Face Persistent Hunger Crisis Amid Mixed Projections for Late 2026

June 14, 2026     Kenya continues to face severe hunger and malnutrition in its arid and semi‑arid lands (ASAL), where drought, high food prices, and weakened pastoralist livelihoods have pushed millions into crisis. According to the U.S. Famine Early Warning System (FEWS NET), 2.5–2.99 million people currently need food assistance, with needs possibly declining to 1.5–1.99 million by December 2026 if weather conditions improve.

However, more recent field data from Action Against Hunger (ACF) and partners show a sharper picture:3.7 million people are in IPC Phase 3 (Crisis) or worse, including 400,000 in IPC Phase 4 (Emergency).  This represents a dramatic increase (a 52% jump) compared to early 2025.).

Where the Crisis Is Most Severe

Northern and northeastern counties remain the hardest hit. Nutrition assessments in early 2026 classified:

  • »  Mandera, Turkana South/East, and parts of Marsabit as Extremely Critical (IPC Acute Malnutrition Phase 5)
  • »  Garissa, Wajir, Isiolo, and Samburu as Critical (Phase 4)

These counties account for about 62% of Kenya’s total malnutrition burden.

Recent data from UNICEF, the Ministry of Health, and the National Drought Management Authority (NDMA) estimate:

  • »  810,871 children under five need treatment for wasting (up from 760,488 in 2025)
  • »  116,800 pregnant and breastfeeding women also require treatment

Malnutrition Levels Remain Alarmingly High

SMART surveys and community screenings show persistently high wasting rates:

  • »  Wajir: 14.95% GAM (2023)
  • »  Baringo/Tiaty: 21% GAM
  • »  Turkana (some areas): ~33% GAM in community screenings
  • »  Turkana (2024 SMART): GAM declined from 26.4% to 21.8%—still above the 15% emergency threshold

In several northern counties—Mandera, Turkana South/East, and North Horr—analyses in late 2025 and early 2026 indicated Extremely Critical levels, meaning wasting rates of 30% or more. As your text states, “Northern areas such as Mandera, Turkana South/East, and North Horr reportedly reached Phase 5 ‘Extremely Critical’… corresponding to a rate of wasting malnutrition of 30% or more.”

A major warning sign is the collapse in mass screening coverage, which fell from 75% of hotspots in 2023 to under 15% by August 2025 due to funding shortages. This means many children with acute malnutrition are simply not being identified.

Drivers of the Crisis

The hunger emergency is fueled by overlapping shocks:

  • »  Erratic rainfall and recurring drought
  • »  High food prices
  • »  Poor livestock‑to‑cereal terms of trade
  • »» Livestock deaths and reduced milk production
  • »  Insecurity along the Kenya–Somalia border and in parts of Turkana

These factors have eroded pastoralist livelihoods and reduced household access to food.

Refugee Camps Under Severe Strain

Kenya hosts roughly 720,000 refugees in Dadaab, Kakuma, and Kalobeyei. Food rations have been cut to 28% of standard levels, worsening malnutrition among Somali and South Sudanese refugees. Funding gaps have also caused stockouts of ready‑to‑use supplementary foods (RUSF) and therapeutic foods in several hotspot counties.

Mixed Outlook for Late 2026

FEWS NET projects that food insecurity may ease by December 2026 if rainfall and harvests improve. But high prices and the upcoming lean season mean many households will remain in IPC Phase 3 (Crisis) or worse without continued support. National‑level improvements risk masking localized Phase 4–5 emergencies in remote ASAL counties and refugee settlements.

Humanitarian Response

Several NGOs continue to deliver life‑saving assistance:

  • »  Action Against Hunger (ACF) operates across Samburu, Baringo, West Pokot, Isiolo, Tana River, Kwale, Mandera, and the refugee camps, often using UNICEF and WFP supply chains for last‑mile delivery.
  •   International Rescue Committee (IRC) leads nutrition programs in Kakuma.
  • »  Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) supports health and nutrition services in Dadaab.
  • »  World Vision, Humanity & Inclusion, Cordaid, and Kenya Red Cross work with county governments on community outreach, CMAM programs, and cash support.

These organizations coordinate through the Kenya Nutrition Cluster to address both immediate treatment needs and the underlying drivers of hunger.

In Memoriam: Nick Haan of the Integrated Phase Classification System

May 26, 2026      Nicholas Haan, one of the innovative leaders in food security and humanitarian action passed away on December 2, 2025.  He dedicated his life to combating global hunger and strengthening food security systems in crisis zones.

He was a co-founder of the international humanitarian NGO, Field Ready, which publishes its memory of him here.    In it, co-founder Eric James says “We bonded over our passion for improving the hardest places and our frustration with things not working better.”

Raised in California, he earned his Bachelor of Science in Genetics from U.C. Berkeley, and went on to earn a Ph.D. in Geography, a Master’s in Development Economics/International Development, and a Master’s in GIS & Remote Sensing, all from Clark University.

His deep international perspective began as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Kenya, where he taught science in a remote village and became fluent in Swahili.  He made history alongside his kayaking partner as the first person to paddle the entire lengths of both Lake Victoria (a 500 km expedition) and Lake Turkana.

Over more than three decades, Nick specialized in food security, developing groundbreaking approaches that combined data analytics, geographic information systems, and supply-chain resilience to prevent famine. He is celebrated globally as the creator of the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) System. What began as a localized data solution to map crises in Somalia is now the undisputed international standard led by the FAO, guiding billions of dollars in emergency funding across more than 30 countries

Later in his career, he was a faculty Fellow at Singularity University in Silicon Valley and previously the Vice President and Faculty Chair of Impact.

He authored influential papers and two books on adaptive food systems in fragile states. His innovative “anticipatory aid” model, delivering support before crises peak, is now considered a standard in the field.  See: this publication about information systems for food resilience.

He is one of the creators of the international standard for classifying the severity of food insecurity, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) System which started in Somalia, and is led by FAO.  He was the lead technical advisor to the UN’s Joint Interagency Analysis Framework (JIAF), which provides essential information to allocate over $50 Billion per year in humanitarian aid. Nicholas has been one of the 5 members of the global Famine Review Committee, which makes the independent determination as to whether a place is officially classified as being in ‘Famine’.  A year ago, Nick wrote about the IPC on Linked-in:

“The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) is celebrating its 20th anniversary of informing decisions to end hunger. Thank you to the countless people who contributed to the IPC’s technical development, believed in it, and supported it–especially in the very early days when it was just “a crazy idea”. Here are just a few of those idea-stage contributors from 20 years ago: Cindy Holleman, Thomas Gabrielle, Noreen Prendiville, Yusuf Mohamed, Ali Duale, Mark Smulders, Wolfgang Herbinger, Mohamed Aw-Dahir, Sidow Addouand, and Luca Alinovi. Thank you to all the thousands of IPC practitioners around the world, all the IPC Global Partner Agencies, and the IPC technical development experts who continue to evolve the IPC. Ending hunger requires a collective effort. It’s doable.”

A video of his explaining the IPC system is available at:  https://youtu.be/BKELLoj_41g

He is survived by his wife Mariam, and siblings Mary Catherine and Annie. Beyond his professional achievements, Nick was known for his deep humility, dry wit, and a boundless spirit of adventure.

See:  https://www.fieldready.org/post/nick-haan-in-memoriam

and an obituary at Devex:

Hunger in Haiti

April 28, 2026:   Over the last six years, the food crisis in Haiti has grown steadily worse.  In 2019–2020, around 3.7 million Haitians were in food insecurity (IPC) Phase 3 or above.  By 2022–2023, that was approaching 4.7 million, nearly half the population. The most recent UN Integrated Phase Classification system analysis shows 5.7 million people (more than half the population) facing high levels of acute food insecurity, with 1.9 million in IPC Phase 4 (Emergency).

What distinguishes Haiti from other countries is the degree to which hunger is caused by gangs.  Historically, gang violence in Haiti was largely concentrated in specific slums of Port-au-Prince. While devastating for those communities, the national food supply chain, which relies heavily on imports through the capital’s port, remained somewhat functional.  Between October 2024 and June 2025, gang violence expanded westward into the Artibonite and Centre Departments, where 92,000 and 147,000 people were displaced respectively. By early 2025, the violence had also expanded into previously untouched areas of the country, and gangs began expanding north, south and east toward the Dominican Republic border, with the apparent goal of controlling key roads used for illegal weapons trafficking.

Gangs directly affect Haiti’s food economy.   Haiti imports over 70% of its rice and wheat but gangs now control key maritime and overland routes , strangling the entire country’s supply chain.  The Port of Port-au-Prince is blocked, forcing rerouting to Cap-Haïtien, raising costs.

Agricultural output in the Artibonite is down by at least 48%, according to the technical coordinator at the Artibonite Valley Development Organization. Gangs have taken over irrigation canals that feed the valley, leaving fields barren. Agriculture has stopped entirely in areas like Petite Rivière, Verrettes, and Pont-Sondé, where fields lie fallow and are overrun by weeds.   Gangs control irrigation systems (e.g., in Liancourt, Verrettes), forcing farmers to pay “taxes” for water or share their harvest.  Major markets (e.g., Croix-des-Bossales) are >80% non-functional.

UN World Food Program analysis using European Space Agency satellite imagery found up to 3,000 hectares of Artibonite farmland abandoned in 2023 compared to 2018, and hunger in these areas jumped from 40% to 57% in a single year.

According to ACLED, instances of sociopolitical violence almost doubled in three years , from 455 events in 2020 to 874 in 2023. The number of violent events in January 2024 was more than 70% higher than January 2023, and more than 60% above the five-year average.  As a result, over 1.4 million people are displaced (double the number from just a year ago), overwhelming host communities.  More than 5,600 people were killed in 2024 alone. Between October 2024 and June 2025, another 4,864 people were killed.

The graph at right shows how the prevalence of child malnutrition has increased over recent years.

The International Rescue Committee (IRC) reports that 75% of households cannot afford health services, and nearly 50% of the population survives on less than $3 a day.

In this 2026 cycle, UNICEF has targeted over 129,000 children (aged 6–59 months) for treatment of Severe Acute Malnutrition.  UNICEF’s estimate of the increase in the number of cases of severe malnutrition is shown in the graph below.

Aid agencies have been continuously trying to provide life-saving assistance.  NGOs such as CARE, Catholic Relief Services and World Vision have led large consortia to promote nutrition in Haiti for decades, though the ability of outside agencies to operate has become constrained.  Today, agencies responding include:

  • -Action Against Hunger US is involved in Haiti. They support populations affected by violence and displacement, delivering critical food assistance and cash support in the Nord-Ouest region. In Nord-Est and Sud, their focus is on preventing malnutrition through targeted interventions. In Port-au-Prince, they provide vocational training, treat children suffering from malnutrition, and offer primary healthcare services to over 30,000 people.
  • -Catholic Relief Services (CRS) provides food assistance.
  • -CARE provides food to displaced populations.
  • -Compassion International provides food and voucher support through 365 church partners, helping children and caregivers.
  • -GOAL is providing cash for food security.
  • -Malteser International supports food security and nutrition, working with community health centers to identify and support malnourished children, pregnant women, and breastfeeding mothers.
  • -Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF/Doctors Without Borders) provides mobile and maternity clinics.
  • -Partners In Health (PIH/Zanmi Lasante): PIH deploys mobile food clinics staffed with medical professionals and community health workers to sites in the Artibonite region. They seek to identify malnourished children early so treatment can be delivered before health problems become fatal
  • -World Vision. World Vision is active in Haiti with child-focused hunger work, including school meals and other food support. Recent World Vision materials also describe food packages and support tied to the hunger crisis in Haiti.
  • -Meds & Food for Kids (MFK). This is a particularly important nutrition-focused Haiti organization. MFK produces therapeutic and supplemental foods in Haiti and works with Haitian clinics to treat malnourished infants and toddlers; it also runs school-feeding support with Vita Mamba

Hunger Increases Even Further in The Sudan

August 28, 2025:  Aid agencies estimate that malnutrition in Sudan increases in scale, depth and scope.  Much of the reporting comes from the far western region of Darfur, where, between January and May 2025, North Darfur saw a 46% increase in children admitted for SAM treatment at health centers compared to the same period in 2024 — with over 40,000 children treated in just that region.

As a result of 2 1/2 years of civil war, over 14 million Sudanese have been displaced by violence, both internally and across borders.  In the largest camp for displaced persons, Zamzam in North Darfur,  Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) reported devastating malnutrition rates — as high as 29–30% acute malnutrition, and high mortality (e.g., one child dying every two hours.  Similarly,  Save the Children reported a nearly fourfold increase in severe acute malnutrition cases seen in one South Kordofan clinic from June 2023 to June 2024, with 1,457 children admitted in June 2024 alone.

Though access by international organizations to children in this large, rural country is limited, UNICEF estimates that some 3.2 million children under 5 may have  acute malnutrition in 2025, including about 770,000 experiencing Severe Acute Malnutrition, meaning they are extremely wasted.

The U.N.’s advisory body about famine, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) reported 25.6 million people in the Sudan are food insecure, and of those, 8.5 million are in Emergency (Famine degree Phase 4) and another 755,000 are in Catastrophe/Famine (Famine degree Phase 5).

Humanitarian access is greatly constrained, with persistent fighting preventing deliveries of food or supplies into many areas, notably in Darfur, Khartoum, and regions with large numbers of internally displaced person.

Concern Worldwide is supporting 81 health facilities across Sudan, particularly in West and Central Darfur, treating children under five for acute malnutrition, with a focus on delivering ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF).  Despite the destruction of Sudan’s only RUTF factory in 2023, Concern has secured and delivered 10 metric tons of RUTF to vulnerable communities. In 2024, they reached nearly 484,000 people with lifesaving health and nutrition support.

 

In Memoriam: The US Famine Early Warning System, Known as FEWS, as well as SERVIR

The program which many experts considered to be the most effective at stopping famines and starvation and arguably the single most valuable aid program of all time, has ended its 40 year run of success, as the White House shut it down, alongside hundreds of other global initiatives, without review, discussion or debate.  The “Famine Early Warning System” aka “FEWS” was created to address the longstanding problem that U.S. food aid, which takes months to plan, procure and ship across oceans, kept arriving too late to save lives where there was famine.

FEWS has prevented the deaths of an estimated 10 million children from famine during its tenure.  FEWS played an important role in the decline in famine deaths seen in the last century.

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) created FEWS following the late famine relief efforts of the mid 1980s when famine hit Ethiopia, Sudan and the Sahel.  In those famines, US food aid saved many lives, but could have saved more, and prevented mass forced migration (the uprooting of refugees) if food aid had reached those in need at earlier stages of crisis.  The President of Tufts University (in Massachusetts), Dr. Jean Mayer, a nutritionist, proposed a new famine early warning initiative to the head of USAID at the time, and the new program was born.  In the decades since, US food aid became dramatically more effective at addressing emergency food needs in a timely way, in the process saving millions of lives.

From its inception, FEWS cleverly combined data from a range of different sources about local crop production in countries from Somalia to Mali, from Afghanistan to Haiti.  FEWS obtained and compared data from satellite imagery of fields under cultivation, ground visitations, rainfall, local retail prices, surveys of malnutrition, and distress sales by households (an early indicator of intention to migrate).  Its methods elegantly blended insights from markets, biology, climate, and remote sensing.  FEWS brought together contributions from other parts of the government:  including NASA, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), NOAA, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.  Various universities including the University of California/Santa Barbara and the University of Maryland also provided critical satellite monitoring and analysis, all under USAID management, backed by networks of field analysts and scientists.  The first American group leading FEWS was Tulane University School of Tropical Medicine.

Graduate courses in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) taught about FEWS as a case study of a successful application of layering information in multi-colored maps to target food aid where it was needed most.  Courses in schools of public health taught about FEWS as well.  Humanitarian aid became a science.

USAID renamed the program “FEWS NET” and funded it to avoid appearance of conflict of interest to inflate food needs through funding appeals.  The cost of FEWS NET has been a small fraction of the value of the humanitarian food aid that USAID distributes. As FEWS matured and became a global network, FEWS NET, it provided ongoing, real-time reporting about a several dozen countries spanning continents and became a mainstay of USAID, being renewed continuously.  FEWS provided guidance not only to US food aid, but food from other donor countries including Canada, Japan, Europe and Australia.  To emphasize this collaboration with other contributing nations, in 2000, the initiative was renamed to Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET) to emphasize the importance of collaboration with international and local information systems.

FEWS NET integrated varied data to build the most-likely scenarios to project food insecurity conditions in designated countries four and eight months in advance, indicating where timely humanitarian food aid might save lives and livelihoods.  FEWS NET’s analysis have answered the who, what, where, when and why. FEWS NET also reviews livestock conditions, markets and herder mobility (and fisheries, where important), along with crop conditions.  In recent decades, conflict became the biggest driver of food insecurity due to broken market links, shrinking livelihood options, death or injury of main breadwinners, and population displacement, leading to aid dependence.

No other public source has provided this kind of independent and globally consistent food insecurity intelligence.  FEWS NET briefings to all branches of the US Government, UN and NGO community are well respected and eagerly sought.  FEWS NET also reviewed livestock conditions, markets and herder mobility (and fisheries, where important), along with crop conditions.  In recent decades, conflict became the biggest driver of food insecurity due to broken market links, shrinking livelihood options, death or injury of main breadwinners, and population displacement, leading to aid dependence.

Famines will continue to occur, but prevention and early mitigation and response will be hampered now in the absence of FEWS.

In addition to the termination of FEWS, the USG also terminated other early warning projects, such as SERVIR.  The SERVIR program was a joint initiative of NASA and USAID that leveraged satellite-based Earth observation data to support climate resilience, disaster preparedness, and prevention in poorer countries. Established in 2005, SERVIR’s mission is to “connect space to village,” making NASA’s Earth data accessible for locally-driven environmental and development solutions. SERVIR tracked food security, water resources, weather, land use, and natural hazards.  SERVIR partnered with regional organizations in Amazonia, Eastern and Southern Africa, Hindu Kush Himalaya, Mekong, West Africa, and Central America.

Other sources about the demise of FEWS:   New Humanitarian about Data Streams;  and National Public Radio’s piece.

About Servir, see:     https://nasawatch.com/trumpspace/usaid-erasure-impact-nasa-halts-servir-solicitations/ https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210022715/downloads/Anderson2021_Getting-ahead-of-disaster-impacts-EO-CB_20211015.pdf

HUNGER HOTSPOTS ACROSS THE GLOBE

This is a view of the most urgent hunger hotspots around the world. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) used by the United Nations and International Aid Agencies consists of five levels of severity for food insecurity as follows:
1. Minimal – Acceptable
2. Stressed – Alert
3. Crisis – Serious
4. Emergency – Critical
5. Catastrophe – Famine

https://www.ipcinfo.org/ipcinfo-website/ipc-overview-and-classification-system/en/

For the following countries, the operative factor was the prevalence (current rate among children) of Acute Malnutrition (also known as wasting) from 2021 assessments.

AFGHANISTAN
Fourteen (14) million people in Afghanistan are facing acute food insecurity, and an estimated 3.2 million children under the age of five expected to suffer from acute malnutrition by the end of the year. At least 1 million of these children are at risk of dying due to severe acute malnutrition without immediate treatment.
A November 2021 UN survey mission  to Kandahar Province to assess the current capacity and needs found increases in number of cases of Severe Acute Malnutrition were also reported. (WFP)

ETHIOPIA
This severe crisis results from the combined effects of civil war, limited humanitarian access, loss of harvest and livelihoods, and collapsed markets.
In May 2021, it was reported that 5.5 million people faced high levels of acute food insecurity and 3.1 million people were in Crisis (IPC Phase 3) while 2.1 million people were in an Emergency (IPC Phase 4).

A food security analysis update conducted in Tigray and the neighboring zones of Amhara and Afar concludes that over 350,000 people were in ‘catastrophe’, according to Integrated Phase Classification or IPC 5 (famine) levels between May and June 2021. Since November 2021, approximately 100,000 people have fled their homes in Tigray, including more than 48,000 who headed westwards and crossed the border into eastern Sudan. Thousands are at risk of hunger, and peace is vital to stop the situation in Tigray from worsening.

YEMEN
The food security situation in Yemen significantly deteriorated during 2020 and has reached crisis levels. Over 2.25 million children under five years old have suffered from acute malnutrition in 2021. The reasons include the ongoing civil conflict, very poor access to health services and poor sanitation in most areas.

SOMALIA
The key drivers of acute food insecurity in Somalia include the combined effects of poor rainfall, as well as flooding and war. Almost 3.5 million people across Somalia faced food gaps or loss of livelihood assets indicative of Crisis (IPC Phase 3) through the end of the year. Moreover, it is estimated 1.2 million children under the age of five are likely to be acutely malnourished, including nearly 213,400 who are likely to be severely malnourished. Desert Locust will continue to pose a serious risk to both pasture availability and crop production across Somalia.

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC
During a Food Insecurity analysis of Central African Republic conducted in September 2021, 67 of the country’s 71 sub-prefectures were assessed The Assessment projected that from the period of September 2021 to March 2022, nine sub-prefectures are to be classified in Emergency (IPC Phase 4) and 59 in Crisis (IPC Phase 3). Of the 4.9 million people living in these sub-prefectures, 2.1 million (43%) will experience high levels of acute food insecurity through March 2022, including around 620,000 people in Emergency levels (IPC Phase 4).

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO (DRC)
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is experiencing one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world. More than five million people have been displaced, including three million children. Most of these displaced families have sheltered in local communities that are only just managing to meet their own needs. Other displaced persons live in informal camps where living conditions are even harsher.

According to the latest Acute Malnutrition analysis, nearly 900,000 children under five and more than 400,000 pregnant or lactating women are likely to be acutely malnourished through August 2022 in the 70 health zones assessed out of a total of 519 health zones. These estimates include more than 200,000 severely malnourished children requiring urgent care.

KENYA
An estimated 653,000 children and 96,500 pregnant and lactating women require treatment for acute malnutrition. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic that is affecting all counties in the country, the caseload among children aged 6 to 59 months requires urgent attention. The nutrition situation has remained similar across arid counties compared to the August 2020 analysis.

ANGOLA
An analysis of Acute Malnutrition in 10 municipalities in Southern Angola has revealed that around 114,000 children under the age of five are suffering or are likely to suffer from acute malnutrition in the next 12 months and therefore require treatment

MADAGASCAR
Over 500,000 children under the age of five are expected to be acutely malnourished through April 2022, of which over 110,000 are likely severely malnourished and require urgent life-saving treatment. Food insecurity is a major contributing factor to the nutrition situation, followed by poor access to sanitation facilities and improved drinking water sources due to drought.

Conditions are likely to continue deteriorating in the coming months. Nearly 1.6 million people—approximately 60 percent of southern Madagascar’s population—will likely require humanitarian assistance from June 2021 to May 2022.

CHAD
Over 500,000 children under the age of five are expected to be acutely malnourished through April 2022, of which over 110,000 are likely  to be severely malnourished and require urgent life-saving treatment. Food insecurity is a major contributing factor to the nutrition situation, followed by poor access to sanitation facilities and improved drinking water sources due to drought.