Yemen: Indicative IPC Acute Food Insecurity Situation Overview - June 2015
NOTICE: Area Classification endorsed by the IPC Global Support Unit (GSU) as Indicative IPC Acute Phase Classification*. Population table represents the best estimate done by the Yemen IPC TWG and it is not endorsed as an IPC Outcome due to lack of sufficient and up to date outcome evidence.
- The ten (10) Governorates, Aden, AlDhale’e, Lahj, Taiz, Abyan, Sa’ada, Hajjah, Hodeida, Al Bayda, Shabwa are facing a food insecurity Emergency (IPC Phase 4). These governorates are currently among the worst affected by the conflict.
- Nine governorates are classified as facing a food security “Crisis” or IPC Phase 3: Amran, Dhamar, Sana’a, Sana’a, city, Ibb, Mareb, Rayma, Al Mahweet, Al Jawf.
- It is estimated that currently at least six million people are identified as being in need of emergency live-saving assistance. While about 6.8 million people require urgent livelihoods saving assistance, bringing to a total of about 12.9 million who require urgent food and livelihoods assistance.
- With the escalation of the conflict and insecurity, the food security situation in expected to deteriorate significantly unless food access improves dramatically through access to the affected population and their access to food and incomes.
The Yemen IPC TWG convened on May 25 – 28, 2015 to conduct the acute food insecurity analysis for June 2015 covering the 22 governances using the IPC Acute Food Insecurity Classification Protocols. The Yemen IPC TWG also requested the IPC Global Support Unit (GSU) to carry out a Real-Time IPC Quality Review as an added quality assurance step in the validation process of this round of the IPC Acute Food Insecurity Analysis in Yemen >> Read more on the IPC Quality Review of the IPC Anaoysis in Yemen.
Contact for Further Information:
FAO-FSIS Programme: FAOYE-FSIS@fao.org, or
Food Security Technical Secretariat: email@example.com
*Indicative IPC Acute Phase Classification is a new pilot initiative by the IPC GSU to allow classification of areas when (i) the minimum confidence level of analyses is not reached due to absence of reliable or up to date outcome evidence as a result of lack of humanitarian access and (ii) the area classification is reviewed and cleared as plausible by the IPC GSU Quality Review team.