UN Pushes for Urgent Ceasefire as Fighting Intensifies and Civilians Flee Across Borders
As Sudan’s war escalates into 2026, the UN warns that displacement into Chad and collapsing services are compounding into the world’s largest humanitarian crisis.
By TheMurrow Editorial
January 21, 2026
Key Points
- 1UN officials urged an immediate ceasefire in January 2026 as violence, displacement, and blocked humanitarian access compound into catastrophe.
- 2OCHA cites 9.3 million uprooted inside Sudan and 4.3 million+ across borders, with Chad absorbing new waves from Darfur.
- 3UNICEF’s Um Baru survey found GAM at 53% and SAM at 18%, among the highest recorded, signaling extreme child malnutrition.
War often becomes legible to the world as a map: front lines shifting, towns taken, supply routes cut. Sudan’s war is becoming legible another way—through the movement of civilians who no longer believe there is a safe direction to run.
In early January 2026, UN officials renewed an urgent call for an immediate cessation of hostilities as fighting escalated across multiple regions and displacement accelerated, including cross-border flight into Chad. The UN’s language has sharpened not because the situation is newly dire, but because it is compounding: more violence, more uprooting, less access, fewer services, and a region buckling under the strain.
Sudan’s conflict—pitting the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) against the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) since April 2023—has become what the UN’s humanitarian leadership describes as the largest humanitarian crisis. The phrase is not rhetorical flourish. It is an accounting of human beings pushed into hunger, exposed to violence, and pressed toward borders that cannot absorb them indefinitely.
Civilians are paying the cost of a war they did not choose.
— — UN officials, Geneva briefings (as quoted in the article)
What follows is the clearest picture available from UN and UNICEF reporting: where fighting is intensifying, what displacement looks like on the ground, why Chad has become a pressure valve, and what the numbers on child malnutrition reveal about a country where basic services are collapsing faster than diplomacy can keep pace.
Why the UN is pushing an “urgent” ceasefire now
The UN’s January 2026 messaging is striking for its insistence on immediacy: not a phased pause, not a tentative “confidence-building measure,” but an immediate ceasefire—a cessation of hostilities framed as an urgent precondition for preventing further civilian catastrophe. UN briefings link the appeal to three developments moving in tandem: escalating violence, mass displacement, and shrinking humanitarian access. When those three align, civilian survival becomes a race against time.
Escalation, displacement, and the closing of humanitarian space
UN reporting points to renewed fighting in multiple regions, including allegations of drone attacks and ground assaults. Each wave of violence does more than kill and injure; it breaks the logistics of daily life. Markets empty, clinics close, roads become hazards, and aid operations face constraints that the UN describes in strict terms: the need for “safe, rapid, unhindered and sustained” access.
The UN’s logic is straightforward: the greater the operational friction on humanitarian delivery, the more quickly hunger and disease become mass phenomena rather than individual tragedies. A ceasefire is not presented as a moral aspiration. It is presented as a practical intervention—an opening to move food, medicine, and staff into areas where need has outgrown local capacity.
The UN’s logic is straightforward: the greater the operational friction on humanitarian delivery, the more quickly hunger and disease become mass phenomena rather than individual tragedies. A ceasefire is not presented as a moral aspiration. It is presented as a practical intervention—an opening to move food, medicine, and staff into areas where need has outgrown local capacity.
A war “they did not choose,” and a world that must decide what to do with that fact
At UN Geneva briefings in early January 2026, officials described Sudan’s crisis among the world’s worst, with civilians bearing the cost of a conflict not of their making. That emphasis matters. It signals a view of Sudan not merely as a security crisis, but as a wholesale assault on civilian life.
At the same time, ceasefire calls exist in a world of incentives. The UN can press, warn, and document; it cannot force compliance. The “urgent” framing is also an implicit message to external actors: delay is a choice, and the consequences of delay can be measured in displacement figures and malnutrition surveys rather than in abstract diplomatic language.
At the same time, ceasefire calls exist in a world of incentives. The UN can press, warn, and document; it cannot force compliance. The “urgent” framing is also an implicit message to external actors: delay is a choice, and the consequences of delay can be measured in displacement figures and malnutrition surveys rather than in abstract diplomatic language.
A ceasefire isn’t a slogan in Sudan right now. It’s the difference between reachability and abandonment.
— — TheMurrow reporting synthesis (as quoted in the article)
Where fighting is intensifying: the hotspots and the patterns of harm
Sudan is too large—and the conflict too fluid—for any single front line to explain the crisis. UN updates in late December 2025 through mid-January 2026 repeatedly flag North Darfur, parts of Kordofan, and Sennar (Sinja). The significance of those locations is not only military. They are also places where displacement surges and aid access becomes precarious.
North Darfur: Kernoi and the mechanics of flight
In North Darfur, UN reporting highlighted ground assaults and subsequent displacement from Kernoi locality. The International Organization for Migration (IOM), cited in a UN noon briefing posted 13 January 2026, estimated that more than 8,000 people were displaced from villages in Kernoi on the referenced Friday. Some fled within Sudan. Others crossed into Chad.
That detail—some internal displacement, some cross-border flight—captures the grim calculus families face. Crossing a border is not simply a geographic move. It is an admission that home has become untenable and that safety, however imperfect, must be sought elsewhere.
That detail—some internal displacement, some cross-border flight—captures the grim calculus families face. Crossing a border is not simply a geographic move. It is an admission that home has become untenable and that safety, however imperfect, must be sought elsewhere.
8,000+
IOM estimate cited by the UN: more than 8,000 people displaced from villages in Kernoi, North Darfur; some fled within Sudan and others crossed into Chad.
Kordofan and Sennar: drones, allegations, and civilian insecurity
UN channels also flagged the Kordofan region, where OCHA warned that escalating violence was driving new displacement. Reports included allegations of a drone attack in North Kordofan, including around El Obeid, and additional reporting of a drone attack in Sennar (Sinja) said to have killed civilians, relayed via local reports and reflected in UN briefings.
Drone warfare changes how civilians experience conflict. Front lines matter less when attack can arrive from above. The resulting fear is diffuse and persistent—schools close, people avoid travel, and humanitarian convoys face heightened risk.
Drone warfare changes how civilians experience conflict. Front lines matter less when attack can arrive from above. The resulting fear is diffuse and persistent—schools close, people avoid travel, and humanitarian convoys face heightened risk.
A consistent pattern: civilians as the battlefield
Across these hotspots, UN descriptions point to a recurring pattern:
- Civilian deaths linked to ground assaults and reported drone strikes
- Displacement as communities flee attacks and insecurity
- Constraints on aid, including insecurity and operational barriers that slow delivery
None of this requires exaggerated language. The pattern itself is the indictment: violence pushes people out, displacement overwhelms receiving areas, and constrained access magnifies hunger and disease.
- Civilian deaths linked to ground assaults and reported drone strikes
- Displacement as communities flee attacks and insecurity
- Constraints on aid, including insecurity and operational barriers that slow delivery
None of this requires exaggerated language. The pattern itself is the indictment: violence pushes people out, displacement overwhelms receiving areas, and constrained access magnifies hunger and disease.
Recurring pattern flagged in UN descriptions
- ✓Civilian deaths linked to ground assaults and reported drone strikes
- ✓Displacement as communities flee attacks and insecurity
- ✓Constraints on aid from insecurity and operational barriers that slow delivery
Displacement across borders: why Chad is central to this story
Conflict displacement is often discussed as a single number. UN reporting forces a more granular view: new waves of flight triggered by specific incidents, layered onto an already enormous baseline of people uprooted.
At a UN Geneva press briefing on 9 January 2026, OCHA described Sudan as the largest displacement crisis in the world, citing 9.3 million uprooted inside Sudan and more than 4.3 million who have fled across borders. Those figures are not merely “big.” They are system-breaking, for Sudan and for its neighbors.
At a UN Geneva press briefing on 9 January 2026, OCHA described Sudan as the largest displacement crisis in the world, citing 9.3 million uprooted inside Sudan and more than 4.3 million who have fled across borders. Those figures are not merely “big.” They are system-breaking, for Sudan and for its neighbors.
9.3 million
OCHA figure cited at a UN Geneva briefing (9 January 2026): people uprooted inside Sudan, described within the world’s largest displacement crisis.
4.3 million+
OCHA figure cited at a UN Geneva briefing (9 January 2026): people who have fled Sudan across borders.
Kernoi to Chad: a case study in how borders become lifelines
The IOM estimate of 8,000+ newly displaced from Kernoi—some crossing into Chad—illustrates the micro-to-macro connection. A localized assault becomes a cross-border pressure point within days. Chad’s role is not incidental; it is structural. It sits adjacent to Darfur and absorbs spillover as communities flee westward.
Receiving countries face two simultaneous tasks: immediate humanitarian triage (shelter, water, food, basic healthcare) and longer-term management of settlement and services. UN briefings emphasize the strain without reducing refugees to a burden. The reality is more complicated: host communities often share resources they do not have, and refugee inflows can destabilize already fragile local economies and services.
Receiving countries face two simultaneous tasks: immediate humanitarian triage (shelter, water, food, basic healthcare) and longer-term management of settlement and services. UN briefings emphasize the strain without reducing refugees to a burden. The reality is more complicated: host communities often share resources they do not have, and refugee inflows can destabilize already fragile local economies and services.
What displacement means in practice: not one journey, but many
Readers should resist imagining displacement as a single dramatic crossing. For many families, it unfolds in stages:
- fleeing a village to a nearby town
- moving again when fighting spreads
- crossing a border when internal options collapse
Each stage erodes savings, health, and social networks. By the time people arrive in Chad—or elsewhere across Sudan’s borders—many are already physically depleted and economically flattened.
- fleeing a village to a nearby town
- moving again when fighting spreads
- crossing a border when internal options collapse
Each stage erodes savings, health, and social networks. By the time people arrive in Chad—or elsewhere across Sudan’s borders—many are already physically depleted and economically flattened.
Displacement isn’t one movement. It’s a series of narrowing choices.
— — TheMurrow reporting synthesis (as quoted in the article)
The humanitarian collapse: hunger, malnutrition, and disappearing services
War kills in visible ways, but humanitarian crises deepen through less visible mechanisms: disrupted supply chains, closed clinics, contaminated water, interrupted vaccinations, and the slow starvation of households that have exhausted every coping strategy.
UN briefings in January 2026 underscore how Sudan’s conflict is accelerating those mechanisms. The most devastating evidence arrives through nutrition data—numbers that describe not politics, but children’s bodies.
UN briefings in January 2026 underscore how Sudan’s conflict is accelerating those mechanisms. The most devastating evidence arrives through nutrition data—numbers that describe not politics, but children’s bodies.
North Darfur’s malnutrition survey: a warning siren
UNICEF reported results from a SMART survey in Um Baru locality, North Darfur, with data collected 19–23 December 2025 and published 30 December 2025. The findings were extraordinary:
- Global Acute Malnutrition (GAM): 53%
- Severe Acute Malnutrition (SAM): 18%
- Moderate Acute Malnutrition (MAM): 35%
UNICEF described these as among the highest malnutrition rates recorded in a standardized survey anywhere—and far above the WHO emergency threshold of 15% for GAM.
These numbers do not simply indicate need; they indicate an extreme emergency. A GAM rate of 53% suggests widespread acute nutritional crisis. A SAM rate of 18% signals a large share of children at heightened risk of death without rapid treatment. In plain terms: hunger has moved beyond scarcity into something more structurally lethal.
- Global Acute Malnutrition (GAM): 53%
- Severe Acute Malnutrition (SAM): 18%
- Moderate Acute Malnutrition (MAM): 35%
UNICEF described these as among the highest malnutrition rates recorded in a standardized survey anywhere—and far above the WHO emergency threshold of 15% for GAM.
These numbers do not simply indicate need; they indicate an extreme emergency. A GAM rate of 53% suggests widespread acute nutritional crisis. A SAM rate of 18% signals a large share of children at heightened risk of death without rapid treatment. In plain terms: hunger has moved beyond scarcity into something more structurally lethal.
53%
UNICEF SMART survey in Um Baru locality, North Darfur: Global Acute Malnutrition (GAM) reported at 53%, far above the WHO emergency threshold of 15%.
18%
UNICEF SMART survey in Um Baru locality, North Darfur: Severe Acute Malnutrition (SAM) reported at 18%, signaling a large share of children at heightened risk of death without rapid treatment.
Why services collapse faster than they can be rebuilt
When aid access is constrained and health facilities are disrupted, malnutrition becomes harder to detect and treat. Families might not reach clinics. Clinics might lack supplies. Health workers might flee. Meanwhile, displacement concentrates vulnerable populations in places without sufficient water, sanitation, or food distribution.
UN and UNICEF messaging repeatedly returns to a practical demand: access. Without safe, rapid, unhindered and sustained humanitarian access, the best-funded response on paper becomes irrelevant on the ground.
UN and UNICEF messaging repeatedly returns to a practical demand: access. Without safe, rapid, unhindered and sustained humanitarian access, the best-funded response on paper becomes irrelevant on the ground.
Key Insight
UN and UNICEF repeatedly return to a practical demand: safe, rapid, unhindered and sustained humanitarian access—without it, response capacity cannot reach need.
What a ceasefire can (and cannot) do for civilians
Ceasefire calls can sound formulaic in international coverage, as if they belong to a script. Sudan’s case shows why they remain central: not because a ceasefire guarantees peace, but because it can slow the civilian freefall long enough for basic systems to function.
What a ceasefire could change quickly
If hostilities stopped—even temporarily—the near-term gains could be measurable:
- Humanitarian corridors could open for food, therapeutic nutrition supplies, and medical care
- Displacement could slow, reducing pressure on towns and border regions
- Aid operations could stabilize, making planning possible instead of purely reactive response
That does not resolve political questions. It does not rebuild governance. It does not undo trauma. It does, however, create space where survival is not a daily coin toss.
- Humanitarian corridors could open for food, therapeutic nutrition supplies, and medical care
- Displacement could slow, reducing pressure on towns and border regions
- Aid operations could stabilize, making planning possible instead of purely reactive response
That does not resolve political questions. It does not rebuild governance. It does not undo trauma. It does, however, create space where survival is not a daily coin toss.
Near-term changes a ceasefire could enable
- ✓Open humanitarian corridors for food, therapeutic nutrition supplies, and medical care
- ✓Slow displacement and reduce pressure on towns and border regions
- ✓Stabilize aid operations so planning becomes possible instead of purely reactive response
The hard truth: a ceasefire is not the same as safety
Skeptics are right to note that ceasefires can be violated, manipulated, or used to regroup. UN briefings reflect this tension indirectly: the emphasis on “cessation of hostilities” sits beside constant references to ongoing violence. The UN’s insistence on urgency does not assume good faith. It assumes danger—and argues that danger is currently outpacing any alternative strategy.
A fair reading allows two perspectives to coexist: a ceasefire may be fragile, but the absence of one is demonstrably lethal. The argument for urgency is less about optimism than triage.
A fair reading allows two perspectives to coexist: a ceasefire may be fragile, but the absence of one is demonstrably lethal. The argument for urgency is less about optimism than triage.
Regional spillover: when Sudan’s war becomes its neighbors’ crisis
The UN has been explicit about regional spillover, especially into Chad. Spillover is sometimes treated as a diplomatic talking point. In reality, it is a logistics and governance problem with a human face: more people arriving than services can support, more needs than budgets can meet.
Chad as a pressure point—and a test of international seriousness
Cross-border flight into Chad is not merely a statistic. It forces questions that donor capitals often postpone: How long can emergency support remain “emergency” before it becomes a semi-permanent system? What happens when host communities feel abandoned? How do you maintain protection and dignity when arrivals are continuous?
The UN’s warning tone suggests that neighboring states cannot be treated as an afterthought. If Sudan’s war continues to export displacement at scale, the region will absorb the consequences in ways that can outlast the conflict itself.
The UN’s warning tone suggests that neighboring states cannot be treated as an afterthought. If Sudan’s war continues to export displacement at scale, the region will absorb the consequences in ways that can outlast the conflict itself.
Why readers outside the region should pay attention
Even for readers far from Sudan, the implications are concrete:
- Humanitarian funding decisions determine whether malnutrition treatment is available
- Diplomatic pressure shapes whether ceasefire efforts have leverage
- Regional stability affects migration routes, security concerns, and global humanitarian obligations
Sudan is not a distant tragedy sealed off by geography. It is a crisis that tests the international system’s capacity to respond when need becomes historically large.
- Humanitarian funding decisions determine whether malnutrition treatment is available
- Diplomatic pressure shapes whether ceasefire efforts have leverage
- Regional stability affects migration routes, security concerns, and global humanitarian obligations
Sudan is not a distant tragedy sealed off by geography. It is a crisis that tests the international system’s capacity to respond when need becomes historically large.
Key takeaway
Sudan’s crisis is not only local: displacement into Chad and regional spillover make it a test of humanitarian funding, diplomatic leverage, and stability beyond Sudan’s borders.
Practical takeaways: what the latest UN data implies for 2026
Sudan’s story is often narrated as an endless emergency. The research points to something more precise: 2026 is beginning with identifiable stress signals—escalating attacks in specific regions, new displacement waves, and extreme malnutrition data that would be shocking in any context.
What to watch in the coming months
Based on UN and UNICEF reporting, readers should track:
- New displacement triggers in hotspots like North Darfur and Kordofan
- Cross-border arrivals into Chad, especially following major incidents
- Humanitarian access conditions—whether aid can move “safe, rapid, unhindered and sustained”
- Nutrition indicators, particularly in Darfur localities where surveys reveal severe deterioration
- New displacement triggers in hotspots like North Darfur and Kordofan
- Cross-border arrivals into Chad, especially following major incidents
- Humanitarian access conditions—whether aid can move “safe, rapid, unhindered and sustained”
- Nutrition indicators, particularly in Darfur localities where surveys reveal severe deterioration
What to watch (UN/UNICEF signals for 2026)
- ✓New displacement triggers in hotspots like North Darfur and Kordofan
- ✓Cross-border arrivals into Chad, especially after major incidents
- ✓Humanitarian access conditions: “safe, rapid, unhindered and sustained”
- ✓Nutrition indicators in Darfur localities showing severe deterioration
What “largest displacement crisis” means in human terms
The UN figure of 9.3 million uprooted inside Sudan and 4.3 million across borders is not only about mobility. It signals:
- families separated and livelihoods erased
- public services overwhelmed or absent
- children facing malnutrition at rates UNICEF calls unprecedented in standardized surveys
The numbers also pose a moral test that is unavoidably political: if the world can name the crisis with such clarity, can it also mobilize the influence and resources needed to slow it?
- families separated and livelihoods erased
- public services overwhelmed or absent
- children facing malnutrition at rates UNICEF calls unprecedented in standardized surveys
The numbers also pose a moral test that is unavoidably political: if the world can name the crisis with such clarity, can it also mobilize the influence and resources needed to slow it?
A closing reality the data won’t let us dodge
Sudan’s war has produced a grim kind of clarity. When UN officials describe an urgent need for a ceasefire, they are not performing diplomatic ritual. They are responding to a pattern that has become unmistakable: escalating violence, accelerating displacement, collapsing services, and children in parts of Darfur experiencing malnutrition rates that UNICEF says rank among the highest ever recorded in a standardized survey.
The international community can debate frameworks, mandates, and mechanisms. Civilians do not have that luxury. They move when they must, eat when they can, and survive if circumstances allow.
A ceasefire will not solve Sudan’s political crisis. It may not hold. Yet the alternative—continuing hostilities in a country already described by OCHA as the world’s largest humanitarian and displacement crisis—has a trajectory that is easy to predict and hard to bear.
The question for 2026 is not whether Sudan needs the world’s attention. The question is whether attention will translate into the only things that matter to people running for their lives: safety, access, and food.
The international community can debate frameworks, mandates, and mechanisms. Civilians do not have that luxury. They move when they must, eat when they can, and survive if circumstances allow.
A ceasefire will not solve Sudan’s political crisis. It may not hold. Yet the alternative—continuing hostilities in a country already described by OCHA as the world’s largest humanitarian and displacement crisis—has a trajectory that is easy to predict and hard to bear.
The question for 2026 is not whether Sudan needs the world’s attention. The question is whether attention will translate into the only things that matter to people running for their lives: safety, access, and food.
1) Why is the UN calling for an immediate ceasefire in Sudan now?
UN officials renewed an urgent ceasefire push in January 2026 because violence is escalating in multiple areas, displacement is accelerating, and humanitarian access is shrinking. The UN frames the crisis as among the world’s worst, with civilians paying for a war “they did not choose.” A cessation of hostilities is presented as necessary to reach populations with aid safely and consistently.
2) Who is fighting in Sudan?
UN reporting identifies the main belligerents as the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). The war has been ongoing since April 2023. UN briefings focus on civilian harm and humanitarian access rather than adjudicating political legitimacy, emphasizing protection of civilians and the need for hostilities to stop.
3) Where is fighting intensifying, according to UN briefings?
Late December 2025 to mid-January 2026 UN updates repeatedly flag North Darfur (including Kernoi locality), the Kordofan region (with reported incidents including alleged drone attacks near El Obeid), and Sennar (Sinja) (with reports of a drone attack killing civilians). These areas are associated with new displacement and heightened civilian insecurity.
4) How many people are being displaced, and how many are crossing borders?
At a UN Geneva briefing on 9 January 2026, OCHA cited 9.3 million people uprooted inside Sudan and more than 4.3 million who have fled across borders—describing Sudan as the world’s largest displacement crisis. Separately, IOM estimated more than 8,000 people were displaced from villages in Kernoi, North Darfur, with some fleeing into Chad.
5) Why are people fleeing to Chad specifically?
UN reporting links intensified fighting in Darfur—especially North Darfur—to cross-border flight westward into Chad. For many civilians, internal displacement options narrow as insecurity spreads, pushing them toward a border as a last resort. Chad becomes a key receiving country, and UN messaging highlights the strain created by ongoing arrivals.
6) How severe is hunger and malnutrition in Sudan right now?
UNICEF’s SMART survey in Um Baru locality, North Darfur (data collected 19–23 December 2025, published 30 December 2025) found Global Acute Malnutrition at 53% and Severe Acute Malnutrition at 18%. UNICEF described these as among the highest malnutrition rates recorded in a standardized survey, far above the WHO emergency threshold of 15% for GAM.
7) What would a ceasefire practically change for civilians?
A ceasefire would not automatically create political settlement or guarantee safety. However, it could quickly enable more consistent humanitarian delivery by improving security for convoys and staff, opening routes for food and medical supplies, and slowing displacement from active combat zones. UN language emphasizes the need for “safe, rapid, unhindered and sustained” access—conditions that are far harder to meet during active hostilities.
T
About the Author
TheMurrow Editorial is a writer for TheMurrow covering world news.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is the UN calling for an immediate ceasefire in Sudan now?
UN officials renewed an urgent ceasefire push in January 2026 because violence is escalating in multiple areas, displacement is accelerating, and humanitarian access is shrinking. The UN frames the crisis as among the world’s worst, with civilians paying for a war “they did not choose.” A cessation of hostilities is presented as necessary to reach populations with aid safely and consistently.
Who is fighting in Sudan?
UN reporting identifies the main belligerents as the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). The war has been ongoing since April 2023. UN briefings focus on civilian harm and humanitarian access rather than adjudicating political legitimacy, emphasizing protection of civilians and the need for hostilities to stop.
Where is fighting intensifying, according to UN briefings?
Late December 2025 to mid-January 2026 UN updates repeatedly flag North Darfur (including Kernoi locality), the Kordofan region (with reported incidents including alleged drone attacks near El Obeid), and Sennar (Sinja) (with reports of a drone attack killing civilians). These areas are associated with new displacement and heightened civilian insecurity.
How many people are being displaced, and how many are crossing borders?
At a UN Geneva briefing on 9 January 2026, OCHA cited 9.3 million people uprooted inside Sudan and more than 4.3 million who have fled across borders—describing Sudan as the world’s largest displacement crisis. Separately, IOM estimated more than 8,000 people were displaced from villages in Kernoi, North Darfur, with some fleeing into Chad.
Why are people fleeing to Chad specifically?
UN reporting links intensified fighting in Darfur—especially North Darfur—to cross-border flight westward into Chad. For many civilians, internal displacement options narrow as insecurity spreads, pushing them toward a border as a last resort. Chad becomes a key receiving country, and UN messaging highlights the strain created by ongoing arrivals.
How severe is hunger and malnutrition in Sudan right now?
UNICEF’s SMART survey in Um Baru locality, North Darfur (data collected 19–23 December 2025, published 30 December 2025) found Global Acute Malnutrition at 53% and Severe Acute Malnutrition at 18%. UNICEF described these as among the highest malnutrition rates recorded in a standardized survey, far above the WHO emergency threshold of 15% for GAM.
