IPC 2.0 E v i d e n c e

IPC  2.0 E v i d e n c e
Technical Manual Version 2.0.0
www.ipcinfo.org
9
7 8 9 2 5 1
0 7 2 8 4 4
I3000E/1/06.12
Evidence and Standards for Better Food Security Decisions
The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) Global Partners
IPC
Integrated Food Security Phase Classification
www.ipcinfo.org
ISBN 978-92-5-107284-4
IPC
Integrated Food Security Phase Classification
Technical Manual Version 2.0
Evidence and S t a n d a rd s
for Better F o o d S e c u r i t y
Decisions
The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) Global Partners
IPC
Integrated Food Security Phase Classification
Technical Manual Version 2.0
Evidence and S t a n d a rd s
for Better F o o d S e c u r i t y
Decisions
The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) Global Partners
FEWS
NET
FAMINE EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS NETWORK
*The EC in the global partnership is represented by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission
Funding Agencies
EUROPEAN UNION
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome. 2012
Version 1 of this manual was originally prepared in 2006 by FAO/Food Security and
Nutrition Analysis Unit – Somalia (FSNAU).
Please cite the version 1 of the manual as:
FAO/FSNAU 2006. Integrated Food Security and Humanitarian Phase Classification: Technical Manual Version 1.
Nairobi. FAO/FSNAU Technical Series IV.
A revised version 1.1 was published by FAO in 2008.
Please cite the version 1.1 of the manual as:
IPC Global Partners. 2008. Integrated Food Security Phase Classification Technical Manual. Version 1.1.
FAO. Rome.
Please cite this manual as:
IPC Global Partners. 2012. Integrated Food Security Phase Classification Technical Manual Version 2.0.
Evidence and Standards for Better Food Security Decisions. FAO. Rome.
ISBN 978-92-5-107284-4
IPC Technical Manual Version 2.0 results from the joint efforts of the IPC Global Partners, a group of eight
agencies and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) including: Care International, the
Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO), the Food Security Cluster (FSC), the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission
(EC–JRC), Oxfam, Save the Children, and the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP). The IPC
Technical Manual Version 2.0 is a comprehensive revision and update of the IPC Technical Manual Version
1.1 which has been conducted on behalf of the IPC Global Partners by the IPC Global Support Unit (GSU)
with the support of the IPC Technical Advisory Group (TAG). Nicholas Haan coordinated the overall revision
process and edited this manual.
The 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 and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, the IPC Global Partners and the Funding Agencies 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. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect
the views of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the IPC Global Partners, and the
Funding Agencies.
All rights reserved. FAO encourages reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product.
Non-commercial uses will be authorized free of charge upon request. Reproduction for resale or other
commercial purposes, including educational purposes, may incur fees. Applications for permission to
reproduce or disseminate FAO copyright materials and all other queries on rights and licenses, should be
addressed by e-mail to [email protected] or to the Chief, Publishing Policy and Support Branch, Office of
Knowledge Exchange, Research and Extension, FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy.
© FAO 2012
iii
Foreword
“Evidence and standards for better food security decisions”: any by-line is imperfect but this is what IPC is
about, a fact-based, harmonized analysis of the food security situation to enable informed decision-making,
through consensus.
The above paragraph concentrates some of the guiding principles of the IPC that you will find in the Manual.
These principles are at the core of the IPC and their adoption in Oxford in June 2009 marked in fact the real
start of the reflection and progress towards the IPC Technical Manual 2.0, after the publication of version 1.1
in 20081.
Since then, IPC has become more mature, has gained international and scientific recognition and is now
widely adopted. IPC was the reference for declaring famine in Somalia in 2011. Under the initiative of the
European Commission Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection (ECHO), and other stakeholders, it has reformed
its governance by establishing a strategic and representative Steering Committee, a dedicated Global Support
Unit and Regional and National Technical Working Groups in the front line of IPC realization. The IPC Technical
Advisory Group has been instrumental for the preparation of this manual.
What will you find in IPC Manual 2.0? A number of key conceptual and technical improvements, as well as
tools and procedures for practical IPC application. While you will be led through the major developments in
the coming pages, let us stress three of them here:
{{ The IPC analytical framework. Built on four widely used conceptual frameworks for food security,
livelihood and nutrition, it is an essential piece of the IPC identity, elaborated through passionate
discussions with the food security and nutrition expert community.
{{ The piloting of a chronic scale for food insecurity. IPC Version 2.0 makes a distinction between acute and
chronic food insecurity, and proposes for the first time a prototype for a chronic food insecurity scale,
while the acute scale is revised and refined.
{{ Revised quality assurance. Processes and tools are proposed for ensuring the objectivity and rigour of the
analysis. Self assessment and peer review are now part of the IPC process.
In closure, we would like to praise the efforts of all the writers and contributors to this Manual, and first and
foremost the Global Support Unit team and its manager Nicholas Haan.
The IPC Steering Committee.2
1 A short historical background of the previous versions 1.0 and 1.1 of the IPC Technical Manual is provided in Annex 16.
2 The Steering Committee members during the preparation of Version 2.0: Daw Mohamed, Miles Murray (CARE), Felix Lee,
John Scicchitano (Famine Early Warning Systems Network – FEWS NET), Luca Russo, Cristina Amaral (Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations – FAO), Graham Farmer (Food Security Cluster – FSC), Thierry Nègre (Joint Research Centre
of the European Commission – EC-JRC), Chris Leather, Camilla Knox-Peebles (OXFAM), Alex Rees (Save the Children), Joyce
Luma (United Nations World Food Programme – WFP).
v
Acknowledgements
Technical rigour, transparency, and collaboration—these values are equally important to country level IPC
analysis as they have been to the development of this IPC Technical Manual Version 2.0. Developing IPC
Manual V 2.0 has been a daunting task in that it looked afresh at the challenges of classifying food insecurity
in different contexts around the world and attempted to reconcile varying perspectives and systems from
leading food security agencies, methodologies, and concepts.
Meeting this challenge has been possible through the inputs of hundreds of professionals from countries
and regions across the globe and representing multiple governments, non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), United Nations, donors, and academic agencies. Annex 2 of the manual attempts to provide a
comprehensive list of individuals who have directly contributed to the development of IPC Manual V 2.0. To
all of these people, we in the IPC Global Support Unit (GSU) wish to express our deep appreciation for your
technical knowledge, practical insights, and willingness to engage constructively towards the development
of a common system for classifying food insecurity.
The development of IPC Manual V 2.0 has been led by the GSU with the active engagement of the IPC
Technical Advisory Group (TAG) representing our partner agencies of Care International, the Famine Early
Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO),
the Food Security Cluster (FSC), the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (EC-JRC), Oxfam,
Save the Children, and the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) plus additional technical expertise.
Some of these individuals include: Justus Liku, Kaija Korpi-Salmela, Oriane Turot, Siddharth Krishnaswamy,
Rachele Santini, Zoe Druilhe, Thoric Cederstrom, Buzz Sharp, Agnes Dhur, Alexis Hoskins, Chris Hillbruner,
Felix Lee, Cindy Holleman, Grainne Moloney, Jose Manuel Veiga, Kate Ogden, Leila Oliveira, Mark Gordon,
Miles Murray, Neil Marsland, Suleiman Mohamed, Sylvie Montembault, Tamara Nanitashvili, Valerie Ceylon,
Aida Ndiaye, Gina Kennedy, Marie Claude Dop, Helen Young, Susanne Jaspers, Andre Griekspoor, Jackson
Kangethe, and Phil Fong . We also appreciated the inputs from our Technical Review Board, including Dan
Maxwell (Tufts University), Nancy Mock (Tulane University), and James Darcy (Overseas Development Institute).
I would like to give a particular ‘shout out’ to Chris Hillbruner and Leila Oliveira, both of whom continued to
amaze with constructive, innovative solutions to some of the most intractable challenges.
We are also grateful to our IPC Steering Committee, who have provided necessary guidance and support
all along the way, including: Alex Rees, Camilla Know-Peebles, Felix Lee, Joyce Luma, Luca Russo, Cristina
Amaral, Mohamed Daw, Thierry Nègre, Graham Farmer, and Luca Alinovi (previously a member). The Steering
Committee is expanding to include additional agencies and governments and we look forward to their
future guidance as well. Allow me to also take this opportunity to welcome our incoming Global Programme
Manager, Alemu Asfaw.
Moreover, we are appreciative of donor support from multiple agencies including the Australian Government
Overseas Aid Program (AusAID), the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), European Commission
Development and Cooperation – EuropeAid (EC DEVCO), European Commission Humanitarian Aid and Civil
Protection (ECHO), the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), the Royal
Government of the Netherlands, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), the UK
Government (DFID), and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
Ending hunger is doable. But hunger is inherently a complex phenomenon that requires multiple stakeholders
to work together. A major step in that direction is agreeing on a common system for classifying food
insecurity—one that we all agree to and can all participate in. It is hoped that this IPC contributes to that
goal, and thank you to all who have supported this vision.
Sincerely,
Nicholas Haan
IPC Global Programme Manager
May 2010 - 1 June 2012
vi
Table of Contents
Forewordiii
Acknowledgementsv
Acronymsix
Section 1: Introduction
3
What’s New in Version 2?
Four Functions
New Tools
New Procedures
4
4
4
5
Section 2: Overview
9
What is the Purpose of the IPC?
9
Why is the IPC Needed?
9
What Does the IPC Do?
10
What is the Value-added of the IPC Approach? 11
An “IPC Product” versus “IPC Compatible” 12
How Does the IPC Fit within Other Aspects of Analysis and Response?
12
Key Aspects of Situation Analysis 13
IPC in Urban Settings
13
Limitations13
IPC Guiding Principles 14
Section 3: Analytical Approach and Framework
17
Food Security Outcomes
Food Security Contributing Factors
Impact of Food Security Dimensions
18
18
20
Section 4: Building Technical Consensus
23
Forming a Technical Working Group Consulting with Key Decision-Makers
23
24
Section 5: Classifying Severity and Causes
27
Key Parameters for Classification
Tools for Classifying Severity and Causes
Procedures for Classifying Severity and Causes
STEP 1: Define Analysis Area and Household Analysis Groups (Section A)
STEP 2: Document Evidence in Repository (Section D)
STEP 3: Analyse Evidence for Contributing Factors, Outcomes, and Phase
Classification (Section D)
STEPS 4 and 5: Household Analysis Groups and Phase Classification
Conclusions (Section B)
STEP 6: Impact of Humanitarian Assistance (Section B)
STEP 7: Risk Factors to Monitor
STEP 8: Classifying Causes (Section C)
27
29
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
46
vii
Section 6: Communicating for Action
49
Key Parameters
Tools for Communicating for Action
Procedures for Communicating for Action
49
49
55
Section 7: Quality Assurance
59
Key Parameters
Tools for Quality Assurance
Procedures for Quality Assurance
59
59
63
Section 8: Implementation Process
67
Main Steps to Implement the IPC 67
Resources68
ANNEXES
69
Annex 1.Map of IPC Implementation
72
Annex 2.IPC Development and Consultative Process and Participants
73
Annex 3.Key Documents Produced during the Period 2009–2011
79
Annex 4.Example of Comprehensive National Food Security
Analysis System 80
Annex 5.Prototype Tools for Classifying Chronic Food Insecurity
81
Annex 6.Review of Key Conceptual Frameworks 89
Annex 7.Framework of the United Nations System High Level
Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis 94
Annex 8.Indicators and Methods Used in the IPC Reference Tables
96
Annex 9.A Summary of FEWS NET’s Scenario Development
Approach for Food Security Early Warning 102
Annex 10.Joint Research Centre Guidelines on the Use of
Remote Sensing for IPC Analysis
108
Annex 11.IPC Related Initiatives
109
Annex 12.East Africa IPC Food Security Situation,
November 2010
111
Annex 13.Time Series of the Integrated Phase Classification Maps
for Somalia (2005–2010)
112
Annex 14.Glossary
113
Annex 15.Bibliography 118
Annex 16.The IPC Technical Manual from version 1.0 to 2.0.
Extracts from the foreword and acknowledgements of
the previous versions 124
viii
List of tables
Table 1: Overview of IPC Functions
10
Table 2: IPC Guiding Principles
14
Table 3: Pros and Cons of Area and Household Group-based Classification 28
List of diagrams
List of text boxes
Table 4: Criteria for Assessing Evidence Reliability Ratings 45
Table 5: Criteria for Assessing Confidence Levels
46
Table 6: Indicative Steps to Implement the IPC
67
Diagram 1: Key Stages of the Analysis-Response Continuum
12
Diagram 2: IPC Analytical Framework
19
Diagram 3: Technical Working Group Matrix
24
Diagram 4: IPC Acute Food Insecurity Reference Table for
Area Classification
32
cute Food Insecurity Reference Table for
Diagram 5: A
Household Group Classification
33
Diagram 6: Potential Indirect Evidence to Support IPC Analysis
34
Diagram 7: Acute Food Insecurity Analysis Worksheet
37
Diagram 8: Flow Chart for Completing the Acute Analysis Worksheets
43
Diagram 9: Acute Food Insecurity Communication Template
50
Diagram 9b: Acute Food Insecurity Communication Template
(for Area Only)
54
Diagram 10: IPC Technical Working Group Self-Assessment Tool
60
Diagram 11: IPC Peer Review Assessment Tool
62
BOX 1: IPC and Health
18
BOX 2: What’s a Projection?
28
BOX 3: Degrees of Famine
29
BOX 4: Evidence – How Much Is Enough?
44
ix
Acronyms
ACAPS
Assessment Capacities Project
ACF
Action Contre la Faim (Action Against Hunger)
AED
Academy for Educational Development
AusAID
Australian Government Overseas Aid Program
Body Mass Index
BMI CAP
Consolidated Appeal Process
CDC
Center for Disease Control
CDR
Crude Death Rate
CFS
Committee on World Food Security
CFSAM
Crop and Food Supply Assessment Mission
CFSVA
Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis
CIDA
Canadian International Development Agency
CILSS
Comité Permanent Inter-Etats de Lutte Contre la Sécheresse au Sahel (Permanent
Interstate Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel)
CMR
Crude Mortality Rate
CRED
Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters
CRED CEDAT Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, Complex Emergency Database
CSI
Coping Strategies Index
DFID UK
United Kingdom Department for International Development
DHS
Demographic and Health Survey
DRR
Disaster Risk Reduction
EC
European Commission
ECA
East and Central Africa
EC DEVCO
European Commission Development and Cooperation – EuropeAid
ECHO
European Commission Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection
EWARN
Early Warning Alert and Response Network
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FAO
Food Consumption Score
FCS
Food Economy Group
FEG
FEWS NET
Famine Early Warning Systems Network
Food Security Cluster
FSC
FSNAU
Food Security and Nutrition Analysis Unit – Somalia
GAM
Global Acute Malnutrition
GSU
Global Support Unit
HAG
Household Analysis Group
Household Dietary Diversity Score
HDDS
HEA
Household Economy Approach
Household Food Insecurity Access Scale/Household Hunger Scale
HFIAS/HHS
HH
Household
HHS
Household Hunger Score
High Level Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis
HLTF
Health and Nutrition Tracking Service
HNTS
IASC UN
Inter-Agency Standing Committee
IOM
International Organization for Migration
IPC
Integrated Food Security Phase Classification
IRIN
Integrated Regional Information Network
ISDR
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
Joint Research Centre of the European Commission
JRC
Kcal
Kilo calories
LRRD
Linking Relief, Recovery, and Development
MICS
Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey
MSF
Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders)
x
MUAC
NAF
NGO
OCHA
ODI
RSU
RVAA
SADC
SAM
SCF
SCN - UN
SIDA
SMART
SWOT
TAG
TWG
U5DR
U5MR
UNAIDS
UNHCR
UNICEF
UN/OCHA
USAID
VAC
WFP
WHO
ZimVac
Mid-Upper Arm Circumference
Needs Analysis Framework
Non-Governmental Organization
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
Overseas Development Institute
Regional Support Unit
Regional Vulnerability Assessment and Analysis Programme
Southern Africa Development Community
Severe Acute Malnutrition
Save the Children Fund
Standing Committee on Nutrition
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
Standardized Monitoring and Assessment of Relief and Transitions
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (analysis)
Technical Advisory Group
Technical Working Group
Under 5 Years Death Rate
Under 5 Mortality Rate
Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
United Nations Children’s Fund
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
United States Agency for International Development
Vulnerability Assessment Committee
United Nations World Food Programme
World Health Organization
Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee
Section 1: Section 1: introduction
3
The purpose of this Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) Technical Manual Version 2.0 is to
provide food security analysts with technical standards and guidelines for conducting IPC analysis. Version 2.0
introduces revised standards based on field application and expert consultation over the past several years.
The manual is targeted to technicians/practitioners. The manual is not an overview of the broader fields of
food security, nutrition and livelihoods analysis. It is a prerequisite that IPC practitioners have expertise in
these and related fields.
The IPC is a set of protocols (tools and procedures) to classify the severity of food insecurity and provide
actionable knowledge for decision support. The IPC consolidates wide-ranging evidence on food-insecure
people to provide core answers to the following questions: How severe is the situation? Where are areas that
are food insecure? How many people are food insecure? Who are the food-insecure people in terms of socioeconomic characteristics? Why are the people food insecure?
The IPC has four functions: (1) Building Technical Consensus; (2) Classifying Severity and Causes; (3)
Communicating for Action; and (4) Quality Assurance. Each function includes protocols to guide the work
of food security analysts. By systematizing these core aspects of food security analysis, the IPC contributes to
developing standards and building capacity for food security professionals. The IPC approach is designed to
be applicable in any context irrespective of the type of food insecurity, hazard, socio-economic, livelihood,
institutional or data context. The IPC is developed around field realities and enables this plethora of diversity
to be brought together in a systematic manner for decision-makers.
Food security3 is a fundamental human right (World Food Summit 1996). Food insecurity can be both a
cause and consequence of economic, social, environmental and political deterioration. The Committee on
World Food Security (CFS), the establishment of the United Nations High Level Task Force on the Global Food
Security Crisis (HLTF), the Comprehensive Framework for Action (CFA) (2010) and the Road Map for Scaling
up Nutrition (2010) clearly demonstrate the renewed interest in addressing the devastating effects of food
insecurity at all levels of society. The number of food-insecure people in the world remains at near 1 billion,
and the frequency of disasters related to food insecurity is increasing (FAO 2009, 2010). The future will
bring further pressures on food security due to climate change, price increases, decreasing natural resources,
growing populations, increased urbanization and other dynamics. It is imperative to act proactively, impartially
and holistically to mitigate the multi-faceted aspects of food insecurity. This requires strong collaboration,
coordination and investment from multiple stakeholders including national governments, civil society, the
private sector and international organizations. Without a standardized system for food security classification,
such efforts will face many unnecessary challenges and inefficiency. The IPC ‘common currency’ for food
security analysis enables decision-makers, analysts and other stakeholders – from local, national, regional and
global levels – to work together to meet these challenges.
The IPC was first developed in 2004 (Food Security and Nutrition Analysis Unit, FSNAU) and emerged from
the country-based realities of conducting applied food security analysis in an action-oriented manner (see
Annex 16). Since then, the IPC has been implemented in many different contexts, with increasing interest in
applying the IPC approach in countries throughout Africa, Asia and Latin America (see Annex 1 for map of
IPC implementation). The IPC was presented and discussed at the Committee on World Food Security as a
potential common classification system (33rd Session, 2007).
The IPC is managed by a Global Steering Committee composed of CARE International, the Famine Early
Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO),
the Food Security Cluster (FSC), the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (JRC-EC), Oxfam,
Save the Children and the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP). The Steering Committee oversees
the work of the IPC Global Support Unit, Nations which conducts technical development, provides technical
support and training to countries/regions, and promotes the IPC within global decision-making structures and
as it links to related initiatives.
The IPC Global Support Unit developed the IPC Manual Version 2.0 through numerous consultations with IPC
country analysts, academic studies and direct inputs from the IPC Technical Advisory Group (a group of food
3 The World Food Summit iPlan of Action, 1996 states: “Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and
economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food for a healthy and active life.” The four dimensions of food security are:
access, availability, utilization and stability.
Section 1: introduction
Section 1: Introduction
4
security experts representing the IPC partner agencies and other organizations). See Annex 2 for a list of key
consultations and contributors.
What’s New in Version 2?
IPC usage in diverse country contexts since 2006 has highlighted a number of areas for improvement. Version
2.0 aims to meet these challenges and offers innovations such as the IPC Analytical Framework and a Chronic
Food Insecurity Reference Table to complement analysis of Acute Food Insecurity.4 Version 2.0 also reconciles
key differences in approaches to food security analysis across national governments and international
agencies, allowing for greater buy-in and collaboration.
Four Functions
IPC Version 2.0 is reorganized into four core functions, each of which includes protocols (tools and procedures)
that guide the work of IPC analysts:
(1) Building Technical Consensus
(2) Classifying Severity and Causes
(3) Communicating for Action
(4) Quality Assurance
New Tools
{{ An IPC Analytical Framework is introduced that builds from and draws together four commonly used
conceptual frameworks: Risk = f (Hazard, Vulnerability), Sustainable Livelihoods Approach, Nutrition
Conceptual Model, and the four “dimensions” of food security (availability, access, utilization and stability).
{{ The IPC Reference Table has been revised in four main ways:
• The Phase names and descriptions are revised to provide greater clarity on the distinctions
between the Phases.
• The Reference Outcomes are condensed to only four indicators (food consumption, livelihood
change, nutrition and mortality), complemented by an open set of contributing factors. While the
IPC classification should be referenced against the outcomes, the contributing factors can be used
as evidence to infer the outcomes (when such data are not available) and to inform contextual and
causal analysis.
• Commonly used methodologies for measuring food insecurity are integrated into the Reference
Table and calibrated to the IPC Phases. These include: Household Dietary Diversity Score, Household
Hunger Score, Household Economy Approach, Food Consumption Score, and Coping Strategies Index.
• The Priority Response Objectives are revised to be at the level of identifying objectives rather
than activities – this further clarifies where the IPC Situation Analysis ends and subsequent Response
Analysis should begin.
{{ The Analysis Worksheets are revised to improve usability and analytical rigour. A new tool is
introduced to classify causes called the Limiting Factors Matrix. This enables identifying which and to
what degree the food security dimensions (availability, access, utilization) are limiting people from being
food secure.
{{ The importance of technical consensus to the IPC process is clarified and a simple tool is introduced to
guide the formation of national Technical Working Groups called the TWG Composition Matrix.
{{ New tools for Quality Assurance are introduced including the TWG Self Assessment Tool and the Peer
Review Assessment Tool.
{{ A new Communication Template is introduced that has four parts: A map, a brief narrative, population
tables, and key conclusions from area-specific analyses. The revised IPC map contains additional key
information for decision support; some pieces of information that were previously making the maps “too
busy” have been removed.
4 Note that the Chronic Food Insecurity Reference Table and associated tools are introduced as prototypes in Annex 5 of Version
2.0; pending country application and feedback, they will be fully developed and integrated into a later version of the manual.
5
{{ A new reference table and procedures are introduced to analyse Chronic Food Insecurity. This is designed
New Procedures
{{ Key units of analysis are revised and clarified, including the socio-spatial and temporal units of analysis.
• For socio-spatial, the minimum unit of analysis is the whole population in a given area,
meaning a single IPC Phase is assigned to the whole population in a given area based on criteria of
severity and prevalence of food insecurity. Whenever possible (depending on data availability, time
and capacity) the IPC practitioners can also classify various Household Groups into different Phases.
• For temporal, the IPC now allows the option to classify food insecurity for two time periods: a
current snapshot, and a future projection. The future projection is based on the most likely scenario
for any time period in the future (as short as a week or as long as a year). This distinction clarifies the
early warning function of the IPC.
{{ How to account for humanitarian assistance is clarified. The current snapshot is based on actual
conditions, without removing effects of humanitarian assistance. The future projection includes
anticipated effects of humanitarian assistance which is regularly programmed/inter-annual, and any
ad hoc assistance which is most likely to occur in the projection period and reach beneficiaries. A new
mapping protocol is introduced to signify “areas which would likely be at least one Phase worse without
the effects of humanitarian assistance”.
Guidance and criteria for assigning Reliability Scores and Confidence Levels are introduced which will
improve consistency and comparability for this quality assurance function.
Section 1: introduction
to complement analysis of Acute Food Insecurity, and will help inform intervention design with mediumand longer-term strategic objectives that address underlying and structural causes of food insecurity.
Section 2: Section 2: Overview
9
Section 2: Overview
The purpose of the IPC is to consolidate complex analysis of food security situations for evidence-based
decision support. The IPC contributes to answering questions on where to allocate resources, to whom
and to how many people, when, and on what should be done. Together, these questions help inform
‘Situation Analysis’, which is the focus of the IPC. Additional information is needed to conduct Response
Analysis, a subsequent stage for effective response. Food security analysis is inherently challenging with
respect to data sources, methodologies, varying types of hazards, different livelihood systems and multiple
stakeholder institutions. Given these challenges and complexity, the IPC provides a common way to classify
the nature and severity of food insecurity. The IPC communicates actionable knowledge to decisionmakers on current and future food security conditions, together with strategic information to guide action.
The IPC is designed from the perspective of decision-making. Thus, rather than ‘pushing’ complex
information to decision-makers, the IPC is designed to be demand driven – taking stock of the essential
aspects of situation analysis that decision-makers consistently require, and focusing on providing that
information in the most reliable, consistent and accessible way.
The IPC aims for optimal decision support, recognizing that in almost all cases of food security decisionmaking, there will be less than ideal data and evidence. Therefore, the approach of the IPC is to make the
best use of what evidence is available, and to do so in a rigorous and transparent manner. Particularly
in sudden onset crises, decisions need to be made quickly and with sparse information. The IPC provides a
structured process to make the best of what we do know, be transparent about the confidence levels, and
identify areas for further data collection to improve the quality of the analysis. See Annex 6 for a diagrammatic
representation of evidence-based decision support.
Why is the IPC Needed?
Within the cross-sectoral and multidisciplinary field of food security, there are increasingly strong calls for
improved quality in the analysis of food security situations. These include: the need for greater comparability
of results from one place to another, increased rigour, greater transparency of evidence to support findings,
increased relevance to strategic decision-making, and stronger linkages between information and action.
Improving analysis along these lines would enable food security and humanitarian interventions to be more
needs-based, strategic and timely.
Central to meeting these challenges is the development of a classification system that is generic enough to
be utilized in a vast array of food security situations, disaster types and livelihood systems; simple enough to
be practical in the field and understood by multiple stakeholders; and rigorous enough to meet international
standards.
Based on a global review of needs assessment practice, the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) Humanitarian
Policy Group Report “According to Need? - Needs Assessment and Decision-Making in the Humanitarian
Sector” (Darcy and Hofmann, 2003) identified a critical gap in food security and needs assessment practice.
While there is a broadly accepted definition of food security, there is a lack of clarity and common definitions
for classifying various situations in terms of varying severity and implications for action. This lack of clarity
is operationally problematic because the way in which a situation is classified determines not only the form
of action, but the source of funding and its scale, the planning time frame and the organizational roles of
different stakeholders. These problems can lead to misallocations of scarce resources, and in the worst case
scenario, even loss of lives. There is an urgent practical and operational need for a broadly accepted food
security classification system.
The IPC helps meet the goals of the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response
(Sphere, 2004), as well as numerous international conventions asserting human rights, as captured in the
World Food Summit Plan of Action (FAO, 1996) and as stated in the “Voluntary Guidelines” adopted by the
United Nations towards the realization of the right to adequate food (FAO, 2005).5
5 FAO 2005. Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of
National Food Security. www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/009/y9825e/y9825e00.htm
Section 2: Overview
What is the Purpose of the IPC?
10
What Does the IPC Do?
At its core, the IPC is a set of tools and procedures to classify the nature and severity of food insecurity for
decision support. The IPC classifies areas with Acute Food Insecurity into five Phases: Minimal, Stressed, Crisis,
Emergency and Famine. Each of these Phases has different implications for response objectives.
The IPC classifies the severity of the situation for two time periods: the current situation and for a future
projection (the time period of which is fully flexible according to the situation at hand and the needs of
decision-makers). The future projection provides an early warning statement for proactive decision-making.
Further, the IPC “package” has four mutually supporting functions: (1) Building Technical Consensus;
(2) Classifying Severity and Causes; (3) Communicating for Action; and (4) Quality Assurance. Each of these
functions has a set of protocols (tools and procedures) as described in Table 1 below. The functions are
presented in a non sequential order. This sequence does not have to be adhered to strictly.
Table 1: Overview of IPC Functions
Protocols
Functions
Purpose
Tools
Technical Working
Group Composition
Matrix
1.Building
Technical
Consensus
Procedures
1. Establish a Technical Working Group
that is hosted by an institution and
composed of: (1) relevant sectoral
expertise; and (2) key stakeholder
organizations.
2. Ensure Technical Working Group
members have expertise in related fields
and are trained in the IPC protocols.
To enable technical
consensus from
multisectoral
experts.
3. Activate the working group to conduct
IPC analysis as needed.
4. Conduct IPC analysis in a neutral,
evidence-based and consensus-building
manner.
5. Hold consultative meeting with key
decision-makers prior to public release
and make any revisions necessary if
they are substantiated with adequate
evidence.
{{ IPC Analytical
1. Decide when to conduct IPC analysis.
{{ Acute Reference
2. Identify analysis units: Timeframe, Area,
Population and Household Analysis
Groups.
Framework
Tables
2.Classifying
Severity and
Causes
3. Gather and document relevant data/
{{ Chronic Reference
evidence.
To classify complex
Table
information on
4. Identify key assumptions and develop
severity and causes {{ Analysis Worksheets
summary evidence statements for each
into meaningful
food security element.
categories for
5. Critically review overall evidence and
decision support.
use "convergence of evidence" as
compared to IPC Reference Tables to
assign Acute Phase and/or Chronic Level
of Food Insecurity.
6. Identify key immediate and underlying
causes.
11
IPC Communication
Template
2. Distribute and present IPC findings to all
stakeholders in a timely manner.
{{ Technical Working
4.Quality
Assurance
To ensure
technical rigour
and neutrality of
analysis.
1. Create map and complete IPC
Communication Template.
Group Self
Assessment Tool
{{ Peer Review
Assessment Tool
1. Complete Technical Working Group Self
Assessment Tool.
2. Conduct Technical Peer Review (if
necessary) and complete Peer Review
Assessment Tool.
3. Make Analysis Worksheets publicly
available.
What is the Value-added of the IPC Approach?
{{ Flexibility: The IPC is an open approach to classifying food security, meaning that a wide range of data,
information, evidence, methods and tools can be used to support a classification. This enables the IPC to
be flexible and adaptable to multiple contexts without being strictly dependent on specific data sets or
formats.
{{ Technical Consensus: Situations involving food-insecure populations always involve multiple
stakeholders, and their actions are much more effective (whether for leveraging resources or for
coordination) if there is technical consensus on the underlying situation analysis. Without common
terminology and criteria, such consensus is very difficult to build and can be undermined by nontechnical agendas.
{{ Comparability over Space: In order to ensure the best use of limited resources, decision-makers need
to know how the severity of crisis situations compares from one place to another, both within and
across countries. Only when such a comparison can be made using commonly adopted criteria can food
security action be directed to the people most in need.
{{ Comparability over Time: Decision-makers need to be able to understand the evolution of a crisis as it
worsens or improves in order to increase, decrease or change the strategic focus of the response, as well
as identify exit criteria. Examination of past trends provides a foundation for understanding current and
future scenarios. This allows for longitudinal analysis of a situation. For an example, see Annex 13, which
presents 18 IPC analyses in Somalia since 2005.
{{ Transparency through Evidence-based Analysis: Analysts should be fully transparent in how
conclusions are made, and decision-makers should demand evidence to support findings. Without
reference criteria, the requirements for an adequate evidence base remain ambiguous.
{{ Accountability: Without mutually agreed-upon standards in referencing severity, “analytical”
accountability is not possible. A common reference is needed to avoid errors of commission (i.e.
exaggerating a crisis, which can lead to over-response) or errors of omission (i.e. ”missing” or
understating a crisis, which can lead to lack of response). The former can waste resources and
undermine livelihoods, while the latter can lead to loss of human lives and chronic poverty. With
reference criteria and evidence standards, it is possible to enforce accountability among those responsible
for food security analysis through peer review and public challenges to questionable findings.
{{ Effective Early Warning: Decision-makers need to know the potential severity, likelihood and timing
of a pending crisis. Without a common technical understanding for describing crises, early warning
messages can be ambiguous and go unheeded.
{{ More Strategic Action: Depending on the severity of outcomes and typology of contributing factors
in a given food security situation, there is a need for fundamentally different emphases in strategic
response.
{{ Improved Data Quality: Although the IPC itself is not a data collection tool, using the IPC can help
identify critical data gaps and encourage investments in their future collection.
Section 2: Overview
To communicate
core aspects of
3.Communicating situation analysis
in a consistent,
for Action
accessible and
effective manner.
12
An “IPC Product” versus “IPC Compatible”
Ideally, an ‘IPC Product’ is one that follows the protocols described in this manual. However, there may be
times when not all of the protocols are fully followed for reasons of practicality or preference. At a minimum,
in order to be labelled an ‘IPC Product’ (i.e. using the IPC Communication Template and Logo), the following
criteria must be met:
{{ The analysis represents a working consensus of technicians representing key stakeholder agencies and
relevant sectoral expertise.
{{ The IPC Reference Tables are used to determine the Phase classification.
{{ The analysis adheres to key parameters of units of analysis and accounting for humanitarian assistance.
{{ Evidence used to support the classification is clearly documented and made available.
{{ The analysis is mapped using the IPC colour scheme and Phase names.
It is preferred that governments and agencies conducting food security analysis create IPC Products whenever
possible.
That said, there are some situations where governments/agencies will need to conduct food security situation
analysis and are not able to do so in a consensus-building manner. These situations can arise due to reasons
of timing or frequency of the analysis, urgency, the need for independence, or other motives. In such cases,
as long as the minimum criteria listed above are followed, the analysis can be labelled “IPC Compatible”.
IPC Compatible analysis that uses the same phase names, reference tables and evidence-based criteria is still
beneficial because it allows for inter-operability of core results and evidence. This means that the results can
be directly compared, questioned and built upon by analysts and decision-makers in the broader community.
How Does the IPC Fit within Other Aspects of Analysis and Response?
The IPC focuses on Current and Projected Situation Analysis – a distinct yet often overlooked or assumed
stage in a broad “Analysis-Response Continuum”. Diagram 1 below illustrates its relationship with other key
stages for effective response including Response Analysis, Response Planning, Response Implementation and
Monitoring/Evaluation.
Diagram 1: Key Stages of the Analysis-Response Continuum
Current and Projected
Situation Analysis
Response
Analysis
Response
Planning
Response
Implementation
Monitoring and
Evaluation
The overall objectives of each stage are as follows:
{{ Current and Projected Situation Analysis: To identify fundamental aspects of a current or projected
situation (e.g. severity, magnitude, causes) which are most relevant for an effective and efficient response
and for which there should be broad technical consensus.
{{ Response Analysis: To identify the range of potential strategic actions that would be most effective and
efficient in mitigating immediate negative outcomes, supporting livelihoods and addressing underlying
causes. Response Analysis requires critical assessment of operational, logistical, financial and security
constraints and opportunities, as well as analysis of the most appropriate transfer modalities (e.g. in-kind
assistance, cash and/or voucher).
13
{{ Response Planning: To identify and put in place operational requirements and systems to enable an
effective and efficient response. These include logistics, financing, institutional partnerships, advocacy
and training.
{{ Response Implementation: To implement multiple operational modalities towards an effective and
efficient response.
{{ Monitoring and Evaluation: To detect changes in Response Implementation and Situation Analysis; to
Each of these stages involves unique expertise, institutions, timing and outputs. Therefore, they warrant
distinct protocols designed to facilitate completion of that stage and ensure minimal standards of information
provision, rigour and consistency.
The IPC provides protocols for Situation Analysis and the platform for each of the subsequent
stages. Although these latter aspects of the analysis-response continuum are not covered in this manual, they
also warrant basic protocols and standards. The Needs Analysis Framework (NAF, 2005) is an example of a
global effort to provide protocols for multisectoral and inter-agency Response Analysis (Inter-Agency Standing
Committee (IASC), 2005). More recently, the FAO-led Response Analysis Framework project and the WFP-led
Response Analysis project are efforts to develop more systematic approaches to Response Analysis (FAO, 2011).
Key Aspects of Situation Analysis
{{ Severity of the current and projected situation: How severe is the situation, with regards to impacts
on human lives and livelihoods, currently and for a future projected time period (early warning)?
• Geographic extent: What is the approximate geographic area of populations with varying degrees
of food insecurity? (This should be defined according to actual spatial analysis, but can be guided by
livelihood zones, administrative boundaries, agro-ecological zones and other spatial markers.)
• Magnitude and depth (number and percentage of people): What is the estimated number and
percentage of people experiencing varying degrees of food insecurity?
{{ Social characteristics: What are the social characteristics of the food-insecure people (e.g. gender, age,
ethnicity, livelihood patterns) that will inform strategic response?
{{ Immediate causes: What are the direct, or proximate, causes of the food insecurity?
{{ Underlying causes: What are the underlying, or structural causes of the food insecurity?
{{ Confidence level of analysis: What is the overall confidence level of the analysis given the reliability
and body of evidence used to support a phase classification.
IPC in Urban Settings
While food security analysis can sometimes have a bias towards rural settings, food insecurity in urban areas
can also be a critical concern. This is particularly true with the global trend of urbanization and commodity
price spikes. The flexible design of the IPC makes it applicable in both rural and urban settings. While some
challenges emerge with urban food security analysis, they are not unique to the IPC. These include: more
heterogeneous populations, greater focus on labour and commodity prices, smaller geographic areas with
dense populations, strong rural-urban connections. The IPC protocols can be applied to urban areas, but
require the analysts to identify the appropriate unit of analysis, food security indicators, and other factors that
apply in an urban setting.
Limitations
Despite its important contribution to food security decision support, the IPC is one piece in a much larger
puzzle of data, analysis and institutions. The IPC is not a food security data collection system or methodology
for directly measuring food insecurity. It is a complementary “add on” that draws from, and provides focus to
existing analytical systems, enables comparability, and links analysis to action. See Annex 4 for an illustration
of a comprehensive national food security analysis system, of which the IPC is but one component.
Section 2: Overview
determine degrees of desired impact from policy, programme and/or project outputs and overall impact
perspectives; and to inform adjustments in the response as necessary.
14
The IPC is a system for “meta-analysis”, or big-picture analysis. It draws together data and information
obtained through various methods from a wide range of sources. The IPC does not replace the need for
specific methods that collect and analyse various dimensions of food security in any particular way. Rather,
the IPC approach incorporates and is strengthened by specific analytical methods.
Since the IPC approach is not based on a mathematical model, it requires critical thinking on the part of the
food security analysts. While the IPC is designed to structure the analysis process as systematically as possible,
it does require the analysts to have strong understanding of the concepts and technical details of conducting
food security, nutrition and livelihoods analysis. Further, because the IPC relies on a consensus-based approach,
it requires the analysts to be conscious of, and minimize, any potential biases in their analysis. The IPC focuses
on answering questions related to the situation analysis, and stops short of determining recommendations
for specific action. This intentional limitation aims to ensure that the IPC analysis is neutral and minimally
influenced by a wide range of potential biases associated with preferred types of food security response by
any institution or agency. Rather, the Situation Analysis of the IPC provides a solid foundation for subsequent
Response Analysis.
IPC Guiding Principles
The IPC Global Steering Committee has developed a set of guiding principles for implementing the IPC with
a common inter-agency approach. These are intended to ensure that the process is sustainable, owned by
national governments and mindful of existing mechanisms and processes under way.
Table 2: IPC Guiding Principles
1. The IPC process is consensual and facilitated by key stakeholders, including the government.
2. All efforts should be made to engage and build capacity of government and promote ownership and
strengthen the institutional process.
3. Internationally agreed standards are maintained for IPC analysis.
4. IPC analysis is conducted in a timely fashion.
5. Agencies commit to a multi-year process.
6. The implementation of IPC processes should be demand-driven by government where possible.
7. IPC can be started regardless of data availability. The initial situation analysis will be useful and improved.
8. Any data used should contain confidence rankings.
9. The IPC process should comprise a mechanism to build an institutional commitment from government.
10. Results of IPC analysis should be made available to the public.
11. IPC analysis should be performed with technical neutrality and through consensus building.
12. IPC results are peer-reviewed to check quality and maintain standards.
13. IPC should be developed as an iterative learning process.
14. The leadership of IPC processes depends on comparative advantages and responsibilities.
15. IPC should be used to engage/advocate with donors to make decisions according to need.
Section 3: Section 3: Analytical Approach
and Framework
17
Section 3: Analytical Approach and Framework
To conduct situation analysis, the IPC Analytical Approach has four key aspects: (1) meta-analysis, (2)
convergence of evidence, (3) a distinction between acute and chronic food insecurity, and (4) the IPC
Analytical Framework.
2. Convergence of Evidence
Rather than mathematical modelling, the IPC uses a “convergence-of-evidence” approach. This requires the
analysts to compile evidence and interpret it in relation to a common reference table for classifying food
insecurity into 5 Phases. The IPC uses the convergence-of-evidence approach due to a number of challenges
inherent in food security analysis. These include the complexity of the analysis, data limitations and quality,
and the need to contextualize indicators.
To enable comparability, the IPC Reference Tables are based on food security outcomes (which are generally
comparable across population groups) supported by contributing factors (which can vary and need to be
understood in their local context). The IPC convergence-of-evidence approach requires the analysts to
critically evaluate the body of evidence and, all things considered, make their best estimation of the severity
of the situation based on the IPC Reference Table. This is similar to what is called the “Delphi Decision-Making
Process”, which is commonly used in the medical and other fields, where the phenomenon being studied is
complex and data/information is incomplete or inconclusive.
The process requires clear documentation of the evidence and evaluation of its reliability. While tempting
from a modelling perspective, the IPC does not a priori weight evidence. Universal weighting is not possible
given that each situation has its own unique livelihood, historical and other contexts that would have a
bearing on how to interpret indicators.
3. Acute and Chronic Food Insecurity
IPC Version 2.0 distinguishes between two conditions of food insecurity – acute and chronic. For the IPC, acute
food insecurity is a snapshot of the current or projected severity of the situation, regardless of the causes, context
or duration. Chronic food insecurity is the prevalence of persistent food insecurity – i.e. levels of food insecurity
that continue even in the absence of hazards/shocks or high frequency of years with acute food insecurity.
From a decision support perspective, with acute food Insecurity it is appropriate to have short-term strategic
objectives (ideally these are also linked to medium- and longer-term objectives). Chronic food insecurity,
however, requires medium- and long-term strategic objectives to address underlying causes. Acute and
chronic food insecurity are not mutually exclusive. An area or household can be in one of the conditions
or both simultaneously – indeed, acute food insecurity is often “on top of” chronic food insecurity. It is
necessary to examine the nature of, and linkages between, chronic and acute conditions in order to develop
the most effective and appropriate strategies for action.
This Version 2.0 of the IPC Manual focuses on revisions for analysis of acute food insecurity. Since the tools and
procedures for analysing chronic food insecurity are still in prototype forms (pending field testing and revision),
they are presented in Annex 5. In the next version of the IPC manual it is expected that the tools and procedures for
analysing chronic food insecurity will be fully integrated into the manual. Even so, country users are encouraged
to use the protocols for analysing chronic food insecurity and provide feedback to the Global Support Unit.
4. IPC Analytical Framework
With an emphasis on household food security, the IPC Analytical Framework draws together key aspects of
four commonly accepted conceptual frameworks for food security, nutrition, and livelihoods analysis:
and Framework
The IPC is best characterized as a set of protocols for meta-analysis of food security situations, also known as “big
picture analysis”. The IPC draws from existing data and information to classify broad patterns of food insecurity
that are essential for decision-making. Nuanced information may also be needed to inform particular decisions
or answer certain questions; however, the IPC aims to provide the big-picture analysis that is consistently required
for decision-making by multiple stakeholders. The IPC meta-analysis draws from more specific methodologies
and key indicators that measure food insecurity. The meta-analysis approach of the IPC enables it to be used in
a wide range of contexts and to consistently provide essential information in comparable ways.
Section 3: Analytical Approach
1. Meta-analysis
18
(1) Risk = f (Hazard, Vulnerability) (White, 1975: Turner et al. 2003).
(2) Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (Sen, 1981; Frankenburger, 1992; Save the Children Fund
(SCF)–United Kingdom, 2000; DFID, 2001)
(3) The four dimensions of food security: Availability, Access, Utilization, and Stability (FAO 2006)
(4) The United Nations Children’s Fund Nutrition Conceptual Framework (UNICEF, 1996)
Diagram 2 illustrates how key aspects of these frameworks are integrated to guide the IPC analysis. See
Annex 6 for further details on each of these individual frameworks.
The overall IPC classification of Acute or Chronic food insecurity is based on the entire body of food security
evidence, which is divided into food security outcomes and food security contributing factors.
Food Security Outcomes
The IPC enables comparability in the analysis by making
the classification with direct reference to actual or
inferred outcomes, including primary outcomes (food
consumption and livelihood change) and secondary
outcomes (nutritional status and mortality rates). Food
security outcomes are generally comparable irrespective
of livelihood, ethnic, socio-economic and other contexts.
IPC analysis is carried out with reference to international
standards of these outcomes. The IPC Acute and Chronic
Reference Tables specify thresholds for key outcome
indicators associated with methods used to measure
these outcomes, and associate them with various Phases
(for acute food insecurity) and Levels (for chronic food
insecurity).
BOX 1: IPC and Health
There is a strong relationship between food
security and health. The IPC analytical framework
includes health in three ways: (1) as an underlying
vulnerability in terms of human capital; (2) as an
acute/chronic event in the form of disease; and
(3) as a non-food-security-specific contributing
factor to the IPC food security outcomes.
Health or disease, however, is not included as
one of the four IPC food security outcomes for
two reasons: (1) the impacts of negative health
should be evident in the nutrition or mortality
indicators; and (2) health/disease does not have
clear, universal thresholds that can be used for
classification purposes. For further discussion on
the relationship between health and food security
see Annex 6.
It is important to note that of these four outcomes, only
food consumption (including both quantity and nutritious
quality) is exclusively unique to food security. The others
(livelihood change, nutrition rates, and mortality rates) can all have non-food-security-specific contributing
factors (for example, health, disease, water, sanitation, access to social services). This approach is consistent
with the UNICEF Nutrition Conceptual Framework (see Annex 6). The IPC classification is a classification of the
food security situation, not the overall nutrition situation (which, as stated previously, may have completely
different drivers than those of food security, including health, disease and sanitation). Thus, when using
evidence of nutrition, mortality and livelihood change, it is essential for analysts to examine carefully whether
or not these are the result of food security drivers or non-food security drivers. To better understand the
causes and drivers of an overall nutrition situation requires equally thorough analysis of the health and
sanitation situations. While this can be a challenging task, IPC analysis that relies on nutrition and mortality
evidence needs at the very least to demonstrate food-security-specific drivers of those outcomes.
Food Security Contributing Factors
The Food Security Contributing Factors are divided into two components: Causal Factors and Impact on Food
Security Dimensions.
Causal Factors
Consistent with the Risk= f (Hazard, Vulnerability) framework, causal factors include vulnerability elements
and hazard elements. In this framework, Vulnerability is conceptually understood in relation to: exposure
(Does the hazard event affect a population, and to what degree?), susceptibility (In what ways does the hazard
event affect the livelihood of a population, and to what degree?), and resilience (What is the population’s
coping capacity?).
Food Preferences
Food Preparation
Feeding Practices
Food Storage
Food Safety
Water Access
Physical Access
Financial Access
Social Access
Production
Wild Foods
Food Reserves
Markets
Transportation
Stability (at all times)
Utilization
Access
Availability
Food Security Dimensions
Impact
(natural, socio-economic, conflict, disease and others)
Acute Events or Ongoing Conditions
&
• Livelihood Strategies (food & income sources, coping, & expenditures)
• Livelihood Assets (human, financial, social, physical, & natural)
• Policies, Institutions, and Processes
Vulnerability: (Exposure, Susceptibility, and Resilience to specific
hazards events or ongoing conditions).
Causal Factors
Food Security Contributing Factors
Assets & Strategies
Quantity &
Nutritional Quality
Classification of Acute Phase
(current or projected) and Chronic Level
(directly measured or inferred from
contributing factors)
Food Security Outcomes
Livelihood
Change
Mortality
Food
Consumption
1° Outcomes
Nutritional
Status
2° Outcomes
and Framework
Section 3: Analytical Approach
Feedback
Disease
Water/Sanitation
Health Social Services
Others ...
..
..
Non Food Security Specific
Contributing Factors:
19
Diagram 2: IPC Analytical Framework
20
Consistent with the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach, vulnerability can be analytically understood in terms of:
{{ Livelihood Strategies – a behavioural analysis of the pattern and amounts of food sources, income
sources and expenditure patterns of households;
{{ Livelihood Assets – a structural analysis of the five capitals required for sustaining a household
livelihood: human, financial, social, physical and natural capital;
{{ Policies, Institutions and Processes – a social, political and economic analysis of how well these
aspects support (or do not support) household livelihoods.
The other element of causal factors are acute events or ongoing conditions which can include natural
(drought, flood, tsunami, etc.), socio-economic (high or extreme fluctuations in prices), conflict (war, civil
unrest, etc.), disease (HIV/AIDS, cholera, malaria, etc.) and other events/conditions that impact the food
security dimensions.
While the completion of vulnerability/livelihood baselines is not part of the IPC analysis per se, in most
situations having a recent livelihood baseline would ensure ready access to important contextual information.
Impact of Food Security Dimensions
The interactions of Causal Factors (including acute/chronic events and vulnerability) have direct impacts on
the four food security dimensions: availability, access, utilization and stability. These dimensions interact in a
sequential manner, meaning food must be available, then households must have access to it, then they must
utilize it appropriately, and then the whole system must be stable (Barrett, 2010).
{{ Availability – This dimension addresses whether or not food is actually or potentially physically present,
including aspects of production, wild foods, food reserves, markets and transportation.
{{ Access – If food is actually or potentially physically present, the next question is whether or not
households have sufficient access (i.e. entitlement) to that food, including physical (distance, infrastructure,
etc.), financial (purchasing power) and social (ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, etc.) aspects.
{{ Utilization – If food is available and households have adequate access to it, the next question is
whether or not households are sufficiently utilizing the food in terms of food preferences, preparation,
feeding practices, storage and access to improved water sources. While there are varying understandings
of the term “utilization”, the IPC Analytical Framework uses this term to explicitly refer to the physical
utilization of food at the household level – i.e. not including the biological utilization of food at the
individual level. Biological utilization of food at the individual level, for the IPC at least, is an important
factor in understanding nutritional outcomes overall.
{{ Stability – If the dimensions of availability, access and utilization are sufficiently met such that households
have adequate quality and quantity of food, the next question is whether or not the whole system is
stable, thus ensuring that the households are food-secure at all times. Stability can refer to short-term
instability (which can lead to acute food insecurity) or medium/long-term instability (which can lead to
chronic food insecurity). Climatic, economic, social and political factors can all be a source of instability.
The interaction among Contributing Factors (including causal factors and impacts on food security dimensions)
leads to a risk of deterioration or a positive change in the food security outcomes. The framework explicitly
includes a feedback mechanism whereby changes in food security outcomes often lead to subsequent
changes in the food security contributing factors such as a worsening or improvement of vulnerability and/
or acute events or chronic conditions, thus leading to changes to the impacts on food security dimensions.
Gender analysis is cross-cutting throughout the entire IPC Analytical Framework. In some respects gender
can be considered along with age, wealth group, ethnicity, and others as already included in the IPC vulnerability
framework. However, given the pronounced and nearly universal effect that gender can have on household
food security analysis, all aspects of the IPC Analytical Framework should include gender-based analysis.
While the Analytical Framework is intentionally comprehensive, it does not mean that evidence is required
for each of the elements of the framework to make a classification. On the contrary, IPC classification can be
performed with whatever evidence is available. In other words, it makes the best use of available information.
Section 4: Section 4: Building Technical
Consensus
23
Section 4: Building Technical Consensus
The purpose of Building Technical Consensus is to enable multisectoral experts to provide inputs and
reach technical consensus and for key stakeholders to endorse the process.
Building Technical Consensus is important for two main reasons. Firstly, food security analysis requires expert
knowledge from a wide range of disciplines (nutrition, markets, agriculture, and many others depending
on the situation). The consensus-based process involves bringing together experts from different disciplines
and perspectives to evaluate and debate the evidence, leading to the big-picture conclusions for the IPC.
Secondly, bringing technical experts from key stakeholder organizations together in the analysis process
ensures that the results of the analysis will be widely accepted and acted upon in a coordinated manner.
The TWG should be hosted by an existing institution, which prevents duplication and also strengthens these
institutions. The TWG chairperson should ideally be a technical officer in the national government. The
participants of the TWG should be technically pre-eminent in their respective sectors and should have strong
knowledge of food security analysis in general. Paramount to the analysis is that the participants should
engage in the analysis in an objective, non-biased manner, with their only concern being to classify and
describe food security situations as accurately as possible.
The parameters for the TWG are as follows:
{{ There can be regional, national and/or subnational TWGs, depending on the needs and context.
{{ The TWG is composed of technical experts representing key stakeholder agencies and relevant sectors.
{{ The size of the TWG can vary greatly depending on the context, but should be in the range of 5 to 20
members.
{{ The TWG is ideally chaired by a technical officer from the national government.
{{ Members of the TWG must commit to conducting critical, unbiased analysis using the IPC protocols
and scientific methods.
{{ Members of the TWG must have strong analytical capacity and knowledge in their fields, and the
majority must have training and experience in conducting food security analysis.6
{{ A consultation with key decision-makers should be held before findings are released, allowing for any
revisions to be made that can be substantiated with adequate evidence.
6 On-line food security distance learning courses are offered by both FAO and WFP. Visit:
(1) http://www.foodsec.org/dl/elcpages/food-security-courses.asp?pgLanguage=en&leftItemSelected=food-security-courses, and
(2) http://odan.wfp.org/repository/index.asp
Consensus
Forming a Technical Working Group
Section 4: Building Technical
The IPC enables technical consensus by forming a multi-stakeholder Technical Working Group (TWG) to
conduct the analysis and by consulting with key decision-makers as part of the process.
24
Diagram 3: Technical Working Group Matrix
Stakeholder Organization Representation
Chairperson and
Hosting Organization
(Aim to include at least one representative of all applicable groups. A single individual can
cover multiple areas of expertise)
National
Government
(at all relevant
levels)
National
NGOs/ Civil
Society/
Private Sector
International
NGOs
United
Nations
Agencies and
Programmes
Technical
Agencies
Food Security
Livelihoods
Nutrition
Area of Expertise
(include as relevant)
Markets
Agriculture
Climate
Health
Water/Sanitation
Gender
Statistics.
Others....
....
Further guidance for completing the TWG Matrix includes:
a.Insert name and organization of TWG members according to their organizational affiliation and
sectoral expertise.
b.There can be multiple names in each cell. Not all cells need to be filled. A single member can be
repeated in different areas of sectoral expertise.
c. To achieve IPC Technical Consensus, ensure representation by at least one person from each
applicable stakeholder group.
d.Ensure that each relevant sectoral area is represented (insert additional sectors as relevant).
The chairperson should call a meeting of the TWG whenever IPC analysis needs to be conducted. This can
happen as part of regularly scheduled/planned analytical cycles (e.g. seasonal analysis) or in an ad hoc manner
(e.g. sudden onset crisis).
Consulting with Key Decision-Makers
The preliminary IPC results produced by the TWG should be presented and discussed in a consultative
meeting with key decision-makers in a manner that allows for open discussion and the possibility of
making revisions if necessary and if substantiated with adequate evidence. In so doing, this consultative
stage achieves two objectives: (1) it is a double check on the results, allowing for revisions if and as necessary;
and (2) it promotes ownership and consensus of the findings by key stakeholders before the findings are
presented to public audiences.
Section 5: Section 5: Classifying Severity
and Causes
27
Section 5: Classifying Severity and Causes
The purpose of Classifying Severity and Causes is to consolidate diverse data and methods into an overall
food security statement that is comparable over space and time, answering questions of:
{{ How severe is the situation? To inform the urgency and strategic objectives of interventions.
{{ Where are different geographic areas with food-insecure populations? To inform targeting so
that interventions are in the right place.
{{ Who are the food insecure people? To inform targeting so that interventions are for the right social
groups.
{{ How many are food insecure? To inform decisions on the scale of the response.
{{ Why are people food insecure? To inform Response Analysis and the strategic design of interventions.
{{ When will people be food insecure? To inform contingency planning, mitigation, and prevention
strategies.
Key Parameters for Classification
{{ Five Phases. The IPC classifies severity of Acute Food Insecurity into five phases based on common
informs short-term strategic objectives – i.e. responses and interventions which expect to see measurable
results immediately or within a one-year time period. Ideally these should be linked to medium- and
longer-term objectives.
{{ Unit of Analysis. For Acute Food Insecurity, the IPC has two units of classification: (1) Area-based (i.e.
the overall population within a given area7); and (2) Household Group-based (i.e. relatively homogenous
groups of households with regard to food security outcomes, and determined by a wide range of factors
such as wealth groups, social affiliations and location).
The minimum standard for IPC analysis Area-based classification. A population within a given geographic
area is classified as being in Phase 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5. The Area-based classification is what is mapped on the
IPC communication template. Ideally, and whenever possible, however, IPC practitioners are encouraged to
provide more detailed analysis by also classifying Household Groups. Thus, an area with a single classification
can further be broken into Household Group classifications.
The Area classification is directly linked to the Household Group classification. A key criterion for
the Area classification is that 20 percent of the population must be in that Phase or worse based on
the Household Group classification. Therefore it is necessary to refer to the Household Group Reference
Table in order to make an Area-based classification. The key difference, however, is that with the Areabased classification, different Household Groups are not identified. Some pros and cons of Area-based and
Household Group-based classifications are listed in Table 3 below.
7 Typically the term population refers to the whole population in a given area. It is also possible, however, to specify a priori
a sub-set of the population for which the IPC analysis will be conducted. For example, the IPC analysis can be undertaken for
the (subset) population of internally displaced persons, or migrant workers, or people of a certain ethnicity, etc. And still, within
these populations, various household groups can be identified with varying IPC phases. If a subset of the whole population is
being analysed, this should be clearly stated on the IPC map and elsewhere.
and Causes
{{ Informing Short-term Strategic Objectives. The classification of Acute Food Insecurity primarily
Section 5: Classifying Severity
reference indicators: None/Minimal, Stressed, Crisis, Emergency, and Humanitarian Catastrophe/Famine.
28
Table 3: Pros and Cons of Area and Household Group-based Classification
Pros
Area-based
Classification
Only
Cons
{{ Less Complicated. Does not require
Does not provide detailed breakdown of
severity of food insecurity for different
household groups within a given area.
This information is important for strategic
design of a response that is tailored to the
needs of different household groups.
as detailed data and analysis as the
Household Group classification.
Many of the steps involved in
completing the Analysis Worksheets
and Communication Template can be
skipped.
{{ Nutrition and mortality data
are typically provided for whole
populations in a given area (e.g. Global
Acute Malnutrition (GAM), Severe
Acute Malnutrition (SAM), Crude
Death Rate (CDR), and Under 5 years
Death Rate (U5DR)), which is directly
compatible with an Area-based IPC
classification.
{{ Good for general severity analysis and
geographic targeting.
{{ Area-based only classification is
comparable to a Household Group and
Area-based classification in terms of
the mapped area.
Household
Group and
Area-based
Classification
{{ Provides a detailed breakdown of the
severity of food insecurity for different
household groups within a given area.
This information is important for the
strategic design of a response that
is tailored to the needs of different
household groups.
{{ Forces analysts to critically examine
vulnerability for different household
groups.
{{ Can be difficult to achieve given data,
time and human capacity constraints.
It requires identification of the
various household groups in a given
area, estimation of their respective
populations, critical examination
of evidence for each household
group individually, and overall Phase
classification for each individual
household group.
{{ Difficult to utilize nutrition and mortality
data that is typically provided not
for household groups, but for whole
populations in a given area.
{{ Current and Early Warning Projections. The
classifications should be undertaken to describe
current conditions and future projected conditions
for early warning purposes. The future projection is
based on the most likely scenario.
{{ A Snapshot in Time. The severity classification is
a “snapshot in time” of food insecurity conditions
that are: (1) currently happening; and/or (2) projected
for a specified time in the future (which can be as
short or long a time period as necessary, depending
on the situation at hand and the needs of decisionmakers – i.e. as short as weeks and as long as up to
a year). Furthermore, multiple projected snapshots
for different time periods can be done if they are
beneficial for decision-making. Since the classification
is a “snapshot in time”, it is a real-time statement
and can change/fluctuate depending on how
dynamic the food security situation is.
BOX 2: What’s a Projection?
The IPC has two different time periods for
situation analysis: (1) the current snapshot (i.e.
at the time the analysis is conducted); and (2) a
future projected snapshot. The projection is akin
to an early warning statement but is not restricted
to projecting when the situation might get worse.
The time period for the projection is entirely up
to the IPC analysts’ and decision-makers’ needs.
For highly dynamic situations (e.g. floods, political
unrest) the projection could be a matter of weeks
into the future. And for slow onset situations the
projection could be six months or a year into the
future. Projections can also be for regular time
intervals, such as six months. An example of this
is undertaken by FEWS NET whereby the analysis
regularly includes a six-month outlook projection.
It is also possible to make multiple projections for
different time periods into the future.
29
{{ When to Conduct Analysis? IPC analysis should be conducted whenever the food security situation
has changed or is expected to change significantly, so as to inform programme design and early
warning. Thus, the IPC can be undertaken very frequently with rapidly changing situations, or can be
done annually with regular seasonal changes.
{{ Humanitarian Assistance. The classification of the current situation is referenced on actual outcomes
(food consumption, livelihood change, nutrition and mortality) irrespective of whether humanitarian
or development assistance is being provided. For projections, assistance is included in the most likely
scenario if it is inter-annual (meaning it is provided every year on a regular basis) or if it is short-term
humanitarian/emergency assistance that is currently programmed and is most likely to be continued into
the projection period and reach beneficiaries. Newly planned or appealed for assistance is not included in
the projected classification.
{{ Evidence-based. Evidence in support of the classification must be documented in the IPC Analysis
Worksheets, including an assessment of reliability of the evidence and overall confidence in the analysis.
{{ Convergence of Evidence. The classification is based on a convergence of evidence. This requires that
the body of evidence be examined, including on food security contributing factors and outcomes, to
make the final call on the classification.
{{ Minimum Quality. Only areas which meet at least the criteria for “Low Confidence” should be
classified. The minimum evidence base for classification is: At least 1 piece of reliable evidence (direct
or indirect) for any of the food security outcomes + at least 4 pieces of reliable evidence from different
contributing factor and outcome elements. (See the discussion below on Reliability Ratings and
Confidence Levels for further guidance.)
Tools for Classifying Severity and Causes
The tools for classifying severity and causes include: Acute Food Insecurity Reference Table for Area Classification
(Diagram 4); Acute Food Insecurity Reference Table for Household Group Classification (Diagram 5); Potential
Indirect Evidence to Support IPC Analysis (Diagram 6); and Acute Food Insecurity Analysis Worksheet (Diagram 7).
Reference Table for Area Classification
The IPC Acute Food Insecurity Reference Table for Area Classification (Diagram 4) provides Reference Outcomes
and Priority Response Objectives for five Phases of Acute Food Insecurity for the population in a given area:
Phase 1–Minimal, Phase 2–Stressed, Phase 3–Crisis, Phase 4–Emergency, and Phase 5–Famine. Unless
otherwise stated, the analysis is based on the whole population
in the area. Within a given area, there can be multiple groups of
BOX 3: Degrees of Famine
households experiencing different Phases of food insecurity.
The References Outcomes include Food Consumption, Livelihood
Change, Nutritional Status, and Mortality.
{{ Food Consumption and Livelihood Change – It is necessary
to refer to the Household Group Reference Table (see below)
to determine the conditions for food consumption and
livelihood change. The Phase is based on whether or not at
least 20 percent of the population is in a particular Phase
or worse. Note: although the Area-based classification is
derived partly from the Household Group Reference Table,
the distinction is that the Area-based classification does not
necessarily identify various groups of households with different
Phases. Rather it is a general classification for the population
as a whole.
There can be many degrees of “famine”. Various
researchers have identified different thresholds for
key indicators such as Crude Death Rate (CDR)
indicating famine, ranging from 1/10,000/day
for “minor famine” (Howe and Devereux, 2004)
to >5/10,000/day (Hakewill and Moren, 1991).
The purpose of the IPC, however, is not to classify
various degrees of famine, nor is it to categorize the
“worst famine”. Rather, in order to inform real-time
decision-making, the IPC thresholds for famine (in
particular CDR > 2/10,000/day, GAM > 30%, and
near complete Food Consumption gap for >20%
of the population) are set to signify the beginning
of famine stages. The IPC does not preclude a postfacto analysis of a famine event that may further
categorize and compare a famine with other
historical famines. See Annex 8 for further technical
discussion on the IPC thresholds for CDR.
and Causes
are analysed using the Limiting Factors Matrix in the Analysis Worksheet to identify which combination
of availability, access, utilization and stability are limiting people from being food secure. Underlying
causes can be identified using the prototype tools for classifying chronic food insecurity – in particular
the Vulnerability SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) Analysis.
Section 5: Classifying Severity
{{ Causal Analysis. The IPC provides tools for basic causal analysis. Immediate causes of food insecurity
30
{{ Nutritional Status (due to inadequate food consumption)
• Wasting Rate – percentage of the population below 2 standard deviations from normal
• Body Mass Index (BMI) – percentage of the population below the benchmarked rate of 18.5.
{{ Mortality (due to inadequate food consumption)
• Crude Death Rate (CDR) – number of deaths per 10,000 people in the whole population per day.
• Under 5 Years Death Rate (U5DR) – number of deaths per 10,000 children under 5 years per day.
The Priority Response Objectives provide specific objectives for each of the Phases on the Acute Reference
Table. The priority response for each phase include: Phase 1: Build Resilience and Disaster Risk Reduction; Phase
2: Disaster Risk Reduction and Protect Livelihoods; Phase 3: Protect Livelihoods, Reduce Food Consumption
Gaps, and Reduce Acute Malnutrition; Phase 4: Save Lives and Livelihoods; and Phase 5: Prevent Widespread
Death and Total Collapse of Livelihoods.
While the IPC Reference Tables link response objectives with each Phase, subsequent to the IPC analysis it is
necessary to conduct Response Analysis to determine which particular interventions and activities are best
suited to mitigate food insecurity.
Reference Table for Household Group Classification
The IPC Acute Food Insecurity Reference Table for Household Group Classification (Diagram 5) provides
a general description, reference outcomes and Priority Response Objectives for five Phases of Acute Food
Insecurity at the household level: Phase 1–No Acute Food Insecurity, Phase 2–Stressed, Phase 3–Crisis, Phase
4–Emergency, and Phase 5–Catastrophe. In this way, groups of relatively homogenous households can be
classified in different Phases within a given area.
The reference indicators are organized according to the IPC Analytical Framework: Outcomes of Household
Food Security and Contributing Factors.
The Reference Table includes both single indicators and commonly used methodologies that have been
calibrated to the common IPC scale. These are briefly described below. See Annex 8 for detailed descriptions
of each of these indicators and methodologies.
Household Outcomes
{{ Food Consumption – including nutritional quality and quantity of food
• Quantity – in reference to the commonly used general requirement of 2,100 kcal per person per day.
• Quality – in reference to micronutrient requirements.
• Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) – a commonly used methodology that indicates quality of
food consumption and, to a lesser degree, quantity.
• Food Consumption Score (FCS) – a method developed by WFP to indicate quantity and quality of
food consumption.
• Household Hunger Score (HHS) – a method developed by Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance
(FANTA) based on perceptions of food insecurity at household levels.
• Coping Strategies Index (CSI) – a method developed by Maxwell et al (2008) to track changes in
household behaviours and indicate degrees of food insecurity when compared over time or to a
baseline.
• Household Economy Approach (HEA) – a method developed by Save the Children and the Food
Economy Group (2008) to comprehensively examine livelihood strategies and the impact of shocks
on food consumption and other livelihood needs.
{{ Livelihood Change – This is difficult to quantify because livelihood changes can come in a multitude
of ways and universal thresholds do not exist. Thus general descriptions are used in conjunction with a
typology of coping strategies developed by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF, Holland) that identifies three
main levels: (1) insurance strategies (reversible coping, preserving productive assets, reduced food intake,
etc.); (2) crisis strategies (irreversible coping threatening future livelihoods, sale of productive assets, etc.);
and (3) distress strategies (starvation and death, and no more coping mechanisms) (MSF, 2005).
31
{{ Nutritional Status and Mortality – Both nutritional status and mortality data is typically collected for
whole populations in a given area. Therefore this data can help infer household groups, but international
guidelines do not exist for specific groups.
Contributing Factors
For contributing factors, it is not possible to specify universal thresholds that are relevant and comparable in
all situations. This is because each of the contributing factors must be analysed within its livelihood, social
and historical contexts. Thus, the IPC Reference Table only provides general descriptions, not thresholds, for
contributing factors. Diagram 6 provides examples of Indicators and Indirect Evidence that can be used to
guide the analysis of contributing factors, as well as likely sources.
IPC analysts must evaluate these indicators within the local context in order to infer what outcomes, and
thus what Phase, they equate to. In situations where robust food security information systems are in place, it
is possible to develop specific thresholds for contributing factors that equate to the IPC reference outcomes
in specific livelihood systems. However, analysts should provide an explicit explanation and evidence of how
these contributing factor indicators relate to food security outcomes. The IPC Analytical Framework divides
contributing factors into:
• Hazards and Vulnerability – a general description for each Phase is provided.
• Food Availability, Access, Utilization and Stability – a general description for each Phase is provided.
As previously noted, by definition contributing factors effectively do not have universal thresholds. Rather,
they need to be analysed and interpreted within particular livelihood, social, historical and other contexts.
Thus, while the table in Diagram 6 does provide a list of typical indicators of contributing factors, including
vulnerability, hazards, food availability, food access, food utilization and stability, it does not provide threshold
cutoffs for these indicators. It is incumbent on the analysts to infer the meaning of a contributing factor and
to relate that to the IPC outcomes and Phases.
Analysis Worksheets
The Analysis Worksheet for Acute Food Insecurity (Diagram 7) enables the organization, documentation, and
analysis of evidence in order to classify the severity of acute food insecurity and diagnose immediate causes.
One Analysis Worksheet should be completed for each area analysed. A single Analysis Worksheet can be
used for conducting analysis of the Current and Projected Situations.
Note, if the TWG is classifying Areas only, the parts of the Analysis Worksheets that are diagonally shaded
light grey do not need to be completed. If the TWG is conducting analysis for Areas and Household
Groups, it is necessary to complete all parts of the Analysis Worksheets.
and Causes
The table of Potential Indirect Evidence (Diagram 6) provides a list of indicators that can be used to support
IPC analysis. They are arranged to correspond to the IPC Analytical Framework. The list is not exhaustive, and
in any given situation, analysts are encouraged to utilize any relevant evidence to support the classification.
The table provides indirect indicators of outcome data as well as indicators of contributing factors.
Section 5: Classifying Severity
Potential Indirect Evidence for IPC Analysis
32
Diagram 4: IPC Acute Food Insecurity Reference Table for Area Classification
Food Consumption
and
Livelihood Change
Mortality*
Nutritional
Status*
Area Outcomes
(directly measured or inferred)
Priority
Response Objectives
Phase Name and
Description
Purpose: To guide short term strategic objectives linked to medium and long-term objectives that address
underlying causes and chronic food insecurity.
Usage: Classification is based on convergence of evidence of current or projected most likely conditions, including
effects of humanitarian assistance.
Phase 1
Minimal
Phase 2
Stressed
Phase 3
Crisis
Phase 4
Emergency
More than four in
five households
(HHs) are able to
meet essential
food and nonfood needs
without engaging
in atypical,
unsustainable
strategies to
access food and
income, including
any reliance on
humanitarian
assistance
Even with any
humanitarian
assistance at least
one in five HHs in
the area have the
following or worse:
Even with any
humanitarian
assistance at least
one in five HHs in
the area have the
following or worse:
Even with any
humanitarian
assistance at least
one in five HHs in
the area have the
following or worse:
Minimally
adequate food
consumption
but are unable
to afford some
essential non
food expenditures
without engaging
in irreversible
coping strategies.
Food consumption
gaps with high or
above usual acute
malnutrition
OR
Are marginally able
to meet minimum
food needs only with
accelerated depletion
of livelihood assets
that will lead to food
consumption gaps.
Large food
consumption gaps
resulting in very high
acute malnutrition
and excess mortality
OR
Extreme loss of
livelihood assets that
will lead to food
consumption gaps in
the short term.
Phase 5
Famine
Even with any
humanitarian
assistance at least
one in five HHs in
the area have an
extreme lack of
food and other
basic needs where
starvation, death,
and destitution are
evident.
(Evidence for all
three criteria of
food consumption,
wasting, and CDR is
required to classify
Famine.)
Urgent Action Required to:
Action required to
Build Resilience and
for Disaster Risk
Reduction
Action required
for Disaster Risk
Reduction and to
Protect Livelihoods
Protect livelihoods,
reduce food
consumption gaps,
and reduce acute
malnutrition
Save lives and
livelihoods
Prevent widespread
mortality and total
collapse of livelihoods
More than 80% of
households in the area
are able to meet basic
food needs without
engaging in atypical
strategies to access
food and income,
and livelihoods are
sustainable
Based on the IPC
Household Group
Reference Table, at least
20% of the households
in the area are in Phase
2 or worse
Based on the IPC
Household Group
Reference Table, at least
20% of the households in
the area are in Phase 3 or
worse
Based on the IPC
Household Group
Reference Table, at least
20% of the households in
the area are in Phase 4 or
worse
Based on the IPC
Household Group
Reference Table, at least
20% of the households in
the area are in Phase 5
Acute Malnutrition:
<5%
BMI <18.5 Prevalence:
<10%
Acute Malnutrition:
5–10%,
BMI <18.5 Prevalence:
10–20%
Acute Malnutrition:
10–15% OR > usual and
increasing
BMI <18.5 Prevalence:
20–40%, 1.5 x greater than
reference
Acute Malnutrition:
15–30%; OR > usual and
increasing
BMI <18.5 Prevalence:
>40%
Acute Malnutrition: >30%
BMI <18.5 Prevalence: far
> 40%
CDR: <0.5/10,000/day
U5DR: ≤1/10,000/day
CDR: <0.5/10,000/day
U5DR: ≤1/10,000/day
CDR: 0.5–1/10,000/day
U5DR: 1–2/10,000/day
CDR: 1–2/10,000/day OR
>2x reference
U5DR: 2–4/10,000/day
CDR: >2/10,000/day
U5DR: >4/10,000/day
*For both nutrition and mortality area outcomes, household food consumption deficits must be an explanatory factor
in order for that evidence to be used in support of a Phase classification. For example, elevated malnutrition due to
disease outbreak or lack of health access—if it is determined to not be related to food consumption deficits—should not
be used as evidence for an IPC classification. Similarly, excess mortality rates due to, murder or conflict –if they are not
related to food consumption deficits--should not be used as evidence for a Phase classification. For Acute Malnutrition,
the IPC thresholds are based on % of children under 5 years that are below 2 standard deviations of weight for height
or presence of oedema. BMI is an acronym for Body Mass Index. CDR is Crude Death Rate. U5DR is Under 5 Death Rate.
33
Diagram 5: Acute Food Insecurity Reference Table for Household Group Classification
Purpose: To guide short-term strategic objectives tailored to the needs of household groups with relatively similar
Phase classifications, which should compliment medium- and long-term objectives that address underlying causes
and chronic food insecurity.
Usage: Classification is based on convergence of evidence of current or projected most likely conditions, including
effects of humanitarian assistance.
Even with any
humanitarian
assistance:
· HH group has food
· HH group has large
consumption gaps with
food consumption gaps
· HH group has an
high or above usual acute
resulting in very high
extreme lack of food
and/or other basic
malnutrition;
acute malnutrition and
OR
excess mortality;
needs even with
· HH group is marginally
OR
full employment of
able to meet minimum
· HH group has extreme
coping strategies.
food needs only with
loss of livelihood assets
Starvation, death,
that will lead to large
and destitution are
accelerated depletion of
livelihood assets that will
food consumption gaps in
evident.
lead to food consumption
the short term.
gaps.
Urgent Action Required to:
Priority
Response
Objectives
Action required to
Build Resilience and
for Disaster Risk
Reduction
Quantity: adequate
(2,100kcal pp/day);
stable
HDDS: no recent
deterioration and >=4
food groups (based on
12 food groups)
FCS: “acceptable
consumption”; stable
HHS: “none” (0)
CSI: = reference, stable
HEA: No “Livelihood
Protection Deficit”
Quantity: minimally
adequate (2,100kcal pp/
day)
HDDS: recent
deterioration of HDDS
(loss of 1 food group
from typical based on 12
food groups)
FCS: “acceptable”
consumption (but
deteriorating)
HHS: “slight” (1)
CSI: = reference, but
unstable
HEA: “Small or moderate
Livelihood Protection
Deficit”
Quantity: food gap; below
2,100 kcal pp/day OR 2,100
kcal pp/day via asset stripping
HDDS: severe recent
deterioration of HDDS (loss
of 2 food groups from typical
based on 12 food groups)
FCS: “borderline”
consumption
HHS: “moderate” (2–3)
CSI: > reference and
increasing
HEA: Substantial “Livelihood
Protection Deficit” OR small
“Survival Deficit” of <20%
Quantity: large food gap;
much below 2,100kcal pp/day
HDDS: <4 out of 12 food
groups
FCS: “poor” consumption
HHS: “severe” (4–6)
CSI: Significantly > reference
HEA: “Survival Deficit” >20%
but <50% with reversible
coping considered
Quantity: extreme food
gap
HDDS 1–2 out of 12
food groups
FCS: [below] “poor”
consumption
HHS: “severe” (6)
CSI: far > reference
HEA: “Survival Deficit”
>50% with reversible
coping considered
Sustainable livelihood
strategies and assets
Livelihood: Stressed
strategies and assets;
reduced ability to invest
in livelihoods
Coping: "Insurance
Strategies"
Livelihood: Accelerated
depletion/erosion of
strategies and assets that
will lead to high food
consumption gaps
Coping: "Crisis Strategies"
Livelihood: Extreme
depletion/ liquidation of
strategies and assets that
will lead to very high food
consumption gaps
Coping: "Distress Strategies"
Livelihood: Near
complete collapse of
strategies and assets
Coping: effectively no
ability to cope
Household Outcomes
(directly measured or inferred)
Action required
for Disaster Risk
Reduction and to
Protect Livelihoods
Even with any
humanitarian assistance:
Phase 5
Catastrophe
Protect livelihoods,
reduce food consumption
gaps, and reduce acute
malnutrition
Save lives and livelihoods
Prevent widespread
death and total collapse
of livelihoods
Food Availability,
Access, Utilization,
and Stability
Hazards and
Vulnerability
Contributing Factors
For Contributing Factors, specific indicators and thresholds for inferring Phase need to be determined and analysed according to the unique causes and
livelihood context of household groups. General descriptions are provided below. See IPC Analytical Framework for further guidance on key aspects of
availability, access, utilization, and stability.
· Adequate to meet
food consumption
requirements and
short-term stable;
· Safe Water ≥15 litres
pppd
· Borderline adequate
to meet food
consumption
requirements;
· Safe Water marginally
≥15 litres pppd
· Highly inadequate to
meet food consumption
requirements;
· Safe Water 7.5 to 15 litres
pppd
· Very highly inadequate to
meet food consumption
requirements;
· Safe Water 4 to 7.5 litres
pppd
· Extremely inadequate
to meet food
consumption
requirements;
· Safe Water <4 litres
pppd
None or minimal
effects of hazards
and vulnerability on
livelihoods and food
consumption
Effects of hazards and
vulnerability stress
livelihoods and food
consumption
Effects of hazards and
vulnerability result in loss of
assets and/or significant food
consumption deficits
Effects of hazards and
vulnerability result in large
loss of livelihood assets and/
or food consumption deficits
Effects of hazards and
vulnerability result in
near complete collapse
of livelihood assets and/
or near complete food
consumption deficits
*The acronyms for the commonly used methodologies included in the reference table include: HDDS (Household Dietary
Diversity Score), FCS (Food Consumption Score), HHS (Household Hunger Score), CSI (Coping Strategies Index), and HEA
(Household Economy Approach).
and Causes
· HH group has
minimally adequate
food consumption
but is unable
to afford some
essential nonfood expenditures
without engaging in
irreversible coping
strategies
Even with any
humanitarian assistance:
Phase 4
Emergency
Section 5: Classifying Severity
Even with any
humanitarian
assistance:
Phase 3
Crisis
Food Consumption*
(quantity and nutritional quality)
HH group is able
to meet essential
food and non-food
needs without
engaging in atypical,
unsustainable
strategies to access
food and income,
including any reliance
on humanitarian
assistance.
Phase 2
Stressed
Livelihood
Change
(assets and
strategies)
Phase Name and
Description
Phase 1
None
34
Diagram 6: Potential Indirect Evidence to Support IPC Analysis
Element
Food
Consumption
(Quantity and
Nutritional
Quality)
Livelihood Change
(Assets and
Strategies)
Potential Indirect Evidence for IPC Analysis
Potential Sources
Availability of fortified staple food items (e.g. maize and (Grain traders, distributors)
wheat flour)
Shifts in expenditure patterns toward cheaper and less
nutritious foods
(Food security monitoring)
Number of meals/day
CFSVA (Comprehensive Food
Security and Vulnerability
Analysis), food security surveys
Number of food groups consumed
HDDS (Household Dietary
Diversity Score), CFSVA, food
security surveys
Ownership of productive assets, e.g. bicycle and farming Household Budget Surveys,
tools and recent changes in ownership
population census, household
food security surveys
Ownership of livestock and recent changes in ownership Food security surveys
Nutritional Status
Migration, e.g. from rural to urban areas or in search of
casual labour
Food security surveys,
authorities
Expansion of informal settlements
Authorities, UN-Habitat
Proportion of urban population living in slums
UN-Habitat, authorities
Internally displaced persons/refugee concentrations
Authorities, Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees (UNHCR),
United Nations Office for the
Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs (OCHA), International
Organization for Migration (IOM)
Prevalence of extreme behavioural patterns, e.g.
begging
Food security surveys
Underweight
Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey
(MICS), Demographic and
Health Survey (DHS), Nutrition
studies (e.g. –Centre for
Research on the Epidemiology
of Disasters, Complex
Emergency Database (CRED
CEDAT database)
Admissions to feeding programmes
Health Information System Data
Sentinel site data
Prevalence of night blindness (children under 5/pregnant DHS (pregnant mothers)
mothers)
Prevalence of low birth weight
MICS
Household iodized salt consumption
MICS
Iron and folic acid supplementation programmes to
pregnant women
MICS and DHS
Vitamin A supplementation programmes to children
under 5 and/or breastfeeding mothers
MICS
35
Availability
Access
Potential Sources
Infant Mortality Rate (IMR)
MICS, DHS
Neonatal mortality
DHS, birth records
Under 5 Mortality Rate (U5MR)
MICS, DHS
Mid-Upper Arm Circumference (<115 mm) (MUAC)
DHS, CFSVA, Nutrition surveys
Severe Acute Malnutrition
MICS, DHS, CFSVA, Nutrition
data
Global Acute Malnutrition (GAM)
MICS, DHS, CFSVA, Nutrition
data
Maternal mortality rate
DHS (women)
Adult Body Mass Index (BMI)
DHS (women)
Case fatality rates (e.g. epidemics)
Health surveillance bulletins
Religious leader consultations
Grave counting
Food balance sheet
FAO
Production figures
FAO, CFSAM (Crop and Food
Supply Assessment Mission),
national agricultural surveys
Average cereal yield (kg per ha)
National agricultural surveys
Land ownership/access to land
CFSVA, food security surveys
Food sources of households
CFSVA, food security surveys
Remote sensing data (rainfall, vegetation)
FEWS NET, Africa Data
Dissemination Service, EC-JRC
(Joint Research Centre of the
European Commission)
Prices (staple food items, price trends)
Government data, NGOs,
United Nations agencies
Distance to markets/market density (no. of markets per
unit area)
FAO
Purchasing power / terms of trade (livestock to cereals,
labour to cereals)
CFSVA, food security surveys
Percentage of population in lowest wealth quintile/
wealth index
DHS, CFSVA
Proportion of population unable to access a basic
consumption basket during the analysis period (poverty
or food poverty line)
Household Budget Surveys,
DHS, population census
Percentage of income spent on food (for the poorest
quintile)
CFSVA
and Causes
Mortality/Death
Rate
Potential Indirect Evidence for IPC Analysis
Section 5: Classifying Severity
Element
36
Element
Utilization
Stability
Hazards and
Vulnerability
Potential Indirect Evidence for IPC Analysis
Potential Sources
Typical meal composition/dietary preferences
(Food security surveys)
Food preparation practices
(Food security surveys)
Food storage practices
(Food security surveys)
Child care practices (breastfeeding, weaning age,
feeding, hygiene)
MICS, DHS
Types of water sources
CFSVAs, MICS
Average distance to water sources
(CFSVA, food security
monitoring, government)
Seasonality of water access
(CFSVA, food security
monitoring, government)
Price of water
(CFSVA, food security
monitoring, government)
Access to improved sanitation facilities
MICS, food security surveys,
government
Access to and type of cooking fuel used by households
Food security surveys
Cropping calendar
(Food security surveys)
Seasonal migration patterns
(Food security surveys)
Household food stocks
CFSVA, food security surveys
Trends of food production
CSFAM, food security
monitoring, government
Disease epidemics (human and animal)
WHO (World Health
Organization), FAO, OCHA
Morbidity patterns
Ministry of Health annual
reports
Measles vaccination coverage
DHS, MICS
Household expenditure, out-of-pocket – expenditure on WHO Global Health Observatory
Data Repository
health
HIV/AIDS prevalence
DHS, national statistics, UNAIDS
Coverage of antiretroviral therapy (ART)
UNAIDS (Joint United Nations
Programme on HIV/AIDS
country estimation reports),
Ministry of Health
Fertility rate
DHS
Assisted deliveries by skilled birth attendants
DHS
Natural hazards: drought, floods, earthquakes, etc.
Authorities, United Nations,
NGOs
Man-made hazards: conflict, deforestation, erosion, etc. Authorities, United Nations,
NGOs
Number of displaced
OCHA, UNHCR
Percentage of population under the national poverty
Household budget surveys,
line
census reports
(which area)
Current
Projected (with assumed
in and out migration)
(created on)
D (...)
C
B
A
Label of
HAG
[Specify Source(s):
and Causes
]
# of
people
in HAG
% of pop
in HAG
Section 5: Classifying Severity
Brief Description of Each HAG
{{ The number of groups will depend upon analytical needs, data availability and desired level of precision.
factors and likely outcomes). These HH Analysis Groups will be analysed independently for their respective Phase
Classifications.
{{ Identify groups of relatively homogenous households with regard to their food security situation (consider contributing
HH Analysis Group (HAG) Definitions
Chronic Food Insecurity Level for the
area (if available)
Estimated # of People in Area
(specify source of pop. data)
Brief Area and Livelihood Description
STEP 1: Area Description, HH Analysis Group Definitions, and Map
Section A: Area and HH Analysis Group Definitions
(from when to when)
(insert image of map identifying spatial extent of analysis
area and seasonal calendar indicating major seasons and
annual events)
Map and Seasonal Calendar of Analysis Area
(from when to when)
Analysis AREA: ____________________________________ Date of Analysis:______________ Valid For: [ ] CURRENT _______________ [ ]PrOJECTED ______________
ACUTE FOOD INSECURITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
37
Diagram 7: Acute Food Insecurity Analysis Worksheet
Phase
# of People and % of total pop
Current Situation
Summary Justification
Phase
# of People and % of total pop
Projected Situation
Summary Justification
Estimated
pop or
range
% of total
pop or
range
Justification
(key evidence and rationale of directly measured or
inferred outcomes: food consumption, livelihood
change, nutritional status, and mortality)
]
Estimated
pop or range
% of total pop
or range
]
Justification
(evidence and rationale of directly measured or
inferred outcomes: food consumption, livelihood
change, nutritional status, and mortality)
Projected Situation
[Confidence Level for Overall Analysis:
Yes/No
1. _____________________________ (____) 2. _______________________________ (____) 3. _______________________________ (____) 4. ______________________________ (______)
STEP 7: Risk Factors to Monitor (List key risk factors to monitor and the monitoring period in brackets)
Yes/No
Without these programmes would the Area Phase likely be worse than classified?
Current
What are the main humanitarian assistance programmes?
Projected
Period
STEP 6: Humanitarian Assistance Impact (e.g. humanitarian/disaster relief). – Write a brief statement generally describing the type, timing and coverage of assistance to the extent
possible. Assess effects of assistance on Phase classification.
5
4
3
2
1
Phase
Current Situation
[Confidence Level for Overall Analysis:
STEP 5: Phase Classification Conclusions. – Combine different HH Analysis Groups with the same Phase. If analysis is Area-based only, complete for only the one applicable Phase,
and for “estimated # of people and %” use the cumulative number of people in the Area Phase plus people in worse Phases.
D (…)
C
B
A
Label of
HAG
STEP 4: HH Analysis Group (HAG) Classification Conclusions – Classify each HH Analysis Group and estimate number and percentage of people in various IPC Phases based on
convergence of evidence (from STEP 3). If a single HH Analysis Group is determined to have 2 or more distinct Phases of Household Groups, then indicate partial percentages and
numbers.
Section B: Classification Conclusions and Justification
38
Specify if for Current or Projected: __________________
HH Analysis Group: _____________________________
No
(write brief justification)
Somewhat, but very little and/or unreliable
(write brief justification)
Yes, but not quite enough and/or erratic supply
(write brief justification)
Yes
(write brief justification)
Extreme
Limiting Factor
Major Limiting
Factor
Minor Limiting
Factor
Not a Limiting
Factor
(Consider national and local production, imports,
markets, and natural source; and note in the
justification as relevant).
Food Availability
Guiding Question: Is sufficient food actually or
potentially physically present?
Yes
(write brief justification)
Yes, but not quite enough and/or erratic supply
(write brief justification)
Somewhat, but very little and/or unreliable
(write brief justification)
No
(write brief justification)
(Consider aspects of physical, financial, and social
access, and note in the justification as relevant).
Food Access
Guiding Question: Are households able to sufficiently
access food?
and Causes
Section 5: Classifying Severity
{{ Note gender issues and differences where relevant.
Yes
(write brief justification)
Yes, but not quite enough and/or erratic supply
(write brief justification)
Somewhat, but very little and/or unreliable
(write brief justification)
No
(write brief justification)
(Consider aspects of preferences, preparation, storage,
and water; and note in the justification as relevant).
Food Utilization
Guiding Question: Are households making effective
use of food which they have access to?
{{ Shade/Colour that cell accordingly and write a brief evidence justification on the cause and effects inside of the cell.
{{ Based on guiding question, indicate the degree to which Availability, Access or Utilization is a limiting factor to people being food secure in the short term.
STEP 8: Limiting Factors Matrix
Section C: Causes Complete one for Area (reflecting the worst affected households) or for each HH Analysis Group in Phase 3 or higher
39
40
Section D: Evidence Documentation and Analysis
STEP 3: Key Evidence and Conclusions for Contributing Factors and Outcomes
{{ Document key evidence statement. For each key evidence statement: (i) Indicate Document Code (DC)
to link to the Evidence Repository Template; and (ii) Specify reliability score for each evidence statement:
1=somewhat reliable, 2= reliable, 3=very reliable.
{{ For example: Market prices increased 200% as compared to same time last year (DC=1, R=2)
{{ Write summary element conclusion statements and note difference between and within HAGs and gender
differences as relevant.
{{ For outcome elements, when possible determine the indicative Phase for Area or HAGs.
Contributing Factor
Elements
CURRENT
PROJECTED
Hazards
and
Vulnerability
Key Evidence Statement
&
Element Conclusion Statement for Area
and each HAG (if applicable)
Key Evidence/Assumptions Statement
&
Element Conclusion Statement for Area and
each HAG (if applicable)
Food Availability
Key Evidence Statement
&
Element Conclusion Statement for Area
and each HAG (if applicable)
Key Evidence/Assumptions Statement
&
Element Conclusion Statement for Area and
each HAG (if applicable)
Food Access
Key Evidence Statement
&
Element Conclusion Statement for Area
and each HAG (if applicable)
Key Evidence/Assumptions Statement
&
Element Conclusion Statement for Area and
each HAG (if applicable)
Food Utilization
including
Water
Key Evidence Statement
&
Element Conclusion Statement for Area
and each HAG (if applicable)
Key Evidence/Assumptions Statement
&
Element Conclusion Statement for Area and
each HAG (if applicable)
Stability
Key Evidence Statement
&
Element Conclusion Statement for Area
and each HAG (if applicable)
Key Evidence/Assumptions Statement
&
Element Conclusion Statement for Area and
each HAG (if applicable)
41
Outcome
Elements
CURRENT
PROJECTED
HAG A: HAG B: HAG C: HAG D: AREA: HAG A: HAG B: HAG C: HAG D: AREA:
Food
Consumption
Key Evidence of directly measured and/or
inferred outcomes
&
Element Conclusion Statement for Area and
each HAG (if applicable)
Key Evidence/assumptions of inferred
outcomes
&
Element Conclusion Statement for Area and
each HAG (if applicable)
HAG A: HAG B: HAG C: HAG D: AREA: HAG A: HAG B: HAG C: HAG D: AREA:
AREA:
Nutritional
Status
Key Evidence of directly measured and/or
inferred outcomes
&
Element Conclusion Statement for Area and
each HAG (if applicable)
AREA:
Mortality
Key Evidence of directly measured and/or
inferred outcomes
&
Element Conclusion Statement for Area and
each HAG (if applicable)
Key Evidence/assumptions of inferred
outcomes
&
Element Conclusion Statement for Area and
each HAG (if applicable)
AREA:
Key Evidence/assumptions of inferred
outcomes
&
Element Conclusion Statement for Area and
each HAG (if applicable)
AREA:
Key Evidence/assumptions of inferred
outcomes
&
Element Conclusion Statement for Area and
each HAG (if applicable)
and Causes
Key Evidence of directly measured and/or
inferred outcomes
&
Element Conclusion Statement for Area and
each HAG (if applicable)
Section 5: Classifying Severity
Livelihood
Change
Reference
…
6
5
4
3
2
1
•Order is not
important..
Step 3.
Source
Date
•To link to template in {{ Multiple pieces of evidence in Step 3 can link to a single source.
Document Code
STEP 2: Evidence Repository
Raw Evidence
{{ When possible, insert raw evidence (e.g. graph, image, table, quote).
42
43
Procedures for Classifying Severity and Causes
These procedures guide the classification of Current and/or Project Situation Analysis. They are presented in a
generally sequential order. However, they do not strictly need to be followed in the sequence described here.
Depending on whether the classification is Area only or Household Groups + Area, not all of the procedures
need to be followed. The parts that do not need to be completed for Area only classification are shaded in
a diagonal light grey.
The flow-chart in Diagram 8 illustrates the process for completing the Analysis Worksheets.
Section D: Evidence Documentation
and Analysis
STEP 1: Define Analysis and Household
Analysis Groups (if doing HH Group Analysis)
STEP 2: Document Evidence in Repository
STEP 3: Analyse Evidence for Contributing
Factors, Outcomes, and Phase Classification
Section C: Causes
Section B: Phase Classification Conclusion
STEP 8: Limiting Factors Matrix
STEP 4: Household Analysis Groups Conclusions
(only if doing HH Group Analysis)
STEP 5: Phase Classification Conclusions
STEP 6: Impact of Humanitarian Assistance
STEP 7: Risk Factors to Monitor
{{ Decide whether to conduct Area only or Household Groups + Area Analysis
The decision should be informed by the pros and cons outlined in Table 3. As a minimum standard, an
IPC classification must be Area-based. Ideally, however, if time, data and capacities exist, TWGs are
encouraged to conduct analysis of Household Groups and Areas.
{{ Decide when to conduct Current or Projected Situation Analysis and completed Analysis
Worksheets
Analysis of Acute Food Insecurity should be undertaken whenever decision support is required. This can be
done on a regular basis (e.g. seasons) or an ad hoc basis (e.g. when there is or likely to be an unexpected
event that will change the food security situation). Analysis of the Current Situation is essentially making
conclusions on what is currently occurring at that snapshot in time. While it may be based on recent data,
it is still a best-estimate statement of what is currently happening. For early warning purposes the Projected
Situation Analysis describes the most likely scenario for some future snapshot in time. The projected time
period can vary depending on the situation, context and needs of decision-makers – it may be a week, a
month, several months or a year into the future.
Building projected scenarios is by definition an even more challenging task than conducting analysis of the
current situation. It requires increased interpretation and extrapolation of potential scenarios and outcomes.
FEWS NET has developed detailed guidelines on making projections. A summary of these guidelines is
provided in Annex 9.
Both Current and Projected Situation Analysis can be conducted on the same Analysis Worksheet. The
spatial area of the classification can vary widely and is determined by the TWG depending on the situation
and the needs of decision-makers. At the top of the Analysis Worksheet is space for noting: the name of
the area, whether it is Current and/or Projected Analysis and the respective dates, and the date when the
analysis was completed.
and Causes
Section A: Area and Household Analysis
Groups Definition
Section 5: Classifying Severity
Diagram 8: Flow Chart for Completing the Acute Analysis Worksheets
44
STEP 1: Define Analysis Area and Household Analysis Groups (Section A)
a.Decide on the spatial extent of the Analysis Area. A single Phase Classification will be determined for
this area. The determination of the Analysis Area can be informed by, but not limited to, units such
as livelihood zones, hazard zones, administrative boundaries, market catchment zones and others.
The IPC is adaptable and applicable to any spatial size. It is up to the IPC analysts to determine
the spatial extent of the Analysis Area. In general, the Analysis Area should be as homogenous as
possible with regards to likely food security outcomes and causes. There are many trade-offs when
determining Analysis Areas. Some criteria to consider include:
i. Spatial extent of a hazard
ii. Variation of livelihood patterns and vulnerability
iii. Needs of decision-makers
iv. Availability of data/information
v. Practicality of doing the multiple analyses.
b.Provide a brief narrative description of the area. This may include the agro-ecology, livelihood
systems, socio-economic descriptions or other important contextual information for the analysis.
c. Provide an estimate of the total number of people expected to be present in the area for the current
and/or projected time periods.
d.If available, specify the Level of Chronic Food Insecurity based on analysis using the IPC protocols for
Chronic analysis.
e.Identify and provide brief descriptions of Household Analysis Groups (HAGs). Household
Analysis Groups are groups of households which are hypothesized to likely have different Phase
Classifications pending evaluation and analysis of the evidence. Household Analysis Groups are
relatively homogenous groups of households with regards to their food security situation, including
contributing factors and likely outcomes. These groups may be defined, for example, by variations in
wealth, gender, ethnic affiliation, livelihood, religion, exposure to a hazard event or any other factor
or combination of factors that make those groups distinct. The number of Household Analysis Groups
identified will depend on the complexity of the situation. Also specify the estimated number of
people in each Household Analysis Group and their percentage of the total population in the area.
f. Insert or draw a map of the analysis area that shows its spatial extent.
STEP 2: Document Evidence in Repository (Section D)
a.Gather and document relevant data/evidence,
noting the source and date of each piece of
evidence. The evidence can be in a “raw” format,
meaning it can be tables, graphs and charts. The
order of the evidence is not important, and the
associated Document Code is arbitrary. However,
once a piece of evidence is documented, its
Document Code will be used to make a crossreference in the Evidence Analysis Templates in
STEP 3.
b.For Reliability Scores, indicate the appropriate
number as follows: 1=somewhat, 2= reliable, and
3=very reliable. Assigning Reliability Scores requires
critical evaluation of the source, method and time
relevance of the evidence. Table 4 below provides
a general guide.
BOX 4: Evidence – How Much Is Enough?
The objective of building an evidence base for IPC
Analysis is to document and analyse the necessary
amount of evidence in order to substantiate a
Phase Classification with at least Acceptable
Confidence and understand the basic causes.
The point is NOT to document everything that is
known about the area, nor to analyse questions
beyond the scope of the IPC. Documenting and
analysing extraneous evidence is time-consuming
and can distract from the core analysis.
45
Table 4: Criteria for Assessing Evidence Reliability Ratings
Evidence Reliability Rating
Criteria
1.Somewhat Reliable
Reasonable but questionable source, method or time relevance of data
2.Reliable
From a reliable source, using scientific methods, and data reflecting current or
projected conditions
3.Very Reliable
Effectively unquestioned source, method and time relevance of data
Note, if evidence is not considered “somewhat reliable” it should not be included in the IPC analysis.
STEP 3: Analyse Evidence for Contributing Factors, Outcomes, and Phase Classification (Section D)
a.Write Key Evidence Statements for each food security outcome and contributing factor element
and indicate the Document Code that links it to the Template in STEP 2. Use the IPC Analytical
Framework, the Reference Table for Acute Food Insecurity, and the Potential Indicators and Indirect
Evidence Table as guides for determining the type of evidence appropriate for each element.
c. After documenting relevant evidence statements, take stock of the body of evidence for that
element and formulate a brief narrative conclusion for that element.
d.Based on the evidence and the conclusion for each outcome element, indicate the likely Phase
Classification for that element, if interpreted on its own. Base this analysis on the indicators and
descriptions in the Reference Table for Acute Food Insecurity. Do so for each Household Analysis
Group separately. If doing projections, follow the same procedures, inserting key assumptions and
the justification for each assumption.
STEPS 4 and 5: Household Analysis Groups and Phase Classification Conclusions (Section B)
a.Determine the overall Phase Classification. Take stock of and critically analyse the overall body
of evidence from elements of contributing factors and outcomes. Use convergence of evidence
as compared to Reference Tables for Acute Food Insecurity. Make an overall Phase Classification
estimate for each Household Analysis Group. Make an overall Phase Classification for the area.
b.Note, for the rare and extreme case of classifying Phase 5 (Famine), there must be evidence of all
three outcomes of mortality, wasting and food consumption according to the Reference Table. As a
Famine situation improves, in order to shift from Phase 5 to Phase 4, mortality must come down to
Phase 4 levels plus at least one other of food consumption or GAM.
c. If conducting HH Group analysis, complete the Template in STEP 4 to identify the estimated Phase
for each Household Analysis Group, the estimated number of people in that group, and a summary
justification statement that supports the conclusions. If a single Household Analysis Group is
determined to consist of two or more distinct Phases of Household Groups, then indicate partial
percentages and numbers.
d.Complete the Template in STEP 5 by totalling up the number of people from STEP 4 who are in the
same Phases and indicate the estimated number of people in each Phase overall. Also indicate the
percentage of the total population in the area that those people represent. If classifying Area only,
insert for the appropriate Phase the estimated number of people who are at least in that Phase.
e.Indicate the overall confidence level for the classification: *=acceptable, **=medium, and ***=high
using the guidance in Table 5 below.
and Causes
inputs of short-term, humanitarian/emergency assistance. For Projections, include assistance that
is inter-annual (meaning it is provided every year on a regular basis) and short-term, humanitarian/
emergency assistance only if it is most likely to occur in the projection period and reach beneficiaries.
Section 5: Classifying Severity
b.Of particular note: For Current analysis of Contributing Factors and Outcomes, be sure to include
46
Table 5: Criteria for Assessing Confidence Levels
Confidence
Level
Criteria for Corroborating Evidence for Confidence Levels
Current
Projected
Acceptable
*
At least 1 piece of reliable evidence (direct or indirect)
for any of the food security outcomes
+
At least 4 pieces of reliable evidence from different
contributing factors or outcome elements
At least 4 pieces of reliable
evidence from different
contributing factors or outcome
elements
Medium
**
At least 1 piece of reliable direct evidence for any of
the food security outcomes
+
At least 5 pieces of reliable evidence from different
contributing factors or outcome elements
At least 6 pieces of reliable
evidence from different
contributing factors or outcome
elements
High
***
At least 2 pieces of reliable direct evidence for any of
the food security outcomes
+
At least 6 pieces of reliable evidence from different
contributing factors or outcome elements
+
There is no reliable contradictory evidence
At least 8 pieces of reliable
evidence from different
contributing factors or outcome
elements
STEP 6: Impact of Humanitarian Assistance (Section B)
Complete the Template in STEP 6 to roughly indicate the level of short-term, humanitarian/emergency assistance
in the analysis area. Write a brief statement describing the type, timing and coverage of assistance. Indicate
whether or not the levels of assistance are likely to be preventing the Phase from being worse than classified.
STEP 7: Risk Factors to Monitor
Complete the Template in STEP 7, listing key risk factors to monitor and the monitoring period (e.g. elections
in three months, market price of maize in six months, flood season in two months).
STEP 8: Classifying Causes (Section C)
a.Complete the Template in STEP 8, Section C of the Analysis Worksheet. Do so for the Area as a whole
or for each Household Analysis Group (if applicable) that is determined to be Phase 3 or higher.
b.For any situation of food insecurity, irrespective of the severity of that situation, by definition there
must be limiting factors with regards to one or more of the food security dimensions of availability,
access, utilization. The Limiting Factors Matrix enables identification of the degree to which each
of these is a limiting factor. Note: While stability is one of the four food security dimensions in the
IPC analytical framework, it is not included in the Limiting Factors Matrix because the effects of
stability would be reflected in the future projection analysis as well as the chronic food insecurity
classification (if conducted).
c. Based on the guiding question for each of the dimensions and the generic answers in each of the
cells, shade the cell that best answers the question according to the colour scheme in the first
column. Reflect on the evidence documented in STEP 3 to inform this analysis. Do not shade the
other cells in that same column.
d.Write a brief evidence justification in the appropriate cell summarizing the cause and effects of that
limiting factor.
e.Note and describe gender differences where relevant.
f. Analysis of immediate causes (Limiting Factors) can be complemented by analysis of the underlying
causes and opportunities as per the prototype Chronic Food Insecurity analysis protocols (see Annex 5),
which includes a detailed SWOT analysis for each of the Vulnerability Elements. Together these analyses
of immediate/underlying causes and opportunities can more effectively inform Response Analysis.
Section 6: Section 6: ComMunicating for Action
49
Section 6: Communicating for Action
The purpose of Communicating for Action is to communicate core aspects of situation analysis in a consistent,
accessible and timely manner. No matter how well food security analysis is done, if it is not communicated
effectively it is not likely to inform decisions or lead to mitigating food insecurity. Therefore it is essential that
communication is considered an integral part of food security analysis itself.
The IPC enables Communicating for Action by using maps, charts, tables and text in a standardized
Communication Template to present and describe core aspects of situation analysis.
Effectively linking the IPC to decision support is strengthened with an overall communication strategy that
identifies: target audience(s); appropriate time to issue the analysis according to when/how decisions are
made; appropriate medium for distributing the Communication Template (e.g. e-mail, post, Web sites);
arrangements for presentations at strategic fora; and other key components.
Key Parameters
{{ The IPC Communication Template includes four parts: (1) the first page of graphics (including a map);
(2) a second page of summary text; (3) population tables; and (4) Sections A,B, and C from the Analysis
Worksheets for all areas included in the analysis.
{{ Separate Communication Templates should be completed for Current and Projected analysis.
{{ Areas should be mapped according to the criteria and colour scheme of the Acute Food Insecurity
Tools for Communicating for Action
The Communication Template for Acute Food Insecurity (Diagram 9) enables clear and accessible
communication of key aspects of situation analysis.
The first part graphically presents key information on situation analysis including:
{{ Overall number of people classified in various Phases
{{ Key outcomes for the worst-affected areas
{{ Narrative summary of causes, context and key issues
{{ Map showing areas classified in various Phases using a standardized colour scheme
{{ Call-out boxes for any areas that are Phase 3, 4 or 5 with additional information specific to those areas
{{ Identification of participating agencies.
The second part is based on a narrative presentation of additional information including:
{{ Key Findings and Issues
{{ Methods, Process and Key Issues
{{ Food Security Seasonal Calendar and Monitoring Implications
{{ Recommendations for Next Steps for analysis and decision-making
Action
Only areas which meet the criteria for “Acceptable Confidence” should be classified. The minimum evidence
base for classification of the current situation is: At least 1 piece of reliable evidence for any of the food security
outcomes + At least 4 pieces of reliable evidence from different contributing factors or outcome elements.
The minimum evidence base for classification of the projected situation is: At least 4 pieces of reliable evidence
from different contributing factors or outcome elements. Areas which were intended to be part of the analysis
but for which there is not an adequate minimum evidence base should be mapped using grey colour.
Section 6: ComMunicating for
Reference Table for Area Classification using the following RGB colour scheme levels: Phase 1
(205,250,205); Phase 2 (250,230,030); Phase 3 (230,120,000); Phase 4 (200,000,000); Phase 5
(100,000,000).
50
The third part is the population table showing the numbers of people in various Phases for the appropriate
administrative unit.
The fourth part includes Sections A,B, and C of the Analysis Worksheets for all areas classified,
providing more detailed information on specific areas.
Diagram 9: Acute Food Insecurity Communication Template
Integrated Food Security Phase ClassificaEon (IPC)
(Country/Region/District) -­‐ (Current/Projected)
_______________ ___________
Acute Food Insecurity SituaEon Overview
Key Outcomes for the Worst affected Area
Aggregate Numbers
% 42%
(000s) 9,650 2 10%
2,255 3 12%
2,750 4 32%
7,510 5 4%
950 Phase 1 (Name of area)
Food ConsumpEon: Over 40% of households have extreme food [email protected] gaps Livelihood Change: Average livestock herd size of sheep/goats has decreased from 30 to 5, with 20% hhs [email protected] complete losses. = 10% of the populaGon NutriEon: GAM = 35% Mortality: CDR = 2.2/10,000/day 210,000 (82%)
South Sudan
^ ^^
Created
on: dd/mmm/yyyy
Valid for:
dd/mmm/yyyy
Valid
for: (from
when to when)
Created on: dd/mmm/yyyy
Summary of Causes, Context and Key Issues
[Example text] Three successive years of drought combined with high food prices are immediate causes of Famine [email protected] in the north, Emergency [email protected] in central, and Crisis [email protected] in the east. Pastoral [email protected] are becoming [email protected] from severe losses of livestock due to extreme water and pasture shortages. Localized flooding in the eastern part of the country is [email protected] humanitarian access. This is the worst food security [email protected] in the country for the past 40 years. Key for Map
Ethiopia
Acute Food Insecurity Phase
Minimal
Stressed
Crisis
1 4
2 3 4 Emergency
Famine
5 Areas with Inadequate Evidence
Not Analyzed
Urban/SeKlement
Area would likely be at least 1 Phase worse without the effects of humanitarian assistance 1,000,000 (57%)
Uganda
^ ^
4
Key for Callout Boxes
Samburu
For Illustration Only.
Not Depicting Actual
Conditions!
Somalia
0%
^
^^
^^^
4,250,000 (89%)
^
0
/ 125
Pop. and % in Phases 3, 4 and 5
#,### (##%)
100%
Acceptable
Medium
High
Indian Ocean
250
Kilometers
Disclaimer: The boundries and names shown and the designaGons used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the CollaboraGng OrganizaGons and the IPC Global Partners. For more informaEon, contact
(Insert contact information here)
Analysis Partners & SupporEng OrganizaEons
(Insert logos)
IPC Global Partners
Valid on:
Created on:
dd/mmm/yyyy
dd/mmm/yyyy
Confidence of analysis
Area has reached Phase 3,4,or 5 for more than 3 consecuEve years 3
Tanzania
% of People in each Phase
1 Low
2 Moderate
3 High
4 Very High
Chronic Food Insecurity Level (if available)
51
Part 2: Summary of Findings, Methods, and Next Steps
Key Findings and Issues
(Briefly discuss key findings)
Methods, Process & Key Issues
Food Security Seasonal Calendar and Monitoring Implications
Action
(Insert seasonal calendar relevant to monitoring food security analyses in the coming year)
Section 6: ComMunicating for
(Write a brief description of the IPC Methods and challenges encountered during analyses)
Recommendations for Next Steps for Analysis and Decision-Making
(Discuss expected and recommended next steps focusing on analytical activities, monitoring actions and
linkage to action)
Contact for Further Information
IPC Technical Working Group: Identify contact(s)
IPC Global Support Unit: www.ipcinfo.org
52
Part 3: Population Tables
Detailed Population Table
(Insert a detailed population table merging the population tables of all areas. Level of reporting should be
the lowest administrative unit subdivided by household food security situation groups when applicable)
Phase 1
Name of
Relevant
Administrative
Unit Level
E.g. Province 1
E.g. Province 2
E.g. Province 3
E.g. Province 4
E.g. Province 5
Name of
Relevant
Administrative
Unit Level
Total # of
people
(pp)
Phase 2
# of pp % of pp
# of pp
% of pp
Phase 3
# of pp
% of pp
Phase 4
Phase 5
# of pp
% of pp
# of pp
Phase 3 or
Higher
% of pp
# of pp
% of
pp
13%
E.g District A
37,000
20,000
20%
10,000
20%
5,000
17%
2,000
10%
-
0%
7,000
E.g District B
21,000
10,000
10%
7,000
14%
3,000
10%
1,000
5%
-
0%
4,000
7%
E.g District C
46,500
30,000
30%
3,000
6%
7,000
23%
5,000
25%
1,500
30%
13,500
25%
E.g District D
61,000
25,000
25%
15,000
30%
10,000
33%
8,000
40%
3,000
60%
21,000
38%
E.g District E
39,000
15,000
15%
15,000
30%
5,000
17%
4,000
20%
500
10%
9,500
17%
Total
205,000
100,000
49%
50,000
24%
30,000
15%
20,000
10%
5,000
2%
55,000
27%
E.g District A
107,000
20,000
40%
30,000
43%
40,000
40%
15,000
50%
2,000
17%
57,000
43%
30%
E.g District B
83,000
18,000
36%
25,000
36%
30,000
30%
10,000
33%
-
0%
40,000
E.g District C
62,000
12,000
24%
15,000
21%
30,000
30%
5,000
17%
-
0%
35,000
27%
Total
262,000
50,000
19%
70,000
27%
100,000
38%
30,000
11%
12,000
5%
132,000
50%
E.g District A
32,000
15,000
50%
10,000
33%
5,000
25%
2,000
40%
-
0%
7,000
28%
E.g District B
25,000
5,000
17%
10,000
33%
8,000
40%
2,000
40%
-
0%
10,000
40%
E.g District C
28,000
10,000
33%
10,000
33%
7,000
35%
1,000
20%
-
0%
8,000
32%
Total
85,000
30,000
35%
30,000
35%
20,000
24%
5,000
6%
-
0%
25,000
29%
E.g District A
74,500
50,000
19%
15,000
6%
8,000
3%
1,500
1%
-
0%
9,500
4%
E.g District B
44,000
30,000
15%
5,000
10%
6,000
20%
2,000
20%
1,000
20%
9,000
20%
E.g District C
45,500
30,000
15%
6,000
16%
5,000
17%
1,500
15%
1,000
20%
7,500
17%
E.g District D
131,000
90,000
45%
22,000
44%
11,000
37%
5,000
50%
3,000
60%
19,000
42%
Total
295,000
200,000
68%
50,000
17%
30,000
10%
10,000
3%
5,000
2%
45,000
15%
E.g District A
160,000
100,000
67%
30,000
60%
20,000
67%
10,000
100%
-
0%
30,000
75%
25%
E.g District B
62,000
50,000
33%
2,000
4%
10,000
33%
-
0%
-
0%
10,000
Total
240,000
150,000
63%
50,000
21%
30,000
13%
10,000
4%
-
0%
40,000
17%
492,000
200,000
41%
120,000
24%
130,000
26%
40,000
8%
2,000
0%
172,00,
35%
Total
53
Part 4: Insert Sections A, B, and C from Analysis Worksheets
Section A: Area and HH Analysis Group Definitions
STEP 1: Area Description, HH Analysis Group Definitions, and Map
Brief Area and Livelihood Description
Projected (with assumed in and
out migration)
Current
Estimated # of People in Area
(specify source of pop. data)
Chronic Food Insecurity Level for the
area (if available)
Map and Seasonal Calendar of Analysis Area
HH Analysis Group (HAG) Definitions
• Identify groups of relatively homogenous households with regard to their food security situation (consider contributing factors
and likely outcomes). These HH Analysis Groups will be analysed independently for their respective Phase Classifications.
• The number of groups will depend upon analytical needs, data availability and desired level of precision
Label of
HAG
Brief Description of Each HAG
[Specify Source(s):
# of
people
in HAG
]
(insert image of map identifying spatial extent of
analysis area and seasonal calendar indicating major
seasons and annual events)
% of pop
in HAG
A
B
C
D (...)
Section B: Classification Conclusions and Justification
STEP 4: HH Analysis Group (HAG) Classification Conclusions – Classify each HH Analysis Group and estimate number and percentage of people in various IPC Phases based on
convergence of evidence (from STEP 3). If a single HH Analysis Group is determined to have 2 or more distinct Phases of Household Groups, then indicate partial percentages and
numbers.
Label of
HAG
Current Situation
Phase
# of People and % of total pop
Projected Situation
Summary Justification
Phase
# of People and % of total pop
Summary Justification
A
B
C
STEP 5: Phase Classification Conclusions. – Combine different HH Analysis Groups with the same Phase. If analysis is Area-based only, complete for only the one applicable Phase,
and for “estimated # of people and %” use the cumulative number of people in the Area Phase plus people in worse Phases.
Current Situation
[Confidence Level for Overall Analysis:
Phase
Estimated
pop or
range
% of total
pop or
range
Projected Situation
[Confidence Level for Overall Analysis:
]
Justification
(key evidence and rationale of directly measured or
inferred outcomes: food consumption, livelihood
change, nutritional status, and mortality)
Estimated
pop or range
% of total pop
or range
]
Justification
(evidence and rationale of directly measured or
inferred outcomes: food consumption, livelihood
change, nutritional status, and mortality)
1
Action
2
3
4
5
STEP 6: Humanitarian Assistance Impact (e.g. humanitarian/disaster relief). – Write a brief statement generally describing the type, timing and coverage of assistance to the extent
possible. Assess effects of assistance on Phase classification.
Period
Section 6: ComMunicating for
D (…)
What are the main humanitarian assistance programmes?
Without these programmes would the Area Phase likely be worse than classified?
Current
Yes/No
Projected
Yes/No
STEP 7: Risk Factors to Monitor (List key risk factors to monitor and the monitoring period in brackets)
1. _____________________________ (____) 2. _______________________________ (____) 3. _______________________________ (____) 4. ______________________________ (______)
Section C: Causes Complete one for Area (reflecting the worst affected households) or for each HH Analysis Group in Phase 3 or higher
STEP 8: Limiting Factors Matrix
Specify if for Current or Projected: __________________
HH Analysis Group: _____________________________
• Based on guiding question, indicate the degree to which Availability, Access or Utilization is a limiting factor to people being food secure in the short term
• Shade/Colour that cell accordingly and write a brief evidence justification on the cause and effects inside of the cell
• Note gender issues and differences where relevant
Food Availability
Guiding Question: Is sufficient food actually or
potentially physically present?
(Consider national and local production, imports,
markets, and natural source; and note in the
justification as relevant)
Food Access
Guiding Question: Are households able to sufficiently
access food?
(Consider aspects of physical, financial, and social
access, and note in the justification as relevant).
Food Utilization
Guiding Question: Are households making effective
use of food which they have access to?
(Consider aspects of preferences, preparation, storage,
and water; and note in the justification as relevant).
Extreme
Limiting
Factor
No
(write brief justification)
No
(write brief justification)
No
(write brief justification)
Major
Limiting
Factor
Somewhat, but very little and/or unreliable
(write brief justification)
Somewhat, but very little and/or unreliable
(write brief justification)
Somewhat, but very little and/or unreliable
(write brief justification)
Minor
Limiting
Factor
Yes, but not quite enough and/or erratic supply
(write brief justification)
Yes, but not quite enough and/or erratic supply
(write brief justification)
Yes, but not quite enough and/or erratic supply
(write brief justification)
Not a
Limiting
Factor
Yes
(write brief justification)
Yes
(write brief justification)
Yes
(write brief justification)
54
Diagram 9b: Acute Food Insecurity Communication Template (for Area Only)
Integrated Food Security Phase ClassificaEon (IPC) (Area Only)
(Country/Region/District) -­‐ (Current/Projected)
_______________ ___________
Created
Valid Fon:
or dd/mmm/yyyy
dd/mmm/yyyy
Acute Food Insecurity SituaEon Overview Valid
for: (from
when to when)
Created on:dd/mmm/yyyy
Key Outcomes for the Worst affected Area
Summary of Causes, Context and Key Issues
Food ConsumpEon: Over 40% of households have extreme food [email protected] gaps [Example text] Three successive years of drought combined with high food prices are immediate causes of Famine [email protected] in the north, Emergency [email protected] in central, and Crisis [email protected] in the east. Pastoral [email protected] are becoming [email protected] from severe losses of livestock due to extreme water and pasture shortages. Localized flooding in the eastern part of the country is [email protected] humanitarian access. This is the worst food security [email protected] in the country for the past 40 years. (Name of area)
Livelihood Change: Average livestock herd size of sheep/goats has decreased from 30 to 5, with 20% hhs [email protected] complete losses. NutriEon: GAM = 35% Mortality: CDR = 2.2/10,000/day Key for Map
South Sudan
Ethiopia
^ ^^
Acute Food Insecurity Phase
1 Minimal
4
2 Stressed
3 Crisis
4 Emergency
5 Famine
Areas with Inadequate Evidence
Uganda
Not Analyzed
^^
4
Samburu
For Illustration Only.
Not Depicting Actual
Conditions!
^
0
/ 125
Somalia
Urban/SeKlement
Area would likely be at least 1 Phase worse without the effects of humanitarian assistance Key for Callout Boxes
^
^^
^^^
Acceptable
Medium
High
Area has reached Phase 3,4,or 5 for more than 3 consecuEve years 3
Tanzania
Indian Ocean
250
Kilometers
Disclaimer: The boundries and names shown and the designaGons used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the CollaboraGng OrganizaGons and the IPC Global Partners. For more informaEon, contact
(Insert contact information here)
Confidence of analysis
Analysis Partners & SupporEng OrganizaEons
(Insert logos)
IPC Global Partners
Valid on:
Created on:
dd/mmm/yyyy
dd/mmm/yyyy
1 Low
2 Moderate
3 High
4 Very High
Chronic Food Insecurity Level (if available)
55
Procedures for Communicating for Action
{{ Complete separate Communication Templates for Current and Projected analysis and indicate
at the top of the template the date the analysis was completed and the date of validity of the
analysis. For Current analysis the “Created on” date may be the same as the completion date. For Projected
analysis the “Valid for” date will be some date in the future for which the projection will be most likely
correct. The analysts may choose to put a specific date or a time period for which the analysis is valid.
{{ Create a map
a.Create a map showing the IPC classifications for various areas of analysis using the colour scheme
indicated on the Template and specific RGB values indicated in the Key Parameters section above.
b.Areas that do not meet the criteria for a minimum evidence based should not be classified. Rather
they should be mapped using a grey colour indicating “inadequate evidence”.
c. Areas that are not included in the analysis should be coloured white. These might be areas that were
never intended to be analysed.
d.Use the symbol of an “!” to indicate areas for which the Phase classification would likely be worse
without existing or projected levels of humanitarian assistance.
e.Create callout boxes for each area analysed using the graphics indicated on the map for the
following information:
i. estimated number and percentage of people in Phase 3 or higher.
ii. use the bar graph to indicate the percentage of people in each Phase for the area (not
necessary for Area-Only Classifications).
iii. use the shaded stars 1, 2 or 3 stars to indicate confidence levels (acceptable, medium, high).
iv. use a shaded triangle to indicate if the area has reached Phase 3, 4 or 5 for more than 3
consecutive years.
v. if available, indicate the Level of Chronic Food Insecurity in the area.
{{ Insert Map into page 1 of the Communication Template and complete additional information
number of people in each Phase for all areas analysed.
b.In the upper centre box, identify key outcomes for the worst-affected area. Be sure to note the
location of the worst-affected area. These can be quantified indicators (e.g. wasting rates) or
narrative descriptions.
c. In the upper right box, write a narrative summary of the causes, context and any key issues that
describe the overall analysis (think of this as the nightly news bulletin that the news broadcaster
would read). In particular, include any gender aspects of the analysis.
d.In the box at the bottom of the map, insert logos of partner agencies in the analysis.
{{ Complete Part 2 of the Communication Template.
a.Write brief statements for each of the boxes:
i. key findings and issues
ii. methods, processes and key issues
iii. insert a food security seasonal calendar and describe monitoring indications
iv. recommendations for next steps for analysis and decision-making
{{ In Part 3 of the Communication Template, create and insert a detailed population table at the
lowest administrative unit possible showing the Phase classification numbers and percentages.
{{ In Part 4 of the Communication Template, attach the Analysis Worksheets Sections A,B and C
for all areas analysed.
{{ Distribute and present IPC findings to all stakeholders – including the IPC Global Support Unit –
in a timely manner.
Action
a.In the upper left box, complete the stick figure chart to represent the aggregated percentage and
Section 6: ComMunicating for
components.
Section 7: Section 7: Quality Assurance
59
Section 7: Quality Assurance
The purpose of Quality Assurance is to ensure technical rigour and neutrality of analysis. The IPC
approach is not a direct measure of food insecurity. It is a consolidation of various data and methodological
sources that uses a convergence of evidence, consensus-based process. This means that the IPC results do
not have statistically valid confidence scores. Thus, quality assurance mechanisms are important to ensure the
rigour and transparency of the analysis.
Several quality assurance mechanisms have already been presented because they are an integral part of the
IPC protocols, including: formation of a TWG, documenting evidence, assigning reliability scores, assigning
confidence levels. This section presents two additional protocols for quality assurance: a TWG Self-Assessment
and a Technical Peer Review.
Key Parameters
{{ The TWG should hold a consultative meeting with key decision-makers to present the findings and make
any necessary revisions that are substantiated with evidence before public release.
{{ The Chairperson of the TWG, in consultation with TWG members, should complete the TWG Self
Assessment Tool after each IPC analysis and use it as an opportunity for lesson learning and future
improvement.
{{ A Technical Peer Review can be called for by the Chairperson of the TWG or the IPC Global Support
Unit. Typically such a peer review is necessary if there are strong objections to the analysis from key
stakeholders and observers. The Technical Peer Review should be conducted by technical experts who
were not involved in the analysis. They can be from within the country or from neighbouring countries,
or other international experts. The IPC Global Support Unit is willing to participate in Technical Peer
Reviews upon request by the TWG.
Tools for Quality Assurance
The IPC Technical Working Group Self-Assessment Tool aims to ensure quality IPC results by asking the
National TWG to: (1) critically reflect on how well they followed the IPC protocols for classifying food security;
and (2) identify areas for future improvement. The tool should be completed by the TWG Chairperson in
consultation with TWG members immediately following completion of each IPC analysis.
The Technical Peer Review Tool lists questions to evaluate the technical rigour and validity of the analysis. It
should be completed when requested by the TWG Chairperson on an as-needed basis by technical experts
external to the TWG.
Section 7: Quality Assurance
There are two tools for quality assurance in addition to the tools already integrated into building technical
consensus and classifying severity and causes: The TWG Self-Assessment Tool (Diagram 10) and the Technical
Peer Review Tool (Diagram 11).
60
Diagram 10: IPC Technical Working Group Self-Assessment Tool
The IPC TWG Self-Assessment Tool aims to ensure quality IPC results by asking the National TWG
to: (1) critically reflect on how well they followed the IPC Protocols; and (2) identify areas for
future improvement. The tool should be completed by the TWG Chairperson in consultation with
TWG members immediately following completion of each IPC analysis.
Country: ____________­­­­_____ Date: __________________ Chairperson of TWG: ____________________
Participating Organizations: ________________________________________________________________
Function 1: Building Technical Consensus
1. Did the national government chair the TWG? NoSomewhat Yes
2. Did the TWG have representation from key stakeholder organizations?
NoSomewhat Yes
3. Did the TWG have participation from relevant sectoral experts? NoSomewhat Yes
Comments:
Areas for Improvement:
Function 2: Classifying Severity and Causes
4. Is the analysis based on the IPC Reference Tables?
NoSomewhat Yes
5. Was STEP 1 of the Analysis Worksheets completed for each area analysed? NoSomewhat Yes
6. Was STEP 2 of the Analysis Worksheets completed for each area analysed?
NoSomewhat Yes
7. Was STEP 3 of the Analysis Worksheets completed for each area analysed?
NoSomewhat Yes
8. Was STEP 4 of the Analysis Worksheets completed for each area analysed?
NoSomewhat Yes
9. Was STEP 5 of the Analysis Worksheets completed for each area analysed? NoSomewhat Yes
10. Was STEP 6 of the Analysis Worksheets completed for each area analysed?
NoSomewhat Yes
11. Was STEP 7 of the Analysis Worksheets completed for each area analysed?
NoSomewhat Yes
12. Was STEP 8 of the Analysis Worksheets completed for each area analysed?
NoSomewhat Yes
13. Were hazards/shocks identified in the IPC Situation Communication Template?NoSomewhat Yes
Comments:
Areas for Improvement:
61
Function 3: Communicating for Action
14. Was Part 1 of the Communication Template completed? 15. Was Part 2 of the Communication Template completed? 16. Was Part 3 of the Communication Template completed?
17. Were the results communicated and distributed to key stakeholders
NoSomewhat Yes
NoSomewhat Yes
NoSomewhat Yes
NoSomewhat Yes
in a timely manner?
Comments:
Areas for Improvement:
Function 4: Quality Assurance
18. Are the analysis templates publicly available on request? 19. Was a consultative meeting held with key decision-makers prior
NoSomewhat Yes
NoSomewhat Yes
to public release?
Comments:
Areas for Improvement:
Feedback on Relevance for Decision-Making - If applicable, in reflecting on the previous IPC analysis
prior to the current one, how would you rate the relevance of the IPC analysis for decision-making?
Not Relevant
Somewhat Relevant
Very Relevant
What evidence or examples can you provide to support this statement and how could this be improved?
Section 7: Quality Assurance
Lessons Learned and Feedback for Future Development of IPC Technical Manual or
Guidelines:
62
Diagram 11: IPC Peer Review Assessment Tool
(To be completed by Technical Peer Reviewers of the IPC)
Country:
Peer reviewers’ names and organizations:
Chairperson of TWG
(name and organization):
Date:
For Which Analysis?
Question
(referring to all areas classified)
Comments
(note key issues and identify areas
of disagreement and reasons)
(circle or bold)
1
Do you agree with the Phase
classification?
No
Somewhat
Yes
2
Do you agree with the population
estimates for each Phase?
No
Somewhat
Yes
3
Is there an adequately strong evidence
base to support the classification?
No
Somewhat
Yes
4
Do you agree with the assignment of
reliability scores to the evidence?
No
Somewhat
Yes
5
Do you agree with the confidence level
of the analysis?
No
Somewhat
Yes
6
Do you agree with the analysis of
limiting factors for food security?
No
Somewhat
Yes
7
Did the IPC Technical Working Group
have the participation of key stakeholder
organizations and sectors?
No
Somewhat
Yes
8
Do you think the analysis will be useful
for decision-making?
No
Somewhat
Yes
Additional Comments and Recommendations for Future Improvement:
63
Procedures for Quality Assurance
{{ Ensure that Source and Reliability Score for each piece of evidence have been assigned and that
the overall confidence level of the analysis is clearly indicated on the Communication Template.
{{ Hold a consultative meeting with key decision-makers.
The TWG should hold a consultative meeting with key decision-makers to technically check the findings
and make any necessary revisions before public release. The consultative meeting should include a
small but core group of key decision-makers who are representative of various stakeholder groups and
knowledgeable of the situation. The consultative meeting is an opportunity to present the key IPC findings
and, if necessary, make revisions based on additional evidence. The consultative meeting should be held
prior to public release of the findings.
{{ Complete Technical Working Group Self-Assessment Tool.
a.The tool should be completed by the TWG Chairperson in consultation with TWG members
immediately following completion of each IPC analysis.
b.These should be documented and circulated to stakeholders such as supporting organizations and
regional/global IPC support projects.
{{ Conduct a Technical Peer Review (if necessary) and have reviewers complete the Peer Review
Assessment Tool.
a.On an as needed basis, the Chairperson of the TWG or the IPC Global Support Unit can request a
Technical Peer Review. This can be done as part of an overall effort to ensure quality analysis or can
be in response to contentious results.
b.The Technical Peer Review is an opportunity to call on technical experts from within or outside of the
country who were not involved in the analysis and to present the findings and evidence base.
c. The Technical Peer Reviewers should complete the Peer Review Assessment Tool to document the
feedback in a systematic and comprehensive manner.
d.Depending on the feedback, the TWG may consider revising the analysis.
To ensure transparency, the TWG should develop a mechanism to ensure that the Analysis Worksheets are
publicly available to any interested person or organization that wishes to access them. This can be done
through e-mail, Web sites or other means.
Section 7: Quality Assurance
{{ Make Analysis Worksheets publicly available.
Section 8: Section 8: Implementation Process
67
Section 8: Implementation Process
Main Steps to Implement the IPC
Table 6: Indicative Steps to Implement the IPC
Step
1. Awarenessraising
Typical Activities
{{ Information and
presentations to key
stakeholders
{{ Short demonstration
exercises
{{ Distribution of IPC
documents
{{ Study trips to attend
Requirements
Stakeholders
involved
{{ Initial interest
{{ Food security
{{ Resources are
{{ National
{{ Stakeholders
{{ Food security
from food security
stakeholders
exists
available (venue,
documents,
facilitator)
organizations
operating in the
country
government
IPC events in other
countries
Indicator of
accomplishment
{{ Attendance list
for awarenessraising sessions
shows a broad
representation
of food security
stakeholders
including
government
agencies
{{ Exchanges with GSU,
to request support if
needed
2. Commitment
for CapacityBuilding and
Establishment
of TWG
{{ Assess stakeholders’
opinion about the IPC
{{ Identify institutional
home
{{ Prepare a joint
statement by key
stakeholders in
support of the IPC
{{ Establish IPC TWG
have a good
understanding of
all aspects of the
IPC process
{{ Willingness to
organizations
operating in the
country
{{ National
government
commit to the
IPC process from
food security
stakeholders
{{ A joint statement
in support of
the IPC roll-out
in the country
is signed by key
food security
organizations
{{ Identify institutional
home
implementation plan
and calendar
{{ Institutional mapping
{{ Identify sources of
{{ Planning is
clarified
{{ Sources of
funding are
available
funding, and possibly {{ Organizations
prepare proposals (as
participating in
needed)
the TWG have
the necessary
{{ Identify technical
resources to do
support required
this work
(request to GSU)
4. Capacitybuilding
{{ IPC and food security {{ TWG members
training of analysts
(3-day course)
{{ On-line courses on
the IPC are taken
{{ Equipment and
software are supplied
can commit their
time to training
sessions
{{ Resources for
organizing
training sessions
are available
{{ TWG
{{ GSU and
{{ An
implementation
plan is prepared
Regional
Support Unit on {{ A proposal
request
to fund the
implementation
plan is accepted
Process
{{ Create an
Section 8: Implementation
3. Planning
{{ TWG
{{ GSU and RSU
on request
{{ Results of tests
after training
demonstrate
analysts are
sufficiently skilled
in IPC
68
Step
Typical Activities
5. Data
Inventory
{{ Preparation of data
Requirements
{{ All evidence is
identified and
made available
{{ Preliminary filling out
of Analysis Worksheet
Step 2 - Evidence
Repository
Stakeholders
involved
{{ TWG
{{ GSU and RSU
on request can
provide support
{{ A database with
information on
food security is
produced
{{ Analysis
Worksheet Step 2
is completed
{{ Assessment of
information reliability
6. Analysis
Indicator of
accomplishment
{{ Conduct IPC Analysis {{ Convene IPC
using the protocols
described in Version
2.0
TWG to conduct
IPC analysis
{{ (typically requires 3–5
{{ TWG
{{ GSU and
Regional Offices
can support
{{ IPC
Communication
Template and
associated tools
are completed
days)
{{ Distribute and Present {{ Communication
7.
IPC findings to
strategy
Communication
various stakeholder
groups using a wide
range of media
8. Lessons
learned
{{ Meet with IPC food
security stakeholders
to discuss how
the project for
implementing the IPC
is being conducted
{{ TWG, RSU, GSU {{ IPC results are
cited in the media
and project
proposals
{{ At least one IPC
{{ RSU
{{ A report is
analysis has taken
prepared with
{{ TWG
place
lessons learned
{{ GSU on request
Resources
{{ The IPC Global Support Unit provides awareness-raising, capacity-building, technical support, and other
assistance to countries and organizations that want to learn more or implement the IPC.
{{ Go to the IPC website (www.ipcinfo.org) to access:
• IPC Technical Manual V 2.0
• Tools for analysis
• IPC information and training toolkit
• IPC distance learning materials (forthcoming)
• IPC on-line Information Management System (forthcoming)
• Recent Country and Regional Analyses
Annexes
Annexes
71
1. Map of IPC Implementation
2. IPC Development and Consultative Process and Participants
3. Key Documents Produced during the Period 2009–2011
4. Example of Comprehensive National Food Security Analysis
System
5. Prototype Tools for Classifying Chronic Food Insecurity
6. Review of Key Conceptual Frameworks
7. Framework of the United Nations System High Level Task Force on
the Global Food Security Crisis
8. Indicators and Methods Used in the IPC Reference Tables
9. A Summary of FEWS NET’s Scenario Development Approach for
Food Security Early Warning
10. Joint Research Centre Guidelines on the Use of Remote Sensing
for IPC Analysis
11. IPC Related Initiatives
12. East Africa IPC Food Security Situation, November 2010
13. Time Series of the Integrated Phase Classification Maps for
Somalia (2005–2010)
14. Glossary
15. Bibliography
16. The IPC Technical Manual from Version 1.0 to 2.0 Extracts from
the foreword and acknowledgements of the previous versions
Annexes
ANNEXES
72
Annex 1. Map of IPC Implementation
IPC
Implementation Map 2012
Integrated Food Security Phase Classification
The IPC World Map provides a picture of the countries that have started to introduce or are implementing the IPC (and related food security analysis tools and information).
This categorization is voluntarily generic in order to provide an overview of the different types of activities and stages of advancement. It should be underlined that each
country has its specificities and countries in a similar category may not have the same characteristics but share basic common features in the stage of implementation.
Map Explanation
Awareness-raising and consultations:
Countries where awareness has been raised
or where IPC has been introduced
Angola, Botswana, Cambodia, Indonesia, Iraq, Haïti, Lesotho, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Namibia,
Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Zambia, countries of the Cadre Harmonisé* (Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Chad,
the Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Mauritanie, Niger, Senegal).
Initial in-country training and analysis:
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Honduras, Malawi, Mozambique, Myanmar,
Nicaragua, Pakistan, Philippines, South Africa, Swaziland, Yemen , Zimbabwe.
Ongoing training and analysis:
Burundi, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Nepal ,
North Sudan, Somalia, South Sudan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Uganda.
Countries where IPC is being introduced, capacity is
being built and one map has been produced
Countries that have produced at least three maps
and where the IPC is fully implemented
*The Cadre Harmonisé in West Africa : The Cadre Harmonisé, the standardized framework for food security analysis developed in the Sahel with the support of CILSS
(The Permanent Interstate Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel) has recently been updated and upgraded using key elements from the IPC analytical approach.
This revised framework was tested with real data and an updated Methodological Note for the Cadre Harmonisé (integrating IPC elements) has been recently finalized
by the Regional technical working group and is now being implemented in an increasing number of countries in the Sahel
IPC Partners
73
Annex 2. IPC Development and Consultative Process and
Participants
The technical development work and consultations to prepare the new IPC Manual Version 2.0 began in
2009 and continued until early 2011. The list below is a compilation of all official meetings and consultations,
together with lists of participants. In addition to the formal consultative process a number of informal
discussions took place with IPC practitioners, technical experts and representatives of IPC partner agencies
during the development of the Manual. As part of the process, expert studies were commissioned for the IPC.
These studies and consultations relating to them are also listed below.
IPC Technical Development – Review Manual V. 2.0
List of people consulted in 2010–2011
Donors/Resource Partners
1.
Devrig Velly
ECHO
2.
Gary Eilerts
USAID
3.
Jose Lopez
ECHO
4.
Nick Maunder
ECHO
IPC Steering Committee (SC) – Global
5.
Alex Rees
Save the Children
6.
Camilla Knox-Peebles
Oxfam GB
7.
Felix Lee
FEWS NET
8.
Joyce Luma
WFP
9.
Luca Russo
FAO
10.
Mohamed Daw
CARE
11.
Thierry Nègre
EC-Joint Research Centre
IPC Global Support Unit (GSU)
12.
Justus Liku
CARE International
13.
Kaija Korpi-Salmela
JRC
14.
Nicholas Haan
FAO
15.
Oriane Turot
FAO
16.
Rachele Santini
FAO
17.
Siddharth Krishnaswamy
FAO
18.
Vera P Weill-Halle
Save the Children
19.
Zoé Druilhe
FAO
20.
Adrian Sharp
Oxfam
21.
Agnes Dhur
WFP
22.
Alexis Hoskins
WFP-HQ
23.
Christopher Hillbruner
FEWS NET
24.
Cindy Holleman
FAO
Annexes
Technical Advisory Group (TAG)
74
25.
Grainne Moloney
FAO/FSNAU
26.
Jose Manuel Veiga
Independent Consultant
27.
Kathryn Ogden
WFP
28.
Leila Oliviera
FAO
29.
Mark Gordon
WFP
30.
Miles Murray
Save the Children
31.
Neil Marsland
FAO
32.
Suleiman Mohamed
FAO
33.
Sylvie Montembault
WFP
34.
Tamara Nanitashvili
FAO/FSNAU
35.
Valérie Ceylon
WFP
36.
Aida Ndiaye
FAO
Regional Coordinators in Asia
37.
Bruce Isaacson
FAO
38.
Eliott Vhurumuku
WFP
39.
Jonathan Brass
Oxfam
40.
Kurt Burja
WFP
41.
Michael Sheinkman
WFP
42.
Rajendra Aryal
FAO
IPC Technical Retreat 13–23 July in Ispra 2010 (participants not in other lists)
43.
Bernardin Zoungrana
CILSS
44.
Francis Wambua Robert
Ministry of Medical Services, Kenya
IPC Consultation Workshop 15–17 February in Nairobi 2011 (participants not in other lists)
45.
Abdullahi Khalif
FEWS NET
46.
Alex Tiangwa
Food Security Technical Secretariat (FSTS), South Sudan
47.
Alexandros Yiannopoulos
FAO
48.
Caroline Kilembe
Ministry of Agriculture, Tanzania
49.
Cedric Charpentier
WFP Tajikistan
50.
Chachu Tadicha
SC – United Kingdom
51.
Daniele de Bernardi
FAO
52.
David Obong´o
FAO – Regional Emergency Office for Eastern and Central Africa (REOA)
53.
Evance Chapasuka
Southern African Development Community (SADC) – Regional
Vulnerability Assessment and Analysis Programme (RVAA)
54.
Evans Kenyi Solomon
FAO South Sudan
55.
Farah Mohamed Farah
Ministry of Health, Sudan
56.
Fatima El Hassan El Tahir
Ministry of Agriculture,
57.
Gedeon GAOUARANGA
Ministry of Agriculture,
58.
George Kembo
Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVac)–Zimbabwe
75
59.
Getachew Abate Mussa
FAO Ethiopia
60.
Guillaume Kahomboshi
FAO DRC
61.
Hem Raj Regmi
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatrives, Nepal
62.
Isaac Nzitunga
Ministry of Agriculture, Burundi
63.
James Guma Mark
Ministry of Animal Resources and Fisheries (MARF) – South Sudan
64.
Josephine Etima Ocilaje
WFP Regional Bureau
65.
Mahendra Nath Poudel
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Nepal
66.
Marie Enlund
WFP Regional Bureau, Kampala
67.
Mary Mwale
Arid Lands Resource Management (ALRMP) – Government of Kenya
68.
Mayanja Ronald
World Vision Uganda
69.
Mbabazi Mary Concepta
Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries, Uganda
70.
Mboutou Fernand
FAO Central African Republic
71.
Methode Niyongendako
FAO Burundi
72.
Mihret Bizuneh
WFP Myanmar
73.
Nelson Taruvinga
ZimVac – Zimbabwe
74.
Phakade Goba
Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD) –
South Africa
75.
Philip Dau Thiong
Livelihood Analysis Forum (LAF) – South Sudan
76.
Pushpa Shrestha
WFP Nepal
77.
Robert Ngonde Nsakala
Ministry of Agriculture, DRC
78.
Samson Ambaye
Disaster Risk Management and Food Security Sector (DRMFSS)–Ethiopia
79.
Stella Sengendo
FAO Uganda
80.
Takayuki Saito
UN Volunteer, WFP Philippines
81.
Vedasto Rutachokozibwa
FAO Tanzania
82.
Yvonne Forsen
WFP Kenya
83.
A. Samba
Agrhymet
84.
Amadou Hebie
EC delegation, Burkina Faso (in charge of EC Regional Programmes)
85.
Andrianarolaza Tanjora
ACF
86.
Bernard Dembele
CILSS
87.
Dramane Coulibaly
CILSS
88.
Fréderic Ham
ACF
89.
Ibrahim Laouali
FEWS NET
90.
JoseLuis Fernandez
FAO
91.
K. Sissoko
Institut du Sahel (Insah)
92.
Keita
CILSS
93.
Koffi Akakpo
WFP
94.
Konate Amadou
CILSS
95.
M. Badiao
Agrhymet
Annexes
Members of the Technical Committee of the Cadre Harmonisé (not in other lists)
76
96.
M. Yahya
Agrhymet
97.
Moussa Cisse
CILSS
98.
Naouar Labidi
WFP
99.
PapaBoubacar Soumare
FAO
100.
Patrick David
FAO
101.
Salif Sow
FEWS NET
102.
Sebastien Subsol
CILSS/French Cooperation
Members of the Southern Africa TWG (not in other lists)
103.
Blessing Butaumocho
FEWS NET SA Region
104.
Charles Rethman
RVAA SA Region
105.
Duncan Samikwa
SADC SA Region
106.
Emily Henderson
Oxfam SA Region
107.
Eric Kenefic
WFP SA Region
108.
Evance Chapasuka
SADC SA Region
109.
Gary Sawdon
(Botswana)
110.
George Kembo
FNC SA Region
111.
Ginindza, Bheki
FAO SA Region
112.
Joao Manja
WFP SA Region
113.
Magunda, Douglas
FAO SA Region
114.
Mduduzi Gamedze
SAFnet SA Region
115.
Nelson Taruvinga
ZimVac
116.
Phumzile Mdladla
FEWS NET, SA Region
117.
Tinago Chikoto
OCHA SA Region
118.
Tsakani Chauke
Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF), SA Region
119.
Urvoy, JeanClaude
FAO SA Region
120.
Walusungu Kayira
Malawi Vulnerability Assessment Committee (VAC)
121.
Yvonne Vhevha
WFP SA Region
122.
Zacarias Ribeiro
Moz VAC
Members of the Food Security and Nutrition Working Group (FSNWG), ECA (not in other lists)
123.
Alex Nyarko
FAO – Emergency Centre for Transboundary Animal Diseases (ECTAD)
124.
Alexandra Crosskey
Consultant, East and Central Africa (ECA) Region
125.
Gabriella Waaijman
OCHA-Subregional ECA Region
126.
Genevieve Chicoine
WFP Regional ECA
127.
Hazem Almahdy
WFP ECA Region
128.
Katrien Ghoos
UNICEF ECA Region
129.
Lawrence Godiah
FEWSNET ECA Region
130.
Lisa Parrot
Save the Children ECA Region
131.
Matt Croucher
Save The Children ECA Region
77
132.
Peter Hailey
UNICEF-Somalia
133.
Rod Charters
FAO-REOA
134.
Silke Pietzsch
ACF ECA Region
135.
Simon Renk
WFP Somalia
136.
Stephen McDowell
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC),
ECA Region
137.
Truphosa Anjichi
OCHA-Subregional ECA Region
Additional Experts
138.
Aida Ndiaye
FAO
139.
Alemu Asfaw
FAO (Nothern Sudan)
140.
Andre Griekspoor
WHO
141.
Arif Husain
WFP
142.
Dan Maxwell
Tufts University
143.
Floor Grootenhuis
Consultant specialized in Lesson Learning
144.
Francesco Checchi
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
145.
Francesco Del Re
FAO
146.
Gérard Madodo
FAO
147.
Helen Young
Tufts University
148.
James Darcy
Overseas Development Institute
149.
Leisel Talley
Center for Disease Control (CDC)
150.
Marc Mc Guire
FAO – Headquarters
151.
MarieClaude Dop
FAO – Headquarters
152.
Mark Smulders
FAO – Headquarters
153.
Michael Golden
University of Aberdeen
154.
Mija-Tesse Ververs
Independent Consultant
155.
Muireann Brennan
CDC
156.
Nancy Mock
Tulane University
157.
Pierre Vauthier
FAO – DRC
158.
Rene Verduijn
Consultant
159.
Rita Bhatia
WFP
160.
Susanne Jaspers
Independent Consultant
161.
Thoric Cederstrom
Consultant, former IPC Technical Development Officer
162.
Tim Frankenberger
TANGO International
163.
Oleg Bilukha
CDC
164.
Bentry Chaura
SADC/Southern Africa Regional
165.
Dlamini T
National Government/SA
166.
Eric Kenefick
WFP/Southern Africa Regional
167.
Kayana P
National Government/SA
Annexes
Southern Africa consultation participants (not in other lists)
78
168.
Lorato Mathews
Provincial Government/SA
169.
Mpandeli A
National Government/SA
170.
Njoni Skalele
Provincial Government/SA
171.
Phakade Goba
Provincial Government/SA
172.
Phumuzile Mdlada
FEWS NET/Regional
173.
Tendai Mugara
FAO/Zimbabwe
174.
Walusungu Kayra
Government/VAC/Malawi
175.
Zodwa P
National Government/SA
East and Central Africa consultation participants (not in other lists)
176.
David Doledec
UNICEF–Somalia
177.
Sidow I. Addou
FEWSNET ECA Region
79
Annex 3. Key Documents Produced during the Period 2009–
2011
1. IPC Technical Working Group meeting report. April 2009
2. Discussion paper: “Opportunity to merge the IPC Technical Manual and the IPC User Guide”. May 2009
3. Synthesis Report of IPC Online Consultation on IPC Food Security Classification: a New Phase or Split
Phase 1A and 1B? May 2009
4. Quality monitoring concept note and templates. May 2009
5. Paper for IPC technical revision: “Clarify the use of depth in the IPC”. June 2009
6. Brief: “Two pending IPC technical issues: The time factor and the effect of humanitarian assistance”.
June 2009
7. IPC Reference Table (draft). July 2009
8. “Coping Strategies in IPC”. Study conducted for IPC by Dan Maxwell, Tufts University. August 2009
9. “Review of Nutrition and Mortality Indicators for the IPC: Reference Levels and Decision-Making”.
Study conducted for the IPC by Helen Young and Susanne Jaspers, Tufts University. September 2009
10. IPC Proxy Indicator Study by the GSU. March 2010
11. “Review of Health Indicators for the IPC”. Study conducted for the IPC by consultant Mija Tesse
Ververs. June 2010.
12. Compendium of Technical Issues and Proposed Solutions. Compendium prepared on the basis of the
discussions in the IPC Technical Retreat in July 2010
13. “Health Indicators in IPC”. Study conducted for the IPC by Andre Griekspoor, WHO. August 2010
14. Report on regional consultations in Southern Africa and Eastern and Central Africa in October 2010
15. Report and conclusions of the IPC technical retreat. December 2010
16. Report on Nairobi User Consultation Workshop in February 2011
17. First draft of the IPC Manual Version 2.0. March 2011
Annexes
18. Report on consultations with the Technical Committee of CILSS. March 2011
Commodity
Outlooks
Livestock
Emerging Issues
Infrastructure
Urban Food
Security
Underlying Causes
of Food Insecurity
Climate Change
Capacity
Development
Disaster Risk
Reduction
Strategic Project
Design
Policy Analysis
Income and
Employment
Natr’l Resources
Gender
Education
Health
Water
Markets & Trade
Emergency
Assessments
Early Warning
Nutrition
Fisheries
Key Indicator
Monitoring
Thematic Areas
Crops
Multi-Sectoral
Website
Databases
Analysis Tools
Applied
Research
Reports
National Food
Security and
Nutrition
Analysis
Intervention
Guidance
Integrated
Food Security
Phase
Classification
(IPC)
Commodity
Outlooks
Outputs
- Reports
- Maps
- Photos & videos
- Media
- Email
- Website
- Presentations
- Briefings
- Strategy Seminars
Communication
of Actionable
Knowledge
Decision Makers
- Private Sector
- National/local govt
- Civil Society
- Development Partners
Interventions
- Policy Implementation
- Development Programs
- Emergency Response
- Disaster Risk Reducion
GOAL
Food
Security
Haan, N. and V. Rutachokozibwa. 2009. Tanzania Food Security and
Nutrition Analysis Sistem - Design Framework Dar es Salaam. FAO.
Information Management
Information Systems that
enable data/information
accessibility and analysis
Applied Research
Demand - driven, actionoriented research
Sub National Support
Technical and institutional
capacity building
Intervention Analysis
Strategic advice on most
effective, efficient, and
sustainable interventions
Situation Analysis
Real-time updates of current
and projected food security
and nutrition conditions
Activities
National Food Security Analysis Operational Framework
80
Annex 4. Example of Comprehensive National Food Security
Analysis System
81
Annex 5. Prototype Tools for Classifying Chronic Food
Insecurity
Several years of IPC implementation in different country contexts has highlighted the need for the classification
to draw stronger attention to the issue of chronic food insecurity. After considering many different options,
including potentially expanding the number of Phases in the Acute Reference Table, it has been decided to
develop a separate but linked set of tools for classifying chronic food insecurity. The tools use the same basic
approach of the IPC – i.e. establish a TWG, different levels based on reference outcomes, convergence of
evidence, documentation of evidence, and clear communication of results. The tools for classifying Chronic
and Acute Food Insecurity are complementary.
The tools for classifying chronic food insecurity are still in prototype form. Countries and agencies are
encouraged to use the tools and provide feedback on how they can be developed further.
{{ Purpose – To inform decision-making that has medium- and long-term strategic objectives. This
complements analysis of Acute Food Insecurity, which mainly informs short-term strategic objectives.
{{ Definition – Conditions of persistent inability to meet minimum quality and quantity of food
consumption requirements as is evident even in the absence of a shock/hazard (during normal or typical
years) AND/OR a high frequency of Acute Crises years in the past ten years. The IPC identifies three types
of Chronic Food Insecurity:
1. Type 1: seasonal/cyclical food consumption deficits
2. Type 2: ongoing food consumption deficits in quality and/or quantity
3. Type 3: periodic Acute Food Insecurity for the area equivalent to Phase 4 or 5 on the Acute
Reference Table
These types of chronic food insecurity can co-exist. The identification of the types (on the Analysis
Worksheets) and their combinations will guide strategic action design and implementation.
{{ Intervention Objectives – Any of these types of chronic food insecurity require interventions with
medium- and long-term objectives that address the underlying or structural causes of food insecurity,
and should be tailored to the type(s) and specific causes (hazards and vulnerabilities) of the food
insecurity. The higher the Level of Chronic Food Insecurity, the higher the geographic prioritization and
investments required.
{{ Units of Analysis – The unit of analysis is the whole population1 in a given administrative area. The
Levels of Chronic Food Insecurity are based on the percentage of households in the area exhibiting a
criteria of reference cutoffs of bi-variate indicators (i.e. the criteria exists or it does not, similar to the way
GAM rates are used to classify whole populations). The increasing Levels represent increasing prevalence
of chronic food insecurity in a given area. It does not suggest that all people in that area are chronically
food insecure. The unit of analysis should be at least the 3rd administrative level (e.g. district), and can be
as small as needed to adequately inform decision-making in a given country context (e.g. 4th or 5th level
administrative areas).
{{ Timeframe of Analysis – The analysis should reflect conditions of chronic food insecurity at the time of
the analysis by examining the recent past with two perspectives: (1) examine recent years for which there
is not Acute Food Insecurity of Phase 4 or 5; and (2) examine the frequency of years with Acute Food
Insecurity over the past ten years. The analysis will generally be valid over a period of around one to five
years.
{{ Linkage to Acute Food Insecurity – An area can be in a varying Level of Chronic Food Insecurity and
1 The population being analysed is typically the whole population in a given area. However, it is also possible to pre-stratify a
population group of interest (e.g. internally displaced persons or some other distinct group of interest) and conduct the analysis
for that population as a whole. If done, this should be clearly noted in the communication tools and maps.
Annexes
simultaneously have varying Phases of Household Acute Food Insecurity. These relationships should guide
design and implementation of strategic interventions.
82
{{ Additional Guidelines
a.Ideally, in order to determine the maximum number of people who are in Type 1 or 2, analysts
should gather data that is representative of the “lean season” during a recent normal year. To
determine the number of people who are Type 1 (seasonal) and Type 2 (ongoing), analysts should
also gather data that is representative of the non lean season. The number of people who are food
insecure during the non lean season roughly equates to the number in Type 2, and the difference
between the number during the lean season and the number during the non lean season roughly
equates to the number who are Type 1 (seasonal only).
b.When determining the Chronic Level for a district, total the number of people in Type 1 and Type 2
to calculate the total percentage of people who are food insecure according to the reference table.
Then, assign the appropriate Level by taking the maximum Level as indicated by the Total of Type 1
and 2 and Type 3.
c. The RGB colour scheme for mapping the Chronic Levels are:
i. Level 1: 221, 240, 221
ii. Level 2: 190, 160, 220
iii. Level 3: 170, 100, 205
iv. Level 4: 95, 90, 145
83
IPC Area-based Chronic Food Insecurity Reference Table
To Guide Medium and Long-Term Strategic Objectives
Level 2:
Moderate Chronic
Food Insecurity
Level
Description
{{ Considering years when {{ Considering years
the area does not
experience Phase 3, 4,
or 5 food insecurity, less
than 10% of the HHs
do not have adequate
quantity and quality of
food throughout the
year; AND
{{ The area has not had
Livelihood
Change
Hazards and
Vulnerability
Availability,
Water
Access,
(improved
Utilization,
sources)
Stability
Contributing Factors
Recurrence
of Acute
Crises
Nutrition
Outcomes
Food Consumption
recurrent Acute Food
Security Crises (or
equivalent) in the past
10 years.
General
Response
Objectives
when the area does
not experience Phase 3,
4, or 5 food insecurity,
10 to 20% of the HHs
do not have adequate
quantity and quality of
food throughout the
year; OR
{{ The area has had
occasional Acute Food
Security Crises (or
equivalent).
Level 3:
High Chronic
Food Insecurity
{{ Considering years
when the area does
not experience
Phase 3, 4, or 5 food
insecurity, less than
20 to 40% of the HHs
do not have adequate
quantity and quality
of food throughout
the year; OR
{{ The area has had
frequent Acute Food
Security Crises (or
equivalent).
Level 4:
Very High Chronic
Food Insecurity
{{ Considering years when
the area does not
experience Phase 3, 4, or
5 food insecurity, more
than 40% of the HHs
do not have adequate
quantity and quality of
food throughout the
year; OR
{{ The area has had very
frequent Acute Food
Security Crises (or
equivalent).
Quantity: Lack of 2,100 kcal
pp/day
FCS: poor/borderline: <10%
hhs
HHS: moderate/severe (scores
2–6): <10%
HDDS: <4 food groups (out of
12 food groups)s: <10%
HEA: <Livelihood Protection
Deficit: <10%
Quantity: Lack of 2,100 kcal
pp/day and
FCS: poor/borderline: 10–20%
hhs
HHS: moderate/severe (scores
2–6): 10–20%
HDDS: <4 food groups (out of
12 food groups): 10–20%
HEA: <Livelihood Protection
Deficit: 10–20%
Quantity: Lack of 2,100 kcal
pp/day
FCS: poor/borderline: 20–40%
hhs
HHS: moderate/severe (scores
2–6): 20–40%
HDDS: <4 food group (out of
12 food groups): 20–40%
HEA: <Livelihood Protection
Deficit: 20–40%
Quantity: Lack of 2,100 kcal
pp/day
FCS: poor/borderline:>40% hhs
HHS: moderate/severe (scores
2–6): >40%
HDDS: <4 food groups (out of
12 food groups): >40%
HEA: <Livelihood Protection
Deficit: >40%
Graduate year-to-year erosion
of Livelihood Assets (5 capitals)
and Strategies: <10% HHs
Graduate year-to-year erosion
of assets and strategies: 10 to
20% HHs
Graduate year-to-year
erosion of assets and
strategies: 20 to 40% HHs
Graduate year-to-year erosion
of assets and strategies: >40%
HHs
Stunting: <20%
BMI <18.5: < 10%
Anaemia: <5%
Vitamin A deficiency: <2%
Stunting: 20–30%
BMI <18.5: 10–20%
Anaemia: 5–20%
Vitamin A deficiency: 2%–10%
Stunting: 30–40%
BMI <18.5: 20-40%
Anaemia: 20–40%
Vitamin A deficiency:
10–20%
Stunting: >40%
BMI <18.5: > 40%
Anaemia: >40%
Vitamin A deficiency: > 20%
None or 1 year over the past 10 2 years over the last 10 years
years of Acute Phase 3, 4, or 5
of Acute Phase 3, 4, or 5 for
for the area.
the area.
3–4 years over the last 10
years of Acute Phase 3, 4, or
5 for the area.
5–10 years over the last 10
years of Acute Phase 3, 4, or 5
for the area.
Hazards: Rare events
Assets: Insufficient 5 capitals:
<10% HHs.
Below National Poverty Line:
<10%
Strategies: Unsustainable:
<10% HHs
Policies, Institutions,
and Processes (PIPs):
poorly functioning and
inequitable:<10% HHs
Hazards: Occasional events
Assets: Insufficient 5 capitals:
10–20% HHs
Below National Poverty Line:
10–20%
Strategies: unsustainable:
10–20% HHs
PIPs: poorly functioning and
inequitable: 10–20% of HHs
Hazards: Frequent events
Assets: Insufficient 5 capitals:
20–40% HHs
Below National Poverty Line:
20–40%
Strategies: unsustainable:
20–40% HHs
PIPs: poorly functioning and
inequitable: 20–40% of HHs
Hazards: Very frequent events
Assets: Insufficient 5 capitals
>40% HHs
Below National Poverty Line:
>40%
Strategies: unsustainable:
>40% hhs
PIPs: poorly functioning, and
inequitable: >40% of HHs
Inadequate availability, access,
utilization of food and/or
there is inter-annual instability:
<10% HHs
Inadequate availability, access,
utilization of food and/or
there is inter-annual instability:
10 to 20% HHs
Inadequate availability,
access, utilization of food
and/or there is inter-annual
instability: 20 to 40% HHs
Inadequate availability, access,
utilization of food and/or there
is inter-annual instability: >40%
HHs
<15 litres ppp day: <10% HHs
<15 litres ppp day: 10–20%
HHs
<15 litres ppp day: 20–40%
HHs
<15 litres ppp day: >40% HHs
Objectives should be cross-cutting and holistic, addressing the structural and underlying causes of chronic food insecurity, and
should be tailored to the Type of Chronic Food Insecurity (on-going, seasonal, and/or episodic acute crises) and Causes (hazards
and vulnerabilities). The higher the Level, the higher the geographic priority and level of investments required. Depending on
the situation, more specific objectives can include:
· Increase food systems productivity and resilience
· Build and protect livelihood assets and strategies
· Safety net programmes
· Disaster risk reduction
· Implement micronutrient enhancement programmes
· Ensure policies and institutional structures are effective
· Ensure adequate resources and political will through
advocacy
Annexes
Level 1:
Low Chronic
Food Insecurity
Overall
Chronic
Level
Type 3: Recurrent
Acute Crises
Type 2: Ongoing
Type 1: Seasonal
Tick Relevant Types of
Chronic Food Insecurity
Step 4: Summary of Area Analyses
Estimated
# people in
each Type
Section 2: Phase Classification Conclusion
Estimated # of People in
Area (specify source of pop.
data)
Brief Area Description
Step 1: Area Definition
Section 1: Area Analyses Definition
Evidence Based Justification for Level Classification and Type
Overall Confidence Level (* = Acceptable; **=medium; ***=high):____
Map of Analyses Area
(insert image of map identifying spatial extent of analysis area)
CHRONIC Food Insecurity EVIDENCE BASED ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Analysis for ____________________________________________________________ CREATED ON _____________________ VALID FOR ________________________________
(Country/Region/District)
(from when to when)
84
Chronic Food Insecurity Analysis Worksheet
Yes
Somewhat, but very little and/or
unreliable
Yes, but not quite enough and/or
erratic supply
No, effectively not at all
Yes
Yes, but abrupt changes are possible
Somewhat, but still highly dynamic
No, effectively not at all
Annexes
Policies, Institutions
and Processes
Natural Capital
Social Capital
Financial Capital
Physical Capital
Human Capital
Livelihood Strategies
Strengths
Weaknesses
Template 4: Vulnerability SWOT Analyses (Describe key issues supported by evidence)
Not a Limiting Factor
Complete Limiting
Factor
Major Limiting
Factor
Minor Limiting
Factor
Food Access
Food Utilization
Opportunities
Yes
Somewhat, but very little and/or
unreliable
Yes, but not quite enough and/or
erratic
No, effectively not at all
Guiding Question: Are households able to Guiding Question: Are households making
Guiding Question: Is sufficient food
sufficiently access food that is available?
actually or potentially physically present?
effective use of food which they have
(Consider national and local production, (Consider aspects of physical, financial, and access to? (Consider aspects of preferences,
imports, markets, and natural source; and social access, and note in the justification
preparation, storage, and water; and note
if relevant).
note in the justification if relevant)
in the justification if relevant).
Food Availability
{{ Shade/Colour that cell accordingly and write brief evidence justification on the cause and effects inside of the cell.
{{ Note gender issues and differences where relevant.
being food secure in the medium and long term.
Threats
Yes
Yes, but abrupt changes are possible
Somewhat, but still highly dynamic
No, effectively not at all
Guiding Question: Are each of the food
security dimensions stable in the short
term? (Consider aspects of availability,
access, and utilization; and note in the
justification if relevant)
Stability
{{ Based on guiding question, during years that there are no hazards, indicate the degree to which each food security dimension is limiting people from
Step 5: Limiting Factors Matrix
Section 3: Causes (complete one for the area)
85
Death Rate
Nutrition
Livelihood
Change
Food
Consumption
Water
Stability
Food Utilization
Food Access
Food Availability
Vulnerability
Recurrence of
Acute Crisis
Food Security
Element
Describe assumptions for
analysis
Key Assumptions
Step 3: Evidence Analysis Template
Key Evidence
Overall Level Classification
{{ Succinctly describe relevant direct and indirect evidence for each element
{{ Note Documentation Code (DC) to Link to the template in Step 2
Section 4: Evidence Documentation and Analysis
Develop overall conclusion and
indicative Level for each element
Element Conclusion
86
Annexes
…
4
3
2
1
appearance is
not important
{{ Order of
(to link to Step 3
template)
Documentation
Code
Reference
Source
Date
Reliability
(1=Somewhat reliable; 2=reliable; 3=very reliable)
{{ Note Evidence Reliability Score
{{ Note source, date, and reliability of evidence
Step 2: Evidence Repository
{{ When possible, insert raw evidence (e.g. graph, image, table, quote, etc).
Raw Evidence
87
88
Chronic Food Insecurity Communication Template
Integrated Food Security Phase Classifica9on (IPC)
Chronic Food Insecurity Situa9on Overview
(Country/Region/District)
_____________________
# People & % of Total Pop.
1—Seasonal
Xxx,xxx (x%)
2—Ongoing
Xxx,xxx (x%)
Total
Chronic Level
xxx,xxx (x%)
Level X
X Years
Level X
3—Frequency of Acute Phase 4 or 5
Valid
for: (from
when to when)
Created on: dd/mm/yyyy
Summary of Causes, Context and Key Issues
Aggregate Na9onal Numbers
Na9onal Level Type of Chronic Food Insecurity
Created
on: dd/mmm/yyyy
Valid from:
dd/mm/yyyy
Type 1:
Type 2:
Total 1&2:
Type 3:
xxx,xxx (x%)
xxx,xxx (x%)
xxx,xxx (x%)
x Years
Confidence: Acceptable
For For
Illustra9on Only.
Illustration Only.
Depicting Actual
Not Not
Depic9ng Actual
Conditions!
Condi9ons!
Type 1:
Type 2:
Total 1&2:
Type 3:
xxx,xxx (x%)
xxx,xxx (x%)
xxx,xxx (x%)
x Years
Confidence: Acceptable
Chronic Food Insecurity Levels
Type 1:
Type 2:
Total 1&2:
Type 3:
xxx,xxx (x%)
xxx,xxx (x%)
xxx,xxx (x%)
x Years
Confidence: Acceptable
Analyses Partners & Supporting Organizations
(Insert logos)
IPC Global Partners
0
/
1
Low
2
Moderate
3
High
4
Very High
Interna3onal boundary
125
250
Kilometers
Districts
Water bodies
89
Annex 6. Review of Key Conceptual Frameworks
The IPC framework is based on various existing frameworks; in particular the Sustainable Livelihoods
Framework, the UNICEF Nutrition Conceptual Framework, the Risk, Hazard and Vulnerability Framework and
the Four Pillars approach. These frameworks and the way they relate to the IPC model is discussed below.
However it is also important to note here that while the IPC framework does borrow from these models, it
does not limit itself to them. It also draws, to a lesser degree, from other models in the field of food security
and vulnerability analysis. Furthermore, the IPC framework does not replace any existing framework but
rather offers a new approach to food security analysis.
a) The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework
Vulnerability
Context
Shocks
Seasonality
Trends
Changes
Key
H = Human Capital
H
Policies
N Influence Institutions
Processes
S
P
Livelihood
Strategies
Livelihood
Outcomes
F
N = Natural Capital
F = Financial Capital
S = Social Capital
P = Physical Capital
Source: Alice Stewart Carloni and Eve Crowley, 2005. “Rapid guide for missions: Analysing local institutions
and livelihoods. Guidelines.”
Relevance to the IPC: The response framework addresses both immediate needs and medium/longer-term
responses – hence it incorporates basic needs responses as well as longer-term structural issues concerning
food security and other important sectoral needs such as water, health, shelter, sanitation and protection.
While not explicit in the Strategic Response Framework, principles such as equity, sustainability, justice and
human rights are cross-cutting.
For each IPC Phase, the Strategic Response Framework includes three broad objectives: mitigate immediate
outcomes, support livelihoods, and address underlying/structural causes.
The Strategic Response Framework is intentionally not prescriptive about the type of response required in a
given situation. Rather, it provides an overarching framework to ensure that the basic elements of a holistic
response are identified. In this way the Strategic Response Framework helps guide and open the way for
more in-depth analysis of response options that are most appropriate for a given Phase.
Annexes
References/Sources: The Strategic Response Framework is consistent with the Twin-Track Approach (Pingali
et al. 2005; Flores et al. 2005), the EC policy for Linking Relief, Recovery, and Development (LRRD) (EC 1996),
and the notion of saving lives and livelihoods (Longley and Maxwell, 2003; WFP 2005; WFP 2004; FAO 2003).
90
b) Framework for Demand-Driven Food Security Analysis
Requires
Requires
Strategic
Decision
Making
Evidence
Reliable, Relevant,
Timely, and Accessible
Private Sector
Actionable Knowledge
• Producers
• Traders
• Civil Society
• Household
• Situation Analysis (IPC)
• Action Analysis
Governments
and Development Partners
Requires
Requires
Enabling
Environment
and Effective
Interventions
GOAL--FOOD
SECURITY
• Increased Diversified
Production
• Free market exchange
• Purchasing Power
• HH Care Practices
• Policy Implementation
• Strategic Planning
• Development Programs
• Emergency Response
Sufficient quality
and quantity
of nutritious
food for all
people at all
times
Integrated Analysis and Evidence
• Cross Sectoral
• Multi-Agency
• Multi-Temporal (immediate, medium,
and long-term)
• Multi-Scale (HH, Village, District, Nation)
• 4 Dimensions of food security
Haan, N. and V. Rutachokozibwa. 2009. Tanzania Food Security and
Nutrition Analysis Sistem - Design Framework Dar es Salaam. FAO.
c) UNICEF Nutrition Conceptual Framework
Manifestation
Malnutrition
Inadequate
dietary intake
Inadequate
access to food
Disease
Inadequate care for
children and
women
Inadequate
Insufficient health
services & unhealthy
environment
Underlying
Causes
education
Resources and Control
Human, economics and
organizational resources
Political and Ideological Factors
Economic
Immediate
Causes
Basic
Causes
Structure
Potential
resources
Source: Cambodia Council for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Website
UNICEF. 1990. Strategy for improved nutrition of children and women in developing countries. Policy Review
Paper E/ICEF/1990/1.6, UNICEF, New York; JC 27/UNICEF–WHO/89.4. New York.
Relevance to the IPC: According to this framework, developed by UNICEF, malnutrition occurs when dietary
intake is inadequate and health is unsatisfactory. Readily available food, appropriate health systems and a
“healthy” environment are ineffective unless these resources are used effectively. As a result, the absence
of proper care in households and communities is the third necessary element of the underlying causes
91
of malnutrition. Finally, this conceptual framework recognizes that human and environmental resources,
economic systems and political and ideological factors are basic causes that contribute to malnutrition. This
model relates the causal factors for undernutrition with different social-organizational levels. The immediate
causes affect individuals, the underlying causes relate to families, and the basic causes are related to the
community and the nation. As a result, the more indirect the causes are, the wider the population whose
nutritional status is affected.
References/Sources: Currently used by UNICEF. Also see World Bank/UNICEF Nutrition Assessment
Background Paper 2002.
d) FAO Four Pillars/Twin-Track Approach Framework
Twin Track
Approach
Rural
Development/
productivity
enhancement
Availability
Access and Utilization
Enhancing food supply to
the most vulnerable.
Re-establishing rural
institutions.
Diversifying agriculture and
employment.
Improving rural food
production especially by
small-scale farmers.
Enhancing access to assets.
Ensuring access to land.
Monitoring food security
and vulnerability.
Reviving rural financial
systems.
Dealing with the structural
causes of food insecurity.
Investing in rural markets.
Strengthening the labour
market.
Reintegrating refugees and
displaced people.
Revitalization of livestock
sector.
Mechanisms to ensure safe
food.
Developing risk analysis
and management.
Resource rehabilitation and
conservation.
Social rehabilitation
programmes.
Reviving access to credit
system and saving
mechanisms.
Transfers: Food/Cash
based.
Re-establishing social
safety nets.
Asset redistribution.
Monitoring immediate
vulnerability and
intervention impact.
Investing in rural
infrastructure.
Enhancing income and
other entitlements to food.
Direct and
Immediate Access
to Food
Stability
Food Aid.
Seed/input relief.
Restocking livestock
capital.
Enabling Market Revital.
Social rehabilitation
programmes.
Nutrition intervention
programmes.
Peace-building efforts.
See P.Pingali, L.Alinovi and Jacky Sutton (2005): Food Security in Complex Emergencies: Building Food Systems Resilience
Relevance to the IPC: This framework, adopted by FAO, uses a twin-track approach which addresses the
four pillars of food security: Food Availability, Food Access, Utilization and Stability. The first track addresses
recovery measures for establishing resilient food systems. Factors that affect food system resilience include
the structure of the food economy as a whole, as well as its components such as agricultural production,
technology, the diversification of food processing, markets and consumption. Track 2 assesses the options for
providing support to vulnerable groups. Both tracks are intended to be mutually reinforcing, and the positive
interaction between them should reinforce the path to recovery.
a.Focusing on food security
b.Fostering broad-based, sustainable agricultural and rural growth
c. Addressing the entire rural space
d.Addressing the root causes of food insecurity
e.Addressing the urban dimensions of food insecurity
f. Addressing cross-cutting issues
g.Encouraging the participation of all stakeholders in the dialogue leading up to the elaboration of the
national strategies
Annexes
Drawing on the twin-track conceptual framework, the following principles underlie the overall strategy of
FAO (Stamoulis and Zezza, 2003):
92
References/Sources: FAO Policy Brief, June 2006, Issue 2. Also see Stamoulis, K. and Zezza, A. (2003).
A Conceptual Framework for National Agricultural, Rural Development, and Food Strategies and Policies.
ESA Working Paper No. 03–17 and Pingali, P., Alinovi, L. and Sutton, J. (2005). Food Security in complex
emergencies: enhancing food system resilience. Disasters, Volume 29, June 2005.
e) Risk, Hazard and Vulnerability Framework
In as much as the terms risk, hazard, vulnerability, capacity, stability, resistance and resilience are critical
concepts for food security and humanitarian analysis, interpretation and use of the terms vary (Dilley and
Boudreau, 2001). Drawing on the conceptual development of these terms within the risk/hazards subdiscipline of Geography (White, 1975; Turner et al. 2003), the IPC operationalizes these concepts, with
specific implications for food security analysis. In particular, as used with the IPC, the term Risk refers explicitly
to the risk of changing from one Phase Classification to a worse one.
A simplified relationship between Risk, Hazard and Vulnerability is illustrated in the formula:
Risk = (Hazard) x (Vulnerability)
The Risk of a negative outcome (i.e. worsening Phase) is a function of the probability and severity of a
Hazard Event as it interacts with the Vulnerability (including exposure, sensitivity and resilience) of the system
to that particular hazard (Turner et al. 2003). Thus, Risk increases as Hazards become more severe and
Vulnerability is high. Conversely, Risk decreases when the Hazard is less severe and Vulnerability is low. For
food security analysis, a livelihoods approach that includes both livelihood strategies and livelihoods assets is
fundamental towards understanding the vulnerability of people to particular hazards, and the resulting Risk
of food insecurity.
Risk: Crichton (1999) defines Risk as the probability of a loss, which depends on three elements: hazard,
vulnerability and exposure. Downing et al. (2001) define Risk to be: expected losses (of lives, persons injured,
property damaged and economic activity disrupted) due to a particular hazard for a given area and reference
period. As used with the IPC, Risk has specific implications as specified by the “risk of deteriorating into a
particular IPC Phase”.
Hazard: Downing et al. (2001) define Hazard as a threatening event, or the probability of occurrence of a
potentially damaging phenomenon within a given time period and area. As the severity of a Hazard increases,
the Risk of a negative outcome also increases.
Vulnerability: Turner et al. (2003) note that “…vulnerability is registered not by exposure to hazards
(perturbations and stresses) alone but also resides in the sensitivity and resilience of the system experiencing
such hazards.” Vulnerability is closely related to the ability of people or systems to cope with a shock
(Chambers, 1991), their resistance (ability to withstand a shock), resilience (ability to return to a similar
state after recovering from a shock), and the stability of the system. As Vulnerability increases, the Risk of a
negative outcome also increases.
f) Health and IPC Framework
Most of the food security or livelihood analysis frameworks acknowledge health as an important factor.
The framework below is a simplified description of the complex interactions between food security,
malnutrition and morbidity at the level of a single household.
Mortality
Food insecurity
Malnutrition
morbidity
risk factors
Health services
93
Morbidity is not a single causal factor for increased food insecurity. Nonetheless, it is a potential contributing
risk factor and, in combination with other risk factors that each by themselves will not trigger food insecurity,
may result in increased food insecurity. Morbidity by itself is insufficient to estimate the extent of the risk,
as morbidity needs to be seen together with health system performance: availability and access to effective
treatment and associated costs. As such, morbidity thresholds are less essential, but health and health system
performance indicators together need to be integrated in a broader contextualized risk analysis. Such analysis
is mostly relevant for IPC phases 1 and 2, but remains a factor in all the higher phases.
When the food security deteriorates to Phase 3 and above, morbidity will increase, mostly as result of increased
malnutrition. Therefore, increased morbidity is also a direct consequence of increased food insecurity (IPC
3–5). Availability and access to essential health services may also change as the situation deteriorates. This
makes interpretation context-specific and different for each IPC phase.
Importance: In the conceptual model of causes of malnutrition developed by Helen Young (1998) and
consistent with MSF (2002) and ACF (2002), “disease”, along with “inadequate food intake”, is a direct cause
of malnutrition. Diseases, in combination with malnutrition, are the two factors that lead to the increased
mortality rates. From a household economy perspective, a family member with a disease can have a direct
negative impact on food access and availability. This includes: (1) diversion of financial resources for health
care, including catastrophic health expenditures; (2) removal of productive labour from the household either
by the sick person or by caregivers; and (3) the potential for social exclusion or marginalization.
References/Sources: It is not possible to define separate thresholds for different levels of severity of morbidity.
Morbidity indicators that may give an early indication of a worsening food security phase are incidence rates
of diseases caused by micronutrient deficiencies. Morbidity in general will increase during food insecurity.
Trends in increasing incidence of morbidity would be best detected at household levels through surveys.
Increases in outpatient department (OPD) consultation rates may also indicate increased demand for services,
if no other conditions changed that influence barriers to access services. Estimating cause-specific mortality
rates can assist in prioritizing health interventions to reduce excess mortality.
Epidemics can occur in any IPC phase, but it is likely that Attack Rates and Case Fatality Rates will be higher
when they occur in a population whose immunity is compromised due to malnutrition. Different diseases
have specific thresholds for suspecting or declaring it to become epidemic. This can range from a single case
to a minimum incidence of a certain number of cases per 100,000 population per week. Thresholds for the
severity of the epidemic and the effectiveness of the interventions to control it are formulated for several
epidemic diseases.
Explanation of IPC References: Health or disease is not included as an outcome indicator in the Acute Food
Insecurity Analysis, and therefore health indicators are not featured in the Acute Food Insecurity Reference
Tables. Health is, however, analyzed as an underlying vulnerability factor, as an acute/chronic event, and as
a contributing factor. Anaemia and Vitamin A deficiency with standard thresholds have been included as
outcome indicators in the Chronic Food Insecurity Reference Table and analysis.
Limitations: Due to the emphasis of the IPC on food security analysis, disease is analysed according to its
relation with malnutrition and the impact on mortality. Morbidity data by themselves are insufficient for
making decisions to plan health interventions. As such, the IPC does not replace detailed analysis of public
health implications for individual diseases or of the health system’s capacity to provide essential preventive
services and effective treatment.
Potential Methods: Individual diseases require specific methods for data collection and analysis. Potential
sources include EWARN (Early Warning Alert and Response Network), routine and emergency-specific
surveillance systems, population health surveys, health facility-based reporting and expert observation.
Planning of effective interventions requires analysis of the performance of the health system.
Annexes
Source: Griekspoor, A. (2010). Draft Paper on Food Insecurity, Malnutrition and Morbidity. As input to
revise the health components of the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification. WHO.
94
Annex 7. Framework of the United Nations System High Level
Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis
Millennium Development Goal1: Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger
UN CEB Communiqué on UN response to the
Global Food Crisis
Declaration of the 2008 rome High-Level
Conference on Food Security
COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION
OBJECTIVE
Improve access to food and nutrition support and
take immediate steps to increase food availability
OUTCOMES
MEETING IMMEDIATE NEEDS OF VULNERABLE
POPULATIONS
1.1 Emergency food assistance, nutrition
interventions and safety nets enhanced and
made more accessible
1.2 Smallholder farmer food production boosted
1.3 Trade and tax policy adjusted
1.4 Macro-economic implications managed
U
R
G
E
N
T
S
I
M
U
L
T
A
N
E
O
U
S
OBJECTIVE
Strengthen food and nutrition security in the
longer-run by addressing the underlying factors
driving the food crisis
OUTCOMES
BUILDING LONGER-TERM RESILIENCE AND
CONTRIBUTING TO GLOBAL FOOD AND
NUTRITION SECURITY
2.1 Social protection systems expanded
2.2 Smallholder farmer food production growth
sustained
2.3 International food markets improved
2.4 International biofuel consensus developed
3.1 Global information and monitoring systems strengthened
ACHIEVING CFA OUTCOMES
Country-Level
• Reflect jont working in country level “partnerships for food”
• Build on existing mechanisms and programs
• Undertake regulation assessments
• Consolidate actions to avoid overlaps and identify gaps
• Review existing monitoring mechanisms to track food and
nutrition security outcomes, and link them to the CFA
• Promote effective public communications
Global-Level
• Track progress towards CFA outcomes
• Ensure regular reporting
• Convene global “stocktaking” events
• Consult regularly with Member States
• Facilitate advocacy efforts on donor policy
Source: High Level Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis Updated Comprehensive Framework for Action,
September 2010
95
Relevance to the IPC: The framework of the United Nations System High Level Task Force on the Global
Food Security Crisis (HLTF) was designed as a response to the impacts of the increase in world food prices.
The framework identifies two sets of actions.
The first set is focused on outcomes to address the immediate plight of vulnerable people as both consumers
and producers of food. These outcomes are considered critical for immediate needs because they address
important implications of the rapid rise in food prices, and possible subsequent declines in food and nutrition
security for millions living on less than US$2 per day. They aim to meet the current and future demands for
food availability.
The second set provides the basis for outcomes that address structural issues, build resilience and contribute
to sustainable improvements in global food and nutrition security. It is also acknowledged that a series of
actions are needed towards strengthening and coordinating assessments and monitoring and surveillance
systems in order to meet all outcomes.
Annexes
References/Sources: At the end of April 2008 the United Nations Chief Executives Board established a
United Nations System High Level Task Force as a temporary measure to enhance the efforts of the United
Nations system and International Financial Institutions in response to the global food security crisis.
96
Annex 8. Indicators and Methods Used in the IPC Reference
Tables
Food Security
a) Dietary Diversity
Importance: Dietary diversity is a qualitative measure of food consumption that reflects household access
to a variety of foods (FAO, 2011). Household dietary diversity scores (HDDs) have been validated as proxies
of household energy availability (Hoddinot and Yohannes, 2002).
References/Sources: Swindale and Bilinsky (2006) and FAO (2011) identify 12 main food groups used to
calculate a dietary diversity score: cereals, white roots and tubers, vegetables, fruits, meat/poultry/offal, eggs, fish
and seafood, pulses/legumes/nuts, milk and milk products, oils/fats, sweets, and spices/condiments/beverages.
The FAO guidelines describe how to use the indicator for data collection and how to analyse the data collected.
Hoddinott, J. and Yohannes, Y. 2002. Dietary diversity as a food security indicator. FANTA, Academy
for Educational Development (AED), Washington DC. (available at http://www.aed.org/Health/upload/
dietarydiversity.pdf) Swindale A. and Bilinsky, P. 2006. Household dietary diversity score (HDDS) for
measurement of household food access: indicator guide, Version 2. FANTA, AED. FAO. 2011. Guidelines
for measuring household and individual dietary diversity.
Explanation of IPC Reference Thresholds: For the IPC, either the HDDS or the FCS (see section on Food
Consumption Score), can be used as one measure of the Key Reference Outcome of Food Consumption.
Limitations: Measures of dietary diversity typically do not include quantities consumed. There can also be
significant changes in consumption over time due to seasonal availability of foods. Thus when extrapolating
survey data to arrive at broad conclusions about the food security status, the season when assessments
were done should be taken into account.
Resource Website: FAO. 2011. Guidelines for measuring household and individual dietary diversity.
Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i1983e/i1983e00.pdf
b) Food Consumption Score and Food Consumption Groups
Importance: The Food Consumption Score (FCS) is commonly used in World Food Programme food
security surveys and monitoring systems. The FCS is a composite score based on dietary diversity, food
frequency (number of days during the past seven days) and the relative nutritional importance of different
food groups. Based on the standard thresholds within a country context, households are classified into
three Food Consumption Groups (FCGs): poor, borderline or acceptable. The indicator is correlated with
caloric intake, coping strategy index and household income.
References/Sources: For more information see Guidance on the Use of the Food Consumption Score
and Food Consumption Groups in the IPC context. Interagency Workshop Report WFP – FAO, Measures of
Food Consumption Harmonizing Methodologies, Rome, 9 and 10 April 2008, and WFP Emergency Food
Security Assessment Handbook, 2010.
Explanation of IPC Reference Thresholds: The FCS serves as a proxy indicator of food consumption
outcomes for IPC analysis. If certain proportions of households within geographic areas (e.g. administrative
levels, livelihood zones, crisis areas) fall into poor or borderline categories or a combination thereof, then
thresholds could be determined that would allow classifying respective areas according to IPC phases.
Limitations: The FCS is a snapshot of one week of food consumption and therefore needs to be interpreted in
the seasonal context, quantifying the food gap in terms of caloric intake, or showing how food consumption
has changed as a result of a crisis (unless a pre-crisis baseline or data from a monitoring system is available).
Resource Websites: Guidance on the Use of the Food Consumption Score and Food Consumption
Groups in the IPC context. Interagency Workshop Report WFP – FAO, Measures of Food Consumption –
Harmonizing Methodologies, Rome, 9 and 10 April 2008.
97
c) Household Food Insecurity Access Scale/Household Hunger Scale
Importance: The Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) assesses whether households have
experienced problems in food access in the preceding 30 days by measuring the severity of food insecurity
for that period, as reported by the households themselves. It also measures food consumption strategies
adopted by households when facing a lack of access to food. The main difference between the HFIAS and
the Household Hunger Scale (HHS) is that the HFIAS is composed of nine questions, whereas the HHS uses
only three questions (out of the nine) which were found to be valid across cultures.
References/Sources: For more information see validation of a Measure of Household Hunger for CrossCultural Use, May 2010, available at www.fantaproject.org.
Explanation of IPC Reference Thresholds: The HFIAS/HHS assesses whether households have
experienced problems in food access during the preceding 30 days (four weeks) and measures the severity
of food insecurity in the past 30 days, as reported by the households themselves. It can be incorporated into
household survey instruments and serves as a measure of Food Consumption for the IPC. The cutoffs for the
acute scale are derived from the HHS which gives three categories for HHS: “little to no household hunger”
(scores 0–1), “moderate household hunger” (scores 2–3) and “severe household hunger” (scores 4-6).
Limitations: It is likely, however, that HFIAS will be gradually replaced by HHS, and for these reasons HHS,
instead of HFIAS, has been incorporated in the acute and chronic reference tables of the IPC.
Resource Websites: Validation of a Measure of Household Hunger for Cross-Cultural Use. May 2010.
http://www.fantaproject.org/downloads/pdfs/HHS_Validation_Report_May2010.pdf
d) The Household Economy Approach
Importance: The Household Economy Approach (HEA) is a livelihoods-based framework founded on
the analysis of: (1) how people in different social and economic circumstances get the food and cash
they need; (2) their assets, the opportunities available to them, and the constraints they face; and (3) the
options open to them at times of crisis.
References/Sources: Adapted from the Practitioners’ Guide to HEA Chapter 1: Introduction to the HEA
Framework and communication with FEWS NET and the Food Economy Group (FEG) representatives.
Additional information available from The Food Economy Group website (www.feg-consulting.com.).
Explanation of IPC Reference Thresholds: The HEA cutoffs used in the IPC acute scale relate to the
extent to which households meet the minimum food quantity (2,100 kcal/day) for daily functioning. In the
IPC chronic food scale the focus is on livelihood protection deficit. This is because the areas under chronic
food security analysis are not expected to be currently facing shocks that would force the population to cut
down on their consumption to the level of the survival deficit. If this happens, the population/households
should be classified by using the acute reference scale.
Limitations: The use of HEA thresholds as reference points for IPC analysis requires that HEA baselines exist
for the areas in question, and that analyses run using those baselines use information on the translation of
impacts of shocks into economic consequences at household level.
Resource Websites: FEG. The Food Economy Group. Available at: http://www.feg-consulting.com/hea.
See also the World Food Programme Food Security Assessment Handbook.
Importance: With reference to consumption coping strategies, the Coping Strategies Index (CSI) is an
indicator of household food security. A series of questions about how households manage to cope with
a shortfall in food for consumption results in a simple numeric score. This index results in a score that
reflects current and perceived future food security status. Changes in the index provide a rapid indication
of whether food insecurity is getting worse or the situation is improving – a higher score indicates a greater
level of coping, and hence increased food insecurity.
Annexes
e) Coping Strategies Index
98
In the case of livelihood coping strategies, Médicines Sans Frontières ( MSF, Holland) identifies three main
levels: (1) insurance strategies (reversible coping, preserving productive assets, reduced food intake, etc.);
(2) crisis strategies (irreversible coping threatening future livelihoods, sale of productive assets, etc.); and
(3) distress strategies (starvation and death, and no more coping mechanisms) (MSF 2005).
References/Sources: The Coping Strategies Index (CSI) developed by CARE and WFP (Coping Strategies
Index Field Methods Manual 2nd Edition. WFP 2008) and MSF Holland (2005).
Explanation of IPC Reference Thresholds: The CSI can be used as a proxy indicator for food consumption
and food security at the household level, given that the CSI is currently being used (1) in emergencies to
monitor the impact of interventions on household food insecurity and (2) as a food insecurity early warning
indicator. Furthermore, the IPC directly incorporates the MSF typology of coping for Phases 2, 3 and 4.
Limitations: Since the CSI is most rigorously applied when analysed against reference figures, it is
necessary to conduct the rapid CSI assessment several times during the course of a crisis. Also, as coping
strategies are typically influenced by livelihood systems, its rigor is improved by developing a CSI specific
to main livelihood types (FSAU 2006). However since the CSI is contextual and is best referenced to itself
(baseline), the comparability across space is limited, yet the degrees of change from the baseline are
effective indicators of food security.
Resource Websites: Coping Strategies Index Field Methods Manual 2nd Edition. WFP 2008. home.wfp.
org/stellent/groups/public/documents/.../wfp211058.pdf.
f) Water Access/Availability
Importance: “Water is essential for life, health and human dignity…In most cases, the main health
problems are caused by poor hygiene due to insufficient water and by the consumption of contaminated
water” (Sphere 2004). Thus water access and availability are both a direct indicator (through basic survival
levels) and indirect indicator (by affecting the adequate utilization of food) of Phase severity.
References/Sources: The Sphere Handbook identifies water requirements for different basic survival
needs: survival needs for water intake (2.5-3 litres per day), basic hygiene practices (2-6 litres per day), basic
cooking needs (3-6 litres per day) and total combined basic water needs (7.5-15 litres per day). These values
depend on a number of local factors including climate, individual physiology and social/cultural norms.
Explanation of IPC Reference Thresholds: The IPC integrates water access and availability at all Phases,
with specific reference thresholds identified. The IPC generally follows the Sphere guidelines for total basic
needs, while adjusting these levels to fit the Phase classes.
Limitations: The basic water requirements listed in the IPC are for human use only. For pastoral societies in
particular, water requirements for livestock would significantly increase these amounts, and are necessary
to consider for responses. Furthermore, basic water access and availability do not take into consideration
other factors such as time and distances required to fetch water. For further key indicators of water supply
adequacy (see Sphere 2004).
Nutrition
a) Acute Malnutrition
Importance: Wasting is defined as weight-for-height index (w/h) less than -2 Z-scores. Global acute
malnutrition rates include the percent of the population that is < -2 Z-scores plus cases of oedema. Acute
malnutrition is a direct outcome indicator of recent changes in nutritional status. High or increasing levels
of acute malnutrition in a population indicate current or recent stress at individual or household level.
References/Sources: The United Nations Standing Committee on Nutrition (SCN) states that “A
prevalence of acute malnutrition between 5–8% indicates a worrying nutritional situation and a
prevalence of greater than 10% corresponds to a serious nutrition situation” (SCN, 2004, p. 37). WHO
provides guidance as follows: low (<5%), medium (5-9%, high (10-14%) and very high (>=15%) (quoted
99
from FAO 2005, p 47). Howe and Devereux (2005) reference “Famine Conditions” as 20-40%, and
“Severe Famine Conditions” as >40%.
Explanation of IPC Reference Thresholds: The IPC incorporates acute malnutrition in all Phases, and
is generally consistent with the sources cited above. A key reference threshold is that for Humanitarian
Emergency, where wasting is >15%. Making adjustments to fit the IPC phases, the reference threshold for
Famine/Humanitarian Catastrophe is >30%, which is halfway between the thresholds used by Howe and
Devereux for “Famine” and “Severe Famine” conditions.
Limitations: While wasting is a direct outcome of nutritional and health status, limitations in its use and
interpretation include: (1) wasting can be a late outcome indicator of a crisis, and response mechanisms
based on wasting can be too late for meaningful action; and (2) in populations where levels of acute
malnutrition are high outside times of acute crisis, levels during periods of crisis can be difficult to interpret.
b) Stunting
Importance: Stunting is defined as <-2 Z scores height for age. The CDC (Center for Disease Control)
defines stunting as “Growth failure in a child that occurs over a slow cumulative process as a result of
inadequate nutrition and/or repeated infections” (WFP and CDC 2005). As such, levels of stunting indicate
overall poverty and chronic malnutrition, of which food insecurity can be a contributing factor.
References/Sources: WHO provides the following guidance for interpreting stunting prevalence as a %
with height for age < -2 Z scores: low (<20%), medium (20-29%), high (30-39%) and very high (>=40%)
(FAO 2005 p. 47). Also see Young and Jaspers, 2009.
Explanation of IPC Reference Thresholds: The IPC includes stunting as it is a measure of long-term
effects of food security status; whereas wasting is a better measure of acute and highly dynamic situations.
The reference threshold of >20% is used to classify areas that are Chronically Food Insecure. The IPC cutoffs used in both acute and chronic reference tables are based on international standards (see Young and
Jaspers, 2009).
Limitations: In addition to the normal challenges faced in survey sampling and data collection, stunting
poses an additional challenge since it requires the subject’s age to be known. For many societies this
information is not readily available or incorrect due to lack of records.
c) Crude Death Rate
Importance: Crude Death Rate (CDR) is the number of deaths per 10,000 people in a population per day
or the number of deaths per 1000 people in a population per month. The Crude Death Rate is frequently
used to gauge the severity of a public health emergency. A crude death rate has four components:
1. A specified measurement period.
2. The numerator: the number of deaths that occurred in a specified geographic area during a given
References/Sources: In emergency situations CDR is expressed as the number of deaths / 10,000 people
/ day. It is measured by the formula: total number of deaths to residents in a specified geographic area
(country, state, county, etc.) divided by the total number of persons at risk of dying during that period for
the same geographic area (for a specified time period, usually a calendar year) and multiplied by 100,000.
More detailed information on CDRs is available at Statistical Notes for Health Planners. No. 3. Mortality.
Kleinman, J. C. February 1977. 16 pp. (HRA)
Explanation of IPC Reference Thresholds: The IPC integrates CDR in all Phases. The IPC is generally
consistent with the sources cited above, with some modifications to fit the Phases. The inclusion of CDR
and 0-5 Death Rate (0-5DR) for the emergency phases of the IPC (3-5) is therefore appropriate. It can
Annexes
period of time.
3. The denominator: the total number of people in the population at risk in the same geographic area
for the same period of time (“person-years at risk”).
4. A constant. The result of the fraction is usually multiplied by some factor of 10 (such as 100,000), so
that the rate may be expressed as a whole number.
100
also be noted that since mortality levels are expected to remain at normal levels in a chronic food security
context, mortality-related indicators have not been included in the chronic IPC scale.
Limitations: Despite its direct relationship to extreme food insecurity, it may be difficult to measure CDR
in real time during an emergency. Challenges include: (1) shifting base populations due to dynamic inand- out migration; (2) small incidences with high variability; (3) the high potential for as yet “unknown”
status; and (4) other complicating factors. Furthermore, real-time data are rarely available also because of
a lack of a surveillance system.
Note on Conversion of Mortality Rates
The CDR and Under 5 Death Rates (U5DR) are used as indicators for mortality outcome in the IPC acute food
insecurity analysis. These indicators express mortality in number of deaths per 10,000 per day. The data collection
is usually done by retrospective surveys, collecting data on deaths, for example, for the past three months.
Normally these indicators are used in situations where sudden events (shocks) create a spike in mortality.
In many countries, however, data on these specific indicators are not available, and the commonly used
indicators are Crude Mortality Rate (CMR) and Under 5 Mortality Rate (U5MR). CMR tracks overall mortality in
a given population for a specific time period, whereas U5MR indicates the probability of dying between birth
and the fifth birthday, which is expressed by number of deaths per 1,000 children within the first five years
of life (x/1000/5 years). The data on CMR and U5MR are usually collected by national health authorities, and
U5MR data are also collected in the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHSs) and Multiple Indicator Cluster
Surveys (MICSs).
The values given by the different indicators (CDR vs. CMR and U5DR vs. U5MR) are not directly comparable
as they measure different things. However, it is possible to convert the U5MR into U5DR and CMR into CDR
by using a certain formula (see below), provided by WHO. The conversion is contingent upon validity of two
assumptions:
1. Mortality is constant within the recall period. This assumption may be difficult to uphold if conditions
change rapidly – for example during a crisis. In a stable situation the mortality rates are expected to
remain more constant.
2. Age distribution remains equal during the recall period.
(The formula for the conversion is:
CDR or U5DR = - ln(1-p/1000)*5.47
In which ln is the natural logarithm of the results of the calculation of (1-p/1000) and p is the U5MR or CDR) .
d) Body Mass Index (BMI)
Importance: Body Mass Index (BMI) is an index of weight-for-height that is commonly used to classify
underweight, overweight and obesity in adults, also called a Quetelet index. It is defined as the weight in
kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters (kg/m2). The BMI indicator refers to the weight-forheight of non-pregnant women of reproductive age (15–49 years).
References/Sources: Adapted from Helen Young and Susan Jaspers, 2009. “Review of Nutrition and
Mortality Indicators for the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) Reference Levels and
Decision-Making.”
Explanation of IPC Reference Thresholds: The IPC integrates BMI into both the Acute and Chronic
Scales. Based on the percentage of population that are underweight (BM1< 18.5) classification of the
appropriate Chronic or Acute Phase is possible. The threshold and cutoffs are based on reference levels
recommended by WHO. The multiplier of 1.5 indicates a shift to a higher phase, but applies only to rates
below 20% (phase 2 in acute reference table) as per recommendations by IPC nutrition workshop and the
Young and Jaspers nutrition study.
Limitations: It is important to note that since BMI calculation is solely dependent on the net weight and
height of the individual; BMI values ought not to be analysed in isolation but must be correlated to other
101
anthropometric dimensions and body shape of the individual. In addition the WHO reference levels need
to be reviewed on the basis of current global distribution of low BMI.
Resource Websites for Nutrition: Nutrition indicators for development. Reference Guide. Maire F.
Delpeuch, FAO, 2005. http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/y5773e/y5773e05.htm#bm05.1.
See also, Helen Young and Susan Jaspers 2009, “Review of Nutrition and Mortality Indicators for the
Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) Reference Levels and Decision-Making.”
e) Anaemia
Importance: Anaemia, as defined by haemoglobin concentration or hematocrit level below established
cutoffs for age, sex and physiological status (pregnancy), is a commonly used proxy indicator of iron deficiency
in field conditions. The prevalence of anaemia in children and/or women is used to assess the public health
significance of iron deficiency. It should nevertheless be noted that other common and often associated
causes of anaemia are parasitic diseases (malaria, ankylostomiasis, schistosomiasis) and genetic traits.
References/Sources: Adapted from WHO Guidelines: “Iron Deficiency Anaemia – Assessment, Prevention
and Control”. 2001.
Explanation of IPC Reference Thresholds: The IPC integrates anaemia into the Chronic Reference Table. The
thresholds used are adapted from the WHO Guidelines and classify anaemia prevalence into four categories of
public health significance of iron deficiency (normal <5%, mild 5–19.9, moderate 20–39.9, and severe ≥40).
Limitations: Even though anaemia is considered as a good indicator of iron deficiency at population
level, its main limitation is that it is also caused by other factors and diseases. This means that anaemia
prevalence is a result of several factors which may need to be analysed more in detail before targeted
interventions may be implemented.
Resource Websites: Iron Deficiency Anemia – Assessment, Prevention, and Control. Available at: http://
whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2001/WHO_NHD_01.3.pdf.
f) Vitamin A deficiency
Importance: Vitamin A deficiency is an important cause of childhood blindness and of morbidity and
mortality of children from infections. It affects mainly the poorest population groups and, within those
groups, children and pregnant women in particular. Two indicators are used to assess the prevalence
of vitamin A deficiency: a clinical indicator – night blindness; and a biochemical marker – low serum
or plasma retinol concentration (<0.70 μmol/l) – in pre-school-age children or pregnant women. Low
serum retinol reveals marginal vitamin A deficiency before the deficiency is severe enough to cause clinical
manifestations such as night blindness.
References/Sources: WHO Vitamin A Deficiency Guidelines: “Global prevalence of vitamin A deficiency
in populations at risk 1995–2005.” WHO Global Database on Vitamin A Deficiency. 2009.
Explanation of IPC Reference Thresholds: The IPC uses the biochemical indicator of vitamin A deficiency,
namely serum or plasma retinol, in the Chronic Reference Table. The thresholds are derived from the WHO
Guidelines and indicate the public health significance of vitamin A deficiency (mild 2–9.9%, moderate
10–19.9%, and severe ≥20%).
Resource Websites: Global prevalence of vitamin A deficiency in populations at risk 1995–2005. Available
at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2009/9789241598019_eng.pdf.
Annexes
Limitations: Data availability at subnational level on vitamin A deficiency may be limited, especially as
data collection demands a blood test, which adds survey costs and requires high technical competence.
A limitation of using serum or plasma retinol concentration as an indicator of vitamin A status is that
it is decreased by acute and underlying chronic infections. Thus the serum retinol measurements may
overestimate the prevalence of vitamin A deficiency in a population with a high prevalence of infection.
102
Annex 9. A Summary of FEWS NET’s Scenario Development
Approach for Food Security Early Warning
Food security early warning requires the estimation of future food security outcomes many months in advance.
However, definitively predicting the future is almost impossible given the complex web of factors which will
shape food security during the period ahead. Since early warning is the primary mandate of early warning
projects like FEWS NET, how can these two conflicting issues be reconciled? The answer is scenario development.
Scenario development relies on the creation of specific, informed assumptions about future events, their
effects, and the likely responses of various actors. In combination with an understanding of current conditions,
these assumptions allow for the estimation of future food security outcomes. In addition, a clear description
of key assumptions facilitates both the communication of the food security analysis and the process of
updating scenarios as new information becomes available. For these reasons, scenario development is a key
pillar of FEWS NET’s work.
This document provides general guidance on the key steps of food security scenario development and
highlights a number of important guiding principles that should inform this work.
SECTION 1: An overview of the steps to scenario development
At its core, scenario development is little more than a sophisticated “if – then” statement. For the purpose
of early warning, however, getting from “if” to “then” involves a multi-step process that requires clearly
documented analysis and assumptions at each stage (Figure 1).
To begin, step 1 of scenario development involves making three choices. First, analysts must choose what type
of scenario to develop. Scenario types can be defined by probability of occurrence (e.g. a best-case scenario,
a worst-case scenario, a most likely scenario), or relate to a specific event (e.g. a flood scenario, a drought
scenario). Note that identifying the “most likely” outcomes is often the most useful for decision-makers,
although additional scenario types can also be helpful. Second, the geographic scope of the scenario needs
to be determined. What area(s) will the analyst build a scenario for: a livelihood zone, a region, or a smaller
administrative area? Keep in mind that the more heterogeneous the area, the more difficult scenario building
will be. Therefore, if the final scenario needs to cover a large area (such as an entire country or region),
breaking this area into smaller pieces (e.g. livelihoods zones, smaller administrative units) and developing
a number of smaller scenarios will facilitate better analysis. Finally the time period of interest needs to be
established. For example, will the scenario cover a three-month period or the entire consumption year?
The remaining steps should be performed for each area identified in step 1:
In step 2, evidence of current food security conditions and outcomes should be summarized and put into
context. Are households in the area of concern currently meeting basic food needs? Why or why not? How
are they doing so? Through seasonally typical means, like crop production or purchases? Or through less
common means, like food aid or atypical selling of productive assets? If deficits do exist, which households
are most affected (e.g. a specific wealth group or sub-population)? Are levels of malnutrition and mortality
high? And how do they compare to seasonal norms?
Finally, based on the assessment of current conditions and outcomes, groups of households should be
classified using a food insecurity severity scale.
In step 3 the primary sources of food consumed during the scenario period in a typical year are identified, with
a particular emphasis on the foods consumed by the groups most at risk of food insecurity. This information
should include the type of food (e.g. maize, beans), the source (e.g. own production, wild foods, in-kind
payment, gifts, purchases), and the time when this food is accessed (e.g. September harvests). Bringing
all three elements together, one example of a March food source in southern Somalia could be sorghum
from own production harvested in January. If market purchases are important, the sources and timing of
the income used for these purchases should also be described. For instance, in one area of southwestern
Ethiopia, poor household maize purchases during the February-June period are funded by wages earned
harvesting crops between October and December.
103
Step 4 has two parts. First, factors relevant to food security which are expected
to behave normally during the scenario period should be highlighted. For example,
cereal prices are expected to follow their typical seasonal pattern during the scenario
period or expenditure on agricultural inputs is expected to be normal.
In the second part of step 4, shocks (also known as anomalies or hazard events)
expected during the given scenario are identified. Both positive and negative shocks
should be identified at this stage. Then, assumptions need to be made about the
timing, duration, and severity of the expected shocks. Frequently, multiple shocks
may be expected to occur during the scenario period. For example, a policy decision
to stop input subsidies could occur shortly after poor rainfall is forecast and while
conflict continues along a key border point. Remember, this step should only describe
new shocks that are anticipated during the scenario period. Past or recent shocks, if
relevant, should be described in Step 2.
In step 5, the direct effects of the identified shocks are estimated. “Direct effects”
are the precise thing(s) that the shock directly disrupts or alters. In some cases, the
shock may directly affect the household, such as a flood that destroys homes or
takes lives. However, in most cases, households are affected indirectly. For example,
poor rains directly affect crop yields, as does the lack of inputs. Likewise, conflict may
directly affect market access. More precise estimates of the magnitude and extent
of the direct effect of a hazard event usually become available over time. However,
in order to provide early warning, analysts need to make assumptions about how a
hazard event will affect key factors related to food security, such as crop production
and market access, before definitive information on these impacts becomes available.
These assumptions may be based on historical or reference-year information or simply
on expert opinion (where historical and other information does not exist).
Step 6 focuses on describing how the direct effects described in Step 5 will affect
the food sources (and related income sources) described in Step 3. The events which
connect direct effects to impacts on household food sources are also known as
“indirect effects”. Indirect effects are distinguished from direct effects in one (or
more) of three ways:
{Timing: Indirect effects happen after direct effects, though the length of time
between direct and indirect effects can be quite variable. Example: Food prices
increase after conflict constrains market access.
{Geography: Indirect effects may happen in a different area than the shock
and direct effects. Example: Market supplies in a food deficit area may decrease
following drought and poor production in a surplus-producing area.
{Location along the supply chain: The type of effect, direct or indirect, may
depend on where people or households are located along the supply chain.
Example: A production shock would affect farmers directly and would then have
indirect effects on other groups like labourers, traders and consumers, whereas a
food-price shock would affect consumers directly.
Figure 1. Steps to scenario
development
STEP 1:
A. Choose scenario type.
B. Identify specific areas of concern.
C. Define scenario duration.
Then for
each area:
STEP 2:
A. Summarize your evidence of current
food security conditions and outcomes and
assess vulnerability.
B. Based on your response to “2A” classify
groups of households in this area using a
food insecurity severity scale.
STEP 3:
Identify the primary sources of food that
are consumed during the scenario period
in a typical year. If market purchases
are important, describe where the income
for these purchases typically comes from.
STEP 4:
A. Identify any key factors, relevant to
food security, which are expected to
behave normally during the scenario
period.
B. Identify likely shocks/anomalies and
estimate their level and extent.
STEP 5:
Estimate the direct effects of these
shocks/ events.
STEP 6:
Describe the chain of events through
which these direct effects will impact the
household food and income sources
described in Step 3.
STEP 7:
Consider household and external response.
STEP 8:
A. Estimate final projected food security
outcomes.
B. Based on your response to “8A” classify
groups of households in this area using a
food insecurity severity scale.
STEP 9:
Identify events witch could change the
scenario, and describe their effects on
food security outcomes.
Source: FEWS NET
Annexes
This information is important in highlighting household vulnerability. For example,
households in an area may be vulnerable to poor crop production because they rely
on agricultural labour during the harvest season to fund lean season staple food
purchases. This information will also be important later in the scenario building
process in determining if, how and when shocks and their effects will impact food
security. Remember, this information should reflect food sources in a normal or
baseline year.
104
Figure 2: An example of the logical flow from Steps 3 through 6
STEP 3:
Identify the primary sources of
food that are consumed during
the scenario period in a typical
year. If market purchases are
important, describe where the
income for these purchases
typically comes from.
STEP 4:
A. Identify any key
factors, relevant to
food security, which are
expected to behave
normally during the
scenario period.
STEP 6:
Describe the chain of events
through which these direct
effects will impact the
household food and income
sources described in Step 3.
STEP 4:
Estimate the
direct effects of
these shocks/
events.
FOOD SOURCE #1
INDIRECT EFFECT/HH
IMPACT
Maize from own
production
(Sept harvest).
Household stocks will
decline 30 percent
FOOD SOURCE #2
Sept-Det market
purchase from the
Habombo market.
INCOME SOURCE
FOR FOOD
PURCHASE
Jul-Sept wage labor
(weeding/
harvesting).
SHOCK
Rainfall begins late
and is 65 percent
of average.
DIRECT EFFECT
INDIRECT EFFECT
Maize
production is
70 percent of
the 5-years
average.
Middle and better
off households will
hire 25 percent less
labor for weeding
and harvesting
INDIRECT EFFECT/HH
IMPACT
INDIRECT EFFECT
Increased
competition for jobs
will drive wages
down 20 percent
Income from wage
labor will decline 40
percent
INDIRECT EFFECT
INDIRECT EFFECT
Habombo market
supplies of maize
will be 10 percent
lower than normal
Maize prices will be 15
percent higher than normal
throughout the
consumption year
INDIRECT EFFECT/HH
IMPACT
Household purchasing
power will decline 50
percent
Source: FEWS NET
This chain of events between a direct effect and impact on household food sources may be very short in
some cases and longer in others. Figure 2 illustrates a simple example of one shock, one direct effect and the
indirect effects which lead to household level impacts. In one case, the chain of events between the direct
effect (poor maize production) and the impact on a household food source (a decline in household stocks) is
very short. However in another case, the chain of events between the direct effect (poor maize production)
and the impact on a household food source (declining labour income) is more involved. As in step 5, better
information on these “indirect effects” may become available later in the season. However, before this
information is available, clear assumptions may need to be made in order to construct a useful scenario.
In step 7, the analyst estimates the impacts on food sources resulting from household, community and
external responses. To do so, the analyst makes assumptions about the timing, duration and magnitude of
the expected responses. Where livelihoods information (e.g. baselines, profiles) does exist, it provides useful
information on household coping. However, some assumptions may still need to be made. For example, we
may know that poor households typically send one member for migratory labour in a bad year. We may have
to assume, however, that there is enough demand to support these labourers. Where little or no livelihoods
information exists, assumptions may need to be made about how and to what degree households will be able
to cope. These assumptions may be based on historical data, anecdotal information or expert judgement and
experience. In addition to assumptions about household response, similar assumptions should be made about
the level, timing and duration of external response (e.g. humanitarian aid, policy decisions, trader decisions).
In step 8, information on initial household-level impacts (Step 6) and response (Step 7) are pulled together
and considered within the context of local livelihood systems to estimate projected food security outcomes.
Remember, in these scenarios we are interested in food security outcomes for people, rather than statements
about crops, animals or food prices. For example, once assumptions about coping and external response have
been accounted for, will the household see a net reduction in food and/or income access? Will the impact be
significant enough to threaten household livelihood security? Will it be significant enough that households will
face food deficits and/or increased risk of acute malnutrition? Ideally, these food security outcomes should be
analysed by livelihood zone(s) and disaggregated geographically and by population group (e.g. wealth group).
Where livelihood baseline information exists, outcome analyses can be run to project the level and extent of
survival and livelihood protection deficits.2 In countries where baseline data do not exist, projections should
be made based on assumptions about the extent to which a shock will reduce household income and ability
to access food. These assumptions may be informed by other types of livelihoods data, like profiles or simple
zone descriptions. Even where livelihood baselines do exist, some household-level assumptions need to be
2 For information on survival and livelihoods protection thresholds, see The Practitioner’s Guide to HEA, which can be located in the
"Livelihoods" section of the FEWS NET website under "Guidance and Tools": http://v4.fews.net/Pages/livelihoods.aspx?loc=6&l=en.
105
made. For example, we assume that households will behave as they did in the baseline year provided that
assets and opportunities available to them are the same.
When discussing food security outcomes, a mediocre scenario might say, “Over the next six months food
insecurity will increase in the northern agropastoral areas to high and extreme levels.” A better scenario might
say something like:
Over the next six months food insecurity will increase in the northern agropastoral areas to high
and extreme levels. Almost all poor households will face food deficits of up to 20 percent during
the peak lean season (September–October) even once significant coping has occurred – likely in
the form of livestock sales and increased charcoal production. Among middle-income households,
those who rely heavily on bean production (about 40 percent of the wealth group) will experience
food deficits of 5–10 percent during the same period. Households from both wealth groups that
live in the three western districts, where market access is poorer, will likely face even larger deficits,
assuming that food assistance programmes are not initiated. Atypical migration from these areas
towards the regional capital is likely to take place by August. Better-off households, about 15
percent of the region’s population, will meet all food and non-food needs. Levels of global acute
malnutrition, which typically range from 7–9 percent during September–October, are expected to be
above normal, although increased mortality is not expected.
In step 9, events that could change the scenario outcomes are identified and the impacts of these alternative
assumptions are described. As discussed above, scenario-building requires that food security analysts make
many assumptions. For some of these assumptions, the individual or group building the scenario may feel
very confident. For other assumptions, they may feel less confident. It is important that information reflecting
this uncertainty, when it occurs, is communicated to decision-makers. Also, there may be events which are
unlikely, but would have a significant impact on food security outcomes if they occurred (e.g. a hurricane
in Haiti). Therefore, to ensure that decision-makers have all the necessary information, and to ensure that
analysts have an opportunity to explain why things may turn out differently than anticipated, it is good
practice to identify the key events which, although they are not included in the scenario, are probable and
would result in different food security outcomes than those identified in Step 8.
To accomplish this, all of the major assumptions that were made during the scenario-building process should
be revisited. This review should include both assumptions about shocks in Step 4 (e.g. how rainfall will
perform), as well as assumptions made in other steps of the scenario-building process (e.g. assumptions
about direct/indirect impacts or responses). Next, the analyst should identify the key assumptions for which
she or he has less confidence or which are particularly important to the scenario outcomes. For each of these
assumptions, the analyst should identify a probable alternative and describe how food security outcomes, as
described in Step 8, would change if this alternative came to pass. Note that these descriptions of how things
may turn out differently can be brief. The objective here is not to develop another full scenario, but instead
to highlight monitoring priorities.
SECTION 2: Guiding principles
As a complement to the nine steps outlined above, the following guiding principles should be considered
when building food security scenarios.
A. Align scenario development with the Disaster Risk Reduction Framework
RISK = ƒ (Hazard, Vulnerability/Coping Capacity)
The DRR framework, expressed in this way, is powerful because it helps us differentiate between cause and
effect. “Risk” is the effect or outcome we are measuring, specifically the “risk of food insecurity”. There are
two factors that cause this outcome: the external cause, which is the hazard; and the internal cause, which
is a combination of people’s vulnerability to that hazard and their capacity to cope with it.
Annexes
It order to maintain consistency, food security scenario development needs to use a common vocabulary.
Because famine early warning is essentially a form of disaster risk analysis, it makes sense to adopt a vocabulary
that is consistent with the internationally agreed-upon Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) framework. Disaster risk
is typically understood as a function of some hazard and the vulnerability of a population to that hazard (and
likewise, their ability to cope). This relationship can be expressed as follows:
106
In food security analysis, a household may be “vulnerable” to a particular hazard, but not necessarily at “risk”
of food insecurity. Why is this the case? First, a household’s level of vulnerability to a particular hazard will
vary depending on how the household meets its basic needs, which is related to its livelihood system – i.e.
the assets or capitals (social, natural, physical, financial, productive and human) available to it. For instance,
if a household meets these needs by relying primarily on crop production, then a staple price shock will not
necessarily put this household at risk of food insecurity. A drought, on the other hand, may. Second, the
magnitude of the hazard is important to consider, as there are variations within each year and from year to
year. Third, even if a household is vulnerable to a hazard, it may still be able to effectively respond, or cope, by
increasing reliance on livelihood strategies not affected by that hazard, or by drawing down on food stocks or
savings. So, the risk of food insecurity depends not only on the household’s vulnerability to a hazard, but also
the magnitude of that hazard and the coping capacity of households in the short- and medium-terms.
B. Incorporate seasonality into scenario analysis
Just as shocks will impact different households in different ways, they will impact households differently at
different times during the scenario period. For example, a spike in staple food prices will have more of an
impact if it occurs during a period when food stocks from own production are depleted and households are
more reliant on purchases. Crop losses may affect agricultural labourers during peak labour periods (loss
of cash income and in-kind payment) as well as following the harvest (losses in own production for sale
and consumption). Similarly, options for household response will change depending on the time of year.
Households might typically rely on the collection of wild foods during the lean season. But, if the harvest is
especially poor and food shortages begin earlier than normal, these foods may not yet be available. As such,
scenarios should be sure to include a consideration of seasonality. Discussion of shocks, effects and response
should include information on timing, and scenarios should describe food security outcomes over the course
of the scenario period, not just at the end.
C. Use historical data to inform assumptions
Making informed assumptions about future shocks, effects and response will always require an assessment of
current conditions and some level of expert judgement. However, historical data should also play an important
role in informing the development of these assumptions. Historical information can include both quantitative
data, like historical price or production data, and qualitative information, like an understanding of how
households have coped with similar conditions in the past. For example, information on typical patterns of
acute malnutrition could be used to inform estimates of the likely caseload for feeding centres over the coming
six months. Or, analogue years could help to estimate the likely impacts of forecast rainfall on cropping.
D. Consider the relevant regional and international context
Although food security scenarios are typically developed on a country-by-country basis, it is important to
consider regional factors in the analysis. Events in a neighbouring or even a distant country can raise important
questions about how food security conditions and outcomes will develop. It is important to recognize when
such events are likely to impact household food security and to include this information when developing
scenarios. For example, are there any trade policies in neighbouring countries that will affect food supply and
prices in the scenario? Will conflict in a neighbouring country affect access to markets, land or social services?
Will above-average regional production offset localized production deficits? Will drought in major cerealexporting countries (e.g. Australia, Thailand, United States of America) affect the price of imported cereals?
E. Provide clear descriptions of food security outcomes
Food security analysis is ultimately concerned with the food security outcomes for people. As such, scenarios
must go beyond the prediction of shocks (e.g. crop failure, high food prices) and the description of food
security conditions to an analysis of how these shocks will impact households and affect their food security.
Food security outcomes should describe the level of food access and food utilization of households in the
area of analysis. This includes a description of who is food insecure (e.g. what population or wealth group,
size of the food insecure-population), the expected duration of this food insecurity, the severity of this food
insecurity, and any relevant comment on coping or external response.
107
FEWSNET Scenario Summary Table
STEP 1A – Choose scenario type (e.g. most likely).
STEP 1B – Identify geographic area of focus.
STEP 1C – Define scenario duration and timing.
STEP 2A – Summarize your evidence of current food
security conditions and outcomes (food consumption,
livelihoods, nutrition, mortality).
(“Current” means beginning of the first month of the
scenario period)
STEP 2B – Based on your response to 2A, classify the
households in this area, using a food insecurity severity
scale.
STEP 3 – Identify the primary sources of food that are
consumed during the scenario period. If market purchases
are important, describe where the income for these
purchases typically comes from. What does this information
tell you about household vulnerability?
STEP 4A – Identify any key factors, relevant to food security,
which are expected to behave normally during the scenario
period.
STEP 4B – Identify likely shocks and estimate their level and
extent. Shocks relevant to poor households are particularly
important to identify. Shocks can also be throught of as
“anomalies”.
STEP 5 – What are the direct effects of these shocks/
anomalies?
STEP 6 – Describe the chain of events though which these
direct effects will impact the household food and income
sources described in Step 3.
STEP 7 – How are households and external actors likely to
respond to the impacts described in Step 6?
STEP 8A – Given current conditions and outcomes (Step 2),
projected impacts on food and income sources (Step 6) and
likely response (Step 7), what are the projected food security
outcomes in terms of food consumption, livelihoods,
nutrition and mortality during the scenario period, especially
for very poor and poor households in this area?
Be sure to describe expected food security outcomes over
the entire scenario period.
STEP 8B – Based on your response to 8A, classify the
households in this area using a food insecurity severity scale.
STEP 9 – If only one scenario is being developed (e.g. a
most likely scenario), list possible events that could change
this scenario and briefly describe their likely impact.
Select events that:
{{ Are possible, but are not included in the scenario
(steps 4–7)
(incomes, expenses, and/or sources of food)
In addition to local events please consider macro-level,
regional, international, or other events exogenous to a
strictly national analysis.
Annexes
{{ Would have a significant impact on food security
108
Annex 10. Joint Research Centre Guidelines on the Use of
Remote Sensing for IPC Analysis
Satellite imagery can be used to observe rainfall and vegetation conditions close to real time in practically
all regions of the world, down to very small areas in individual countries. The main benefit of using satellite
imagery is the improved understanding of crop production and crop conditions, especially when imagery of
the current situation or season is compared to previous seasons or to what can be assumed to be the average
or normal condition. This provides a qualitative indication of how “good” or “bad” the current season is
when compared with other seasons or with the average situation.
There are different types of satellite imagery available, but the two most common are related to rainfall
and vegetation. Rainfall is normally the main limiting factor for crop development in arid and semi-arid
regions and is the first indicator to look at, by following the dekadal (10–day period) rainfall and cumulated
rainfall. NDVI (normalized difference vegetation index) is a direct observation of vegetation performance and
therefore also a good indicator of climatic conditions preceding the date of observation.
Despite the relatively good and qualitative data derived, remote sensing data should be used mainly as indirect
evidence when sufficient direct evidence on key reference outcomes (mainly food availability) is not available.
Remote sensing information can also be used to support other key reference outcomes such as livelihood
assets, hazards, and even water. Nevertheless, remote sensing data should never be used without detailed
accompanying metadata and ground data, clearly described legends and information on the reliability of the
derived products and maps.
For more information:
Please see the guidelines on the use of remote sensing data for IPC analysis on the IPC website.
Several institutions distribute free remote sensing information and products. For example:
http://www.vgt4africa.org/
http://earlywarning.usgs.gov/fews/#DATA_PORTALS
http://www.marsop.info/marsop3/
109
Annex 11. IPC Related Initiatives
Health and Nutrition Tracking Service
(www.thehnts.org)
The Health and Nutrition Tracking Service (HNTS) is a collaboration of non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), United Nations agencies, and donors for the review, analysis and validation of critical health and
nutrition data-gathering methodologies and information in selected humanitarian emergencies.
The main objective of the HNTS is to support humanitarian decision-making by offering the best possible
evidence base for information on health and nutrition. This is achieved by:
{{ Tracking mortality and malnutrition in selected crises;
{{ Validating data for completeness and quality;
{{ Conducting operational research on improved methods in data gathering and tools.
Primary collaboration at the global level is through the Global Health and Nutrition Clusters and at the field
level through country health and nutrition clusters. In addition to the IPC, HNTS values collaboration with
groups such as the Assessment Capacities Project (ACAPS), the Famine Early Warning Systems Network
(FEWS NET), the Interagency Standing Committee Needs Assessment Task Force (IASC/NATF) and the Centre
for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED).
Linkages with IPC
The HNTS is concerned with tracking and monitoring nutrition data; and validating these data. Thus there
is a clear and direct need to create and maintain linkages to the IPC. In addition, linking IPC to the HNTS
will ensure that the HNTS has access to a higher degree of relevant data, while for the IPC such linkages will
help support and strengthen ongoing linkages to other groups such as ACAPS, CRED and the Standardized
Monitoring and Assessment of Relief and Transition (SMART) programme. These groups are described below.
Global Pulse
(www.un.org)
The Global Pulse attempts to fill the information gap that currently exists between the point when a global
crisis impacts vulnerable populations and when solid quantitative information and analysis reaches decisionmakers. Its partners include national governments, United Nations agencies, academic institutions and civil
society organizations in developing and developed countries.
The Global Pulse:
{{ Provides the international community with early, real-time evidence of how a global crisis is impacting
the lives of the poorest and most vulnerable populations;
{{ Raises “red flags” on newly emerging and dramatically worsening vulnerabilities of global concern; and
{{ Provides decision-makers with real-time information and analysis to ensure that crisis related decisions
take appropriate account of the needs of the most vulnerable countries and populations.
It is important that the IPC be linked to the Global Pulse as there is a great deal of commonality between the
two systems. Both the IPC and Global Pulse attempt to provide the development community with pertinent
real-time data related to food security crises. Furthermore, it is a core objective of both approaches to be able
to furnish decision-makers with analysis to ensure that crisis related decisions take appropriate account of
the needs of the most vulnerable countries and populations. Keeping this in mind, it is imperative that strong
linkages be created between the two technical Core Groups.
Annexes
Linkages with IPC
110
Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters
(http://www.cred.be/)
The Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) is an interdisciplinary centre that studies
individual and group decision-making under climate uncertainty and decision-making in the face of
environmental risk. CRED’s objectives address the human responses to climate change and climate variability
as well as improved communication and increased use of scientific information on climate variability and
change.
Linkages with IPC
Linking the IPC with CRED could be mutually beneficial. For IPC’s part, it may be possible to overlay IPC
maps onto CRED maps which depict countries and districts where GAM >15%. This could serve as a form of
triangulation for the IPC analysis. CRED would in turn benefit from having access to data collated by IPC. A
linkage between IPC and CRED may be best served by admitting CRED to the proposed partnership forum/
assembly.
Standardized Monitoring and Assessment of Relief and Transition programme
(www.smartindicators.org)
The Standardized Monitoring and Assessment of Relief and Transition (SMART) programme is an inter agency
initiative to improve monitoring and evaluation of humanitarian assistance interventions. Specifically, the
programme is piloting an approach to routinely collect, analyse and disseminate information starting with
three critical data points on mortality, nutritional status and food security, ensuring that these data are rapidly
accessible for policy and resource decision-making.
For data consistency, SMART has developed a survey manual and an analytical software programme that
integrates the planning, collection and analysis of nutritional status and mortality rates.
Linkages with IPC
It is important that the IPC be linked to the SMART process in order to be aware of any recommended
changes in nutrition and mortality survey methodology. A strong linkage between SMART and IPC may best
be served by ensuring that a member of the IPC Technical Working Group is a member of the SMART Core
Group. Another option is to ensure that at least one IPC partner agency has a staff member involved in the
SMART Core Group. In turn, the staff member can brief that agency’s IPC partnership member.
111
Annexes
Annex 12. East Africa IPC Food Security Situation,
November 2010
112
Annex 13. Time Series of the Integrated Phase Classification
Maps for Somalia (2005–2010)
113
Annex 14. Glossary
Absolute Poverty Line – the income or expenditure level below which a minimum nutritionally adequate
diet plus essential non-food requirements are not affordable. The most common absolute poverty line is the
US$.1.25-a-day and the US$2-a-day line. (World Bank)
Access (see food access)
Adults – underweight, overweight, obesity
{{ Prevalence of underweight in adults – the adult population falling below 18.5 Body Mass Index.
{{ Prevalence of overweight in adults – the adult population with Body Mass Index of 25 and above.
{{ Prevalence of obesity in adults – the adult population with Body Mass Index of 30 and above.
(UNICEF)
Agricultural Productivity – a measure of the value added per unit of input. (World Development Report,
World Bank).
Anthropometric indices – combinations of human body measurements and their comparison to reference
data. For example, measurements of weight and height may be combined to produce Body Mass Index
(weight/ height2 - see definition below) or weight may be related to height through the use of reference data
that have been developed/adopted by the World Health Organization. (UNICEF)
Assets – in broad terms, assets are considered to be anything that is valuable or useful, such as a skill, a
quality, a commodity, etc. (Chambers Compact Dictionary). In the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework, assets
are defined under the following five categories:
{{ Human: health and nutrition status; physical capacity; skills; level of education; etc.
{{ Social: household, gender, kinship and other networks; community groups; values and attitudes; etc.
{{ Financial: income; credit and loans; savings; liquid assets; etc.
{{ Physical: productive assets, such as tools and equipment; stores; housing; livestock; infrastructure; etc.
{{ Natural: land; water; forests; etc. (WFP. Food Security Assessment Learning Repository).
Body Mass Index – an index of weight-for-height that is commonly used to classify underweight, overweight
and obesity in adults. It is defined as the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in metres
(kg/m2).
Cash Transfers – sums of money provided to recipients. The total amount of money provided is linked to
the objective of the transfer. When intended to provide access to food (i.e. for food assistance), the amount
of cash is generally equal to the local market value of food transfers. Cash transfers can also be provided
for non-food purposes (e.g. for shelter or to meet other basic needs), hence entailing different amounts of
money to beneficiaries. (WFP)
Cash-for-work Programmes – programmes that include conditional cash transfers, which would also
include the exchange of labour for cash, designed to create or rehabilitate community or public assets (called
community or public works). (From Food Aid to Food Assistance: Innovations in Overcoming Hunger, Rome,
World Food Programme, 2010).
Coping Strategies – activities to which people resort in order to obtain food, income and/or services when their
normal means of livelihood have been disrupted or other shocks/hazards decrease their access to basic needs.
Coping Strategies Index – a methodology for estimating the food security status of households based upon
the reversibility of coping strategies to which they resort. (Coping Strategies Index Field Methods Manual)
Annexes
Chronic Food Insecurity – a long-term or persistent inability to meet minimum food requirements.
114
Crude Mortality Rate – the “mortality rate from all causes for a population”. It is measured by the formula:
(number of deaths during a specific time period) / (number of persons at risk of dying during that period) x
(time period) (WFP and CDC 2005). The under 5 mortality rate (U5MR) is calculated the same way; however,
the reference thresholds differ from the CMR.
Daily Caloric Requirement – the minimum number of calories needed to sustain normal levels of activity
and health, taking into account age, gender, body weight and climate; on average 2,350 kcals per day. Note:
Estimates of daily caloric requirements vary; in emergencies, a plan of 2,100 kcals/person/day is a typical
planning figure used.
Dietary Quality – the extent to which the diet is optimal in delivering essential nutrients, including the
types and forms of nutrients. This includes dietary adequacy of vitamins, minerals, energy and protein, but
also the specific form of fats, carbohydrates and proteins. Both quantity and nutrient density are important
determinants of dietary quality. Nutrient requirements are based upon a number of criteria, depending upon
the specific nutrient. In addition to nutrients, fibre is a necessary component of a healthy diet.
Disaster – a situation that causes widespread human, material, economic or environmental damage,
threatening human lives and/or livelihoods and exceeding the coping capacities of the affected communities
and/or government. (World Food Programme, Food Security Assessment Learning Repository)
Disaster Resilience – the capacity of a community to recover from and adapt to shocks and hazards.
Disaster risk – the potential disaster losses in lives, health status, livelihoods, assets and services which could
occur to a particular community/society over some specified future time period.
Disaster risk comprises different types of potential losses, some of which are often difficult to quantify.
Nevertheless, with knowledge of the prevailing hazards and the characteristics of population and socioeconomic development, disaster risks can be estimated and mapped. with varying levels of confidence.
(United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR)).
Disaster Risk Reduction – the concept and practice of reducing disaster risks through systematic efforts to
analyse and manage the determinants of disasters, including through reduced exposure to hazards, lessened
vulnerability of people and property, management of land and environment, and improved preparedness for
adverse events. (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR)).
Disease Surveillance – continuous monitoring of a disease (both cases of illness and their spread) with the
goal of controlling the situation. (Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 2007)
Drought – a temporary reduction in water or moisture availability significantly below the normal or expected
amount (norm) for a specified period. The key assumptions of such a definition are:
{{ the reduction is temporary (if the reduction were permanent, then terms such as “dry” and “arid”
would be more appropriate)
{{ the reduction is significant
{{ the reductions is defined in relation to a “norm”, i.e. normal expectation
{{ the period taken as the basis for the norm is specified
(United Nations Disaster Management Training Programme. Drought and Famine)
Early Warning Systems – information collection, analysis and use aimed at predicting, preventing and
mitigating the effects of future hazards and risks. (FEWS NET)
Famine – absolute inaccessibility of food to an entire population or sub-group of a population, potentially
causing death in the short term. (ACF)
Food Access – access by households/individuals to adequate resources (entitlements) for acquiring appropriate
foods for a nutritious diet. Entitlements are defined as the set of all commodity bundles over which a person
can establish command given the legal, political, economic and social arrangements of the community in
which he/she lives (including traditional rights such as access to common resources). (FAO Policy Brief on
Food Security. 2006)
115
Food Access Gap – comparison of the ability of a household or individual to access food with the minimum
consumption requirements for an adequate diet. (FAO)
Food Availability – the availability of sufficient quantities of food of appropriate quality, supplied through
domestic production or imports (including food aid). (FAO Policy Brief on Food Security. 2006)
Food Consumption – the amount of food consumed by individuals, households, communities and nations.
Indicators capture the amount of foods consumed in a population, often using indirect indicators associated
with food availability. Food consumption per person is the amount of food, in terms of quantity, of each
commodity and its derived products for each individual in the total population. The dietary energy consumption
per person is the amount of food, in kcal per day, for each individual in the total population. (FAO)
Food Consumption Gap – the gap between the level of food consumption required to meet nutrition needs
and actual food consumption. (World Food Programme. Food Security Assessment Learning Repository)
Food Consumption Score – a proxy indicator that represents the energy (calories) and nutrient (macro- and
micronutrient content) value of the food that households eat. It is calculated based on the type of foods and
the frequency with which households consume them over a seven-day period. (World Food Programme. Food
Security Assessment Learning Repository)
Food-for-work Programmes – programmes characterized by the use of food for payment/compensation in
return for labour-intensive work programmes designed to create or rehabilitate community or public assets
(called community or public works). (WFP)
Food Insecurity – the state in which people are at risk or actually suffering from inadequate consumption to
meet nutritional requirements as a result of the physical unavailability of food, their lack of social or economic
access to adequate food, and/or inadequate food utilization (Global Forum on Food Security. FAO).
{{ Chronic food insecurity – long-term or persistent inability to meet minimum food consumption
requirements.
{{ Transitory food insecurity – short-term or temporary inability to meet minimum food consumption
requirements, indicating a capacity to recover. As a rule of thumb, short periods of food insecurity
related to sporadic crises can be considered transitory.
{{ Cyclical food insecurity – habitual, most often seasonal, variations in food security. As a rule of thumb,
if seasonal food insecurity is present for a total of at least six months a year, it can be considered chronic;
if it lasts for a total of less than six months a year, it can be considered transitory. (FAO)
Food Security – a situation that exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access
to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and
healthy life. (State of Food Insecurity. 2001). However, measurement of food security proves to be elusive. In
contrast, food security is most frequently based upon the absence of food insecurity (see above).
Fortification – the practice of deliberately increasing the nutritional quality of a food by enhancing essential
micronutrients, i.e. vitamins and minerals (including trace elements) in the food, so as to improve the
nutritional quality of the food supply and provide a public health benefit with minimal risk to health. (UNICEF)
Health – a state of complete physical, mental well-being and not simply the absence of disease or infirmity.
(World Health Organization). Like food security, health often is defined in terms of the absence of disease or
infirmity. Common indicators of health in populations include life expectancy at birth, under-five mortality,
infant mortality:
{{ Life expectancy at birth (years) – the number of years a newborn infant would live if prevailing
patterns of mortality at the time of birth were to stay the same during the lifespan.
Annexes
Hazard – a dangerous phenomenon, substance, human activity or condition that can cause or precipitate
disaster. Hazards can include environmental threats such as climate, weather, topographic or seismologic
features. They can also include hazards of human origin such as economic, disease, chemicals, biological
agents, nuclear radiation and human conflict.
116
{{ Under-five mortality rate – the probability of dying between birth and exactly five years of age,
expressed per 1,000 live births.
{{ Infant mortality rate – the probability of dying between birth and exactly one year of age, expressed
per 1,000 live births.
Household – a unit of people living together in a residence and “eating from the same pot”. Households
and families are distinct concepts. Families may be living outside of the household but be active participants
in the household economy. (FAO)
Household Food Security – a condition of security that depends on year-round access to an adequate
supply of nutritious and safe food to meet the needs of all household members. While food security is
defined in its most basic form as access by all people at all times to the food needed for a healthy life, the
focus of household food security is on the household or family as the basic unit of activity in society. (WFP)
Livelihoods – the capabilities, assets – both material and social – and activities required for a means of living
linked to survival and future well-being; and the policies and institutions that shape or constrain access to
assets and choices about activities. (Sphere Handbook)
Livelihood Assets – in the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework, livelihood assets are defined under the
following five categories:
{{ Human – health and nutrition status; physical capacity; skills; level of education; etc.
{{ Social – household, gender, kinship and other networks; community groups; values and attitudes; etc.
{{ Financial – income; credit and loans; savings; liquid assets; etc.
{{ Physical – productive assets such as tools and equipment; stores; housing; livestock; infrastructure; etc.
{{ Natural – land; water; forests; etc. (World Food Programme. Food Security Assessment Learning
Repository)
Livelihood Ggroup – a group of people who share the same basic means of livelihood and lifestyle – i.e.
the same main subsistence activities, main income activities and social and cultural practices – and who face
the same risks of food and nutrition insecurity. (World Food Programme. Food Security Assessment Learning
Repository)
Livelihood Strategies – the ways in which households utilize and combine their assets to obtain food, income
and other goods and services. (World Food Programme. Food Security Assessment Learning Repository)
Low Birth-weight – babies born weighing less than 2,500 grams (5 pounds, 8 ounces). These newborns
are especially vulnerable to illness and death during the first months of life. (Center for Disease Control and
Prevention. 2007)
Malnutrition – all deviations from adequate nutrition, including undernutrition (and overnutrition) resulting
from inadequacy of food (or excess food) relative to need and or disease. Malnutrition is often categorized
in the following:
{{ Chronic malnutrition (stunting) – reflected by growth retardation, meaning a height-for-age score
below 1, 2 or 3 Standard Deviations from the reference population (mild, moderate and severe stunting).
It is due to chronic or temporary nutritional deficiencies (energy and/or micronutrients) during critical
times, and/or it also can be the result of repeated exposure to infections or even to generally poor living
conditions.
{{ Acute malnutrition (wasting) – low weight in relation to height/length and/or the presence of bilateral
oedema. It reflects the adequacy of muscle and fat tissue.
{{ Growth retardation (underweight) – a mixture of stunting and wasting, this indicator measures the
prevalence of children that have a low weight in relation to other children of their age. The same metric,
the Z score (see definition) and cut-points -1, -2 and -3 are used to define mild, moderate and severe
underweight status.
(Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 2007).
117
Morbidity Rate – the number of newly appearing cases per unit of time divided by the population at risk.
Prevalence also may be used to estimate the burden of morbidity and is defined as the number of individuals
with an illness/condition divided by the total population at one point in time (point prevalence) or during a
period of time (period prevalence). (World Health Organization)
Mortality Rate – a measure of the number of deaths (in general, or due to a specific cause) in a given
population over the total population per unit time. (World Health Organization)
Poverty Headcount – the percentage of the population living below the national poverty line deemed
appropriate for the country by its authorities. (World Bank)
Proxy Indicator – an indirect means of measuring a variable. It provides information about a factor indirectly.
(World Food Programme, Food Security Assessment Learning Repository)
Recovery – the restoration and improvement, where appropriate, of facilities, livelihoods and living
conditions of disaster-affected communities, including efforts to reduce disaster risk factors. (United Nations
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR))
Response Analysis –the process by which a set of appropriate actions is identified and based on: (a) the
needs and livelihoods of the affected population; and (b) the operating environment. Simply put, response
analysis is the process of connecting needs assessment or situational analysis to programme design. (Interagency Food Security and Nutrition Response Analysis Workshop. FAO. 2011)
Resilience – the ability of a system to resist or return to a normal state when faced with a hazard/shock or
ongoing stress.
Risk – the combination of the probability of an event and its negative consequences. (United Nations
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. 2009)
Risk Assessment – a methodology to determine the nature and extent of risk by analysing potential hazards
and evaluating existing conditions of vulnerability that together could potentially harm exposed people,
property, services, livelihoods and the environment on which they depend. (United Nations International
Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR))
Safety Nets – non-contributory transfer programmes targeted in some manner to the poor and those
vulnerable to poverty and shocks (World Bank. 2011)
Shocks – events with negative impacts on nutrition status and/or food security. They can be natural or caused
by human action. (World Food Programme. Food Security Assessment Learning Repository)
Sustainable Development – development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs (World Bank. 2000).
Targeting – the processes and tools aimed at identifying eligible programme beneficiaries. Key targeting
methods include means-testing (e.g. based on verified income), proxy-mean tests (e.g. based on information on
observable characteristics like dwelling, asset ownership or demographic structure), geographic, communitybased participatory approaches, and self targeting. (From Food Aid to Food Assistance: Innovations in
Overcoming Hunger. World Food Programme. Rome. 2010)
Utilization (food) – two main aspects: (1) physical utilization of food at the household level; and (2) biological
utilization of food at the individual level. The IPC’s focus is on physical utilization of food including food
storage, food preferences, food preparation, feeding practices and water requirements. Biological utilization
of food at the individual level is important for understanding overall nutritional well-being, including aspects
of health care, sanitation and others where all physiological needs are met. (FAO)
Wealth Ranking (categories) – a way of categorizing people in a community according to community
members’ perceptions of how well-off or poor people seem to be (for example, categories are typically “very
poor”, “poor”, “better off”, and “well-off”). (World Bank)
Z score (or standard deviation score) in anthropometric assessment – the deviation of the value for
an individual from the median value of the reference population, divided by the standard deviation for the
reference population. (UNICEF)
Annexes
Vulnerability – vulnerability is in relation to a hazard/shock, which leads to the possibility of negative
outcomes. Vulnerability is a function of exposure, susceptibility and resilience. (WFP)
118
Annex 15. Bibliography
Action Contre la Faim. 2008. Introduction to Food Security Intervention Principles. Paris.
Alexander, L. & Smith, D. 2004. Evidence and Analysis: Tackling the structural causes of conflict in Africa and
strengthening preventive responses. International Alert. London.
Alinovi, L., Hemrich, G. & Russo, L. Eds. 2008. Beyond Belief: Food Security in Protracted Crises. FAO. Rome.
Baschieri, A. & Falkingham, J. Developing a Poverty Map of Tajikistan: A Technical Note. Southampton
Statistical Sciences Research Institute Applications and Policy Working Paper A05/11. University of South
Hampton. South Hampton.
Bedi, K., Coudouel, A. & Slimer, K. 2007. More than a Pretty Picture: Using Poverty Maps to Design Better
Policies and Interventions. World Bank. Washington, DC.
Bradbury, M. 1998. Normalizing the crisis in Africa. Journal of Humanitarian Crisis. Retrieved from: http://
www.jha.ac/articles/a043.htm
Brennan, L. 1984. The development of the Indian famine codes: Personalities, politics, and policies. In Famine
as a Geographical Phenomenon (eds) Currey, B. & Hugo, G. Reidel Publishing. Dordrecht.
Brewster, R. 2005. Natural Disaster Recovery Planning. Paper to the Conference on Built Environment Issues
in Small Island States. University of Technology. Kingston. 2-6 August 2005.
Burkle Jr, F. & Gregg Greenough, P. 2008. Impact of Public Health Emergencies on Modern Disaster Taxonomy,
Planning, and Response. American Medical Association Vol. 2/No. 4.
Cahn, M. 2002. Sustainable livelihoods approach – Concepts and practice. Massey University.
Carney, D., Drinkwater., Rusinow, M., Neefjes, K., Wanmali, S. & Singh, N. 1999. Livelihoods approaches
compared – A brief comparison of livelihood approaches of DFID, CARE, Oxfam and UNDP. United Kingdom
Department for International Development (DFID). London.
Chambers, R. & Conway, G. 1991. Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century. IDS
Discussion Paper 296. Institute of Development Studies. Sussex.
Checchi, F. & Roberts, L. 2005. Interpreting and using mortality data in humanitarian emergencies: A primer
for non-epidemiologists. Humanitarian Practice Network. London, ODI: 41.
Chopak, C. 2000. Early Warning Primer: An Overview of Monitoring and Reporting. Famine Early Warning
Systems Network. Washington, DC.
Darcy, J. & Hofmann, C A. 2003. According to need? Needs assessment and decision-making in the
Humanitarian Sector. HPG Report 15. Overseas Development Institute. London.
Davis, B. 2002. Is it Possible to Avoid a Lemon? Reflections on Choosing a Poverty Mapping Method. Food
Policy and Applied Nutrition Program Discussion Paper No. 8. FAO. Rome. 30 January 2002.
Davis, B. 2003. Choosing a method for poverty mapping. FAO. Rome.
Devereux, S. 2004. Food Security issues in Ethiopia: Comparisons and contrasts between lowland and highland
areas. Paper presented to the Seminar of the Pastoralist Communication Initiative. UNOCHA. Addis Ababa.
Devereux, S., Baulch, B., Hussein, K., Shoham, J., Sida, H. & Wilcock, D. 2004. Improving the analysis of food
insecurity – Food insecurity measurement, livelihoods approaches and policy. Food Insecurity and Vulnerability
Information and Mapping Systems (FIVIMS) Secretariat. Rome.
119
Devereux, S. 2006. Desk review: Identification of methods and tools for emergency assessments to
distinguish between chronic and transitionary food insecurity and to evaluate the effects of various types and
combinations of shocks on these different groups. WFP. Rome.
Devereux, S. 2006. Distinguishing between chronic and transitory food insecurity in emergency needs
assessments. Strengthening Emergency Needs Assessment Capacity (SENAC). WFP. Rome.
DFID (United Kingdom Department for International Development). 2001. Sustainable Livelihoods: Guidance
Sheets. London.
DFID. 2005. “Benchmarking” humanitarian action: Towards global targets, standards and indicators.
Information Note 17. August 2005. London.
Dilley, M. & Boudreau, T.E. 2001. Coming to terms with vulnerability: A critique of the food security definition.
Food Policy 26(3): 229–247.
Dilley, M., Chen, R., Deichmann, U., Lerner-Lam, A. & Arnold, M. with Agwe, J., Piet-Buys., Kjekstad, O.,
Lyon, B. & Yetman, G. 2005. Natural Disaster Hotspots: A Global Risk Analysis Synthesis Report. International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank and Columbia University. March 2005.
Drinkwater, M. 2003. HIV/AIDS and agrarian change in Southern Africa. Paper presented to the United
Nations Regional Interagency Coordination and Support Office Technical Consultation in the light of an HIV/
AIDS pandemic. Johannesburg. 2003.
Famine Early Warning Systems Network. 2005. FEWS NET Alert Levels: FEWS NET. Retrieved from http://www.
fews.net/alerts/index.aspx?pageID=alertLevelsDefined
FAO. 1996. World Food Summit (WFS) – Rome Declaration on World Food Security and WFS Plan of Action. Rome.
FAO &and DFID. (2000). Proceedings: from the forum on operationalizing sustainable livelihoods approaches.
Paper presented to the Forum on Operationalizing Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches. Pontignano, Siena.
FAO. 2002. Understanding food insecurity and vulnerability: FIVIMS tools and tips. Rome.
FAO and FIVIMS. 2002. Making FIVIMS Work for You - Tools and Tips. Rome.
FAO. 2003. Focus on Food Insecurity and Vulnerability – A review of the United Nations System Common
Country Assessments and World Bank Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers. FIVIMS Secretariat and Wageningen
University and Research Centre. Retrieved from www.fao.org/DOCREP/006/Y5095E/Y5095E00.htm
FAO. 2007. Committee on World Food Security: Assessment of the World Food Security Situation. Thirty-third
Session. Rome.
FAO. 2010. Cluster Coordination Guidance: Guidance for FAO Staff Working at Country Level in Humanitarian
and Early Recovery Operations. Rome.
FAO. 2010. The State of Food Insecurity in the World. Rome.
FAO. 2011. Food Security Information for Decision-Making. Online Distance Learning Courses. Rome.
http://www.foodsec.org/dl/elcpages/food-security-courses.asp?pgLanguage=en&leftItemSelected=foodsecurity-courses
FAO. 2011. A Response Analysis Framework for Food and Nutrition Security Interventions. Rome.
Flores, M., Khwaja, Y. & White, P. 2005. Food security in protracted crises: Building more effective policy
frameworks. Disasters 29(s1), S25–S51.
Annexes
FAO. 2011. Guidelines for Measuring Household and Individual Dietary Diversity. Rome
120
Frankenberger, T. 1992. Indicators and data collection methods for assessing household food security. In
Household food security: concepts, indicators, measurements: A technical review, edited by S. Maxwell & T.
Frankenberger. New York and Rome: UNICEF and IFAD.
Frankenberger, T.R., Drinkwater, M. & Maxwell, D. 2000. Operationalizing household livelihood security: A
holistic approach for addressing poverty and vulnerability. Proceedings from the forum on operationalizing
livelihood security approaches. FAO. Rome.
FSAU. 2004. Technical Series report on 2004 Post Gu Analysis. Technical Report No. IV.2. Nairobi.
FSAU. 2005. Technical Series report on 2005 Interagency assessment mission: Hafuun to Gar”aad, Northeast
Somali coast. Technical Report No IV.4. Nairobi.
FSAU. 2005. Technical Series report on 2005 Post Gu Analysis. Technical Report No IV.7. Nairobi.
FSAU. 2006. Technical Series report on Coping Strategies Index. Nairobi.
FSAU. 2006. Technical Series report on Somali integrated spreadsheet – Operational Manual. Nairobi.
FSAU. 2006. Technical Series report on Conflict monitoring and food security analysis. Nairobi.
FSN. 2009. Summary of the FSN Forum Discussion No.34 Food Security and Nutrition Security – What is the
problem and what is the difference? 1 April – 15 May 2009.
FSN. 2009. Summary of the FSN Forum Discussion No. 35 Identifying and Addressing Food Insecurity among
the Urban Poor, from 27 April to 15 June 2009. Retrieved from
http://km.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/fsn/docs/PROCEEDINGS_Food_Insecurity_Among_Urban_Poor.doc
Gauci, A. Spatial maps: Targeting and mapping poverty Working Paper. United Nations Economic Commission
for Africa. Poverty and Social Policy Team, Economic and Social Policy Division.
Gaye, A. 2007. Measuring Multi-dimensional Poverty. Regional Technical Workshop on Measuring Human
Development. September 2007. Nairobi.
Griekspoor, A. 2010. Paper on Food insecurity, malnutrition and Morbidity. As input to revise the health
components of the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification. World Health Organization.
Guarnieri, V. 2003. Food aid and livelihoods: Challenges and opportunities in complex emergencies. Paper
presented to the FAO international workshop on food security in complex emergencies: Building policy
frameworks to address longer-term programming challenges. Tivoli.
Haan, N., Marsland N. & Oliveira L. 2003. The impacts of HIV/AIDS on food security in Southern Africa:
Regional analysis based on data collected from National VAC emergency food security assessments in Malawi,
Zambia, and Zimbabwe. South Africa Development Community. Harare.
Hakewill, P.A. & Moren, A. 1991. Monitoring and evaluation of relief programmes. Tropical Doctor
Supplement 1: 24–28
Hemrich, G. 2005. Matching food security analysis to context: The experience of the Somalia Food Security
Assessment Unit. Disasters 29(s1), S67–S91.
High Level Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis: Updated Comprehensive Framework for Action.
United Nations. September 2010.
Holben, D.H. 2005. The Concept and Definition of Hunger and Its Relationship to Food Insecurity.
Howe, P. & Devereux, S. 2004. Famine intensity and magnitude scales: A proposal for an instrumental
definition of famine. Disasters 28(4), 353–372.
HPG. 2005. Humanitarian issues in Niger. Overseas Development Institute. London.
121
Hulme, D., Moore, K. & Shepherd, A. 2001. Chronic poverty: Meanings and analytical frameworks. CPRC
Working Paper 2. Chronic Poverty Research Center: University of Manchester. Manchester.
Hyman, G., Larre, C. & Farrow, A. 2005. Methods, results and policy implications of poverty and food security
mapping assessments. Food Policy 30, pp.453–460.
IASC (Inter-Agency Standing Committee) CAP Sub Working Group. 2005. The needs analysis framework –
Strengthening the process of analysis and presentation. Geneva.
IASC. 2006. Draft 2 – Measuring life and death in humanitarian crises: Proposal for a Humanitarian Tracking
service through mortality, health, nutrition assessment and monitoring. Geneva.
ICRC. 2005. How to conduct a food security assessment: A step-by-step guide for National societies in Africa.
Geneva.
Kakwani, N. 2007. New Global Poverty Counts. Asian Development Review, Vol.24, No.2: pp.17−36 © 2007.
Asian Development Bank.
Kakwani, N., Khadker, S. & Son, H. 2009. Pro-poor Growth: Concepts and Measurement with Country Case
Studies. Australia International Poverty Centre and United Nations Development Programme Working Paper
Number 1. Macquarie University. Sydney.
Kemp, R.B. 2007. Classifying marginalized people, focusing on natural disaster survivors. Proceedings of the
North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization. Vol.1.
Krishnaswamy, S. 2006. The Effects of HIV/AIDS on Botswana’s Development. Field Exchange, Issue 29.
December 2006.
Krummenacher, H. & Schmeidl, S. 2001. Practical challenges in predicting violent conflict - FAST: An example
of a comprehensive early-warning methodology. Working Paper No. 34. Schweizerische Friedensstiftung.
Bern.
Longley, C. & Maxwell D. 2003. Livelihoods, chronic conflict and humanitarian response: A synthesis of
current practice. Working Paper 182. Overseas Development Institute. London.
Ludi, E. 2009. Climate change, water and food security. Background Note. Overseas Development Institute.
London.
Maire, B. & Delpeuch, F. 2005. Nutrition Indicators for Development. FAO. Rome.
Majid, N. & Maxwell, D. 2007. The Role of Food Security and Nutrition Response Analysis in the Emergency
Programme Cycle.
Maxwell, D. & Caldwell, R. 2008. The Coping Strategies Index: Field Methods Manual. Second Edition, CARE.
Retrieved from
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/meeting/009/ae513e.pdf
Maxwell, D., Watkins, B., Wheeler, R. & Collins, G. 2008. The Coping Strategies Index: Field methods manual.
CARE and WFP. Nairobi.
Middlebrook, P.J. 2008. Famine and Social Protection Literature: Ethiopia to Maharashtra. Geopolicity, Inc.
Riely, F., Mock, N., Cogil, B., Bailey, L. & Kenefick, E. 1999. Food security indicators and framework for use
in the monitoring and evaluation of food aid programs. Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance (FANTA)
Project. Washington, DC.
Annexes
Pingali, P., Alinovi, L. & Sutton, J. 2005. Food security in complex emergencies: Enhancing food system
resilience. Disasters 29(s1), S5–24.
122
Rosegrant, W., Cai, X. & Cline, S. 2002. Global Water Outlook to 2025. Averting an Impending Crisis: A
2020 Vision for Food, Agriculture, and the Environment Initiative. September 2002. International Food Policy
Research Institute. Washington, D.C., U.S.A. and International Water Management Institute. Colombo.
Sanewe, A. & Dube, R. 2009. Water in a Changing World. The United Nations World Water Development
Report 3. UNESCO 2009. SA-EU Summit. 24 July 2008.
Save the Children UK. 2000. Household Economy Approach: A resource manual for practitioners. London.
Save the Children UK. 2008. The Household Economy Approach: A Guide for Programme Planners and
Policy makers. FEG Consulting and Save the Children.
Schady, N., Hentschel, J. & Vásquez Sotero, P. 2001. Experiences with the Development and Use of Poverty
Maps. Case Study Note for Peru. World Bank and the Ministry of Economy and Finance. Peru.
Scones, I. 1998. Sustainable Rural livelihoods: A framework for Analysis. Institute of Development Studies.
Brighton.
Smith, L., Obeid, E. & Jensen, H. 2000. The geography and causes of food insecurity in developing countries.
Agricultural Economics 22 (2000) 199–215.
The Sphere Project. 2004. The Sphere Project: Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster
Response. Oxfam Publishing. Oxford.
Stamoulis, K. & Zezza, A. 2003. A Conceptual Framework for National Agricultural, Rural Development,
and Food Security Strategies and Policies. ESA Working Paper No. 03–17, November 2003. Agricultural and
Development Economics Division. FAO. Rome.
Standardized Monitoring and Assessment of Relief and Transitions (SMART). Retrieved from www.
smartindicators.org.
Standing Committee on Nutrition. 2004. Nutrition Information in Crisis Situations. United Nations System
Standing Committee on Nutrition Report No. 3. SCN Secretariat. Geneva.
Swindale, A. & Bilinsky, P. 2005. Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) for measurement of Household
Food Access: Indicator Guide. Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance (FANTA) Project. Washington, DC.
Swindale, A. & Bilinsky, P. 2006. Development of a Universally Applicable Household Food Insecurity
Measurement Tool: Process, Current Status, and Outstanding Issues. Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance
(FANTA) Project. Washington, DC.
Thorbecke, T. 2005. Multi-dimensional Poverty: Conceptual and Measurement Issues. Cornell University.
Paper prepared for The Many Dimensions of Poverty International Conference. UNDP International Poverty
Centre.
Tibbo, K. & Drimie, S. 2006. Chronic vulnerability to food insecurity: an overview from Southern Africa.
Oxfam. London.
Turner, B.L., Kasperson, R., Matson P. et al. 2003. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability
science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 100 (14), 8074–
8079.
UNAIDS. 1999. A review of household and community responses to the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the rural areas
of sub-Saharan Africa.
UNHCR. 2005. An introduction to International Protection: Protecting persons of concern to UNHCR. Geneva.
UNICEF. 2003. State of the World’s Children 2003. New York.
123
UNICEF. Forthcoming. Assessment of child nutrition in the Greater Horn of Africa: Recent trends and future
developments. Nairobi and New York.
UN OCHA. 2009. Assessment and Classification of Emergencies (ACE) Project Mapping of Key Emergency
Needs Assessment and Analysis Initiatives (Final Report).
USAID. 2009. Terms of Trade and Food Security Analysis. FEWS NET Markets Guidance, No 5. October 2009.
Van Der Kam, S. 2000. Revised MSF Guidelines. Field Exchange Issue No.10.
Webb, P. 2004. Water. Food Insecurity in Developing Countries: Major Challenges for the 21st Century. Gerald
J. and Dorothy R. Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy. Tufts University Food Policy and Applied
Nutrition Program. Discussion Paper No. 29.
Webb, P., Coates, J., Frongillo, E., Rogers, B., Swindale, A. & Bilinsky, P. 2006. Measuring Household Food
Insecurity: Why It’s So Important and Yet So Difficult to Do. Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance (FANTA)
Project. Washington, DC.
WFP. 2000. A collaborative emergency food needs assessment in Uganda – Part III EFNA methodology and
tools. Kampala.
WFP. 2002. VAM Standard Analytical Framework – Role and Objectives of VAM Activities to support WFP
food-oriented interventions. Rome.
WFP and CDC. 2005. A Manual: Measuring and interpreting malnutrition and mortality. Rome.
WFP. 2010. Emergency Food Security Assessment Handbook. Rome.
WFP. 2010. Revolution: From Food Aid to Food Assistance in Overcoming Hunger. Rome.
WFP. 2011. Food Security Analysis. Online Distance Learning Courses. Rome.
http://odan.wfp.org/repository/index.asp
WHO. 2001. Iron Deficiency Anaemia: Assessment, Prevention and Control. Retrieved from
http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/micronutrients/anaemia_iron_deficiency/WHO_NHD_01.3/en/
index.html
WHO. 2009. Global prevalence of vitamin A deficiency in populations at risk 1995–2005. Retrieved from
http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/micronutrients/vitamin_a_deficieny/9789241598019/en/index.html
World Bank. 2009. International Poverty Comparisons. Chapter 10: Poverty Inequality Handbook. Washington,
DC.
World Bank. 2009. Human Development Indices. Washington, DC.
Annexes
Young, H., Jaspars, S., Khara, T. & Collins, S. 2005. Acute malnutrition: Benchmarking system for global
humanitarian response. Valid International. London.
124
Annex 16. The IPC Technical Manual from version 1.0 to 2.0.
Extracts from the foreword and acknowledgements of the
previous versions
The version 1 of the IPC Technical Manual was developed by the Food Security and Nutrition Analysis Unit
(FSNAU)3 in 2006 with the title “Integrated Food Security and Humanitarian Phase Classification (IPC)
Technical Manual version 1”.
“Since 1994, FSAU has been investing considerable energy in improving the rigour of the unit’s food security,
nutrition, and livelihoods analysis, and its relevance for decision-making. To help meet the goals of rigour and
relevance, FSAU has been developing and using a tool called the Integrated Food Security and Humanitarian
Phase Classification (IPC) since February 2004”. (Original Foreword and Acknowledgements, Nicholas Haan,
May 2006).
The IPC Technical Manual version 1 was the result of the joint efforts and contributions of many expert
practitioners and high level decision-makers including:
“Noreen Prendiville, Cindy Holleman, Yusuf Mohamed, Ali Duale, Thomas Gabrielle, Simon Narbeth, Veena
Sam-pathkumar, Zainab Jama, James Kingori, Sicily Matu, Ahono Busili, Bernard Owadi, Tom Oguta, Achoka
Luduba, Carol Kingori and Francis Barasa. FSAU has a close partnership with FEWS NET Somalia, and both
Mohamed Aw-Dahir and Sidow Addou have been directly involved in the IPC development. FSAU field staff
has also made substantial input. Special thanks to Cindy, Noreen, Thomas, and Veena for their technical
editing of this manual”. (Original Foreword and Acknowledgements, Nicholas Haan, May 2006).
FSNAU technical partners also provided valuable feedback and support towards the development and usage
of the IPC v.1:
“.. from WFP, UNICEF, OCHA, SC-UK, CARE, the Somalia Transitional Federal Government, authorities from
Somaliland and Puntland... The Greater Horn of Africa Regional Food Security and Nutrition Working Group...
Wolfgang Herbinger and many other colleagues from WFP Rome have also made substantial contributions to
the IPC revisions”. (Original Foreword and Acknowledgements, Nicholas Haan, May 2006).
The overall process and manual development was coordinated by Nicholas Haan and conducted under the
technical and managerial support of FAO:
“Prabhu Pingali, Anne Bauer, Margarita Flores, Mark Smulders, Luca Alinovi, Richard China, Graham Farmer,
Daniele Donati, Guenter Hemrich, Suzanne Raswant, Giovanni Simonelli, Alessandro DeMatteis, Florence
Egal, Henri Josserand, Shukri Ahmed, and Christian Lovendal.”(Original Foreword and Acknowledgements,
Nicholas Haan, May 2006).
A revised version of the IPC Technical Manual, v1.1, was released in 2008 with the purpose of introducing key
revisions which had emerged from two years of extensive field testing and inter agency technical consultations
on the version 1 of the manual.
“Revisions included:
{{ changing the name from the “Integrated Food Security and Humanitarian Phase Classification” to the
“Integrated Food Security Phase Classification”;
{{ adding an optional division of Phase 1 into two phases: Phase 1A and 1B. This is a provisional solution
towards the future development and insertion of a Phase between the current Phase 1 and 2;
{{ changing the name of Phase 2 from “Chronically Food Insecure” to “Moderately/Borderline Food
Insecure”;
{{ changing the terminology from “Early Warning Levels” to “Risk of Worsening Phase”;
{{ making changes to the design of the Analysis Templates;
{{ making changes in the cartographic protocols;”
(Foreword and Acknowledgements, Nicholas Haan, May 2008).
3 Former “Food Security Analysis Unit” (FSAU).
125
Revisions were conducted by the then IPC Technical Working Group composed of Suleiman Mohamed (FEWS
NET), Agnès Dhur (WFP), Valérie Ceylon (WFP), Nicholas Haan (FAO) and Cindy Holleman (FSNAU/FAO), on
behalf of the current IPC Global Partners that formalized the IPC Global Partnership in 2008:
“Together with national governments, these international agencies and many others at the regional and
national level are collaborating on the development and roll-out of the IPC. The IPC roll-out will be a demanddriven process, and its further development will be driven by country experiences and feedback.” (Foreword
and Acknowledgements, Nicholas Haan, May 2008).
Both version 1 and 1.1 of the IPC Technical Manual were made possible by the support of multiple funding
agencies, and in particular thanks to the European Commission‘s continuing support.
The previous versions of the IPC Technical Manual are available online at:
FAO/FSAU 2006. Integrated Food Security and Humanitarian Phase Classification: Technical Manual Version
1. Nairobi, FAO/FSAU Technical Series IV:
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/a0748e/a0748e00.pdf
Annexes
IPC Global Partners. 2008. Integrated Food Security Phase Classification Technical Manual. Version 1.1.
FAO. Rome.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/i0275e/i0275e.pdf
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement