Course: Integrated Food Security Phase Classification · 2015-11-13 · Transforming analyses into...

Text-only version

IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification

Lesson: IPC Reference Tables and Analysis

Worksheets

Version 2.0

In partnership with:

IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification IPC Reference Tables and Analysis Worksheet

Text-only version © FAO 2015

1

In this lesson

LEARNING OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................................................. 2

WHERE YOU ARE IN THE IPC PACKAGE .......................................................................................................................... 2

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................. 2

AREA REFERENCE TABLE ................................................................................................................................................ 8

HOUSEHOLD GROUP REFERENCE TABLE ..................................................................................................................... 10

REFERENCE TABLES – MUTUAL SUPPORT ................................................................................................................... 13

HOW REFERENCE TABLES ARE USED FOR CLASSIFICATION ......................................................................................... 14

THE TABLE POTENTIAL INDIRECT EVIDENCE FOR IPC ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 14

THE ACUTE FOOD INSECURITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET ............................................................................................... 16

HOW THE IPC ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS ARE USED FOR CLASSIFICATION .................................................................... 17

SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................................... 18

ANNEX: POTENTIAL INDIRECT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IPC ANALYSIS......................................................................... 19

ANNEX: JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE (JRC) GUIDELINES ON THE USE OF REMOTE SENSING FOR IPC ANALYSIS ............ 22



2

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

At the end of the lesson, you will be able to:

• describe the structure of the IPC Acute Food Insecurity Reference Tables;

• explain how the tables are used for classification;

• identify the difference between the “Area” and the “Household” Classification Reference Tables;

• describe the structure of the IPC Acute Food Insecurity Analysis Worksheets; and

• explain how the Analysis Worksheets are used for the classification

WHERE YOU ARE IN THE IPC PACKAGE

Func

tions

Building Technical

Consensus

Classifying Severity and Causes

Communicating

for Action

Quality

Assurance

Tool

s

TWG

MATRIX

ANALYTIC

FRAMEWORKS

REFERENCE

TABLES

ANALYSIS

WORKSHEETS

COMMUNICATION

TEMPLATE

SELF ASSESSMENT

PEER REVIEW

Proc

edur

es fo

r

Multi-

agency

stakeholders

to do

collaborative

analysis

Understanding

evidence with

an integrated

Analytical

Framework

Referencing

evidence

against

international

standards

Transparently,

methodically

and

consensually

analysing

evidence

Transforming

analyses into

concise

information for

action

Assuring

quality

INTRODUCTION

In this lesson you will learn the tools and procedures that enable the second function of IPC, which is to

classify severity and causes of food insecurity. In particular, this lesson will explore in greater detail the

two Acute Food Insecurity Reference Tables, and will provide an overview of the Analysis Worksheets.



3

ACUTE FOOD INSECURITY REFERENCE TABLES

There are two types of IPC Acute Food Insecurity Reference Tables: for Area and for Household (HH)

Group Classification. The purpose and usage of the tables are:

Purpose: To inform actions that focus on short-term efforts to prevent, mitigate and/or decrease

food insecurity that threatens lives or livelihoods.

Usage: Classification is based on convergence of evidence of current and/or projected conditions,

including effects of humanitarian assistance.

“At first glance, the two tables seem almost identical... “- Fatma

“Well, they do look alike and they are mutually supportive when used together. There are many

similarities between the two tables, but there are also significant differences“- Alovat

REFERENCE TABLES – SIMILARITIES

Area Classification Household Group Classification

Both tables include

Phase Name and Description

Priority Response Objectives

Indicators for Food Security Elements



4

Essentially, both tables have the same phase names and descriptions, except for Phase 1 and Phase 5,

as the terminology needed to be adjusted for the levels of analysis.

Phase 1

Minimal

Area Phase 5

Famine Phase 2

Stressed

Phase 3

Crisis

Phase 4

Emergency

≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ Phase 1

None

Phase 2

Stressed

Phase 3

Crisis

Phase 4

Emergency

Phase 5

Catastrophe

Household

“I see that both the IPC Reference Tables link response objectives with each phase. Is this level of

analysis sufficient to determine what particular interventions and activities are best suited to mitigate

food insecurity?” - Fatma

“Actually, the Response Objectives only give a generic indication, since IPC Analysis focuses on

Situation Analysis. Thus, in order to determine an intervention specific to a given situation, a Response

Analysis is needed.“- Alovat

Phase 1

Minimal/ None

Phase 2

Stressed

Phase 3

Crisis

Phase 4

Emergency

Phase 5

Famine/Catastrophe

Action required

to Build

Resilience and for

Disaster Risk

Reduction

Action required

for Disaster Risk

Reduction and to

Protect

Livelihoods

Urgent Action Required to:

Protect livelihoods,

reduce food

consumption gaps,

and reduce acute

malnutrition

Save lives &

livelihoods

Prevent widespread

death and total

collapse of

livelihoods

Subsequent to the IPC Analysis, it is necessary to conduct Response Analysis to

determine what particular interventions and activities are best suited to mitigate food

insecurity.



5

For detailed information on how IPC fits in the Analysis-Response Continuum see Lesson 2 Why use the IPC?.

Phases Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5

Outcomes

Each phase is explicitly associated with a set of key reference (food security) outcomes. These outcomes are based on consistent, internationally accepted and objective criteria, designed to

be as measurable as possible.

“To me, a very important added value of the IPC is that each phase is linked to a

set of outcomes.” - Paula

“I agree! In both Reference Tables, the five phases are connected with key

reference outcomes.” - Alovat

REFERENCE TABLES – MAIN DIFFERENCE

The main difference between the two tables, as their names suggest, is that:

the Area Reference Table includes outcomes usually measured at the population level;

the Household Group Reference Table includes outcomes usually measured at the household

level.

REFERENCE TABLES – THE FIVE PHASES

“Urgent action is required for Phase 3 or higher. Phase 1 is a phase with no or minimal acute

food insecurity. Phase 3 signifies a food security crisis.”

Similar to the ‘guiding definitions’ of some classification systems, the IPC phases also have general

descriptions. These are shown in the table below. IPC phases range from the very best (Minimal/None)

to the very worst (Famine/Catastrophe). Inclusion of the complete spectrum emphasizes that food

security interventions are required at all phases, not just when an emergency breaks out, although the

strategic focus will differ. This range allows for more refined targeting and programming in crisis as well

as non-crisis situations.



6

1 Area Minimal More than four in five households are 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. Example: Because of their moderate dependency on agriculture, and diversified, alternative sources of livelihood, the “poor” HH group is expected to be able to absorb the negative impacts of the drought along with price increases while maintaining adequate food consumption. Data from food consumption indicators confirm that this group has adequate consumption, as they have slight to no score for Household Hunger Scale and have no survival deficit. This group is also likely to comprise the households that have an acceptable food consumption score (FCS). Additionally, most of the households in this group will not be engaging in any coping strategies.

1HH None This household 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. Example: Food consumption outcomes show acceptable food consumption for approximately 80% of the population. The 10% of the poorest, who represent 33% of the population, are engaging in insurance strategies, although food access and availability are adequate to meet food consumption requirements in the short term, and are stable as compared to the same agricultural season last year. Overall, the evidence points to an IPC Phase 1.

2 Stressed 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.

Example: Food consumption outcomes show acceptable food consumption for most of the population. The poorest, who form 33% of the population are adopting insurance strategies to cope with their reduced ability to invest in livelihoods, given a bad agricultural season. Less than 5% of the population are engaging in irreversible coping strategies, (whereas 33% adopt insurance strategies). Therefore, the overall situation points to a Stressed IPC Phase.

3 Crisis Even with humanitarian assistance at least one in five HHs in the area have the following or worse: • food consumption gaps with high or above usual acute malnutrition; OR • marginal ability to meet minimum food needs only with accelerated

depletion of livelihood assets that will lead to food consumption gaps.



7

Example: Food consumption outcomes show that between 15 and 25% of HHs are thought to have food gaps. Evidence from contributing factors supports these findings as it was noted that at least 20% of HHs are dependent on subsistence agriculture, and no other sources, for their livelihoods. The poorest, who form 23% of the population, have suffered from the drought and loss of agricultural production in the latest agricultural season. A multi-agency survey reported that 25% of HHs were engaging in crisis strategies, pointing to an IPC Crisis Phase.

4 Emergency Even with humanitarian assistance at least one in five HHs in the area have the following or worse: • 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. Example: Food consumption outcomes show that between 23 and 35% of HHs are thought to have large food gaps. Evidence from contributing factors supports these findings as it was noted that at least 20% of the HHs have are dependent on subsistence agriculture and have no other sources for their livelihoods. The poorest, who form 23% of the population, have suffered significantly from the drought and loss of agricultural production in the latest agricultural season. Although a multi-agency survey reported that only 18.8% of HHs were engaging in distress strategies, with the margin of error, as many as 53.6% of HHs were engaging in crisis strategies, which points to an Emergency Phase.

5 Area Famine Even with humanitarian assistance at least one in five HHs in the area have an extreme lack of food and other basic needs. Starvation, death and destitution are evident. Evidence for all three criteria of food consumption, wasting and Crude Death Rate (CDR) is required to classify Famine. Example: Because of their great dependency on subsistence agriculture and virtually no other sources of livelihoods, 25% of the population are expected to have extreme food gaps. Data from food consumption indicators shows a 60% survival deficit. This group is also likely to comprise the households that have below poor FCS. Due to severe drought, conflict and below average agricultural production there is a collapse of livelihood strategies and assets, with, effectively, no ability to cope. As a result, acute malnutrition rate is around 30% and crude death rate 2.2/10,000/day, pointing to Famine IPC Phase.

5 HH Catastrophie Even with humanitarian assistance: • HH groups have an extreme lack of food and/or other basic needs even

with full employment of coping strategies;



8

• starvation, death and destitution are evident. Example: Because of their great dependency on subsistence agriculture and virtually no other sources of livelihoods, the poorest (25% of the population) are expected to have extreme food gaps. Data from food consumption indicators shows a 60% survival deficit. This group is also likely to comprise the households that have below poor FCS. Due to severe drought, conflict and below average agricultural production there is a collapse of livelihoods strategies and assets, with, effectively, no ability to cope. These indicators point to Phase 5 Catastrophe for the poorest households. In addition acute malnutrition rate is around 30% and crude death rate 2.2/10,000/day, pointing to Famine IPC Phase in the overall area.

AREA REFERENCE TABLE

Let’s now explore the IPC Acute Food Insecurity Reference Table for Area Classification.

This table provides Reference Outcomes and Priority Response Objectives for the five Phases of Acute

Food Insecurity for the population in a given area.

Phase, Name and Description As previously mentioned these are the five Phases* of acute food insecurity for the population in a given area:

Phases Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5

Unless otherwise stated, the analysis is based on the whole population in the area. Within a given area, there can be multiple groups of households experiencing different phases of food insecurity. These, however, are not analysed separately in case of an area-based analysis.


Area

Out

com

es

(dire

ctly

mea

sure

d or

infe

rred

)

Food Consumption and Livelihood Change

Nutritional status

Mortality

Phase, Name and Description The five phases have distinct implications for response objectives and urgency. Action is required for all phases. Urgent action should start before arrival at Phase 4, beginning as soon as livelihoods are deteriorating. Priority strategic responses are cumulative, so that the responses appropriate for lower phases should be applied even at higher phases. However, the Reference Table notes the distinct priority response* for each phase.


Area

Out

com

es

(dire

ctly

m

easu

red

or

infe

rred

)


Nutritional status

Mortality

Phase, Name and Description The Area Outcomes1 include:

1 Food Security Outcomes - The IPC phases are based on Food Security (FS) Outcomes referenced against internationally accepted standards. FS Outcomes are generally comparable across population



9

Priority Response Objectives Food Consumption and Livelihood Change – It is necessary to refer to the HH Group Reference Table to determine the conditions for food consumption and livelihood change. The classification is based on whether or not at least 20% of the population is in a particular phase or worse.

Food consumption and livelihood change subsequently need to be triangulated and converged with nutrition and mortality information, as well as with evidence on

contributing factors, in order to arrive at a classification conclusion.

Area

Out

com

es

(dire

ctly

mea

sure

d or

infe

rred

) Food Consumption and Livelihood Change

Nutritional status

Mortality

Phase, Name and Description The Area Outcomes** also include:

Nutritional Status (due to inadequate food consumption) • Acute malnutrition – percentage of children under 5 years that are below 2 standard deviations of weight or height. • 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.

Nutritional Status and Mortality not related to food consumption

deficit should not be used as evidence for an IPC classification.


Area

Out

com

es

(dire

ctly

mea

sure

d or

infe

rred

)


Nutritional status

Mortality

Nutritional Status and Mortality not related to food consumption deficit For both outcomes, household food consumption deficits must be an explanatory factor in order for that evidence to be used in support of a phase classification.

Elevated malnutrition due to disease outbreak or lack of health access - if it is determined not to be related to food consumption deficits - shouldn’t be used as evidence for an IPC classification. For example, This might refer to cases where acute malnutrition is spiking due to the outbreak of a specific disease, such as cholera or malaria.

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 percentage 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, and U5DR is Under 5 Death Rate.

groups irrespective of livelihood, ethnic, socio-economic and other contexts with reference to international standards.



10

For example, this might refer to cases where the death toll is increasing due to conflict in a specific country or region. Examples might include the Central African Republic starting from 2012 or South Sudan in 2014.

HOUSEHOLD GROUP REFERENCE TABLE

Let’s now examine the IPC Acute Food Insecurity Reference Table for Household Group Classification.

The Household Group Reference Table provides a general description, Reference Outcomes and Priority

Response Objectives for five Phases of Acute Food Insecurity at the household level. In this way, groups

of relatively homogenous households can be classified in different phases within a given area.

Homogeneous Household Groups

Homogeneous Household Groups are households who share the same:

• livelihood (such as pastoralist, agriculturalist or other); or

• wealth level (such as poor, poorest, wealthy).

Furthermore, the groups may be formed as a result of being affected similarly by a shock, such

as drought or conflict.

As previously mentioned, phase names and descriptions are essentially the same as in the Area

Reference Table, except for Phases 1 and 5:

• Phase 1 None

instead of “Minimal”, because the HH Group is relatively homogeneous; and

• Phase 5 Catastrophe

instead of “Famine“ as it is more appropriate for area-wide descriptions.

Also the Priority Response Objectives are essentially the same as in the Area Reference Table.

Action is required for all phases. Urgent action starts before arriving at Phase 4, beginning as soon as

livelihoods are deteriorating.

Priority strategic responses are cumulative. Thus, even at higher phases the responses

appropriate for lower phases should be applied. However, the Reference Table notes the

distinct priority response for each phase.

The reference indicators are organized according to the IPC Analytical Framework into:



11

Household Outcomes

(directly measured of inferred)

Contributing Factors

Livelihood

Change

(assets and

Strategies)

Food Consumption*

(quantity and

nutritional quality)

Hazards and

Vulnerability

Food Availability,

Access, Utilization,

and Stability

which are which are

• Comparable independent of context

and with globally acceptable

standards.

• Used to classify severity of food

insecurity.

#

• Not globally comparable and

dependent on context.

• Used to infer, contextualize and

triangulate outcomes.

The HH group’s Reference Outcomes are organized into two categories:

Food Consumption – including nutritional quality

(in reference to micronutrient requirements) and

quantity in reference to the commonly used

general requirements of 2,100 kcal per person per

day. The Food Consumption Indicators are:

Quantity of food (based on the

2,100kcal/day)

Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS)

Food Consumption Score (FCS)

Household Hunger Score (HHS)

Coping Strategy Index (CSI)

HH Economy Approach (HEA)

Livelihood Change – including assets and

strategies. 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. The three main levels of

coping strategies identified by Médecins Sans

Frontières are:

• Insurance

• Crisis

• Distress

Nutritional Status and Mortality

With regard to Nutritional Status and Mortality, data are typically collected for the whole

population in a given area. Therefore this data can help infer household groups, but international

guidelines do not exist for specific groups.



12

HH group Reference Outcome indicators

Food Consumption

Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS)

A commonly used methodology that reflects household access to a variety of foods, indicating

quality of food consumption and, to a lesser degree, quantity.

Food Consumption Score (FCS)

A composite score based on dietary diversity, food frequency and nutritional importance of

different food groups. Households are classified into three groups: poor, borderline or acceptable.

Household Hunger Score (HHS)

It measures the severity of food insecurity for a given period, as reported by the households

themselves. It also measures food consumption strategies adopted by households when facing a

lack of access to food

Coping Strategy Index (CSI)

A method to track changes inhousehold behaviours and indicate degrees of food insecurity when

compared over time or to a baseline.

Household Economy Approach (HEA)

A method to examine comprehensively livelihood strategies and the impact of shocks on food

consumption and other livelihood needs. It is based on the analysis of:

how people in different social and economic circumstances get the food and cash they need;

their assets, the opportunities available to them and the constraints they face; and

the options open to them at times of crisis.

Livelihood changes

Insurance Strategies

Reversible coping, preserving productive assets, slightly reduced food intake etc.

Crisis Strategies

Irreversible coping threatening future livelihoods, sale of assets etc.

Distress Strategies

Starvation and death, and no more coping mechanisms.

While outcomes are used to classify the severity of food insecurity, contributing factors are used to

infer, contextualize and triangulate outcomes. Because of the clear distinction of the outcomes and



13

contributing factors, they are separated and divided as they are in the Analytical Framework into:

Hazards and Vulnerability Availability, Access, Utilization, Stability

A general and qualitative description of each phase is provided

A general and qualitative description of each phase is provided. However, each element is still analysed separately in the IPC worksheets – unlike the Hazards and Vulnerability.

Each of the contributing factors must be analysed within its livelihood, social and

historical context. Thus, the HH Group Reference Table only provides general

descriptions, not thresholds, for contributing factors.

You must evaluate the contributing factor indicators within the local context in order to infer what

outcomes they inform and 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.

REFERENCE TABLES – MUTUAL SUPPORT

It is important for you to consider that the two tables are mutually supportive and are used together.

To make the classification of HH Groups and Areas, both tables need to be used.

To classify an Area, the HH Group Table is needed in order to define the level of Food Consumption and

Livelihood Change especially for the worst off 20% of the population. Thus, the outcomes of these

indicators, together with the contributing factors, need to be understood in order to classify an area.

For information on how to use the 20% rule see Lesson, “IPC Classification Procedures Step by St



14

To classify HH Analysis Groups, convergence also needs to be made with the area-based indicators

included in the Area Reference Table.

Here a graphic representation of the above mentioned concept.

HOW REFERENCE TABLES ARE USED FOR CLASSIFICATION

When using the Reference Tables for classifying food insecurity consider the following key points.

Evidence is not needed for each element, but more evidence means greater confidence.

Criteria and thresholds guide the analysis.

Classification is based on overall convergence of evidence.

Reference Tables include criteria for direct evidence, but indirect evidence can, and should, be

used to support the classification.

THE TABLE POTENTIAL INDIRECT EVIDENCE FOR IPC ANALYSIS

The Phase Classification can be corroborated with both direct and indirect evidence.

Food Consumption Outcome

Nutritional Status Outcome

Direct evidence includes indicators comprised in the Reference Table, and have globally comparable thresholds.

A WFP study showing Food Consumption Scores provides direct evidence of the food consumption status.

Nutrition Survey showing GAM rates provides direct evidence of nutritional status.

Indirect evidence provides “indicative”, or “proxy” evidence

Number of meals eaten by adults provides indirect

Increasing rates of enrolment in therapeutic feeding programmes

Area Reference Table HH Group Reference Table



15

indicators that can be used to infer outcomes without direct measurement.

evidence of food consumption status.

at health clinics provide indirect evidence of worsening nutrition status.

Related to corroborating evidence, indirect evidence can be used to substantiate a Phase

Classification.

EXAMPLES: DIRECT AND INDIRECT EVIDENCE

Example 1

A FS cluster joint-assessment report finds a sharp decline in the diet diversity of the poor and poorest

households throughout much of a district: more than 75% of poor HHs are consuming no more than

three food groups and many of the poorest HHs are subsisting on one food group only.

This is a direct evidence of food consumption because the “Household Diet Diversity Score” technique

is used to assess the situation

.Example 2

A Household Economy Approach conducted by Save the Children Fund finds a small survival deficit of

less than 20% among fishing families.

This is direct evidence of livelihood change because the assessment uses a technique to measure

livelihood deficit.

Example 3

More than 2,000 malnourished children were admitted to Action Against Hunger (ACF) International’s

nutritional centres in a district in February alone – more than three times the number treated in the

same month last year.

This is indirect evidence of nutritional status, there is no clear nutritional survey or assessment

technique used. The impact is inferred.

Example 4

District officials interviewed by an ACF team report a noticeable increase in the number of burials of

both old people and very young children.

This is indirect evidence of mortality because increase in excess mortality is not measured, but inferred

from observations.



16

The Table of Potential Indirect Evidence is a further IPC tool that supports you in the classification. This

tool provides a list of typical indirect indicators that can be used to infer outcome data and contributing

factors:

• Outcome data can be analysed both through direct and indirect evidence; and

• Contributing factor indicators do not have thresholds as their meaning varies with context.

While the table does provide a list of typical indicators of contributing factors, it does not

provide threshold cut-offs 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.

An example of good indirect evidence for IPC analysis is satellite imagery (remotely sensed vegetation

indexes and rainfall estimates), mainly used when sufficient direct evidence for food availability key

reference outcomes is not available. Remote sensing information can also be used to support other key

reference outcomes such as livelihood assets, hazards, and, even, water.

See Annexes

Table of Potential Indirect Evidence to support IPC Analysis

JRC Guidelines on the Use of Remote Sensing for IPC Analysis

THE ACUTE FOOD INSECURITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET

The last IPC tool we are about to explore in this lesson is the Analysis Worksheet, which will help you

organize and analyse evidence.

The Analysis Worksheet for Acute Food Insecurity enables the organization, documentation, and

analysis of evidence in order to classify the severity of acute food insecurity. One Analysis Worksheet

should be completed for each area and/or HH group analysed. A single Analysis Worksheet can be used

for conducting analysis of the Current and Projected Situations.

IPC Information Support System (ISS)

The Analysis Worksheet can be also done online using the ISS application. The ISS is a Web-

based application that has been designed to facilitate global, regional and national stakeholders in



17

creating, storing, and disseminating IPC analyses and information. To know more see Lesson

‘Introduction”

The IPC Analysis Worksheet is divided into four sections:

Section A: Area and HH Analysis Group Definition;

Section B: Classification Conclusions and Justification;

Section C: Causes; and

Section D: Evidence Documentation and Analysis.

If the Technical Working Group (TWG) is classifying Areas only, the parts of the Worksheet 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.

HOW THE IPC ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS ARE USED FOR CLASSIFICATION

When using the Analysis Worksheet for classifying food insecurity consider the following key points.

It enables organization, documentation, and analysis of evidence in order to:

• classify the severity of the situation; and

• understand the limiting factors affecting the situation.

The same worksheet is used for Area only or Household Group (HHG) and Area classification:

• the grey areas in the worksheet are for Household Analysis Group (HAG) only.

It includes a data repository, where all evidence is organized and associated to a code.

The same worksheet is used for current and projected analysis.

One Analysis Worksheet has to be completed for each area analysed, so that the evidence and

process used can transparently be made available for review and information purposes.

You can find a more detailed review of the Analysis Worksheet in Lessons 8 which looks at each s

process for completing the IPC Acute Analysis Worksheet.



18

SUMMARY

There are two types of Reference Tables respectively for Area and Household classification and each of

these provides Reference Outcomes and Priority Response Objectives for the five Phases of Acute Food

Insecurity.

The table of Potential Indirect Evidence supports the classification by providing a list of typical indirect

indicators that can be used to infer outcome data and contributing factors.

The IPC Analysis Worksheet is divided into four sections:

Section A: Area and HH Analysis Group Definition

Section B: Classification Conclusions and Justification

Section C: Causes

Section D: Evidence Documentation and Analysis



19

ANNEX: POTENTIAL INDIRECT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IPC ANALYSIS

Element Potential indirect evidence for IPC Analysis Potential Sources

Food Consumption (Quantity and Nutritional Quality)

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

Livelihood Change (Assets and Strategies)

Ownership of productive assets, e.g. bicycle and farming tools and recent changes in ownership

Household Budget Surveys, population census, household food security surveys

Ownership of livestock and recent changes in ownership

Food security surveys

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


Nutritional Status 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 mothers)

DHS (pregnant mothers)

Prevalence of low birth weight MICS

Household iodized salt consumption MICS



20

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

Mortality/Death Rate

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

Availability 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)

Access 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



21

element Potential indirect evidence for iPc Analysis Potential Sources

Utilization 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


Stability 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

Hazards and Vulnerability

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 health

wHO Global Health Observatory Data Repository

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 line

Household budget surveys, census reports



22

ANNEX: JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE (JRC) 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.

Several institutions distribute free remote sensing information and products. For example:

www.vgt4africa.org/

earlywarning.usgs.gov/fews/#DATA_PORTALS

www.marsop.info/marsop3/

Date post:	25-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	9 times
Download:	0 times

Course: Integrated Food Security Phase Classification · 2015-11-13 · Transforming analyses into...

Documents