course: integrated food security phase classification · 2015-11-13 · transforming analyses into...
TRANSCRIPT
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
IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification IPC Reference Tables and Analysis Worksheet
Text-only version © FAO 2015
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.
IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification IPC Reference Tables and Analysis Worksheet
Text-only version © FAO 2015
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
IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification IPC Reference Tables and Analysis Worksheet
Text-only version © FAO 2015
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.
IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification IPC Reference Tables and Analysis Worksheet
Text-only version © FAO 2015
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.
IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification IPC Reference Tables and Analysis Worksheet
Text-only version © FAO 2015
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.
IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification IPC Reference Tables and Analysis Worksheet
Text-only version © FAO 2015
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;
IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification IPC Reference Tables and Analysis Worksheet
Text-only version © FAO 2015
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.
Priority Response Objectives
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.
Priority Response Objectives
Area
Out
com
es
(dire
ctly
m
easu
red
or
infe
rred
)
Food Consumption and Livelihood Change
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
IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification IPC Reference Tables and Analysis Worksheet
Text-only version © FAO 2015
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.
Priority Response Objectives
Area
Out
com
es
(dire
ctly
mea
sure
d or
infe
rred
)
Food Consumption and Livelihood Change
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.
IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification IPC Reference Tables and Analysis Worksheet
Text-only version © FAO 2015
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:
IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification IPC Reference Tables and Analysis Worksheet
Text-only version © FAO 2015
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.
IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification IPC Reference Tables and Analysis Worksheet
Text-only version © FAO 2015
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
IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification IPC Reference Tables and Analysis Worksheet
Text-only version © FAO 2015
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
IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification IPC Reference Tables and Analysis Worksheet
Text-only version © FAO 2015
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
IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification IPC Reference Tables and Analysis Worksheet
Text-only version © FAO 2015
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.
IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification IPC Reference Tables and Analysis Worksheet
Text-only version © FAO 2015
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
IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification IPC Reference Tables and Analysis Worksheet
Text-only version © FAO 2015
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.
IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification IPC Reference Tables and Analysis Worksheet
Text-only version © FAO 2015
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
IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification IPC Reference Tables and Analysis Worksheet
Text-only version © FAO 2015
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
Food security surveys
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
IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification IPC Reference Tables and Analysis Worksheet
Text-only version © FAO 2015
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
IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification IPC Reference Tables and Analysis Worksheet
Text-only version © FAO 2015
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
Food security surveys
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
IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification IPC Reference Tables and Analysis Worksheet
Text-only version © FAO 2015
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/