evidence informed policy making seminar · 14 convergence of evidence •classification done based...

The European Commission’sscience and knowledge service

Joint Research Centre

EVIDENCE INFORMED POLICY MAKING SEMINAR

2

Integrated Food Insecurity Phase

Classification (IPC) in Africa

Joysee Rodríguez Baide, Duaa Sayed, Feroz

Ahmed and Brian Musaga.

3





Integrated Food Security Phase Classification



Part 1: Overview of IPC

4

Objectives

1. Explain what is Food Security and what IPC is

2. Explain and describe the IPC approach and value for decision

support

3. Explain the purpose and importance of building technical

consensus

4. Describe the value added of IPC

5. Describe the IPC Functions, Tools and Procedures

5

Course Techniques

Explanations

Discussions

Practical exercises

6

What is your understanding of Food Security?

7

What is the Food Security?

Widely accepted definition:

“Food Security 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” (World Food Summit 1996)…

1. A comprehensive concept, hence a complex subject

8

FSN- Multiple measures and assessment

approaches

Often leading to lack of consistency, standard understanding of concepts, and

transparency

9

Why IPC?

To solve inconsistencies in Food Insecurity and Malnutrition assessments, such as lack of:

-Common language for food insecurity and nutrition classifications

-Consistency, standards and transparency

-Clarity and consensus over results

10

What is the IPC?

A set of protocols to classify the severity and causes of food insecurity and provide actionable knowledge by consolidating wide-ranging evidence

A process for building technical consensus among key stakeholders

11

Comparability over space

IPC Phase 3 in one area of

the country represents the

same severity as Phase 3 in other areas

IPC Phase 3 represents the same severity across countries, continents etc.

12

Comparability over time

Changes in the situation

over time can be assessed

for the same area for

• Current period

• Projected period

• Previous season

• Last year

13

Convergence of evidence approach

•Necessary due to:

– Inherent complexity of food security analysis

– Data limitations

– The need to contextualize indicators

– Use of various indicators for the same element, direct and indirect

evidence, convergence across all elements needed to arrive to final

classification

14

Convergence of evidence

•Classification done based on convergence of all available evidence, including contributing factors and outcomes. Open to any reliable evidence.

• Wide ranging evidence referenced against common standards. Reference Table

does not a priori weigh evidence, however for each analysis, different importance may be given depending on context and reliability of evidence

•Classification can be done with minimal evidence, and through convergence make the best use of available information; however, a minimum “evidence level” should be reached

• Using Critical & Logical Analysis following protocols

• Aiming for ‘best fit’ of evidence, however, some evidence may not point to the same phase

Need to consider issues of reliability (timing, representativeness) and other factors

15

Bringing together information from various sectors:– Market Data

– Economic Data

– Climatic Data

– Agricultural Data (calendars, seasonality,

production, yields, etc.)

– Socio-economics (livelihood sources,

food sources, income levels), etc.

ETC..

And from various sources

– National Governments

– NGOs

– UN Agencies

– Technical Agencies

Integrated Analysis

16

Simplifying Complexity

Various scattered evidence Transformed into concise and meaningful information

17

Food security and malnutrition analysis requires expertise

from a wide range of disciplines as well as in-depth

knowledge of the local context.

Brings together experts from different disciplines and

perspectives to evaluate and debate the evidence

culminating in the final classification.

Key feature of IPC: Technical Consensus

18

Purpose evidenceWhy is it Important to have

Technical Consensus?

19

Purpose evidence

– Unified Conclusions

It ensures that the results will be more widely accepted, and acted upon

in a coordinated manner.

– Multi-Stakeholder Ownership

– Accountability

– Increased rigor

– Consensus building is key to promotion of rigorous and unbiased

food security and nutrition classifications.

Importance of Technical Consensus based

on standards, transparency and evidence

20

To contribute to end all forms of hunger and malnutrition via

generation of evidence based information for decision making.

What decisions it informs:

Humanitarian and development interventions planning

Development policy and program design in FSN

The main goal of IPC

21

Relevance for decision making

• What are the key questions that decision makers

• would have to get answerers about for taking action

• In food security ?

•

• What would they need to know about

• The food insecurity situation?

22

Relevance for decision making

• Provides core answers to six key questions:

1. How severe is the situation?

2. Where are the food insecure?

3. How many people are food insecure?

4. Who are the food insecure?

5. When will people be food insecure?

6. Why are people food insecure?

2323

Transforming analyses into concise information for action

How does the IPC Work?

TWG MATRIXANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

REFERENCE TABLES

ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS

COMMUNI-CATION TEMPLATE

Assuring for quality

SELF ASS. TOOL

EXT. QUALITY REVIEW

Building Consensus

Classifying Severity & Identifying Causes

Communicating for Action

Quality Assurance

Fu

ncti

on

sTo

ols

Proced

ures

for

Understanding evidence with an integrated Analytical Framework

Referencing evidence against international standards

Transparently, methodically & consensually analyzing evidence

Multi-agency stakeholders to do collaborative analysis

24

Main Tools and Procedures for

Classifying Severity and Identifying Causes

25

FS Analytical Framework

Shows the relationships between

FS elements

Highlights elements that often are

also link to non-FS factors

Makes a distinction between

primary and secondary outcomes

Outlines the links between FS

contributing factors as well as

feedbacks between these and FS

outcomes.

26

• Describes the meaning of each

phase/level

• Provides broad/indicative priority

response objectives per phase/level

• Specify provides thresholds for each

indicator under each element

Outcomes

Contributing factors

• Includes all the direct evidence that

can be included in IPC analysis

Reference table

27

Analysis worksheets

Allows analysts to organize,

document and

understand/analyze the evidence

available

Leads analysts to advance in a

step by step manner with the

analysis.

28

What is the IPC?

A set of protocols to classify the

severity and causes of food insecurity

and provide actionable knowledge by

consolidating wide-ranging evidence

A process for building technical

consensus among key stakeholders

28

Food Consumption is an Outcome element in the Analytic Framework. Various indicators can inform this element

The Reference Table gives overall description and indicative thresholds to classify key global indicators of Food Consumption

Statements analyzing and concluding on available indicators will be included in the Food Consumption Outcome Box

Links between analysis tools

29

Worksheets in two formats

Paper based (AMN, AFI,CFI)

Electronic (AFI,CFI): organized in the IPC Information Support System (ISS).

Compiles all worksheets, each as a separate tab

30

• Global standard as it provides a common language for FSI assessments

• Integrated FSN analysis that incorporates a wide range of evidence

thereby simplifying complexity in FNS

• Applicable at any scale

• Convergence of evidence approach following specific protocols

• Based on technical consensus

• Comparability over space and time

• Early warning for FI and AMN situations with use of projections

• Transparence through evidence based analysis

• Accountability

• Contributes to the identification of data gaps in FSN monitoring systems

The value-added of IPC

31





Classification (IPC) in AfricaPart 2: IPC Scales – theory and practice



32

Three Integrated Scales for Classifying Food

Insecurity or Acute Malnutrition

33

Chronic Food Insecurity and

Acute Malnutrition

Acute Food Insecurity Acute Malnutrition Chronic Food Insecurity

IPC Definitions of

Food Insecurity

and Malnutrition

Food insecurity found in a specified

area at a specific point in time and of

a severity that threatens lives or

livelihoods, or both, regardless of the

causes, context or duration.

Global Acute Malnutrition as

expressed by thinness of

individuals.

Food insecurity that persists over

time mainly due to structural

causes, including intra-annual

seasonal food insecurity.

Guides

Interventions

Focus

Short-term objectives to prevent or

decrease severe food insecurity that

threatens lives or livelihoods.

Short and long term objectives

to prevent or decrease high

levels of acute malnutrition.

Medium- and long-term

improvement of the quality and

quantity of food consumption for

an active and healthy life.

Severity

Categories

5 Severity Phases:

(1) Minimal/None

(2) Stressed

(3) Crisis

(4) Emergency

(5) Catastrophe/Famine

5 Severity Phases:

(1) Acceptable

(2) Alert

(3) Serious

(4) Critical

(5) Extreme Critical

4 Severity Levels:

(1) Minimal/None

(2) Mild

(3) Moderate

(4) Severe

Analytical Focus

Food consumption

Identify areas with large proportion

of households having significant gaps

in food quantity consumption that

can endanger lives and livelihoods.

Identifying areas with large

proportion of children acutely

malnourished.

Identifying areas with large

proportion of households with

long-term inability to meet

minimum food requirements both

in terms of quality and quantity.

IPC Integrated Scales

34

IPC Integrated Scales

Acute Food Insecurity Acute Malnutrition Chronic Food Insecurity

Indicators Quick-changing indicators are

analyzed as snap shots.

Slow-changing indicators are not

included in the Reference Table and

therefore are not directly used for the

classification.

Quick changing indicators of

child anthropometry

Quick-changing indicators are

referenced for non-exceptional

circumstances.

Slow-changing indicators, such as

stunting, are included in the

analysis even when captured

during exceptional conditions.

Susceptibility to

changeHigh: dynamic, Phases of acute food

insecurity can and often do change

quickly

High: GAM prevalence can change

quickly

Low: changes are slow and

happen gradually

Validity period Short: days /weeks/ months Short: weeks/ months Long: 3-5 years in the absence of major

structural changes

35

Why IPC Acute & Chronic scales

Acute and Chronic food insecurity have different characteristics and

thus require different but well coordinated and linked responses

AFI and CFI are not mutually exclusive and can co-exists

ACUTE

&

CHRONIC

36

IPC Acute Classification

37


All food insecurity found at a specific point in time of a severity that threatens lives and/or livelihoods regardless of the causes, context or duration.

To inform short term strategic objectives (e.g. food/cash aid, asset redistribution, basic needs support, saving lives etc.)

Acute Food Insecurity Focus

38

IPC Acute: general analysis parameters

• Acute food insecurity definition and analytical focus • Informing action with short-term strategic objectives • Five severity phases• Convergence of evidence• 20 percent rule for area classification • Unit(s) of analysis• Snapshot in time with validity period (months)• Current classifications• Projected classifications• Identification of areas that would likely be at least one phase

worse without HFA• Identification of key drivers and most affected populations

Famine Classifications adhere to additional specific protocols.Classifications in areas with incomplete evidence due to limited or no humanitarian access adhere to additional specific protocols.

39


Each phase is associated to a guiding definition describing the relative

severity.

Each severity levels associated to different implications for urgency and

priority response

40

IPC Acute: Minimum quality & data requirements

Each piece of evidence -> assigned a reliability score depending on

methods time relevance

Overall analysis -> assigned a Evidence Level (EL) depending on the score

and number of direct evidence on outcomes + number of indirect evidence

or contributing factors evidence available, can be:

*Acceptable , **Medium, and ***High

Different EL requirements for current, projection

or updates

41

IPC Acute: unit of analysis

Unit of analysis:

Area: asses the overall population within a given area using the

20% of population rule for defining the Phase of an

area

Households groups: Classifies “groups of households” and

implies more detailed analysis and information for decision

making

42

Steps to Classify Severity & ID CausesIdentify Context and Analysis Parameters

Populate Evidence in Repository

Analyze Evidence

Determine area classification and population estimates

Identify areas that could be at least one phase worse without HFA

Define key drivers

Identify key Limiting Factors

Develop assumptions for future shocks and ongoing conditions

Analyze evidence


Identify areas that could be at least one phase worse without HFA

Identify risk factors to monitor

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5

Step 6

Step 7

Step 8

Step 9

Step 10

Step 11

Step 12

Curr

ent

Pro

jection

43

IPC Acute: Food security elements& indicators

1o level Outcomes: Include common indicators and methodologies calibrated to IPC Phases

• Food Consumption (Quantity & Quality)

– Dietary energy intake

– Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS)

– Food Consumption Score (FCS)

– Household Hunger Score (HHS)

– Reduced Coping Strategy Index (rCSI)

– HH Economy Approach (HEA)

• Livelihood Changes (Assets & Strategies)

– Livelihood Coping Strategies Index (LCSI)

44

IPC Acute: Food security elements& indicators

2o level Outcomes: Include common indicators and methodologies calibrated to IPC Phases

• Acute malnutrition (Nutritional Status)

Global Acute Malnutrition (GAM), by measures:

-Weight for Height (WHZ)

-Mid Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC)

Body Max Index (BMI)

Mortality rate, by measures of:

• Mortality rates

• Crude Death Rate (CDR)

• Under 5 Death Rate (U5DR)

45

IPC Acute: Food security elements & indicators

Contributing factors: Include common indicators and methodologies calibrated to IPC Phases

• Four pillars of Food Security (mostly descriptive guidance except water )

• Availability

• Access

• Utilization

- safe water requirements in lts/person/day

• Stability

• Hazards and Vulnerability

Descriptive general guidance per phase

46

Assign Overall Phase

Classification for Tambai (Area

Only) and fill in Step 5Task: With your Group...

1. Assign Indicative Phase for each element

2. Assign the overall Phase classification for Tambai (area

only)

3. Calculate population affected in the area and fill it in Step 5

4. Complete the missing parts of summary justification

statement in Step 5

46

Exercise 12.1

Use the Area Only Analysis Worksheet Workbook, pg 24

47

IPC Chronic Classification

To inform medium and long term strategic objectives (e.g. structural development, agricultural and rural development policies, and strengthening livelihood strategies and adaptive capacity)

Persistent food insecurity due to structural causes.

Chronic Food Insecurity Focus

Year

Food

nsecure

popula

tion

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

48

IPC Chronic Classification: Severity LevelsLevel 1

None/Minimal

Level 2

Mild

Level 3

Moderate

Level 4

Severe

Urgent Action Required

1. Disaster risk

reduction, and reinforce

livelihoods as needed.

1 +

2. Protect and strengthen

livelihoods as needed.

3.a Address underlying factors to

increase quality FC

1 + 2

3.b Address underlying factors to

increase quality of and quantity

FC and decrease chronic MN.

4. Add safety net programs

1 + 2 + 3 + 4

5. Complementary programs to

address underlying factors to

substantially decrease chronic

malnutritionImplication

for

response

49

IPC Acute: Minimum quality & data requirements

Each piece of evidence -> reliability score depending on methods time

relevance

Overall analysis -> Evidence Level (EL) *Acceptable , **Medium, or

***High depending on:

• Outcomes evidence: reliability score,

tier rating number of outcomes available

• Number of additional supporting

evidence: indirect evidence on outcomes

or contributing factors

50

IPC Acute: unit of analysis

Unit of analysis:

Area: asses the overall population within a given area using the

20% of population rule for defining the Level of an

area

Households groups: Classifies “groups of households” and

implies more detailed analysis and information for decision

making

51

Steps to Classify Chronic Severity & ID drivers and limiting factors

Identify Context and Analysis Parameters

Populate and document Evidence in Repository

Identify Periods with Non Exceptional Circumstances

Analyze evidence


Define key drivers

Identify key Limiting Factors

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5

Step 6

Step 7

52

IPC Chronic: Food security elements & indicators1o level Outcomes: Include common indicators and methodologies

calibrated to IPC Levels

• Food Consumption (Quality)

– Share of energy from macronutrients

– Children eating Minimum Dietary Diversity

– Minimum Dietary Diversity of Women (MDD-W)

– Starchy Staple Ratio (SSR)

– Starchy Staple Expenditure Ratio (SSEXR)• Food Consumption (Quantity)

– Dietary Energy Intake

– Prevalence of Undernourishment (PoU)

– Food Consumption Score (FCS)

– Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES)

– Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS)

– Household Hunger Score (HHS)

– HH Economy Approach (HEA)

– Months of Adequate Household Food Provisioning (MAHFP)

53

IPC Chronic: Food security elements & indicators

2o level Outcomes: Include common indicators and methodologies calibrated to IPC Levels

• Nutritional Status

– Stunting prevalence among children

– Measured as Height for Age (HAZ)

•Other nutritional indicators are included as indirect evidence: BMI,

Children Wasting prevalence,

54

IPC Chronic: Food security elements & indicatorsContributing Factors: Include common indicators and methodologies calibrated to IPC Levels

• Hazards and Vulnerabilities

– Reliance on low value livelihood strategies

– National Poverty Line (NLP)

– Percent of Total Cash Expenditure Spend in Food

– Total Income as a percent of survival needs

– Households Resilience

– Presence of Iodized Salt

• Four pillars of FS

– Availability

– Access

– Utilization

– Water Sources: improved vs non improved

– Water Access: Adequacy in lts/person/day

– Stability

55

Review of Chronic results

communicationTask: With your Group...

1. Read the results of the Tambai chronic IPC

2. Discuss the relevance of the information provided for policy

making, advocacy, development planning

3. What additional information could be included in the Chronic

Communication?

4. In your prespective what is the relevance of IPC Chronic in

your home countries

55

Exercise 12.1

Use the Area Only Analysis Worksheet Workbook, pg 24

56


Ahmed, Brian Musaga.






Part 3: IPC Use

57

Countries Engaged in Integrated Food Insecurity and Acute Malnutrition Assessments

58

• 40 Countries engaged in IPC Activities: in Africa, Asia, Latin

America and Near East

• 26 countries conducting IPC analysis regularly

• Support to CH in 17 Countries in West Africa

• More than 2,000 people trained in IPC since 2012 (31% women)

IPC Global Coverage

59

Use of the IPC

Governments to inform investment

plans and national and sub-national

development strategies

Donors to develop strategic plans and

respond to Humanitarian Appeals in

crisis-affected countries/regions

UN Agencies to plan and coordinate

emergency response (e.g. South

Sudan) and early recovery efforts (e.g.

Philippines)

NGOs to inform comprehensive needs

assessments and design of food and

livelihood security programmes

60

Use of IPC and CH

• HFA programming and implementation

• Development policy, programming and

implementation

61

IPC in Analysis-Response Continuum

62

Use of IPC Acute

• Humanitarian Food Aid planning: number of people in need and

area targeting

• Food Security updates

• Use of concepts of IPC in reports and communication of food

crises

• Advocacy for action to tackle food insecurity crisis

• A standardized and agreed guidance for Famine declaration

(FRC –advisory role to countries conducting assessments)

63

IPC – CH Acute FI results : Main inputs to Annual Global Report on Food Crises

People in Need, IPC Phase 3+ in 2017

64

Country Policy/programme/planning document Author/Source IPC Pub. Date

Timor Leste

Reference to IPC Chronic findings in 2018 Fiscal Year Debate

Prime Ministers office April 2018

Opening remarks at World Food Day Event highlighted the IPC Chronic findings

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries

April 2018

Philippines

Northern Mindanao: Regional Plan of Action for Nutrition, used IPC Chronic findings

Regional Nutrition Committee- 2019-2022

April 2017

Regional Nutrition Action Plan used IPC Chronic findings

Regional Nutrition Committees- Pending Approval - 2019-2022

April 2017

Draft Resolution on Adopting the IPC as one of the Food Security Assessment Tools in Aid of PPAN and related Sectoral Plans

National Nutrition Council April 2017

Paper: “Locating the Chronically Food Insecure through IPC" presented 13th National Convention on Statistics held on 3-4 October 2016

National Nutrition Council April 2017

IPC Chronic findings used for Post Damage Needs Assessment report: “Agriculture and Fisheries Sector”.

Department of Agriculture April 2017

IPC Chronic: Use in Policy, Programing, Science

65


Philippines IPC-Chronic used to build the project proposal to the Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA): “Support to Agriculture and Agribusiness Enterprises in Mindanao for Sustainable Development”.

FAO April 2017

IPC-Chronic used in project report: “Food Security Status Report of the Philippines”

FAO April 2017

IPC-Chronic cited in the FAO 2015 Newsletter (issue 3)

FAO April 2017

Humanitarian Implementation Plan, South and East Asia and the Pacific used IPC Chronic findings

ECHO April 2017


66


Bangladesh

National Food Policy Plan of Action and Country Investment Plan-2016: Monitoring Report 2016

FPMU, MoFood November 2014

Project proposal: “Reducing food waste spoilage: Improving the Quality of supply chain management system of vegetables to reduce post-harvest loss in Bangladesh”

Department of Agriculture Extension (DAE) of the Ministry of Agriculture, GoB

November 2014

Bangladesh Monsoon Flood WFP December 2015

Humanitarian response Plan (HRP) Bangladesh Monsoon Flood, 2016

Humanitarian Coordination Task Team (HCTT)

December 2015

Bangladesh Tropical Storm/Cyclone: Disaster SummarySheet, 2018

Start Fund Bangladesh, ACAPS

December 2015

BANGLADESH Landslides, 2017 Start Fund Bangladesh, ACAPS

December 2015

WFP Proposal for HIP-Building resilience of the government to detect and manage potential disasters including nutritionEmergencies, 2017

WFP November 2016


67



Nepal Component of project: “Building statistical capacity for quality food security and nutrition information in support of better informed policies TCP/RAS/3409”, 2017

Ministry of Agriculture, Central Bureau of Statistics,GoN

December 2014

Theses: Food insecurity in Nepal: ac cross-sectional analysis from 175 districts.

Aarti Reddy, University of Richmond

December 2014

Honduras National Strategy for Food and Nutrition Security. Aiming to stablish IPC protocols initiating with in country capacity building

UTSAN, GoH

68

Assessing the potential use of

IPCTask: With your Group...

1. What are the potentials uses of IPC chronic and Acute in

Africa?

2. In your perspective how can IPC better serve the needs of

decision makers in food security of your home countries?

68

Exercise 12.1

69

IPC Global platform website

70

IPC Global Platform

•For more information see the IPC Website: www.ipcinfo.org

Calendar of upcoming events (training, analysis, lessons learn

workshops)

IPC analysis reports

Learning materials, manuals, e-learning resources

Links to partner organizations

Food crisis alerts

Others..

71

Stay in touch

•EU Science Hub: ec.europa.eu/jrc

•Twitter: @EU_ScienceHub

•Facebook: EU Science Hub - Joint Research Centre

•LinkedIn: Joint Research Centre

•YouTube: EU Science Hub

72

The Joint Research Centre

at a glance

3000 staffAlmost 75% are scientists and researchers.Headquarters in Brussels and research facilitieslocated in 5 Member States.

evidence informed policy making seminar · 14 convergence of evidence •classification done based...

Documents