table of contents (clickable)iafportal.jrc.ec.europa.eu/dirfile/custreports/... · guidance –...

Guidance – Integrated Analysis Framework Template – 25 April 2019

NB : please use CTRL + Home to come back to the Table of Contents

1 | P a g e

Table of contents (clickable) 1 Introduction and Background ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

2 Format of the integrated analysis framework template and technical support .............................................................................................................................................2

3 Deadline for completion of IAF templates ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

4 Important General Instructions and new features – please read before completing the template....................................................................................................... 3

5 Detailed guidance for completion of the Integrated Analysis Framework template ...............................................................................................................…………….9

SECTION A – BASIC DATA ON THE CRISIS (ES) AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL ............................................................................................ …………9

5.2 SECTION B – ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIFIED CRISES .......................................................................................................................................... 10

5.3 SECTION C (C 1 and C2) – FOOD AND NUTRITION NEEDS ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................. …..15

5.4 SECTION D – DISASTER RISK REDUCTION ASSESSEMENT ......................................................................................................................... ….23

5.5 SECTION E – PROPOSED OPERATIONAL STRATEGY .................................................................................................................................... ….26

5.6 SECTION F – MID-TERM REVIEW RECOMMENDATION ............................................................................................................................... ….27

5.7 SECTION G – PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION FOR OVERALL ECHO FUNDING ALLOCATION (YEAR N+1) ....................... ….28

ANNEX 1 - SNAPSHOT..........................................................................................................................................................................................................29

ANNEX II – INDICATIVE STRATEGIC CALENDAR………………………………………………………………………………………………… .31



2 | P a g e

Guidance – Integrated Analysis Framework (IAF) 1 Introduction and Background Welcome to the integrated analysis framework web template. Following ECHO's "Process Review", the integrated analysis framework template was

introduced in 2013 to replace the previous "pre-HIP", FCA fiche, GNA and FINAT processes used for internal ECHO analysis as part of the definition of

needs and preparation of operational response.

The aim of the integrated framework is to provide a strengthened analysis of all crises in a country in one document, and so avoiding duplication of efforts and

ensuring a comparable, high-quality and clear evidence base for decision-making for ECHO funding allocations.

The information contained in the completed integrated analysis framework template should also provide a basis for the drafting of the Humanitarian

Implementation Plan (HIP) document.

2 Format of the integrated analysis framework template and technical support The template is made up of 7 sections; sections A, B, C, D, E, F and G:

Section A: country level data.

Section B: analysis of humanitarian crises.

Section C (split in C1 and C2): analysis of food and nutrition specific crises.

Section D: disaster risk reduction assessment.



3 | P a g e

Section E: describes the key summary elements of the proposed operational strategy and will therefore form the basis for the subsequent drafting of

the HIP.

Section F: preliminary recommendation for funding at the mid-term review stage.

Section G: preliminary recommendation for overall ECHO funding allocation for year n+1 from the Head of Unit.

These guidance notes aim to provide clear instructions for field experts and desk officers when completing the integrated analysis framework and feedback is

welcome to ensure they are updated to help users in completing the analysis template. You do not have to read the whole document, but rather consult the

relevant section in the notes as needed when filling in each part of the template. For any questions, please contact the D1 functional mailbox, ECHO-D1-

[email protected].

3 Deadline for completion of IAF templates The IAF template should be completed in line with the indicative integrated ECHO annual planning cycle calendar present in Annex II at page 31. It is

essential that deadlines are respected as late submissions will have an impact on the overall running of the planning cycle and the work of other units.

4 Important General Instructions – please read before completing the template Once logged into the IAF, click on CONSOLIDATED IAF and then on Overview STANDARD under IAF for year 2019

Please fill in the IAF template in EN or in FR but not in a combination of both languages

Please fill in the form by first completing the Section A. You can then compile other sections in any order.

To fill in a form and its relevant fields you first need to click on the pencil that is related to the relevant fields

Field colleagues are requested to fill the relevant sections and, when finished, submit to desk.

mailto:[email protected]





4 | P a g e

With the button "Show previous section", there is the possibility to see the section of the 2017 corresponding IAF. If needed the user can

copy / paste this information into the 201 IAF.

When Field colleague has terminated his input, he has to go to the section Overview and then push the button "Submit to desk"

The submit to desk will prepare an automatic Email message to the desk that Field can modify if needed

The "submit to desk" message is an informal process informing the desk but not a real workflow. This means that once the "submit to desk"

has been performed, the field still has the possibility to modify the IAF and submit to desk as long as the desk has not submitted it to the

HOU. This also means that the desk has the possibility to send an Email to Field requesting some changes.

Desk officers must ensure that the IAFs are fully completed and then submit them for approval by the Head of Unit. Desk officers should

also coordinate the work of multiple actors and assure quality control.

The HOU have the possibility to Approve, Request for changes or Edit the IAF. If the HOU approves an IAF, the desk and the field will be

notified via an Email. If the Head of Unit requests for changes, the system will prepare a message that the HOU will complete with the

requested changes. If the HOU wants to edit the IAF, he has to click on the Edit button and enter into the relevant sections of the IAF. To

modify a field, the HOU has to first click on the pencil.

Please save your form regularly by clicking on "SAVE", and always before navigating to another section. There is no auto save and you will

be timed-out after 60 minutes.

The maximum number of characters for the free text sections is indicated in the screens, except for some fields of section B2

For countries where there is a current forgotten crisis and / or a proposal for a humanitarian situation to be considered as a forgotten crisis

for the year n+1 and there is no HIP foreseen – only fill in sections A, B and E.

Section B covers general humanitarian crises, while Section C is specific to food & nutrition crises and Section D to disaster risk reduction

(DRR) assessment



5 | P a g e

For food and nutrition specific crises where there is no HIP – please fill in sections A, C and E.

All countries that use an IAF should complete DRR assessment, except those where integrating DRR into operations will not be possible for

reasons of security/remote management. In this case a justification should be given. In countries where only DRR targeted activities are

envisaged within a regional HIP (which includes humanitarian actions in other countries in the region), the IAF for that country will be

limited to sections A and D.

For LAC drought initiative / ECHO Flight HIPs – an IAF template is not required

For emergency / ad-hoc decisions that occur during the year, where a country IAF has not already been completed, and for specific cases of

operational reserve and EDF requests. A light IAF may be considered

If an existing IAF needs to be revised / updated during the year, the request has to be addressed to ECHO-D1-

[email protected]. The new version will be named IAF light 1 (light 2, 3, 4, … if there are successive versions)

If it deals with a light IAF, only sections A2, B1, B2 and G need to be completed.

If it is a primarily Food Security and Nutrition related crisis, section C1 and C2 of the IAF also need to be completed.

If crisis context changing circumstances open possibilities for strengthening Disaster Risk Reduction, please also update the section D of the

IAF

For all sections, changes compared to the previous situation should be clearly explained in the relevant fields. In section G mention the

proposed change in funding allocation and mention under further comments/recommendations for management how will ECHO's response

strategy evolve.

After the desk has submitted the IAF to the HOU, the icon/button "Show change history" will display the last versions starting with the

more recent one as well as the name of the user who did the relevant updates and the date of the updates. This is very useful for changes for

values, as it shows clearly the changes. However for long free text, this should not be considered as a real Track Changes.





6 | P a g e

A FAQ menu is available on the right upper part of the screen.

In Win7, the system works with Internet Explorer 11, Firefox and Chrome. We advise you to use one of the two last ones.

NEW ! In Win10 the systems better works with Chrome and possibly Microsoft Edge. There might be some issues with Firefox Mozilla,

particularly during the reset after first login

Budget: Figures for Initial HIP allocation (Year n – to date) please introduce the figures.

IAF Snapshot.

o On demand, the IAF Snapshot is generated automatically.

o The snapshot cannot be modified as data displayed are not saved but calculated from IAF and from INFORM.

o However if you want to add a comment on the snapshot, you can do it in section B2 D of the IAF. There is a specific field at the end

of this section

o To access to the snapshots, just click on the Menu item SNAPSHOT that appears on the top of the screen

o NEW ! Education. A new section B2 E has been added on education (see below in description of section B2)

Regional IAF.

o It is not compulsory to have regional IAFs. This option is decided at Unit level if it is considered that a Regional IAF is coherent and

will facilitate geo colleagues' work. If you consider that it is easier to have country IAFs, it is recommended to use that option.

o A regional IAF makes particularly sense if there will be a regional HIP

o Ideally a regional IAF should include the same countries as those that will be in the regional HIP

o However there is some flexibility for the choices of countries and if considered necessary, you may have countries into the regional

IAF even if it is not sure that these countries will be funded.

o Be aware that the choice of the countries included into the Regional IAF has a potential impact on the values coming from INFORM

and other sources. These values are displayed in section A1 and in the snapshot.



7 | P a g e

o For these values, when it deals with indexes average values are calculated and weighted with the population. When it deals with

numbers (like for example Number of IDPs) the total is calculated.

o If there is a country IAF, this country should only be included in a regional IAF if there is a regional component for this country (i.e. a

regional crisis that comes in addition to the crisis mentioned in the country IAF or a regional DRR)

o Once the composition of a regional IAF has been decided, it will no longer be possible to change it. If you want to add a country

during the IAF exercise, you will need to use a country (light) IAF.

o The template for regional IAFs is the same as for country IAF.

o The country IAF corresponding to regional IAFs are displayed by default but you have the possibility to hide them if you click on the

button visualize / Not visualize countries belonging to the region.

o For questions related to crisis, (sections A2, B1, B4, and if needed C1, C2) please enter the information at that level as is done for

country IAFs

o For other questions (sections B2 and B3, section D) please enter the information for the whole region

o For all the questions not related to crisis, use average values for the region when there are pre-established answers (drop down lists).

For example in section B2. C : Security/political issues : if your assessment is that it is difficult for the region, mention "difficult" and if

according to your assessment the evolution of the situation compared to previous year is worsening in the region, mention "worsening"

o You always have the possibility to add comments in fields with free text if you want to highlight significant differences between countries.

o In section A1 of Regional IAFs, click on the picture to access the regional map. There click on the desired country to get the

values at country level..



8 | P a g e

If you want to print the IAF, please use preferably the Chrome browser and go to the preview tab : There please right click and select print

with destination save as pdf. You will then also have the opportunity to save the document as pdf. Alternatively you may use IE11 or Firefox

to print but you will then need to

o 1) click on start button in windows o 2) copy / paste \\s-pdfcode-prn02 at the bottom of the screen in the search area



9 | P a g e

o 3) select printer for ECHO : P-PDF-ECHO-01 See print screen



10 | P a g e

5 Detailed guidance for completion of the Integrated Analysis Framework template SECTION A – BASIC DATA ON THE CRISIS (ES) AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL

This section needs to be filled in for all types of crises - humanitarian and food & nutrition

It aims to give an overview of the country, the context and the prevalent crises within the country. It provides data at the country

level for both humanitarian and food & nutrition crises. Please first complete this section, as the later sections in this form (e.g.

Section C – food & nutrition) will refer to the crises identified here.

A.1 Composite data

pertaining to the

country

The INFORM Index and related data in this section is centrally produced by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) and

available at www.inform-index.org.

o If there are any issues arising with the data, please explain in the comments box (max. 700 characters). If it deals with

a regional IAF, you have the possibility to view national values: click on the picture to access the regional

map. There click on the desired country to get the values at country level.

A.2 Description of the

crisis (es)

o Please just enter the title of the different crises



11 | P a g e

SECTION B – ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIFIED CRISES

This section needs to be filled in for general humanitarian crises.

It provides an assessment of the needs of the people affected by a specific crisis within a country and an analysis of contextual

factors that are likely to affect the capacity of DG ECHO to reach beneficiaries and have an impact.

B.1 Humanitarian needs

- Situation by area / region

or crisis type

- Vulnerability of affected

population

- Probability of crisis

- Population affected

(current)

- Foreseen trend

- Overall rating

- Sectors

- Status of the affected

population

- Comment / reference /

other considerations

This sub-section allows you to highlight the main characteristics of the crisis.

1. The crises listed here are the same as those identified in section A.2 'Description of the crisis'.

2. Select the vulnerability level from the drop down menu

3. Select the probability of crisis from the drop down menu.

4. Select the population affected (current) from the drop down menu.

5. Select the foreseen trend from the drop down menu.

6. Select an overall rating from the drop down menu.

7. Select the main sector(s) of intervention from the drop down menu. You may choose as many as necessary.

8. Select the status of the affected population from the drop down menu. You may choose as many as necessary.

Please use the comments box to explain what sources were used for needs assessment and to give any other comments as needed

(max 700 characters).

Protection and International Human Law Mention Y or N

-> Please interpret as follows: Are there increased protection risks for the affected population as a result of the crisis?



12 | P a g e

Categories of most vulnerable groups

o 1. Ethnic/religious minorities (GBV=YES-high)

o 2. IDPs (GBV=YES-high)

o 3. Natural-disaster affected (GBV=YES-medium)

o 4. Host populations (GBV=YES-medium)

Please note that the differentiation between gravity of GBV amongst different population groups should not be

taken into account in the final analysis. GBV – along with any other kind of aggression – is equally serious in a crisis

situation no matter against who it is perpetrated. Moreover, it should always be assumed that GBV is taking place

in any crisis and therefore services must be put in place regardless of the number of identified cases or the

community they belong to.

B.2 Overall response

analysis

Government capacity and

willingness to respond

This table is to give an indication of the contextual factors that need to be taken into account when developing a

response strategy. The table is per country and NOT per crisis – however if two crisis situations within a country are

completely diverging you may provide clarification in the comments column explaining the different situations.

The table is divided into 5 sections; current response, coordination with development actors, implementation capacity,

additional information and Education in Emergencies – Response Analysis

The columns 'assessment' and 'evolution of situation' provide a drop-down list of categories to be selected. Please select

your assessment for each of the data from these menus. The row 'explanatory information' allows for insertion of short

free text by way of explanation as needed.

It is understood that government capacity and willingness are not the same. Therefore, if for example, there is capacity but no

willingness, select 'partial' from the drop-down menu and briefly explain in the explanatory information column. Similarly, if

government capacity and / or willingness to respond exists in one crisis within the country but not in the other, select 'partial'



13 | P a g e

Presence of other donors

Other DG ECHO

interventions

D Additional Information

from the drop-down menu and explain why in the comments column.

Presence of other donors is intended to refer to donor countries, bodies & pooled funding mechanisms that provide funding for

implementation of humanitarian and/or development programmes and projects in the country.

The drop-down menus only allow for the selection of 4 actions, if there are more present in the country, please specify these in

the comments column.

Please complete the following fields that have been added in order to allow the automatic production of the snapshot.:

Cost of humanitarian intervention (this is related to logistic costs that may also be influenced by the security situation)

Crisis modifiers

This short section should include a minimum of the following information provided in bullet-points or brief sentences:

Cost of humanitarian intervention : please specify from the drop down list

Crisis modifiers : Please select YES or NO

E Education in

Emergencies

Education in Emergencies Response Analysis: This section should be completed in all countries that use an IAF by

Country TAs (ideally, the EiE country focal point), with ad hoc support from the regional EiE focal point where there is no

dedicated EiE country focal point, and with support from the EiE thematic experts.

The textbox for the EiE response analysis is limited to 1000 characters. It should provide a snapshot of EiE needs, focusing

on humanitarian needs for this sector (out-of-school children, attacks on education, child protection needs, availability of rapid



14 | P a g e

response mechanisms or non-formal education options etc.). Guiding questions:

What is the scope and scale of EiE needs? Data on displacement, school closure or destruction, attacks on education,

restrictions of movement or deliberate denial of access to education are relevant here. Consider which regions, ethnic

groups, age groups have the largest number of out-of-school children (OOSC).

What are the emergency-related barriers to education? Consider the academic barriers (gaps in children's education,

language barriers), financial barriers, institutional barriers (documentation needs, policies that segregate children), socio-

emotional barriers (due to experiences of trauma) and social barriers (prioritisation of boys, child labour etc.).

What is the current donor response and government response? What are the gaps? Mention other EU funding

instruments where relevant, and global initiatives such as Education Cannot Wait or the Global Partnership for

Education. Identify geographical areas (non-government controlled areas), target groups (unregistered refugees) or

schools (unofficial schools set up by refugees) that other instruments may not be able to support for political reasons.

How do these needs align with ECHO priorities? See the Staff Working Document on Education in Emergencies in EU-

funded Humanitarian Aid Operations for our conceptual framework and programming considerations.

Sources for education in emergencies data:

- Where an education cluster is activated or there is an active education working group, consult them for the most up to

date information. Based on the overwhelmingly positive feedback about the country-level consultations with education

partners held in 2018, we encourage that this exercise is repeated in the summer of 2019 to inform the planning for 2020.

- Global Education Cluster website (it is being overhauled) and https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/

- Information from national government and Ministry of Education (Education Management Information Systems – EMIS)

- Education Cannot Wait funding information

- UNICEF Emergencies Country info

http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/news/190328%20SWD%20EiE%20in%20EU-funded%20Humanitarian%20Aid%20Operations%20SWD(2019)150%20final.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/news/190328%20SWD%20EiE%20in%20EU-funded%20Humanitarian%20Aid%20Operations%20SWD(2019)150%20final.pdf

http://educationcluster.net/

https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/

http://www.educationcannotwait.org/about-ecw/

https://www.unicef.org/emergencies/



15 | P a g e

- Global Coalition to Protect Education From Attack, Education Under Attack Report 2018 for info on attacks on

education

Optional comments: This textbox is limited to 1000 characters. Further to the response analysis, you can use it to provide

information on ongoing ECHO actions and current partners, and suggest strategic directions for the development of ECHO's

engagement in EiE.

B.3 Past funding trends

Please fill the table

Only enter figures and avoid commas (,) points and other specific characters.

The table presents 3 budget lines: humanitarian aid, disaster preparedness and the EDF.

The first column refers to the current year initial HIP allocation. If the budget information for the country is not yet

available centrally for the year in question as it is part of regional funding e.g. Sahel countries such as Burkina Faso

etc., the table will present the Regional amounts.

A blank box or 0 means: 1) there was no budget allocated for the year/budget line in question.

ECHO funding pledges to EU Trust Funds : please specify whether existing and if recommended (Yes / No)

B.4 Forgotten crisis

assessment (proposal for

year N+1)

Other considerations:

This section lists all crises identified in the section A.3 'Description of the crisis'.

1. Please consider whether a particular crisis within the country or a whole country should be considered as a forgotten

crisis. Data from in the previous sections should be considered when making this assessment.

2. In 'other considerations' please provide a justification (or other information) concerning your choice of Forgotten

Crisis(es), including the estimated number of specifically affected people, ECHO funding to date, etc. if available (in

recognition that often Forgotten Crisis affect only small pockets of populations where the overall country information

may not demonstrate 'minority' humanitarian needs) (max. 1000 characters).

Your qualitative assessment will be 'triangulated' by comparing different proposed forgotten crisis situations based on the agreed

http://www.protectingeducation.org/



16 | P a g e

indicators (Vulnerability Index; Media Coverage; and Public aid per capita). Each situation will get an FCA score. That analysis

will be used to propose for DG ECHO as a whole the list of crisis situations to be considered as forgotten crises for year n+1.

The final list of countries based on these scores will then be re-checked with Directorate B for the final selection of the Forgotten

Crises n+1.

SECTION C (C 1 and C2) – FOOD AND NUTRITION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

This section needs to be filled in for crises with a food and nutrition specific component. For general humanitarian crises without

a food/nutrition component, you may continue directly to Section D of the template.

All crises identified in the section A.2. are automatically presented in this section. If these specified crises also include food &

nutrition component, please complete as necessary separate analyses in sections C1 and C2 for all or some of these crises.

C.1 Situation analysis

This situation analysis will form the "Situation analysis summary". You can see the summary by clicking on the "Preview" of the IAF form.

C.1.1 Severity

If you have an IPC and / or FEWSNet analysis and map, there is no need to do the analysis in the table below, simply use the IPC and / or FEWSNET

data to fill in the situation analysis summary sheet at the end of this section. If there is no IPC or FEWSNet analysis and map, you need to complete

the analysis table below.

Glossary of terms: IPC = Integrated Food Security Phase Classification.



17 | P a g e

There are numerous systems for analysing the severity of food insecurity, but for our purposes the most appropriate is the Integrated Food Security

Phase Classification (IPC) system. This uses a series of (primarily) outcome indicators with ascribed thresholds that help to make a judgement on the

severity classification based on a convergence of evidence. The IPC also has a method for estimating populations affected by a particular level of

severity (based on vulnerability), maps the geographic extent, and incorporates a risk analysis. The general descriptions of the phases are:

Fig 1. IPC Phases

Phase General Description

1 None (colour may

change to grey)

Able to meet essential food and non-food needs without engaging in atypical coping strategies, including any

reliance on humanitarian assistance

2 Stressed

Even with any current or projected humanitarian assistance:

Reduced and minimally adequate food consumption without engaging in irreversible coping strategies; however they

are unable to afford some essential non-food expenditures.

3 Crisis


- Significant food consumption gaps with high or above usual acute malnutrition;

OR

- marginally able to meet minimum food needs only with irreversible coping strategies

4 Emergency


- Extreme food consumption gaps resulting in very high acute malnutrition or excess mortality;

OR

- Extreme loss of livelihood assets that will lead to food consumption gaps.



18 | P a g e

5 Humanitarian

Catastrophe


Near complete lack of food and/or other basic needs where starvation, death, and destitution are evident.

If there is no IPC running in the country or area concerned, FEWSNET now use the same classification system, and incorporate both the current

situation and likely scenarios. If neither is available, it is possible to do an IPC-type analysis using the same indicators and thresholds. Note that it is

not necessary (or usually possible) to have recent data for all the indicators available to do the analysis. The indicators can to some extent be tailored

to fit the nature of the crisis (conflict vs. drought for example). The most important generally would include:

Livelihood Status and Coping strategies (indexed if available)

Acute malnutrition

Crude mortality rate + under 5 MR;

Food access and availability

Dietary Diversity/ food consumption score

Water access and availability

Hazards and vulnerability

The analytical process can be simplified by taking approximately five of the most important indicators above, and classifying each according to the

thresholds in the IPC scale. Note that the new version 2.0 of the IPC scale is being used. In this version, the phase is classified if at least 20% of

households are above each of the thresholds.

The overall phase is calculated on the basis of the overall picture that the indicators are showing. In nearly all cases the scores tend to converge and

the judgement on ascribing a phase is obvious. If there is any doubt, the average or modal value can be taken. (see the IPC Technical Manual Version

2.0 for help: http://www.ipcinfo.org/tech.php and http://www.ipcinfo.org/trainers.php for the training manual for version 1.1 – this is still helpful for

general principles.)

Trend: In a given crisis, the same sources of data and indicators can be used to track the situation as it develops and provide the evidence to support

an exit, taking into account other information. It is helpful to indicate the trend in individual indicators if possible, and for the whole situation. The

http://www.ipcinfo.org/tech.php

http://www.ipcinfo.org/trainers.php



19 | P a g e

overall trend is added to the 'trend' box in the situation analysis summary sheet.

While the overall severity situation is classified as a whole, it can be also important to highlight specific attributes of the crisis (e.g. high malnutrition

rates, or mass displacement).

C.1.2 Magnitude

The magnitude is expressed as the number of people considered to be in need of humanitarian food assistance, including the treatment of acute

malnutrition. This approximately equates to the number of people in IPC phases 3-5. Note that estimating populations in need is highly sensitive and

often politically charged. Given that you will be using secondary data, it is suggested that estimates are taken from assessment reports, with the

understanding of the influences in the country. The scale will compare directly to that of the humanitarian dashboard, and be quantified in terms of

numbers of people requiring humanitarian food assistance as a life-saving measure:

Fig. 2 Magnitude scale (Source: Humanitarian Dashboard):

Level Description/Reference

1 <10,000

2 10,000-100,000

3 100,000-500,000

4 500,000-2,000,000

5 2,000,000-5,000,000



20 | P a g e

6 > 5,000,000

C.1.3 Estimating the overall score

The overall situation is scored by combining the severity and magnitude scores in the following way:

Fig. 3 Matrix for estimating the score for the overall situation analysis:

Magnitude Severity (IPC / FEWSNET Phase)

1 2 3 4 5

1 1 1 2 3 3

2 1 1 3 3 4

3 1 1 3 4 4

4 1 2 3 4 5

5 1 2 4 5 5

6 1 3 4 5 5

The final score is a judgement rather than a mathematical calculation, but the factors and explanation must be clear and transparent. Informal



21 | P a g e

weighting of factors should be done on the basis of local knowledge of the situation, and be explained. In a situation where the scoring falls between

two whole values it is reasonable to give a range such as 3-4. The system will estimate the level/score based on the previous inputted data. In that case

please re-check your calculations or provide an explanation in the comments box on why the score given is justified.

Once you have estimated your overall score, the system will indicate the following scale and nomenclature to provide 'description / reference':

Fig. 4 Overall Situation analysis:

Level Description/Reference

1 No humanitarian needs

2 Minimal humanitarian needs

3 Moderate humanitarian needs

4 High humanitarian needs

5 Extreme humanitarian needs

C.2 Response analysis

The response analysis will form the "Response analysis summary". You can see the summary by clicking on "Preview" of the IAF form.

The response analysis is specific to DG ECHO and is designed to establish whether or not ECHO is in a good position to respond / stay engaged, and



22 | P a g e

when to stop responding (exit). This is complex and more subjective than the situation analysis, but it is critical to analyse ECHO's overall

comparative advantage in parallel with the needs on the ground.

The analysis is composed of the following key questions:

Big question: What is the comparative advantage of ECHO in the given situation?

Are the government and other donors covering the identified needs adequately? If not what are the unmet / remaining humanitarian food assistance/

nutrition needs?

Is there sufficient capacity on the ground in terms of partners with sufficient experience and the right remit?

Is access to people in need a hindrance to the delivery food assistance/ nutrition?

What are the symptoms and immediate and/or underlying causes associated with food insecurity and acute malnutrition, and can they be addressed

effectively by ECHO and its partners?

What would be the expected short and longer-term impact of ECHO engagement?

The response analysis is estimated on a five point scale by combining the other factors in a similar way to the situation analysis (see below). High

scores, such as good absorption capacity on the ground indicate high comparative advantage for ECHO to intervene.

C.2.1 Overall assessment

Overall assessment of possible strategy for ECHO response

C.2.2 and C3



23 | P a g e

Final stay or leave matrix with possible comments in section C2.2 taking into account the following.

The aims of the first two sections (C.1 and C.2) of the Food and Nutrition Needs Assessment are to provide all the key information in a structured and

analysed form that makes it easier to make a field recommendation on often complex issues. However, it should be stressed that this information and

analysis should guide the process – it should not be a mechanism that substitutes local knowledge and thinking at all levels. The intermediate process

of technical review at global level is also important to ensure that similar standards of analysis are being employed, and that that there is coherenc

At the extremes of the spectrum, the decision making is clearest: there is no doubt that ECHO should intervene/ stay engaged in a catastrophe where

humanitarian needs are extreme (score=5) and where comparative advantage is good; or that no action should take place where there are no

humanitarian needs (score=1) even when comparative advantage may be good. However, it is much more difficult to make clear-cut decisions in the

middle/ diagonal orange part of the matrix. In this situation, more information may be required or other factors may be crucially important to consider

when making a decision. In terms of the field recommendation to management, the ambivalence of the overall score should be highlighted, together

with important additional information so that management is in a position to make the best decision possible. Additional information may be risk

analysis; any strategic interests in ECHO having a presence/ absence; and proportion of the population affected where important (such as a small

country where total numbers are low, but proportion is high).

RSO validation of the assessment box

Please indicate if the assessment has been validated by the relevant RSO.



24 | P a g e

SECTION D – DISASTER RISK REDUCTION ASSESSEMENT

This section needs to be filled in for all types of crises (both natural and man-made disasters) in regions and countries. It should be

completed by Country TAs (with ad hoc support from DRR focal point and Resilience/DRR sectoral/ global experts) in all countries that

use an IAF, except those where integrating DRR into operations will not be possible. If section D of the IAF is not completed, a

justification should be given.

In countries where only DRR targeted activities are envisaged, the IAF for that country will be limited to section A and section D (DRR

assessment).

The regional consolidation will be done at HQ level with support from DRR regional sectoral expert/ focal point.

Purpose of this section is to facilitate an assessment of opportunities for "integrated DRR" within ECHO humanitarian response and to establish a

sound prioritisation of regions and countries for DRR specific investments – "targeted DRR" based on agreed upon entry/ exit criteria.1

Approach to assessment - Based on combining quantitative information from INFORM and qualitative information provided through the analysis of

available information on actual risk, conducted by ECHO (field and HQ), and additional filters of prioritisation (e.g. added-value).

1 DG ECHO Thematic Policy Document, Disaster Risk Reduction, 2013: "DG ECHO requires that all humanitarian action it supports is designed based on an

assessment of risk, and is implemented to reduce risk"



25 | P a g e

The qualitative appraisal (in section D2) should be made from demonstrated performance in exercises or real events (not from plans and strategies).

D1 - NEW !

A series of six questions help you explore different dimensions of ECHO added value in your specific context. Please answer these questions with Yes or No :

DP Priority addressed YES/NO

Existing gaps YES/NO

ECHO added value YES/NO

Longer term strategy YES/NO

Strengthens regional and local preparedness for local response YES/NO

Recommendation : Invest in targeted DRR activities YES/NO



26 | P a g e

D2

ECHO added value

Recommendations to invest in DP and risk reduction

In this last section you have to opt for the best recommendation and use elements explored beforehand to make the case for (i) targeted DRR investments;

(ii) integrated DRR and (iii) no DRR.

This is the key summary section on your country DRR assessment, which will be presented to ECHO Management for decision-making. Several options :

Invest in targeted DRR activities

Please sum up the key elements required to justify your recommendations to invest in DRR in your country. Make your case along the 4 elements detailed

in the section, building on the elements raised in previous parts.

Integrate DRR in Humanitarian Operation and how will this be further explored

Please provide the basis of the strategy to integrate DRR into the humanitarian operations envisaged in your country with concrete sectors of integration

and activities/ partnerships to be considered.

No scope for DRR

Please provide justification if there is no scope for the integration of DRR. To note, DRR considerations should be made in all contexts.



27 | P a g e

SECTION E – PROPOSED OPERATIONAL STRATEGY

This section needs to be filled in for all types of crises – general humanitarian and food & nutrition specific

Provide a brief overview of the main elements of the envisaged ECHO response and the expected results of humanitarian aid intervention.

This description can be used as a basis for completing Section 3.4 of the HIP entitled 'envisaged DG ECHO response and expected results of

humanitarian aid interventions'.

Word count should be limited to 1500 characters max: Short summary style is appropriate.

1. Having conducted a thorough analysis of the humanitarian and / or food & nutrition crisis (es) prevalent in the country please provide an overview of

a suitable proposed DG ECHO response and the expected results of such an intervention. This section should allow the reader to understand the link

between the humanitarian situation and the proposed response, in terms of funding levels and second in terms of targeted beneficiaries.

2. There should also be a description, if required, of non-financial intervention methods, such as, advocacy with national/local authorities, in EU,

lobbying with development actors and/or other donors for intervention/funding, proposal to raise at EU-Country X Summit, in regional bodies, etc.



28 | P a g e

SECTION F – MID-TERM REVIEW RECOMMENDATION

This section needs to be filled in for all types of crises - general humanitarian and food & nutrition specific.

Funding update at mid-term

review for current year

Midterm review

recommendation

Amendment to HIP – check box

New decision – check box

Further comments /

recommendations for

management (if necessary):

This funding recommendation is at Head of Unit level and is to be completed in preparation of the mid-term

review (please refer to the integrated ECHO annual planning cycle calendar).

The funding recommendation at Head of Unit level should consider the guiding criteria for management decision-

making.

1. Please select from the drop-down menu if there is sufficient funding, additional funding required or a high priority

additional funding request.

2. Please place a tick in the relevant box if there is a need to amend the current HIP.

3. Please tick yes if there is no HIP and therefore a need for a new decision. A new decision refers to an ad-hoc or

emergency where there is no HIP. In such a scenario, an analysis of the proposed decision (via the IAF) is likely to

need to be conducted where feasible. In exceptional cases of a sudden onset emergency the analysis can be

conducted at a later stage.

4. A space is provided for further comments/explanation to management on the midterm review recommendation

(max. 700 characters).

http://iafportal.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Portals/0/IAF/Integrated_ECHO_Operational_Priorities_Calendar.pdf

http://iafportal.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Portals/0/IAF/Guiding%20Criteria%20for%20Management%20-%20WWD%20Decision-Making.pdf




29 | P a g e

SECTION G – PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION FOR OVERALL ECHO FUNDING ALLOCATION (YEAR N+1)

This section needs to be filled in for all types of crises - general humanitarian and food & nutrition specific

1. Head of Unit

proposal for ECHO

funding (year n+1)

Suggested funding

(decrease or increase)

This funding recommendation is at Head of Unit level for overall ECHO funding allocation for the country in question

for year n+1 (please refer to the integrated ECHO annual planning cycle calendar)

A suggested funding adjustment for year n+1 should be selected from the drop-down menu provided. (Adjustments:

small increase = +10% funding, medium increase = +15% funding, large increase = +20% funding, no change = figure to

stay the same as year n-1, small decrease = -10% funding, medium decrease = -15% funding, large decrease = - 20%

funding).

The recommendation should consider the guiding criteria for management decision-making purposes.

http://iafportal.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Portals/0/IAF/Integrated_ECHO_Operational_Priorities_Calendar.pdf




30 | P a g e

ANNEX I – GENERATION OF THE SNAPSHOT – Management rules

The total number of directly affected people is the sum of people affected by the different crisis as described in section B1

DRR targeted actions possible/recommended : If one of the two first D3 sections of the IAF is filled, the value is YES and if not,

the value is NO

Access (logistics, security, admin): refers to Constraints in section B2 C .

Very good = level 1

Good = level 2

Average = level 3

Difficult = level 4

Very difficult = level 5

Partners capacity/presence refers to Presence of partners and operational capacity in section B2 C

Insufficient, cannot be built rapidly (> 12 months) = 1

Insufficient, can be built within 6 to 12 months = 2

Insufficient, can be built within 6 months = 3

Insufficient, can be built within 2-3 months = 4

Insufficient, can be built very rapidly (< 1 month) = 5

Sufficient to deliver adequate assistance = 6

Absorption capacity

Insufficient, cannot be built rapidly (> 12 months) = 1



31 | P a g e

Insufficient, can be built within 6 to 12 months = 2

Insufficient, can be built within 6 months = 3

Insufficient, can be built within 2-3 months = 4

Insufficient, can be built very rapidly (< 1 month) = 5

Sufficient to deliver adequate assistance = 6

Unmet needs refers to section B2 A

Likely to provide minimal amount of resources = 5

Likely to provide less than half of the resources = 4

Likely to provide about half of the resources = 3

Likely to provide majority of the resources required = 2

Likely to provide all resources required = 1



32 | P a g e

ANNEX 1I – 6 May 2019

INDICATIVE Integrated ECHO Annual Aid Strategy calendar

ANNUAL FUNDING ALLOCATIONS DECISION-FRAMING – YEAR 2020

Start Date End Date Action Unit / Dir in charge

15/03/2019 15/04/2019 Identification of IAF countries + IAF regions and update of the IAF web users C2/C3/C4/D2/D3/D4

16/04/2019 30/04/2019 Preparation of automated data B3/JRC

06/05/2019 (Ares -------) Launch of integrated analysis framework – note from DIR B to ALL ECHO. IAF platform link

sent to DIR C and D geographical units, including guidance B3

24/05/2019 DRR section D + when relevant DRR fiche completed at least in draft mode C2/C3/C4/D2/D3/D4

03/06/2019 DIR C and DIR D make recommendations to Management for prioritization of allocations

under DP Budget Line, based on INFORM, IAF section D and DRR fiches2

DIR C / DIR D

07/06/2019 Deadline for approval by HoUs of completed IAF forms on the IAF platform C2/C3/C4/D2/D3/D4

09/06/2019 Results of the FAST communicated to DIR C and D i B3

11/06/2019 Management decision on prioritization of DP Budget Line Senior Management

2 Education in emergencies allocation (10%) process to be aligned with the DP allocation process



33 | P a g e

11/06/2019 Management decision on crises/countries to be listed as Forgotten Crises Senior Management

19/06/2019

Joint proposal to the DG on initial budget allocations3 (E2 will provide the template for budget

planning and first projection of available funds for contracting in 2020 based on draft 2020

budget)

DIR C/D (geographic

and ERC+POS), DIR

A/B (ECHO Flight,

Emergency toolbox,

NOHA and INFO)

24/06/2019 Management meeting: decision by senior management on initial budget allocations (including

allocation for EiE) Senior Management

26/06/2019 Send documents to CAB Assist. DG

2/07/2019 Initial discussions on initial budget allocations with CAB (in preparation of Jour Fixe meeting) DG

To be defined Jour Fixe DG/CAB

i Provided that FAST can be installed and made 100 % operational on a B3 computer (after 3 weeks DIGIT has been unable to make it work)

3 Consideration being given to possible prior pledges made by the EU and the most appropriate manner of taking those into account

table of contents (clickable)iafportal.jrc.ec.europa.eu/dirfile/custreports/... · guidance –...

Documents