EVIDENCE INFORMED POLICY MAKING SEMINAR The European Commissions - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The European Commission’s science 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

Joysee Rodríguez Baide, Duaa Sayed, Feroz Ahmed and Brian Musaga.

The European Commission’s science and knowledge service

Joint Research Centre

Integrated Food Security Phase Classification

Integrated Food Insecurity Phase Classification (IPC) in Africa 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

• ver 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

• ther 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 evidence

Why 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

• n 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?

23

23

Transforming analyses into concise information for action

How does the IPC Work?

TWG MATRIX ANALYTICAL 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

Functions Tools Procedures for

Understanding evidence with an integrated Analytical Framework Referencing evidence against internationa l 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

• utcomes.

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

• f 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

The European Commission’s science and knowledge service

Joint Research Centre

Integrated Food Security Phase Classification

Integrated Food Insecurity Phase Classification (IPC) in Africa

Part 2: IPC Scales – theory and practice

Joysee Rodríguez Baide, Duaa Sayed, Feroz Ahmed and Brian Musaga.

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

• f 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 change

High: 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

IPC Acute Classification

All food insecurity found at a specific point in time

• f a severity that threatens lives and/or

livelihoods regardless of the causes, context

• r 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

• r no humanitarian access adhere to additional specific

protocols.

39

IPC Acute Classification

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

• r contributing factors evidence available, can be:

*Acceptable , **Medium, and ***High Different EL requirements for current, projection

• r 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 Causes

Identify 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 Determine area classification and population estimates 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

Current Projection

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 5

Task: With your Group...

• 1. Assign Indicative Phase for each element
• 2. Assign the overall Phase classification for Tambai (area
• nly)
• 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 population

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

48

IPC Chronic Classification: Severity Levels

Level 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 malnutrition

Implication 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

• r 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 Determine area classification and population estimates 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 & indicators

1o 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 & indicators

Contributing 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 communication

Task: 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

Joysee Rodríguez Baide, Duaa Sayed, Feroz Ahmed, Brian Musaga.

The European Commission’s science and knowledge service

Joint Research Centre

Integrated Food Security Phase Classification

Integrated Food Insecurity Phase Classification (IPC) in Africa 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 Country Policy/programme/planning document Author/Source IPC Pub. Date 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

IPC Chronic: Use in Policy, Programing, Science

66

Country Policy/programme/planning document

Author/Source IPC Pub. Date

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 Summary Sheet, 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 nutrition Emergencies, 2017 WFP November 2016

IPC Chronic: Use in Policy, Programing, Science

67

IPC Chronic: Use in Policy, Programing, Science

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

Task: 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 staff Almost 75% are scientists and researchers. Headquarters in Brussels and research facilities located in 5 Member States.