Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Food Security Response Analysis driven by FS Analysis Karamoja experience.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Food Security Response Analysis driven by FS Analysis Karamoja experience."— Presentation transcript:

1 Food Security Response Analysis driven by FS Analysis Karamoja experience

2 RA starts on the SA outputs 2 Current and Projected Situation Analysis Response Analysis Response Planning Response Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation IPC focuses on Situation Analysis with strong links to Response Analysis Strong, clear transition wins the race!

3 Composition of the Response Analysis Team RA is not an IPC business, ? IPC TWG members

4 IPC February 2013 – Karamoja Region Key for Map Acute Food Insecurity Phase Not Analyzed Emergency Crisis Stressed Minimal Areas with Inadequate Evidence 1 2 3 4 Famine 5 Urban/Settlement Area would likely be at least 1 Phase worse without the effects of humanitarian assistance

5 Beyond the map, many evidence on FS- Zoom on FS outcomes status (Napak case)

6 Details on some key indicators – Nutrition evidence, GAM & Stunting trend PeriodINDICATOR Moroto Napak KotidoKaabongNakapiripiritAbimAmudatKaramoja Dec 2009 GAM11.1% 9.5% 6.0%11.6%5.4%-9.5% SAM1.5%2.6%0.6%1.3%0.2%-1.8% May 2010 GAM14.7%10.8%13.0%9.0%8.3%-11.8% SAM3.5%1.5%1.4%1.0%2.6%-1.8% Sep 2010 GAM8.2%10.4%10.2%11.0%7.1%8.6%9.3% SAM1.4%2.0%1.3%2.3%1.4%1.7% Dec 2010 GAM16.1%6.6%7.2%11.2%7.1%8.2%9.4% SAM2.6%1.3%1.0%0.3%0.7%1.4%1.2% May 2011 GAM12.4%14.1%8.5%20.4%8.6%11.9%12.8% SAM2.4%2.3% 5.6%3.0%1.0%2.8% Sep 2011 GAM12.5%6.7%8.6%11.2%6.9%9.2%9.1% SAM4.3%0.5%1.1%1.8%1.9%2.0%1.9% Dec 2011 GAM10.9%6.8%8.4%9.2%6.3%7.0%8.1% SAM2.5%1.8%2.3%1.4%1.1%0.9%1.7% May 2012 GAM11.0%13.1%11.6%13.1%9.4%11.9%11.7% SAM4.0%3.6%2.0%3.5%2.1%3.3%3.1%

7 IPC Result - FS limiting factors Summary

8 Food Security Dimensions Stability (at all times) Causal Factors Acute Events or Ongoing Conditions (natural, socio-economic, conflict, disease and others) & Non Food Security Specific Contributing Factors: Disease Water/Sanitation Health Social Services others…. Vulnerability: (Exposure, Susceptibility, and Resilience to specific hazards events or ongoing conditions). Livelihood Strategies (food & income sources, coping, & expenditures) Livelihood Assets (human, financial, social, physical, & natural) Policies, Institutions, and Processes Food Security Contributing Factors Food Security Outcomes (directly measured or inferred from contributing factors) Availability Production Wild Foods Food Reserves Markets Transportation Access Physical Access Financial Access Social Access Utilization Food Preferences Food Preparation Feeding Practices Food Storage Food Safety Water Access Classification of Acute Phase (current or projected) and Chronic Level IPC Analytical Framework – figure for Napak IPC products Feedback Impact Food Consumption Quantity & Nutritional Quality 2 0 Outcomes Livelihood Change Assets & Strategies Mortality 1 0 Outcomes Nutritional Status

9 Vision Vision IPC based – case of Karamoja/ Napak Actual situationVision

10 Vision ? Prices analysis ? Early warning system information? Food Security Assessment ?


12 Step 1 : Understand main issues driving FS outcomes FS/nutrition issues Population(s) of concern Barriers

13 Step 2: Understand direct, underlying and basic causes of each issue and trends Information sources: – From IPC products and evidence used for classification (IPC framework helps in this analysis) ; – Key informant interviews – Secondary data ; Causal analysis – FS contributing factors; – Underlying direct and basic causes of each issue. Trends: Brief description and history of the concerned population versus their livelihood : socio-cultural issues, political, habit, main food, education ;

14 Quality/diversity of food Income resources for poor people Water access (quality and quantity) Sanitation How pastoralists are losing the animals even after a good crop season. Step 2, example : Understanding the issues leading to current FS and N outcomes WHY ?

15 Step 3. Options for solving the identified problem – Opportunities - Strategies Options (short – mid – long term) ; Opportunities to achieve each option (existing potential on Livelihoods assets - physical, human, financial, social, natural, cultural, political, experience -) ; Existing strategies.

16 Key activities /strategies and timing Existing opportunities Activities and potential actors Coodination issues Step 4. Implementation of Response Analysis Options, coordination and responsibilities

17 Lessons learned Unit of analysis must be well identified : Household groups, district ; The team of RA must be well trained and planning must be good ; Many FS assues are interconnected, need to understand this to respond appropriately; Huge need to summarize and sort through findings; Response options are linked: short to long term; Need to have a further step between steps 3 & step 4 – Gap analysis.

Download ppt "Food Security Response Analysis driven by FS Analysis Karamoja experience."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google