Bangladesh Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) Acute Food Security Situation Overview

Transcription

1 Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) Bangladesh Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) Acute Food Security Situation Overview Created on: 10 December 2012 Summary of causes, context and key issues This analysis covers the eight districts under Coastal zone of Bangladesh considering on agro ecological, socioeconomic and disaster vulnerabilities relating to food security. From the analysis it is seen that the Districts of Borguna, Patuakhali, Pirojpur, Jhalokati, Satkhira (affected by the cyclone, tidal surge, water logging, river erosion, salinity) are the food crisis area (Phase-3). Barisal, Bagerhat and Khulna were found to be food Stressed area (Phase 2). The analysis shows that the majority coastal districts HH group has food consumption gaps with high or above usual acute malnutrition. Furthermore, the analysts found a strong correlation of natural disaster with the food security situation. The areas facing natural disasters were found to depict the highest levels of acute food insecurity due to a combination of poor food availability, access and / or utilization that are persistent in these districts. Local Analyses Partners & Supporting Organizations Food Planning and Monitoring Unit (FPMU), under Ministry of Food, Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE), under Ministry of Agriculture, Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS), Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock (MoFL), Disaster Management Bureau (DMB) under Ministry of Disaster Management, FAO, WFP, UNICEF, UNOCHA,, ACF, OXFAM, Care, Save The Children, HKI For more information please contact: Mr Mizanur Rahman, National IPC Coordinator, FAO-Bangladesh, Dhaka at Mizanur.Rahman@fao.org IPC Global Partners

2 Part 1: Background, Objectives, Achievements & Next Steps Background Bangladesh s first Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) was successfully conducted from the December The IPC project, funded by ECHO, is lead by the Food Planning and Monitoring Unit (FPMU) under the Ministry of Food. Presently, there is no formal food security analysis and monitoring system in Bangladesh at the national level. However Food Security Cluster (FSC) under FAO and WFP leadership is conducting humanitarian food security and vulnerable assessments in select areas. There was thus a clear need to establish a comprehensive national-level IPC analysis system in Bangladesh. The IPC would offer joint participation and active interaction amongst the various development actors and the Government of Bangladesh to address the issues of food security at national level. Thus the successful introduction & establishment of the IPC Version 2 across Bangladesh is an important milestone in food security analysis and decision making. Objectives The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) funded by ECHO has the following objectives for its Pilot Phase in Bangladesh: a) To successfully introduce & establish the IPC at the national level; b) Ensure that key organizations are stakeholders of the IPC at the national level. This would include actors from various ministries of the Government of Bangladesh, UN agencies, INGOs; c) Attempt to do an IPC acute food security analysis across coastal zone (8 Districts) of Bangladesh for the first time; d) Ensue a pool of certified IPC analysts and certified trainer who can continue the IPC analysis. Achievements Some of the notable achievements of this project are: 1. The successful production of Bangladesh s first IPC acute food security analysis & map. 2. The first comprehensive analysis conducted at the Bangladesh coastal zone (8 Districts) with active participation and cooperation by the Government of Bangladesh, UN (FAO, WFP, UNICEF, UNOCHA) and five INGOs; 3. The formation of a pool of certified IPC analysts (15 participants) and IPC certified trainer resulting in considerable capacity building across the Government and the development sector of Bangladesh. 4. National Food Planning and Monitoring Unit (FPMU), under the Ministry of Food have appreciated the IPC and the results of the pilot analysis in public. Furthermore, at the closing ceremony of the IPC acute analysis workshop, the various attendees were informed of the Government of Bangladesh s commitment to institutionalize the IPC within the government; and their desire to establish this tool across the country over the longer-term. Next Steps Following the successful piloting of the IPC acute analysis there is now a clear need for the following steps and actions to be taken: Continuation of IPC analysis at the national level utilizing the capacity of the NTWG and IPC Analyst, which is already expanding. Future analysis will need to go in deeper into various zones or cluster within the whole country (64 Districts). Food Planning and Monitoring Unit (FPMU), B a n g l a d e s h A c u t e I P C F o o d S e c u r i t y A n a l y s i s, D e c e m b e r

3 under the Ministry of Food have shown keen interest and demanded for the continuation of IPC project in Bangladesh Conduct a comprehensive chronic analysis covering all 64 Districts of Bangladesh. These results can then be analysed along with the acute analytical results to provide a more nuanced study on the drivers of food insecurity. This will result in the formulation of more effective response plans and programming for both the Government and the development community. This will also complement the ongoing Food Security Cluster activities in Bangladesh. Establish periodic cycles of acute and chronic analysis for Bangladesh. The frequency of analysis will be decided jointly by the NTWG. It is important to build the analytical capacity of the government and other food security related stakeholders at the district level, and thus there is a clear need for the IPC team to conduct at least one comprehensive training for each of the district and local NGO in the near future (dependent on funding). It is crucial that participating organizations continue to ensure that data as per the jointly agreed upon indicators (for the acute analysis), be collected during the course of the organization s normal operations. In particular the VAM unit of WFP is encouraged to collect key data on food access and food consumption indicators. Ensure that the TWG meet regularly at least 3 times a year and take an active role in promoting, improving and establishing the IPC system across Bangladesh. The IPC Project will ensure that all new participants/organizations joining the NTWG will receive comprehensive training on IPC. District/Region level meetings and active involvement of the respective district departments is crucial for the future success and availability of timely and relevant data necessary for efficient acute food insecurity analysis. As per the Terms of Reference (TOR) of NTWG, the outcome of the IPC acute analyses will be presented to the food security cluster for their endorsement and implementation. Part 2: A summary of the Analysis & Findings The IPC acute analysis is the outcome of the following rigorous process: a) Consultation workshops at National level The IPC project organized national workshop to raise awareness and sensitize key stakeholders on IPC. A total of four workshops (in the period April August) were organized in which representatives from Government departments, UN agencies, IPC Global Partners, INGOs and Food Security Cluster (FSC). b) The National Technical Working Group (NTWG) and Analyst Group: The following organizations are the member of the NTWG and Analyst Group: Food Planning and Monitoring Unit (FPMU) under Ministry of Food Department of Agriculture Extension (DAE) under Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) Ministry of Fisheries & Livestock (MoFL) Disaster Management Bureau (DMB) under Ministry of Disaster Management Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) B a n g l a d e s h A c u t e I P C F o o d S e c u r i t y A n a l y s i s, D e c e m b e r

4 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) World Food Programme (WFP) UNOCHA UNICEF Oxfam Care International Save The Children Action Against Hunger (ACF) Helen Keller International (HKI) Economic Research Group (ERG) ECHO This Acute analysis was conducted by 15 participants from the above organizations. Sr. No Type of Organizations 1 Government 04 2 UN 07 3 INGOs 04 TOTAL 15 Number of participants c) Zoning Based on homogeneous food security and livelihoods (FSL) characteristics and availability of information/data and geographical coverage, the whole country (Bangladesh-64 Districts) were divided in to 11 major zones for IPC analysis as follows: Sl. # Name of Zone Number of Districts 1 North West Flood Plain (Zone-1) 6 2 Northern Char (Zone-2) 6 3 Drought Area (Zone-3) 6 4 NW Zone (Zone-4) 6 5 Coastal Area (Zone-5) 8 6 Greater Faridpur (Zone-6) 8 7 Zone Greater Sylhet/Haor Area (Zone-8) 6 9 Greater Noakhali (Zone 9) 6 10 Chittagong Hill Tract (CHT) (Zone-10) 3 11 Urban Area/City corporation (Zone-11) 1 Total 64 d) Indicators The project organized national level workshops in the month of September2012. The NTWG and Analyst Group identified the indicators according to the local context. A final list of 20 core indicators was shortlisted through a comprehensive consultative process. The list of these indicators is provided in Annex 1. List of Participating Members of the Bangladesh National IPC Technical Working Group is provided in Annex-2. Apart from this core set, participants also used other indicators relevant to their particular district (s) during the analysis. The analysis incorporated a range of acute indicators pertaining to the following key elements. Vulnerability B a n g l a d e s h A c u t e I P C F o o d S e c u r i t y A n a l y s i s, D e c e m b e r

5 Food availability Food access Food utilization Livelihood change Nutrition and mortality Coping strategy e) IPC Acute Food Insecurity level and population estimates under the level Based on the availability of data, convergence of the evidence and expert knowledge (not depending on the statistical average) the analytical zones were classified on a particular IPC Acute Food Insecurity level based on group s technical consensus. Estimates of the population under each level and type of acute food insecurity were also decided based on the convergence of evidence, district population estimates and technical consensus. Overview of Food and Nutrition Security (Feroz-HKI) Please insert your inputs here. Summary of Findings by District (Feroz-HKI) The detailed analysis, findings, population estimations and worksheets for district is available with the IPC National Coordinator, FAO Bangladesh (contact person: Mr. Mizanur Rahman (Mizanur.Rahman@fao.org) Please insert your inputs here. Note: Details on the 5 phases of the IPC Acute Food Security Classification can be found in Annex 3 Annex 1: List of Core / Basic Indicators identified for the Pilot Acute IPC analysis 1. Cereal production 2. Vegetable production 3. Fish production 4. Pulse production 5. Terms of Trade (Rice purchasing capacity of the agriculture wage labourers 6. Price of rice 7. Population per growth centre 8. % of population with poor & borderline FCS 9. Monthly HH Expenditure 10. Underweight 11. Wasting/GAM rates 12. Percentage of Women consume inadequate diet 13. % Adult women with CED (BMI<18.5) 14. % area prone to severe river flood & flash flood 15. % are prone to severe tidal surge 16. Agricultural land affected by September 2012 flood 17. Access to improved sanitation 18. Access to improved drinking water sources 19. IMR 20. Under5 Mortality rate. Note: The above indicators are the core indicators jointly identified by the NTWG as being important indices. Apart from these, during analysis the technical groups also used other indicators thought to be pertinent or useful for their zone / area B a n g l a d e s h A c u t e I P C F o o d S e c u r i t y A n a l y s i s, D e c e m b e r

6 Annex 2: Participating Members of the Bangladesh National IPC Technical Working Group Government of Bangladesh Food Planning and Monitoring Unit (FPMU), under Ministry of Food Department of Agriculture extension (DAE) Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics Ministry of Fisheries & Livestock Disaster Management Bureau (DMB) INGOs Oxfam Save the Children Care International ACF HKI UN Agencies FAO UNICEF WFP UNOCHA Civil Society and Private Sector Economic Research Group (ERG) Major Data Sources Household Income Expenditure Survey (HIES), 2010 Population Census, 2011, BBS Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS), 2011 Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE), 2011 Department of Fisheries (DoF), Local Government Engineering Department (LGED), 2010 Department of Agricultural Marketing (DAM), 2011 Helen Keller International (HKI), FSNSP, 2011 Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS), 2009 Rapid Food Security Assessment Report, October, 2012 SPARRSO, World Food Program (WFP), 2009 World Bank-WFP-BBS Poverty Data, 2005 Fisheries Statistical yearbook of Bangladesh, The Food Security & Nutrition Surveillance Project, Round 6, HKI, 2011 Bangladesh Demographic Health Survey, 2011 Household Food Security and Nutrition assessment (HFSNA), WFP, UNICEF, IPHN, 2009 UNICEF, IPHN, 2009 MICS, UNICEF, BBS, 2009 Final report on Assessing long term impacts of vulnerabilities on crop production due to climate change in the coastal areas of Bangladesh NFPCSP, 2010 District Profile, Wikipedia, December, 2012 WFP FS monitoring bulletin (R3), 2011 Updating poverty Map, BBS, WFP, WB (R3), 2009 FAO-ERCU 2010, GB Flood assessment report 2010 Interagency Early Recovery Needs Assessment (IAERNA) December 2011 And many websites B a n g l a d e s h A c u t e I P C F o o d S e c u r i t y A n a l y s i s, D e c e m b e r

7 Area Outcomes (directly measured or inferred) Annex 3. IPC Area-based Acute Food Insecurity Reference Tables Phase Name and Description Phase 1 Minimal More than four in five HHs are able to meet essential food and non-food needs without engaging in atypical, unsustainable strategies to access food and income, including any reliance on humanitarian assistance. Phase 2 Stressed At least one in five HHs in the area have the following or worse: Minimally adequatefood consumption but are unable to afford some essential non-food expenditures without engaging in irreversible coping strategies Phase 3 Crisis At least one in five HHs in the area have the following or worse: Food consumption gaps with high or above usual acute malnutrition; OR Are marginally able to meet minimum food needs only withaccelerated depletion of livelihood assets that will lead to food consumption gaps. Phase 4 Emergency At least one in five HHs in the area have the following or worse: Large food consumption gaps resulting in very high acute malnutrition and excess mortality; OR Extreme loss of livelihood assets that will lead to food consumption gaps in the short term. Phase 5 Famine At least one in five HHs in the area havean extreme lack of food and other basic needswhere starvation, death, and destitution are evident. (Evidence for all three criteria of food consumption, wasting, and CDR is required to classify Famine.) Priority Urgent Action Required Response Objectives Build resilience, Disaster Risk Reduction Disaster Risk Reduction, Protect livelihoods Protect livelihoods, reduce food consumption gaps, and reduce acute malnutrition Save lives &livelihoods Prevent widespread death and total collapse of livelihoods Food Consumption & Livelihood Change More than 80% of households in the area are able to meet basic food needs without engaging in atypical strategies to access food and income& livelihoods are sustainable Based on theipc Household Group Reference Table, at least 20% of the households in the area are in Phase 2 or worse Based on the IPC Household Group Reference Table, at least 20% of the households in the area are in Phase 3 or worse Based on the IPC Household Group Reference Table, at least 20% of the households in the area are in Phase 4 or worse Based on the IPC Household Group Reference Table, at least 20% of the households in the area are in Phase 5 Nutritional Status* Acute Malnutrition: <5% BMI <18.5 Prevalence:<10% Acute Malnutrition : 5-10%, BMI <18.5 Prevalence: 10-20% Acute Malnutrition : 10-15% OR > usual & increasing BMI <18.5 Prevalence: 20-40%, 1.5 x greater than reference Acute Malnutrition : 15 30%; OR > usual & increasing BMI <18.5 Prevalence:>40% Acute Malnutrition : >30% BMI <18.5 Prevalence:far > 40% Mortality* CDR: <0.5/10,000/day U5DR: 1/10,000/day CDR: <0.5/10,000/day U5DR: 1/10,000/day CDR: 0.5-1/10,000/day U5DR: 1-2/10,000/day CDR: 1-2/10,000/day OR >2x reference U5DR: 2-4/10,000/day CDR: >2/10,000/day U5DR: >4/10,000/day *For both nutrition and mortality area outcomes, household food consumption deficits must be an explanatory factor in order for that evidence to be used in support of a Phase classification. For example, elevated malnutrition due to disease outbreak or lack of health access if it is determined to not be related to food consumption deficits should not be used as evidence for an IPC classification. Similarly, excess mortality rates due to, murder or conflict if they are not related to food consumption deficits--should not be used as evidence for a Phase classification. For Acute Malnutrition, the IPC thresholds are based on % of children under 5 years that are below 2 standard deviations of weight for height or presence of oedema. BMI is an acronym for Body Mass Index. CDR is Crude Death Rate. U5DR is Under 5 Death Rate. B a n g l a d e s h A c u t e I P C F o o d S e c u r i t y A n a l y s i s, D e c e m b e r