“Common currency” for measuring food insecurity reveals millions still chronically hungry
Manila – The Philippines continues to take significant steps in assessing the food security situation in the country through the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC). Currently used in 40 countries, the IPC is an internationally-recognized process to determine and analyse the severity and causes and of acute and chronic food insecurity in targeted locations.
The first IPC Chronic Analysis Workshop was held in the Philippines earlier this year. Based on the IPC analysis, about three-quarters of the population in the 18 provinces of Mindanao fall under levels 2, 3 and 4, with an estimated 1.96 million people suffering from severe chronic food insecurity (CFI), 3.67 million people from moderate CFI and 7 million people from mild CFI.
The 18 provinces analysed in Mindanao account for an estimated 12.6 million people suffering from mild, moderate and severe chronic food insecurity. Among these, Lanao del Sur, Sulu, Zamboanga del Norte, Lanao del Norte and Maguindanao registered the highest percentage of mildly, moderately and severely chronically food insecure at 90, 88, 85, 83 and 80 percent, respectively.
Lanao del Sur and Sulu were classified as level 4 (severe chronic food insecurity), while Maguindanao, Zamboanga del Norte, Zamboanga Sibugay, Bukidnon, Camiguin, Lanao del Norte, Compostela Valley, Davao del Norte, Davao del Sur, Davao Oriental, North Cotabato, Sarangani, Agusan del Sur, Surigao del Norte and Surigao del Sur were classified as level 3 (moderate chronic food insecurity). The province of Zamboanga del Sur was the lone province in level 2 (mild chronic food insecurity).
Access to quality food and diversification of food consumed is poor and a major problem in the provinces despite available food supply. The provinces, especially those classified under levels 3 and 4, indicated high prevalence of stunting, poor access to improved water source and low breastfeeding rates.
Food availability is not a limiting factor as it is generally adequate in half of the analysed provinces in Mindanao based on self-sufficiency ratio for rice and corn and availability of considerable amount of meat, fish, poultry and vegetables. Alternative crops and fish products are consumed.
Food access is a major limiting factor to most of the provinces, except in Zamboanga del Sur and Davao del Sur. PSA’s data indicates that 14 of the provinces had underemployment rates of 22 to 40 percent, which is higher than the 19 percent national average.
Food utilization is major limiting factor in eight provinces due to poor access to improved water source (11 to 34 percent), lighting (10 to 61 percent), which is linked to longer storage of food and better cooking facilities, and use of non-improved cooking fuel (61 to 96 percent) such as charcoal and wood that contribute to inadequate food utilization in the provinces.
Underlying factors. The relatively high percentage of landless households assumed to be among those who rely on the non-efficient energy sources have limited food availability and have poor food access due to low incomes and seasonal employment. The long history of human-induced disasters in the southern Philippines largely affects the peace and order situation of the communities and contributes to limited investments and programme interventions, as indicated in conflict-affected parts of Sulu and Maguindanao provinces. In terms of human capital, the work force classified as the vulnerable groups like labourers and unskilled workers have limited income and contribute to the high incidence of poverty and underemployment. While the literacy rate in some provinces is high, it does not ensure employment, again as indicated by limited employment opportunities.
How does IPC work?
In the food security community, there has been a need for clarity and common definitions for classifying various food security situations in terms of severity and implications for action. The IPC is designed to fill this critical gap in food security analysis.
The IPC has evolved into a system which works in multiple contexts for multiple stakeholders. Among the various innovations and improvements, Version 2.0 of the IPC approach introduces a prototype chronic food insecurity scale in addition to the acute food insecurity scale. This underscores the necessity of investing simultaneously in both short-term relief as well as support to building the resilience of communities over the long term.
The IPC provides a common classification system (a ‘common currency’) that draws from the strengths of previous and existing classification systems and integrates them with supporting tools for analysis and communication. It aims to provide decision makers with a rigorous analysis of food insecurity in both emergency and development contexts, and key objectives for response to better coordinate interventions.
By using the IPC common scale and ‘currency’, key stakeholders (involving Government, UN, NGOs and civil society) work together to consolidate wide-ranging evidence on food insecure populations and answer the following questions: How severe is the situation? Where are the areas that are food insecure? Who are the food insecure people? What are the key causes?
How is acute and chronic food insecurity measured with the IPC?
The IPC standardized scale categorizes the severity of food insecurity into a five-phase colour scheme for acute and four-level colour scheme for chronic. Each phase and level has important and distinct implications as to where and how best to intervene and therefore defines priority response objectives.
IPC in the Philippines
Since the adoption of IPC acute analysis in 2012, the Philippines has conducted three trainings back-to-back with acute analysis. The first analysis started in November 2012 with 25 of the most at-risk provinces located in Mindanao. This was immediately followed by another analysis in February 2013, as Typhoon Bopha severely hit some of the provinces in Mindanao.
After Typhoon Haiyan hit 3 regions of the country in November 2013, the IPC again provided the platform for objective food security analysis, aiding identification of the most at-risk provinces. The IPC acute analysis highlighted the mitigating impact of humanitarian aid and response across various geographic areas. The report was also used by the Department of Agriculture and development organizations and donors in the preparation of their disaster assessment reports, helping design responses towards recovery and reconstruction.
In January 2015, the National IPC Steering Committee, which is overseen by the National Nutrition Council (NNC), has started chronic food insecurity analysis, which initially covered 18 provinces in Mindanao.
The next chronic food insecurity analysis is scheduled to be conducted in the fourth quarter of 2015, focusing on the remaining provinces of Mindanao and selected provinces of Luzon that are considered to be at risk to poverty and food insecurity. Outputs of the analysis are expected to serve as inputs for the new medium-term food insecurity planning of the national government and development planning at the provincial and regional levels.
The global effort to develop a common approach for food security analysis and response through the implementation of IPC is led by FAO along with other international institutions: ACF International, CARE, Central American Integration System, Food Security Cluster of the Inter Agency Standing Committee (a partnership of around 35 institutions from the UN, NGOs and International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement), Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Oxfam, Permanent Inter-State Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel/CILSS, Save the Children, United States Agency for International Development’s Famine Early Warning Systems Network and World Food Programme.