![]() ![]() Occurs when a household has an extreme lack of food and/or other basic needs even after full employment of coping strategies. In certain cases, areas may be classified in “ Famine Likely ” which indicates the same level of severity as “Famine” but means that the analysis was based on less available evidence than one that results in a “Famine” classification. IPC Phase 5 is referred to as “Catastrophe” when classifying a household and “Famine” when classifying an area. Occurs when over 80 percent of the population in a given area is in None (IPC Phase 1). Occurs when a household is able to meet essential food and non-food needs without engaging in atypical and unsustainable strategies. IPC Phase 1 is referred to as “ None” when classifying a household and “Minimal” when classifying an area. Two phases – IPC Phase 1 and IPC Phase 5 – take on different names when referring to a household classification vs. (For Famine Classification, area needs to have extreme critical levels of acute malnutrition and mortality.) Starvation, death, destitution, and extremely critical acute malnutrition levels are evident. Households have an extreme lack of food and/or other basic needs even after full employment of coping strategies. ![]() Are able to mitigate large food consumption gaps but only by employing emergency livelihood strategies and asset liquidation. Have large food consumption gaps which are reflected in very high acute malnutrition and excess mortality Are marginally able to meet minimum food needs but only by depleting essential livelihood assets or through crisis-coping strategies. Have food consumption gaps that are reflected by high or above-usual acute malnutrition Households have minimally adequate food consumption but are unable to afford some essential non-food expenditures without engaging in stress-coping strategies. Households are able to meet essential food and non-food needs without engaging in atypical and unsustainable strategies to access food and income. ![]() Analysts use this evidence alongside the IPC reference tables, which provide illustrative thresholds for each of the five IPC Phases, to classify the severity of the current or projected food security situation. It is important to recognize that there may be households in the assessed area experiencing a worse IPC Phase than the area-level Phase classification reflected on FEWS NET’s acute food insecurity maps for that geographic area, but these households make up less than 20 percent of the assessed area’s overall population.Ĭlassification is based on a convergence of available data and evidence, including indicators related to food consumption, livelihoods, malnutrition, and mortality. In order for a geographic area to be classified in a given IPC Acute Food Insecurity Phase, at least 20 percent of the area’s population must meet the specific classification description for that Phase or a higher Phase (e.g., IPC Phase 2: ≥ 20 percent of the population is facing IPC Phase 2 or higher Phase outcomes). These descriptions differ for each Phase and describe a household’s ability to meet their basic food and non-food needs without engaging in negative and unsustainable coping. In order for a household to be classified in a given IPC Phase, it must meet the specific Phase description provided in the table below. The IPC Acute Food Insecurity Scale allows for the classification of acute food insecurity at both the household and area level. Download the IPC Technical Manual version 3.1 FEWS NET uses IPC Version 3.1 to describe the current and anticipated severity of acute food insecurity in its reports and mapping. In 2021, Version 3.0 was upgraded to Version 3.1. IPC Version 3.0 was officially launched in 2019 as an update to IPC Version 2.0. FEWS NET, a leading provider of early warning and analysis on acute food insecurity, actively contributed to the design and implementation of the IPC. The IPC was devised by a global partnership of governmental and non-governmental agencies. This harmonized approach is particularly useful in comparing situations across countries and regions, and between time periods. In practice, analysts use various methods of data collection and analysis (e.g., food prices, seasonal calendars and post-harvest surveys, rainfall, rapid food-security assessments, etc.), but with the IPC, they can describe their conclusions using the same, consistent language and standards. Along with its five-phase acute food insecurity scale, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) system provides protocols that serve the functions of building technical consensus, classifying severity and identifying key drivers, communicating for action, and quality assurance. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |