Slow-Onset Food Security Crises

Improving Response & Situation Analysis

The response to the drought in the Horn of Africa in 2011 highlighted, once again, the systematic
shortcomings of the humanitarian system to respond effectively to slow onset food security crises. There were unacceptable delays, inadequate humanitarian responses and inappropriate program designs. Poor links between situation and response analyses and limited evidence of an accurate calculation of households food gap were seen as key factors contributing to inappropriate program design. It must therefore be assumed that although technical and operational capacity within the sector has grown in recent years it remains insufficient and the analysis required to inform food assistance and livelihoods responses is still inadequate. In order to help address these shortcomings and support capacity within the food security sector Save the Children, with funding from ECHO, is developing Guidance for Situation & Response Analysis in Slow Onset Food Security Crises. This short document outlines the proposed approach for the development and testing of these Situation & Response Analysis Guidelines between March - July 2013. Understanding Current Response Analysis in Practice Recent research by ODI1 highlighted; how the range of response options available to deal with food security crises has increased significantly in recent years, the investments that have been made in situation analysis across the sector and the large number of response analysis tools (>20) that are already available. Despite this the research found that in practice there is often very little formal or explicit response analysis conducted by agencies the process of selecting which interventions an agency will implement is most often an intuitive process. Where response analysis did happen it most often focused on 2nd Order Response Options (e.g. the decision whether food, cash or vouchers are more appropriate) rather than the more strategic 1st Order Response Options (i.e. determining the overall objectives of an agencys response). The research recommended that: Figure 1: A typical depiction of response analysis a. b. c. d. Response Analysis is actually part of emergency preparedness & contingency planning. Labelling it as an activity that fits neatly between needs assessment and program planning is misleading. Response Analysis is an on-going process, not a single step as has typically been depicted in the program management cycle (see figure 1). A critical part of Response Analysis is the question of how the work of one agency fits into the larger picture of what other agencies, national governments and local communities themselves are doing. Improving the analysis of causal factors is essential for evidence-based response analysis. Both improved causal analysis and response analysis are needed.

1 Maxwell, Stobaugh, Parker & McGlinchy (2013) Response Analysis & Response Choice in Food Security Crises: A Roadmap, Network Paper 73, London: ODI

Developing the Guidance Drawing on the findings of the recent ODI research as well as related studies2 Save the Children is developing and testing a process that: Focuses on contingency planning as the key process for improving response analysis. Is built upon regular seasonal livelihood analysis. Uses a modular & iterative Process designed to foster on-going improvements in analysis. Brings together Development & Humanitarian staff to conduct a joint analysis Focuses on institutionalization as much as the technical problems of improving analysis itself. Links existing Response Analysis tools, rather than developing new tools, and provides practical guidance on how to adapt these tools to different contexts. Integrates Food Security, Livelihoods and Nutrition.

The proposed process for improving response & situation analysis for slow-onset food security crises is based around three key stages which are described below: 0. Baseline Analysis of Livelihoods & Markets 1. Response Analysis & Contingency Planning 2. Situation Analysis & Context Monitoring

0.

Baseline Analysis of Livelihoods & Markets

It is assumed that most slow-onset food security crises occur in areas of chronic vulnerability where operational agencies are implementing long-term programs and baseline livelihood and market analysis should therefore be available. These baselines provide an essential pre-requisite for the response & situation analysis. More specifically the process for improving situation and response analysis is design to use the Household Economy Approach (HEA) for the baseline analysis because the detailed and quantified results produced by an HEA enable the development of rapid yet comprehensive scenarios that are central to the proposed process for improving response & situation analysis. In contexts where an HEA baseline is not available it is recommended that a rapid HEA be used to conduct a livelihoods assessment. HEA is now well established within the food security sector but rapid HEA less so; the development of this guidance therefore includes a specific component focused on rapid HEA. Rapid HEA: Overcoming Institutional barriers to maintaining technical capacity Quantifying household income and expenditure is notoriously difficult. The Household Economy Approach (HEA) addresses this problem by triangulating food, income and expenditure against the cost of a households minimum food energy requirements (i.e. 2,100 kcal) in order to calculate households annual food gap (survival deficit in HEA terminology). Rapid HEA assessments use the same framework as a standard HEA baseline what differs is that the total quantity of information collected is less than would normally be collected in a full HEA. Because less information is collected the results of a rapid HEA will not be valid beyond the current season unlike a standard HEA, which can typically be used for at least 5 years. Guidance on how to conduct a rapid HEA is included in the 2008 HEA Practitioners Guide3 and Rapid HEAs have been used after the 1999 drought in Pakistan, the 2004 tsunami in Asia, the 2005 Kashmir earthquake in Pakistan and the 2006 conflict in Lebanon. Crucially, even with this guidance, rapid HEAs require experienced HEA practitioners and agencies often struggle to retain skilled technical staff. Traditionally people have gained HEA experience by participating in standard HEA baselines which inevitably takes time and a degree of good luck to be in the right place at the right time when an HEA baseline is being conducted. In the past agencies have tried to address this problem by developing more detailed guidance for rapid HEAs but without the necessary experience it has proved difficult to use.

2 Levine & Chastre (2011), Nutrition and Food Security Response Analysis in Emergency Contexts, London: ODI HPG 3 Available at: http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/sites/default/files/docs/The_Practitioners_Guide_to_HEA_1.pdf

Working with the Food Economy Group (FEG) Save the Children has developed an alternative approach that relies neither on a guidance manual nor accumulating years of HEA experience; an approach based on self-guided learning and practical training that aims to enable experienced food security practitioners to quickly develop the skills and experience needed to conduct a rapid HEA. The self-guided learning delivers standard HEA training material through 3 on-line training modules. The on-line training modules cover the principles and key approach of HEA as well as exercises to practice the calculation of kilocalorie requirements and quantifying households sources of food, income and expenditure. This enables the classroom training to be reduced from the normal 6 days to 2 days. The on-line HEA training modules can be accessed at: http://www.proprofs.com/classroom_login.php?ID=MTE2NDI1MF8xODc5MQ The two days of classroom training is followed by six days of field-work when trainees gain practical experience of community and households level interviews that quantifying households sources of food, income and expenditure. The field interviews in a rapid HEA collect information for both the reference year and current season unlike a standard HEA, which focuses only on the reference year. Finally there are fours days of data entry (using a standard HEA Baseline Storage Spread-sheet), setting up and running outcome analysis (using a standard HEA Single Zone Spread-sheet) and report writing. The ultimate goal is to develop a system that enables agencies to consistently maintain a small pool of experience food security practitioners, whos job it is to conduct food security assessments, that can conduct rapid HEAs without external support. It is estimated that the system of self-guided learning and practical mentoring would require an annual investment of ~10,000 in order to maintain a pool of 4 food security practitioners capable of conducting rapid HEAs, assuming regular staff turn-over. To date the rapid HEA training system has been piloted in Northern Kenya and Myanmar.

1.

Response Analysis & Contingency Planning

Contingency planning is used as the key institutional process for improving response analysis, but it is seen very much as a process that brings together development and humanitarian staff to conduct a joint analysis. The process is therefore envisioned to be a regular seasonal livelihood analysis that is hosted by development staff that are implementing longer-term food security programs but with strong participation by humanitarian personnel. The seasonal analysis should therefore be used to update existing livelihood baselines and make adjustments to on-going long-term programs as well as supporting contingency planning. To maximize the utility of the seasonal livelihood analysis & contingency planning it is recommended that all long-term food security programs in areas of chronic vulnerability integrate a crisis modifier that enables early response to a forecast livelihood crisis. The contingency planning process outlined below draws heavily on the 2009 RELPA Contingency Planning guidance developed by Levine & Abdinoor4. Develop Detailed Scenarios: HEA Dashboard

Identification of potential hazards and the development of scenarios that describe the impact of those hazards on households livelihoods form the foundation for any contingency plan. Crucially contingency plans are often of limited practical utility partly because the scenarios are not detailed enough to develop specific and practical contingency plan5. Save the Children is working with the Food Economy Group (FEG) to develop and test an HEA Dashboard that would quickly generate detailed and quantified scenarios for a range of standard hazards. The system is built on a simplified HEA Outcome Analysis and enables the user to run a standard hazard through any of the HEA livelihood baselines that are available globally (>200 baselines). Users would have the ability to enter population and price data and the HEA Dashboard

4 Levine & Abdinoor (2009), The RELPA Guide to Early Response to Slow-onset crises or How to make contingency
planning useful, in just fifteen easy steps 5 Levine, Crosskey & Abdinoor (2011), Systems Failure? Network Paper 71, London: ODI

would automatically model changes in households sources of food and income, taking into account their coping strategies. The output would be a scenario that describes: Households food gap (i.e. survival deficit) differentiated by wealth groups, The cash and / or food required to meet an individual households food deficit The total population facing a food deficit, The total quantity of food and / or cash needed to meet the populations food deficit IPC Phase

It is important to note that the development of detailed scenarios, and therefore the whole contingency planning process, is based on a forecast and therefore differs from both broader Emergency Preparedness Planning processes (which tend to be based on a retrospective / historical review of hazards) and the standard representation of Response Analysis in which the shock itself and then the Situation Analysis are depicted as preceding the Response Analysis (see figure 1 & 2). Because scenarios are developed using a forecast the system is designed to use good enough scenarios and then monitor and adjust them based on how reality differs from the forecast scenario. This has the advantage of enabling agencies to focus on developing a detailed and actionable contingency plan that supports preparedness and early response. Figure 2: Road Map for Response Analysis (Maxwell, 2013) Map Livelihood & Scenario Calendars If responses to slow-onset food security crises are to be effective they must first and foremost be early, so that they protect livelihood assets as well as ensure immediate access to food. While slowonset crises should offer the opportunity for early response this currently tends to be the exception rather than the rule. A key step in the contingency planning process is therefore to map livelihood calendars for a normal year and superimpose the key events for the selected scenario. This step in the process establishes the key cut-off periods for decision-making and start-up of interventions, which provides a framework for the subsequent steps in the contingency planning process. Recent research highlights that early responses may require the start-up of interventions before a crisis can be confirmed, which in turn requires decision-making on the basis of forecasts rather than triggers based on actual food security or livelihoods outcomes. Determine Strategic Objectives: 1st Order Strategic Response Analysis

The recent ODI research into Response Analysis found that where response analysis did happen it most often focused on 2nd Order Response Options (i.e. the decision whether food, cash or vouchers are more appropriate). The proposed contingency planning process therefore includes a specific step that address the strategic 1st Order Response Analysis (i.e. determining the overall objectives of an agencys response). This Strategic Response Analysis will examine: i. ii. iii. What needs to happen & when does it need to happen by? What are People, their Government & other agencies planning to do? What is our agency best placed to do that complement the actions of others?

The objective is to ensure a deliberate consideration of agency mandates & objectives and avoid reflex responses. A key output is therefore to determine the relative importance of the different determinants of food security and nutrition; early support for livelihoods in order to protect productive assets, food assistance to maintain dietary intake, support for women and men to care for children and protect their nutritional status, improved access to health services, water and sanitation or treatment of acute malnutrition.

Select Appropriate Interventions: 2nd Order Operational Response Analysis

The Operational Response Analysis will be focused on evaluating and documenting the appropriateness of different response options using existing decision trees. The recent ODI research into Response Analysis highlighted the large number of response analysis tools (>20) that are already available and these tools contain at least 7 different decision trees designed to guide the operational response analysis process. A review of the existing decision trees for this guidance showed that: Existing decision trees have different structures and decision pathways but the individual questions within the different decision trees are in fact very similar. There is relatively little guidance on how to answer some of the key questions within these decision trees; many decision trees ask whether markets are competitive or integrated but do not provide guidance on how to analyse market integration or competition. Decision Trees are Static which makes it time-consuming to develop a decision tree for your specific context. Synthesising Existing Decision Trees: highlighting areas of commonality as well as key gaps. Linking to existing guidance & tools that can guide users on how to answer common questions from existing decision trees. Piloting dynamic decision trees that can be quickly and easily adapted to a specific context. Identify Agency Priorities & Roles of Partners

The guidance for second order response analysis therefore focuses on: 1. 2. 3.

The recent ODI research into Response Analysis found that response choices were influenced primarily by agencies mandates, capacities and historical interventions as well as perceptions of donor preference. These institutional filters played a larger role in determining responses than formal assessments and analysis. These filters were however seldom formally recognized as key determinants of response choices. In order to make these influences explicit an additional step is included in the contingency planning to identify which of the selected response options fit best with agencies mandates and capacities and which response options require a partnership with other agencies. The aim being to ensure that all the interventions required to achieve the strategic objectives are implemented by a partnership between agencies. Map Start-up Time-lines & Prepare

A critical step in the contingency planning process is to map the start-up time-lines for selected interventions. Mapping start-up time-lines is critical to determining the cut-offs for decision-making and the degree of risk that decision makers will have to accept. As highlighted earlier, early responses will often require the start-up of interventions before a crisis can be confirmed, which in turn requires decision-making on the basis of forecasts rather than triggers based on actual food security or livelihoods outcomes. However, with good preparedness it is possible to shorten start-up time-lines and minimize the uncertainty and risk for decision makers. Communicate: to partners and communities

The direct interventions of an individual agency will not be sufficient to ensure an early and appropriate response to slow-onset food security crises. Agencies operate within a system and it is only when the system as a whole works effectively that an appropriate response will be possible. We must therefore take responsibility not only for the interventions of our agency but also for ensuring the system as a whole functions effectively. Communication plays a key role in supporting the system to function. Communication with partners can help Governments and Donors make early funding decision and ensure that operational agencies are coordinating effectively. Communication with communities can support households to manage their own response which should be the ultimate goal of our work.

Contingency Plan

The key output of the Contingency Planning Process is a Contingency Plan that summarizes the forecast scenario, strategic objective and rationale for selected interventions in a short narrative document. The contingency plan should be accompanied by a budget and potentially concept notes for specific interventions. The response plan should consider interventions that include: i. ii. iii. iv. Advocacy for the scale-up of existing safety nets Activation of crisis modifier funds in on-going development projects Release of internal agency funding for additional assessments New humanitarian funding

2.

Situation Analysis & Context Monitoring

The proposed system for strengthening response & situation analysis is built upon forecast scenarios, context monitoring and updating / refining the forecast scenarios once a shock has occurred is therefore critical to developing an accurate situation analysis. It is recommended that a full HEA Outcome Analysis is used to update and refine the scenario and create a situation analysis, rather than the simplified Outcome Analysis using in the HEA Dashboard to create the forecast scenarios. Context monitoring is distinct from project M&E because it focuses on factors beyond the geographic confines or timeframes of an individual project. It is proposed that context monitoring focus on two broad categories of indicators: i. ii. HEA Key Parameters: The key sources of food and income within an HEA are defined as key parameters. In order to be able to update and refine the forecast scenario it is important to have accurate and timely data on as many key parameters as possible. Outcome Indicators: HEA Outcome Analysis models households behaviour and it is therefore useful to complement the Outcome Analysis with indicators that measure actual outcomes. In this way it is possible to triangulate the modelled and actual outcomes and improve the confidence and accuracy of the situation analysis. It is recommended that the Coping Strategies Index (CSI) is used as an indicator of household food access, since it is leading indicator that provides good early warning and is at the same time relatively simple indicator to collect and measure. It is also recommended that Household Dietary Diversity is used as a proxy indicator for household food utilization.

These two sets of indicators will enable the forecast scenarios to be updated and refined based on the actual impact of a shock, will inevitably be somewhat different from the forecast impact. It will therefore be necessary to update and refine the response plan & budget accordingly. The situation analysis provided by the updated and refined scenarios would represent a valuable input into an IPC analysis and as such should be shared with the appropriate local or national IPC Technical Working Group. An Iterative & Modular Process of Data Collection & Analysis The description of the response & situation analysis process above and figure 3 on the next page that illustrates the process has focused on one iteration of the process. It is however important to emphasise that the response & situation analysis process is designed to be a regular process that is repeated every season. It is equally important to highlight that the process is dependent upon having data to analyse and where an agency has on-going operations there will inevitably be gaps in the data when the process is first established. When establishing the system it is therefore important to plan and budget for data collection as well as regular analysis. The system has been designed as a modular process so that data collection and analysis can be gradually strengthened over time. The process is designed to be led and managed by food security staff in-country, but when first establishing the process it may be necessary to provide external support for the first two or three iterations.

BASELINE ANALYSIS

LIVELIHOODS & MARKET BASELINES

HEA

EMMA

MIFIRA

Forecast

FEWS

Forecast Phase 3, 4 or 5

DEVELOP DETAILED SCENARIOS

Strategic

HEA Dashbaord

Rapid HEA*

RESPONSE ANALYSIS CONTINGENCY PLANNING

MAP LIVELIHOOD CALENDARS

DETERMINE STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

SELECT APPROPRIATE INTERVENTIONS

Operational

Decision Trees

IDENTIFY AGENCY PRIORITIES & PARTNERS

MAP START-UP TIMELINES & PREPARE COMMUNICATE to Communities & Partners Contingency Plan SHOCK

SITUATION ANALYSIS SEASONAL LIVELIHOOD ANALYSIS

CONTEXT MONITORING

CSI, DDS

HEA Key Parameters

REFINE SCENARIOS

UPDATE CONTINGENCY PLAN

HEA Outcome Analysis

Response Plan

Phase Classication

IPC

* if HEA is not available

Figure 3: Proposed Response Analysis Flow-chart

For further information please contact Miles Murray: milesmurray620@gmail.com