Contents x
    6.4.1 Examples of Food Security Specific Assessments (WFP 72-Hour Approach, EFSA, CFSAM)
    • 11 Mar 2024
    • 10 Minutes to read
    • Print
    • Dark
      Light
    Contents

    6.4.1 Examples of Food Security Specific Assessments (WFP 72-Hour Approach, EFSA, CFSAM)

    • Updated on 11 Mar 2024
    • 10 Minutes to read
    • Print
    • Dark
      Light
    Article summary

    WFP’s 72-hour Assessment Approach

    The 72-hour assessment approach aims to fill the initial information vacuum in the first three days based on the most recent available information and pre-disaster secondary data. It aims to provide information on two areas that are critical for initial planning and response: 1) which are the priority areas for assistance and 2) how many people need assistance. With a strong emphasis on data preparedness, the 72-hour assessment approach provides a practical, step-by-step guide for vulnerability and spatial analysis in sudden-onset disasters and is designed to carry out a rapid emergency assessment following for example a cyclone, earthquake or flood. Initial information is validated and refined through continuous updates as new data becomes available from, for example, field visits, rapid assessments, remote sensing and mobile phone surveys.  It is usually a food security assessment, but other sector can be included in the approach. 

    What is the role of the FSC Coordinator? WFP RAM leads the process but will coordinate with the FSC Coordinator (and OCHA, other partners and stakeholders) to design, implement, analyse, and produce assessment reports. In countries, where the FSC is established prior to the disaster, this will typically include assessment capacity strengthening efforts with FSC partners in preparation for a sudden onset disaster. This is usually part of the contingency planning efforts of the FSC and/or at inter-sector level (see 5.8). The Coordinator can assist with coordinating FSC partner updates from the field to validate, verify and update initial assumptions and estimates to reflect significant changes brought on by the disaster. Partnerships with various stakeholders, including national and local government entities responsible for disaster management, UN agencies, I/NGOs, Red Cross Red Crescent, and private sector organizations are critical throughout the 72-hour assessment process.

    See details on recommended actions 6.2.2 (harmonised and joint assessments) and 6.3 (actions by assessment phase). See also 6.5.1 on the initial MIRA. 

    Example: In Bangladesh, the FSC has worked with the WFP VAM unit (now RAM unit) to set up the approach ensuring significant data is available in case of a cyclone or flooding emergency. In this case, the tool was modified to fit the specific context and requirement for cross sectoral information. See for example the 72 hrs Initial Assessment Report on TC MORA and Aerial Assessment Report on Impact of Cyclone MORA (NAWG, 2017). See more on the 72-hour assessment approach in a Bangladesh context here.  

    Support: WFP RAM unit can provide technical support where needed. In case in-country resources are limited, contact the gFSC for support (gFSC Help Desk).

    Resources: See The 72-hour Assessment Approach: A guide for vulnerability and spatial analysis in sudden-onset disasters (WFP, 2018) and see this video from WFP VAM (2018).

    Emergency Food Security Assessments (EFSA)

    An Emergency Food Security Assessment (EFSA ) covers affected areas to determine the impact on the food security of households and their livelihoods, how the situation might evolve and recommended response options. 

    Types of EFSA: The analytical basis is the same for each type of EFSA . The essential differences lie in the time available for the assessment and the constraints to access to the areas concerned which can affect the scope of information that can be collected and the depth of the analysis. Although, on the ground, the distinctions may not be as clear, in broad terms the EFSA can be in the form of:

    • An initial EFSA should be completed within 6 to 10 days (Assessment Phase 2). However, the 72-hour assessment approach, completed through field visits and review of the available information (see above) is now increasingly used immediately after a shock as it better accommodates the need for immediate programmatic decision-making. 
    • A Rapid EFSA (3 to 6 weeks after the crisis – Assessment Phase 3-4) It is based on a combination of secondary and primary data (formal surveys and interviews) and typically provides information on 1) the nature and scale of the crisis: effects on food security, nutrition, and livelihoods, 2) the affected population: estimated numbers and locations 3) access constraints: logistics, security, etc., and 4) recommendations for immediate, short-term and, possibly, longer-term interventions.
      A rapid EFSA often takes place in areas with access constraints or in a fast-changing context where results are needed quickly for decision-making, hence the need to compromise between information accuracy and timeliness.
    • An in-depth EFSA (6 to 12 weeks – Assessment Phase 4 and beyond and in protracted crises) is based on a rigorous methodology and collects a more substantial body of quantified information. T It provides detailed and often statistically representative information that can be extrapolated to wider population groups and areas. The in-depth EFSA , focuses on measuring the impact of a shock in terms of the potential change in food security status among affected households, the impact on livelihoods as well as identifying vulnerability groups, protection concerns, likely future trends and response options and recommendations.   

    In a protracted crisis, they may be conducted on an annual basis whereas in disaster-prone countries experiencing regular seasonal shocks, EFSA s usually happen every 6 months to feed into the IPC/CH (see 6.7).  An EFSA can be also triggered if there is a significant deterioration of the situation (see early warning systems in 6.3.1).

    EFSAs - What is the role of the FSC Coordinator? WFP RAM will drive the process; however, the Coordinator should facilitate partner participation in the assessment (if a joint assessment is a possibility). The Coordinator should generally facilitate and support any sectoral needs assessment, analysis and surveys, such as the EFSA s, as well as ensure that the available information is utilised for decision- making and informs, for example, the HNOs (6.8) the IPC or Cadre Harmonisé (6.7) and response planning (9.5). See details on recommended actions 6.2.2 (harmonised and joint assessments) and 6.3 (describing actions by assessment phase).

    Resources: Emergency Food Security Assessment Handbook (EFSA) (WFP, 2009). Learn more about WFP analysis here or consult the resource center of WFP VAM.  

    Example of Joint Food Security Assessments (FSAs): Joint FSAs are a regular activity for many FSCs where joint assessments often build on a conceptual framework and analytical approach that is consistent with EFSA s (e.g. sampling approaches, indicators and logic of analysis). In Ukraine, for example, a Joint Food Security Assessment (FSA) was conducted, with the planning and design stage led by a FSLC TWG and with the FSA undertaken jointly by six NGOs, FAO and WFP with FSLC coordination. 

    Example of FSA Tools: The South Sudan Food Security & Livelihoods Cluster has developed a full package of assessment tools (updated yearly) to support both FSL sector assessments and the food security component of the Multi-sector Initial Rapid Needs Assessments (IRNA). Contact the GST for the link to the full repository. See also the Bangladesh food security specific Phase 3 tool here).

    Support: WFP RAM unit can provide technical support where needed – and the Coordinator can lean on in-country resources including the FSC NAWG (or similar TWG). In case in country resources are limited, the gFSC can support (gFSC Help Desk).

    FAO/WFP Crop and Food Security Assessment Mission (CFSAM)

    Crop and Food Security Assessment Missions (CFSAM ) assess the impact of a disaster on national food supply, demand, and the food security situation of affected groups. They also provide details of estimated people in need of emergency food assistance and recommendations to improve the situation (short- and longer- term). 

    CFSAM s are commonly undertaken one month or later after the shock or on a yearly basis in protracted crises. If feasible, they are planned around the cropping season when production can be estimated with some reliability. They rely on secondary data and analysis of satellite images, in country consultations (with relevant ministries, UN and donor agencies, NGOs etc.) and field visits. Commonly, with the support from relevant technical experts, FAO focuses on availability and the supply side whereas WFP focuses on household food access and demand side.

    What is the role of the FSC Coordinator in the CFSAM? FAO and WFP normally have adequate country experience and capacity. However, the Coordinator should support the CFSAM process, facilitate local contacts and resources if needed – especially in relation to field visits where FSC partners may participate. The Coordinator will play a more active role in sharing the findings and ensuring it is reflected in FSC documents (including in revised flash appeals, HNOs/HRP s) and at HCT level where relevant. 

    Detailed follow on assessments may be required in relation to agriculture sector recovery, livelihoods, food and nutrition security and/or specific sub-sector assessments in relation to crops, livestock, fisheries, forestry and natural resources, etc. The Coordinator may want to review the previously agreed FSC assessment plan (calendar/schedule): adjustments need to be made taking account of any other already-scheduled assessments.

    The CFSAM information is used for the IPC/CH.

    Other Agricultural Assessments: In the immediate aftermath of a shock, information on damage to crops and livestock is usually collected directly from the department of agriculture – standard rapid assessment tools rarely capture details on, for example, production losses or productive assets losses (although based on the affected area, some predictions of immediate crop impact can be made). However, FAO will commonly undertake the following types of assessments in the aftermath of a crisis, in addition to the CFSAM : 

    • The impact on agricultural production capacity (including on livestock, the need for agricultural inputs to enable production and longer-term rehabilitation); and
    • Animal disease or plant pest assessments.

    The Coordinator can help coordinate these with partners, if relevant (and should generally work to ensure that food security and the need for food and agricultural interventions is assessed at inter-sector level (see 6.5 on the MIRA and MSNA and see relevant indicators to be included in Annex II).

    CFSAM Examples: Special Report Crop And Food Security Assessment Mission (CFSAM), Sri Lanka (FAO /WFP, 2022). Special Report: Crop and Food Security Assessment Mission (CFSAM), South Sudan (FAO /WFP, 2021).

    Support: FAO technical unit in country can provide support where needed. In case in-country resources are limited, the gFSC support (gFSC Help Desk).

    CFSAM Resources: See the FAO/WFP Joint Guidelines for Crop and Food Security Assessment Missions (2009) for practical guidance for all CFSAM participants (i.e. FAO /WFP core team members, FSC members, government or other agency participants, or donor observers). 

    Additional Resources for Agriculture Livelihoods Based Assessments: 

    Was this article helpful?
    What's Next