Contents x
    9.4.2 The Food Security Cluster Chapter and PiN Calculation
    • 15 Dec 2023
    • 9 Minutes to read
    • Print
    • Dark
      Light
    Contents

    9.4.2 The Food Security Cluster Chapter and PiN Calculation

    • Updated on 15 Dec 2023
    • 9 Minutes to read
    • Print
    • Dark
      Light
    Article summary

    In the most recent HPC cycle (2022), the sector specific HNO chapter included three main sections: 

    1. The narrative section with the sectoral-specific analysis of needs and drivers of food insecurity as well the Cluster People in Need (PIN). 
    2. Projection of needs, and, 
    3. Monitoring indicators.
    The below sections provide specific tips and examples to consider when preparing the FSC chapter narrative as well as broad guidance on the FSCPIN calculation.

    Analysis of Needs - Data Disaggregation 

    The FSC Coordinator should ensure that the narrative and sectorial analysis of food security needs (including the PIN) and main drivers of food insecurity avoid generic statements and instead account for different population groups (e.g. residents, host communities, refugees, IDPs, migrant workers, returnees, etc.), per geographical locations, and when possible desegregated by Sex, Age and Disability.  

    Examples of ways to present disaggregated data in the FSC chapter narrative include:
    • Population group: It is typical to have the food security needs by population group. For example: The majority (83 percent) of the refugees in the country is adopting negative coping strategies to fill the food assistance gap, including selling of assets, cash borrowings.
    • Geographical location: The FSC narrative should identify the areas with highest level of food insecurity. For example: Over 65 percent of those food insecure in the West Bank, some 365,000 people, live in vulnerable households (HHs) in Areas A and B.
    • Sex: It is important to see how food security is impacting female vs male head of households (HoHH). For example: Among female-headed households living in camps, 15 percent report that food needs are the primary reason for taking on debt.
    • Age: It is important to flag if a certain population age group is especially affected. For example: The elderly constitute 36 percent of the conflict-affected population (41 pe cent in areas closest to the “contact line”) and account for 43 percent of the estimated people in need of food assistance and social protection.
    • Disability: Although there is limited data available, the Coordinator should advocate for joint or harmonised assessments (especially with the CLAs) to include disability specific analysis, which can be used in the HNO narrative. For example: Female-headed households with a disabled or chronically ill member are worse off (e.g. poor food consumption at 37 to 38 percent against 32 percent for households without any disabled). 
    • Urban / Rural: Where relevant the FSC narrative should reflect on the difference between the needs in urban and the rural areas. For example: Food insecurity and livelihoods in urban areas have deteriorated severely over the past year with 40 percent of households reporting a poor food consumption score in 2020 compared to 16 percent in 2019.
    • Livelihoods Sources: It can be important to flag how farming communities are impacted differently, whether it is daily laborers or farming households. For example: For farming households, crop pests and diseases, damaged irrigation systems, and problems accessing seeds and fertiliser were the major challenges faced in 2020.

    Where to find the information: Information about needs disaggregated by categories can be found by analysing results from partners’ surveys. WFP RAM unit (previously VAM), for instance, usually provides disaggregated data. These can be complemented by more qualitative analysis, available through partners assessments are reports (e.g. gender analyses, protection risk assessments). The Coordinator should consider the following:

    • Consult WFP RAM to get disaggregated data on different type of HHs (HoHH, livelihood source, etc.) and support the data collection when needed.
    • Ask FSC partners for assessment reports (e.g. CARE rapid gender analysis, etc.).
    • Consult FSC protection and gender focal points (if any) and/or specialised agencies (Humanity & Inclusion for specific on disability) - for example on ensuring narrative is protection and gender sensitive (see 5.7).

    How sectoral needs relate to other sectors: Where relevant, the Coordinator should consider including references in the FSC HNO narrative to protection issues (linked to the coping strategy index) and nutrition aspects (especially when HDDS / IDDS are available). Aspects related to WASH and agriculture for irrigation/water access can also be mentioned. This information can be complemented by Cluster partner assessments (especially those related to protection).

    Projection of Needs Depending on Risk Analysis and Assumptions 

    The FSC chapter should include narrative on how the food security needs are expected to progress based on available assumptions and risk analysis (and in relation to needs in other sectors) – see examples in text box.

    Examples of Projection of Needs from 2021 HNOs
    • The food security situation among IDPs, Vulnerable Resident Populations (VRP) and returnees is expected to remain poor throughout 2021 due to the degradation of livelihoods and socio-economic constraints.
    • Based on the assumptions of a funding outlook that allows for 50 per cent rations coupled with other economic shocks, 16.2 million people are likely to experience high levels of acute food insecurity (IPC Phase 3 or above) conditions between January and June 2021.

    However, it is important to note that while FSC teams should list the main risks and assumptions, it is not mandatory to have a projected PIN. When IPC projections are not available or not appropriate (see more below under PIN Calculation), Cluster teams are recommended not to include any new figure (leave it blank). 

    Monitoring Indicators

    The FSC chapter also includes indicators that the Cluster will regularly monitor. These could be based on pre-existing assessments. Example of monitoring indicators: 

    • For countries with an Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC)  or Cadre Harmonisé (CH) this would include % change in IPC/CH (Acute Food Insecurity or AFI) phase 3+.
    • For countries using CARI or for countries with pre-established methodologies this would include % change in households who are severely and moderately food insecure. 
    • Other available food security sector indicators such as Food Consumption Score, rCSI, HHS, etc.

    Note: Remember not to confuse HNO monitoring indicators with HRP ones – the latter monitor outputs and outcomes of activities. Below are examples of indicators to avoid using under the HNO: 

    • Number of people receiving assistance. 
    • Number of people provided with emergency agriculture / livelihoods resilience support to enable them to maintain or resume food production (crop kits, fisheries kits and livestock, forestry and natural resource management. 
    • Number of people provided with training (capacity strengthening).
    • Number of FSC IM products.
    • Number of FSC meetings. 

    FSC People in Need Calculation 

    The FSC should use traditionally available tools and methods to identify and analyse the food security needs of affected people and to determine the People in Need (PIN) figure. The gFSC produces a detailed PIN guidance note every year. Please check the HPC page on the FSC Website or contact the GST for support. 

    The FSC Chapter and PiN Calculation – General Considerations for the FSC Coordinator: 

    In addition to consulting the most recent gFSC PIN guidance, the Coordinator should consider the following when working on the FSC inputs for the HNO:

    Consultative and Transparent: Partners should be kept updated and involved – and the HNO process should be as consultative and transparent as possible. The FSC SAG, where available, can be used as a “working group” throughout the HNO (and HRP ) or a specific TWG can be established. Although the Coordinator (with IMO support) to support early discussions will prepare the initial calculations (based on the established Cluster method) and key narrative drafts, these should be validated with partners (or the SAG, pending the country set-up). 

    CLAs: Ensure the CLAs are updated on progress and on any issues of concern which may be addressed in HCT (the Coordinator should make sure to coordinate closely, not only with the CLAs, but also with those NGOs or NGO fora that are represented at HCT level). Following initial discussions with the partners, the analysed and identified FSC PIN should be cleared with the CLAs.

    HNO and PiN Calculation: 

    • The FSC PIN and severity figures should be estimated as per the sector's validated / preferred methods - clusters are free to choose the data sources for both: 1) their own PiN calculations; 2) sectoral contributions to JIAF .
    • The Coordinator should ensure that the FSC PIN is prepared with, reviewed and approved by the FSC partners and CLAs. All needs should be presented in a transparent way, without any pressure or any external interventions to keep PIN number low.    
    • The Coordinator should be able to clearly explain and justify the FSC PIN (see “cluster defence” in 9.5.2).

    PIN Disaggregation:

    • The PIN should account for: 1) all the different population groups in need, and 2) all geographical areas that have been identified as in need within the HNO. 
    • The PIN should be Sex, Age and Disability Disaggregated (SADD): 1) If data source of PIN is not available by SADD, other methods can be used to identify the breakdown, for example using census data (specifically for Sex and Age).  2) Lack of data on Disability is widespread - while not recommended, common practice is to use the global 15% disability rates set by WHO. However, FSC teams should advocate for such gaps in data/information to be taken into consideration for upcoming Food Security Assessments (FSAs). 

    Other Considerations:

    • If the situation in a country change after the latest IPC/CH or FSA has been conducted, it is important to ensure that new contributing factors after a shock are considered in the PIN calculation. Recent examples include COVID-19, desert locust and floods.
    • In case of a lack of recent and reliable data hampering the calculation of the PIN, existing data should be considered as the basis for the calculation, while applying some updates / projections as relevant. WFP RAM can support in this exercise, but the methodology should be agreed to by CLAs and by FSC partners (and government, when applicable).  

    Coordinators should contact the GST for updates on current recommended PIN calculation approach, HPC Step by Step Guidance on HNO, JIAF etc.

    Resources:

    Was this article helpful?
    What's Next