The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) is a common global scale for classifying the severity and magnitude of food insecurity and malnutrition. It is the result of a partnership of various organizations at global, regional and country levels dedicated to developing and maintaining the highest possible quality in food security and nutrition analysis. IPC is increasingly the international standard for classifying food insecurity and malnutrition.
IPC is a “big-picture” classification focusing on providing information that is consistently required by stakeholders around the world for strategic decision-making. Nuanced information may also be needed to inform particular decisions or answer certain questions. The IPC provides the essential information needed in a wide range of contexts and does so in consistent, comparable and accountable ways.
Within the inherently complex, multidisciplinary and cross-sectoral fields of food security and nutrition, there was a widespread need for an analytical approach that was robust and transparent, comparable and applicable across locations, and relevant for decision-making. To meet this challenge, IPC has become a global reference for classification of food insecurity (and increasingly for acute malnutrition) because it is:
IPC makes the best use of the evidence available and does so through a transparent, traceable, and rigorous process. Evidence requirements to complete classification have been developed considering the range of circumstances in which evidence quality and quantity may be limited, while ensuring adherence to minimum standards. To ensure the application of IPC in settings where access to collect evidence is limited or non-existent, specialized parameters have been developed. IPC provides a structured process for making the best assessment of the situation based on what is known, and presents the limitations to its classifications as part of the process.
There are three IPC scales: Acute Food Insecurity, Acute Malnutrition and Chronic Food Insecurity. Each scale classifies a specific condition that is linked to particular responses.
IPC consists of four functions, all of which must be followed to conclude a classification and to generate IPC information products. Each function has a specific purpose and a set of protocols to guide analysts. The completion of all protocols is fundamental to the IPC as they ensure that analyses are rigorous, neutral and accountable. The four functions include:
All three IPC scales follow exactly the same protocols within the functions but contain adapted tools and procedures to allow analysts to untangle the different conditions. By sharing the same protocols, IPC promotes the application of multiple scales in the same country.
Typically, the IPC process begins with the formation of an in-country Working Group (referred to as the IPC Technical Working Group, or TWG), usually hosted by the government and comprised of relevant national stakeholders, usually including representatives of the government, UN agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). These TWGs can be either new groups or embedded within existing coordination structures. The TWGs are the foundation of country-level implementation, and are crucial for ensuring the consistency, sustainability and use of IPC
Since its introduction in 2004, IPC has become the internationally accepted reference for analysis of food security and, increasingly, for acute malnutrition crises. As such, IPC holds considerable advantages for both analysts and decision makers alike, including:
- Setting a common global standard for food security, malnutrition and Famine classifications:
- Creating a platform for building evidence-based consensus among key stakeholders:
- Implementing a process that consolidates wide-ranging evidence into knowledge for taking action towards food security and nutrition:
IPC food security and nutrition situation analyses are fully transparent in how findings reached and conclusions were made, ensuring credibility at every stage of the process. IPC establishes clear protocols to support and guide high standards of transparency and rigour. As IPC draws on existing evidence in the public domain, all underlying data should be accessible to anyone. Furthermore, analysis worksheets should be made available upon request.
IPC and the key stages of the analysis-response continuum:
At the country and professional levels, IPC holds a number of advantages, including:
Finally, both at country and professional levels, IPC is accessible, free and easy to use. Understanding of IPC is supported by a range of structures, including support provided by the GSU, IPC partner organizations and the global and regional networks of IPC certified trainers/facilitators.
The IPC Analysis Cycle includes four inter-linked stages that need to be followed for each IPC analysis in order to produce high-quality products and effectively communicate results. An analysis cycle, excluding planning and lessons learning, usually takes between one and three months, although chronic food insecurity classifications may take longer depending on the analysis coverage and other parameters.
IPC only permits classification of Famine when all regular IPC protocols and special Famine protocols are met. The special protocols are:
Famines should be avoided at all costs. Although further deaths can and should be prevented by urgent action, it is evident that these actions will be, de-facto, a late response as many will have died by that point. IPC supports Famine prevention by highlighting that:
Catastrophe and Famine both refer to IPC Phase 5, indicating the most extreme food insecurity situations. However, there are notable differences between the two as Catastrophe is a household-level classification and Famine is an area level classification.
IPC Phase 5 (Catastrophe)
Households in this phase are experiencing an extreme lack of food, leading to alarmingly high acute malnutrition rates among children under five, significant excess mortality and an imminent risk of starvation.
IPC Phase 5 (Catastrophe) can only be classified at the household level. Households may be classified in IPC Phase 5 (Catastrophe) even if the area is not classified in IPC Phase 5 (Famine). The latter is the case when less than 20 percent of the population is experiencing IPC Phase 5 (Catastrophe) conditions and/or when malnutrition and/or mortality levels have not (or not yet) reached famine thresholds.
IPC Phase 5 (Famine)
Famine is an IPC classification at the area level. The IPC defines Famine as a situation in which at least one in five (or 20 percent) of households have an extreme lack of food and face starvation resulting in death, destitution and extremely critical levels of acute malnutrition. In this Phase, prevalence of acute malnutrition in children under five exceeds 30 percent, households have reached a point of destitution, and death, measured in the form of excess mortality (crude death rate must reach at least 2 deaths/10,000 people/day), is prevalent.
Whereas the IPC’s role is to facilitate classification of acute food insecurity, international agencies have typically taken on the role of making formal statements (often characterized as a “declaration”) that Famine exists. In other words, the IPC does not “declare Famine” or issue “Famine declarations”, but rather facilitates the analysis that allows governments, international/regional organizations and humanitarian agencies to issue more prominent statements or declarations.
Famine classification with solid or reasonable evidence
In April 2023, the IPC technical protocols were updated to simplify terminology related to Famine. The new terminology reflects a more nuanced approach tocommunicating the IPC Phase 5 (Famine) classification,based on the amount and quality of evidence availableto support the statement.
Previously, the IPC used classifications of Famine (IPCPhase 5) and Famine Likely (also IPC Phase 5) to refer tothe same severity of acute food insecurity – they differedonly in the amount of evidence available for analysis.However, this approach created the impression amongthe public and decision makers that different levels ofseverity were being classified. To avoid this confusionmoving forward, all area-level classifications of IPC Phase5 will simply be referred to as Famine.
In order to preserve the important distinction that different levels of evidence may be used to make this classification, the IPC now provides a more direct indication of the level of evidence available for classification.
An area is classified in Famine with solid evidence if there is clear and compelling evidence of starvation, acute malnutrition and mortality to support the classification.
An area is classified in Famine with reasonable evidence if minimally adequate evidence is available on two out of the three outcomes – starvation, malnutrition or mortality – to support the classification. However, moredata is needed to confirm the severity of the situation.
Famine with solid evidence and Famine with reasonable evidence are equally severe – the only difference is the amount of reliable evidence available to support the statement.
The risk of Famine
The IPC defines risk of Famine as the reasonableprobability of an area going into Famine in the future(i.e. during the IPC projected period). While this is notthe most likely scenario, it is one that generally has arealistic chance of occurring. It complements the IPCprojections by providing insights into potential forFamine to occur if conditions evolve in a manner worsethan anticipated. It differs from IPC Phase 5 (Famine)projections because it focuses on a worst-case scenariowith a reasonable and realistic chance of happening, asopposed to the most likely scenario.
Risk of Famine is a statement about the potential deterioration of the situation. It is not a classification and it is not to be accompanied by estimates of populations facing this risk. It is a further assessment analysing if the area could realistically go into IPC Phase 5 (Famine) during the projected period.
Not all areas need to undergo assessment for risk of Famine but only areas where there are concerns that forecasts may evolve in a manner that is worse than anticipated (usually in the case of additional significant shocks) and under these conditions, the situation could evolve into a Famine.
IPC was created precisely to supersede potential political interferences through technical neutrality, and, if necessary, to shine a light on the political dimensions (at both national and international levels) that may obfuscate the severity of food insecurity situations.
IPC provides parameters which are based on international standards to analyse the severity of food insecurity from none to Famine levels. These parameters have been commonly agreed by all partners and are followed in all countries using IPC protocols to ascertain the severity of the situation based on these parameters and data available.
This is particularly challenging in countries affected by conflict where some areas are not accessible and quality data are not always available. For this reason, an independent committee of global experts, called the IPC Famine Review Committee (FRC), can be activated to support the IPC country team of food security and nutrition specialists as an additional quality assurance and validation step for the IPC conclusions. The activation of the IPC FRC is also meant to further ensure technical independence of the analysis from potential political influence.
Join our mailing list