Q&As on South Sudan IPC analysis results - September 2017, October-December 2017 and January-March 2018

Below are answers to 8 main questions on the South Sudan IPC analysis results for September 2017, October-December 2017 and January-March 2018, followed by key questions and related answers on what IPC is and how acute food insecurity is measured.

1. How many are in need and where in South Sudan now?

We have now entered the first-projected period October-December 2017, at which the number of people in need of humanitarian assistance (IPC phase 3 and above) is expected to drop from 6 million (September 2017) to 4.8 million - 45% of the total population. Among those, over 3.5 million people are in IPC Phase 3 (Crisis), nearly 1.3 million people are in IPC Phase 4 (Emergency), and 25,000 people are facing catastrophic conditions (IPC Phase 5) in Wau County of former Western Bahr el Ghazal State and Ayod of former Jonglei State.

The situation for January-March 2018 will continue to be dire. An anticipated earlier than normal start of the lean season will result in an estimated 5.1 million people - 48% of the total population - being classified as severely food insecure, with 20,000 still in IPC Catastrophe (IPC Phase 5).

2. Which area(s) are of the most food insecure?

As of October 2017, Greater Baggari in the former Wau County is a major area of concern. The area is classified in IPC Phase 4 but 10% of the population in the areas is classified in IPC Catastrophe (IPC Phase 5). This percentage is expected to increase without the provision of humanitarian assistance and close monitoring.

Other areas of high concern include the 19 counties in IPC Phase 4 (Emergency) located in the States of Unity, Jonglei, Western Bahr el Ghazal, Upper Nile, Eastern and Central Equatoria.

In addition, of concern are also the 44 counties are classified in IPC Phase 3 (Crisis).

Overall, over 83% of the counties (63 counties out of 76) are classified IPC Phase 3 Crisis and higher phases.

3. How does the situation compare with previous food security/IPC analysis results in South Sudan?

Overall, the food security situation in South Sudan has further deteriorated. The latest figures show the highest ever-recorded proportions of populations in Crisis, Emergency and Catastrophe (IPC Phase 3, 4 & 5 ) over the past years.

Following the increased geographic spread of the conflict after the July 2016 crisis in Juba (particularly, in the Greater Equatoria), trends show a consistent increase in the number of the severely food insecure populations with each successive year/ lean season and a sharp decline in the numbers of populations experiencing minimal and stressed phase of food insecurity (IPC Phases 1 and 2).

The number of people requiring urgent humanitarian assistance has increased compared to both the previous analysis and the analysis conducted for the same season in the previous year. Specifically, while the number of people in Crisis (IPC Phase 3) have been stably high - never below 3.9 million -, the number of people in Emergency (IPC Phase 4) has seasonally increased from 670,000 estimated in October 2016 to over 1.2 million for October-December 2017.

Nevertheless, food assistance scale-up in the past months has played a major role in stabilizing the situation and in preventing further deterioration, As a result the number of people in IPC Catastrophe (IPC Phase 5) has decreased by more than half from 100,000 people estimated in the last analysis (May 2017) to 25,000 estimated in October 2017.

Gains made in previously Famine-affected and Famine-risk counties should not compromise the delivery of humanitarian assistance in the ongoing and deteriorating acute food insecurity hotspots that could easily slip into famine conditions.

4. Has famine been fully overcome in South Sudan?

As of October-December 2017, 25,000 people are estimated to face catastrophic conditions (IPC Phase 5) in Wau County of former Western Bahr el Ghazal State and Ayod of former Jonglei State.

Also, 19 counties are in IPC Phase 4 (Emergency), which is one-step below Famine on the IPC scale - in Unity, Jonglei, Western Bahr el Ghazal, Upper Nile, Eastern and Central Equatoria.

Therefore, in the worst case scenario, given the severity of the food security and nutrition situation observed during the 2017 lean season, continued conflict, humanitarian access constraints, climatic shocks and macro-economic instability leading up to the 2018 lean season will likely result in Famine (IPC Phase 5) conditions in multiple locations across South Sudan.

Even though no county has been classified in Famine (IPC Phase 5) in this IPC update, the situation remains very critical. The reasons for deterioration remain the same and include:

Armed conflict, which has spread to new areas (Jonglei) and resulted in massive population displacement, disruptions to people’s livelihoods (e.g. agricultural activities) and trade, access to social services and humanitarian assistance.
Economic crisis (high food prices, reduced household purchasing power).
Dry spell affecting harvest and reducing food stock of households.

5. What is the difference between IPC Phase 5 Famine and IPC Phase 5 Catastrophe?

The difference is determined by the percentage of people facing the conditions related to IPC phase 5.

A geographical area (e.g. county) is attributed and mapped in a specific IPC phase when at least 20 percent of the population in this area is experiencing the conditions related to that IPC phase or higher phases.

If households in a given area are experiencing catastrophic conditions of IPC phase 5 (i.e. extreme food gaps and significant mortality which is directly attributable to outright starvation or to the interaction of acute malnutrition and disease), these households are classified in IPC Phase 5 “Catastrophe”.

If at least 20 percent of the households in a given area are facing IPC Phase 5 “Catastrophe” conditions, this area (e.g. county) is also classified and mapped in IPC Phase 5 Famine and a Famine is declared in this area.

Therefore, at least 20% of the households should be experiencing IPC Phase 5 conditions to classify the whole area in IPC Phase 5 Famine and declare a Famine.

6. What is the Emergency Review Committee (IPC ERC) and its role in the South Sudan IPC analysis?

The IPC Emergency Review Committee (ERC) is an independent committee of global food security and nutrition experts who are neutral to the IPC outcome and who have the relevant technical knowledge and experience in the specific crisis context.

The IPC ERC is activated whenever a risk of famine or famine classification is identified in a country as an additional quality assurance and validation step for the IPC conclusions. The activation of the IPC ERC is also meant to further ensure technical independence of the analysis from potential political influence.

The South Sudan IPC team (IPC Technical Working Group - TWG) requested the activation of the IPC ERC several times in the past few years. Government officials chair the South Sudan IPC TWG that includes food security and nutrition specialists from various government institutions, UN Agencies, international and national NGOs and technical agencies.

For this IPC analysis, IPC ERC findings and conclusions were shared with the IPC South Sudan TWG that has considered the ERC review to reach the final conclusions.

7. Do politics play any part in food security analysis in South Sudan?

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 analyze the severity of food insecurity from none to famine levels. These parameters have been commonly agreed by all partners and, like in all countries using IPC protocols, have been followed in South Sudan 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 Emergency Review Committee (ERC) was activated several times to support the South Sudan IPC team of food security and nutrition specialists as an additional quality assurance and validation step for the IPC conclusions. The activation of the IPC ERC is also meant to further ensure technical independence of the analysis from potential political influence.

8. Which evidence/data was used for the classification in the most severe IPC Phases (IPC Phase 3, IPC Phase 4 and IPC Phase 5)?

The data which provided the basis for IPC most severe classifications (IPC Phase 4, IPC Phase 4! and IPC Phase 5) included: indicators on household food consumption and changes in livelihood, acute malnutrition and mortality. Data on past and planned food aid delivery was also reviewed to assess the extent to which food aid has contributed to improve or stabilize the situation and how the situation is expected to evolve in the coming months.

IPC

The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) is an innovative tool for improving food security analysis and decision-making. By providing a set of analytical tools and procedures, IPC allows governments and partners to work together to classify the severity and magnitude of acute and chronic food insecurity, and acute malnutrition according to scientific international standards.

For more information about this report, please contact the following:

Mr. John Pangech, IPC TWG Chair and Director General Planning, Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, [email protected]
Mr. Phillip Dau Thiong, Deputy IPC TWG Chair and Director of Monitoring and Evaluation, National Bureau of Statistics, [email protected]
Mr. James Bwirani, Technical Officer – Food Security Analysis, FAO South Sudan, [email protected]