Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Faculty of Bioscience Engineering
Academic year 2012 – 2013
Comparison of selected famine and food security-related
early warning systems
Kuljanic Nera
Promoter: Prof. dr. ir. Patrick Van Damme
Master’s dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the
degree of Master of Science in Human Nutrition and Rural Development,
main subject Human Nutrition, major Public Health Nutrition
ii
COPYRIGHT
All rights reserved. The author and promoter give the permission to use this Master’s
dissertation for consulting purposes and copying parts for personal use only. Any other use
falls under the limitations of copyright regulations, particularly the stringent obligation to
explicitly mention the source when using parts of this Master’s dissertation.
Ghent, January 2013
Promoter:
_________________________________
Prof. dr. ir. Patrick Van Damme
Contact: [email protected]
Author:
_________________________________
Nera Kuljanic
Contact: [email protected]
iii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this Master’s dissertation to all children and women
who have been denied their right to education.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I express my gratitude to prof. dr. ir. Patrick Van Damme for granting me the
opportunity to complete this work under his guidance. Thank you for your coaching inputs,
feedback and quick e-mail responses!
Next, I could never thank enough to my family for their constant and unconditional support,
understanding and faith. I know you will always be there for me.
To my special friend Dražen – thank you for your support, help and encouragement in
pursuing my dreams!
Special thanks to the NuRuDe course coordinator, Mrs. ir. Anne-Marie Remaut-De Winter.
Dear Mie, I will always remember you for your friendliness, kindness, open mindset and
energetic “can-do” attitude!
To all my classmates and friends from around the world – I have learned many things from
each and every one of you!
Finally, I want to thank the Gent University for organizing this study programme for
international students, and especially all the administrative and academic staff responsible for
realization of the Nutrition and Rural Development programme. Your efforts in day-to-day
activities, excellence and passion for science have been highly appreciated and truly inspiring.
However, apart from all the valuable academic knowledge and practical skills I have gained
during my studies here, I feel that the most valuable thing I am taking with me into the world
is to dare to think.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COPYRIGHT .................................................................................................................. ii
DEDICATION ............................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... vii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................. viii
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................... x
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................. 3
2.1. Early Warning System ........................................................................................... 3
2.1.1. “People-centred” early warning ....................................................................... 4
2.1.2. Types of hazards ............................................................................................. 4
2.1.3. Operational aspects ......................................................................................... 5
2.2. Links between famine, hunger and food security .................................................... 5
2.2.1. Famine ............................................................................................................ 6
2.2.2. Hunger ............................................................................................................ 6
2.2.3. Food security .................................................................................................. 6
Pillars of food security .......................................................................................... 8
Food security framework ...................................................................................... 9
2.3. Famine Early Warning Systems ............................................................................ 11
2.4. Monitoring and measuring food security .............................................................. 12
2.4.1. Agro-meteorological monitoring .................................................................... 13
2.4.2. Crop disorders .............................................................................................. 13
2.4.3. Food availability ............................................................................................ 14
2.4.4. Food prices ................................................................................................... 14
2.4.5. Coping behaviours ........................................................................................ 15
2.4.6. Anthropometric indicators ............................................................................ 16
2.4.7. Household surveys ........................................................................................ 17
2.4.8. Vulnerability ................................................................................................. 18
2.4.9. Scaling the situation ...................................................................................... 18
2.5. Criticism on, challenges to and recommendations for fews .................................... 19
2.5.1. Criticism ....................................................................................................... 19
vi
2.5.2. Challenges..................................................................................................... 20
2.5.3. Recommendations ........................................................................................ 21
3. METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 23
3.1. Fews in the focus of the analysis ........................................................................... 23
3.1.1. FEWS NET..................................................................................................... 24
3.1.2. GIEWS........................................................................................................... 24
3.1.3. HEWS ........................................................................................................... 25
3.2. Information collection and sources ...................................................................... 25
3.3. Data analysis ....................................................................................................... 26
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................................... 27
4.1. Overview of the fews practice ............................................................................... 27
4.1.1. FEWS NET..................................................................................................... 27
Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 27
Vulnerability analysis ......................................................................................... 28
Communication .................................................................................................. 28
4.1.2. GIEWS........................................................................................................... 30
Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 30
Vulnerability analysis ......................................................................................... 31
Communication .................................................................................................. 32
4.1.3. HEWS ........................................................................................................... 33
Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 33
Vulnerability analysis ......................................................................................... 34
Communication .................................................................................................. 34
4.2. Findings summary ............................................................................................... 35
4.3. Discussion ........................................................................................................... 36
4.3.1. Risks to food security .................................................................................... 36
4.3.2. Geographical focus ........................................................................................ 38
4.3.3. Vulnerability assessment and decision makers’ needs .................................... 39
4.3.4. Strengths of the study.................................................................................... 39
4.3.5. Limitations of the study ................................................................................. 40
5. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 41
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................... 43
APPENDICES
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Countries facing protracted emergencies ........................................................... 8
Figure 2 - Conceptual framework of food in(security) ..................................................... 10
Figure 3 - Estimated food security conditions for the 4th quarter 2012...................................29
Figure 4 - Countries requiring external assistance for food according to GIEWS (2012)
(situation in December 2012) ......................................................................... 32
Figure 5 - Countries with unfavourable prospects for current crops according to GIEWS
(2012) (situation in December 2012) .............................................................. 32
Figure 6 - HEWS output map (situation on 20th December 2012) .................................... 34
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Information sources ....................................................................................... 26
Table 2 - FEWS NET monitoring fields ......................................................................... 27
Table 3 - GIEWS monitoring areas ............................................................................... 30
viii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AAH Action Against Hunger
CFSAM Crop and Food Security Assessment Mission
CMR Crude Mortality Rate
CPHC Central Pacific Hurricane Center
CSI Coping Strategy Index
DHS Demographic and Health Survey
ews early warning system
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FAO-ESA Agricultural Development Economics Division (former Economic and
Social Department) of the Food and Agriculture Organization
FAOSTAT The Statistics Division of the Food and Agriculture Organization
fews famine early warning system
FEWS NET Famine Early Warning Systems Network
FSNAU Food Security and Nutrition Analysis Unit
FSU-IDS Food Security Unit of the Institute of Development Studies
GDACS Global Disaster Alert and Coordination System
GIEWS Global Information and Early Warning System (on food and agriculture)
HEA Household Economy Approach
HEWS Humanitarian Early Warning Service
HIV/AIDS human immunodeficiency virus infection/acquired immunodeficiency
syndrome
HHS Household Hunger Scale
IASC Inter-Agency Standing Committee
ICPAC Climate Prediction and Applications Center of the Intergovernmental
Authority on Development
ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross
ICT Information and Communication Technology
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute
IFRC The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
IGAD Intergovernmental Authority on Development
IOM International Organization for Migration
IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification
ITCZ Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone
JTWC Joint Typhoon Warning Center
KFSM Kenya Food Security Meeting
KFSSG Kenya Food Security Steering Group
LIFDC Low Income Food Deficient Countries
LSMS Living Standards Measurement Study
MEASURE DHS Monitoring and Evaluation to Assess and Use Results Demographic and
ix
Health Surveys
MUAC mid-upper arm circumference
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NDVI Normalized Difference Vegetation Index
NGO non-governmental organization
NHC National Hurricane Center
NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs of the United
Nations
RFE Rainfall Estimation
SCHR Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response
SCP Season Critical Period
U5MR under-five mortality rate
UN United Nations
UN-DESA United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNHCR United Nations refugee agency
UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund
UNISDR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
UNISDR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
UNOSAT Operational Satellite Applications Programme of the United Nations
Institute for Training and Research
UNSCN United Nations System Standing Committee on Nutrition
URL Uniform Resource Locator
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USGS United States Geological Survey
W/H Weight/Height Ratio
WFP United Nations World Food Programme
WHO World Health Organization
WMO World Meteorological Organization
WRSI Water Requirements Satisfaction Index
x
ABSTRACT
Background: Out of almost 1 billion of world’s undernourished people, a large majority lives
in developing countries, predominantly in rural areas. They live in poverty and unstable food
security situations, in countries facing many different problems. Various threats can
deteriorate the food security situation and lead to large scale food insecurity and famine. The
aim of famine early warning systems (fews) is to monitor food security parameters and
publish warnings that will lead to adequate response and prevent famine from developing.
Objective: Given the complexity of the food security concept, it is not surprising that there
are many ways how food security can be measured and monitored. Therefore, we tried to give
an overview of the food security measurements proposed in literature and the approaches
taken by early warning systems.
Methodology: Our comparative analysis focuses on three early warning systems with wide
monitoring focus. Information is collected from official websites of these organizations.
Results: The three fews reviewed mainly focus on the food availability aspect of food
security. Additionally, they monitor market situations and food prices. Occasionally, they
perform vulnerability analyses of populations living in food insecurity-prone areas. The fews
reviewed collaborate with many partners in information gathering and publish various
reporting products.
Conclusion: The early warning systems reviewed don’t seem to be fully aligned with the
current understandings of the food security concept. Fews of the future should orient towards
multi-level and multi-sector collaboration and integration. It is necessary to reach a consensus
on priorities between stakeholders and decision makers in the field and combine short-term
solutions for addressing crises with long-term development planning.
Key words: famine, food security, early warning, food availability, weather, climate, prices,
markets, vulnerability
1
1. INTRODUCTION According to the latest FAO report (2012), there are 870 million undernourished people in the world,
out of which 98% (850 million) are living in developing countries. They live in (chronic) poverty and
food insecurity, mostly in (remote) rural areas. Due to different reasons, the situation in which these
people find themselves can sometimes worsen and result in famine.
Natural hazards occur worldwide. However, they have a potentially greater impact in developing
countries, compared to the developed world, mainly due to the two reasons (Alcántara-Ayala, 2002).
The first is related to the geological and geomorphological characteristics of their location on the
planet, while the second is rooted in structural reasons – economic, social, political and cultural.
Additionally, many of these countries are facing protracted crisis and complex emergencies due to
long-lasting conflicts. This is especially the case for drought-prone countries in Sub-Saharan Africa,
because of poor or even absent disaster preparedness and management, and prevailing social, political
and economic problems (Tadesse et al., 2008).
Livelihoods that directly depend on agriculture, lack of income diversification, dependency on rain for
irrigation, persistent chronic food insecurity and poverty, weak infrastructure, limited access to
markets and employment opportunities, increased disease burden (HIV/AIDS and malaria) are among
the main factors contributing to these countries’ vulnerability. In these conditions, recovery from
drought is slow and often hindered by recurrent (food) crises. Unaddressed natural hazards and
economic shocks can adversely affect the environment, cause conflict over resources, and even lead to
political instability, which in turn undermines a country’s capacity to cope with even milder natural
hazards and other problems – a feedback loop of shocks and growing insecurity is thus easily created
(UN-DESA, 2008).
Numerous early warning systems have been put in place with the aim of monitoring different
parameters related to famine and food security. Through these, timely and reliable warnings are
published that will prompt decision makers and communities to take appropriate response (Tefft et al.,
2006). Having that in mind, it is clear that they can play a crucial role in preventing that a threat to
food security develops to the scale of a famine, thus minimizing its adverse effects on people,
economies and environment. In addition, occurrence of shocks on the one hand and progress in
reducing the number of undernourished people in developing countries on the other, are inversely
related (FAO, 2001). Famine early warning systems (fews), among other early warning systems, can
2
contribute to reaching the Millennium Development Goals’ target of halving the proportion of people
who suffer from hunger by the year 2015.
However, although (within the international community) there is consensus about the definition of
food security, there is little agreement on the indicators in use. In addition, most fews focus on
monitoring drought, which is clearly not the single factor adversely affecting food security. Therefore,
the main goal of this study is to review the food security parameters (indicators) suggested in literature
and compare famine early warning systems accordingly. In addition, the present study also aims at
summarizing the criticism on fews and outlining the main challenges the latter will face in the future,
based on literature. The rationale behind the choice of fews is simple: among the current famine early
warning/monitoring systems, only the ones providing publicly accessible information and products
were included in our analysis.
This study will try to address the following research questions:
1. Having in mind the complexity of the food security concept, which indicators are being
proposed in literature in order to measure different aspects of food security?
2. How is food security being monitored by the different famine early warning systems? Which
are the common characteristics of the monitoring organizations, and in which points do they
differ?
3. What are the major points of criticism related to famine early warning systems?
4. What are the main obstacles for (more) efficient and effective famine early warning systems
and how can they be overcome? What are the biggest challenges they face?
In order to address the research questions, literature review outlines the concept of early warning, of
which the present work focuses only on a small part. The chapter proceeds with clarifying the famine,
hunger and food security linkages and definitions, and presenting a short history of the famine early
warning. The next part of the literature review describes various attempts developed for monitoring
and measuring food security, which illustrates complexity of the concept. The chapter ends with the
summary overview of the fews criticism, challenges and recommendations. Methodology for
comparative analysis of selected famine early warning systems is described in the next chapter. In the
subsequent chapter, the results of the analysis are presented and further discussed, relating to the
literature. Finally, the most important study findings are summarized in the concluding chapter.
3
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Early Warning System
The UN defines early warning system (ews) as ''the set of capacities needed to generate and
disseminate timely and meaningful warning information to enable individuals, communities and
organizations threatened by a hazard to prepare and to act appropriately and in sufficient time to
reduce the possibility of harm or loss'' (UNISDR, 2007).
There are 4 main elements for an early warning system to be effective (UNISDR, 2005):
1. Risk knowledge
Risk is a function of the hazard and vulnerability of a community, economy and environment. There is
an increasing risk and vulnerability for natural hazards in the world due to climate change, population
growth and movements, (coastal) urbanisation and environmental pressure. Risk assessment can
provide a good insight of both hazard and vulnerability in order to develop prevention strategies and
response activities.
2. Hazard monitoring, analysis and forecast
Accurate and timely forecasts are based on various indicators and disaster precursors that are
constantly monitored and analysed. It is a scientific basis for a multi-hazard approach based on
collaboration between various agencies.
3. Communication and dissemination of information
Understandable and simple alerts and warnings, containing useful information that enables proper
response need to get to decision makers, authorities and people at risk. An effective communication
network is of utmost importance for adequate functioning of ews. It consists of communication
infrastructure and interactions among the main actors of the early warning process. ICT plays a key
role in communication and dissemination of information; it is constantly improving following rapid
technological advances and it allows easy and “near-real-time” access to information. However,
communication infrastructure is not insensitive to disasters. Therefore, ensuring numerous
communication channels and frequencies, emergency power supplies and back-up systems is essential
in order to (1) prevent the system from collapsing, and (2) ensure reliable and effective operation. In
addition, there are also various standard protocols that can help in coordination and data exchange
among different actors in the whole early warning process.
4
4. Response
Adequate response is built on existing capacity. Governments and/or responsible authorities must
engage in developing action plans, whereas the community must be educated so that it understands the
risk, is aware of the danger, and knows how to react.
Information about incoming threats to food security provided by ews enables action of the decision
makers and the community. The ultimate goal of the early warning is to elicit appropriate response,
since quick response is the key component that can contribute to improving the situation. Therefore,
response should be considered as an integral and integrated part of ews. Although many times an
institution providing warnings doesn’t have the capacity to respond, it can contribute to the other
systems that engage in addressing the issue (Ayalew, 1997).
2.1.1. “People-centred” early warning Effective ews must be embedded in, be understandable by and relevant to the communities it serves
(UNISDR, 2005). This means that systems must function when needed, warnings produced are timely,
considered legitimate and are well-understood by the community, and finally acted upon by the
decision maker and people at risk. A people-centred ews is built upon the following key elements:
1. Combination of the “bottom-up” and “top-down” approach. “Bottom-up” community
involvement is necessary to identify needs and assess vulnerability, together with raising
awareness to ensure action upon future warnings. In addition, information and support need to
come down from global and regional to local monitoring systems
2. Utilisation of appropriate awareness raising techniques that people can understand and
relate to (e.g. videos).
3. When and where possible, involvement of local communities in the early warning process
(data collection, monitoring, warning). This also contributes to raising awareness and
comprehensiveness of the system.
4. Embedding ews with systems already in place that serve multiple purposes. Building early
warning systems into existing multifunctional communication systems enables information
dissemination using communication tools people use in their daily lives (e.g. radio systems).
5. Raising awareness in the community. Education is the key to awareness. Without awareness,
there is no response by the community, which makes risk reduction more challenging.
2.1.2. Types of hazards There are 2 main types of hazardous events: rapid/sudden-onset threats and slow-onset/”creeping”
threats, with different ranges of available warning times, ranging from seconds to months, respectively
(UNEP, 2012). Accidental oil spills, nuclear plant failures, chemical plant accidents, geological and
hydro-meteorological hazards (except droughts) are considered as rapid/sudden-onset hazards and
5
allow relatively little time to take action based on warning. On the other hand, there are long-term
cumulative environmental changes that, if left unaddressed, may turn into urgent crises that are more
costly and challenging to deal with, once they become obvious. Those slow-onset/”creeping” threats
include deterioration in air, water and soil quality; pollution (including radioactive waste); climate
change; desertification; droughts; deforestation; ecosystem change; loss of biodiversity and habitats;
increased and unsustainable pressure on natural resources; rapid, unplanned and uncontrolled urban
growth; etc.
2.1.3. Operational aspects In an early warning system all elements are equally important (“end-to-end warning system”).
Moreover, information dissemination often is a cascading process, starting at the national or
international level, and activating different authorities at community level. Therefore, failure in one
part of the system will make the whole system ineffective. Unfortunately, this is often the case in
practice, as the majority of ews lack communication systems and adequate response plans (UNEP,
2012).
The logical purpose of setting up a ews is taking action, based on the available information, in order to
prevent or reduce damage, disability, loss of lives and economic loss, before the hazardous event
occurs. However, only timely, reliable and simple warnings are effective and enable taking action and
organising response (UNEP, 2012). Timelines and reliability are usually in conflict, since estimations
are more accurate if and when there are more observations and information available, which requires
more time. Therefore, a trade-off must be made between warning timing and reliability of the
predictions. Next, the message disseminated by the ews must be formulated in a way which is
understandable by the intended recipients (including policy makers).
Finally, it is crucial that ews enjoy concrete political support in the form of laws, regulations and
institutional support, that they are integrated into policies and action plans for disaster mitigation and
risk reduction, and that the community is risk-aware and prepared to respond (UNISDR (2005), UNEP
(2012)).
2.2. Links between famine, hunger and food security
Famine, hunger and food security are not synonymous. However, these terms are often used
interchangeably because they are strongly related: famine and hunger are both arising from food
insecurity (Ayalew, 1997). It is necessary to define them because definition and framework are
starting points in identifying and addressing the issues, and determining the operational aspects of
early warning and response mechanisms: what to monitor and when to intervene (Glantz, 1997).
6
2.2.1. Famine There are many views and definitions of famine. In general, these definitions can be classified as: food
supply-based, food consumption-based and mortality-based.
Famine can be described both as a process and an event (Glantz, 1997). It is a process where a sharp
decline in nutritional status of a population at risk causes a sharp increase in mortality and morbidity
in the same population, increasing at the same time the total number of people at risk. On the other
hand, famine is an event of an acute food shortage that causes death and migrations. There is a need
for different kinds of evidence to describe both (Glantz, 1990). Famine events need to be confirmed by
quantitative indicators (e.g. death rates, prevalence of global acute malnutrition, number of people fed
in emergency food programs) before taking action. Monitoring a famine process focuses on different
pre-famine indicators (e.g. crop yields, grain prices, rainfall figures, sale of personal items, etc.) that, if
not addressed, are likely to lead to the development of a famine. In the same paper, the author argues
that qualitative indicators, especially anecdotal information (e.g. from truck drivers that travel through
remote areas, or (photo)journalists) may play an important role as well. Therefore, their role in
information collection should be examined.
It can be argued that if famine monitoring, decision making and action are based on the signs that a
crisis is already underway (e.g. elevated mortality in an area/community), it probably is too late to
prevent the disaster from emerging. Therefore, effective famine early warning should monitor specific
food (in)security indicators and act appropriately to prevent famine from emerging or at least
minimize its impact, magnitude and consequences. If society fails in doing any of these two, famine
can reasonably be considered as a man-made disaster (Ayalew, 1997).
2.2.2. Hunger Glantz (1997) defines hunger as a state of chronic food deprivation that results in a poor nutritional
and health status of the affected population. Food deprivation is related to food insecurity. Chronic
hunger is similar to undernourishment: it denotes a status of people whose food intake during a longer
period of time is constantly insufficient to meet their nutritional requirements (FAO, 2012). Famine is
a persistent, long lasting hunger, affecting large numbers of people, that causes deaths and mass
migrations (Ayalew, 1997). Famine is just a tip of an iceberg of hunger, deprivation, poverty and
insecurity, but “chronic hunger doesn’t make the evening news” (Glantz, 1997).
2.2.3. Food security “Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to
sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and
healthy life” (FAO, 2002). The introduction of that definition in 1996 (World Food Summit, 1996)
7
denoted a shift from the traditional view that focused merely on aggregate food supply at national
level (Webb & Rogers, 2003). Essentially, the definition focuses on the nutritional status of an
individual (household member), and the risk that adequate/optimal status is not realised, which is then
related to his/her vulnerability (FAO, 2003). Therefore, food security is not a goal per se, but a set of
conditions that needs to be fulfilled in order to contribute to adequate nutritional status that enables an
active and healthy life. Food insecurity, poor health status and health care, inappropriate sanitation
conditions, care and feeding practices adversely affect nutritional status (Tadesse et al., 2008).
A unit of choice is food secure when it can provide itself with adequate amounts of acceptable food at
all times in a sustainable way, without engaging in socially unacceptable activities, without sacrificing
its productive assets and endangering the environment and others’ human rights. Therefore, a situation
of food insecurity is a basis for hunger and famine development. This definition also implies that fews
should monitor selected food security indicators related to food production (availability), distribution
(access), and consumption (Ayalew, 1997).
Food insecurity can be chronic or transitory (IFAD, s.d.). Shocks that slightly impair one’s ability to
satisfy his/her food requirements push people into short-term transitory food insecurity during limited,
often seasonal, periods of time. Chronic food insecurity denotes a long-term period of inability to meet
food requirements, due to which food consumption level is constantly much lower that what is
considered to be optimal. Chronic food insecurity is related to higher vulnerability to famine (Ayalew,
1997). Food secure households have means to protect them from both transitory and chronic food
insecurity. Pinstrup-Andersen (2009) argues that besides distinguishing chronic and transitory food
insecurity, it is also necessary to make a difference between kinds of food insecurity in function of
nature and magnitude of the problem and type of the solution for addressing it (e.g. inadequate food
intake and micronutrient deficiencies of one member of the food-secure household).
According to FAO (2006), the number of food emergencies has doubled in the period from 1980s to
2000 onwards, increasing from 15 per year to 30 per year, respectively. Over the same period, the
average number of food crises in Africa tripled. The African continent is also home to a big number of
so-called protracted emergencies (“hunger hotspots“), which can be seen from Figure 1. These
persistent crises lasting for several years, boosted by armed conflict and promoted by droughts, floods
and diseases (e.g. HIV/AIDS), in turn have negative feedback on food security and other aspects of
lives of the people concerned.
8
Figure 1 - Countries facing protracted emergencies (taken from FAO (2006))
Pillars of food security
The above definition of food security can be further elaborated by looking at the four pillars of food
security, i.e. food availability, food access, utilization and stability (FAO-ESA, 2006). Food
availability refers to the availability of a sufficient quantity of quality food, either from domestic
production or import, including food aid. In addition, individuals must have access to means for
acquisition of appropriate foods. They have to be aligned with legal, political, economic and social
arrangements of the community in which individuals live (this includes access to common resources
and other traditional rights). The utilisation dimension is related to health and non-food factors (e.g.
safe and clean water, good sanitation) that are a prerequisite for achieving nutritional security. Finally,
the three dimensions of food security have to be stable over time.
The food security dimensions are hierarchically interrelated (Barrett, 2010): food availability is
necessary but insufficient to have food access, which is necessary but not sufficient to guarantee
adequate food utilisation. The same is valid in the feedback loop: adequate utilisation enhances human
capital that is necessary for achieving access to food. Having constant access is a prerequisite for
guaranteeing sustainable food availability.
9
Webb and Rogers (2003) stress the importance of risk as an additional dimension in the food
(in)security framework, with the capability to disrupt and put additional pressure on any of these
previously described factors.
Food security framework
(Webb & Rogers, 2003)
The food security framework (Figure 2) explains the linkages between food security factors that lead
to desired outcomes (i.e. food security situation, central and upper half of Figure 2), and potential risks
that can turn the situation into food insecurity and further into famine.
Food availability at national level is a function of domestic agricultural output and includes livestock
besides food and cash crops, and net food imports. Access to food at household level is defined as its
ability to acquire food, both from market and other sources (e.g. transfer, gift, own production). It is to
a large extent influenced by household purchasing power, in addition to physical access to markets,
market integration, prices and market conditions. Food utilisation is the result of food safety and
quality (during production, storage, processing and serving), as well as adequacy of intake and
conversion efficiency of food by the body at the level of an individual. These factors are important for
maintaining individual nutrition and health status. Individual outcomes can be hindered by poor health
infrastructure and quality of services, poor health status, lack of education, nutrition and health
knowledge, together with discrimination with regards to resource control, time and work burden.
In addition, looking at the framework from left to right, one moves from macro level (trends in
resource availability, macro-economic dynamics, market systems) through community level, finally
reaching household level. Similarly, moving from left to right implies moving from a longer-term time
frame (multi-year) to a short-term time frame (daily).
Interactions of these factors in time and space create situations ranging from food security, through
seasonal (transitory) food insecurity to famine, as a function of risk and risk mitigation.
Food availability (supply) can be adversely affected by climatic fluctuations and weather, changes in
soil fertility and quality, soil erosion, or loss of a household’s productive assets (e.g. in case of self-
subsistent food production). Changes at the global level (trade, economics), market disruptions due to
local/regional/national crises, non-farm employment insecurity, etc. can hinder market access, while
food access in general can be disrupted by physical insecurity (conflict), loss of coping options (e.g.
border closure to prevent seasonal job migration), and lack or collapse of safety nets that protect
people with low incomes. Food utilisation can be negatively influenced by diseases (both epidemic
10
and at the individual level), lack of nutritional knowledge, cultural beliefs that affect access to
adequate nutritious foods, or affect various gender and health issues.
Figure 2 - Conceptual framework of food in(security) (taken from Webb and Rogers (2003))
11
2.3. Famine Early Warning Systems
Famine early warning systems monitor various parameters and collect multiple data and information
in order to determine the possible onset of food crises and food insecurity in an area. They are
organized and managed by different organizations and regional and national bodies. The purpose of
such system is timely identification of a situation when additional stress has been put on a large group
of people, usually living in chronic food insecurity, so that they are at higher risk of starvation (Glantz,
1997). In order to monitor and eradicate hunger and famine, one must focus on food security issues on
local and national level.
The most frequently cited definition of a fews is the one of Davies et al. (1991) where a fews is
described as “a system of data collection to monitor people’s access to food, in order to provide timely
notice when a food crisis threatens and, thus, to elicit appropriate response”. This approach confirms
the point stated above: analysis and forecasts by fews are insignificant if there is no capacity and
willingness for an appropriate response. Fews should be part of a wider, integrated system designed to
respond to a crisis.
Early warning systems have evolved considerably during the past two decades. On a global scale,
famine early warning started gaining more attention in the 1970s and 1980s during the extended
droughts and famines in the West African Sahel and in the Horn of Africa. However, interest in
preventing famine is not new. Indian Famine Codes developed in the 1870s served as a basis for
setting up the modern famine early warning systems (Glantz, 1990).
Nevertheless, a breaking moment in history occurred in 1980s, when severe famine affected the
inhabitants of today’s Ethiopia and Eritrea. Though Ethiopia had a formal early warning system in
place since the 1970s, it failed to elicit adequate response and prevent the devastating impact of famine
mostly due to political reasons (Buchanan-Smith & Davies, 1995). The way in which governments and
international organizations responded to the crisis was not effective. The international community
reacted too slow and too late, mostly because of the lack of (timely) information about the incoming
drought, and lack of organization and coordination on the global level, while the Ethiopian
government’s unwillingness and/or inability to address the problems contributed to worsening the
overall situation.
International community and official governments’ interest to engage in institutionalizing famine
forecasting and prevention was geared by the citizens in the developed countries who were shocked by
the images of starving Ethiopians in the media. Since the mid-eighties, fews were created in countries
and regions in Sub-Saharan Africa which were at risk, and within various agencies in donor countries
12
and international organizations. The first fews developed primarily for humanitarian purposes.
However, the opinion prevails today that their functions should be integrated with sustainable long-
term development planning (Glantz, 1997).
Three fews are going to be analysed more in detail in the subsequent chapter, especially with regards
to the focus areas, methodologies and indicators they use. This will also provide insight, not only into
the main characteristics and types of the organizations and bodies engaged in famine early warning,
but also into the differences between them.
2.4. Monitoring and measuring food security
Correct measurement is important for adequate problem diagnosis and response planning. Various
proxy measures are available for measuring different aspects of food security and the choice of
indicator is driven by the measurement objective. However, each indicator at the same time both
captures and neglects different food security aspects, so trade-offs are inevitable (Barrett, 2010).
Different indicators that focus on different phenomena, based on different data and calculation
methods, can significantly differ in meaning and estimates (Barrett (2010), Masset (2011), de Haen et
al. (2011)). Nevertheless, these variables are useful to decision makers as long as their interpretation
takes into account knowledge of the area and population (Kelly, 1992).
Distinction should be made between process and outcome indicators (Maxwell & Frankenberger,
1992). Process indicators describe the food situation in an area and are related to food supply or
access. Outcome indicators, usually quite costly and time-consuming to gather, are proxies for food
consumption. Food supply-related indicators focus on agricultural production, agro-meteorological
data, access to natural resources, market infrastructure and exposure to conflicts or its consequences.
Food access indicators measure household strategies and capacity for surviving difficult times of food
scarcity, such as coping behaviours and agricultural risk management. There is overlap and interaction
between these supply and access indicators. Direct outcome indicators are based on food frequency
assessments, and household budget and food consumption surveys. Indirect indicators focus on storage
estimates, subsistence potential and nutritional status.
Quite often, it is difficult to obtain quality data about populations prone to famine. This is due to two
main reasons: they mostly live in remote areas that may be difficult to access, and/or the data
collection system, if present, yields limited information that may be of poor quality (Kelly, 1992).
13
Measures of food security have different purposes: predicting crises (early warning), understanding
shortfalls in food access (assessment), resource allocation (targeting) and tracking impact (monitoring
and evaluation) (Maxwell et al., 2008).
This section proceeds with describing several food security measures: indicators used in agro-
meteorological monitoring, initiatives for assessing physiological crop disorders, food availability
indicators, food price indices, coping behaviours assessment, anthropometric indicators, household
surveys, vulnerability assessment and attempts for operationally useful food crises classification.
2.4.1. Agro-meteorological monitoring Various climatological data and remote sensing techniques, enhanced by technological progress, are
currently applied for drought monitoring in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Tadasse et al. (2008) reviewed drought-monitoring tools and information used for food security
monitoring and early warning in Sub-Saharan Africa. Seasonal climate forecasts are published prior to
growing seasons, and, together with the analysis of the growing season start’s timing (marked by the
arrival of adequate rains), are the earliest indicators of what can be expected from the agricultural
production within the region. Data from both satellite estimates and ground measurements are used in
rainfall monitoring: 10-days rainfall estimates, number of rain days, cumulative (monthly, quarterly)
rainfall amounts, vegetation index (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index, NDVI) are some of the
indicators used. Crop models, built by combining rainfall distribution and amount information and
crop calendars (contain information about crop development cycles), allow monitoring crop
performance and estimating agricultural output. Water Requirement Satisfaction Index (WRSI) can be
derived from crop models. Season Critical Period (SCP) identifies weeks during a given growing
season that are particularly critical for achieving best crop yields. Finally, field reports can also add
value to agro-meteorological monitoring. All this information allows comprehensive generation of
agricultural production estimates and serves as a basis for issuing warnings about possible food crises.
Early warning system for food security in the Horn of Africa employs a remote sensing-based
methodology for monitoring food situations (Oroda, 2002). The methodology involves monitoring
vegetation growth conditions like rainfall, evaporation and transpiration, irradiation, etc. for estimating
crop yields. Remote sensing methodology is quite cost-effective, following its wide coverage, good
data availability and dissemination.
2.4.2. Crop disorders Physiological crop disorders and pathogens impose significant threats to food security, especially in
remote areas in developing countries. Yield depression due to crop disorders can cause huge economic
14
losses and can be a threat to livelihoods. In addition, the economic and social impact of crop disease
outbreaks can spread to the whole community. A number of authors investigated the role of digital
images in detecting plant diseases. Camargo and Smith ((2009a) and (2009b)) developed a method
based on processing images for identifying visual disease symptoms from coloured images, a practice
that is often used in medicine for assessing a patient’s condition when the distance to the practitioner
is too long. Chaerle and Van Der Straeten (2000) analysed images in assessing plant stress, which can
also be done by high resolution remote sensing images. However, despite the high potential of digital
images, additional information is necessary to confirm disease occurrence and severity. Ideally,
experts’ opinion, which is not easily available to farmers in developing countries, especially in remote
areas, should be used. An interesting initiative addressing this issue was proposed by Camargo et al.
(2012). The latter authors developed a generic, autonomous web application to help farmers with
internet access in developing countries in detecting specific disease type and onset, and suggesting
adequate treatment and action. This kind of system has a potential in early warning, since it can be
used to determine disease hotspots by mapping disease outbreaks reported by farmers.
2.4.3. Food availability FAO’s activities in monitoring world food situation are well-known. Their data on food availability
are easily available and widely used. FAO Food Balance Sheets show food availability on a country
level in terms of total energy (kcal), grams of fat and proteins per day per capita (FAOSTAT, 2012).
Among other things, they also closely monitor world cereal supply and demand, with a special focus
on wheat, coarse grain and rice (FAO, 2012). While data on cereals are published monthly for the
current year, Food Balance Sheets are available on an annual basis with a 2-3 years lag.
Indirect measures based on food balance sheets, national income distribution and consumer
expenditure data per income category focus on measuring availability and apparent consumption
(average per capita availability of staple foods). They are related to early definitions of food security,
focusing on food availability. They neglect, however, issues related to distribution, physical access
and utilisation (FAO, 2003). These measures are also based on several assumptions: income share
spent on food, acquiring least-cost diet that meets requirements but ignores preferences, and inter-
household variability in expenses on other goods and services (Pinstrup-Andersen, 2009).
2.4.4. Food prices Sharp, large sudden price increases can lead to food insecurity. Small, isolated agricultural markets in
developing regions are characterized by short term variability and high volatility, which are due to the
mismatch between seasonal supply and the more constant demand, and poor market information and
lack of stocks for scarcity periods, respectively (Brown, et al., 2012).
15
The FAO Food Price Index is a well-known measure of international price trends for a basket of food
commodities. It is a weighted average of five commodity group price indices: cereals, oils/fats, meat,
dairy and sugar (FAO, 2012). Significant differences were observed when comparing cereal price
indices based on local market prices within a food insecure region to the FAO Cereal Price Index
(Brown, et al., 2012). The latter authors made several conclusions that do not favour using FAO price
indices for monitoring food prices in developing countries. First, FAO price indices mostly reflect the
situation in more developed countries of the world. Especially staple cereal prices in markets in food-
insecure regions in developing countries are isolated from global trends. Therefore, these indices are
not very useful for assessing changes in food access and food security conditions in developing
countries whose markets are insufficiently integrated into international markets. Second, prices in
capital cities markets in developing countries have limited ability to capture prices variability in other
urban centres and remote areas. This stresses the need for increased price monitoring in developing
regions with non-integrated markets and in remote areas. In addition, sharp increases in cereal prices
make people increase consumption of non-cereal staples (sorghum, millet, teff, cassava, yams, beans),
which in turn increases local prices of these foods. Although this benefits local producers, at the same
time, it causes problems to poor society members.
Araujo et al. (2012) examined the role of market prices in early warning by monitoring grain prices
and charcterizing their trends in past pre-crisis periods. They concluded that monitoring prices at
selected national and regional markets can help in forecasting future price crises. However, this is
valid only for efficient markets where prices reflect all available information about current food
availability and future expectations, and when market agents don’t behave irrationally.
2.4.5. Coping behaviours CARE International and the World Food Programme (WFP) (2008) have developed Coping Strategy
Index (CSI) as a tool for rapid assessment of the context-specific behaviours adopted by households in
order to manage and survive food shortages. The tool focuses on short-term, easily reversible
strategies that have been proven as accurate indicators of acute food security. It typically examines the
frequency and severity of the following parameters: diet alternation (eating less preferred and less
expensive foods), increasing food availability in the household by employing strategies that are not
sustanable in the long run (e.g. borowing food or purchasing on credit), reducing the number of
”mouths to be fed” by the household, and rationing of the food that is available. Additionally, the tool
can be used in food crisis early warning and food security monitoring, food aid targeting, monitoring
and evaluation of interventions’ impact and monitoring long-term trends in food security. By using
“reduced” CSI based on the handful of coping behaviours that were common to all surveys and
contexts, Maxwell et al. (2008) have proven that this “simplified” CSI can be used to compare food
16
crises accross contexts and regions. The results of “reduced” CSI correlate well with the original index
and other food security indicators.
A case study by Companion (2008) calls for research in the use of local street markets and vendor
knowledge in food security monitoring. Markets serve as information networks and street sellers are
well aware of changes in demand for and availability of goods and services, as a function of household
coping behaviours. She argues that monitoring markets should expand beyond focusing only on
physical and financial access (prices) to changes in income diversification (by labour demand or petty
trade), change in numbers and demographic profiles of people seeking labour and changes in income
generation (migration, asset selling, begging).
2.4.6. Anthropometric indicators Pinstrup-Andersen (2009) suggests that anthropometric indicators should also be considered in food
security monitoring for two main reasons. First, the ultimate goal of food security is good health and
nutritional security. Secondly, impaired individual health status, poor sanitation and water quality may
affect individual nutrition status, even when other household-related food security conditions (i.e. food
availability, access, acquisition and allocation) are met.
In addition to other indicators used in early warning, anthropometric measurements (W/H, MUAC)
can be used as proxy indicators of access to food at community level in food insecure populations. As
it is, change in anthropometric status is observed relatively early in the sequence of events resulting in
famine (Kelly, 1992). The two main constraints to its wider use in practice are data collection costs
and need for a one non-crisis year baseline data as a reference for any particular community. The
group of choice that reflects the status of the whole community are usually children under 5 years of
age. However, since they might be “nutritionally protected” during times of crisis, it is necessary to
have a knowledge about the community concerned in order to choose a group that is less likely to die
or migrate, but is still among the first to be affected by a lack of food.
Several hunger indices have been reviewed and critically assessed by Masset (2011) and de Haen et al.
(2011). Both studies report inconsistencies in food insecurity estimates and country rankings based on
the various indicators. They both point out anthropometric indicators as the best among those
reviewed. Masset (2011) argues that anthropometric indicators are sensitive to outcomes distribution
by differentiating between moderate and severe prevalence rates. The measurements are simple and
routinely performed on a large scale, especially for children. Next, stunting summarizes shocks
suffered in the period prior to particular observation and is well-correlated with other hunger-related
indicators (e.g. mortality). De Haen et al. (2011) appraised anthropometric indicators for directly
measuring nutritional outcomes at individual level. However, they argue that the indicators are non-
specific with regard to which particular nutrients are lacking and what the cause of poor nutritional
17
status is. The latter authors suggest linking anthropometry to household surveys, which would be a
basis for vulnerability analysis, and could capture diversity and heterogeneity within countries.
2.4.7. Household surveys Household surveys are an important source of various data. Many types of surveys exist. They vary
between countries and situations, and as to whether they are sponsored by international agencies or
funded from the national country’s budget (UN-DESA, 2005). Nationally representative household
surveys are conducted by national statistics offices, but data availability and quality vary.
Household budget surveys measure household expenditures on groups of goods and services. The food
expenditures’ section often includes additional details which allow estimation of all food that enters a
household during a recall period of interest. This is a basis for calculating household food
consumption, despite the fact that food eaten away from home, food waste or loss, and non-food use
are seldom captured. These surveys are known as “household consumption surveys” (de Haen et al.,
2011). However, not all members of a food-secure household can be considered to be food-secure by
definition, due to the interactions between household food access, acquisition priorities and intra-
household allocation behaviour (Pinstrup-Andersen, 2009). Additionally, individual health status and
non-food factors (e.g. sanitary conditions and water quality) may adversely affect the nutritional status
of an individual within a household. In general, household data provide better and more precise
estimates of food insecurity than those derived from aggregate data about food production
(availability), and are more strongly correlated with poverty estimates (Barrett, 2010). Data collection
is performed at household level and allows to estimate consumption more in detail (even dietary
diversity and micronutrient deficiencies can be derived). Survey findings presented by geographical
areas or socio-economic groups can serve for identifying undersupplied, food insecure households and
estimating undernourishment in a country. Household surveys are especially accurate if designed to
reflect seasonal variations. They can be used in designing, implementing and monitoring policy
response at sub-national level (de Haen et al., 2011). However, large amounts of data are required,
which is costly and time-consuming.
World Bank has developed the Living Standards Measurement Study (LSMS). Its primary purpose is
to improve the type and quality of household data collected by statistical offices in developing
countries, and promote the use of household data in decision making and policy development (World
Bank, s.d.). Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) are performed in many countries worldwide on a
sample of households in order to collect reliable and objective population, health and nutrition data for
monitoring and evaluation purposes (MEASURE DHS, s.d.). Rather than focusing on food
expenditures or consumption, they collect information about various topics related to poverty and
underdevelopment. Household Hunger Scale (HHS) is a very simple tool for assessing the level of
18
hunger within a household in a food-insecure area (Deitchler et al., 2011). This new tool has been
primarily developed and validated for cross-cultural use and comparison.
2.4.8. Vulnerability Ayalew (1997) suggested that fews should perform vulnerability analyses to provide precise
indications about which households and individuals are specifically adversely affected or likely to be
affected by the food crisis. Area-specific vulnerability profiles should include information about trends
in production, prices, rainfall patterns and soil fertility, household sizes, household food stocks, food
allocation and consumption within a household, income, nutritional status, etc. to make targeting of
aid and actions easier in responding to early warning information. For example, Household Economy
Approach (HEA) developed by Save the Children allows assessing the economy of an individual or a
household in normal conditions (Seaman et al., 2000), which is a basis for estimating their
vulnerability to shocks. This is the recent trend in food insecurity measurement research and fews
practice, although it is not performed on regular basis.
2.4.9. Scaling the situation Theoretical definitions of famine have no practical use in the operational environment. Failure to
timely recognize the crisis, delayed and ineffective response, and lack of the accountability tools all
result from lack of consensus on the operational definition of famine (Howe & Devereux, 2004).
Use of Famine intensity and magnitude scales (Appendix 1) is an attempt for addressing these issues
(Howe & Devereux, 2004). Intensity is “the severity of a crisis at a point in time, which varies from
place to place over its duration”, whereas magnitude is defined as the “aggregate impact of the crisis
on affected populations”. The principle of scale implies a graduated approach to defining famine that
also recognises the complexity of the phenomenon, i.e. its multidimensional impact, and allows
comparison of magnitudes and severity of the situations.
This is not the only approach for a more operational definition of food crises. Integrated Food Security
and Humanitarian Phase Classification (IPC) Framework is a standardized scale for improved and
comprehensive analysing and decision making in food crises. It includes promotion of effective early
warning and support of adequate responses (FAO, 2006). It was developed by the FAO Food Security
Analysis Unit Somalia in 2004. This standardized scale integrates information about food security,
nutrition and livelihoods into a classification scheme (Appendix 2) that differentiates between 5 levels
(phases), ranging from a food secure situation (i.e. no acute food insecurity) to catastrophe (famine).
IPC classifies current severity of current situation, but also gives a future projection to provide an
early warning for proactive decision making. This classification allows comparison of severity of
19
food-insecure situations in different areas across countries over time and highlights response
objectives.
2.5. Criticism on, challenges to and recommendations for fews
This literature section concludes with outlining major criticism, challenges and recommendations
regarding information collection and use in food security monitoring and famine early warning.
2.5.1. Criticism Several institutional problems that limit effectiveness of the food security information and early
warning are outlined by Tadesse et al. (2008). Fragmented data collection, reporting and decision
making due to lack of institutional integration creates a situation where decision makers lack the kind
of information they need, while the people who collect and report food security data are not in a
relevant decision making position. No consensus on priorities between national governments and
donors who provide funding and technical assistance, and lack of coordination and cooperation
between local and international food security information and ews hinder timely and effective decision
making, leading to ineffective resource allocation and low cost-effectiveness.
Food security information and early warning systems are often not institutionalised due to high staff
turnover rates, lack of consensus on priorities in policies, strategies and politics in general,
(inter)nationally and among donors ,and short-term “bandage” approaches to solving food crises. The
former means that efforts are mainly focused on emergency relief and crisis management instead of
addressing underlying issues by long-term development strategies, planning, prevention and
preparation. This results in ineffective, poorly coordinated and untimely measures. Glantz (1997)
explains that focusing on short-term emergency relief rather than addressing the underlying issues by
long-term development planning is due to the fact that famine events are often blamed (rightly or
wrongly) on natural hazards, while in fact they develop out of poverty and hunger, which are linked to
political and socio-economic issues, and therefore more difficult to solve. He also observes that ews
tend to focus on data quantity rather than data quality and relevance.
Next, measurements and indicators used in food security and famine monitoring and early warning are
sometimes constructed and used based on data availability, and not data quality and measurement
relevance. This is illustrated by the wide use of FAO’s food availability index, while more reliable
household expenditure and anthropometric data are rarely collected on a large scale (Masset, 2011).
As already stated, different methodologies and indicators used can lead to different conclusions about
the problem, which, together with conflicting views about risk can result in paralysis of the decision
20
making process because both views and concerns of key actors are not aligned. There are
inconsistencies between forecasts delivered by national fews in the Sahel region, despite the fact these
fews try to detect food production deficits by monitoring food crop production, since food crises there
mostly arise from insufficient food production resulting from adverse weather conditions.
Additionally, Barett (2010) calls for moving the focus beyond static snapshot measures to using
dynamic, longitudinal data in food security.
2.5.2. Challenges In the absence of famine and food crises, fews tend to get less support from governments because of
two reasons (Glantz, 1997). First, governments and authorities may believe that crises were avoided
due to their efforts and policies. In addition to that, fews may not be able to prove that the famine
didn’t occur as a result of their efforts. This is also linked to the issue of sustainability: it is difficult to
sustain institutions and technologies dealing with infrequent crises (UNISDR, 2005).
The institutional context around fews, ineffective information use and inadequate response were
identified as the obstacles for more effective food crises prevention a long time ago, but the problems
still persist (FSU-IDS, 1992).
With regard to drought monitoring and related food security early warning, Tadasse et al. (2008)
outline several challenges. First, there are problems related to the technical capacity to collect data, i.e.
measurement equipment. The low number of meteorological and hydrological stations and
concomitant low density hinder proper climate and weather information collection. When data are not
missing, they are often of poor quality. Moreover, the lack of framework for data sharing between
research institutions and government agencies is not contributing to lowering high data collection
costs. Lack of adequate equipment (number and quality) and level of knowledge for analysing and
interpreting model outputs used in early warning can relatively easily be overcome since computer
hardware and software prices are declining, and training people will increase their working capacity.
Next, early warning experts often provide decision makers with information in inadequate format: too
technical and detailed information hinders effective use. Additionally, message contents don’t always
meet decision makers’ needs.
There is also a problem with indicators and methodologies used. Non-standardized and inappropriate
impact assessment methodologies, combined with the (sometimes) limited ability of indices used in
early warning to measure and predict what they are expected to (e.g. start and end of drought periods),
hinder impact estimates and appropriate mitigation and response. Sometimes, there is a lack of
credibility of forecasts published by ews. Inexistent or underdeveloped delivery and communication
21
systems for information dissemination limit possibilities for adequate decision making and appropriate
action. Finally, comprehensive but complex systems that monitor multiple parameters to fully
characterize magnitude and impact of food security threats are lacking or incomplete.
World Conference on Disaster Reduction report (2005) outlines two other challenges. First, news
media have an important role in communication and information dissemination, but may sometimes
result in publishing sensationalism and conflicting messages. Second, authorities and communities
must be willing to accept the risk of false alarms.
In addition, it was already stated that different information collection systems across and within
countries employ different methodologies and indicators, which may lead to conflicting views about
the nature of both disaster and risk.
2.5.3. Recommendations Establishing a comprehensive multi-hazard global early warning system network built on existing
national and regional capacities, focusing on the food security of a household, will contribute to the
consistency of warning messages and mitigation approaches, and improve coordination and
collaboration between different levels, sectors and actors (UNEP (2012), Hadley and Maes (2009)). In
such a system, an institutional framework should be developed based on the “top-down” and “bottom-
up” approach principle (UNISDR, 2005).
An assessment study by UNEP (2012) proposes several recommendations for early warning. Clearly
outlining responsibilities of all stakeholders in the network is a basis for securing coordination,
accountability, credibility and trust. Consensus on priorities between stakeholders in early warning is
important for effective resource allocation and for short- and long-term decision making. Next, it is
necessary to develop at least basic early warning systems where they are not yet in place, especially
for drought-prone areas, but also in the light of increasing global climate variability. Special efforts
should be put in capacity building in developing areas. It can be done through education and training
of local staff, research, local data collection, analysis and monitoring, ensuring access to information,
raising awareness in the community, and integration of emergency relief into development strategies.
Assessing the information needs from the standpoint of decision makers and providing simple warning
messages with clear information in standard formats should improve communication and help in
overcoming the gap between science and decision making. Finally, establishing and strengthening
legal frameworks is important for addressing complex issues like food security and famine.
Generalization should be avoided when setting up food security monitoring and early warning systems
at national levels (Tadesse et al., 2008). A unique approach based on local-scale research is the best
22
option, since not all countries face the same kind of food security challenges, crisis characteristics and
probability of occurrence. Related to this, Glantz (1997) calls for a careful and critical approach when
transferring lessons from one food crisis to the other, and between systems.
Barret (2010) and de Haen et al. (2011) support the establishment of a global network containing all
indicators for assessing food security with the purpose of monitoring evolution of multiple indicators,
especially their predictive capacity, comparative assessment of estimates, and identification of
research and improvement needs. In addition to that, experts that participated at the World Conference
on Disaster Reduction in Japan (2005) call for developing indicators for monitoring effectiveness of
the early warning systems.
Tadesse et al. (2008) conclude that effective and proactive food security monitoring and early warning
systems are based on multi-level and multi-sector collaboration and integration. Sharing data, products
and expertise (inter)nationally is a basis for an effective, comprehensive, integrated and coordinated
approach. Collaboration is also necessary for capacity building and optimizing work and resources
use. Integrating local data collection and data sets into large-scale high-tech monitoring systems on
higher levels will increase accuracy, ease of response and crisis resolution. The authors emphasize the
importance of combining short- and long-term solutions and planning, i.e. emergency relief/disaster
mitigation and sustainable development, in addressing the issues at hand.
23
3. METHODOLOGY In general, this Master’s dissertation aims to evaluate fews in order to answer the basic question: how
do we know that there is a famine and food security problem? Our literature review answers this
question in part. The next chapter will take a closer look at specific parameters organizations focus on
for monitoring food security. More specifically, our research objectives include identifying and
presenting the following:
indicators used by fews to monitor food security and threats to food security;
risk factors considered as relevant;
data/information sources used;
information output format; and
information dissemination products.
Finally, common characteristics of these monitoring organizations and differences between them will
be summarized. The results from the analysis will be critically evaluated and compared with existing
literature.
3.1. Fews in the focus of the analysis
Initially, internet search and literature review revealed several fews to be available as potential study
subjects:
Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET);
Global Information and Early Warning System - on food and agriculture (GIEWS);
Humanitarian Early Warning Service (HEWS);
Save the Children UK;
Concern;
IGAD Climate Prediction and Applications Center (ICPAC);
Kenya Food Security Meeting/Kenya Food Security Steering Group (KFSM/KFSSG);
Food Security and Nutrition Analysis Unit – Somalia (FSNAU);
Action Against Hunger (AAH) ;
Oxfam International; and
The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC).
They range from global and well-known fews like GIEWS, to small-scale early warning systems
managed by NGOs for a certain area or focusing only on a group of countries. All organizations
24
involved were contacted by e-mail with an inquiry for collaboration and request for information about
their work.
Unfortunately, at the moment of writing these lines, no answers were obtained. Therefore, the work
will deal with publicly available information. Due to unavailability of an adequate amount of good-
quality and reliable information about others, the following fews will be in focus of the analysis:
FEWS NET by USAID;
GIEWS by FAO; and
HEWS by WFP.
Additionally, we made an assumption: considering that the above mentioned fews are organised and
managed by large international organizations, it can be assumed that they are built on the best human,
financial and implementation capacity. This involves a trained, versatile and well-educated staff; large
budgets; availability and development of the best technologies, tools and working techniques; efficient
protocols, scientific and research capacity; flexibility; good reputation; and a wide network of staff and
partners around the world. This allows postulating that these organizations would be ideal leaders in
food security monitoring and early warning and that their working practice is benchmark in the field.
3.1.1. FEWS NET The Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET) was created in 1985 by USAID. Their
main partners are a private development company (Chemonics International, Inc.) and US government
agencies (United States Geological Survey (USGS), National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA)). They also collaborate with international, regional and national
partners. They have a wide, but not complete global focus. Currently, they closely monitor 36
countries in Central Asia; the Caribbean; Central America; West, East and Southern Africa; and
Middle East. Some of these countries are part of their remote monitoring initiative, due to the fact that
FEWS NET doesn’t have representatives in these specific countries, so they work through local
partners.
3.1.2. GIEWS Global Information and Early Warning System on food and agriculture (GIEWS) was established in
1975 based on the recommendation of the first World Food Conference, held in Rome in 1974.
GIEWS has a global focus, covering 191 FAO member states and the EU. It is a network that includes
governments, different early warning and food information systems, FAO regional and country
offices, technical experts, NGOs, other UN agencies, private trade and industry sector and other
agencies and organizations of different types.
25
3.1.3. HEWS Development of a Humanitarian Early Warning Service (HEWS or HEWSweb) resulted from an
initiative by the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC). It was established in 2004 and is managed
by the WFP. The system summarizes information available from a variety of institutions and agencies
worldwide. Their main partners are: WFP, UNICEF, UNDP, OCHA, ICRC, IFRC, UNHCR, WHO,
FAO, WMO, IOM and SCHR. In addition, they have established partnerships with external, non-UN
specialized institutions: US Geological Survey, Dartmouth Flood Observatory, FAO Locust Watch,
Smithsonian Institution, Tropical Storm Risk, NOAA, Joint Typhoon Warning, Center National
Hurricane, Center Central Pacific Hurricane Center and GDACS.
3.2. Information collection and sources
Today, internet is widely used in all domains of life. Since its beginnings, it has been rapidly adopted
as a data source, but also as a presentation and communication standard due to its distinctive
characteristics. It allows accessing large amounts of information, data, and other materials in a timely
and cost-effective manner. It is possible to upload and download large amounts of data in various
formats (text, graphics, programmes, video, audio...) that instantly become available to ever-increasing
numbers of people in all parts of the world. Information and data can be quickly updated which
immediately become visible to decision makers and other interested parties.
This principle is of the utmost importance especially when information needs to be quickly shared
with large groups of people. Therefore, internet seems as the perfect tool for information presentation
and dissemination in early warning. It is not surprising that many organizations engaging in food
security monitoring and early warning use their websites for that purpose.
The information presented in the next chapter of this Master’s dissertation is collected from the
official websites and reports of fews that are the focus of the analysis. Table 1 shows the
information sources that have been used. Although this type of data was not primarily designed for
research purposes, it offers valuable insights into the practice of fews. The sources we consulted are
credible and trustworthy since fews themselves consider the websites as an important communication
channel. The websites are regularly updated with new information about the parameters they monitor
and analyse, whereas results are published graphically and in form of reports and/or databases.
Additionally, other studies built on the information from the websites support their use in (scientific)
research, of course, depending on the analysis involved (see, for example, Baumgarten and Grauel
(2009)). A publication by IFPRI (Slack, 1999) outlines the sources of food and nutrition security data
26
on the internet and acknowledges the credibility of the data from trusted, relevant and official
information sources.
Table 1 - Information sources
fews Home Page URL
FEWS NET http://www.fews.net/Pages/default.aspx
GIEWS http://www.fao.org/giews/english/index.htm
HEWS http://www.hewsweb.org/hp/
3.3. Data analysis
This study is based on the comparative assessment of fews with a focus on the way they monitor food
security. Data analysis is based on a methodology involving qualitative analysis of the information
collected from the previously described sources.
The qualitative analysis performed consists of several points. First, information sources (fews’ official
websites) will be reviewed in order to summarize the indicators used in monitoring food security. This
will be a basis for concluding about: (1) food security dimensions in focus, and (2) threats to food
security perceived as important by fews. In the first case, evaluation will be performed towards 4
pillars of food security, and in the second, selected fews will be evaluated based on the risks to food
security previously identified in the food (in)security framework. Next, a point has been made about
the importance of collaboration between actors in the field. In the case of fews, this will be verified by
examining their information sources and other established partnerships. Finally, early warning
information needs to be shared with decision makers and other interested parties. Fews’ information
output format and dissemination products and communication channels will serve as a basis for
concluding about the latter.
In the final part, the comprehensive conclusion will be made based on the comparison of selected fews
about the common characteristics and differences between them. Our findings will further be critically
assessed by looking at the literature.
27
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Overview of the fews practice
4.1.1. FEWS NET Monitoring
Monitoring activities are divided into two main fields: agro-climatic and markets and trade. More
details are presented in Table 2. This information allows generation of food security estimates and
serves as a basis for issuing warnings about possible food crisis.
Table 2 - FEWS NET monitoring fields (FEWS NET, 2012)
Area Explanation
Agro-climatic Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) - so called “greenness maps” measure
the amount and intensity of vegetation in an area (i.e. level of photosynthetic activity). Index
values are shown per decade (10+10+8 or 11 days) on a scale (range from -1 to 1), with
higher values of NDVI indicating greater amount and intensity of vegetation.
Rainfall Estimation (RFE) imagery shows the amount of rainfall in mm/10 km grid (scale
from 0 to more than 250 mm). Data on rainfall amounts is available in daily or decadal
formats. Onset-of-rains for Africa denotes the start of the growing season, which is marked
by the arrival of adequate rains (based on the pre-set rainfall amount threshold). This is key
in planning and management of agricultural activities and the first indication of the potential
agricultural production within a region. The rainfall data is also used in crop models to
simulate crop water use during the season (WRSI). Progress of the current rainy season is
also monitored.
Water Requirements Satisfaction Index (WRSI) is a way to monitor crop performance. It
tracks the balance of crop water demand and supply during the growing season on a scale
ranging 0-100 [%], based on crop water requirements and actual amount supplied through
rainfall. There are 3 main categories: areas with less than 50% satisfaction are considered as
failed; 50-94% means that there is a danger of yield reduction due to water shortage but the
crops can still recover; and in the >95% category crops have received enough rainfall. The
index is based on the predominant crop in the region. It also indicates late season start (i.e.
absence of adequate timely rainfalls).
ITCZ data and imagery show the 10-day average latitudinal position of the Africa Inter-
Tropical Convergence Zone (region from longitude 15°W to 35°E) from March/April to
November.
Information about weather events in general and especially those that might adversely affect
food security.
Seasonal Calendar and Critical Events encompasses information about season type,
typical agricultural activities, livestock, migration, weather events, etc. during the year.
Markets and
trade
Prices – trends and changes in market prices for “basic food commodities” (mostly cereals,
legumes and tubers) in selected urban centres of the countries/regions in focus.
28
Production and Market Flow Maps summarize the typical market situation/flow (mostly
for basic grains). The maps are not uniform with regards to the information provided and
their extensiveness differs from one country to another. Occasional Market Reports bring
more detailed market analysis of a selected market, whole country or region for food security
projections focusing on Africa.
Cross Border Trade Reports are related to informal trade of key food commodities at
selected border points in Southern and East Africa.
Information sources
FEWS NET collaborates with NOAA, USGS, NGOs, UN agencies, etc. Additionally, they use
information gathered by various satellites, field measurements, local governments and agricultural
market information systems.
Vulnerability analysis
FEWS NET follows the Household Economy Approach (HEA). Baseline livelihood information
(assets, food and income sources, expenditure patterns, social relations, coping capacities) are grouped
by livelihood zone (geographic area based on market access for example) and wealth (based on local
determinants). This represents vulnerability and coping information. The information about hazard is
related to climate or weather events, market and price information and other potential shocks in these
phenomena. Based on this information, it is possible to estimate the impact of a shock and the extent
of assistance needed by specific areas and groups in the population.
Communication
Final output
Information is graphically summarized based on the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification’s
(IPC) Acute Food Insecurity Reference Table for Household Groups that was already discussed
(Figure 3). For explanation about this classification system, see “Scaling the situation” section in the
Literature review.
29
Figure 3 - Estimated food security conditions for the 4th quarter 2012 (FEWS NET, 2012)
Products
FEWS NET publishes regular and occasional reports, various maps and satellite images.
Reports
Monthly, FEWS NET reports on current food security situations, threats and implications in the
countries they monitor (Food Security Updates and Food Assistance Outlook Brief). Weather-related
food security assessment products are available on a weekly or decadal basis (NOAA Weather
Hazards Impact Assessments, Rain Watches). Reports summarizing price changes and trends for basic
food commodities in the countries and regions they monitor are also published on a monthly basis
(Price Watch, Price Bulletins). Occasional market studies and analyses bring a more detailed review of
selected markets in countries of interest (Market Reviews). They are performed to reveal market
structures and their linkages, identify gaps and potential monitoring indicators. These market studies
contribute to the development of key commodity market network maps. The results of the above-
mentioned Cross Border Trade monitoring are periodically reported on. Some products are focused on
specific regions: WRSI Report brings water balance analysis for bean and maize crops in Central
America, and Darfur Crisis: Rain Timeline and Forecast brings the seasonal rains progress and their
impact on access to Darfur and eastern Chad humanitarian sites. There are also other special reports on
different topics (e.g. labour migration). Alerts are published when a food crisis is thought to emerge or
food security conditions significantly deteriorate.
30
Maps
Maps showing current and forecasted food security situations on a country level (Current Estimated
Food Security Conditions, Food Security Outlook), geographical Livelihood zones generated from
HEA analysis, as well as Production and Market Flow Maps based on the detailed market analyses are
available. NOAA Weather Hazards Impact Assessments allow identification of areas with adverse
weather conditions that might affect food security.
Satellite images
Satellite images available from FEWS NET are related to their agro-climatic monitoring: Rainfall
Estimation (RFE), Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), Water Requirements Satisfaction
Index (WRSI), Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ).
Apart from reviewing and searching information and products on-line, it is also possible to register for
receiving e-mail updates from FEWS NET and follow them on social network sites.
4.1.2. GIEWS
Monitoring
GIEWS reports on the world food supply and demand situation and issues warnings of threatening
food crises. An overview of the GIEWS monitoring areas is presented in Table 3.
Table 3 - GIEWS monitoring areas (GIEWS, 2012)
Monitoring area Explanation
Food prices Domestic and export wholesale or retail commodity prices on a market or country level
for a specific time period or a season.
Cereals Global Cereal Supply/Demand brings world cereal markets’ monthly situations and
forecasts for a marketing year (may not be equal to a calendar year). Information about
production, supply (production and stocks combined at the beginning of the year),
utilization (food use for all purposes), trade (based on exports) and stocks (at year’s
end) mainly based on wheat, coarse grain and rice data. This allows determining
scenarios that may be important for the international community: sharp rise or fall in
food supply or demand, i.e. countries in need of large scale food assistance or countries
with food surpluses that are potential donors.
Country monitoring is especially focused on 80 Low Income Food Deficient Countries
(LIFDCs). These net food deficit countries with annual per capita income below the
level determined by the World Bank are usually susceptible for food crisis. For those
countries, GIEWS estimates the amounts of food that are necessary in order to
maintain adequate consumption levels. Total estimated cereal import requirements
for the coming marketing year are presented versus total commercial purchases and
food aid allocated, committed or shipped.
Cereal Supply/Demand Balance for the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa based on
wheat, rice and coarse grains. Data include: domestic food availability (production and
stocks), utilization (food and non-food use, building stocks), import requirements
(purchases and food aid), current food aid situation (e.g. deliveries). Estimated per
31
capita food consumption is calculated based on the food utilisation component.
Agro-meteorological Quantitative decadal rainfall estimates for Africa are based on satellite imagery and
observed rainfall data. Data for the two last years is plotted versus 10-years averages.
Satellite images also provide information about vegetation cover for Africa, Latin
America and Caribbean
Food policies Summary of main policy measures related to the agriculture and food situation in a
country during the period from 1 January 2008 until 11 October 2011.
Crop and Food Security Assessment Mission (CFSAM) is a rapid evaluation mission in collaboration
with WFP. It is carried out by the request of national governments in countries facing a serious food
crisis, with the purpose of providing timely, accurate and credible insight about the food and nutrition
situation. These countries are often hindered by protracted emergencies and conflicts, and also have
poor data quality and availability. The mission findings serve as a basis for issuing alerts and taking
action in order to tackle the crisis and minimize its adverse impact. Although it is claimed that on
average 20-25 countries are assessed annually, for the recent years less than 10 CFSAM reports are
available on-line. The missions consist of crop production and food supply assessments, macro level
socio-economic context around food supply and demand, assessment of the relevant public health
issues (e.g. HIV/AIDS), and vulnerability and food needs. Food balance and vulnerability are a basis
for identifying gaps and assistance needs. The missions usually occur during or shortly before harvest.
The goal is to have reports dispatched to the international community within 10 working days after a
field team returns from the mission.
Information sources
GIEWS collaborates with other actors in the field and uses data collected by other parties. Information
sources include: meteorological and other satellites for earth observation, news services, national
authorities and institutions, NGOs, reports and studies, questionnaires, websites, as well as other
documents and publications.
Vulnerability analysis
Assessing and mapping is regularly performed during the CFSAM. The purpose is to estimate the
distribution and severity of food insecurity: the numbers and characteristics of food-insecure people or
households in an area, based on understanding causes and implications of food insecurity and critical
assessment of the current and planned relevant assistance programmes. Conclusions and 12-months
projections are based on both primary and secondary data. Primary data include assessment of a
household’s current experience and expectations about its own food production, market purchases and
other food sources, food and income sources in general, expenditures, coping strategies and food
consumption. Additionally, secondary data are reviewed: existing assessment, monitoring and
evaluation reports, baseline data from the pre-crisis period, agricultural production and market data.
Finally, operationally functional household profiles are created to ease targeting (e.g. based on
32
livelihood groups, residency status, household characteristics, etc). They give current and forecasted
numbers of food-insecure people in an area or group, and aggregate emergency assistance needs.
Communication
Final output
The summary graphical outputs (Figure 4 and Figure 5) are supplemented with more details from the
Country Briefs, also showing the direction of change since the last assessment.
Shortfall in aggregate food
production/supplies
Widespread lack of access Severe localized food insecurity
Figure 4 - Countries requiring external assistance for food according to GIEWS (2012) (situation in
December 2012)
Figure 5 - Countries with unfavourable prospects for current crops according to GIEWS (2012)
(situation in December 2012)
33
Products
Similarly to FEWS NET, GIEWS regularly publish various reports: Food Outlook is currently
published two times a year. It provides situation assessment and projections for key commodity
markets. Crop Prospects and Food Situation is currently scheduled for quarterly publishing. It analyses
the current and projected cereal situation in the world and per region, targets countries that require
external food assistance or are in danger of food insecurity, and brings an overview of the situation in
the LIFDCs. Global Food Price Monitor presents food price developments in the world and per region
from month to month. Country Briefs summarize developing country food information on the current
agricultural season, crop calendar, harvest prospects, livestock situation, forecasts of the cereal
situation, food prices and policy developments. Sahel Report is available monthly during the region’s
growing season (June-October), describing weather conditions, pests’ infestations and crop prospects
in the region, together with the first harvest estimates. Occasionally and according to the needs,
Special Reports (e.g. CFSAM report) are published for countries and/or regions facing food crisis in
order to alert the international community.
In order to store the information collected over years, facilitate data management and encourage data
sharing, there is a software package (WinDisp) that is linked to the GIEWS database. It contains tools
for display and analysis of maps, satellite images and various other types of information, mostly for
Africa.
Information and products can be assessed on-line, and disseminated via social network sites and e-
mail updates for an area of interest.
4.1.3. HEWS
Monitoring
HEWS serves as a platform for summarizing information on natural hazards on a global level,
gathered from its partners. HEWS focuses on floods, storms, seismic activity, volcano eruptions,
drought, El Niño/La Niña, and desert locusts.
Information sources
HEWS is completely based on the information and analyses performed by various organizations,
agencies and institutions. The wide network of its partners include UN agencies (WFP, UNICEF,
UNDP, UNOSAT, OCHA, ICRC, IFRC, UNHCR, WHO, FAO and WMO) and other organizations
(NASA, IOM, SCHR) and NGOs (Oxfam Int., World Vision Int., Care Int.) and specialized
institutions: FEWS NET, US Geological Survey (USGS), Dartmouth Flood Observatory, FAO Locust
Watch, Smithsonian Institution, Tropical Storm Risk, NOAA and NHC, Joint Typhoon Warning
34
Center (JTWC), Center National Hurricane, Central Pacific Hurricane Center (CPHC), GDACS, and
The Columbia International Research Institute for Climate and Society.
Vulnerability analysis
HEWS doesn’t perform vulnerability analysis itself, but uses the estimates published by its partners
and data sources, so there is no information uniformity regarding hazards and individual events. On
the graphical output, HEWS provides simple estimates of the possible hazard impact. For floods,
storms and volcanoes they provide estimates of the population living in an area affected within 60 km.
In addition to that, in case of seismic activity, information about existing nuclear power plants within
150 km, dams, airports and seaports within 60 km is published.
Communication
Information output
Final information output is available in a graphical format, clearly differentiating between different
types of hazards (Figure 6). Additionally, clicking on an individual icon on the map reveals basic
information about the possible hazard impact on an affected area. For example, details on floods
include start date, main cause of the flood (type of rain) and estimated population living within a 60
km radius. For each hazard, separate maps containing more events and details are also available.
Figure 6 - HEWS output map (situation on 20th December 2012) (HEWS, 2012)
Products
HEWS publishes information in the form of maps and analytical briefs (short summary of the current
situation with relevant details, forecasts and warnings, if necessary). Weekly, monthly and yearly
35
statistics show the frequency of each hazard. They have also developed a Seasonal and Hazards
Calendar that summarizes information on typical weather events, seasonal hazards and pest prevalence
(locust) during crop growing cycles and seasons for around 80 countries in Central and South
America, Africa, and Asia. It has a potential to be a useful tool for identifying disruptions in
agriculture caused by any type of the hazard.
HEWS updates published on the platform are also available via social network sites and by
subscribing to e-mail updates.
4.2. Findings summary
The above-presented findings suggest that there are both similarities and differences between the early
warning systems reviewed.
From the three systems reviewed, a difference exists between FEWS NET and GIEWS on the one
hand, and HEWS on the other. First, they differ in focus. HEWS is a global multi-hazard monitoring
system, not strictly oriented towards food security or famine. However, drought monitoring is a part of
the HEWS portfolio, together with occasional publishing of other relevant food security information.
Opposed to this, GIEWS and FEWS NET build their monitoring and reporting activities around
various aspects related to food security. Next, HEWS basically serves as a summary platform for
hazard information, forecasts and warnings available from a wide network of partners. GIEWS and
FEWS NET also depend on the information, monitoring and analyses done by other agencies and
institutions, but their activities go beyond the HEWS’s scope. They regularly perform analyses and
publish more detailed reports about various topics related to their monitoring areas and countries of
interest (e.g. in-depth market reviews performed by FEWS NET). GIEWS and FEWS NET have a set
of core standard products (reports) that are available on a regular basis, while alerts and updates are
published when necessary by all three systems.
All of them claim to have a wide geographical monitoring focus. The HEWS’ and GIEWS’ focus is
global, while selected countries in Africa, Asia and Central America are in the FEWS NET spotlight.
However, by analysing their reports and available information, it is clear that both GIEWS and FEWS
NET focus on developing countries, especially in Africa.
Additionally, the systems focus on monitoring and analysing data on natural hazards and weather
events (HEWS; FEWS NET - mainly drought and rainfall), agricultural production and food supply
(FEWS NET, GIEWS), aggregated food demand (GIEWS), and food prices (GIEWS, FEWS NET).
36
Market and livelihood analyses and vulnerability assessments are performed occasionally, and are
only available for selected areas, so they can’t be considered as a part of the standard, regular
monitoring activities and products portfolio.
All systems heavily depend on information collected by other agencies, institutions and organizations,
which is a proof of cooperation and collaboration. Information, analyses and projections are available
on aggregate and individual levels: global, regional (e.g. Sahel), national, and sub-national (e.g.
selected market), both graphically and in the form of reports. The output level depends on the
monitoring area and situation specificity.
4.3. Discussion
4.3.1. Risks to food security The three fews reviewed in this Master’s dissertation focus primarily on monitoring food availability
by following the agro-climatic situation and estimating food supply. Even though this supports the
earlier understandings of food insecurity as a food availability problem, it clearly is fundamental, as it
forms the basis for food access and utilisation. Sub-Saharan Africa agrarian systems are predominantly
rainfed (IWMI, 2010). Variable rainfall patterns and frequent extreme weather events like droughts
and floods result in reduced crop yields (Haile, 2005). All these factors, together with climate change
and negative forecasts for Africa additionally stress the importance of weather monitoring (Verdin et
al., 2005). However, some food systems and people are more vulnerable to other outcomes of climate
change, like sea level rise, and availability and quality of ground water for irrigation (Gregory et al.,
2005). There are also other reasons explaining low productivity in developing countries, unrelated to
climate and weather: depleted soil nutrients, lack of adequate reliable water supplies, high pest and
disease incidence, lack of improved cultivars, poor input distribution systems, lack of access to
relevant knowledge and technology, access to credit (Sanchez (2002), Lobell et al. (2009)).
HEWS focuses solely on natural hazards reporting. The number of disasters resulting from natural
causes, together with the total number of people affected and total estimated damage is on the increase
(CRED, s.d.). Consequently, the number of emergencies increases as well, with the biggest increase in
Africa, as already stated. This trend is expected to continue in the future, as a consequence of
increasing climate change (Barrett & Lentz, 2010). Therefore, monitoring natural hazards surely
deserves attention. However, monitoring and reporting alone is purposeless if it is not combined with
adequate preparedness and response. Although it is not the topic of this Master’s dissertation,
inclusion of effective response as an integral component of early warning cannot be stressed enough.
37
Some other factors are claimed to be natural shocks to food security, like natural resources degradation
and lack of hazard mitigation and preparedness plans (Webb & Rogers, 2003). However, these are
clearly arising from human factor. Considering them as hazards arising from nature, with no possible
human influence, is equal to accepting the concept of natural disasters as an inevitable outcome of
natural hazards (Cannon, 1994).
A majority of people in the world, including farmers, are net food purchasers. High food prices have
especially devastating effect on poor people who spend large shares of their income on food (Rosen &
Shapouri, s.d.). Production fails and reduced food availability lead to price increases, given a constant
or increased demand. This also happens with poorly integrated and non-competitive markets, without
safety nets and security mechanisms and in the presence of speculations (Barrett & Lentz, 2010). Lack
of liquid assets and asset depletion hampers access to markets and food both on aggregate country, and
individual or household level. It is hindering the import capacity of a country and undermining the
ability to bring food to the table within a household. FEWS NET periodically performs market
analyses. Good understanding of local markets’ functioning helps in forecasting food security
situations (Maxwell & Frankenberger, 1992).
Besides natural shocks and economic risks, the food (in)security framework previously described
clearly outlines social and health risks as a threat to food security (Webb & Rogers, 2003). In addition,
the latter authors outline the role of political risks and capacity to overcome them, by seeking good
governance, accountability and socio-political stability, for example. However, we didn’t consider this
here for two reasons. First, lack of political capacity is considered as a deep underlying structural
cause that goes beyond the scope of famine early warning and it as a common cause to many other
problems in a society. Secondly, an average nutrition student doesn’t have the adequate knowledge to
analyse and address political problems in a society.
Literature search on the impact of health risks in the development of famine, their contribution to food
insecurity and monitoring for health risks in food security information and famine early warning
systems reveals that this topic received limited attention by researchers. Available studies focus on the
effect of climate change and severe weather events on health, and spreading and emerging of
infectious diseases, which is an important issue in public health. The studies advocate for building
disaster resilience through public health preparedness and response (see, for example, Keim (2008),
WHO (2003), and St. Louis and Hess (2008)). Other authors discuss health early warning systems
established for mitigation of infectious disease epidemics (see WHO (2005) and Myers et al. (2000)).
These systems exist for many climate-sensitive infectious diseases like cholera, malaria,
meningococcal meningitis and influenza. Some studies link the impact of climate change and weather
with health and food security without, however, suggesting inclusion of health risks monitoring into
38
fews or close collaboration and networking between famine and health early warning systems (see
WHO (2000)). However, Epstein (1999) suggests that health early warning based on the use of climate
variability and weather data in predicting disease outbreaks should complement famine early warning.
Conflict causes food insecurity, but it can also arise from it (Messer & Cohen, 2006). A majority of
the billion world’s poorest people lives in countries that were recently or are still affected by violent
conflicts (Collier, 2007). Conflict was the leading cause in nearly half of Africa’s famines in the last
century (Devereux & Maxwell, 2001). The adverse impact of conflict on food security has been
recognized by the UN as it monitors nutrition status in the communities affected by conflict (UNSCN,
2009). Several early warning systems have been set up in Africa for conflict anticipation and
prevention, contrary to the situation in Asia, where regional organizations primarily focus on
economic cooperation and development (Wulf & Debiel, 2009). Despite the fact that none of the fews
reviewed includes conflict monitoring and early warning within its standard activities, countries
affected by conflict often receive special attention in food security analyses, for example during
CFSAM performed by GIEWS. In addition, the world’s poorest, food insecure and most
underdeveloped countries that fews are focusing on are usually affected by violent conflicts, and
Africa seems to be world’s conflict hotspot (Stewart, 2002). There is a need for (better) integration of
food security and development programs with conflict prevention and mitigation (Meesser et al.,
2002).
4.3.2. Geographical focus Africa, Asia, Latin America and Caribbean are the monitoring targets of the fews reviewed. According
to the latest report by FAO (2012), more than 60% of food-insecure people is living in Asia (the
highest absolute number, representing around 14% of the total Asian population), with southern and
eastern Asia being the hardest hit. Africa is home to almost 30% (23% of the total population living in
Africa) and Latin America and the Caribbean 6% (8% of the regions’ population) of the world’s food-
insecure people. The number of natural disasters is the highest in Asia, where floods, storms and
earthquakes predominantly occur (CRED, s.d.). Disaster consequences (in monetary terms) and
number of people affected is also higher in Asia than in other parts of the world. However, this is
probably due to the fact that it is the world’s largest and most populated continent. African countries
remain to be the most vulnerable to food insecurity and at the highest risk for food crises, due to the
absence of risk mitigation strategies and capacity, weak infrastructure, high poverty prevalence and
conflicts (FAO, 2011).
39
4.3.3. Vulnerability assessment and decision makers’ needs When food security conditions deteriorate, not everybody in the community or area is equally affected
(Barrett & Lentz, 2010). Some of the factors contributing to increased vulnerability, not only in food
crisis, are: relative poverty, social exclusion, age and gender, poor health and limited or no access to
health care. Therefore, it is important to understand the characteristics of the individuals and
households, for successful and efficient targeting of interventions and assistance.
Vulnerability analysis provides information that is a basis for translating early warning information
into (food) aid requirements. This refers to taking into account the decision makers needs when
publishing early warnings. It is also the reason why it is difficult for fews to recommend non-food
assistance: simply because this is not the type of information preferred by the donors and decision
makers (Buchanan-Smith, 2000). They don’t expect it and are not prepared to act upon it. As already
briefly stated, clear and consistent messages, with no contradictions between the information systems,
correct interpretations are preferred by the decision makers. They also need to be simple, at the same
time summarizing all the relevant information about a situation. A good example of this is IPC used by
FEWS NET. This predefined classification system presents an easily understood summary, linking the
food situation directly to necessary or expected response interventions.
The use of early warning information is further hampered by factors that are beyond the control of the
fews, e.g. political will, media influence, bureaucracy and institutional formalities (Buchanan-Smith,
2000). Information ownership also falls into this category and it has demonstrated as a very important
factor in food crises. Field missions (CFSAM) performed by GIEWS staff in the countries facing food
security problems confirm that information ownership is still important.
Finally, fews reviewed use social networks as information dissemination channels, among others. This
proves their intentions to keep track of the new trends that are relevant for their practice and may serve
as an example of using existing, widespread communication channels that allow reaching high
numbers of people in almost real time.
4.3.4. Strengths of the study Substantial endeavours have been put in literature research and review for writing this Master’s
dissertation. A similar study was found nowhere. Moreover, studies on famine and food security early
warning mostly focus on discussing and evaluating timeliness of early warning messages in the light
of food crises development, and timeliness and effectiveness of response. This study provides a good
overview of fews practices.
40
4.3.5. Limitations of the study The intentions and efforts to include diverse fews in the analysis were hindered by non-response of the
organizations contacted. Therefore, we had to proceed by focusing on the information publicly
available on the internet. This, however, had imposed a limitation to our analysis. First, fews without
sufficient information available on their websites had to be excluded. This was, for example, the case
for the fews organized by NGOs. This is limiting the study findings as there is a possibility that fews
not considered in our comparative assessment might have different points of view when monitoring
food security and employ new, innovative approaches.
Additionally, the study is based on information available on websites and there is no concern about
sources’ reliability and trustworthiness. However, the information published there might not be
complete or fully up-to-date. Therefore, a study involving interviews with the organizations’
representatives and/or review of their internal documents and protocols might yield more detailed
conclusions about the information use in the food security monitoring and famine early warning.
The study didn’t analyse response to famine early warnings. This is also an interesting topic and
relevant research direction, due to higher costs associated with delayed response, both in monetary
terms for the relief organizations, and losses of lives and livelihoods for the population affected by a
food crisis (Barrett, 2010).
41
5. CONCLUSION Definitions of food security have considerably evolved since the concept was first introduced in the
1970s (Frankenberger & McCaston, 1998). The early definitions focused on aggregate (national and
global) food supply. In the 1980s, definitions went one step further, based on the old premises, but
building around stable food access of a household. At the beginning of the 1990s, research
demonstrated that household food security is only one factor contributing to the nutritional security of
individuals, besides their health status, environmental, cultural and behavioural factors. The livelihood
approach was initiated in the late 1990s, offering a broader picture for understanding household’s
behaviour, where food is only one among the priorities, and household food and nutrition security is
not independent of livelihoods’ and assets’ preservation. Similar changes can be observed for famine.
The issue first raised large attention (of both the international community and public) in the 1980s,
following the striking famines in Africa. Although famine causality was blamed on natural hazards
and crop failure for a long time, it is now accepted that famine is mainly a result of human factors that
manifest through our inability and/or unwillingness to prevent it. Today, both famine and food
insecurity are considered to be related to structural and political problems (Devereux & Maxwell,
2001).
All this reflects the changes in the way policy makers and the international community have
understood the concepts. Moreover, it also denotes a shift in the way food security was measured, and
actions and changes that were perceived as necessary for addressing the problems.
Recently, the issues of food security and famine have again become a hot topic in light of the world’s
increasing population and growing demand, diminishing and depleted resources, climate change and
its consequences on the food production capacity (see, for example, Lobell et. al. (2008), Godfray et
al. (2010)).
Food security is a very complex concept, especially considered together with nutrition and livelihoods
security. Interrelations of many parameters influence the final outcome that manifests on human lives.
This complexity seems to be well-illustrated by the large number of indicators used for food
(in)security estimations, with no set of standardized, widely used measures.
Food security monitoring and famine early warning systems we assessed still seem to focus on earlier
understandings of the concepts. Their main monitoring areas include agricultural production estimates,
42
weather and climate, natural hazards, and prices. Vulnerability profiling and livelihood analysis are
not routinely performed.
In order to improve food security monitoring and famine early warning, first of all, it is necessary to
reach a consensus on priorities and agreement with decision makers. Clearly stated responsibilities and
authoritative legal frameworks are the basis for accountability of all stakeholders. A comprehensive
multi-dimensional global early warning system network should be built on national and regional
capacities and based on the “top-down” and “bottom-up” approach. Food (in)security assessments
should be in line with the contemporary understandings of the concept, and both monitoring and
response should be integrated into short- and long-term solutions and planning.
The analysis design does not allow a conclusion about the reasons behind the current practice of the
food security monitoring and famine early warning systems. However, the authors believe that the
current fews practice additionally illustrates the complexity of the concepts and perhaps lack of
capacity and willingness for a paradigm shift within the large monitoring organizations reviewed. This
may be a solid base for further research on famine early warning systems.
43
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alcántara-Ayala, I. (2002). Geomorphology, natural hazards, vulnerability and prevention of
natural disasters in developing countries. Geomorphology, 47, 107-124.
Araujo, C., Araujo-Bonjean, C., & Brunelin, S. (2012). Alert at Maradi: Preventing Food
Crises by Using Price Signals. World Development, 40(9), 1882-1894.
Ayalew, M. (1997). What is Food Security and Famine and Hunger? Internet Journal of
African Studies, n.a.
Barrett, C. B. (2010). Measuring Food Insecurity. Science, 825-828.
Barrett, C. B., & Lentz, E. C. (2010). Food Insecurity. In R. A. Denemark, The International
Studies Encyclopedia. Hoboken, New Yersey: Wiley-Blackwell.
Baumgarten, B., & Grauel, J. (2009). The Theoretical Potential of Website and Newspaper
Data for Analysing Political Communication Processes. Historical Social Research,
34, 94-121.
Brown, M., Tondel, F., Essam, T., Thorne, J., Mann, B., Leonard, K. S., et al. (2012). Country
and regional staple food price indices for improved identification of food insecurity.
Global Environmental Change, 784-794.
Buchanan-Smith, M. (2000). Role of Early Warning Systems in Decision-making Processes.
London: Overseas Development Institute.
Buchanan-Smith, M., & Davies, S. (1995). Famine early warning and response: the missing
link. London: IT Publications.
Camargo, A., & Smith, J. (2009a). An image-processing based algorithm to automatically
identify plant disease visual symptoms. Biosystems engineering, 102, 9-21.
Camargo, A., & Smith, J. (2009b). Image pattern classification for the identification of
disease causing agents in plants. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 66, 121-
125.
Camargo, A., Molina, J. P., Cadena-Torres, J., Jimenez, N., & Kim, J. T. (2012). Intelligent
systems for the assessment of crop disorders. Computers and Electronics in
Agriculture, 85, 1-7.
Cannon, T. (1994). Vulnerability Analysis and the Explanation of "Natural" Disasters. In A.
Varley, Disasters. Development and Environment (pp. 13-30). New York: John Wiley
& Sons Ltd.
CARE International (2008). Coping Strategies Index:Field Methods Manual. CARE.
44
Chaerle, L., & Van Der Straeten, D. (2000). Imaging techniques and the early detection of
plant stress. Trends in Plant Science, 5, 495-501.
Collier, P. (2007). The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can
be Done About It. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Companion, M. (2008). The underutilisation of street markets as a source of food security
indicators in Famine Early Warning Systems: A case study of Ethiopia. Disasters, 32,
399-415.
CRED (s.d.). Natural Disaster Trends. Retrieved from EM-DAT The International Disasters
Database: http://www.emdat.be/natural-disasters-trends
Davies, S., Buchanan-Smith, M., & Lambert, R. (1991). Early warning in the Sahel and Horn
of Africa: The state of the art. A review of the literature, Volume 1. Brighton: Institute
of Development Studies.
de Haen, H., Klasen, S., & Qaim, M. (2011). What do we really know? Metrics for food
insecurity and undernutrition. Food Policy, 36, 760-769.
Deitchler, M., Ballard, T., Swindale, A., & Coates, J. (2011). Introducing a Simple Measure
of Household Hunger for Cross-Cultural Use. Washington D.C.: FANTA-2.
Devereux, S., & Maxwell, S. (2001). Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa. London: ITDG
Publishing.
MEASURE DHS (s.d.). DHS Survey Types. Retrieved from:
http://www.measuredhs.com/What-We-Do/Survey-Types/DHS.cfm
Epstein, P. R. (1999). Climate and Health. Science, 285, 347-348.
FAO (2001). The State of Food Insecurity in the World. Rome: FAO.
FAO (2002). The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2001. Rome.
FAO (2003). Food Security: Concepts and Measurement. In FAO, Trade Reforms and Food
Security: Conceptualizing the Linkages (p. 315). Rome: FAO.
FAO (2006). Integrated Food Security and Humanitarian Phase Classification (IPC)
Framework. Rome: FAO-ESA.
FAO (2011). FAO in North America. Retrieved December 21, 2012, from:
http://faowashington.org/category/emergencies/food-crisis
FAO (2012). Cereals Supply and Demand. Retrieved December 1, 2012, from:
http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/wfs-home/csdb/en/
FAO (2012). FAO Food Price Index. Retrieved December 7, 2012, from:
http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/wfs-home/foodpricesindex/en/
FAO (2012). FAO Hunger. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from: http://www.fao.org/hunger/en/
45
FAO, WFP and IFAD (2012). The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2012. Economic
growth is necessary but not sufficient to accelerate reduction of hunger and
malnutrition. Rome: FAO.
FAO-ESA (2006). Policy Brief: Food Security. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://www.fao.org/economic/esa/publications/en/
FAOSTAT (2012). Food Balance Sheets. Retrieved December 1, 2012, from:
http://faostat3.fao.org/home/index.html#VISUALIZE
FEWS NET (2012). FEWS NET. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from:
http://www.fews.net/Pages/default.aspx
Frankenberger, T. R., & McCaston, K. M. (1998). From Food Security to Livelihood Security:
The Evolution of Concepts. Washington D.C.: CARE.
FSU-IDS (1992). Understanding famine in Africa. Food Policy, 83-86.
GIEWS (2012). GIEWS. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from:
http://www.fao.org/giews/english/index.htm
Glantz, M. (1990). Why Are Famines Difficult to Predict? The World & I, 1, 409-415.
Glantz, M. (1997). Eradicating Famines in Theory and Practice: Thoughts on Early Warning
Systems. Internet Journal of African Studies, n.a.
Godfray, C. H., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., et al.
(2010). Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People. Science, 327, 812-
818.
Gregory, P., Ingram, J., & Brklacich, M. (2005). Climate change and food security.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 360, 2139-2148.
Hadley, C., & Maes, K. (2009). A new global monitoring system for food insecurity? The
Lancet, 374, 1223-1224.
Haile, M. (2005). Weather patterns, food security and humanitarian response in sub-Saharan
Africa. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Biological Sciences, 360,
2169-2182.
HEWS (2012). HEWS. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from http://www.hewsweb.org/hp/
Howe, P., & Devereux, S. (2004). Famine Intensity and Magnitude Scales: A Proposal for an
Instrumental Definition of Famine. Disasters, 28, 353-372.
IFAD (s.d.). Food Security - a conceptual framework. Retrieved October 16, 2012, from:
http://www.ifad.org/hfs/thematic/rural/rural_2.htm#utilization
IWMI (2010). Managing water for rainfed agriculture. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI.
46
Keim, M. E. (2008). Building Human Resilience: The Role of Public Health Preparedness and
Response As an Adaptation to Climate Chage. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 35, 508-516.
Kelly, M. (1992). Anthropometry as an indicator of access to food in populations prone to
famine. Food Policy, 443-454.
Lobell, D. B., Burke, M. B., Tebaldi, C., Mastrandrea, M. D., Falcon, W. P., & Naylor, R. L.
(2008). Prioritizing Climate Change Adaptation Needs for Food Security in 2030.
Science, 319, 607-610.
Lobell, D. B., Cassman, K. G., & Field, C. B. (2009). Crop Yield Gaps: Their Importance,
Magnitudes, and Causes. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 34, 179-204.
Masset, E. (2011). A review of hunger indices and methods to monitor country commitment
to fighting hunger. Food Policy, 36, 102-108.
Maxwell, D., Caldwell, R., & Langworthy, M. (2008). Measuring food insecurity: Can an
indicator based on localized coping behaviours be used to compare across contexts?
Food Policy, 33, 533-540.
Maxwell, S., & Frankenberger, T. (1992). Household Food Security: Concepts, Indicators,
Measurements. Rome: IFAD, UNICEF.
Meesser, E., Cohen, M. J., & Marchione, T. (2002). Conflict: A Cause and Effect of Hunger.
Washington DC: Environmental Change and Security Project (ECSP).
Messer, E., & Cohen, J. (2006). Conflict, Food Insecurity, and Globalization. Washington
D.C.: IFPRI.
Myers, M., Rogers, D., Cox, J., Flahault, A., & Hay, S. (2000). Forecasting disease risk for
increased epidemic preparedness in public health. Advances in Parasitology, 47, 309-
330.
Oroda, A. (2002). Application of Remote Sensing to early Warning For Food Security and
Environmental Monitoring in the Horn of Africa. Developments and Technology
Transfer in Geomatics for Environmental and Resource Management (pp. 66-72). Dar
es Salaam: International Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing.
Pinstrup-Andersen, P. (2009). Food security: definition and measurement. Food Security, 1,
5-7.
Rosen, S., & Shapouri, S. (s.d.). Rising Food Prices Intensify Food Insecurity in Developing
Countries. Washington D.C.: Economic Research Service USDA.
Sanchez, P. A. (2002). Soil Fertility and Hunger in Africa. Science, 295, 2019-2020.
47
Seaman, J., Clarke, P., Boudreau, T., & Holt, J. (2000). The Household Economy Approach:
A resource manual for practitioners. London: Save the Children.
Slack, A. T. (1999). Food and Nutrition Security Data on the World Wide Web. Washington
D.C.: IFPRI.
St. Louis, M. E., & Hess, J. J. (2008). Climate Change: Impacts on and Implications for
Global Health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, 527-238.
Stewart, F. (2002). Root causes of violent conflict in developing countries. British Medical
Journal, 324, 342-345.
Tadesse, T., Haile, M., Senay, G., Wardlow, B., & Knutson, C. (2008). The need for
integration of drought monitoring tools for proactive food security management in
sub-Saharan Africa. Natural Resource Forum, 32, 265-279.
Tefft, J., McGuire, M., & Maunder, N. (2006). Planning for the future: An assessment of food
security early warning systems in sub-Saharan Africa. Rome: FAO.
UN-DESA (2005). Household Sample Surveys in Developing and Transition Countries. New
York: UN.
UN-DESA (2008). An integrated approach needed for the growing threat of climate-related
insecurity. New York: UN-DESA.
UNEP (2012). Early Warning Systems: State-of-Art Analysis and Future Directions. Nairobi:
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
UNISDR (2005). Four Elements of People Centered Early Warning Systems. Fairfax: Public
Entity Risk Institute.
UNISDR (2005). World Conference on Disaster Reduction: People Centered Early Warning
Systems. Kobe, Japan.
UNISDR (2005). World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction: People Centered Early
Warning Systems. Kobe, Japan.
UNISDR (2007). Terminology. Retrieved March 2012, from:
http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology#letter-e
UNSCN (2009). NICS - Nutrition Information in Crisis Situations. Retrieved from:
http://www.unscn.org/en/publications/nics/
Verdin, J., Funk, C., & Choularton, R. (2005). Climate science and famine early warning.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 360, 2155-2168.
Webb, P., & Rogers, B. (2003). Addressing the "In" in Food Insecurity. USAID, FFP.
Washington DC: Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project, Academy for
Educational Development.
48
WHO (2000). Climate Change and Human Health: Impact and Adaptation. Geneva: WHO.
WHO (2003). Climate Change and Human Health: Risks and Responses. Geneva: WHO.
WHO (2005). Using Climate to Predict Infectious Disease Epidemics. Geneva: WHO.
World Bank (s.d.). Living Standards Measurement Study. Retrieved from:
http://go.worldbank.org/WKOXNZV3X0
World Food Summit (1996). Rome Declaration and Plan of Action on World Food Security.
Rome. Retrieved July 2012, from:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w3613e/w3613e00.htm
Wulf, H., & Debiel, T. (2009). Conflict Early Warning and Response Mechanisms: Tools for
enhancing the effectiveness of regional organisations? A comparative study of the AU,
ECOWAS, IGAD, ASEAN/ARF and PIF. London: Development Studies Institute.
49
APPENDICES
Appendix 1- Famine intensity and magnitude scales (taken from Howe &
Devereux (2004))
Intensity scale
Levels Phrase
designation
“Lives”: malnutrition and mortality
indicators
“Livelihoods”: food-
security descriptors
0 Food-
security
conditions
CMR < 0.2/10,000/day
and
Wasting < 2.3%
Social system is cohesive; prices are stable;
negligible adoption of coping strategies.
1 Food-
insecurity
conditions
0.2 ≤ CMR < 0.5/10,000/day
and/or
2.3% ≤ Wasting < 10%
Social system remains cohesive; price instability,
and seasonal shortage of key items; reversible
“adaptive strategies” are employed.
2 Food
crisis
conditions
0.5 ≤ CMR < 1/10,000/day
and/or
10% ≤ Wasting < 20%
and/or
Prevalence of Oedema
Social system significantly stressed but remains
largely cohesive; dramatic rise in price of food
and other basic items; adaptive mechanisms start
to fail; increase in irreversible coping strategies.
3 Famine
conditions
1 ≤ CMR < 5/10,000/day
and/or
20% ≤ Wasting < 40%
and/or
Prevalence of Oedema
Clear signs of social breakdown appear; markets
begin to close or collapse; coping strategies are
exhausted and survival strategies are adopted;
affected population identify food as the dominant
problem in the onset of the crisis.
4 Severe
famine
conditions
5 ≤ CMR < 15/10,000/day
and/or
Wasting ≥ 40%
and/or
Prevalence of Oedema
Widespread social breakdown; markets are closed
or inaccessible to affected population; survival
strategies are widespread; affected population
identify food as the dominant problem in the
onset of the crisis.
5 Extreme
famine
conditions
CMR ≥ 15/10,000/day Complete social breakdown; widespread
mortality; affected population identify food as the
dominant problem in the onset of the crisis.
Magnitude scale
Category Phrase designation Mortality range
A Minor famine 0-999
B Moderate famine 1,000-9,999
C Major famine 10,000-99,999
D Great famine 100,000-999,999
E Catastrophic famine > 1,000,000
The intensity scale (upper part of the table) allows comparing severity of situations between different
areas at the same time, or within the same area at different times. Each level is characterized by a
combination of situational (food security) descriptors and anthropometric/mortality indicators. The
50
latter provide cut-offs and measure how crisis reflects on lives and livelihoods. The assignment of
weights to the criteria is arbitrary and depends on the information constraints in the field.
Over time, crisis intensity and size change. The scale based on mortality figures (lower part of the
table) is a basis for estimating crisis magnitude, both retrospectively and for an on-going crisis.
51
Appendix 2 - IPC Framework core Reference Table (taken from FAO
(2006))
Each of the five levels (categories) is described by a set of outcome indicators related to food security,
health and nutrition, livelihoods etc. Additionally, appropriate strategic response is suggested for each
52
level. This should ease decision making and promote integrated response that encompasses both short-
term interventions for addressing immediate crisis outcomes and long-term solutions for structural
causes of food insecurity. The phase classification (upper part of the table) describes the current
situation for an area. Early warning classification (lower part of the table) is an attempt for integration
of predictions about the probability of the situation worsening.
![[Challenge:Future] Famine](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/55d6e745bb61eb724e8b4714/challengefuture-famine.jpg)
![[PPT]Images of the Irish Famine - Irish Literary Studiesireland.wlu.edu/lecture/famine/Images of the Irish Famine... · Web viewImages of the Irish Famine Washington and Lee University](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/5b30862e7f8b9a91438dbcfc/pptimages-of-the-irish-famine-irish-literary-of-the-irish-famine-web.jpg)