Early Warning and Response Directorate (EWRD) of the Disaster Risk Management and Food Security Sector, of the Ministry of Agriculture,

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, May 2014

Hotspot (Woredas of Concern) Classification Guideline

2

Preface

This hotspot guideline is primarily intended for stakeholders involved in hotspot classifications

at woreda, zonal, regional and federal levels. It is also intended to broaden the understanding of

all humanitarian partners supporting nutrition and food security-related assessments and

responses in terms of the process and indicators used in hotspot classification exercises in the

country.

The need for developing this guideline was prompted by multiple challenges including

subjectivity in the classification process at regional and federal levels. To address these

challenges, the Disaster Risk Management and Food Security Sector (DRMFSS) in consultation

with key stakeholders in the hotspot classification at federal and regional levels decided to

develop this guideline. Its main purpose is to harmonize and provide a standard framework for

analyzing and classifying hotspot woredas in the country. It is hoped that the guideline will

contribute to a significant reduction in the subjectivity that has been noted during the hotspot

classification process in most of the regions across the country.

The development of this guideline involved consultations with most stakeholders at federal and

regional levels participating in the hotspot classifications process. The aim was to harness the

experiences and challenges that regional stakeholders and Regional Early Warning actors in

particular were encountering in the hotspot classification process. This guideline should provide

a clear definition of a hotspot area (woreda), purposes, the process, indicators or criteria used

for hotspot classification and linkages of hotspot classification with other needs assessments.

Furthermore, the guideline also emphasizes the importance of reporting and ranking woredas

hotspot status in terms of severity and the roles the different stakeholders are expected to play at

their respective levels.

It is important for all stakeholders to note that the recommended indicators in the hotspot

classification guideline are multi-sectoral, drawing on indicators from Health, Nutrition,

Agriculture, Food Security, Market information Water and Sanitation, and Education among

others. As the levels of these indicators differ significantly across the country, the diversity and

context of the area (woredas) are critically important in the understanding, interpretation and

classification of the hotspot woredas.

The development and effective use of this guideline marks an important milestone. However,

DRMFSS acknowledges that knowledge and skills continue to evolve in the area of hotspot

classification on yearly basis. In that regard, DRMFSS calls upon all stakeholders to continue

with the technical discussions for the purpose of future improvements when appropriate.

H. E. Mitiku Kassa

State Minister, Disaster Risk Management and Food Security Sector,

Ministry of Agriculture

3

Contents

Preface ……………………………………………………………………………………................ 2

Glossary of Acronyms………………………………………………………………………………..4

Acknowledgments ……………………………………………………………………………………5

1. Background …………………………………………………………………………………...6

2. Definition of a hotspot or woreda of concern ……………………………………………...7

3. Purpose of the Hotspot Classification ……………………………………………………...8

4. Linkage of Hot Spots and Other Assessments ……………………………………………9

5. Proposed Hotspot Classification Indicators ………………………………………………10

5.1 Definition of Indicators ……………………………………………………............10 5.2 Categories of Indicators …………………………………………………………..11 5.3 Hazard information …………………………………………… …………………..11 5.4. Outcome Indicators ……………………………………………………………….11

6. Reporting Hotspot Classification ……………………………………………....................16

7. Intended Uses of Hotspot Woredas Classification……………………………………….19

8. Measuring Outcomes………………………………………………………………………..19

9. Organizational Roles and Responsibilities…................................................................20

9.1 Federal DRMFSS and Federal level Multi-agency Co-ordination Group…......20 9.2 Regional Level (DPPB and/or DPFSB) ………………………………………....21 9.3 Zonal Level ...……………………………………………………….......................21 9.4 Woreda Level …….…………………………………………….…………………..21 9.5 Stakeholders/partners ……………………………………………………………. 22

10. Data Sources …………………………………………………………………………… …..22

10.1 Health & Nutrition ………………………………………………………………....22 10.2 Agriculture…………………………………….……………………………...........23 10.3 Market ……………………………………………………………………………..24

10.4 Water Education and Others………………………….......................................24

11. References ……………………………………………………………………………………24

4

Glossary of Acronyms CMR Crude Mortality Rate DRM Disaster Risk Management DRMFSS Disaster Risk Management and Food Security Sector ENCU Emergency Nutrition Coordination Unit FEWS-NET Famine & Early Warning System-Network FOA-FSAU Food and Agricultural Organization Food Security Assessment Unit GAM Global Acute Malnutrition HEA Household Economic Approach IPC Integrated Phase Classification MoA MoH

Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Health

MSF Médicins Sans Frontières NPDPM National Policy on Disaster Prevention and Management PSNP RHB

Productive Safety Net Program Regional Health Bureau

TFP Therapeutic Feeding Program TOT Terms of Trade U5MR Under-Five Mortality Rate UNICEF WFP

United Nations Children’s Fund World Food Programme

Woreda WFP

Equivalent of District World Food Programme

5

Acknowledgments The development of this hotspot guideline involved the collaborative efforts of a wide range of stakeholders. DRMFSS would like to express its special appreciations to the hotspot classification team that dedicated much of its time, energy and technical expertise to the development of this guideline. These are

Mathewos Tamiru, ENCU Information Analyst at DRMFSS,

Fissiha Hailu, Early Warning Expert at DRMFSS,

Getachew Abate, Assistant National Technical Manager, FEWS-NET Ethiopia,

Awoke Moges, Emergency Specialist-Filed Support, UNICEF Ethiopia,

Alemtsehai Alemu, Programme Officer, VAM/UNWFP and

Mamo Gethaun, Programme Officer, VAM/UNWFP DRMFSS would also like to acknowledge the valuable and extensive contribution and guidance of the following persons:

Mathewos Hunde, Former Director of Early Warning and Response Directorate;

Tadesse Bekele, Former Deputy Director of Early Warning and Response Directorate;

Negussie Kefeni, Coordinator, Early Warning and Response Monitoring Case Team of DRMFSS and

Isaack Manyama, ENCU Team Leader at DRMFSS. Particular appreciation goes to Regional Early Warning Bureaus as well as guideline finalization workshop participants for their significant inputs and for emphasizing the importance of taking the diversity and regional contexts into consideration in the hotspot classification process. Special thanks goes to Alganesh Tsegaye, ENCU at DRMFSS for formatting the guideline and to Kathrin Daepp, OCHA Ethiopia for editing the final version of this guideline. Lastly but not least, DRMFSS would like to thank UNICEF Ethiopia for funding the development and printing of the hotspot guidelines through its regular joint DRMFSS/UNICEF annual work plans.

6

1. Background In the past five years the Government of Ethiopia has made a paradigm shift from crisis management to a disaster risk management system1 under the reorganized DRMFSS within the MoA. A NPDPM has been reviewed. The system established by DRMFSS is aimed at ensuring that risks are assessed and mitigated before the worst outcomes emerge. Strengthening risk and vulnerability assessments, early warning and contingency planning and financing in both rural and urban areas will be core activities of the new system. In addition DRMFSS will decentralize decision-making authority to the lower structures. Whilst moving forward with the new direction, the Government and humanitarian partners have been working towards the development of new tools or revision of existing ones. While all the above efforts were made, the current process and indicators continued to be applied across the country with a number of challenges that prompted DRMFSS to develop this guideline. Some of the common challenges that were observed across the regions included: Not adhering to the hotspot classification schedule and late submission of hotspot versions from the regions; linking hotspot classification with TSF implementation instead of the evolving situation on the woreda; differences in hotspot status across hotspot woredas of the same status within the same region and across the regions; subjectivity in not being consistent in using the hotspot classification criteria across the woredas. In addition from the above challenges, there were several occasions in which survey reports were in contradiction with the hotspot status; using hotspot status alone to justify emergency nutrition response in non-hunger season and misinterpretation of the hotspot status among some of the stakeholders without taking the woreda context into consideration. In order to address the above challenges, this document is meant to outline a common and standard framework of classifying and prioritizing nutrition, livelihoods and food insecurity in the country for better early warning and programme response, thereby supporting effective resource allocation. The standard framework will build upon the multi-agency seasonal (Meher and Belg) needs assessments, the HEA baselines, regular food security and early warning monitoring verification assessments, and disaster area assessment, linking to appropriate decision-making. Having one of the oldest early warning systems dating back to 1977, Ethiopia developed a number of food security monitoring systems that have been tested or developed by different agencies to meet specific agencies’ information needs. The Government established several nutrition and food security data collection and classification systems through the ENCU with financial and technical support from UNICEF. WFP also established a system of programme monitoring and food security classification of areas of concern. Moreover, FEWS NET also set up its own market and food security monitoring system and food security classification. Globally, a number of analytical frameworks have been developed to classify areas of concern. FOA-FSAU for example prepared the IPC from which lessons could be drawn in the classification of hotspot. MSF Holland has also done some classification of food insecurity based on the UNICEF conceptual framework, which as well can be used in Ethiopia. Lastly, the

1 Disaster risk management approach entails: multi-hazard and multi sectoral approach (with lead agency for

management of each hazard); risk/vulnerability profile-based system; pro-active ex-ante preparedness and disaster

risk reduction; and a full disaster risk management cycle (prevention, mitigation, preparedness, emergency

response, recovery, and rehabilitation)

7

CUNY Pre-famine indicators have generally formed the basis for the classification of hotspot. Recently the Government has revised its early warning guidelines in line with the new DRM approach. However, there has been no standard procedure of classifying hotspot (areas of concern) that could be used by all decision makers. All systems attempt to classify areas as: very severe, severe, moderate or food secure with a range of terminologies being used. There are however some commonalities in the indicators used by the different systems allowing for complementarity in the development of these guidelines.

The purpose of this guideline is to outline indicators that describe the analytical approaches, classify woredas using the indicators and identify hotspot (areas of concern) for monitoring, assessment, limited resource allocation and intervention. The guideline will then recommend the system that will be applied in hotspot analysis and classification in Ethiopia.

2. Definition of a Hotspot or Woreda of Concern The definition of hotspot should be grounded in the understanding of the broader definition of food security. The concept of food security2 has evolved extensively over time. There are approximately 200 definitions and 450 indicators of food security (depending on the level of aggregation). One volume on household food security by Maxwell and Frankenberger (1992) lists 25 broadly defined indicators. Riely et al (1995) list 73 indicators, somewhat more disaggregated than those found in Maxwell and Frankenberger. Chung et al. (1997) noted that even a simple indicator such as a dependency ratio can come with many different permutations (John Hoddinott, 1999). The methodological problem for practitioners is which indicators are appropriate for the context being dealt with. Consequently a number of methods and tools have also been developed to analyze food security. However, whatever the methods and indicators selected, they should be grounded in the country or region context, resource and capacity constraints, while at the same time providing adequate information for decision-making. The indicators should provide the required information for programme response, but also begrounded in a robust analysis that links the analysis to programming as well as to a monitoring system where necessary. Defining an area of concern requires setting up certain parameters and context and requires a working definition of areas of concern in food security. The definition of an area of concern should encompass measurements of food and non-food security components. The concept of vulnerability3 also needs to be considered, including vulnerability looking at a future state by examining the likelihood of households being unable to cope with shocks/hazards. A frequent occurrence of hazardous events in certain areas where the livelihood of the population depend on agriculture can affect the overall way of life of the population exposed to these hazards and force them to deplete their assets, thus degrading their capacity to cope with the impact of those hazards. Therefore, the severity level of the impact of the hazard to the livelihood of the population depends on their level of vulnerability (exposure, sensitivity and resilience or capacity). The risk to be food insecure will be higher or more severe if the vulnerability is also high. A small shock in areas where vulnerability is high (mean high exposure, high sensitivity

2 ‘Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and

nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life’ (FAO, 1996). 3 Vulnerability to food insecurity is defined as the probability of an acute decline in food access, or consumption,

often in reference to some critical value that defines minimum levels of human well being (WFP, VAM Guidelines

2002).

8

with low resilience or capacity) can result in severe negative food security outcomes such as high food consumption gaps, depletion of livelihood assets or strategies, increase of malnutrition and mortality. Taking into account vulnerability while analyzing acute food security is therefore very important to better understand the nature of chronic situations as both of them are not mutually exclusive. Based on these concepts the following will be a working definition of an area of concern or hot spot:

“Area of Concern or Hotspot is defined as: an area or population affected by any

undesirable events or situations that have an immediate or in the near future direct bearing

on food, livelihood and nutrition insecurity and require immediate attention or intervention

that could be assessments, close monitoring or appropriate food or non-food response

(related to water, human health, education, seed, livestock health and feed)” While the above definition is intended to provide the general concept, there is a need to set up criteria for defining the severity of conditions and standardize identification of hotspot across the regions. In general three levels (first priority, second priority and third priority) are considered in the classification. In this guideline, in identifying an area as a hotspot, the severity level might be different; hence the selection of appropriate indicators and criteria for defining the severity level of current food insecurity for an area is important. The severity level of food insecurity is categorized into three classes. These are shown below with their corresponding color coding. Table1: Hotspot classes and their description Code of Severity

Area of Concern/ Hotspot level Classification

Class Description

General IPC Equivalent

Priority1

Very severe Hazards of high damaging level have occurred and affected the lives and livelihoods of the population with very severe lack of adequate food security and may include excess mortality, very high and increasing malnutrition, and irreversible livelihood asset depletion.

Humanitarian Emergency

Priority2

Severe Hazards of high damaging level have occurred and affected the lives and livelihoods of the population with high stress and lack of adequate food security which resulted in high level of malnutrition and accelerated depletion of livelihood assets.

Acute Food and Livelihood Crisis

Priority3

Moderate Hazards have occurred and affected the lives and livelihoods of the population moderately so that most households are at risk to adequate food security in a stable manner.

Moderate Food Insecure or Chronically Food Insecure

To avoid differing interpretations of the levels and therefore subjective classification, standards or thresholds are required to ensure uniform understanding and response. The recommended classes to be used are very severe, severe, and moderate.

3. Purpose of the Hotspot Woredas Classification The hotspot classification is intended to outline a systematic yet simple method for classifying food insecurity to highlight areas that require close monitoring and also to support emergency resource allocation and prioritization of woredas in case of resource shortages. Given the new Government direction where seasonal assessment results do not necessarily result in entitlements, resource allocation should be primarily guided by sound analysis. The specific purpose of the hotspot classification is to:

9

Provide analysis that feeds into-decision making for an effective and timely resource allocation;

Provide guidance to prioritize areas according to severity of health/nutrition, food, water and education insecurity, hence allowing identifying areas that need emergency nutrition related interventions and close monitoring;

Given resource limitations, provide advice for allocating scarce resources;

Inform decision-makers to implement appropriate interventions that include non food sectoral needs;

Identify areas requiring nutrition surveys and/or disaster area assessments, and;

Establish mechanisms to build consistency and consensus on food security classification.

4. Linkage of Hotspot and Other Assessments

A sound conceptual framework that grounds the hotspot analysis framework in the context of Ethiopia is required. As shown in figure 1 in the diagram, hotspot classification has to be linked to different food and nutritional assessments conducted within different agencies. Regular monitoring reports, multi-agency seasonal assessment findings and progress reports on short and medium term project interventions are important sources of information for hotspot classification exercises. The main objective of hotspot classification analysis is to inform decision-makers and planners to undertake proper contingency planning and resulting in operational planning for appropriate emergency response. Hotspot guidelines should be developed within the overall framework of the different types of assessments undertaken in the country. How they feed into the assessment processes and decision making is illustrated in the diagramming showing the linkage between seasonal assessments, early warning, monitoring and response. Food security monitoring is done on monthly basis within the government system. Seasonal multi-agency need assessments are initiated twice a year in both cropping and pastoralist areas. Usually, a multi-agency team is deployed to conduct the seasonal assessments using the HEA and traditional approaches as well specific sectoral methods. Early warning and monitoring information are used to inform the hotspot analysis so as to trigger either verification assessments or appropriate emergency nutrition-related responses. A lot of efforts have been made in Ethiopia to improve the hotspot classification system. Contextual, institutional and other constraints to undertaking robust analysis and to linking analysis to response need to be taken into account when selecting methods and tools. The hotspot classification should capture the spectrum of food insecurity in the country that range from the chronically food insecure currently targeted through the PSNP and the acute food

10

insecure due to a range of hazards/shocks affecting the population including floods, droughts, hailstorms, pests and diseases (both livestock and human). The spectrum of movement between acute food security and chronic food insecurity is wide and responses required will also differ across this spectrum.

5. Proposed Hotspot Classification Indicators

Two categories (hazard and outcome) of indicators have been identified to be used in the hotspot classification process. These indicators are briefly described and summarized below and include: health and nutrition, agriculture, market, education, water and others.

5.1. Definition of Indicators Indicators are usually defined as variables used to monitor the progress or change in status towards a specified outcome. The indicators should therefore be able to: a) Provide a solid framework for cross sub national comparisons; b) Conform to nationally/internationally acceptable standards or thresholds; and c) Meet the priorities of decision-makers. For practical implementation of the area of concern (hotspot), the proposed indicators:

Should generally be readily collectable or available across the regions;

Generally allow for minimal use of resources (human and financial) and time constraints due to scarce government/donor financial resources;

Recognize the current capacity constraints around data-collection and analysis of special areas such as pastoral areas;

Provide a legitimate scientific sub-regional comparison. In this regard, quantitative indicators were chosen as being more relevant as good comparative regional indicators. This approach does not undermine or overshadow the use of qualitative indicators at sub-national levels that may help inform or reinforce the core common indicators;

Provide a sense of the nature of vulnerability by disaggregating the population according to chronic and transitory food insecurity;

Capture the natural and human-induced hazards associated with the country’s diverse geo-climatic and socio-economic conditions. Disasters arising from some of the hazards have caused widespread damage and loss, while others remain potential threats. Natural hazards in Ethiopia include, among others, drought, flood, landslides, hailstorms, human and livestock diseases, crop pests, and seismic and volcanic activities;

Understand that the vulnerability of the country is aggravated by poor agricultural and livestock practices, a fragile and degraded natural environment, extensive poverty, limited communication infrastructure, uneven settlement patterns, inefficient markets, variable and changing climatic conditions, high population growth, lack of good governance, competition over scarce resources and border issues. The frequency, severity, and impact of some hazards are likely to increase in the future, especially due to climate change and other exogenous factors.

The suggested set core indicators, used in the hotspot should be able to differentiate the uniqueness of the pastoral areas versus the cropping areas, but at the same time be able to have the severity of these areas compared across. The indicators selected should also take into consideration the HEA baseline indicators recommended for monitoring in addition should include outcome indicators not considered in the HEA. Moreover the framework for collecting data should be agreed and shared across agencies for monitoring purposes and be linked to the national systems of the Monthly Food Security Monitoring and Early Warning system.

11

In each of the selected indicators there is a need to establish and agree on description of thresholds for triggering response such as resource allocations and assessments.

5.2. Categories of Indicators In order to define an area as a hotspot, certain parameters have to be identified to be used for follow-up on the situation and measure the level of affectedness of the community/population due to occurrence of hazards4. The indicators have to be selected based on the hazard – vulnerability relationship. The indicators can be categorized into two major groups:

i. Hazard information, ii.Outcome indicators

5.3. Hazard information In the Ethiopian context, the most common hazards are drought and other weather adversities, flooding, land slide, crop pest and diseases, human and livestock diseases outbreaks, price instability, market disruptions, and civil unrest. The details of hazard information included in the hotspot identification analytical spread sheet are shown below. These can be taken as part of the “Early Warning Indicators”, which are events that occur well before food insecurity conditions manifest themselves. The event normally occurs or impacts the three pillars of food security (availability, access and utilization) some weeks or months before food insecurity sets in. The event could have a sudden or slow impact as disasters set in a community; some are slow onset whilst others are fast onset. The early warning indicators could be generic such as rainfall as it affects cropping and pastoral areas.

5.4. Outcome Indicators The impacts of hazards can be expressed in terms of the positive or negative changes in the livelihood of the population due to the occurrence of the hazards in the areas. The negative impacts of hazards encompasses early and/or late outcomes including poor seasonal agricultural activities, disruption of markets and prices, poor health and nutrition status, disrupted educational systems, increased shortages of water for both human and livestock consumption, and intensification of coping mechanism that threatens the future livelihood of the households in the area. If the level of hazard impact is getting worse the coping strategies of households are potentially deteriorating. The most common types of early or late outcome indicators of food insecurity are increased sales of firewood and charcoal, unusual livestock death, disrupted Terms of Trade (ToT), increased school absenteeism, consumption of health threatening foods, seed consumption, increased begging, increased request for external assistance, switching in livelihood protection expenditure for food purchase and the likes. These indicators show how the hazard-affected population is struggling to survive. Once the coping mechanism have been exhausted, the households are moving into humanitarian food and livelihood crises with high and above usual malnutrition and accelerated depletion of livelihood assets that, if continued, will slide the population into humanitarian emergency/famine. The common types of late outcome food insecurity indicators would be high

4 Hazard is an event such as drought, war, flood, policy change etc. that leads the population of a certain areas to shock like fall in crop production, rise in food prices, loss of livestock, etc. that ultimately affecting the lives and livelihood of the households(source: HEA manual).

12

GAM and SAM, unusual migration and displacement, and increases in morbidity and mortality. These indicators can show the severity of the current food insecurity situation in the area. Therefore, the analysis of hazard impacts has to be seen from the context of its ultimate effect on lives and livelihoods of the vulnerable population in time. Depending on the impact of the hazard, classification could range from moderate food security concern to very poor or worrying condition that shows the area is a priority to either to follow up or to respond immediately to protect lives and livelihood. As shown in the following tables (Table2 – Table4), the main criteria (outcome indicators of food security) for classifying hotspot woredas are selected in order to measure the level of severity of the problem and classify areas in three major priority categories as 1st priority, 2nd priority and 3rd priority; with the highest concern for the 1st priority woreda and least for the 3rd. In each sector, at least three indicators should fulfill the criteria to be categorized as 1st priority, 2nd priority or 3rd priority. For example, for health and nutrition (Table 2), in the 1st priority category there are six indicators. To be hotspot priority one, at least three indicators should fulfill the criteria in that category. For the overall rating, at least three indicators should be fulfilled for every sector.

13

Table 2: Criteria for 1st Priority Woredas Sectors Consolidated Criteria

Healt

h &

Nu

trit

ion

Disease outbreak (e.g. diarrheal disease /AWD, malaria, measles >1 case, etc.)

U5MR >2/10,000 /day; or CMR 1-2/10,000/day

GAM > = 15% OR GAM >= 10% with aggravating factors

U5 children in TFP cases: >=40 for Health Post OR >=50 for Health Centre

Using CHD quarterly, U5 %Prevalence of MUAC <11 or bilateral oedema > 3%

Percentage change of TFP admission within the past quarter >= 50%

The number of people requesting for external relief food assistance >= 40% of the Woreda population

Ag

ricu

ltu

re

Very high livestock deaths (>=15% death of total population) and/or herd size reduction by about >=30% from last 5 years average holding

Significant seed reserve consumption as food

Very poor crop condition or estimates of very high production losses ( >= 30% of the last five years average)

Very severe water and/or pasture shortage affecting >40 % of livestock population in Woreda

Very high decline in livestock productivity (e.g. >= 50% reduction in milk yield compared to normal of the area and period)

Emaciated livestock body condition (skinny body with almost all ribcage visible)

Ma

rket

Significant sale of productive livestock (oxen, milking cows, female camels) and/or excessive sale of non-productive livestock

Very high price increase of staple foods over the previous month (>=15% above the average change of last 5 year for this specific month) or Very high decline in price of livestock (>=15% below the average change of last 5 year for this specific month)

Very low market supply of staple food or very high market supply of livestock

Very high decline in TOT- (price ratio; livestock vs. grain; labour vs. grain, cash crop vs. grain) (>= 25% of last 5 years average of the month)

Very high increase in the number of daily labourers looking for work or very high decline in wage rate

Wate

r fo

r h

um

an

>= 50% of the surface water sources (ponds, streams and rivers) dry up earlier than usual (2-3 months)

Very high non-functionality rate of existing water schemes - potable water sources ( >=50% of non-functionality from existing schemes)

Long distance travel (>=20km round trip) to fetch water, or 4hrs or more walk for round trip

Extremely long queue period (>4hr)

Very poor quality of water (highly turbid water, contaminated source verified though test)

Populations consider relocation/migration

Ed

ucati

on

Very high damage on school infrastructures and educational materials for a significant number of schools

>=50% of schools with no water in school premises or its surrounding

>=50% families cannot afford to buy school materials

Very high absenteeism (>=50% of the student for 1 months

Complete and more than 10 days school closure for a significant number of schools

Oth

ers

Unusual migration of significant number of households

Significant increase in begging, stealing, or other demeaning occupations

Major disruption of livelihoods and normal functions of the community’s social services, values

Intensified fire wood collection & charcoal making

14

Table3: Criteria for 2nd Priority Woredas Sectors Consolidated Criteria

He

alt

h a

nd

Nu

trit

ion

Case build up of diseases (e.g. diarrheal disease, AWD, malaria, etc.)

U5MR 1-2/10,000 /day or CMR 0.5-1/10,000/day

Global acute malnutrition prevalence 10-14%OR GAM = 5 – 9% with aggravating factors

U5 children in Therapeutic Feeding Program (TFP) cases: 20 -39 for Health Post OR 30 - 49 for Health Centre

Using CHD quarterly, U5 %Prevalence of MUAC <11 or bilateral oedema 1.7 - 3%

Percentage change of TFP admission within the past quarter 25 - 50%

The number of people requesting for external relief food assistance 15 - 40% of the Woreda population.

Ag

ric

ult

ure

High livestock deaths (10 - 15 % death of total population and/or herd size reduction by about 20-30% from last 5 years average holding

Poor crop condition or estimates of high production losses ( 20 - 30% of the last five years average)

Severe water and/or pasture shortage affecting 20 - 40 % of livestock population in Woreda

High decline in livestock productivity (e.g. 30 - 50% reduction in milk yield compared to normal of the area and period)

Thin livestock body condition (thin body with more than three ribs visible)

Ma

rke

t

High sale non-productive livestock

High price increase of staple foods over the previous month (10-15% above the average change of last 5 year for this specific month) or high decline in price of livestock (10-15% below the average change of last 5 year for this specific month)

Low market supply of staple food or high market supply of livestock

High decline in TOT- (price ratio; livestock vs. grain; labour vs. grain, cash crop vs. grain) (15- 25% of last 5 years average of the month)

High increase in the number of daily labourers looking for work or high decline in wage rate

Wa

ter

for

hu

ma

n 25 - 50% of the surface water sources (ponds, streams and rivers) dry up earlier than usual- 1month

High non-functionality rate of existing water schemes - potable water sources ( 25 -50% of non-functionality from existing schemes)

Long distance travel (10 - 20km round trip) to fetch water, or 2-4 hr of walk round trip

Long queue period (2-4hr)

Poor quality of water (unprotected source, )

Ed

uc

ati

on

High damage on school infrastructures and educational materials for a some schools

25-50% of schools with no water in school premises or its surrounding

Only 25-50 % Families can afford to buy only few school materials

High absenteeism (25 - 50% of the student for 2 months the year)

Complete but one week school closure for a significant number of schools

Oth

ers

Unusual migration of some members of households

Slight increase in begging, stealing, or other demeaning occupations

Moderate disruption of livelihood (e.g. switching in livelihood protection expenditures to food purchase)

Intensified fire wood collection & charcoal making

15

Table 4: Criteria for 3rd Priority Indicators Sectors Consolidated Criteria

He

alt

h a

nd

Nu

trit

ion

Sign of case build up /slight increase in morbidity (e.g. diarrheal disease, AWD, malaria, etc.)

U5MR < 1/10,000 /day or CMR <0.5/10,000 general population/day

Global acute malnutrition prevalence 5-9%

U5 children in Therapeutic Feeding Program (TFP) cases: 10 - 20 for Health Post OR 20 -30 for Health Centre

Using CHD quarterly, U5 %Prevalence of MUAC <11 or bilateral oedema <=1.7%

Percentage change of TFP admission within the past quarter 10 - 25%

The number of people requesting for external relief food assistance <= 15% of the Woreda population

Ag

ric

ult

ure

Moderate livestock deaths (<5 - 10 % death of total population) and/or herd size reduction by about 100-20% from last 5 years average holding

Below average crop condition or estimates of production losses (10 -20% of the last five years average)

Moderate water and/or pasture shortage affecting 10 - 20 % of livestock population in Woreda

Moderate declined in livestock productivity (eg.10-30% reduction in milk yield compared to normal of the area and period)

Moderate livestock body condition (smooth body with at least two ribs visible)

Ma

rke

t

Moderate sale of non-productive livestock

Moderate price increase of staple foods over the previous month (5-10% above the average change of last 5 year for this specific month) or moderate decline in price of livestock (5-10% below the average change of last 5 year for this specific month)

Moderate decline in market supply of staple food or moderate increase in market supply of livestock

Moderate decline in TOT- (price ratio; livestock vs grain; labour vs grain, cash crop vs grain) (5 - 15% of last 5 years average of the month)

Moderate increase in the number of daily labourers looking for work or moderate decline in wage rate or moderate decline labour opportunity

Wa

ter

for

hu

ma

n

10 -25% of the surface water sources (ponds, streams and rivers) dry up earlier than usual – 2 weeks

High non-functionality rate of existing water schemes - potable water sources ( 10 - 25% of non-functionality from existing schemes)

Long distance travel (5 - 10km round trip) to fetch water, or 1-2hr walk for round trip

Long queue period (1-2hr)

Moderate quality of water (non treated water, unprotected)

Ed

uc

ati

on

High damage on school infrastructures and educational materials for a some schools

10-25% of schools with no water in school premises or its surrounding

Families can afford to buy most of school materials

High absenteeism (10 -25% of the student for 1 month of the year)

16

6. Reporting Hotspot Classification Results The hotspot classification report is expected to be produced on a quarterly basis (January, April, July and October). However, if situations are changing faster the worst affected woredas which were not considered in the quarterly hotspot classification may be reported to the DRMFSS with a tangible justification. The following table is proposed for use by regions/zones/woredas to report the hotspot classification report on a quarterly basis. The format consists of the location (zone and woreda), sectors of concern, major food security outcomes, main causes of the concern and the final agreed hotspot status of every woreda. Using Table 5, the hotspot classification team at regional level completes woreda level information such as:

Sector of concern (health and nutrition, agriculture, water, education, etc..,);

Major outcomes/concerns referring to the indicators shown in Table 2 – Table 4 that are major impacts of hazards on life and livelihood of the households in the woreda;

Main causes of outcomes/concerns (mainly associated with the rainfall variability, flooding, lands slide, frost, crop pest, etc...);

Ongoing intervention (s) (TSF, TFP, Relief food, PSNP, etc...);

Beneficiary population as a percentage of woreda rural population or beneficiary U5 children as a percentage of rural U5 children and the intervention gap.

Table 6 incorporates final hotspot classification results by sector and shows the overall rating of woreda hotspot status. Once a hotspot classification exercise has been completed at regional level, regional EWRD shares Table 5 and Table 6 by attaching an official letter to the Federal DRMFSS/EWRD for review and verification at federal level. Note: Although information from different sectors is used in the hotspot woredas’ classification process, the intention is to triangulate and identify woredas that should be prioritised for food and nutrition-related humanitarian interventions.

17

Table 5: Hotspot Information Reporting Format Region: ________________ Month: _________ Year: __________

5 Sectors include health and nutrition, agriculture, market, education, water and others 6 Major outcomes refer the major impacts of hazards on life and livelihood of the households in the woreda. These

are mainly the selected indicators shown in Tables2,3 and 4 used to defined priorities 1 to 3 7 Main causes are the main drivers of the problems. They are mainly associated with rainfall variability, flooding,

landslide, frost, crop pest and diseases, price instability, market disruption, civil insecurity, human and livestock diseases, etc.

No

Zone

Woreda

Sector(s) 5 of Concern

Major Outcomes6/

Concerns

Main Causes7 of

outcomes/concerns

Ongoing intervention type

%of

beneficiary population

Intervention Gap

18

Table 6: Sectoral and Overall Hotspot Classification Summary Format Region: ________________ Month: _________ Year: __________

No Region Zone Woreda

Sector Rating (1= Very severe, 2 = Severe, 3 = Moderate) Overall Rating 1= Very severe 2 = Severe 3 = Moderate

Health & Nutrition

Agriculture Market Water Education Others

19

7. Intended uses of hotspot woredas classification Although the hotspot classification process involves a number of indicators from different sectors, it is intended primarily for food security and nutrition sectors. The following uses are foreseen:

Prioritizing emergency nutrition responses (TSF in priority one ( WFP); for priority two (OCHA-HRF); relief food in priority one in case of resource shortages; initiation of TFP responses in situations of increased cases of malnutrition and limited capacities;

Mobilizing partners to strengthen responses especially in priority one and two woredas;

Allocation of funding by donors (HRF, OFDA, bilateral donors with NGOs), especially for priority one and two woredas;

Nutrition situation monitoring by comparing number of hotspot woredas at regional, national level during the same period or from one classification round to another and also changing hotspot status (improving, worsening, stable);

Tracking of emergency nutrition response coverage and gaps in responses;

Prioritizing emergency nutrition assessments especially in hotspot woreda one and partially in two woredas;

Tracking of Who What Where (3Ws);

Mapping of vulnerability as is the case in the humanitarian needs of overview. Some of the woredas for example were classified as hotspot one 13 times out of 14 rounds of classification in five years pointing to high vulnerability;

Selection of woredas for biannual survey

8. Measuring Outcomes No specific model is available directly measure food and non-food security outcome indicators. Food security indicators are a mix of qualitative and quantitative types that make the analysis more difficult. Qualitative indicators are usually measured based on subjective judgment while quantitative indicators can be measured more objectively. As discussed above, the scale of measurement of indicators used in this hotspot guideline is categorized in to three levels. The levels are represented by priorities run from Priority 1 to 3. Priority 3 means that the situation is relatively close to normal conditions whereas priority 1 stands for worse/bad situations in terms of food security. Each priority level has to be discussed and determined by local experts who know the area very well after they have completed their analysis at the grass-root level. Changes in priority status can be detected using new information obtained from regular/monthly early warning monitoring system and information from partners’ operational areas, which would be triangulated to establish a new hotspot woreda classification. Monitoring information indicating how situations evolve over time can be used support decision-making processes in planning, prioritizing and allocation of scarce resources and coordination of emergency assessments and interventions for the affected woredas.

The classification of an area therefore depends on the level and number of outcome indicators observed in one community and how they impact the livelihoods of the community or area. For example a severe flooding that has occurred in an area which is neither used for grazing or habited by any humans has little impact on livelihoods and would not be used for the classification. The same event in a densely populated residential area or crop field will have an immediate impact on livelihoods hence the extent and severity of the impact will determine the

20

classification of the area as Very severe, Severe or Moderate. In principle occurrence of outcome indicators at highly above normal to critical level can result in an area being classified as very severe. On the other hand, if the outcome indicators are low to moderate then close monitoring will be recommended, and the area can be classified as Moderate. The following steps provide guidance: Step 1: Identify and organize the variables or outcome indicators and list them by sectors and by woredas. Step2: From the indicators/ variables, based on (i) secondary information, (ii) baselines (e.g. Livelihoods baseline) and (iii) expert knowledge of the woreda or area under consideration, estimate the impact of hazards on livelihoods and indicate whether the change is normal or not. Step3: If the hazard has impacted the area and resulted in below normal or above normal conditions, determine the extent of abnormality through better understanding of what normal or average condition is for that indicator as it relates to livelihoods in the particular area under consideration. Step 4: Classify the area (woredas) based on the indicator severity level based on Table1 to 3 shown under section 5 above and based on the experts knowledge of the actual or likely impact of the hazard (s). That means the areas will be classified as moderate, severe or very severe representing Priority 3, Priority 2, and Priority 1 Woredas, respectively.

9. Organizational Roles and Responsibilities

9.1 Federal DRMFSS and Federal level Multi-agency Co-ordination Group

Establish federal level Multi-agency Co-ordination Group including federal partners;

Coordinate and lead the Multi-agency Co-ordination Group’s activities;

Develop guidelines, tools, procedures and other necessary technical manuals for hotspot classification and circulate to relevant stakeholders and partners at national and regional levels;

Collect feedback on a continuous basis on the use and effectiveness of the guideline, tools, procedures and other necessary technical manuals and make the necessary amendments;

Ascertain the credibility of the information obtained using the tool;

Provide technical support as needed to the regional multi-agency Co-ordination Groups;

Monitor the quality of the regular monitoring information collected by regions and provide feedback on the problems identified to regions on quarterly bases;

Share information available at federal and global levels on current situation and future development to regional counterparts;

Regularly analyze the regular monitoring information and identify hotspot areas, prepare National Monthly Early Warning Bulletins and disseminate the report to all relevant bodies at Federal and regional levels;

If deterioration in food security situation is detected during the analysis, provide timely and adequate warnings to decision-makers at regional and federal levels to take appropriate measures and conduct verification assessments in the hotspot areas as per the implementation strategy;

21

9.2 Regional Level (DPPB and/or DPFSB)

Establish regional Multi-agency Co-ordination Group including regional partners;

Coordinate and lead the Multi-agency Group’s activities;

Provide technical, financial and logistical support to the zonal and woreda Early Warning Units;

Coordinate the collection of regular monitoring information at the woreda level on a monthly basis, control the quality of information and provide feedback and training to improve the quality of information;

Send a copy of the regular monitoring information to the federal Government (DRMFSS);

Regularly analyze the regular monitoring information and identify hotspot areas, prepare Regional Monthly Early Warning Bulletins and disseminate the report to all relevant bodies at federal, regional and zonal levels;

When the situation rapidly changes communicate the information immediately to the relevant bodies at regional and federal Government (DPP/DPPFSB and DRMFSS);

If deterioration in food security situation is detected during the analysis cross check the information with other sources of information and immediately consult zones and woredas for verification of the situation.

9.3 Zonal Level

Establish Zonal Multi-agency Co-ordination Group including zonal partners.

Coordinate and lead the Multi-agency Group’s activities.

Coordinate and closely follow up regular monitoring data collection by the woreda Early Warning Units on a monthly basis and submit the copy of the regular monitoring information to the Regional and Federal early warning units simultaneously

Control the quality of information and provide feedback and training to woredas Early Warning staff to improve the quality of information

Regularly analyze the regular monitoring information, identify hotspot areas, prepare Zonal Monthly Early Warning Bulletins and disseminate the report to all relevant bodies at regional, zonal and woreda levels.

When situation rapidly changes communicate the information immediately to the responsible authorities at regional, zonal and woreda levels.

Provide feedbacks about the effectiveness of hotspot classification tool to the region.

9.4 Woreda Level

Establish Woreda Multi-agency Co-ordination Group including woreda partners;

Coordinate and lead the Multi-agency Group’s activities;

Collect monitoring data on a monthly basis and submit the copy of the regular monitoring information to the zonal early warning unit;

Control the quality of information collected by the data collectors and regularly provide feed back to staff to improve the quality of information;

Regularly analyze the regular monitoring information, identify critical problems, prepare woreda monthly early warning bulletin and disseminate the report to all relevant bodies at zonal and woreda levels;

When the situation rapidly changes communicate the information immediately to the responsible authorities at zonal and woreda levels;

If deterioration in food security situation is detected provide appropriate advice to the woreda authorities and launch rapid assessment in the areas concerned;

Provide feedbacks about the effectiveness of the verification and disaster area assessment tools to the zone.

22

9.5 Stakeholders/partners

Actively participate in the Multi-agency Co-ordination Groups at various levels (woredas, zones, regions and federal);

Participate in guideline, procedure and technical manual development;

Report and share information available in their respective operation areas and institutions to the Multi-agency Co-ordination Group;

Participate in the whole process of verification assessment and hotspot classification at all levels (woredas, zones, regions and federal) i.e. from panning of the field work up to report production;

Provide all rounded capacity building support at all levels (i.e. training, logistics, manpower and financial support) to implement the verification and disaster area assessment tools;

Disseminate and advocate for rapid response based on the results of the verification and disaster area assessment.

10. Data Sources: Multiple data resources were used in the hotspot development process as summarized below.

10.1 Health and Nutrition:

10.1.1 Disease outbreak (e.g. diarrheal disease /AWD, malaria, measles >1 case, etc.)

Data Source: MoH/RHB (PHEM, IDSR/HMIS)

10.1.2 U5MR >2/10,000 /day; or CMR 1-2/10,000/day and this is for first priority; look for second and third priorities in the indicators tables 3 and 4

Data Source: Ad hoc and bi-annual nutrition assessments.

Results: Guideline on Emergency Nutrition Assessment, 2002. Death in children under five/10,000 children under five/day, page 118

10.1.3 GAM > = 15% OR GAM >= 10% with aggravating factors and this is for first priority; look for second and third priorities in the indicators tables 3 and 4

Data Source: Guideline on Emergency Nutrition Assessment, 2002. Page 128

10.1.4 U5 children in TFP cases: >=40 for Health Post OR >=50 for Health Centre and this is for first priority; look for second and third priorities in the indicators tables 3 and 4

Public health Framework for Analysis and Interpretation of key nutrition, health, early warning and food security data based on monthly TFP data at health post and health centre levels

10.1.5 Using CHD quarterly, U5 %Prevalence of MUAC <11 or bilateral oedema > 3% and this is for first priority; look for second and third priorities in the indicators tables 3 and 4

Quarterly CHD data at woreda level

23

10.1.6 Percentage change of TFP admission within the past quarter >= 50%

The percentage change of TFP data within the past quarter at regional and federal levels

F (y1, y2) = ((y2 – y1)/y1)*100

10.1.7 The number of people requesting for external relief food assistance >= 40% of the Woreda population

December/July DRMFSS Multi-Agency assessment results each year. F(x, y) = Food Aid Needy Population (x)/Total rural Population (y) *100

10.2 Agriculture: Source of Livestock Death/Heard Size Reduction Data: - from MoA at

woreda/zonal/regional/federal level. It can also be available with community leaders

particularly during disasters. Though it is difficult to get this information in systematically

arranged and documented way at the Woreda or community level, livestock death is

usually reported from the community including their holding. The proportion of death

from the reported number of death and their total holding would give us best

estimate. The herd size reduction has to be calculated based on comparison between

the current size and the average herd of last 5 years. The estimate must be an official

estimate made by the woreda bureau of agriculture.

10.2.1 Source of Seed Consumption Data: Woreda Bureau of Agriculture- weekly and

monthly disaster monitoring information. Seed is reserved for next seasonal

agriculture. If a household does not have a seed reserve or unable to purchase

seed during planting will affect the near future production and productivity that

further affect household’s food access. Therefore, a report of a significant number

of households start consuming their seed stock as food is an indication of severe

food shortage that led to food and nutrition insecurity. Please note that this indicator

is used to classify only priority1 but not for the 2nd and 3rd priority.

10.2.2 Source of Crop Production Data:- Ministry of agriculture at

Woreda/Zonal/Regional levels to do with crop production of yield reduction we need

to have the last 5 year area planted and production by crop type by woreda. If the

period of analysis (PoA) is within the first few months after harvest and before the

start of the second season, it is advisable to do the comparison in percent between

the current season production and that of last 5year average; AND, if PoA is after

seasonal agricultural activity started but before the harvest, take the proportion of

area coverage from average and yield estimation based on seasonal performance

report and project the estimated % of production compared to average. Please note

production is a function of area planted and yield estimate (Production= f (Area,

Yield)

10.2.3 Source of Pasture/Water Data: - Ministry of agriculture at Woreda/Zonal/Regional

levels. The impact of both the past and the current seasonal weather

performance (rainfall, temperature/cloud coverage) on pasture and water

sources must be well addressed during analysis and then the estimated

proportion of livestock affected by the current pasture and water shortage have to

be done to see the spatial extent of the problem. If unusual migration of livestock in

search of water and pasture is reported it is a clear indication of the shortages.

24

10.2.4 Source of Livestock Productivity Data: - Ministry of agriculture at

Woreda/Zonal/Regional levels, NGOS working in the area, multi-agency

assessment mission, HEA baseline. Our main focus of livestock production is

mainly about cattle/camel/shoat milk production wherever available and

applicable. For estimating the current milk production available compared to normal,

we need to have the average milk production/day/cow by woreda. Such data is

available at HEA baseline database by season. Estimate of the current milk

production/day/cow also obtained from the woreda livestock experts or community

discussion. The percent (%) change in current milk yield is computed by

comparing the current with the average milk production/day/cow.

10.2.5 Source of Livestock Body Condition Data: physical observation made by

livestock experts of disaster management or food security experts of the Woreda.

Livestock body condition is measured subjectively through physical observation of

the heads in the field. The pictures of the livestock shown in the table below are

intended to show different class representing current status of the livestock body

condition. It is taken from http://www.lmiset.net

10.3 Market Data:

DRMFSS/DPPB woreda level market data

10.4 Water, Education & Others:

Woreda department of water data

Woreda Education office data

Woreda Food security and DPP office data for others indicators

11 References:

John Hoddinott, 1999. Choosing Outcome Indicators of Household Food Security

Maxwell,S., and T.Frankenberger. 1992. Household food security: Concepts, indicators, measurements. IFAD and UNICEF, Rome.

Riely. F, Mock. B. Cogill. N, Bailey. L, Kenefick.E, 1995. Food security indicators and

framework for use in the monitoring and evaluation of food aid programs.