HEA analysis and the IPC / Cadre Harmonisé protocol

1The Household Economy Approach (HEA)

HEA describes how households obtain their food and income during a reference year, then projects the effect of a shock. Its steps:

• Livelihood zoning: areas where people make a living in the same way (agropastoral, pastoral, fishing, urban…).
• Wealth breakdown: very poor, poor, middle, better-off, according to land, livestock, labour.
• Quantification of food sources (production, purchases, gifts) and income, and of expenditure.
• Problem specification (lower harvest, price rise) and analysis of coping capacity.

2The two HEA thresholds

The projected outcome is compared with two thresholds:

• The survival threshold: 100% of energy needs, plus the minimum costs of preparing and eating food (water, fuel, salt, soap).
• The livelihoods protection threshold: survival, plus what is needed to maintain livelihoods (seeds, veterinary care, inputs) and basic services (school, health).

A survival deficit calls for immediate humanitarian assistance; a livelihoods protection deficit calls for support to prevent asset depletion. HEA tells you who, how many, when and for what amount: a valuable tool to cost a response plan.

3The IPC classification rules

The IPC classifies an area in the most severe phase reached by at least 20% of the population. The analysis relies on convergence of evidence: outcome indicators (consumption, livelihoods, nutrition, mortality) and contributing factors (hazards, availability, access, utilisation, stability), each with a reliability level.

• A current analysis and one or two projections based on the most likely scenario.
• The "!" sign shows that an area would be at least one phase worse without the humanitarian assistance received.
• Famine (Phase 5) requires 20% of households with extreme food gaps, global acute malnutrition of at least 30% and a crude death rate above 2 per 10,000 per day; it is verified by the Famine Review Committee.

The IPC also has scales for chronic food insecurity and acute malnutrition.

4The Cadre Harmonisé and NGO contributions

The Cadre Harmonisé, coordinated by CILSS, is the IPC equivalent in West Africa, the Sahel and Cameroon. Its main cycles take place in March (current situation and lean-season projection) and in October-November (after harvests). Its figures guide national response plans and humanitarian appeals.

An NGO contributes by bringing recent, representative and documented data (method, sample, dates), taking part in technical workshops and defending its findings with evidence, not impressions. It accepts the final consensus and clearly flags the limits of its own data.

5Worked example: an HEA outcome analysis for the Sarakoro zone

This fictional case returns to the Sarakoro agropastoral zone (11,800 households). The HEA baseline profile was established three years earlier for a "normal" year. The outcome analysis projects the effect of the deficient season on the consumption year running from October to September. The figures are simplified for demonstration purposes; a real analysis uses a dedicated spreadsheet, such as the outcome analysis spreadsheet circulated by HEA practitioners.

1. The baseline: a very poor household in a normal year

Standard household of 6 people. Annual energy requirements: 2,100 kcal × 365 days × 6 people = 4,599,000 kcal. Wealth groups in the zone: very poor 15% of households, poor 20%, middle 40%, better-off 25%.

2. Problem specification

3. Calculating the projected year, before coping strategies

• Direct food: crops 45% × 0.45 = 20.3%; payment in kind 8% × 0.7 = 5.6%; milk 5% × 0.6 = 3.0%; gifts 4% × 0.5 = 2.0%; total 30.9% of requirements.
• Cash income: labour 180,000 × 0.7 = 126,000; firewood 90,000; goats 2 × 22,500 = 45,000; total 261,000 CU.
• To reach 100% of energy requirements, the household must purchase the equivalent of 69.1% of requirements, i.e. 3,177,900 kcal. At about 3,500 kcal per kilo of millet, this represents 908 kg, or 372,300 CU at the projected price.
• Minimum non-food survival expenditure (water, salt, soap, cooking fuel, milling): 35,000 CU.
• Survival threshold in cash: 372,300 + 35,000 = 407,300 CU. Income available: 261,000 CU. Survival deficit before coping: 146,300 CU.

4. Taking coping strategies into account

The HEA interviews identify the strategies that very poor households can expand without compromising their future: additional sales of firewood (capped by demand, + 30,000 CU) and labour migration of a young person to town (+ 40,000 CU, after travel costs). Selling additional goats is not included: very poor households own only 4 to 6, and selling more than 2 would compromise the core breeding stock. After coping, income reaches 331,000 CU.

• Survival deficit: 407,300 − 331,000 = 76,300 CU per household per year, i.e. about 186 kg of millet or 14% of annual energy requirements.
• Livelihoods protection threshold: survival threshold plus 65,000 CU (school fees, health care, veterinary care, seeds for the next season, replacement of tools), i.e. 472,300 CU. Livelihoods protection deficit: 472,300 − 331,000 = 141,300 CU per household.

The same calculation for poor households (larger own crop production, 6 to 10 goats) shows no survival deficit, but a livelihoods protection deficit of 85,000 CU. Middle and better-off households show no deficit.

5. From deficits to response requirements

The consumption calendar shows that the deficit appears around April, when the reduced harvest is exhausted, and deepens until the September harvest. The analysis therefore leads to three messages for the cluster and the Cadre Harmonisé: around 4,100 households will need assistance from April to August; very poor households face a survival deficit and must be prioritised; livelihood support (seeds in May, veterinary care) is needed for poor households. It is this analysis that underpins the number of households and the duration adopted for the Sarakoro programme.

The strength of HEA is that it converts a shock (harvest, prices, income) into a quantified deficit, by wealth group and by period. Its limitation is the quality of the baseline: a profile more than five years old, or established before a mass displacement or a structural change in the local economy, must be updated before being used to cost a response.

6Worked example: the IPC classification of two analysis units

The November analysis workshop examines two analysis units in Haut-Kéla district: the accessible part of the northern pastoral zone (64,000 people) and the displacement sites in Doumbaré (21,000 people), analysed separately, as the protocol allows when their situation differs markedly from that of the host population.

1. The evidence available

2. Household indicators compared with the reference tables

Analysts place each outcome indicator in the corresponding phase using the reference tables in the IPC Technical Manual 3.1. The table below gives simplified benchmarks in common use; only the tables in the manual are authoritative.

3. Distribution of populations by phase

After discussion, the analysts agree on the following distribution, based on the convergence of evidence rather than a mechanical calculation.

4. The classification reasoning

• Northern pastoral zone, current situation: 18% of the population in Phase 4, below the 20% threshold. The area is classified in Phase 3, even though nearly two thirds of the population are in Phase 3 or above. Some participants argue for Phase 4 given livestock mortality: the group maintains Phase 3 but records this under risk factors.
• Doumbaré: 30% in Phase 4, above the 20% threshold. An estimated GAM rate is not available separately, but the screening and mortality data do not contradict Phase 4. The assistance received is too low to justify the "!" mark, which requires at least 25% of households to meet at least 25% of their caloric needs through humanitarian food assistance.
• Projection for the pastoral zone: under the most likely scenario (pasture exhausted in March, continued conflict, seasonal price rises), the share in Phase 4 reaches 24%; the area is projected in Phase 4.
• Confidence level: "acceptable" for the pastoral zone (partial coverage, no mortality data), "medium" for Doumbaré. Information needs are listed: a mortality survey in the north, a site-specific SMART survey in February.

5. What the NGO contributed

Data from the October survey, terms of trade, the HEA analysis and a two-page methodological note. The NGO's representative argued for the Phase 4 projection for the pastoral zone on the basis of the HEA and the terms of trade, but did not contest the current Phase 3: the data did not justify doing so.

7Tools, common mistakes and variations by context

Template for an NGO contribution note to an IPC or Cadre Harmonisé workshop

1. Identification: organisation, contact person, analysis unit concerned.
2. Source: survey title, data collection dates, recall period, funding.
3. Method: strata, sample size, selection, design effect, data collection mode, standard modules used and their version.
4. Findings: table of outcome indicators with confidence intervals and sample sizes, useful disaggregations.
5. Contributing factors: prices, terms of trade, production, access, conflict, with sources.
6. Limitations: areas not covered, known biases, methodological differences from previous surveys.
7. Proposed interpretation: convergence or divergence of indicators, without proposing a ready-made phase.
8. Annexes: questionnaire, detailed tables, anonymised dataset if the data-sharing agreement allows.

Checklist for a usable HEA analysis

• The baseline profile is less than five years old and the zone's economy has not changed structurally.
• The baseline year is stated and is not a crisis year.
• Each problem parameter (production, prices, labour) is sourced.
• The coping strategies included are realistic and do not destroy livelihoods.
• The survival and protection thresholds are calculated at projected prices.
• Results are presented by wealth group and by period, with the populations concerned.

Common mistakes

• Lobbying for a phase to mobilise funds: this destroys the credibility of the system and of the organisation. Advocacy draws on the classification; it does not manufacture it.
• Confusing the area phase with the population in need: an area in Phase 3 may have more people in Phase 4 than a small area in Phase 4. Population figures matter as much as the colour on the map.
• Adding up indicators instead of converging evidence: the IPC is not an average.
• Ignoring humanitarian assistance: an area that is doing well thanks to aid must carry the "!" mark, to avoid premature termination of assistance.
• Presenting non-representative data (a rapid assessment in a few villages) as representative of the area.
• Treating a projection as a certain forecast: it is the most likely scenario, with assumptions to be monitored; it must be updated if the assumptions change.
• Applying HEA with an outdated profile or in an area where the population has been largely displaced.

Variations by context

What donors and evaluators look for

Donors use IPC and Cadre Harmonisé figures to allocate their funding envelopes; they expect organisations to cite the official classification (not their own reading), to position their project in relation to the populations in Phase 3 or above in the area, and to contribute quality data to the analyses. Evaluators check the consistency between the classification, the choice of areas, and the duration and timing of the response.

8Interview questions and key references

Interview questions

1. "An area has 35% of its population in Phase 3 and 15% in Phase 4. What is its phase?"

Expected answer: Phase 3, because 50% of the population is in Phase 3 or above, but only 15% in Phase 4 or above, below the 20% threshold. A good answer adds that the number of people in Phase 4 must nonetheless be reported and taken into account in the response.

2. "Explain the difference between the survival threshold and the livelihoods protection threshold, and what they mean for programming."

The answer defines the two thresholds, explains that a survival deficit calls for immediate assistance to cover vital food and non-food needs, and that a protection deficit calls for support to prevent asset depletion (inputs, veterinary care, health and education costs), and shows how HEA provides the amounts, groups and periods.

3. "You are taking part in a workshop where a representative wants to classify an area in a more severe phase than the data justify. What do you do?"

The answer defends the protocol and the convergence of evidence, proposes recording risk factors and the projection, avoids personal confrontation, and recalls that the credibility of the system protects all populations in the long term. It recognises that the final recourse is technical consensus and, if needed, support from the IPC Global Support Unit.

4. "What does the '!' on an IPC map mean and why is it important?"

The answer explains that it marks an area that would likely be at least one phase worse without humanitarian food assistance, and that it guards against a premature end to aid based on a situation that is only holding thanks to that aid.

5. "What data can your NGO contribute to a Cadre Harmonisé cycle, and how do you make them admissible?"

The answer cites representative household surveys, prices, nutrition data, HEA analyses and qualitative information on access, and describes the documentation expected (method, dates, sample, limitations), the timing of the cycles and the work with the national analysis cell.

Key references

• IPC Technical Manual, version 3.1: IPC Global Partnership; additional guidance on areas with limited access, urban settings and the Famine Review Committee.
• Cadre Harmonisé Manual, current version: CILSS and partners.
• The Practitioners' Guide to the Household Economy Approach: Food Economy Group and Save the Children.
• FEWS NET reference documents and livelihood profiles, including its scenario development methodology.
• The Sphere Handbook (2018): food security assessment standards.
• CARI guidance and technical notes on indicators: WFP.