Are slow famine declarations costing lives?

As Somalia teeters on the brink of yet another famine, many in the humanitarian sphere are calling for an official declaration, which they say will unlock the donor dollars needed to avert many thousands of deaths. But some, including a top figure at the World Food Programme and local humanitarian leaders, also say that the way a famine is declared is too slow and too complex, leading to unnecessary deaths. In Somalia, for example, the United Nations’ technical body that officially evaluates famine levels has resisted classifying the country as in famine, although it says one is likely as soon as April. But there are concerns that waiting to declare famine is delaying the large-scale humanitarian response needed, and will lead to avoidable deaths. The last time Somalia experienced famine, in 2011, studies show that half of the 260,000 victims had already died by the time famine was declared. Arif Husain, chief economist and director of research, assessment and monitoring at WFP, told Devex that a new methodology is needed — one that takes hours, not weeks. Other experts disagree, arguing that the painstaking, technical process is what avoids famine becoming politicized. But some of those also say that there is too much focus on famine, and not enough on the preceding stages of food insecurity, classified as “crisis” and “emergency.” This means cash is only made available when a situation becomes critical, as opposed to merely very urgent. They say donors need to intervene much more forcefully when hunger starts to be a widespread problem, to prevent a famine from ever occurring. And they say the community must get much better at asking for this to happen. “It is not that the [famine] classification comes too late; donors need to intervene earlier,” Emily Farr, emergency food security and vulnerable livelihoods advisor at Oxfam, told Devex. Avoiding the politics The body tasked with advising when a country hits famine status is the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, or IPC, which ranks food insecurity in five phases — minimal, stressed, crisis, emergency, and famine. IPC is part of the Food and Agriculture Organization and was developed in 2004 to provide a uniform, technical, and comparable measure for assessing food insecurity. In order for a country to hit IPC 5 — the level at which a famine can be declared — analysts must find evidence that at least 20% of households have extreme food insecurity, at least 30% of children are experiencing acute malnutrition, and at least two people out of every 10,000 are dying daily from starvation — or by disease fueled by the weakening of the body through malnutrition. Once the data is in, a voluntary, independent expert panel, known as the Famine Review Committee, decides whether a hunger crisis meets the famine threshold. IPC does not declare a famine; it just sets the evidence. The declaration decision is typically made jointly by the government of the affected country and U.N. agencies. “It is not that the [famine] classification comes too late; donors need to intervene earlier.” --— Emily Farr, emergency food security and vulnerable livelihoods advisor, Oxfam According to Jose Lopez, IPC’s global program manager, the process is “not easy.” Determining a classification can involve input from up to 100 analysts and many rounds of debate and review. IPC was deliberately designed this way to avoid political interference and ensure neutrality, Lopez said. However, IPC’s data can still spark fierce debate. “There is always a level of politics that is included in the process … but that’s exactly why we have processes and protocols that guide the analysts,” he told Devex. “Our role is to protect the integrity of the analytical process.” Despite the best efforts of the IPC to maintain a neutral stance, governments have a powerful role in whether a famine is declared. Devex was told it is technically possible for the U.N. to declare a famine unilaterally in a country without the backing of the government, but in practice, politicians have a lot of sway. Governments might either refuse to acknowledge the existence of famine to hide weakness or punish a separatist region, or exaggerate the level of hunger to attract donor dollars. Mark Lowcock, the former United Nations undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator, claimed that a famine declaration was blocked in Tigray on his watch — although this claim is disputed. Too technical? According to WFP’s Husain, however, the process has become too cumbersome. When the IPC scale was first devised, most famines were caused by “slow onset emergencies,” such as drought, which offered time and opportunity to carry out IPC’s large-scale assessments and surveys, Husain explained. But war is now the biggest cause of famine, which makes it difficult to collect the same data. “In war zones where physical access may be barely possible beyond a few hours, detailed food security, nutrition and mortality surveys could be out of reach, and with it a clear conclusion on the existence of famine,” Husain explained. He said IPC must upgrade its approach to reflect this new environment. "We need a new methodology and criteria which will allow us to collectively determine whether it is a famine or not, but which could be implemented within hours and not weeks because that’s all you have in a war zone,” he told Devex. However, others warn against changing IPC’s stringent data requirements for fear of the term “famine” being overused. “Famine has a lot of political implications and the worst thing is declaring famine where there is no famine as people will not listen next time,” said Luca Russo, FAO’s lead analyst on food crises and chair of the IPC steering committee. Vanessa Roy, deputy chief of party for analysis at Famine Early Warning Systems Network, agreed. “The word ‘famine’ definitely brings resources to an area, but it also brings resources away from others and so we really need to be responsible in our use of the word,” she told Devex. Famine obsession According to Roy, the IPC’s technical thresholds are not the issue; it is the international community’s obsession with them that is causing problems. Waiting for a famine threshold completely misses the point, she said. “At the end of the day, whether a country falls slightly below or above the threshold, people are dying of hunger and need intervention,” she said, “while we’re focused so much on the technical language.” She said countries end up languishing in IPC levels 3 and 4 for months or years without sufficient international assistance. But this can actually be more dangerous than a famine. Communication issues Both Roy and Russo think IPC needs to get better at communicating its analysis. Russo pointed to the IPC “famine likely” alert, introduced in 2021, as an example of where IPC’s communication could be improved. The alert was introduced for situations where IPC thought a country was probably in famine but did not have enough data to prove it. But Russo said that in practice, the label had caused confusion and should be dropped. He pointed to when the alert was used in South Sudan in 2021, when donors were slow to respond. Instead, he said, IPC should declare a famine and caveat that it was lacking some data. Roy also highlighted the projection of famine in Somalia as causing confusion. IPC has said a famine is expected but not currently ongoing. But many have taken the projection to mean that the Somali government has resisted, when in fact lack of data is the issue. But the biggest issue, said Russo, was communicating the impact of levels 3 and 4, crisis and emergency, and the need to intervene at these stages. Lopez said IPC has been trying to do this for years. “I don’t know if it’s a lack of understanding or … some limitations around scaling up or making resource allocations,” he said. “Clearly we [will] continue to try and improve our communication of that level, but this is not a new message.”