Developing a "Livelihood Change Indicator" for the integrated food security phase classification (IPC) system

The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) is an innovative multi-partner initiative for improving food security and nutrition analysis and decision-making. The IPC system, whilst extensively referencing 'livelihood change' in its analytical framework, lacks a clear definition and comprehensive measurement approach for this concept. This gap has implications for the accuracy and consistency of food security analyses, particularly given the strong conceptual link between livelihoods and food insecurity. This paper documents efforts to develop and test a more robust approach to measuring livelihood change within the IPC system. The work aimed to establish a clear definition of livelihood change and create new measurement tools that could complement existing indicators, particularly the Livelihood Coping Strategies - Food Security (LCS-FS) index. Through extensive literature review and consultations with academic experts and practitioners, the research team developed standardised definitions for livelihood change and related concepts. These definitions informed the creation of an 'Assets Dynamics' module, which was subsequently field-tested in Ethiopia and Niger through REACH Initiative's Multi-Sector Needs Assessments. The research revealed significant challenges in measuring livelihood change, particularly around temporal dimensions and contextual interpretation. Field testing highlighted issues with terminology translation, recall periods, and the categorisation of different types of assets. Academic consultation emphasised the complex relationship between asset depletion and severe food insecurity, particularly in protracted crises where households may have exhausted their asset base entirely. The study concludes that whilst the new Assets Dynamics module shows promise for IPC purposes due to its relative simplicity, effective livelihood change analysis requires careful consideration of context-specific factors. The findings suggest that generalised survey instruments may not accurately capture livelihood changes across all contexts, emphasising the need for adaptable measurement approaches that can accommodate local variations whilst maintaining analytical consistency.