1. Analysis of the FIES data collected in the RMI
PSMB
Auckland, New Zealand
May 2019
Nathalie Troubat (FAO)

2. Why do we need to collect data on the FIES?
Food insecurity cannot be directly measured
Food insecurity encompasses four dimensions (availability, access, utilization and stability) and needs to be analyzed along these four dimensions
Existing indicators were not enough to inform of the severity of food insecurity of population in a country
However in asking people about their experience in accessing food it was found possible to infer on their level of food insecurity

3. What is the FIES?
The Food Insecurity Experience Scale is a set of 8 questions developed by FAO Statistics Division to estimate the prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in a country as a result of lack of access to food
It is a direct measure of access to food
It is the result of accumulated experience in food security scales implemented in the US and in Latin America
FAO has applied the FIES in 147 different countries in the world in 2014.
Results have allowed to develop the methods to define a global standard of reference for the severity of food insecurity and to calibrate indicators produced in different countries so that they can be directly comparable.
In 2015 the prevalence of food insecurity based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale has been adopted as SDG indicator (one of the two indacators of target 2.1: “By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round”)

4. Benefits of the FIES Direct
The FIES asks respondents directly about their experiences in the face of constrained access to food. The FIES "listens" to the people affected by food insecurity
Easy
Simple and quick to administer in a survey. It takes no more than 5 minutes and does not require technical expertise.
Low cost
Can be included in almost any existing survey, at very little additional cost
Statistically sounds
FIES and similar scales have been shown to be valid in different settings, and by using the FIES methodology, food insecurity prevalence rates can be compared across countries and populations.
Distinguish between severity levels
Capable of reflecting the depth of food insecurity
Results can be disaggregated
Observes differences in food insecurity by population characteristics, e.g. gender, age, occupation, etc., and among subpopulations that differ by location, ethnicity, language etc.

5. The 8 questions of the Food Insecurity Experience Scale
During the last 12 MONTHS, was there a time when:
You were worried you would run out of food because of a lack of money or other resources?
You were unable to eat healthy and nutritious food because of a lack of money or other resources?
You ate only a few kinds of foods because of a lack of money or other resources?
You had to skip a meal because there was not enough money or other resources to get food?
You ate less than you thought you should because of a lack of money or other resources?
Your household ran out of food because of a lack of money or other resources?
You were hungry but did not eat because there was not enough money or other resources for food?
You went without eating for a whole day because of a lack of money or other resources?

6. Worldwide adoption of the FIES
Yearly reported in the Sate of food Security in the world
FIES has been adopted by more than 80 countries
FIES is now being tested in the Pacific and to date has been included :
In the 2017 AgCensus of Solomon Island
In the 2017 AgCEnsus in Federal State of Micronesia
In the 2018 LFS of Tonga
In the 2018 HIES of Samoa
In the 2018 survey experiment of Marshall Islands

7. Results Solomon Islands: Tonga
Missing: only 1.5% out of a sample of 4182 agriculture hosueholds
Module was located at the end of the survey before the module on impact of climate change
Statistical validity tests show that the scale performed well in Solomon Islands. The raw score can be considered a reliable, ordinal indicator of food security severity. Questions did not seem to have raised any concern or found sensitive by respondents. Items WORRIED and SKIPPED are unique to agriculture population in Solomon Islands.
Tonga
Missing values: 4,45% out of a sample of 2644 HH (ATELESS, FEWFOOD and SKIPPED were among the items presenting most cases of non responses)
Module was located at the very end of the survey after the section on own use experience work
Statistical validity tests confirm that the scale did not perform well in Tonga. The first question associated to the item WORRIED seemed problematic but validity tests do not improve when this item is omitted from the analysis as response pattern to all the other items seem problematic (mainly for questions associated to items HEALTHY and HUNGRY).
It is recommended that more work be done to adapt the questions to the local context or better explain the meaning of each question to the respondent. The data cannot be used to estimate SDG

8. Results Federal State of Micronesia: Samoa
Sample of agriculture households and no missing
Module was located after the module on services, barriers, income and credit.
The results of the statistical tests tend to point towards a relatively good performance of the scale in FSM. However, because of the lack of information on missing households and non-response these results cannot be validated.
Samoa
Sample of adults older than 15 years from 3031 households and no missing values
Module was located before the food consumption and after modules collecting information on individuals
The results of the statistical validity test tend to point towards a relatively good performance of the scale and the scale will be used to provide a preliminary estimate of SDG However only one respondent will be selected (as one respondent was asked to respond fro the other adults in case of non presence) and only 5 items are common to the global scale.

9. Results for RMI
Version of FIES: Household level – Module located after individual modules and before shock module and food consumption
Sample: Total sample was of 717 households, but the analysis was conducted on 711 respondents as for 6 respondents data were given the code “.a” to which no specific meaning could be associated.
Background about survey implementation:
The FIES was included in the HIES survey experiment. Questions were not adapted to local context, questions were not translated (?), no specific training or instruction to enumerators about the meaning of the questions.
No field supervision.
Only one enumerator reported on sensitive aspect of some of the questions

10. Analysis of the missing values
101 (14.2%) respondents either did not know or refused to answer to any of the eight FIES questions of which 10 respondents did not know how to respond to any of the eight items and 47 respondents refused to reply to each of the eight items. Missing values do not show a specific pattern and are equally distributed along each item.

11. Analysis of the affirmative answer
Total number of non- extreme cases is 187 which is not enough to conduct robust statistical tests of validity.
The analysis of the distribution of raw score shows a pattern that is completely inconsistent with more than 50% of households reporting to be food secure (raw score of 0) and 19% reporting being extremely food insecure (raw score of 8) while percentage of households reporting moderate level of food insecurity is close to 5%!
Conclusion:
Data cannot be used to assess the performance of the scale or estimate severity of food insecurity.

12. Conclusion
If a country has committed to report on SDG in its Voluntary National Review then the FIES needs to be included in the survey
Besides, being a SDG indicator the FIES can also be used in ad hoc surveys aiming at assessing the progress towards reducing food insecurity of any development program
Where to include the FIES module in the survey is a key feature as this may condition the response (it is recommended to have it after the individual module and far from modules asking about income and food consumption)
Training of enumerators on the meaning of each of the 8 questions is fundamental to collect data of good quality
Further adaptation of the FIES may be needed in some countries of the Pacific