1. Nutrition Indicators for Assessment 1

2.  Identified the need to have a common pool of nutrition indicators for assessment in order to better respond to assessment needs  2012 July GNC meeting – included in the 2012-13 workplan  Assessment Working Group lead  Renewed interest in nutrition indicators after exposure to IASC NATF MIRA framework 2

3.  2009 IRA Tool – assessment indicators included  2010 GNC AWG first set of 10 nutrition indicators for assessment to feed into NATF MIRA process (prior to setting up of GFSC)  GNC contribution to MIRA process at Geneva level (GNC member / WFP KO AWG Co chair)  IFE group providing indicator input after IRA Tool experience  2011 MIRA draft did not include nutrition specific indicators - despite constant contributions  July 2012 GNC meeting recognition - to be more proactive  Core group of GNC members consulted in January 2013 to take this topic forward 3

4.  Initial set of nutrition assessment indicators to be agreed on for use in emergencies that fits in with existing assessment methods and practice  Recognition of MIRA breakdown of “phases of data collection” Preparedness Phase I (72 hours) Phase II (14 days) Phase III (30 days) Phase IV (45 days) 4

5.  2010 indicators, IYCF indicators and indicators submitted to IASC NATF  New comprehensive list of indicators including Indicator name & description Disaggregation Appropriate phase for collection & likely source and collection methods Any additional general & technical guidance  Identification of an overall Nutrition Cluster Needs and Analyses Framework 5

6. 6

7. 7

8. 8

9. Titledescriptiondisa ggre gati on Appro- piate phase Source / method General guidance Unit of mea sure men t Thre shol ds Global Acute malnu trition prevalance rate (%) of global acute malnutrition in children 6 to 59 months of age based on presence of bilateral pitting oedema and / or weight-for-height z-score less than -2 standard deviations of the median of the standard population (WHO 2006) Geog raphi cal area; Age; sex Preparat ory: Phase III Phase IV population surveys with representative sampling methods (MICS, DHS, SMART) Should be based on a methodologi cally solid anthropome- tric nutrition survey findings and include Confidence Intervals; Not comparable with MUAC % WHO 1995 classifi cation: 5,10, 15% 9

10.  Collaborative process 6 core GNC members  IFE core group IYCF workshop  Indicators shared with wider GNC group at side meeting yesterday (n:18)  Initial feedback to GNC  Ways forward to: Finalise list Prioritise indicators Formulate the assessment questions that can be used for collection of indicators 10

11.  16 anthropometry related indicators for different age groups (0-5 months; 6-59 months; adults; and nutritionally vulnerable groups (PLW, elderly, adolescents)  2 dietary quality indicators  1 cooking facilities indicator (link to FS and shelter)  5 micronutrient status indicators  2 health related indicators (measles & morbidity)  15 IYCF indicators 11

12.  First step towards consolidating a list of appropriate nutrition indicators for assessment Next steps: 1. Finalising wording and collection methods 2. Classifying and prioritising indicators for different phases 3. Identifying indicators that will also be performance indicators 4. Devising appropriate assessment questions to systematically feed into assessment design 12

13.  Open process of consultation to those interested in actively contributing to work  Matching this theoretical process with needs assessment realities and practice 13

14. 14