110. Proportion of Emergency Preparedness Capacity Index (EPCI) capacity parameters with improved rating

110. Proportion of Emergency Preparedness Capacity Index (EPCI) capacity parameters with improved rating

VERSION

V1.0 - 2026.03 — NEW

N.B: This indicator is an update to a previous indicator (formerly known in CRF 2022-2025 as 62. Proportion of Emergency Preparedness Capacity Index (EPCI) capacity parameters with improved rating). In CRF 2026-2029, changes in technical areas were introduced, making previous years’ results incomparable with new results.

INDICATOR CODE

110

TECHNICAL OWNER

PRG-E

INDICATOR TYPE

Country Level Outcome Indicator

INDICATOR CLASSIFICATION

Complementary

INDICATOR SCOPE

Programme specific

APPLICABILITY

The selection of this indicator is recommended against the following sub-activities in CSPs logframes. Selection of the below sub-activities will NOT trigger in COMET the mandatory selection of this indicator:

1. Emergency preparedness and response CCS (EPR_CCS)

2. Malnutrition management CCS (NTA_CCS)

3. Malnutrition prevention CCS (NPA_CCS)

4. Financial solutions, information services and market access CCS (FIM_CCS)

5. Ecosystem restoration, community infrastructure & livelihoods CCS (ECL_CCS)

6. School Based Programme CCS (SBP_CCS)

7. National data & analytics CCS (NDA_CCS)

8. Social protection technical support (SP_CCS)

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS

Percentage of EPCI capacity parameters

DEFINITION

This indicator measures the enhancement of capacity of national and local actors to better prepare for and respond to emergencies, through the emergency preparedness and response (EPR) system across six WFP technical areas and context-specific capacity parameters. The EPCI tool tracks progress by quantifying changes in key capacity parameters essential for desired outcomes. It measures the proportion of EPCI capacity parameters with improved rating between the initial EPCI and a follow-up review.

Below are some key terminologies for this indicator:

National system refers to components of all domestic systems operating within national territory, embracing a Whole of Society approach with state, civil society, private sector, and communities. It describes preparedness and response mechanisms owned by national stakeholders in areas WFP supports at country level. The entity may operate at national, sub-national, or intergovernmental regional levels. “National system” excludes WFP- or UN-governed mechanisms where these agencies lead or manage systems.

Capacity Strengthening is the process through which people, organisations and society build, adapt, and maintain capacity over time. WFP capacity strengthening involves engaging with national or sub-national institutions to enhance the sustainability of national systems supporting people to meet food security, nutrition, and essential needs. This includes transferring WFP expertise to embed knowledge within stakeholders’ environments, targeting jointly identified challenges to improve long-term programme effectiveness.

Strengthening and localizing country capacities for emergency preparedness and response refers to efforts that build and enhance national and local capacities for EPR, placing local and national actors at the centre of efforts, recognizing their contributions as first responders, and emphasizing their role as stewards of local knowledge and experience. Efforts to strengthen and localize country capacities for EPR aim at improving the sustainable functioning of institutions, enabling environment, and organisational and individual capacities, and at supporting coherence across system elements so national and local actors can effectively anticipate, prepare for, and manage crises.

Capacity Parameters: refers to a specific measurable aspect or criterion used to assess the ability of local and national actors to effectively anticipate, prepare for, and respond to emergencies. Capacity parameters may include factors related to policy and legislation, institutional capacity, strategic planning and financing, design and delivery, and engagement and participation. Each technical area consists of five different pathways:

1. Policy and legislative frameworks

2. Institutional capacity

3. Strategic planning and financing

4. Programme design and delivery

5. Engagement with and participation of community, civil society, and private sector

Each pathway consists of a set of criteria, which are further broken down into parameters. A set of generic ‘guiding questions’ are available for each parameter and may require further country context customization. The EPCI user(s) assign ratings for each parameter through participatory consultation. WFP’s role is to facilitate completion of the exercise. For each parameter rating, a supporting narrative is used to reference background information, justification and supporting evidence. The narrative is an important part of qualitative data collection and can be used to identify key themes and understand change in more depth over time.

With the completion of the tool, ratings for each parameter will be automatically aggregated to provide an averaged rating per criteria and pathway and used to help identify broader areas to prioritize. Meanwhile, as parameters remain unweighted, direct comparison across criteria and pathway will be limited.

RATIONALE

The EPCI tool is used to support national actors in assessing existing capacities, including identifying strengths and gaps, setting priorities for strengthening capacities, and reviewing and tracking changes in capacity over time. It provides a structured framework to guide dialogue, build a shared understanding of EPR capacities, and identify priority areas for action. Its use supports the achievement of WFP commitments under the 2022 WFP Country Capacity Strengthening Policy Update, the 2025 WFP Localization Policy and the WFP Strategic Plan 2026-2029.

The EPCI enables national or local actors to:

Diagnose preparedness capacity, identifying strengths, capacity gaps, the barriers to closing those gaps, and the enablers needed to overcome them,

Prioritise attention, resources, and technical support where these are most needed to strengthen capacities.

Convene actors to collaborate and build a shared understanding of preparedness capacities.

Inform the development of capacity strengthening action plans, investment proposals, or other initiatives.

Review and track changes in EPR capacity over time.

These actions are enabled across the following six core technical areas for WFP:

1. Hazard Analysis and Early Warning, to enhance national early warning systems, anticipate seasonal shocks and crises, and inform timely action through strengthened capacity to capture, access and coordinate data, analyse and project food security and nutrition risks, and monitor hazards in real time.

2. Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis, Targeting and Prioritisation, to inform development of national policies and programmes with coherent and coordinated evidence through strengthened capacity to collect, analyse, interpret and disseminate food security and nutrition data, and design targeting strategies aligned with national food security policies and priorities.

3. Identity Management and Cash Preparedness, to enable provision of assured and inclusive payments to people in emergencies and ensure national systems can deliver cash safely, efficiently and at scale through strengthened government-to-person (G2P) payment systems, policies, and institutional capacities.

4. Supply Chain and Logistics Emergency Preparedness, to deliver timely and appropriate emergency response services through strengthened supply chain and logistics preparedness that includes improved coordination, reinforced core logistics functions and systems ready to deliver.

5. Emergency Telecommunications, to deliver national telecommunications services in emergencies through enhanced systems and infrastructure, policies, coordination mechanisms, and institutional capacities.

6. National EPR (governance, coordination, strategy), to ensure overall EPR vision, policy, oversight and implementation of national strategies through strengthened institutional mandate and capacities ensuring a coherent foundation for risk analysis, planning, early warning, supply chain readiness, social protection and operational preparedness.

The EPCI indicator sets a baseline across the technical areas supported by WFP and measures capacity strengthening progress at least once over the course of the CSP. It tracks progress by quantifying changes in key capacity parameters essential for desired outcomes. The EPCI is especially relevant for stakeholders aiming to build technical, functional, or other capacities at national and sub-national levels, focusing on government entities responsible for EPR coordination and leadership. Other stakeholders, like ministries, civil society, and the private sector, may participate in reviews and serve as entry points, but efforts ultimately channel through government entities leading EPR.

This indicator is not applicable for WFP internal preparedness activities that strengthen WFP Country Office readiness to respond to emergencies.

DATA COLLECTION TOOL

For each of the six EPCI technical areas, a tool is available to collect data in a participatory manner and measure EPR system capacity. The EPCI user guide provides links to, and instructions for how to use, the tools.

SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS

N/A

INDICATOR CALCULATION FOR REPORTING

This indicator is calculated separately for each of the 6 technical areas by summing the parameters that have improved over the reporting period and dividing it by the total number of parameters, expressed as a percentage.

1. Define baseline and targets

   • Record the EPCI baseline as zero.
     Record the total number of parameters used during the EPCI exercise.
     Example: A total of 20 parameters were measured during the initial EPCI review.

   • Define a final end-of-CSP target and, optionally, an annual target.
     Example: Annual target 2026 = 16 of 20 parameters improved.
     Example: End of CSP final target = 18 of 20 parameters improved.

2. Enter baseline and targets

   • Select the EPCI indicator in COMET.

   • Set the base value at 0 (representing the initial EPCI exercise).

   • Enter targets as a percentage.

     Example: 18 out of 20 parameters = 90%.

3. Report progress

• After completing a follow up EPCI exercise, enter the proportion of parameters that improved their rating. Final value to be reported in Annual Country Report.

  Example: if 18 of 20 parameters improved, enter 90%.

DATA ENTRY AND DISAGGREGATION IN CORPORATE SYSTEMS

Values are recorded in the logframe. Each value has a reporting combination which is created based on:

• Sub-activity

• Location

Follow-up value is reported as one number (representing a percentage) for each technical area or category:

1. Hazard Analysis and Early Warning

2. Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis, Targeting and Prioritization

3. Identity Management and Cash Preparedness

4. Supply Chain and Logistics Emergency Preparedness

5. Emergency Telecommunications

6. National EPR (governance, coordination, strategy).

Recommended disaggregation (when sample size allows):

• Sex of household head

• Transfer modality

• Rural/urban

• Admin and livelihood zone

• Displacement status

The CO should select the technical areas that are agreed with the national stakeholder.

BASELINE

Baselines are set only once, at one of the following points:

1. At the beginning of the CSP, or

2. When the indicator is selected for reporting after the commencement of the CSP, or

3. When there is a change in target, location and/or modality that triggers a new reporting combination (target, location and modality) for an existing indicator.

Baselines remain fixed for the entire CSP period and are not recalculated annually, unless applicable above. The baseline value for EPCI corporate reporting purposes is always zero, and WFP measures change based upon the proportion of parameters that have improved their rating.

TARGET SETTING

Annual targets:

Annual targets should only be set for the years in which WFP will measure the EPCI. For example, if the Country Office plans to facilitate completion of EPCI baseline and then endline, then no annual targets are set for intervening years.

End of CSP target:

The end-line target should be set based on a solid analysis of the capacity-strengthening work plans developed by WFP and the relevant national or local stakeholders and align with national planning processes. WFP can adjust the end-of-CSP target based on documented new or adjusted workplans developed with the national stakeholders or other documented agreements with the national stakeholder. WFP should not change targets unilaterally. The results of some CS activities might not be achievable within the timeframe of the CSP e.g., implementation of a revised DRM policy.

FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION

The EPCI should be measured at least twice in a CSP cycle, including the baseline.

INTERPRETATION

Clearly identifying which organization's capacities have changed, such as the county disaster management authority, is important; alongside identifying the most significant changes in practices and behaviors, such as the approval of the DRM policy and legal framework by the county assembly, securing two percent of the annual budget as an emergency fund managed by the authority. Describing any major obstacles or events that might have hampered the achievement of results is also important, such as the lack of financial resources for the government to roll out a new beneficiary management system due to fiscal pressures. It is also essential to recognize that WFP collaborates with other partners, and results cannot be solely attributed to WFP.

REPORTING EXAMPLE(S)

The example below demonstrates the enhancement of EPR system components following WFP’s long-term engagement with a national stakeholder, in line with national strategic priorities. It outlines WFP’s involvement e.g., to support policy revision; and the actual results of the support e.g., evacuation of people prior to a disaster.

In 2017, the Provincial Disaster Management Authority in “country X” partnered with WFP to improve emergency preparedness. Through the EPCI process, the government prioritized the use of real-time data to deliver effective assistance before and during shocks, later reviewing progress and finding that with WFP and partners’ support, it had achieved or partly met all its investment priorities, improving 6 out of 10 parameters over five years.

Over that period, WFP helped strengthen key system elements by collaborating with PDMA to revise policy instruments, fostering the enabling environment for more evidence-based, coordinated, and timely response. This clarified provincial authorities' roles, improved technical working group procedures, and ensured regular meetings.

WFP also assisted PDMA and the meteorological agency in creating a climate risk monitoring system integrating geospatial and socioeconomic data, enabling timely, risk-informed decisions. The system’s effectiveness was demonstrated in 2019 when 23,000 people at risk from rising lake levels received cash assistance in advance, allowing them to take preventive action.

INDICATORS COLLECTED & ANALYSED AT THE SAME TIME

The following indicators may be reported along with this indicator:

All mandatory CCS outcome and output indicators are also applicable and should be used in conjunction with the EPCI. They are particularly useful to provide insight into progress made in between ECPI measurements and into WFP’s contribution to EPR system capacity changes that the EPCI may eventually show. The CO may also use other country-specific indicators to measure results of EPR-related CCS to complement the EPCI.

COMPLEMENTARY QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

The change in proportions of capacity parameters does not sufficiently communicate the story of what has changed in national or local ability to accomplish the intended objective. To provide meaningful insight, a narrative interpretation should be included. The EPCI tool contains a narrative section for each capacity parameter to allow for the capture of key strengths, weaknesses and gaps alongside other essential information. This qualitative information should be used to inform the EPCI narrative report which will complement the quantitative data on capacity parameter ratings.

DECISIONS DATA CAN INFORM

The findings of the EPCI can be used to inform further EPR capacity strengthening and localization efforts, such as investment cases, proposals, strategies, or a deeper dive into identified prioritized areas.

VISUALIZATION

LIMITATIONS

The indicator tracks shifts in EPR system capacity across six technical areas and does not directly reflect WFP’s capacity strengthening activities. Repeating the EPCI process with stakeholder dialogue helps clarify major changes and WFP’s contribution, while considering interventions by others and external events that may hinder progress. Since a key part of the EPCI relies on stakeholder self-assessment, subjective bias is addressed by combining objective criteria with qualitative assessment. The EPCI is not designed for comparison between national, regional, or global levels, nor across different technical areas, as parameters are unweighted. Extensive consultation ensures complex national system issues are discussed, but direct comparison remains challenging.

FURTHER INFORMATION

For more information, contact the Emergency Preparedness and Response Service: HQ.EPR.Support@wfp.org.