Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, IPC ACTIVITIES & LESSONS LEARNT The IPC Global Partners CARE International, FAO, FEWS NET, JRC, Oxfam GB, Save the Children UK, Save the Children US, and WFP Donor Meeting Tuesday September 9 th 2008, Rome IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification

I. Update on activities II. Some key Lessons Learnt Outline

I.Update on activities Overview Global Activities Regional and national activities II. Some key Lessons Learnt Outline

Partnership with 8 agencies and INGOs –Donor platform and links w/ related initiatives to be strengthened Principles of collaboration –Partnership and consensus –Learning by doing –Country/Region ownership –Technical soundness but flexibility 2 years Technical Development 2 years Field Application outside Somalia context Overview 1/2

Partnerships and coordination mechanisms  Global level: IPC Steering Committee  Regional level: FSNWG, CILSS, SADC  National level: multi-agency technical working groups National Level a) Implementation, country-level: 17 countries 1.Operational maps (6 countries) 2.Technical Training (4 countries) 3.Awareness-raising (7 countries) b) Awareness-raising, regional level: 13 countries Overview 2/2

Global activities Steering Committee Planning, coordination, technical development, technical backstopping, training, awareness, communication Technical Development Field-base application and Global Development Consistent approach across countries and Technical soundness Technical Development & consultations Feb 07: Online Technical Forum (150 experts) Mar 07: IPC International Technical Meeting (13 organizations) Sept 07: consultations (agency level; FSNWG), Technical Working Group May 08: Technical Manual Version 1.1 Aug 07: Consultation with UN Standing Committee on Nutrition

IPC Technical Manual Version 1.1 (Aug 08) Version 2 (July 09) Training & Learning materials User-guide (Sept 08) Distance Learning (Nov 08) Communications IPC website IPC Workstation Peer-to-peer data sharing Online IPC templates Global Products & Outcomes

East and Central Africa IPC Steering Committee, Food Security and Nutrition Working Group (FSNWG) Spontaneous, multi-agency, field-driven coordination Forum for FS information exchange, analysis and advocacy 1. Coordination and technical support to country activities Regional Coordination Technical Backstopping 2. Regional coordination and training 2 Regional Training events per year 3 Training of trainers (2007; 2008) 1 Regional Situational Analysis workshop (Sept 08) 3. Lessons Learning and Technical Development Updates to Technical Manual; User Guide Regional M&E workshop (Oct 08) Regional activities

West Africa - CILSS Improve Vulnerability Analysis Framework, Cadre Harmonisé –Indicators/thresholds – completed. –classification (severity, convergence) –Clear cartographic presentation of results Test new framework, using CH data sets, possibly Niger (fall 08) Training “analytical unit” of early warning systems (fall 08) Southern Africa – SADC-RVAC Awareness-raising: RVAC (Feb 08); National VAC (Aug 08) Technical Training in Zimbabwe (Feb 08) SADC-RVAC’s interest –IPC, common framework for FS analysis for NVACs –IPC can support regional analysis of the food security situation

Asia and the Middle-East WFP implementation/pilots Establish linkages between the IPC and WFP food security analysis, assessment and monitoring/early warning products (EFSA, CFSVA, FSMS) –Iraq: Pilot exercise during CFSVA analysis workshop –Nepal: adjustment of FS Monitoring system, using IPC classification Refining and eventually adopting a standard classification approach Contribute technical development  Adaptation to other instruments, piloting Regional activities

Country activities * recent maps (April-August 08)

I. Update on activities II. Some key Lessons Learnt Global IPC Institutional issues Technical issues Use and usefulness of IPC Outline

Global coordination is needed to ensure technical consistency and consistency across countries While the IPC is considered technically viable by technicians within partners agencies, there is extra work needed with management level and for mainstreaming the IPC within the organizations Global funding is needed to support the multi-agency approach at global and at field level Beyond funding, IPC development and mainstreaming requires donor support (with governments, RECs, at the international level) Global IPC

Ownership (S.Sudan, Kenya, Nepal) Ensure national ownership Find an institutional home Ensure stakeholders’ buy-in (multisectoral approach; build consensus) Complementarity (Kenya, Sahel) IPC may induce resistance; be seen as competitive Build complementarities with existing data collection/food security systems Introduce the IPC as an add-on Institutional Issues 1/2

Capacity-building elements (Cote d’Ivoire, Kenya) National focal point/technical Technical Training Preparation work Communication Routine Evaluation for streamlining into national structures Sustainability aspects (Kenya, Burundi, DRC) Developing technical expertise takes time (2 or 3 cycles needed) Decentralization cost effective over time – requires investment, capacity-building, safeguards for quality control Initial financial and technical support needed – temporary, complement actual costs of assessments Institutional context and regional support are critical Institutional Issues 2/2

Technical Issues 1/2 Main technical changes (Tech Manual V. 1.1) Focus on food security (rather than broadening up to humanitarian issues): adequacy between focus and name (all) The severity and the time factor (chronic versus transitory) should not be mixed in the scale (all) Phase 1 and 2 have been broken down into 3 phases to allow for more sensitivity at the lower end of scale (Burundi, Cambodia, Cote d’Ivoire, Indonesia, Kenya, Tajikistan)

Areas requiring further attention (Tech Manual V. 2) Review current indicators and thresholds (Cambodia, Iraq, Kenya) Identify new indicators (ex. MDG ind.) and process/indirect indicators (Indonesia, Sahel, Kenya) Guidance on how to account for pockets of food insecurity (Somalia) Guidance on how to account for humanitarian assistance (Somalia, Kenya) Clarification of the early warning component; (Kenya) Guidance on the links with response analysis (Kenya) Technical Issues 2/2

Use and Usefulness 1/2 Improve FS systems (Kenya) Improve quality/availability of information over time Streamline existing information into a situation analysis Consensus–building (S. Sudan) Ownership of analytical process by government Catalyst for stakeholders’ coordination Easier for the to reach technical consensus (multi-agency) Transparency (Kenya) More credible situation and response analysis (evidence) Transparency of findings

Decision-making and resource allocation Formulation of appropriate / strategic / non-prescriptive responses (Kenya) But response analysis should remain insulated from response planning Shift of focus in response planning from “Food Aid” to “Food Security” (Kenya) Shift to long term non-food interventions (Kenya) Can be a basis for planning and resource allocation (DRC) Linkages between IPC situation analysis and response planning could be facilitated and possibly institutionalized (Kenya) Can be used for monitoring purposes but needs to be adapted (Tajikistan, Nepal) Use and Usefulness 2/2

Kenya: IPC Products

Thank you...