Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, IPC ACTIVITIES & LESSONS LEARNT The IPC Global...

21

Click here to load reader

Transcript of Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, IPC ACTIVITIES & LESSONS LEARNT The IPC Global...

Page 1: Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, IPC ACTIVITIES & LESSONS LEARNT The IPC Global Partners CARE International, FAO, FEWS NET, JRC, Oxfam GB,

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 MeetingTuesday September 9th 2008, Rome

IPCIntegrated Food Security Phase Classification

Page 2: Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, IPC ACTIVITIES & LESSONS LEARNT The IPC Global Partners CARE International, FAO, FEWS NET, JRC, Oxfam GB,

I. Update on activities

II. Some key Lessons Learnt

Outline

Outline

Page 3: Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, IPC ACTIVITIES & LESSONS LEARNT The IPC Global Partners CARE International, FAO, FEWS NET, JRC, Oxfam GB,

I. Update on activities• Overview• Global Activities• Regional and national activities

II. Some key Lessons Learnt

Outline

Page 4: Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, IPC ACTIVITIES & LESSONS LEARNT The IPC Global Partners CARE International, FAO, FEWS NET, JRC, Oxfam GB,

• 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

Page 5: Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, IPC ACTIVITIES & LESSONS LEARNT The IPC Global Partners CARE International, FAO, FEWS NET, JRC, Oxfam GB,

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

Page 6: Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, IPC ACTIVITIES & LESSONS LEARNT The IPC Global Partners CARE International, FAO, FEWS NET, JRC, Oxfam GB,

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

Page 7: Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, IPC ACTIVITIES & LESSONS LEARNT The IPC Global Partners CARE International, FAO, FEWS NET, JRC, Oxfam GB,

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 www.ipcinfo.org

IPC Workstation

• Peer-to-peer data sharing

• Online IPC templates

Global Products & Outcomes

Page 8: Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, IPC ACTIVITIES & LESSONS LEARNT The IPC Global Partners CARE International, FAO, FEWS NET, JRC, Oxfam GB,

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

Page 9: Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, IPC ACTIVITIES & LESSONS LEARNT The IPC Global Partners CARE International, FAO, FEWS NET, JRC, Oxfam GB,

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

Page 10: Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, IPC ACTIVITIES & LESSONS LEARNT The IPC Global Partners CARE International, FAO, FEWS NET, JRC, Oxfam GB,

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

Page 11: Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, IPC ACTIVITIES & LESSONS LEARNT The IPC Global Partners CARE International, FAO, FEWS NET, JRC, Oxfam GB,

East & Central AfrWest Afr(CILSS)

Southern Afr(SADC-RVAC)

Asia & Middle East

Operational maps

Burundi*Kenya*

SomaliaS. Sudan*

Côte d’Ivoire* Nepal

Technical TrainingDRC*

Uganda* Tanzania

Zimbabwe

Awareness-raisingat country-level

EthiopiaRwanda

Tajikistan, Cambodia

Indonesia, IraqSri Lanka

Awareness-raisingthrough regional training

events

CARDjibouti Eritrea

Guinea-ConakryNiger

Burkina Faso

Angola, LesothoMalawi, Mozambiq.

Namibia, RSAZambia

Country activities

* recent maps (April-August 08)

Page 12: Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, IPC ACTIVITIES & LESSONS LEARNT The IPC Global Partners CARE International, FAO, FEWS NET, JRC, Oxfam GB,

I. Update on activities

II. Some key Lessons Learnt• Global IPC• Institutional issues• Technical issues• Use and usefulness of IPC

Outline

Page 13: Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, IPC ACTIVITIES & LESSONS LEARNT The IPC Global Partners CARE International, FAO, FEWS NET, JRC, Oxfam GB,

• 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

Page 14: Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, IPC ACTIVITIES & LESSONS LEARNT The IPC Global Partners CARE International, FAO, FEWS NET, JRC, Oxfam GB,

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

Page 15: Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, IPC ACTIVITIES & LESSONS LEARNT The IPC Global Partners CARE International, FAO, FEWS NET, JRC, Oxfam GB,

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

Page 16: Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, IPC ACTIVITIES & LESSONS LEARNT The IPC Global Partners CARE International, FAO, FEWS NET, JRC, Oxfam GB,

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)

Page 17: Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, IPC ACTIVITIES & LESSONS LEARNT The IPC Global Partners CARE International, FAO, FEWS NET, JRC, Oxfam GB,

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

Page 18: Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, IPC ACTIVITIES & LESSONS LEARNT The IPC Global Partners CARE International, FAO, FEWS NET, JRC, Oxfam GB,

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

Page 19: Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, IPC ACTIVITIES & LESSONS LEARNT The IPC Global Partners CARE International, FAO, FEWS NET, JRC, Oxfam GB,

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

Page 20: Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, IPC ACTIVITIES & LESSONS LEARNT The IPC Global Partners CARE International, FAO, FEWS NET, JRC, Oxfam GB,

Kenya: IPC Products

Page 21: Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, IPC ACTIVITIES & LESSONS LEARNT The IPC Global Partners CARE International, FAO, FEWS NET, JRC, Oxfam GB,

Thank you...