Going the Last Mile: Accelerating Progress in Food Security and Nutrition workshop (June 14, 2016)

1. The role of IPC
The Global Analysis/ Global
Network
Bruxelles, 14/06/2016
Thierry NEGRE
European Commission
JRC. H04 / MARS Unit
Philippe THOMAS
European Commission
DEVCO C / Sustainable Growth
and Development
Prioritizing EU interventions in food
insecure regions

2. Integrated Food Security
Phase Classification (IPC)
IPC Global Partners
With the support of

3. 06/24/16 IPC Learning Programme 3
Lack of consistency, standards & transparency
W AJIR
TURKANA
MARSABIT
KITUI
ISIOLO
GARISSA
TANA RIVER
MANDERA
KAJIADO
NAROK
SAMBURU
IJARA
MW INGI
TAITA TAVETA
LAIKIPIA
KW ALE
MOYALE
MALINDI
KILIFI
MAKUENI
W EST POKOT
MACHAKOS
BARINGO
N
EW
S
60 0 60 120 180 Kilometers
Source of Data: ALRMP/KFSSG
Graphics: FEWSNETKenya
Extremely Food Insecure
Highly FoodInsecure
Moderately Food Insecure
Generally Food Secure
Bururi
Ruyigi
Gitega
Rutana
Ngozi
Kirundo
Karuzi Cankuzo
Muyinga
Makamba
Cibitoke
Kayanza
Mwaro
Bubanza
Buja
Rural
Muramvya
Buja
Mairie
Rwanda
Tan
zanie
RDC
LacTanganyika
7803
8056
17050
6700
4500
16050
7500
11500
21400
5920
6161
21249
5395
17150
8068
13700
N
Distribution d'intrants agricoles de base et RPS aux vulnérables,
en appui à la mise en place de la saison 2007A
20 0 20 40 Km
Nombre de ménages vulnérables
ayant reçu les semences
4800 - 9999
10000 - 15000
15001 - 32000
Lacs
Limites administratives
Source : Coordination des Opérations
Agricoles d'Urgence de la FAO
Cartographie : SAP/SSA, FAO
Date : 17 octobre 2006 5920 : Ménages bénéficiaires de RPS

4. IPC
The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification
• We need a common currency to describe
the nature and severity of food insecurity
• We need a minimum set of common
standards for food security analysis
• Process for building technical
consensus to create common agreement
& clear messaging to decision makers
WHAT WE NEED ?

5. Situation
Analysis
(current/projected)
Monitoring
Evaluation
Response
Implementation
Response
Planning
Response
Analysis
The Analysis – Response
Continuum
IPC within…

6. IPC Analytical Framework
Classification of Acute Phase (current or projected)
Food Security Contributing Factors
Causal Factors
Vulnerability: (Exposure, Susceptibility, and Resilience to specific
hazards/events. Ideally drawn from vulnerability baseline analysis).
Livelihood Strategies (food & income sources, coping, & expenditures)
Livelihood Assets (human, financial, social, physical, & natural)
Policies, Institutions, and Processes
Acute or Ongoing Hazards/Events
(natural, socio-econ0omic, conflict, disease and others)
Food Security Dimensions
Availability
Production
Wild Foods
Food Reserves
Markets
Transport
Stability (at all times)
Access
Physical Access
Financial Access
Social Access
Utilization
Food Preferences
Food Preparation
Feeding Practices
Food Storage
Food Safety
Water Access
Impact
Food
Consumption
Quantity &
Nutritious Quality
Food Security Outcomes
(directly measured or inferred from contributing factors)
Primary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes
Livelihood
Change
Assets & Strategies
Nutritional
Status
Mortality
&
Non Food Security Specific Contributing Factors:
•Disease
•Water/Sanitation
•Health Social Services
• others….

7. IPC
The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification
All phases are linked to priority response objectives, thus guiding strategies of
interventions
IPC informs the Priority Response
Objectives

8. IPC Acute and Chronic R-Tables

9. East and Central
Africa – IPC
Regional Map,
May 2014
Clear Communication and Comparability
over space

10. 17 Dec. 2010
Seasonal
Rains Fail
Early
Warning
Early
Warning
Declaration of Famine
based on IPC
Somalia
Famine
Timeline
Early Warning for Humanitarian
Crisis

11. IPC Global Coverage and Figures
• 40 Countries engaged in IPC Activities:
in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Near
East
• 20 countries leading IPC analysis in
Africa, Asia and Near East
• Support to CH in 16 Countries in West
Africa
• More than 1,600 people trained in IPC
since 2012 (32% women)

12. • Acute food insecurity
situations.
• Chronic Food Insecurity
Situations
• Acute Malnutrition
Integrated IPC Food &
Nutrition Security
Classification System ?
Decision-makers inform both short- and
long-term response
IPC – Where we are going?

13. Global analysis / Global network

14.  Need for a coherent and exhaustive (as much as possible) picture of
food crises at a given period;
 Support evidence-based decision-making for programming and fund
allocation
 Move forward the resilience agenda (Resilience Communication of
Resilience, 2012) by promoting:
 Flexible mechanism of food crises response
 Rapid response
 Bridging emergency and development actions
 Improve EU response time to post-food crisis situations
Why a global analysis

15. Approach
 Needs assessment in terms of food-insecure population
 Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) as a reference
for levels of food insecurity
 IPC Phases indicate the severity of food insecurity
 Two categories retained in the final results:
IPC Phase 2 : Stressed situation
IPC Phase 3+: Crisis and Emergency

16. Approach (ctd)
 Data from a wide range of sources:
 ECHO, DG NEAR, FAO GIEWS, IPC GSU, WFP, OCHA, WHO,
UNICEF, FEWSNET, CILSS, SADC VAC, national institutions
and EC-JRC own analyses.
 Joint analysis of the final data by JRC, DEVCO, WFP and FAO and
publication under the JRC Science for Policy Reports series.
 Building blocks for a Global Network

17. Approach (ctd)
 Limitations:
 The analysis gives the situation as in January 2016.
 No projection for the coming months
 The coverage is not exhaustive because of the lack of data in
some countries
 Quality of data varies from country to country
 Methods to estimate food insecurity prevalence not homogenous –
maximum effort made to reconcile data across countries but
discrepancies subsist
 In some cases, data were available for part of the country – the
proportion of food-insecure population valid only for the regions
analysed (e.g. Northern Nigeria)

18. Population affected by food crises – situation in January 2016

19. Food-insecure population – situation in January 2016

20. How the EU used the results of the
Global Assessment in 2016
- El Niño response
20
Total EU contribution €543.5 million
•Emergency and short-term response
•€125 million, decided in 2015
•€173 million, decided in 2016
•Development and long-term
•€70 million, GPGC 2016
•€175.5 million, EDF Reserves

21. Why a Global Network
• Stimulate shared response analysis
• Enhance partnership
• Promote joint planning
• Pave the way for joint response
21

22. Conclusions
To be a public good the Global Network requires large participation
from stakeholders
Calling for the involvement of partners
besides the EU, FAO and WFP
Way Forward
•Next joint analysis to be launched before the end of the year;
•Next report due early 2017;
•2018 onwards - Further steps – joint response assessment, joint
planning, joint response - to be discussed with partners
22

23. Thank you for your attention