Introduction to Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, or IPC
Luca Alinovi, Luca Russo,
FAO, Agricultural Development Economics Division (ESA)
The IPC is a tool for food security analysis.
It is also a PROCESS for improved coordination and transparency.
The Partnership: 8 institutional partners for IPC - Save the Children, JRC, Care, Oxfam, and other major national NGO's.
What is IPC for?
Improved analysis of food security for improved response.
The way in which the situation is analyzed determines the type of response, the allocations of resources, and the timing and the roles of interested parties.
The absence of well established standards for classifying the severity of food insecurity by all actors can affect the analysis of food needs.
These problems can lead to imprecise or gross misallocations of scarce resources, and, in the worst case, can lead to loss of life.
So what?
Building a common understanding of hunger and a consensus on the causes of food insecurity.
Comparability across space: what is the severity of food security from country to country and region to region?
Comparability across time: Maps show how the situation has evolved in Kenya or Burundi over time.
Milestones of the IPC:
Origin in EC funded project FSAU in 2004
Roll out in Kenya and East Africa, supported by ECHO, CIDA, DFID, starting in 2006. Application in Ivory Coast 2007.
International technical meeting and multi-agency parternship, March-May 2007.
CFS 2007 - commitment to IPC (2007.)
Publication of V. 1.1 of Manual (May 2008)
Creation of Coordination Unit (Janurary 2009)
2009: Training in Ethiopia, Central African Republic, upcoming application in Zimbabwe (May), and others.
Overview:
Technical: What is the IPC? How does it work?
What is the IPC? How do do you do it?
1. What is the IPC?
2. How to do IPC analysis? Step by step.
Building evidence.
Phase classification
Risk analysis
Estimating populations in each phase and so on
Issues with Food Security Analysis
No common agreed methodology for collecting food security info.
Lack of common framework for analyzing severity, scale, and causes.
Lack of institutional principles and processes to ensure agencies collate information and reach consensus.
An IPC map of Somalia. Note the differently colored regions.
IPC in the Analysis-Response Continuum
Situation Analysis - when there is a crisis, this is done with a number of tools to analyze the food security situation. A number of responses are then analyzed. Next comes response planning, followed by response implementation. During this entire process, monitoring and evaluation occurs.
The IPC brings...
1. A common technical approach.
2. An Institutional Consensual process.
3. A basis for response analysis and decision.
4. A comprehensive and holistic approach.
5. Comparability across time and space.
IPC Maps: (Examples provided).
IPC is based on five degrees of food insecurity represented by different colors.
But the IPC is NOT:
Not a data collection tool.
Not a methodology.
Not a response analysis tool.
IPC Analysis, Main Characteristics
Evidence Based: The results of the analysis need to be backed up by evidence. This is verified in a peer review process.
Multi Stakeholder: Main food security stakeolders must participate, in particular govenrment representatives.
Consensus: It facilitates reaching a general agreement on what the situation is.
Transparent: Analysis templates can be consulted after analysis.
Main Characteristics II
Comparable: Analysis is based in the same key reference outcomes regardless of where and when it is applied.
How to do an IPC Analysis:
Gathering Secondary Data:
Crude mortality rate
Acute malnutrition
Stunting
Food access and Availability
Dietary Diversity
Water access and availability
Structural
Coping
Livelihood assets
Civil Security
Hazards
FAO headquarters in Rome.
Without this tool, in one country, five analyses will get five different things, making fast track action almost impossible. What generates these inconsistencies?
Why do we need to do it by consensus? What is right and what is wrong with that? Do we do analysis by consensus in the USA government? What's different?
In a humanitarian situation, you have actors from all over working together, and different indicators from each group and actor. With no consensus or baseline of what is to be done, you will end up arguing in meetings a lot.
One of the big problems is that data and quantity of data available in poor areas is not available. This occurred in New Orleans: people had to guess, and could not guess what was needed, what could be done, and how. The consensus process is scrutiny and "best guessing" from different organizations. They try to see past agencies agendas, which are often the driver. An interesting status quo that people like - pretty much everyone recognizes the IPC indicators, but no one wanted to a scaling of the issues.
The idea of the IPC is that technically - the most sample possible within the limit of a situation where the quality and quantity of data are often far below optimal. Because of this knowledge and quality gap, we have to make sure whoever brings something to the table IS at the table. This cuts down on miscommunication - for example, maybe we need a medical doctor to ascertain a medical situation.
Reference thresholds exist of these indicators, which are specifically related to each of the phases (like acute food and livelihood crisis, famine/humanitarian catastrophe, humanitarian emergency, moderately/borderline food insecure, and so on).
We can make clear the weakness of current data, and can give the right weight to the data we use. I come from a hard data background, and I am often cynical and skeptical about data - people prefer to believe. If you have a crisis and must make a decision in two months, you have to move, you can't wait for the survey to be done.
One of the reasons you should look at the series of phases (from one to five) and then thresholds/reference outcomes. The most important column is strategic response framework. All data must be linked to a strategic response. We know certain issues are very relevant at each of the phases.
A situation goes from a food insecure situation to a famine. This is intended to cover all the possible situations, based on current understanding of application of the tool. The quality of the analysis is very different from the most extreme to the most food secure areas. The extreme areas are almost easier to analyze - you can see the application, by viewing mortality. In more general food security, changes are minimal and less clear.
Are we using the right methodology for capturing stunting, considering seasonality? Ideally the IPC is not indicated to screen indicators, but to help drive towards the best use of indicators and, if indicators are missing, push to the collection of indicators.
As I was saying, we have a number of thresholds inside each one of the phases. Driven by what indicators are available in what country. Not all indicators go in the same direction. You have a mix of indications.
Phase Classification
Evidences are used to sustain values of reference outcomes.
These values are compared to thresholds in the iPC Reference Table..
Each reference outcome is classified under one of the 5 phases with a level of confidence. To facilitate the process of convergence of evidence, results can expressed as follow: (ie, food access, livelihood assets, structural, stunting, disease) are given a confidence score of 1, 2, or 3, and a classification from 1 to 5.
Building Evidence
For reach reference outcome all relevant information is introduced in an analysis template (#1) together with its source and date. Reliability scores are also assigned at this stage for each piece of information. One analysis template is filled up for each unit of analysis. In a lot of countries, you may not have the data you want. There are a few options: you discard the indicator or the outcome, or you use a proxy indicator. We call this at the IPC "indirect evidence". Direct evidence means other more qualitative means leading to a single type of conclusion. You rank everything in here (the template,) the source, the information you have, and the phase the information gives you or puts you.
For each unit of analysis - in every place, it is different. For each district you have a different analytical template collecting all available data for district, and combine to see what phase you are in. In many situations, like in the DRC, the gaps are more then the information available -you by guessing and not by knowledge. You must make all the processes transparent - make everything public - so you can see what happened, and respond to questions. Making weakness transparent is a powerful tool for getting help and getting better.
Phase Classification (II)
Convergence of evidence leads to the classification of the unit of analysis under one phase.
The phase classification has a period of validity, after which the analysis must be done again (usually seasons). Validity can also depend on facts that can change situations unexpectedly, or deadlines for options for changes.
Results are reviewed against general phase descriptions.
Risk Analysis
Phase classification gives the current or imminent situation.
In the IPC, risk analysis is about looking at the probability of a community slipping from the current or imminent phase into a more serious phase.
Estimating Populations in Each Phase
Organize population data according to the analytical unit (administrative unit or livelihood zone).
Organize the baseline wealth ranking/poverty data in the same way as above.
Analyze any differences in the way the hazard has impacted (eg, geographic spread) in the analytical unit.
Number of people in phase is calculated using the formula D1 x X1 x X2 x X3
Where...
D1 = District or similar population
X1 = % population in a LZ or other unit
X2: % of population in a poor wealth group.
X3: % of poor wealth group affected by hazard.
How to do an IPC Analysis:
Mapping (examples of maps, such as in Somalia). Recurrencies in various areas -a difference between an acute situation for 6 months, or a serious situation recurring every 10 years, eroding people's resilency capacity and ability to respond to crisis. And there is the confidence level of the analysis: the box on the map carries the indicator of population in a scenario.
Peer Review
The IPC encourages debate and requires consensus before the final product is released.
During peer review, evidence is presented and critiqued by the whole analysis team. Templates and a provisional map are used for this.
The final goal of this stage is to reach consensus on the output of the analysis.
How does it work (IPC)?
National Level:
Technical Working Groups
Technical Standards
Institutional Standards
Regional Level:
Awareness raising, capacity building.
Technical working groups, lesson learning.
Consolidation of analysis.
Information and advocacy.
Technical Standards:
Level 1- Essential, core elements.
Level 2 - Preferred elements.
Level 3 - Optimal elements. Make use of template 2 and 3 outlining both immediate and underlying causes
Institutional Standard
The implementation of the IPC should be a consensus process facilitated by a board interagency working group, including government and key constituencies.
All efforts should be made to engage and build the capacity of government and promote ownership/strengthen the institutional process.
Institutional Standard 2
IPC process should comprise a mechanism to build an institutional commitment from government.
To promote transparency, the results of IPC analysis should be made available to the public in a timely manner.
IPC analysis should be done with technical neutrality through having a broad membership of the interagency group and through a transparent process of consensus buildings and ensuring group members participate in their technical capacity.
IPC results should be subject to an external peer review process to check quality and maintain standards.
How Does it Work? 2
At regional level:
Awareness raising and capacity building.
Technical working groups and lesson learning.
Consolidation of analysis.
Information and advocacy.
In Sub-Saharan Africa:
FSNWG
SADC-RVAC
CILSS
How does it Work 3
At global level:
Strong and permanent multi agency capability:
Develop and disseminate a global approach to allow comparison over time and space.
Provide technical support and quality assurance.
Serve as a reference for global food security monitoring.
Learning by doing, an Iterative Approach
Lessons learning
Technical development.
Progress to Date
Progress National Level
IPC piloted or rolled out in 15 countries.
Awareness raising in 13 countries.
Adopted: Burundi, Somalia, and Kenya.
Cote d' Ivoire.
Ongoing -
Roll out: DRC, Northern Sudan, Southern Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zimbabwe.
Technical Training: CAR, Ethiopia.
Others:
Pilots: Indonesia, Cambodia, others
Progress Regional Level
East and Central Africa:
FS&N Working Group
Regional training, Regional consolidated analysis, cross-fertilizationn.
Lessons learning and technical development.
Second phase of consolidation of IPC in five countries.
West Africa
Multi agency Steering Committee Cadre Harmonise.
Analytical work on integration IPC and Cadre Harmonise.
Pilot in Niger 2009.
Southern Africa
Regional workshop August 2008.
Tech working group SADC-RVAC.
Interest from Zimbabwe, Mozambique, RSA, Malawi.
No comments:
Post a Comment