The role of IPCThe Global Analysis/ Global

Network

Bruxelles, 14/06/2016

Thierry NEGREEuropean Commission JRC. H04 / MARS Unit

Philippe THOMAS European Commission

DEVCO C / Sustainable Growth and Development

Prioritizing EU interventions in food insecure regions

Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC)

IPC Global Partners

With the support of

05/01/23 IPC Learning Programme 3

Lack of consistency, standards & transparency

WAJIR

TURKANA

MARSABIT

KITUI

ISIOLO

GARISSA

TANA RIVER

MANDERA

KAJIADO

NAROK

SAMBURU

IJARA

MWINGI

TAITA TAVETA

LAIKIPIA

KWALE

MOYALE

MALINDI

KILIFI

MAKUENI

WEST POKOT

MACHAKOS

BARINGO

N

EW

S

60 0 60 120 180 Kilometers

Source of Data: ALRMP/KFSSGGraphics: FEWS NET Kenya

Extremely Food InsecureHighly Food InsecureModerately Food InsecureGenerally Food Secure

Bururi

RuyigiGitega

Rutana

Ngozi

Kirundo

Karuzi Cankuzo

Muyinga

Makamba

Cibitoke

Kayanza

Mwaro

Bubanza

Buja Rural

MuramvyaBuja Mairie

Rwanda

R D C

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 FAOCartographie : SAP/SSA, FAODate : 17 octobre 2006 5920 : Ménages bénéficiaires de RPS

IPCThe 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 ?

Situation Analysis(current/

projected)

MonitoringEvaluation

Response Implementati

on

Response Planning

Response Analysis

The Analysis – Response Continuum

IPC within…

IPC Analytical Framework

Classification of Acute Phase (current or projected) and Chronic Level

Food Security Contributing FactorsCausal FactorsVulnerability: (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

AvailabilityProductionWild FoodsFood ReservesMarketsTransport

Stability (at all times)

AccessPhysical AccessFinancial AccessSocial Access

UtilizationFood PreferencesFood PreparationFeeding PracticesFood StorageFood SafetyWater 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….

IPCThe Integrated Food Security Phase Classification

All phases are linked to priority response objectives, thus guiding strategies of interventions

IPC informs the Priority Response Objectives

IPC Acute and Chronic R-Tables

East and Central Africa – IPC Regional Map, May 2014

Clear Communication and Comparability over space

17 Dec. 2010

Seasonal Rains Fail

Early Warning

Early Warning

Declaration of Famine based on IPC

Somalia Famine Timeline

Early Warning for Humanitarian Crisis

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)

• 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?

Global analysis / Global network

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

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

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

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)

Population affected by food crises – situation in January 2016

Food-insecure population – situation in January 2016

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

Why a Global Network

• Stimulate shared response analysis• Enhance partnership• Promote joint planning• Pave the way for joint response

21

ConclusionsTo 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

Thank you for your attention