IPC Engaging Stakeholders and Key Decision Makers From

IPC Engaging Stakeholders and Key Decision Makers From Global Perspectives to Country Implementation IPC Global Partners: With the support of:

What IPC is and What it is Not IPC is: § § A set of protocols to classify the severity and causes of food insecurity and provide actionable knowledge by consolidating wide-ranging evidence A process for building technical consensus among key stakeholders IPC is not: § § A methodology to measure food insecurity – IPC brings together different methodologies A tool for data collection – but it can inform data collection and identify gaps An information system – but an input to the system Response analysis – but it is the starting point and can inform response analysis

Acute and Chronic IPC Classification ACUTE FOOD INSECURITY CHRONIC FOOD INSECURITY All food insecurity found at a specific point in time of a severity that threatens lives and/or livelihoods regardless of the causes, context or duration. To inform short term strategic objectives Persistent food insecurity due to structural causes. To inform medium and long term strategic objectives (structural (food/cash aid, asset redistribution, basic needs support, saving lives etc. ) development, agricultural and rural development policies, strengthen livelihood strategies and adaptive capacity, etc. )

Relevance of the IPC Analysis for FSN Decision Making The IPC Analysis answers to six core key questions on Acute and Chronic Food Insecurity: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. How severe is the food security situation? Where are the areas that are food insecure? How many people are food insecure? Who are the food insecure? When will people be food insecure? Why are people food insecure? 4

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

IPC and the FSN Policy Process IPC Acute and Chronic Situation Analysis

NEW Information Needs of Decision Makers Ø Why? Decision Makers have new information needs • Need information to inform resilience and programming to break the cycle of food insecurity • Need both information to inform Short-Term Emergency Programming that is linked to Medium to Longer Programming & Policy • Need evidence and information to inform integrated food and nutrition security programming • Multi-Sector and multi-dimensional response is needed to meet the challenges of food insecurity • Focus on both Acute and Chronic Food Insecurity, including four dimensions of food insecurity (availability, access, utilization, stability)

IPC Overall Objective and focus areas Decision maker’s at the global, regional and national level use the IPC for decision making and this is providing the evidence and standards for better decisions that improve emergency and development policy and programming IPC Four Outcomes: 1. Institutionalization of IPC within Global, Regional and National structures, frameworks and strategiess. 2. Professionalized IPC food security analysis training & capacity. 3. High quality IPC Acute and Chronic Food Insecurity products. 4. Improved access to IPC analysis for use in emergency and development policy and programming. 8

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)

How Does IPC Engage Stakeholders and Decision Makers?

IPC Engages Partners as Stakeholders & Decision Makers at the Global, Regional and Country Level • Global Partners: Strategic Direction, Support Implement & Use IPC Global Steering Committee Partners: • Country Level Partners Own, Implement & Use IPC Example: Philippines Country IPC Partners: • Leading Technical Agencies & Experts guide IPC tool development New partners in technical development: • Resource Partners: Strategic Direction, Guide Implementation & Use IPC rent Resource Partners: Benefited from Other Partner Support:

IPC Global-Regional-Country Governance Structures • • IPC Global Steering Committee (IPC GSC) with 12 members IPC Global Technical Advisory Board (IPC TAG) – • With Global Technical Working Groups (Food Security & Nutrition) IPC Global Support Unit (IPC GSU) Ø Reports to IPC GSC and Supports Implementation of IPC Globally Ø Linked to Regional and National levels through the IPC Regional Coordinators seconded in each region • • IPC Regional Steering Committee’s /IPC Regional Technical Working Groups supported by IPC Regional Coordinators IPC Country Steering Committee’s/ IPCCountry Technical Working Groups Linked and Supported by IPC Regional Working Groups and IPC Regional Coordinators

IPC Governance Structure and Partner Network IPC Global Steering Committee ACF, CARE, CILSS, FAO, FEWS NET, FSC, EC-JRC, Oxfam, Save the Children, SICA, and WFP IPC Global Emergency Review Committee IPC Technical Advisory Group (TAG) (ACF, CARE, CILSS, FAO, FEWS NET, EC-JRC, Oxfam, Save the Children, SICA-PRESANCA, USAID-FANTA and WFP) IPC Chronic Working Group (FAO, FEWS NET, EC-JRC, CARE, Oxfam, Save the Children, SICA-PRESANCA, USAID-FANTA, WFP and the World Bank) IPC Global Programme Manager IPC Food Security Officers IPC Quality and Compliance Officer (WFP) IPC Country Support Officer IPC Nutrition Working Group External/Technical Support (CDC, CILSS, EC-JRC, FAO, FEWS NET, FSNAU, Global Nutrition Cluster, Institute of Child Health/University of London, Save the Children, SICA-INCAP, SICA-PRESANCA, Standing Committee on Nutrition (WHO), Unicef, USAID- FANTA, WHO, WFP and the World Bank) Technical Advisors (EC-JRC) IPC Nutrition Officer IPC Impact Evaluation Officer ISS Development Officer Senior Nutrition Advisor (UNICEF) Senior Impact/Evaluation Advisor (TANGO Inter. ) IPC Regional and Country Network IPC Global Support Unit (GSU) ASIA IPC Regional Coordinator Regional IPC Steering Committee EAST AND CENTRAL AFRICA FSNWG IPC Steering Committee IPC Regional Coordinator LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN IPC Regional Technical Working Group IPC Regional Coordinator SOUTHERN AFRICA SADC IPC Regional Coordinator SADC RVAC IPC Working Group WEST AFRICA IPC-CH Regional Advisor CILSS CH Technical Committee COUNTRY IPC Steering Committee’s/ TECHNICAL WORKING GROUPS (TWG) NORTH AFRICA, NEAR EAST and OTHER COUNTRIES Emerging IPC countries and interest Operations & Communications Operations Officer Communication Officer Admin. Assistants Communication Assistant Direct Supervision Partner Collaboration Technical Support Updated September 2014

IPC Multi-stakeholder Process at Country Level 1. At country level, IPC aims at being used in decision making processes and thus informing the formulation of FSN-related policies and strategies; 2. Various and relevant stakeholders are engaged in all IPC activities and processes – institutionalization; technical development; implementation of analysis; use of IPC findings. 3. IPC analysis are planned and conducted to support the gov’t and stakeholder policies/strategies formulation; 4. IPC is demand driven by Countries; IPC aims to be government owned and led multi-partner processes. 14

IPC use in FSN Policy and Programming Governments - Food Planning and Monitoring Unit (FPMU) in Bangladesh uses IPC to inform Country Investment Plan (CIP) - Ministry of Agriculture in Nepal uses IPC/Ne. KSAP information to guide Agricultural Development Strategy (ADS) - National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) in Philippines states its intention to use IPC to inform Philippine Development Plan (PDP) - IPC used by Kenya Food Security Steering Group (KFSSG) to guide national and district level plans - South Sudan officially adopted IPC to as the situational analysis tool to inform food security programming and response. 15

IPC use in FSN Policy and Programming Resource Partners - DFID referred to IPC information in developing 3, 7 and 10 year strategies in Bangladesh - IPC informed the EU/ECHO Humanitarian Implementation Plan (2014) in Haiti - Multiple resource partners funding Humanitarian Appeals in Eastern and Central Africa (Somalia, South Sudan, Kenya, DRC) - USAID is using IPC for early warning and situational analysis to inform strategies, prioritization and resource allocation

IPC use in FSN Policy and Programming UN Agencies - In South Sudan, WFP and FAO used IPC to allocate resources for humanitarian response - FAO used IPC information in funding proposals to EU and DFID for activities in Bangladesh - WFP used IPC information to target Cash-for. Work activities in Haiti - WFP used IPC information for targeting PRRO in Mindanao (Philippines) following Typhoon Bopha (2013)

IPC use in FSN Policy and Programming NGOs - NGO consortium (Som. Re. P) using IPC as a basis for designing resilience program in Somalia - IPC informed Joint Needs Assessment (JNA) and guided program targeting by ACF and Oxfam in Bangladesh - Save the Children, Practical Action use IPC/Ne. KSAP information to target interventions in Nepal - Through TWGs NGOs more effectively linked with government counterparts

FSN Forum & IPC Synergies 1. Support IPC technical development multiexperts/stakeholders discussions 2. Support Lesson Leaning exercises on IPC implementation and/or specific processes 3. Help with the regional/country dissemination of the IPC analysis and thus the use of the IPC findings to inform FSN policy and programming. 19

Thank YOU! www. ipcinfo. org