Wahenga

Em Português | Sitemap

Search

RHVP publications > wahenga.comments

wahenga.comments

	Views on this comment
	Would you like to submit your views on this comment?
	send your views

Comments on the IPC
22 June 2007

While not ideal, the Integrated Food Security and Phase Classification (IPC) is an invaluable tool in integrating various food security analyses.

Comments on Brief # 12: A Review of the Integrated Food Security and Phase Classification (IPC) by Mark Lawrence and Nick Maunder

This comment was submitted to wahenga.net in response to Brief # 12: A Review of the Integrated Food Security and Phase Classification (IPC) by Mark Lawrence and Nick Maunder. wahenga.net does not necessarily subscribe to the views expressed in this comment.

While not ideal, the Integrated Food Security and Phase Classification (IPC) is an invaluable tool in integrating various food security analyses into one geo-referenced platform so that decision-makers will be able to get core information for basic decision-making. It also has the potential to provide a framework for standard acceptable approaches (using common languages) for food security analysis and response so as to compare food security situations across countries, which is currently lacking in the information systems.

The IPC should not be considered as a threat to any other food security analysis, especially as it attempts to build on the current livelihood baseline collection and analysis. Any acceptable baseline information and needs assessment tool (SENAC tools, HEA or others), can easily fit into the IPC as it is flexible and accommodative and promotes comprehensive and integrated approaches.

The IPC should also not be overstretched or blamed for all food security information-related problems. Furthermore, one should be extra careful in comparing 'apples' with 'apples'. The IPC creates a platform from which decision-makers can make use of information in a transparent manner and can probe further information when needed.

Whatever you call it, the whole challenge focuses on provision of valuable, reliable, consistent and timely information analysis in a simplistic integrated geo-referenced manner with no particular strings attached to any specific methodology. All practitioners, experts and decision-makers in the area of food security should invest as much as they can in strengthening and improving their food security information collection and analysis, as well as palatable and decision-oriented dissemination.

The table below details this response to issues raised in wahenga.brief # 12, May 2007: A Review of the Integrated Food Security and Phase Classification (IPC):

Issue raised in wahenga.brief Number 12	Response
Intervention: the current response analysis framework offered by the IPC is relatively general	The IPC provides the framework, but is not expected as a solution for all detailed interventions (like provision of seeds and tools), which depends on specific situation analysis of the area concerned.
The IPC does not promote disaster risk reduction initiatives	If you want to flexibly understand the IPC, it can be stretched to advocating disaster risk reduction initiatives. However, this does not seem to be a direct objective of the IPC as it goes beyond the current stated objectives of IPC - we should therefore not overstretch the tool.
Underlying causes of food insecurity	The IPC bases itself on outcomes on lives and livelihoods, which are functions of both immediate hazard events along with underlying causes, and the specific vulnerabilities. This basically means that the IPC already takes underlying causes implicitly into account. This should, of course, be strengthened with other detailed information, such as the SENAC activity, as there is a strong correlation between the two efforts. Underlying causes of food insecurity need much more rigorous and in-depth analysis which should be sought in other works rather than the IPC.
Quality and timeliness of data	This is a generic problem to all food security analysis in developing countries. The IPC is not meant for resolving this issue, but rather provides the transparency to identify the deficiency of data quality. The IPC attempts to provide simplistic, rigorous and generic analysis using the existing information and system. As the authors state; "the transparency of the IPC offers the opportunity to highlight deficiencies in the data, which should form a basis for advocating improvements in the availability and quality of data over time."
Convergence of analysis vs. convergence of evidence	This looks to be semantic rather than a comment. The analysis emanates from evidence, and different analyses for the same results are not converged - rather, these different evidences with their specialised analysis are converged. The IPC does both convergence of evidence and analysis. Consensual analysis, in which the IPC is based and where decision-makers are involved in the process, has the potential to provide timely and transparent evidence and invaluable options for response.
Analysis of vulnerability	This is not directly applicable to the IPC - it is not a needs assessment tool. Vulnerability analysis is part of the needs assessment process in the country, which fits into the IPC, not specifically a function of the IPC per se, and hence, should not overstretch the IPC to do this assessment. It is not relevant to advocate any needs assessment methodology, such as HEA, which is limited in scope.
Donor investments in the IPC may simply divert attention and resources from addressing the real data, analytical and institutional constraints	As stated by the authors; " the transparency of the IPC offers the opportunity to highlight deficiencies in the data, which should form a basis for advocating improvements in the availability and quality of data over time." This essentially initiates the quality improvement of data collection, analysis and dissemination.
Donors willingness and capacity to respond to improved analysis and recommendations	This is a generic problem to all food security analysis and decision-making tools. However, involvement of decision-makers in the whole IPC process will partly ameliorate the problem. Donors or decision-makers should not wait for news agencies such as the BBC, CNN, etc to cover the crises before responding.
The IPC currently confounds the duration and severity of food insecurity in one scale. In phase 2, there is the implicit assumption that 'chronic' equates to mild food insecurity.	The IPC uses one scale at one point in time and attempts to update the scale depending on the ground monitoring information. The Early Warning (EW) end analyses are incorporated into the approach as well. Chronic food insecurity and its underlying causes are implicitly stated but not equated with mild food insecurity. Rather, it is believed to be dealt with separately as it requires much more context, situation analysis and sector specific detailed information. In some contexts and situations, the IPC phases may need further classification, including the chronic food insecurity.
The Health and Nutrition Humanitarian Tracking System vs. the IPC	The IPC was never meant to replace any food security analysis methodologies. It is rather meant to have a comprehensive and holistic approach, depending on the strength and consistency of the methodology which is applicable on the ground. The method is meant to include all the core food security analysis on one platform and not only focus on nutrition. Therefore, there is a strong collaboration rather than one being comparatively more advantageous than the other. Another important part of IPC is building technical consensus across multiple sectors.
Data availability and how to deal with data gaps and poor quality data	Again, this is a problem to all partners involved in the area of food security. Improvements and building on the existing should be an ongoing process rather than discarding what has already been developed and improved.
Potential confusion between current phase and early warning phase	The two phases are clearly distinguished in the IPC's latest reference table.
Methods for early warning	According to the IPC guideline; "While the phase classification describes the current or imminent situation for a given area, early warning levels are a predictive tool to communicate the risk of a worsening phase." The details are clearly demonstrated in the IPC technical manual, although, more strength and qualifications are required here.
The relationship between the IPC and needs assessment	The IPC was never intended to replace the needs assessment methodology. It is meant to provide an informative tool for decision-making and it is up to the decision-maker to further probe for information once the framework for decision is provided. The IPC should recommend any method (like HEA) for needs assessment.

Top of page | Disclaimer