Fsnau-Post-Gu-2012-Technical-Report

5. Appendices
5.1.1 BAcKGROUnd And RecenT deVeLOpMenTs in THe inTeGRATed FOOd secURiTY pHAse
cLAssiFicATiOn
The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) was first developed in 2004 by the Food Security Analysis Unit
(FSAU/FSNAU). Since then, FSNAU has been progressively developing and using this tool to classify different food
security situations. Given the success of the IPC in Somalia, a number of food security-oriented agencies formed a global
partnership for the further development and use of the IPC including: FAO, WFP, USAID-funded FEWS NET, Oxfam GB,
CARE, SCF-UK/US, and the Joint Research Centre of the European Union. Together with national governments, these
international agencies and many others at regional and national levels are collaborating to continue the development and
use of the IPC in other countries.
In late 2007, a decision was made by the International IPC Steering Committee to introduce some technical improvements
and changes to the existing IPC Version 1.0, including a number of structural revisions and standardization of the
cartographic protocols. In 2012, a revised IPC Version 2.0 will be released, which will introduce revised standards based
on field application and expert consultation over the past several years. The IPC Version 2.0 was developed by IPC Global
Support Unit based on numerous consultations with IPC country analysts, academic studies, and direct inputs from the IPC
Technical Advisory Group (a group of food security experts representing the IPC partner agencies and other organizations).
By definition, IPC is a set of tools and procedures to classify the nature and severity of food insecurity. Its purpose is to
consolidate complex analysis of food security situations for evidence-based decision support. It is designed from the
perspective of decision making. Thus, rather than ‘pushing’ complex information to decision makers, the IPC is designed
to be demand driven-taking stock of the essential aspects of situation analysis that decision makers consistently require.
Given the inherent complexity of food security analysis, data limitations, and diverse contexts; the IPC protocols include
practical tools and processes to ensure these questions are answered - as best as possible - in a comparable, transparent,
reliable, relevant, and consensus-based manner. The IPC is not an assessment methodology or data collection tool. It does
not replace the need for continued investment in comprehensive data collection mechanisms. Rather the IPC approach
utilizes the available information to classify the nature and severity of the food security situation, around the needs of
decision makers as well as, contributes to making food security actions more effective, needs-based, strategic, and timely.
The IPC approach is designed to be applicable in any context irrespective of the type of food insecurity, hazard, socioeconomic,
livelihood, institutional, or data context. Although the IPC is designed to structure the analysis process as
systematically as possible, it requires critical thinking on the part of the food security analysts as it is not based on a
mathematical model. As such, the analysts are required to have strong understanding of the concepts and technical details
of conducting food security, nutrition, and livelihoods analysis. Further, because the IPC relies on a consensus-based
approach, it requires the analysts to be conscious of, and minimize, any potential biases in their analysis. This is achieved
through a critical evaluation of the available evidence in support of an agreed food security classification.
The IPC Version 2 has four functions: (1) Building Technical Consensus, (2) Classifying Severity and Causes, (3)
Communicating for Action, and (4) Quality Assurance. Each function includes protocols (tools and procedures) that Guide
the work of food security analysts. By systematizing these core and essential aspects of food security analysis, the IPC
contributes to developing standards and building capacity for food security professionals.
Some key revisions in Version 2.0 include:
• Organizing the IPC tools and processes around the four functions stated above
• Introducing an IPC analytical framework that builds from and draws together four commonly used conceptual
frameworks: Risk = f (Hazard, Vulnerability), Sustainable Livelihoods Approach, Nutrition Conceptual Model, and the
four ‘dimensions’ of food security (availability, access, utilization, and stability).
• Condensing the IPC reference outcomes just four (food consumption, livelihood change, nutrition, and mortality),
complimented by an open set of contribution factors. This will further enable comparable results across different
contexts.
• Clarifying and revising units of analysis including spatial, population, and temporal units
• Clarifying the early warning function of the IPC by having two time periods for analysis of acute food insecurity: current
situation and projected most likely scenario.
• Clarifying how to account for humanitarian assistance in the analysis.
• Introducing a Reference Table and associated tools for analyzing Chronic Food Insecurity.
• Improving the communication tools (previously known as the cartographic protocols) to include additional aspects
of core communication
FSNAU Technical Series Report No. VI 48
Issued October 18, 2012
Appendices
81