Ana səhifə

Committee on world food security 33rd Session


Yüklə 129.7 Kb.
tarix26.06.2016
ölçüsü129.7 Kb.




COMMITTEE ON WORLD FOOD SECURITY
33rd Session

7– 10 May 2007


Special Event: Perspectives on a Common Approach for

Food Security Analysis and Response:

The Contribution of the IPC
Monday 9 May 2007. Afternoon Session, 14:30 to 17:30

Synopsis of Meeting
The Special Event focussing on the Integrated Food Security and Humanitarian Phase Classification ensued from a recommendation of the 32nd CFS meeting that FAO ‘continue to develop and implement food security analysis and assessment tools such as the Integrated Food Security and Humanitarian Phase Classification system’ (October 2006).
In this light the Special Event was scheduled to consider how ongoing country perspectives and activities are informing the development and implementation of the IPC approach. The objectives of the event were to (i) outline how country implementation activities are information a common approach for food security analysis and response (ii) outline how multiple agencies are working together to improve food security and analysis and response through IPC activities at country level (iii) to preview how online technology will be harnessed in the future application and adoption at county level (See Annex 1)
The event included discussants from national institutions in the Southern Sudan and the Republic of Kenya, FAO, Oxfam GB and WFP. The event was chaired by Mr. Carlos de Sousa (Vice Minister of Agriculture of Mozambique). Approximately 80 participants attended the event representing a number of representations to FAO (See Annex 2).
I. Discussion
Mr. Carlos de Sousa (Vice Minister, Representing the Ministry of Agriculture, Mozambique) chaired the meeting and welcomed participants on behalf of the CFS Bureau. In introducing the speakers Mr. De Sousa noted the strong interest that had been expressed concerning the potential use of the IPC by delegates and hoped the session would help to inform delegates further of progress since the 32nd CFS meeting.
Mr. Luca Alinovi (Programme Manager, Food Security Information for Action, Agricultural Economics Division, FAO) provided an overview on IPC approach and its importance.
The IPC is a standardised scale that integrates food security, nutrition and livelihood information into a clear statement about the severity of a crisis and implications for humanitarian response. The IPC classifies and explains the main categories of a crisis along the following phases (1) Generally food insecure (2) Chronically food insecure (3) Acute Food and livelihood crisis (4) Humanitarian Emergency and (5) Famine/Humanitarian catastrophe.
In classifying the severity of a given crisis the IPC builds upon internationally accepted standards and classifications to support holistic evidence based approaches to analysis. The IPC aims to provide (i) technical consensus and a common language (ii) clearer early warning and strategic information use (iii) strategic response.
The rationale of the IPC is to provide decision makers at all levels with clear information to inform response strategies according to need. Within the cross cutting fields of food security and humanitarian response there are increasingly strong calls for improved analysis and more effective use of available information to ensure greater comparability, transparency of evidence and stronger linkages between information and action.
The IPC is seen to provide a unique platform for technical consensus and so a key aspect of IPC development is the underlying institutional process and in particular the multiple partnership arrangements that underpin an analysis. Moving forward a number of agencies have committed to working towards a common approach for the IPC. At an international meeting on 23 March 2007 the following agencies pledged to work towards a common strategy: Care International, FAO, FEWSNET, Oxfam GB, Save the Children US and UK and WFP. Further collaborations are also being pursued with other stakeholders including the donor community. Particular support has been noted from the EC, in addition to DFID, CIDA and USAID.
In closing, Mr. Alinovi noted that the IPC will not solve all problems related to information use and analysis. It will however be useful in highlighting related upward and downward information requirements.
Mr. John Aylieff (Director, Analysis, Assessment and Preparedness Division, WFP) outlined the strategic interest of WFP in improving food security classification and in developing further the IPC. As highlighted through their work in SENAC, WFP have an expressed commitment to improving analysis, assessment and country capacity. The IPC embraces all of these principles with the added value of providing validation and technical consensus on analysis. Furthermore it provides a mechanism to pull together multiple evidence sources and consider different methodologies through convergence of evidence.
WFP have been involved in IPC development through close partnership with FAO and other stakeholders. Main activities have included support to initial IPC development activities in the Horn of Africa, as well as WFP pilot activities in Indonesia and Cambodia. Particular technical challenges include the application to chronic contexts.
Moving forward, WFP will undertake 5-6 pilot exercises outside the Horn of Africa, incorporating the IPC approach. Lesson learning reviews will then consider how the IPC achieves comparability, technical consensus and links analysis to decision making.
Mr. Michael Roberto Kenyi (Director General for Planning and Programming, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Government of Southern Sudan) outlined the views and experiences of the Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS) of the IPC. In noting the apologies of Dr. Babiker Haj Hassan (Planning and Agricultural Economics Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Government of National Unity Sudan) Mr. Kenyi highlighted the common interest in IPC in both North and South Sudan. This reflected how Sudan was working effectively since the adoption of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (July 2004) as one country with two systems.
The government of South Sudan was first exposed to the IPC analysis in July 2004. Since July 2005 there have been detailed discussions with FAO on improving food security analysis and response, with more recent activities focused on the adaption of the IPC framework to the south Sudanese context.

In explaining the relevance of IPC in South Sudan Mr Kenyi noted the scope of the tool to enable more strategic decision making, to link information and action and to identify needs-based approaches. The underlying partnership approach of the IPC was particularly appreciated as was the technical credibility of the IPC, which is based on acceptable and comparable standards of analysis.


The potential utilization of IPC in Southern Sudan could well promote food security and livelihood analysis, disaster preparedness, and better information management. Areas for improvement of IPC included (i) the preparation on the ground for future situation analysis (ii) enhanced coordinated; participatory and integrated approaches within existing institutional structures and (iii) capacity building in short, medium and longer term.
Representatives from South Sudan have been involved in a number of training and awareness raising exercises on IPC over the last few months, including a regional exercise in Nairobi. On 6-8 June 2007 a technical IPC workshop will take place in Juba.
Mr. James Odour Okoth (Drought Management Coordinator, Ministry of State for Special Programmes, Office of the President, Government of the Republic of Kenya) focussed on institutional arrangements for food security information and analysis within Kenya and the degree to which the IPC responded to demand driven requirements at district and national level.
Kenya has a detailed institutional framework and existing structures to support food security requirements including (i) the Kenya Food Security Meeting (KFSM): the main coordination body which acts as an open forum of high level presentation of a broad grouping of organizations at the national level with interest in food security (ii) the Kenya Food Security Steering Group (KFSSG) a restricted group of stakeholders which acts as a technical ‘think tank’ and advisory body to all relevant stakeholders on issues of drought management and food security (iii) Data and Information Subcommittee of the KFSSG (DISK) which focuses on improving the quality, quantity and timeliness of food security and disaster management information in Kenya, through increased data sharing, coordinated investments in developing capacity and systems, and through continuous improvements in methodologies and techniques.
The institutional structure points to advanced information collection and early warning analysis, also under the Arid Lands Resource Management Project (ALRMP). This is evidenced by regular food security outlook bulletins and bi-annual short and long rains assessment.
In March 2007 the IPC was employed as the analytical framework for the 2007 short rains assessment under the management of DISK. The adoption of the IPC points to a number of areas where the IPC can help to strengthen existing information and institutional requirements. For example, the IPC enables consistency in terminology and technical consensus. It provides a framework to integrate early warning information and situation analysis thereby capturing dynamic aspects of a crisis. Furthermore it provides definition on the relevance and cut offs of various outcome indicators related to food security, nutrition and livelihoods.
A number of prevailing conditions are required for the IPC to work. This includes the identification of appropriate institutional conditions to facilitate transparency and consensus; the identification of modalities for data collection and analysis; and the customisation of data and information to existing context. A key lesson from the recent IPC application concerned the linkage between national analysis and district planning/involvement. Extra attention was required in this area to ensure consistency of approach.

Mr. Chris Leather (Emergency Food Security & Livelihoods Adviser, Oxfam GB) explained the strategic interest of Oxfam GB in the IPC approach. For Oxfam GB the IPC contributes to more effective food security analysis which can enable more appropriate responses according to need in support of hungry people throughout the world.
Oxfam points out that the IPC approach can facilitate improved decision making and allocation of resources. The IPC can also provide a platform to governments and international organizations to work together to improve the quality of food security analysis and response.
In this regard, Mr. Leather highlighted the particular roles that can be played by different actors in applying the IPC. It was noted that governments should play a key role in coordinating and developing IPC at national level.
Ms. Denise Melvin (Information and Communication Officer, FAO) highlighted how online technology can be harnessed to support training and capacity at national level. In explaining the support requirements for IPC Ms. Melvin stressed how online support can complement a range of other primary interventions, including face-to-face learning and distance learning exercises.
In noting the role of technology Ms. Melvin highlighted the need to create networks and partnerships in order to leverage participation that might be required at national, regional and global level. Ms. Melvin provided a case study of how online technology had already supported a technical review of the IPC tool. Moving forward some possibilities included the creation of online communities of practice and interactive training facilities.

II. QUESTIONS & comments
Sudan commended FAO and Mr. Kenji on progress in the area of food security analysis and response. Within Sudan, there is a recognised need for international organizations to work together in this area.
TANZANIA inquired on future developments on IPC for the Horn of Africa and whether or not Tanzania was included in initial development plans proposed.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION reiterated its support for the IPC, stressing the great potential of this instrument to contribute to food security throughout the developing world. The EC and its donor countries are ready to continue providing their support for the IPC, in particular through the forthcoming EC Food Security Thematic Programme. Within this programme a special component linking food security information to decision making has been endorsed by the European Parliament on 4 May 2007. As with other tools, it is important to build consensus around the IPC, including paying attention to the regional dimension. Donors require the comparability of data, and the IPC provides not a static picture, but a useful, dynamic one.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC inquired on the possibilities of further developing the IPC in other regions (i.e., the rest of Africa, Asia, and Latin America & the Caribbean, mentioning Haiti specifically). Also, inquired on possible involvement of FAO Regional, Subregional and National Representatives in promoting IPC issues.
NIGER asked how this work connected with the Comite Permanent Inter Etats de Lutte Contre la Sécheresse Dans La Sahel (CILLS), and whether or not ongoing work on harmonized frameworks and the IPC were basically one and the same. Further questions posed: Can the IPC help Niger to improve data collection? Can FAO through the IPC help his governments improving the dialogue with other actors? Could FAO and WFP help with the logistical tools for an adequate application of the IPC? How can IPC help prevent and analyse catastrophes, and the necessary planning for responses?
NIGERIA asked if the IPC was only applicable in the most extreme crisis scenarios and in this instance to what degree government support was actually necessary
KENYA stated that logistics and sustainable costs are issues for their country and asked about online IPC training.
WFP: asked about the availability of online training. Concerning the Kenyan presentation the potential conflict of comparable international information versus locally relevant information was raised.
III. ANSWERS
Mr. Kenyi (answering Sudan) stated that in order to effectively function, the IPC needs a minimum level of information. For this reason, training and capacity building is very important. Global consensus is an imperative, but we have to highlight on the real necessity of people at local level. The IPC is an important tool to planning disaster response. The collaboration with donors and governments is extremely important.
Mr. ALINOVI (answering Tanzania) stated that the plan for future development of the IPC foresees five African countries, including Tanzania.
Concerning Niger and Nigeria, Mr. Alinovi stated that governments play an important role. Countries must lead and support the IPC initiative and approach, as it offers clear data to the decisions makers. Mr. Alinovi further stressed the need to capture regional dimensions and the complementary nature of IPC approach to ongoing activities, including CILSS. The IPC is not a simple software: it is a process, and this process engages all stakeholders; online training is important, but face-to-face training is also essential, as it fosters capacity building and cross-learning.
Mr. LEATHER stated that the IPC approach provides classification of food insecurity and can inform diverse response interventions. The IPC was not strictly a humanitarian tool, but instead provided a broader classification of the different levels of severity posed by a crisis. The undertaking of an IPC approach should safeguard for neutral analysis. The need to invest in capacity is further recognised.
Ms MELVIN (answering WFP) reiterated that online training is important, but cannot be a substitute for face-to-face training.

Mr ALINOVI stated next steps for IPC development involved the continuation and increased support of country initiatives including Horn of Africa activities and WFP pilot exercises. This would be complemented by continuous lesson learning events. Further follow ups included specific regional training events, distance and online learning. In the interim multiple stakeholders are working collectively towards a common programme approach in the medium term.


Concluding Remarks
In concluding the Chairperson noted the value added of the IPC and the particular relevance of the analytical output including cartographic protocol and IPC analysis templates. The possibility of enabling technical consensus amongst a broad range of actors and stakeholders was also highlighted, as evidenced by the diverse range of interventions from Sudan and Kenya, FAO, WFP and Oxfam GB.
Concerning the interventions from Sudan and Kenya the Chairperson noted the future challenges (and value added) of integrating the IPC within existing institutional structures and information systems. In this context the importance of interacting and training appropriate staff would be critical.
The practical examples related to online training highlighted how new technologies could assist in the future development and learning on the IPC.
The Chairperson concluded by thanking discussants for their participation and encouraging further reports at the next CFS on progress made in the forthcoming year.

Annex 1


Agenda


14.30-15.00

Overview and Introduction on Integrated Food Security and Humanitarian Phase Classification.

Current Results, Strategy and Future Development.
Chairperson: Dr. Carlos de Sousa (Vice Minister, Representing the Ministry of Agriculture, Mozambique)
Mr. Luca Alinovi (Programme Manager, Food Security Information for Action, Agricultural Economics Division, FAO)
Mr. John Aylieff (Director, Analysis, Assessment and Preparedness Division, WFP)



15.00-15.45

Country Experiences on IPC

With introduction on Horn of Africa experiences by Mr. Luca Alinovi,


Guest Speakers
Mr. Michael Roberto Kenyi (Director General for Planning and Programming, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Government of Southern Sudan)
Mr. James Oduor Okoth (Drought Management Coordinator,

Ministry of State for Special Programmes, Office of the President, Government of the Republic of Kenya)





15.45-16.30

Towards a Common Approach: Moving Forward on IPC
Interagency Perspectives on IPC Development:

Mr. Chris Leather, Emergency Food Security & Livelihoods Adviser Oxfam GB
Using Online Technology to Support Country Adaptation and Capacity

Ms. Denise Melvin, Information and Communications Officer, FAO



16.30-17.30

Questions and Answers & Plenary Discussion


Annex 1


List of Participants





Name

Representation

1

Abeth Bugarcic Rose

Serbia

2

Abid Abdelhamid

Tunisia

3

Ait Hmid Mohamed

Marocco

4

Alinovi Luca

ESAF/FAO

5

Amri Bin Ismail

Malaysia

6

Andrews Colin

ESFA/FAO

7

Arnesson Margareta

Sweden

8

Arvelo Caamaño Mario

PR Dominican Republic

9

Avendano Pedro

WFP

10

Aylieff John

WFP

11

Banze Laurinda

Mozambique

12

Brudvig Lee

PR USA

13

Carbonera Jean

Italy

14

Cerilli Silvia

ESTG/FAO

15

Cerisola Anne-Sophie

France

16

De Sousa Carlos

Mozambique

17

Dop MarieClaude

AGNA/FAO

18

Eltayeb Elfaki Elnor Mohamed

Sudan

19

Faouzi n Chakiri

Ministry of Agricultur of Morocco

20

Garagnani Laura

EC

21

Garrido Carmen

PR Spain

22

Gasco Verdier Beatriz

IPC for Food Sovereignity

23

Geusebroek Marjolein

PR Netherlands

24

Glinni Ariella

AGD/Fao

25

Gratereaux Yanina

PR Dominican Republic

26

Hanyane Lethusang

Lesotho

27

Harouna IBRAHIMA

Niger

28

Hayley Laurie

Canadian Mission

29

Hemrich Guenter

ESAF/FAO

30

Herbinger Wolfgang

WFP

31

Hoskins Alexis

WFP

32

Ingawa S.A.

Nigeria

33

Jakobse Kristian

ESAF/FAO

34

Jenin Lea

ESTM/FAO

35

Johnston Andrew

Artisanal Fisher Association

36

Joseph Ngirwa Wilfred

PR United Republic of Tanzania

37

Kapita Ben

Zambia

38

Karanja Mercy

IFAP Paris

39

Konttinen Anu

MFA Finland

40

Leather Chris

OXFAM GB

41

Lesjak Magdalena

PR Switzerland

42

Libombo Marcela

Mozambique

43

Lindström Tina

Sweden

44

Lopriore Cristina

ESAF/FAO

45

Lovendal ChristianRomer

ESAF/FAO

46

Mattioli Laura

ESAF/FAO

47

Mburu Joseph

PR Kenya

48

Melvin Denise

ESFA/FAO

49

Metz Manfred

FAO/Cosultant

50

Michael Roberto Kenyi

Southern Sudan

51

Motselebane Mantho

Lesotho

52

Moyzesova Daniela

PR Czech Republic

53

Ndembela Willie

Zambia

54

Negadu S.

Nigeria

55

Negre Thierry

EC

56

Nyikuli Ann Belinda

PR Kenya

57

Oduor Okoth James

Kenya

58

Orlandi Leandro

Corpo forestale

59

Palma Giulia

AGNA/FAO

60

Petracchi Cristina

KCEF/FAO

61

Petrovic Selena

Serba

62

Phiri Margaret

WFP

63

Pihlatie Heidi

PR Finland

64

Rass Nikola

AGAL/FAO

65

Raymond Carl

PR Haiti

66

Razes Maylis

AGNA/FAO

67

Rossini Lidia

I.C.W.- C.I.F.

68

Russo Luca

ESAF/FAO

69

Ruzak Ayazi Abdul

Afghanistan

70

Sharon Kotok

PR USA

71

Shindo Chie

ESAF/FAO

72

Sibrian Ricardo

ESSG/FAO

73

Simon George

Interfais/WFP

74

Skafte Soren

PR Denmark

75

Smulders Mark

ESA/FAO

76

SolalCeligny Amelie

AGNA/FAO

77

Tavakolian Javad

PR Iran

78

Tefft James

ESAF/FAO

79

Tensue Yohannes

PR Eritrea

80

Trouyet Marc

PR of France

81

Vandorp Marianne

Wageningen University Netherlands

82

Vinet Rodrigue

TCES/FAO

83

Viviani Serena

Ecuador

84

Wieb Keith

ESA/FAO

85

Wogerbaur Hedwig

Austria

86

Wretborn Christer

Sweden

87

 

China




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©atelim.com 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət