Independent review calls for restructuring of IPC Somalia, urges robust stakeholder participation to ensure productive food security information

By T. Roble

GOOBJOOG NEWS: An independent review has called for cross-cutting reforms in the IPC Somalia, a UN-mandated body tasked with providing information on food security, citing a lack of stakeholder inclusivity, transparency, and overall government and management inadequacies.

The independent review, which was formed following concerns by five donors funding the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) called for a raft of changes to ensure the IPC meets globally set standards as the foremost source of information on food security and analysis in Somalia for humanitarian decision-making. It cites three major challenges affecting the effective functioning of IPC. These are governance, data analysis, and communication of data.

Governance, Management and Leadership

The IPC was created by the Food Security and Nutrition Analysis Unit (FSNAU) in Somalia in 2004, since when it has become the ‘gold standard’ for providing a snapshot of the severity of food insecurity in over 30 countries. FSNAU is a component of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). According to the review, the IPC standard which has been adopted in about 30 countries envisages a multisectoral participation and therefore should not operate within the ambits of FSNAU. However, the review report notes that ‘the FSNAU has continued to drive and lead the IPC process for Somalia ever since, maintaining a functional and influential IPC system throughout a challenging period of political turbulence in Somalia. “The technical skills and expertise of the FSNAU are widely appreciated, but its record in adapting the IPC process to the changing political and institutional context in the country, and to other global trends in IPC processes, is weak,” the report says.

The report notes that FSNAU’s domination of IPC,  ‘albeit highly skilled technical unit, and the heavy dependence on the seasonal assessments the FSNAU leads, has undermined three key global features of the IPC. First, the review says, the FSAU domination of IPC has undermined its multi-stakeholder nature and sense of collective ownership, the plurality of data sources and knowledge on which the IPC should be based and the extent to which the IPC results are based on genuine consensus across a range of different participating stakeholders.

As a result, the review says the domination may affect the depth and coverage of the IPC analysis. It also means the IPC in Somalia is out of alignment with global standards on how the IPC should be run.

Data analysis

On data analysis, the report says the analysis of data remained constrained by structural challenges and the relationship between FSNAU, IPC and stakeholders. It notes that the IPC has faced a lack of transparency in how the data from different agencies is used in the analysis process and is also constrained by a workshop style that gives little time or space to open discussion and challenge; and a lack of knowledge and capacity on the part of some stakeholder groups.

As a result, some stakeholder groups are poorly represented in IPC analysis workshops, in particular the FGS and national NGOs, which inhibits the extent to which the IPC is nationally owned. Some international NGOs that play a major part in IPC analysis processes in other countries do not regularly participate in IPC analysis workshops in Somalia, and certain sectors are poorly represented, in particular WASH and health, the report adds.

Data communication and dissemination

Communication and dissemination of products produced by IPC also suffer significant constraints, the review says.

“The multi-stakeholder nature of the IPC is also missing in how IPC results for Somalia are communicated, from drafting of communication products to dissemination and presentation to decision-makers,” the report says. It adds that the FSNAU is de facto the sole decision-maker for communications with some low-key support from the GSU and FEWS NET, but there is no discussion or debate with other stakeholders in advance of publication. This results in a lack of collective ownership on the part of the national and international humanitarian community of the IPC results, which in turn means there have been many lost opportunities for strong, common messaging and communication of IPC conclusions and their implications.

Although IPC Somalia produces sound technical results, the report says, the way it has been run is not fulfilling the essence of the IPC as a collectively owned and consensus-based analysis process – the raison d’être for developing the IPC in the first place – to provide decision-makers with a rigorous, evidence- and consensus-based analysis of food insecurity and acute malnutrition situations.

For example, in 2022, IPC produced several famine warnings, the report says, ‘but most IPC users did not feel that IPC communications provided a clear picture on which to base decisions.” It notes that there was a lack of a clear, nuanced narrative explaining the results and linking reports over time. Staff in IPC stakeholder organisations had to ‘translate’ IPC results for senior decision-makers, leading to different interpretations of the severity of food insecurity.

FGS role and way forward

The report acknowledges the potential role of the Federal Government in the governance of the IPC. It notes that the IPC should be institutionalised with the FGS but notes it should be domesticated within a senior ministry which plays an overnight of broad governmental processes and an understanding of the implications and humanitarian resource flows.

To cure these challenges, the review states, ‘a restructure of the IPC process in Somalia is required – indeed, is overdue – to better reflect the changing political and institutional context in Somalia, particularly at the FGS and FMS levels, to build collective ownership and reflect the multi-stakeholder essence of the IPC, to follow global IPC guidelines on structure and consensus-building and to draw on good practice elsewhere in the world.’