The Integrated Context Analysis (ICA) is a WFP corporate programme design tool used in over 20 countries around the globe. It provides evidence to inform broad programmatic strategies, a basis for discussion with partners and a foundation from which analysis and information can be expanded.
The ICA aims to: i) categorise livelihood zones by the level of recurrence of vulnerability to food insecurity, natural hazards, malnutrition, livelihoods and other relevant context factors; ii) provide trends in numbers of food insecure population at risk at the event of a shock, and the estimated longterm and seasonal caseloads for application in planning and programme design; iii) identify seasonal variations that should be considered in programme design to better align, complement and harmonise programme responses and interventions; iv) provide information for more effective medium- and longterm food security interventions related to resilience building and disaster risk reduction (DRR); and v) provide a set of relevant products and materials for advocacy, capacity building, future replication or update.
The ICA for Somalia includes two core dimensions (vulnerability to food insecurity and natural shocks, such as floods, drought and land degradation), four core lenses (nutrition, seasonality, livelihoods and population), and three contextual factors (markets, livestock and conflict and population movement).
Livelihood zones are the geographic unit of analysis.
Technical analysis and broad programmatic recommendations are based on the combined level of recurrence of the two core dimensions and as a result, ICA defines five categories and related areas to help formulate broad programmatic recommendations. For Somalia, the analysis classifies 19 livelihood zones into seven different ICA areas (Map 1) which are further condensed into four ICA categories that highlight the programming implications.
Category 1 comprises of eight livelihood zones that experience protracted food insecurity and frequent natural shocks. These livelihood zones would benefit from food security focused safety nets and comprehensive DRR interventions, including infrastructure improvement, early warning measures and disaster preparedness.
Category 2 comprises of six livelihood zones that experience seasonal food insecurity and are at high to medium risk for natural shocks. In these livelihood zones, flexible food security safety nets and need-based livelihood recovery efforts during unfavourable years could protect marginal households against negative coping strategies that undermine development gains. High risk levels for natural hazards suggest broad DRR interventions, including infrastructure improvement, early warning measures and disaster preparedness.
Category 3 comprises of four livelihood zones that suffer from chronic food insecurity, likely due to non-climatic causes. Year-round protective livelihoods and safety nets is are ideal for ICA area 3a, whereas in ICA area 3b, livelihoods, flexible safety nets, or livelihood recovery/protection programmes would be more relevant.
Category 4 comprises of two livelihood zones that experiences low food insecurity and medium risk for natural shocks. In theses livelihood zones, during unfavourable years, flexible food security interventions to vulnerable population against utilizing negative coping strategies. The medium or high levels of natural shocks point towards DDR interventions such as early warning, disaster preparedness that include infrastructure improvement.