1. HAP 2007 Humanitarian Accountability and Quality Management Standard

2. Please note that these slides are meant for training, educational and informational purposes and when used, full acknowledgement should be made of their source.

3. Outline Defining the problem
Humanitarian Accountability Partnership - International
Humanitarian Accountability
Humanitarian Quality Management
The HAP 2007 Standard in Humanitarian Accountability and Quality Management
HAP Certification
HAP and the Quality and Accountability Initiatives

4. The Imbalance of Power in Humanitarian Action
Defining the Problem
The Imbalance of Power in Humanitarian Action

5. Discussion / brainstorming ideas
Who are the key stakeholders in humanitarian action?
What types of power do they each have?
How might these types of power impact upon other stakeholders? or
In what ways do humanitarian organisations derive power and how might it be expressed?
How might the power of humanitarian organisations impact upon beneficiaries and local communities?
Modify this slide to suit your purposes

6. Power- a serious issue
There is a clear imbalance of power between humanitarian actors and the recipients of their services
Lack of effective regulatory mechanisms
Risks of sustaining power imbalance are often not obvious
Frank discussion of power (and power abuse) is difficult when ‘giving’, ‘compassion’, and ‘benevolence’ are important and defining values
So that despite the desire to help…

7. International humanitarian action is vulnerable to:
Waste and inefficiency
Corruption and fraud
Being used for the political agendas of others
Staff misconduct such as sexual exploitation
Priorities driven by for e.g. competition for market share and the power of donors rather than by measured assessment of need
Inappropriate decisions, for example agencies taking on jobs that they are not qualified to do

8. Humanitarian organisations are unique in that the consumers of their services:
Have little or no influence upon their operations,
Rarely have means by which to appeal or complain
Are rarely reported to
Are not represented in
NGO governance arrangements
Donor resource allocation procedures
UN coordination mechanisms

9. Disaster survivors are often:
Given no choice in who helps them
Treated as though they are all the same
Subjected to "veterinarian" style relief interventions that undermine their dignity
Forced to remain for long periods of time in detrimental circumstances
Not reported to by relief agencies

10. In 1995, the Joint Evaluation of the International Response to the Genocide in Rwanda found:
Need to improve accountability by monitoring performance of humanitarian action
Need for sector-wide learning
No standards in quality/ quantity of services
Negligence by some agencies led to increase in suffering and death
Agencies increasing but are unregulated
Staff abuse of beneficiaries rights and dignity
No regard given to local capacities, e.g. staff
Lack of consideration for culture and context
Low level of inter-agency coordination
Protection, safety and security concerns

11. A Rights-based Argument
Clear international legal foundation was established through the Sphere Project, for e.g.,
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
International Refugee Law,
International Humanitarian Law,
The Convention on the Rights of the Child,
The Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women
For the right to humanitarian protection and assistance;
A right to a say in the manner in which this is provided, and;
The right to be heard in all stages of the appraisal, implementation and evaluation cycle

12. Humanitarian Accountability Partnership

13. The Forerunners to HAP International
From the Rwanda evaluation, a number of the accountability initiatives were born including:
Humanitarian Ombudsman Project
a research project designed to examine the applicability of ombudsman systems within the humanitarian domain, which led to…
The Humanitarian Accountability Project (HAP)
Established to identify, test and recommend a variety of accountability approaches and mechanisms
3 main field trials carried out from in Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, and Cambodia
Recommendation that the humanitarian system needed an independent body to represent the interests of humanitarian beneficiaries. Humanitarian Ombudsman Project was established to examine the feasibility of such an institution. At an international conference in Geneva in March 2000 to review the findings of the Ombudsman Project, it was recognized that an international humanitarian ombudsman was not a realistic approach to tackle accountability problems within the international humanitarian system.
The Humanitarian Accountability Project (HAP) was established to identify, test and recommend a variety of accountability approaches and mechanisms. From 2001 to 2003, some seventy staff and consultants conducted field operations in Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, and Cambodia, undertaking five research projects, and engaging in a variety of advocacy activities on accountability.
3 main field trials carried out from 2001 to 2003 in Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, and Cambodia.

14. Recommendations of the Humanitarian Accountability Project
Accountability mechanisms need to be integrated into existing programmes and operations
Incentive for monitoring and reporting
Creation of a strong self-regulatory association of agencies committed to monitoring and reporting on the application of relevant “mission-critical” standards to strengthen accountability to beneficiaries
Humanitarian Accountability Partnership International (HAP) set up in 2003
The main conclusion to emerge from the action research phase was that humanitarian accountability could best be strengthened and implemented through the creation of a strong international self-regulatory body, able to insist on monitoring and compliance, while providing strategic and technical support to member agencies. This recommendation was endorsed by the Chief Executive Officers of fourteen humanitarian agencies in January The Humanitarian Accountability Partnership was officially registered in Geneva, Switzerland, in March 2003, although it only formally came into existence in December 2003 when the first General Assembly met and elected the Partnership's first official Board.

15. Humanitarian Accountability Partnership
HAP is a partnership of member agencies that share a commitment to making humanitarian action accountable to disaster survivors
HAP Members:
Seek to comply with and promote the HAP Principles of Accountability
Are committed to taking account of the views, needs and capacities of disaster survivors so that the quality and effectiveness of their humanitarian work is improved

16. HAP Vision and Mission Vision
A humanitarian system championing the rights and the dignity of disaster survivors
Mission
To make humanitarian action accountable to its intended beneficiaries through self-regulation, compliance verification and quality assurance certification

17. Our Proposition (1)
Aside from the fact that accountability makes sense and is the right thing to do….
Impact and cost effectiveness will be enhanced by:
Adoption of quality management practices
Including participation and consultation with beneficiaries
Q&A will help to:
Curb abuse of power towards beneficiaries
Reduce vulnerability to legal action
The impact and cost effectiveness of humanitarian action can be significantly enhanced by consultation with intended beneficiaries and other key stakeholders
Quality assurance can improve the impact and cost-effectiveness of humanitarian action through fostering proven "quality management" practices

18. Our Proposition (2) A certification scheme will:
Promote programme quality as a significant factor in “success”
Recognise good practice and provide assurance to disaster survivors and other stakeholders
HAP certification will:
Be attractive to donors
Strengthen the comparative advantage of certified agencies
The humanitarian system contains sufficient numbers of agencies and donors of integrity to make voluntary self-regulation viable
A humanitarian quality management certification scheme could create significant incentives to allow programme quality rather than public relations to determine organisational “success”

19. HAP members ACT International ACFID (Australia) ACTED (France)
6 Associate Members
22 Full Members
5 Certified Full Members
HAP members
ACT International
ACFID (Australia)
ACTED (France)
CAFOD (Caritas UK)
CARE International
Christian Aid (UK)
Church World Service – Pakistan/Afghanistan
COAST Trust (Bangladesh)
CONCERN Worldwide
Coordination of Afghan Relief (CoAR)
Centre for Peace & Development Initiatives (Pakistan)
DanChurchAid (Denmark)
Danida
Danish Refugee Council
DFID
Lutheran World Service
MANGO
Medair (Switzerland)
Medical Aid for Palestinians (UK)
MERCY Malaysia
Merlin
Muslim Aid (UK)
Naba'a (Lebanon)
Norwegian Refugee Council
OFADEC (Senegal)
Oxfam GB
People in Aid
Save the Children UK
Sida
Sungi Development Foundation (Pakistan)
Tearfund (UK)
Women's Commission on Refugee Women and Children (USA)
World Vision International

20. HAP Services & Activities
Accountability workplan support (members)
Field support (Pakistan and Darfur plus selected "new emergencies")
Field compliance monitoring
Capacity building and advisory services
Research
Building Safer Organisations
Complaints handling
HAP Standard 2007 and review
Baseline analyses
Certification
Accreditation (NGO networks – from 2008)
Capacity building with members based upon their own Accountability Workplans
Supporting members in the field through HAP's New Emergencies Policy
Monitoring compliance of members with the HAP Principles of Accountability and “accrediting its members accordingly”
Promoting and supporting research into the humanitarian and organisational "business cases" for humanitarian accountability and quality management practices
Processing complaints made about members for alleged breaches in compliance with the HAP Principles of Accountability

21. Humanitarian Accountability

22. Accountability involves
Proactive and retrospective components-
Taking account of the views of others
Accounting for your actions

23. Accountability The means by which power is used responsibly
Power brings responsibility, and with responsibility comes accountability
Accountability is about the right to a say and the duty to respond
Accountability: Some Additional Definitions
Accountability is the means by which individuals and organizations report to a recognised authority, or authorities, and are held responsible for their actions. - Edwards & Hulme, 1995,
'Accountability' means explaining what you have done and taking responsibility for the results of your actions. This includes explaining how you have used funds. – Management Accounting for NGOs (Mango) 2004
Making sure the men, women and children affected really do have a say in planning, implementing and judging our response to their emergency. - Emergency Capacity Building Project 2006
The processes through which an organization makes a commitment to respond to and balance the needs of stakeholders in its decision-making processes and activities. – Global Accountability Project 2006
Accountability is the means by which power is used responsibly. – HAP International website

24. Recent Factors calling for improved accountability
Increased media presence during emergencies.
Increased public awareness and scrutiny.
Agencies are no longer able to use their charitable ethos and good will as a defence for poor quality work.
Allegations of misconduct within the sector.
Pressure from donors to show improved practices.
Government regulating the sector.
Pressure from watchdogs and other rating agencies
Humanitarians have recognised the need to improve quality and increase responsibility.

25. 3 Dimensions of HAP’s Definition of Accountability
Processes through which individuals, organizations and states make decisions that affect others
Mechanisms through which individuals, organizations and states seek to explain their decisions and actions
Processes through which individuals, organisations and states raise concerns about, and seek redress or compensation for, the consequences of the decisions and actions of others

26. Humanitarian Accountability
Humanitarian accountability involves taking account of, giving an account to and being held to account by to disaster survivors
Managers and staff in relief programmes properly consider and prioritize the needs, concerns and views of disaster survivors in all their policies and activities
Always practicable and should never be delayed until conditions improve
Means by which the power of aid agencies is qualified and legitimized

27. The “Accountability Deficit”
The gap between promises made by aid agencies to deliver accountable and effective disaster relief and persistent evidence to the contrary
A growing perception that most relief aid isn't accountable to affected populations
The Tsunami Evaluation Coalition found agencies failed to consult and involve local communities and authorities in managing programmes
Recommendations for quality control, regulation, accreditation and certification

28. Humanitarian Accountability Report 2006
“While there are many examples of good practice, and some evidence of improvement, overall, humanitarian organisations continue to offer inadequate accountability to disaster survivors, resulting in poor quality services.”

29. Humanitarian Accountability Report 2007
“The humanitarian system reports yet more progress in codifying accountability and quality standards and tools, but still lacks consistency in their application.”
“HAP’s annual humanitarian accountability opinion survey reveals growing optimism about increasing standards of accountability, but disaster survivors still fare worst in the accountability stakes.”

30. HAP Accountability Principles
Commitment to humanitarian standards and rights of disaster survivors
Setting standards and building capacity to deliver 
Communication, including transparency and consultation with intended beneficiaries
Participation (of intended beneficiaries) in programmes
Monitoring and reporting on compliance
Addressing complaints (from beneficiaries)
Implementing Partners (encouraged to comply)
The HAP Principles of Accountability
1)   Commitment to humanitarian standards and rights
Members state their commitment to respect and foster humanitarian standards and the rights of beneficiaries
2)   Setting standards and building capacity
Members set a framework of accountability to their stakeholders
Members set and periodically review their standards and performance indicators, and revise them if necessary.
Members provide appropriate training in the use and implementation of standards.
3)   Communication
Members inform, and consult with, stakeholders, particularly beneficiaries and staff, about the standards adopted, programmes to be undertaken and mechanisms available for addressing concerns.
4)   Participation in programmes
Members involve beneficiaries in the planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of programmes and report to them on progress, subject only to serious operational constraints.
5)   Monitoring and reporting on compliance
Members involve beneficiaries and staff when they monitor and revise standards.
Members regularly monitor and evaluate compliance with standards, using robust processes.
Members report at least annually to stakeholders, including beneficiaries, on compliance with standards. Reporting may take a variety of forms.
6)   Addressing complaints
Members enable beneficiaries and staff to report complaints and seek redress safely.
7)   Implementing partners
Members are committed to the implementation of these principles if and when working through implementation partners

31. Think of a time when you had a problem with your telephone carrier or utilities provider. What did you take into account when deciding whether to make a complaint?

32. These "good practices of accountability" amount to a "humanitarian quality management system" that places the disaster survivor at the centre of the design, implementation and learning systems for humanitarian service delivery
Correlate with ISO 9000 Quality Management Standard and the Global Accountability Project's "four dimensions of accountability" (transparency, participation, evaluation and complaints-handling)
Foundation of the HAP 2007 Standard in Humanitarian Accountability and Quality Management

33. Humanitarian Quality Management

34. A Quality Management System
A set of coordinated activities undertaken to continually improve the effectiveness and efficiency of an organisation in meeting the expectations of its customers
Comprises a documented quality policy, quality objectives, quality manual, and other documents needed to ensure effective integration and implementation

35. A Humanitarian Quality Management System
A set of activities and processes that enable continual improvement in an agency’s performance in meeting the essential needs, and respecting the dignity, of disaster survivors
Promoting the optimal application of proven quality management practices across the humanitarian system,
Protecting disaster survivors,
Enhancing their life-chances and dignity, and
Securing the reputation of the system.

36. Your values as humanitarian workers
What principles guide your personal work and the work of your organisation?

37. Standards & Performance Indicators.
Action
Standards & Performance Indicators.
Principles
Beliefs &
Values

38. Basic Elements of a QA System
Standard setting:
Defining the quality of a product, service or process (so that it is measurable)
Certification:
An award granted by a certification body to an organisation on the basis of a product, service or process standard being met
Accreditation:
Recognition by a standard setting body that a certification body is competent

39. In Humanitarian Accountability and Quality Management
The HAP 2007 Standard
In Humanitarian Accountability and Quality Management

40. The HAP 2007 Standard
The HAP 2007 Standard in Humanitarian Accountability and Quality Management offers a means to help relief agencies measure, validate and improve their humanitarian activities
A basic minimum requirement for agencies engaged in humanitarian action
An objective measure against which agencies can be assessed
The result of 7 years of research, consultation, and field tests
Designed to be simple, affordable and effective
Aim to become a widely recognised, authoritative brand

41. Standard Development Process
Action Research
Sierra Leone
Afghanistan
Cambodia
Inter-agency Consultation Meetings
London
Copenhagen
Geneva
Standards Development Consultation
Dhaka
Nairobi
Field Tests
Senegal
Sri Lanka
Somalia
Others
Hundreds of agency staff
90 Agencies
Disaster Survivors
Donors
Other Interested Parties

42. The HAP 2007 Standard includes:
HAP Accountability Principles
Covenant
Qualifying Norms
Hierarchy of Principles for Humanitarian Action
Declaration of Interests
6 Humanitarian Quality Management Benchmarks
Working with Partners
Benchmark requirements and means of verification

43. HAP 2007 Standard (1) Requires senior managers to establish:
Defines quality management requirements to help senior and programme managers put humanitarian principles into practice
Requires senior managers to establish:
A humanitarian quality management system (benchmark 1), and
A process for continual improvement (benchmark 6)

44. HAP 2007 Standard (2)
Requires programme managers to implement the quality management system by:
Making available relevant information (benchmark 2)
Ensuring meaningful participation by beneficiaries in programme decisions (benchmark 3)
Determining competencies required for staff (benchmark 4); and
Establishing complaints-handling procedures (benchmark 5)

45. …Reflects 5 Simple Quality Management Practices
Transparency in mandate, objectives, beneficiary and entitlement criteria and implementation reporting
Consultation with disaster survivors right from the beginning to gain their informed consent
Feedback/complaints & redress-handling system
Competence of staff
Learning for continuous improvement

46. Benchmark 1: The agency shall establish a humanitarian quality management system
“Senior management needs to be prepared to empower an accountability function right up to Program/ National Director level if it is to be truly able to address beneficiary concerns”
Quotes from a member review of outcomes of an accountability team in a specific operation where a dedicated accountability function had been established.

47. Benchmark 2: The agency shall make the following information publicly available to intended beneficiaries, disaster-affected communities, agency staff and other specified stakeholders: (a) organizational background; (b) humanitarian accountability framework; (c) humanitarian plan; (d) progress reports; and (e) complaints handling procedures
“Community information provision laid the foundation for community participation in project activities. The accountability team ensured communities were informed throughout the project management cycle. This improved participation across sectors and contributed to the empowerment of people over the decisions that affected their lives”

48. Benchmark 3: The agency shall enable beneficiaries and their representatives to participate in programme decisions and seek their informed consent
“Creating a function to listen to and communicate with communities helped to build trust, improving information exchange and increasing understanding of core problems– leading to better project designs”
“Through good community engagement and liaison with stakeholders, the accountability programme was able to save the operation over USD 5 million in construction costs by preventing either unsuitable or unneeded construction”

49. Benchmark 4: The agency shall determine the competencies, attitudes and development needs of staff required to implement its humanitarian quality management system
“Greater analysis and consideration of community perspectives have helped to educate our national staff on the need to have field staff who are reflective of the communities that they work in. Their teams now better reflect the areas where they work and they could be more effective in meeting the needs of the community.”
“Accountability to beneficiaries could provide a way to measure how well staff interact with communities and this could be useful information to use in appraisals as an indicator of the values that staff show in their day to day work.”

50. Benchmark 5: The agency shall establish and implement complaints-handling procedures that are effective, accessible and safe for intended beneficiaries, disaster-affected communities, agency staff, humanitarian partners and other specified bodies
“Accountability works as a community based warning system that can help to significantly reduce organizational risk and flag issues early”
“Having a dedicated humanitarian accountability function in field offices through Stakeholder Representatives helped to reduce/ deter corruption as community complaints may uncover this”

51. Benchmark 6: The agency shall establish a process of continual improvement for its humanitarian accountability framework and humanitarian quality management system
The Senior Management Team needs to build a collaborative organizational culture between departments where complaints and raising of issues/ problems is viewed as a positive opportunity to improve. This is essential if one department is to be able to chase up difficult issues and raise problems with other departments.

52. Humanitarian Covenant
Commits organisations to applying their principles
A solemn, unilateral contract of accountability to people affected by disasters
Tool for analysing when principles shouldn’t be applied, requiring explanation
Requires declaration of additional interests and policies that have a direct bearing on beneficiaries

53. Qualifying Norms
Commitment to provide humanitarian assistance on an impartial basis
Formally declared as a not-for-profit organisation
Compliance with the requirements for financial accountability
A publicly available statement of the humanitarian accountability framework

54. Humanitarian Accountability Framework
Specifies how the organisation will ensure accountability to its stakeholders, and includes:
Statement of the commitments made
External standards, codes, principles and guidelines, in addition to internal values, mandate, principles, charter and guidelines
Baseline analysis of compliance
Current status of the HAF and related quality management system
Indicators for improvement with time frame
An action or implementation policy, strategy or plan

55. HAF Example Internal / External Quality Commitments
Stakeholder Analysis: Accountability needs / expectations
HAF Example
Internal / External Quality Commitments
Implementation System
Assessment of Compliance
Red Cross Code of Conduct
Management systems set up to implement each commitment e.g.:
1. Management responsibilities
2. Staff (who is this relevant for)
3. System (for e.g. Policies, Guidelines, etc.)
4. Monitoring and evaluation/ continual improvement
Draft objectives which are measurable – i.e. an Action Plan to show how Caritas ensures that their staff apply this.
Outlines where you are at present against compliance and or against your objectives as noted in the implementation column.
Organisation
Mandate

56. Principles for Humanitarian Action
Agencies seeking to comply with the HAP 2007 Standard first commit themselves to accounting for their humanitarian work in relation to the general Principles for Humanitarian Action
Primary
Humanity
Impartiality
Secondary
Informed Consent
Duty of Care
Witness
Tertiary
Transparency
Neutrality
Complementarity
Independence

57. Why the Hierarchy (1)
When a HAP-certified agency is unable to achieve full compliance with the Principles of Accountability, an explanation is required.
The Covenant provides guidance when facing tough choices and refers back to basic principles inherent in humanitarian action.
Each principle is categorized by its relative importance, with the primary principles being non-negotiable

58. Why the Hierarchy (2)
At times, the consequence of complying with one principle may impede fulfilling another.
For e.g. the publication of a relief distribution plan may place intended beneficiaries and staff in danger, justifying lack of transparency.
The agency must be able to explain that it chooses to operate in breach of one or more of the principles as an unavoidable condition for being able to comply with a higher-level principle in those circumstances.
The agency acts in good faith and thus in accordance with the HAP 2007 Standard

59. Against the HAP 2007 Standard
Certification
Against the HAP 2007 Standard

60. HAP Certification
The formal evaluation of an agency against the HAP 2007 Standard using an established method to measure compliance
Advantages for individual agencies include:
Independent validation of good practice and compliance with HAP Principles
Verification by stakeholders including people affected by disaster
Improved knowledge management, learning and continuous improvement
Building trust and confidence of disaster-affected communities and donors
The strengths of the HAP certification process for individual agencies include:
Independent validation of good practice with respect to humanitarian accountability and quality management and confirmation of acceptable compliance with HAP Accountability Principles
Verification through soliciting opinion of key stakeholders including people affected by disaster
Improvement of knowledge management and ensure learning and continuous improvement
An assurance of quality and accountability for stakeholders, building trust and confidence of disaster-affected communities and donors
Incentives for improving quality, effectiveness and accountability
Provide a framework for recognising and rewarding committed staff

61. HAP Certification offers the sector…
A more informed choice for beneficiaries and donors
Enhanced credibility and standing of certified agencies
Strengthening of accountability and professionalism
A voluntary code that enables agencies to hold themselves to account
Certification is:
Applicable regardless of agency size, place of origin, whether they implement directly or through partners
Available to all agencies who meet the qualifying norms

62. …And is designed to be realistic and supportive

63. Key Steps to Certification (1)
Baseline analysis – trial run, including:
Preparation of documents, including HAF and HQMS
Self assessment against the standard at HQ and field sites
Documentation review
Interview verification
Observation
Feedback, identify gaps,
Develop and implement action plan

64. Key Steps to Certification (2)
Submission of application file
Document review
Self assessments of all field sites
Head office audit
Field site audit
Interview verification with stakeholders
Observation
Auditor report
CARB
Certification – 3 year validity with interim check

65. Time Line Towards Certification
Decision
If audit findings reveal and major non compliance certification would be delayed until these are met
A certificate is issued for a period of 3 years, with a mandatory mid term (18 months) monitoring audit
Preparation
2 – 4 weeks
Ensure agency on board
Baseline
Analysis
6-8 weeks
Prepare HAF
Prepare HQMS
Improvement
Head Office: 3 days
Field Site: 3 days
Report, incl. drafts and feedback: up to 1 month
Audit
Around 6 months
Consultation, support and organization response to baseline recommendations
Certified
Head Office: 3 days
Field Site: 3 days

66. Accreditation
Realizing HAP’s vision of an accountable international humanitarian system at large
through the accreditation of affiliated NGO networks and associations with the authority to certify their own members as being compliant with the HAP Standard

67. HAP and the Q&A Initiatives

68. Group discussion
Can you list any quality and accountability initiatives?
Do you use any of their work?
Why, in your opinion, have they been set up?

69. Tracking the emergence of the initiatives
SCHR 1971
Voluntary alliance, now of 9 of the largest organisations
Began peer review in 2003
Code of Conduct (1994): Principle 9 ‘we will hold ourselves accountable to those we seek to assist and from those we accept resources’
People in Aid 1995
Improving human resource management in the sector, including staff consultation and capacity building and training
Today has about 100 members
ALNAP
Sector-wide active learning membership network to improve Q&A by sharing lessons, identifying common problems and building consensus
Sphere Project
Humanitarian Charter, guidance notes in 4 sectors
Today 16 member board and a learning programme

70. More recent initiatives
One World Trust
Global Accountability Framework and Report
Good humanitarian donorship 2003
Principles of accountability and assessment
Tsunami Evaluation Coalition TEC
46 members (UN-research-donors-NGO)
Key message #1: ownership and accountability to affected populations
UN Special Envoy (Clinton initiative)
Promoting transparency and accountability
NGO impact initiative

71. HAP and the other initiatives…
The HAP 2007 Standard
Provides a management system enabling coordinated implementation of all relevant standards, practices, codes, humanitarian principles, and mandates
Is intended to be compatible and complimentary to help implement recognized good practices
Is concerned with improvement of the whole: relies upon the technical guidelines, tools and methods for improvement of specialist areas

72.  e.g.  e.g. Benchmarks, 2, 3, 4 Initiative/Project Area of Focus
Complementarity to HAP
Red Cross Code of Conduct
“Self-policing” code for monitoring standards of relief delivery
 e.g.
Benchmark 2
People in Aid
Code of Good Practice - management tool to enhance the quality of human resources management
Social audits verify adherence to the code
Benchmark 4
Sphere Project
Technical standards and a humanitarian charter in disaster response, to improve the quality and accountability of performance by humanitarian professionals
 e.g. Benchmarks, 2, 3, 4
ECB2
“Good Enough Field Guide to Accountability”
Support to strengthen practice in accountability, impact measurement, joint evaluations of emergency responses
Benchmark 6
Quality COMPAS
Benchmark 1, 6
Red Cross Code of Conduct
The Code of Conduct for The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief, 1994
“Self-policing” code for monitoring standards of relief delivery
Complementary to HAP, in particular:
“Ways shall be found to involve programme beneficiaries in the management of relief aid.
We hold ourselves accountable to both those we seek to assist and those from whom we accept resources.”
People in Aid
International network of development and humanitarian assistance agencies since1995
Code of Good Practice is a management tool that helps agencies enhance the quality of their human resources management
Social audits verify adherence to the code.
Sphere Project
1997
Developed standards and a humanitarian charter in disaster response, to improve the quality and accountability of performance by humanitarian professionals
Sphere comprises a handbook, a broad process of collaboration, and an expression of commitment to quality and accountability.
ECB2
Collaborative effort of seven humanitarian agencies
Concerned with issues pertaining to staff capacity, accountability (primarily to affected populations), impact measurement, risk reduction, and the use of information and technology in emergencies
Production of “Good enough field Guide to Accountability”
A standing team to promote and strengthen good practice in accountability and impact measurement, and joint evaluations of emergency responses
Quality COMPAS
A Quality Assurance method incorporating tools, training and consultancy services
Used for project management and project evaluation
Overall objective to the quality of services provided to crisis-affected populations
Developed by Groupe URD, a research, evaluation and education institute focusing on the improvement of humanitarian action
Quality Assurance method
Tools, training and consultancy services
Project management and project evaluation

73.  e.g. Initiative /Project Area of Focus Synergie Qualité
Complementarity to HAP
Synergie Qualité
Method of inquiry to identify risk at each stage of the project cycle
 e.g.
Benchmark 6
ALNAP
Improving humanitarian performance through increased learning and accountability
Tools and evaluations, share lessons, identify common problems, build consensus
Do No Harm
Avoid exacerbating conflict through aid
Develop systems for settling causes of conflict
Benchmark 3
MANGO
Strengthen financial management
Benchmark 1
SCHR
Standards and accountability agenda focuses on the peer review process as well as promotion of Sphere and other quality and accountability initiatives
Synergie Qualité
Help NGOs implement their own ‘quality approach’ through incorporating 5 elements: humanitarian ethics, governance within the agency, human resources management, project cycle, role of the affected populations.
Method of inquiry rather than a how to guide, keys for identifying possible dysfunctions at each stage of the project cycle Developed by Coordination SUD, the national coordination committee of French international NGOs.
ALNAP
Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance 1997
Network dedicated to improving humanitarian performance through increased learning and accountability.
Produce tools and analyses relevant and accessible to the humanitarian sector, share lessons, identify common problems and build consensus.
Do No Harm
Seeks to identify the ways in which international humanitarian and/or development assistance given in conflict settings may be provided so that, rather than exacerbating and worsening the conflict, it helps local people disengage from fighting and develop systems for settling the problems which prompt conflict within their societies.
MANGO
Mango exists to help aid agencies and NGOs to work more effectively. Help strengthen their financial management
SCHR
The Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response, created in 1972
An alliance of international humanitarian organisations and networks
Members pool experience, engage collectively in a number of activities to carry out effective humanitarian action
Standards and accountability agenda focuses on the peer review process as well as promotion of Sphere and other quality and accountability initiatives

74. The Initiatives – Areas of Focus
Red Cross / Crescent Code of Conduct
Covenant to capture values
The Sphere Project
Generic and Technical Benchmarks for improving quality of aid delivery
ALNAP
M&E & Impact; Research
HAP International
Accountability to beneficiaries through compliance and Regulatory Mechanism
People In Aid
HR Management
MANGO
Financial Management
ECB2
Developing How to Guide – tools
Clinton Initiative
Research / recommendations
Group URD – Quality Compas
Project management guide / tool
This slide is here as an alternative to the previous 2 – choose one or the other approach!

75. Similarities Between the Initiatives
All share a common goal - to improve accountability, quality and performance in humanitarian action
Each takes a different route, with some overlap
All the initiatives are governed, managed and supported by humanitarian agencies and individuals
Commitment to work closely together towards greater harmonisation and impact
Several mechanisms are in place to ensure that the work of each initiative is harmonised sensibly. For example, all the initiatives come together twice a year to review their respective workplans and to discuss overlaps and gaps. The minutes from these meetings are posted on each of the initiatives’ websites. HAP, People In Aid, Groupe URD and Sphere are all Full Members of ALNAP and are in constant touch through circulars, and face to face meetings. The ALNAP Biannual Meetings provide a forum for regular updates and discussing work-plans. There is also crossover on various working groups – for example HAP was on the Working Group of the ALNAP Global Participation Study and is also a member of People In Aid. During 2006 Sphere participated in the Editorial Steering Committee for the development of HAP standards. HAP, Sphere and ALNAP are all in an advisory group to ECB. Increasingly, the initiatives are looking at ways of working together on certain projects and in certain countries.

76. Differences…
Each has a distinct entry point and methods for addressing specific component(s) parts of humanitarian quality and accountability
Distinct mandates, constituencies and structures
The HAP Standard
is a compliance verification mechanism
is concerned with quality from the perspective of intended beneficiaries and other key stakeholders
has been developed to address the most "mission critical" elements
is analogous to a simplified "ISO 9000" (quality management) standard for humanitarian action