The hap standard 2009 2010 review highlights monica blagescu mblagescu@hapinternational org
1 / 13

The HAP Standard - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

The HAP Standard 2009-2010 Review Highlights Monica Blagescu [email protected] “making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries “. Why review the Standard and The Guide?. To reflect learning from application to date To incorporate emerging good practice

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'The HAP Standard ' - Philip

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
The hap standard 2009 2010 review highlights monica blagescu mblagescu@hapinternational org l.jpg

The HAP Standard 2009-2010 Review HighlightsMonica [email protected]

“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries“

Why review the standard and the guide l.jpg
Why review the Standard and The Guide?

  • To reflect learning from application to date

  • To incorporate emerging good practice

  • To improve accessibility

  • To ensure they are “live” documents that drive improvements on accountability and quality management

The review process l.jpg

HAP Secretariat

Steering Committee

Working Groups

Reference Group/consultations

HAP Board and GA



Technical input

Wide ownership


The review process

Main steps so far

  • Preliminary consultations; January – June 2009

  • Online feedback; July 2009 – March 2009

  • Consultation workshops; September 2009 – March 2010

  • Summary from consultations

Who contributed l.jpg
Who contributed

  • Consultation meetings, focus group discussions and workshops:

    • Hosted by: ACFID, CARE International, COAST Trust, Concern Worldwide, CWS Pakistan/Afghanistan, DEC, DRC, LWF, Muslim Aid, Naba’a, NCA, OFADEC, PMU Interlife, SEEDS; ECB Project and the IASC.

    • in Bangladesh, Georgia, India, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Lebanon, Norway, Pakistan, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Southern Sudan, Switzerland, Uganda and the UK.

  • Online, email, phone

    • Over 120 organisations in 42 countries

Who contributed5 l.jpg
Who contributed

  • A total of 1,595 individuals:

    • 198: national NGOs and other CSOs

      • 81 staff from implementing partners

    • 813 were direct beneficiaries of aid programmes, representatives of host communities, and local authorities

    • 394 were national and international staff of international NGOs

    • 65 were representatives of the donor community and the UN; 28 representatives of Red Cross Societies; 97 were independent consultants or from other quality and accountability initiatives.

Overall comments l.jpg
Overall comments

  • No significant changes in the content of the Standard

  • It is short; helpful to have requirements and MoVs

    “it challenges agencies to address power imbalances between aid workers and communities”

    “it breaks down accountability to affected populations into distinct and logically-linked parts”

    “First attempt to meaningfully go beyond voluntarism and set up quality benchmarks that are monitored”

However l.jpg

  • Make language more user-friendly

  • Clarify linkages and avoid overlap

  • Balance policies and practice

  • Balance the weight of different requirements

  • Standard / audit process differences

  • Benchmarks 1 and 6 are least clear

  • Benchmark 3 is least explicit

Highlights 1 l.jpg
Highlights (1)

  • Handling complaints of exploitation and abuse

    • No new Standard or benchmark

    • Standards of behaviour for staff/codes of conduct

    • Role of managers

    • Partners: as stakeholders in the CRM; should they be required to have standards of behaviour?

  • Financial accountability

    • The Standard to reflect current audit practice

    • Financial accountability between partners

  • Requirements for agencies working with partners

Highlights 2 l.jpg
Highlights (2)

  • Gender

  • Application to multi-mandate agencies

  • Coherence and complementarity

    • Content: Sphere

    • Content and process: ACFID, DEC, People In Aid, INTOSAI

  • No additional benchmarks

    • Coordination

    • Supply chain

    • Ethical fundraising

Immediate next steps l.jpg
Immediate next steps

  • Sphere Handbook revision meeting

  • Input from People In Aid

  • Follow up meeting with the DEC

  • Support from ICVA on complementary approaches

Tentative timeframe l.jpg
Tentative Timeframe

  • June: public consultation on first draft

  • end July: Steering Committee review

  • 26 July to 3 September: public consultation on the second draft, including:

    • the Reference Group

    • each member agency requested to submit formal feedback

  • 20 September: final draft shared with the Steering Committee

  • 4 October: Final draft ready for approval

Outputs l.jpg

  • Reports from all consultations

  • Summary of suggested changes from the Standard Review consultations

  • Feedback on the two draft versions

  • Briefing paper on main lessons learnt from the implementation of the Standard to date

  • Report on benefits and challenges of implementing the HAP Standard

  • Revised Guide, auditor guidelines, other tool

Unresolved issues l.jpg
Unresolved issues

  • Working with partners (Group 1)

  • Accountability Framework (Group 2)

  • Quality Management System (Group 3)

  • “Other stakeholders” (Group 4)

  • Principles (Group 5)