1 / 13

The HAP Standard 2009-2010 Review Highlights Monica Blagescu mblagescu@hapinternational

The HAP Standard 2009-2010 Review Highlights Monica Blagescu mblagescu@hapinternational.org. “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

Philip
Download Presentation

The HAP Standard 2009-2010 Review Highlights Monica Blagescu mblagescu@hapinternational

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The HAP Standard 2009-2010 Review HighlightsMonica Blagescumblagescu@hapinternational.org “making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries“

  2. 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

  3. HAP Secretariat Steering Committee Working Groups Reference Group/consultations HAP Board and GA Management Leadership Technical input Wide ownership Endorsement 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

  4. 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

  5. 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.

  6. 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”

  7. However… • 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. Immediate next steps • Sphere Handbook revision meeting • Input from People In Aid • Follow up meeting with the DEC • Support from ICVA on complementary approaches

  11. 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

  12. Outputs • 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

  13. Unresolved issues • Working with partners (Group 1) • Accountability Framework (Group 2) • Quality Management System (Group 3) • “Other stakeholders” (Group 4) • Principles (Group 5)

More Related