the hap standard 2009 2010 review highlights monica blagescu mblagescu@hapinternational org
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
The HAP Standard 2009-2010 Review Highlights Monica Blagescu [email protected]

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 13

The HAP Standard 2009-2010 Review Highlights Monica Blagescu [email protected] - 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 2009-2010 Review Highlights Monica Blagescu [email protected]' - 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

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

“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries“

why review the standard and the guide
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
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
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
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
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”

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