HAP 2007 Humanitarian Accountability and Quality Management Standard

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. 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?

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 Project1999-2001 • a research project designed to examine the applicability of ombudsman systems within the humanitarian domain, which led to… • The Humanitarian Accountability Project (HAP)2001-2003 • 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

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

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 HAPPrinciplesof 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

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

19. 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 6 Associate Members 22 Full Members 5 Certified Full Members HAP members

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)

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

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 byto 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)

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. Action Action Standards & Performance Indicators. Action Action Action Principles 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. 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

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) 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”

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”