Transcript Overseas Development Institute

Accountability in the
humanitarian system
Global Cluster Leads Donor Meeting
April 21st 2009
ALNAP – Who are we?
UN Members: UNICEF, FAO, UNHCR,
OCHA, WHO, UNDP, WFP
Red Cross Members: BRCS, ICRC, IFRC
Donors: AECID, AusAID, CIDA, Danida,
DFID, ECHO, Germany, Irish Aid, JICA,
Netherlands, Norad, Sida, Switzerland,
USAID
ALNAP who are we? (cont.)
• NGOs; AAH, AHA, AIDMI, CAFOD, CARE, Christian Aid,
CRS, DEC, DRC, FOCUS, HAP, ICVA, IRC, Mercy
Malaysia, MSF Holland, NRC, OFADEC, Oxfam, People
In Aid, ProVention, RedR, Save the Children US, SCHR,
SPHERE, Tearfund, VOICE, World Vision
• Academics and consultants: ODI, DARA, Tufts, ETC UK,
Groupe URD, HFP, CENDEP, IECAH and 2 independent
consultants
ALNAP Vision: some key elements
•
… humanitarian assistance will be more systematic,
and delivery will more closely reflect humanitarian
principles, norms and codes. Active partnership with
affected people, local administration and civil society
groups will be more evident and will reflect an explicit
recognition by the international community of the
importance of local skills and knowledge. Humanitarian
agencies will act accountably and will ensure that
learning and change processes, including evaluations,
are part of a commitment to continuous improvement.
•
Key ideas (interlinked and interdependent)
• systematic and better coordinated delivery;
• affected people at the heart of the response;
• agencies acting accountably.
How have agencies tried to
become more accountable?
A combination of 3 broad approaches:
(i) Improving participation of affected
communities
(ii) Developing codes, standards and
principles
(iii) Focusing on performance and results
Approach 1: Improving participation - current
initiatives
 Humanitarian Accountability Partnership: NGO
membership committed to Quality Management
Standard
 Collaborative Development Action: the Listening Project
on views of affected populations
 Fritz Institute: use of beneficiary surveys
 Promotion of participatory evaluation methodologies
 Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (VCA) through
Red Cross
 Quality COMPAS – quality management approach
 Global Study on Participation – participatory techniques
and monographs
Approach 2: Codes, Standards and
Principles
 Red Cross/Crescent NGO Code of Conduct.
 Debates about IHL and humanitarian principles
(neutrality, independence and impartiality) after Rwanda
genocide, Chechnya and Afghanistan
 International Disaster Response Law (IDRL)
development of legal frameworks
 SPHERE: technical standards, sectoral approach
 People in Aid: promotion of HR best practice
 HAP Standard mentioned previously is a standard
focusing on participation
Approach 3: Performance and
Results
 Evaluations – OECD-DAC Criteria
ALNAP Evaluations
Impact assessments, innovations
Humanitarian Performance Project (HPP)
 Results based management
 Quality approaches – Compas, EFQM and ISO
9000
 Emergency Capacity Building Project (ECB)
Good enough guide
What tools are out there that the clusters
might consider?
 Participation
 HAP standard
 Codes, Standards and Principles
 SPHERE Indicators– updated version due for publication
 Red Cross/Crescent Code of Conduct
 People in Aid Code of Best Practice
 (IHL; Refugee Law; Human Rights Law; International Disaster Response Law;
ALNAP and ICRC Guides to Protection)
 Performance and Results
 ALNAP Guide to applying OECD DAC Criteria in Humanitarian Assistance
 Quality COMPAS
 ECB Good Enough Guide
Key questions for today: What are the
common functions of the clusters?
 Cannot determine common accountability
frameworks without identifying common
functions across the clusters
 Exploring accountability presents valuable
opportunity to revisit rationale and modus operandi
 Clusters are collaborative mechanisms and
therefore a ‘network’ approach may be useful
in identifying key common functions
 ALNAP-ODI-ICVA work on network functions
Networks perform 6 functions (overlapping, non-exclusive).
Possible questions: which of these are priorities for the
clusters? What is the appropriate balance in different
contexts? How is the balance maintained over time?
Community
builders
Learning /
Facilitators
Filters
Investor/providers
Amplifiers
Convenors
Key questions for today, once functions
are determined: What would an
accountable cluster look like?
 Three underlying questions:
 What are the priorities of cluster accountability with
respect to
 affected population
 principles and values
 performance and results?
 How can cluster accountability mechanisms (collective)
be balanced and streamlined with single agency
accountability mechanisms
 How can cluster accountability support and reinforce (a)
ongoing cluster development (b) other reform initiatives?
Recap
Intro to ALNAP
Three models of accountability
Possible tools and techniques
Key questions
common cluster functions
Accountability priorities and modalities