Transcript Global Conference on Sustainability and Transparency

“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
HAP 2007 Humanitarian
Accountability and Quality
Management Standard
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
• Please note that these slides are meant
for training, educational and
informational purposes and when used,
full acknowledgement should be made
of their source.
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
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
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
Defining the Problem
The Imbalance of Power in
Humanitarian Action
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
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?
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
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…
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
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
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
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
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
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
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
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
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
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
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
Humanitarian Accountability
Partnership
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
The Forerunners to HAP International
From the Rwanda evaluation, a number of the
accountability initiatives were born including:
• Humanitarian Ombudsman Project 1999-2001
– 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
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
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
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
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 HAP
Principles of 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
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
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 selfregulation, compliance verification and quality
assurance certification
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
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
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
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
6 Associate Members
HAP members
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
22 Full Members
5 Certified Full Members
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
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
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
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
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)
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
Humanitarian Accountability
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
Accountability involves
Proactive and retrospective components• Taking account of the views of others
• Accounting for your actions
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
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
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
Recent Factors calling for improved
accountability
1. Increased media presence during emergencies.
2. Increased public awareness and scrutiny.
3. Agencies are no longer able to use their charitable ethos and good
will as a defence for poor quality work.
4. Allegations of misconduct within the sector.
5. Pressure from donors to show improved practices.
6. Government regulating the sector.
7. Pressure from watchdogs and other rating agencies
8. Humanitarians have recognised the need to improve quality and
increase responsibility.
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
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
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
Humanitarian Accountability
Humanitarian accountability involves taking
account of, giving an account to and being
held to account by to 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
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
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
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
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.”
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
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.”
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
HAP Accountability Principles
1. Commitment to humanitarian standards and
rights of disaster survivors
2. Setting standards and building capacity to
deliver
3. Communication, including transparency and
consultation with intended beneficiaries
4. Participation (of intended beneficiaries) in
programmes
5. Monitoring and reporting on compliance
6. Addressing complaints (from beneficiaries)
7. Implementing Partners (encouraged to comply)
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
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?
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
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
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
Humanitarian Quality
Management
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
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
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
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.
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
Your values as humanitarian workers
What principles guide your personal work
and the work of your organisation?
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
Principles
Action
Beliefs &
Values
Principles
Action
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
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
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
The HAP 2007 Standard
In Humanitarian Accountability
and Quality Management
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
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
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
Standard Development Process
Action Research
Afghanistan
Sierra Leone
Cambodia
Inter-agency Consultation Meetings
London
Copenhagen
Geneva
Standards Development Consultation
Geneva
London
Dhaka
Nairobi
Field Tests
Senegal
Hundreds of
agency staff
Sri Lanka
Somalia
Others
90 Agencies
Disaster
Survivors
Donors
Other Interested
Parties
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
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
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
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)
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
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)
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
…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
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
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”
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
Benchmark 2:
The agency shall make the following information
publicly available to intended beneficiaries, disasteraffected 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”
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
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”
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
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.”
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
Benchmark 5:
The agency shall establish and implement complaintshandling 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”
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
Benchmark 6:
The agency shall establish a process of continual
improvement for its humanitarian accountability
framework and humanitarian quality management
system
The Senior Management Team needs to build a
collaborative organizational culture between
departments where complaints and raising of issues/
problems is viewed as a positive opportunity to improve.
This is essential if one department is to be able to
chase up difficult issues and raise problems with other
departments.
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
Humanitarian Covenant
• Commits organisations to applying their
principles
• A solemn, unilateral contract of accountability
to people affected by disasters
• Tool for analysing when principles shouldn’t
be applied, requiring explanation
• Requires declaration of additional interests
and policies that have a direct bearing on
beneficiaries
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
Qualifying Norms
• Commitment to provide humanitarian
assistance on an impartial basis
• Formally declared as a not-for-profit
organisation
• Compliance with the requirements for
financial accountability
• A publicly available statement of the
humanitarian accountability framework
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
Humanitarian Accountability
Framework
Specifies how the organisation will ensure
accountability to its stakeholders, and includes:
• Statement of the commitments made
– External standards, codes, principles and
guidelines, in addition to internal values, mandate,
principles, charter and guidelines
• Baseline analysis of compliance
– Current status of the HAF and related quality
management system
• Indicators for improvement with time frame
– An action or implementation policy, strategy or
plan
Stakeholder Analysis:
Accountability needs /
expectations
Internal / External
Quality Commitments
Red Cross Code of
Conduct
Organisation
Mandate
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
HAF Example
Implementation System
Management systems set up to
implement each commitment
e.g.:
1. Management responsibilities
2. Staff (who is this relevant for)
3. System (for e.g. Policies,
Guidelines, etc.)
4. Monitoring and evaluation/
continual improvement
Draft objectives which are
measurable – i.e. an Action Plan
to show how Caritas ensures
that their staff apply this.
Assessment of
Compliance
Outlines where you are
at present against
compliance and or
against your objectives
as noted in the
implementation
column.
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
Principles for Humanitarian
Action
Agencies seeking to comply with the HAP 2007 Standard
first commit themselves to accounting for their
humanitarian work in relation to the general Principles for
Humanitarian Action
Primary
–Humanity
–Impartiality
Secondary
–Informed Consent
–Duty of Care
–Witness
Tertiary
–
–
–
–
Transparency
Neutrality
Complementarity
Independence
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
Why the Hierarchy (1)
• When a HAP-certified agency is unable to
achieve full compliance with the Principles of
Accountability, an explanation is required.
• The Covenant provides guidance when facing
tough choices and refers back to basic
principles inherent in humanitarian action.
• Each principle is categorized by its relative
importance, with the primary principles being
non-negotiable
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
Why the Hierarchy (2)
• At times, the consequence of complying with one
principle may impede fulfilling another.
– For e.g. the publication of a relief distribution plan may place
intended beneficiaries and staff in danger, justifying lack of
transparency.
• The agency must be able to explain that it chooses to
operate in breach of one or more of the principles as
an unavoidable condition for being able to comply
with a higher-level principle in those circumstances.
• The agency acts in good faith and thus in accordance
with the HAP 2007 Standard
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
Certification
Against the HAP 2007 Standard
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
HAP Certification
The formal evaluation of an agency against the HAP
2007 Standard using an established method to measure
compliance
Advantages for individual agencies include:
•
Independent validation of good practice and compliance with HAP
Principles
•
Verification by stakeholders including people affected by disaster
•
Improved knowledge management, learning and continuous
improvement
•
Building trust and confidence of disaster-affected communities and
donors
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
HAP Certification offers the sector…
• A more informed choice for beneficiaries and donors
• Enhanced credibility and standing of certified agencies
• Strengthening of accountability and professionalism
• A voluntary code that enables agencies to hold themselves to
account
Certification is:
• Applicable regardless of agency size, place of origin, whether
they implement directly or through partners
• Available to all agencies who meet the qualifying norms
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
…And is designed to be realistic and
supportive
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
Key Steps to Certification
(1)
• Baseline analysis – trial run, including:
– Preparation of documents, including HAF and
HQMS
– Self assessment against the standard at HQ and
field sites
– Documentation review
– Interview verification
– Observation
– Feedback, identify gaps,
– Develop and implement action plan
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
Key Steps to Certification
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(2)
Submission of application file
Document review
Self assessments of all field sites
Head office audit
Field site audit
Interview verification with stakeholders
Observation
Auditor report
CARB
Certification – 3 year validity with interim check
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
Time Line Towards Certification
If audit findings reveal and major non
compliance certification would be
delayed until these are met
Decision
2 – 4 weeks
Ensure
agency on
board
Preparation
6-8 weeks
Prepare HAF
Baseline
Analysis
Prepare HQMS
A certificate is issued for a period of
3 years, with a mandatory mid term
(18 months) monitoring audit
Improvement
Head Office: 3
days
Audit
Field Site: 3 days Around 6 months
Consultation,
Report, incl.
support and
Head Office: 3
drafts and
days
feedback: up to 1 organization
response to
month
Field Site: 3 days
baseline
recommendations
Certified
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
Accreditation
Realizing HAP’s vision of an accountable
international humanitarian system at large
– through the accreditation of affiliated NGO
networks and associations with the
authority to certify their own members as
being compliant with the HAP Standard
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
HAP and the Q&A Initiatives
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
Group discussion
• Can you list any quality and
accountability initiatives?
• Do you use any of their work?
• Why, in your opinion, have they been
set up?
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
Tracking the emergence of the initiatives
SCHR 1971
• Voluntary alliance, now of 9 of the largest organisations
• Began peer review in 2003
Code of Conduct (1994): Principle 9 ‘we will hold ourselves accountable to
those we seek to assist and from those we accept resources’
People in Aid 1995
• Improving human resource management in the sector, including staff
consultation and capacity building and training
• Today has about 100 members
ALNAP - 1997
• Sector-wide active learning membership network to improve Q&A by
sharing lessons, identifying common problems and building consensus
Sphere Project - 1997
• Humanitarian Charter, guidance notes in 4 sectors
• Today 16 member board and a learning programme
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
More recent initiatives
One World Trust - 2000
• Global Accountability Framework and Report
Good humanitarian donorship 2003
• Principles of accountability and assessment
Tsunami Evaluation Coalition TEC - 2005
• 46 members (UN-research-donors-NGO)
• Key message #1: ownership and accountability to
affected populations
UN Special Envoy (Clinton initiative) - 2005
• Promoting transparency and accountability
• NGO impact initiative
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
HAP and the other initiatives…
The HAP 2007 Standard
– Provides a management system enabling
coordinated implementation of all relevant
standards, practices, codes, humanitarian
principles, and mandates
– Is intended to be compatible and complimentary to
help implement recognized good practices
– Is concerned with improvement of the whole:
relies upon the technical guidelines, tools and
methods for improvement of specialist areas
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
Initiative
/Project
Area of Focus
Complementarity
to HAP
Red Cross
Code of
Conduct
“Self-policing” code for monitoring standards of
relief delivery
 e.g.
People in
Aid
Code of Good Practice - management tool to
enhance the quality of human resources
management
Social audits verify adherence to the code
 e.g.
Sphere
Project
Technical standards and a humanitarian charter
in disaster response, to improve the quality and
accountability of performance by humanitarian
professionals

ECB2
“Good Enough Field Guide to Accountability”
Support to strengthen practice in accountability,
impact measurement, joint evaluations of
emergency responses
 e.g.
Quality Assurance method
Tools, training and consultancy services
Project management and project evaluation
 e.g.
Quality
COMPAS
Benchmark 2
Benchmark 4
e.g.
Benchmarks, 2, 3, 4
Benchmark 6
Benchmark 1, 6
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
Initiative
/Project
Area of Focus
Complementarity
to HAP
Synergie
Qualité
Method of inquiry to identify risk at each stage of
the project cycle

e.g.
ALNAP
Improving humanitarian performance through
increased learning and accountability
Tools and evaluations, share lessons, identify
common problems, build consensus

e.g.
Do No
Harm
Avoid exacerbating conflict through aid
Develop systems for settling causes of conflict
 e.g.
MANGO
Strengthen financial management

e.g.

e.g.
Benchmark 6
Benchmark 6
Benchmark 3
Benchmark 1
SCHR
Standards and accountability agenda focuses on
the peer review process as well as promotion of
Sphere and other quality and accountability
initiatives
Benchmark 6
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
The Initiatives – Areas of Focus
Red Cross / Crescent
Code of Conduct
Covenant to capture values
The Sphere Project
Generic and Technical Benchmarks
for improving quality of aid delivery
ALNAP
M&E & Impact; Research
HAP International
Accountability to beneficiaries through
compliance and Regulatory
Mechanism
People In Aid
HR Management
MANGO
Financial Management
ECB2
Developing How to Guide – tools
Clinton Initiative
Research / recommendations
Group URD – Quality
Compas
Project management guide / tool
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
Similarities Between the Initiatives
• All share a common goal - to improve
accountability, quality and performance in
humanitarian action
• Each takes a different route, with some
overlap
• All the initiatives are governed, managed
and supported by humanitarian agencies
and individuals
• Commitment to work closely together
towards greater harmonisation and impact
“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”
Differences…
• Each has a distinct entry point and methods for addressing
specific component(s) parts of humanitarian quality and
accountability
• Distinct mandates, constituencies and structures
• The HAP Standard
– is a compliance verification mechanism
– is concerned with quality from the perspective of intended
beneficiaries and other key stakeholders
– has been developed to address the most "mission
critical" elements
– is analogous to a simplified "ISO 9000" (quality
management) standard for humanitarian action