CARE respectfully disagrees with the conclusion drawn in MSF Holland’s guest submission to the Sphere Newsletter Number 5.  The author concludes with the following statement:  “It is MSF’s firm belief that the use of Sphere minimum standards . . . prohibits the use of mechanisms of compliance and single agency accountability.”

This conclusion is founded on two arguments.  First, MSF argues that “Sphere standards measure a multitude of actions aimed at delivering minimum standards, for which no agency has single responsibility.  No single agency can therefore comply with Sphere.”
Second, MSF argues that different contexts will trigger different standards for accountability and compliance.  Sometimes more than the Sphere indicators will be required, sometimes less.  MSF concludes that while Sphere may be useful as technical guidelines for inter-agency cooperation, they have no real value in terms of increasing compliance and accountability of humanitarian NGOs.

MSF’s first point is dubious as a matter of logic and of practical application.   Simply because individual NGOs cannot guarantee to achieve all of the Sphere standards every time does not mean that they cannot assume an explicit obligation to achieve certain milestones towards the achievement of the Sphere standards, or take responsibility for their role when we fail as a humanitarian community.

As a practical matter, what is to prevent any individual agency committing to a particular community to provide at least X litres of water per day per person?   Where a range of services is required, what is to prevent a group of agencies making commitments to each other and to the people we serve on their individual and collective responsibility?    Sphere doesn’t discuss in detail how the standards have to be achieved, or by whom.  It merely draws a line in the sand that everyone can see, and so provides us the opportunity to explicitly accept our accountability to the people we serve.

Certainly, where shared obligations lead to failure of compliance, there may be finger pointing, and false assertions as to who is to blame.  But is the possibility of such a debate to be feared so much?

MSF’s second argument (that different contexts trigger different standards) seems much the same as suggesting that there is no point having a law against murder, because in warfare and self-defense it’s sometimes justified to kill.    Of course, certain contexts demand that we go beyond the Sphere indicators, as MSF’s Indonesian example makes clear.  In other contexts, lack of resources and heavy demand may make it impossible to achieve the Sphere indicators for a period of time.  Neither circumstance, however, obviates the value of having standards towards which we can strive and aim to be held accountable.

MSF seems to miss the point that these are minimum standards.  The water quantity standard requires that “all people have safe access to a sufficient quantity of water for drinking, cooking and personal and domestic hygiene.”  What constitutes “a sufficient quantity” will vary depending on the situation, and the level of disaster response can, and in some cases should, exceed the minimum requirements.  What’s important to remember is that the Sphere standard and its corresponding indicators represent a floor (i.e. collection of “at least 15 liters of water per person per day”) beneath which people’s ability to live with dignity is compromised.

Sphere is pushing the humanitarian community to move beyond the traditional programming goals of doing our best to help those in need.  By recognizing every individual’s inherent right to minimum standards of service, and then clearly articulating those standards, it urges us to commit to help people achieve those standards.   In other words, the inherent recognition of basic needs as standards (or rights) imposes accountability on those who assume the duty to help people achieve those rights.  When we truly accept the Sphere standards, we become accountable to explain our non-compliance.  Where more than one agency is involved, we are bound to scrutinize and account for our individual agency contribution toward the collective achievement of the minimum standards.   It means that we commit not only to effective, high quality action at the level of the organization but also to community-wide coalition building and advocacy so that all responsible actors live up to their obligations.  After all, how can the collective be accountable if its individual parts do not hold themselves accountable?
 
In the end, Sphere is about leaving behind the days of unaccountable NGOs doing whatever they choose to save lives and alleviate suffering.  The Sphere Charter and minimum standards beckon us to a new world in which each of us individually and as a collective assume responsibility for helping disaster-affected people realize their right to life with dignity.  Let’s not sell ourselves short!

Andrew Jones, Program Advisor - Human Rights, & Paul O’Brien, Policy Advisor,  Africa
CARE