Presentation*
* N.B. Please note that several of the presentations are transcribed from tapes of the event & have been subject to minor editing without referral to their authors.
The Sphere Project, an NGO and Red Cross/Red Crescent initiative, was conceived in 1996 to enhance the accountability of the humanitarian system primarily, but not exclusively, to those persons who have a right to protection and assistance in disasters. In this respect the Sphere Humanitarian Charter re-affirms what we already know from International Humanitarian Law and human rights treaties; that states bear first responsibility for these functions. The humanitarian community of NGOs and the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement believe it is now necessary to define the basic minimum requirements to sustain life with dignity that these legal obligations impose on states and other providers of humanitarian assistance.
The publication of the 'Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response' completes the first phase of the task to define a principled and practical framework for humanitarian action. It represents the combined efforts of 641 named individuals (and countless un-named persons) drawn from 228 organisations, including NGOs, the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, academic institutions, the United Nations and government agencies and has received the financial support of 8 non-governmental networks and 10 governmental donors.
The conference sought to further the collaboration and dialogue on the meaning and use of standards in disaster response at all levels, bringing together a broad spectrum of players from within the humanitarian system.
It provided an opportunity to reaffirm the obligation that falls to the international community of states to meet its responsibilities in humanitarian crises, and to explore the further contribution that NGOs and the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement can together make towards realising appropriate minimum standards for humanitarian action.
Finally, it sought and received commitment
to continued collaboration and support of the project throughout Phase 2, during
which trials of the standards are to commence.
The rapidly changing context of humanitarian assistance has led to concerns both within the humanitarian community and outside it about the accountability and quality of assistance provided. Over five years ago, the SCHR together with the ICRC set out to develop a set of principles for agencies involved in disaster relief. The result of the joint effort was The Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief. Since its launch in 1994, almost 150 agencies have signed the code committing themselves and their staff to its standards of behaviour.
Article 9 of the code commits signatories to being "accountable to both those we seek to assist and those from whom we accept resources". The 'Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards' reflects the determination of agencies to meet this commitment. It seeks to contribute to a practical framework of accountability through which the fundamental rights of those affected by conflict and calamity are recognised. Compassion and mercy alone are not guarantors of effective assistance. The inclusion of fundamental human rights in the Humanitarian Charter, in direct relation to humanitarian response, commits signatories to a rights-based approach.
The Sphere project stands as an example of co-operation and consultation within the humanitarian community. It is a combined project of InterAction and the SCHR, with Voice, ICVA, and the ICRC as active observers on the management committee. The sector committees and reference groups included participants from a wide range of national and international NGOs, academic institutions, the United Nations and governmental agencies. Acknowledgements include 641 named individuals, drawn from 228 organisations. Finance has come from eight NGO groupings and ten governments.
Today we are marking the end of Phase 1 and the launch of Phase 2 of the Sphere project with the release of the preliminary edition of the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response. This draft will be distributed widely. It will be tested in the field for one year and the experience incorporated into a new edition. It is important to see the document as part of a dynamic and living process, informing and informed by experience in the field. Phase 2 will also focus on dissemination, the development of training materials, and the examination of quality assurance and compliance mechanisms.
The development of minimum standards
represents an important step towards improving our accountability and the overall
quality of humanitarian response. It will, though, need to be combined with
the traditional inventiveness and flexibility of humanitarian agencies, and
the dedication of individual aid workers, which have characterised the best
of our humanitarian work. For standards to be meaningful, not only must the
fundamental human rights of victims be recognised, but also adequate resources
must be made available, and sufficient political will applied to address the
causes of suffering. Aid workers can only implement standards if they are given
the support to do so. Sadly, history shows that too often the aid worker is
left to stand alone, a committed but ultimately impotent witness to the appalling
neglect by humanity of its own kind. Our belief - and our hope - is that the
Sphere project, by clarifying our collective responsibilities, will contribute
in future to a more compassionate, just, and effective humanitarianism.
End
Speaker: George Weber, Director General, IFRC
___________________________________________________________________________
Ladies and gentlemen, The Red Cross and Red Crescent has been in existence for over one hundred years, but it was only in 1919, in the face of a massive public health crisis in Europe, that the National Societies decided to work together collaboratively to tackle not the effects of war, but influenza, measles and polio. That was the birth of the Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, a collaborative effort to improve the way we respond to disaster.
It is from this history of collective action to assist disaster victims that the Federation has given its whole hearted support to the Sphere project.
Our status as auxiliaries to national governments and our close involvement with the development and dissemination of International Humanitarian Law is born out of a belief that the victims of war and disaster not only deserve assistance and competent service on ethical grounds, but have a right to it. The inclusion of the Humanitarian Charter in the Sphere standards, firmly grounding them in rights as well as needs is, I think, a critical distinction. By offering assistance in an organised and pre-planned manner, which goes beyond the spontaneous compassion of the individual, we in effect accept the responsibility to disaster victims to behave and act in a professional manner. The Sphere standards are explicit in linking their technical elaboration to people's rights under IHL, refugee and human rights conventions.
The Sphere standards also give us a way to be more accountable to those we seek to serve and who entrust their resources to us. They also force us to think about wider issues of accountability and responsibility. Is our responsibility as a professional agency confined to the trail from our donors, through our staff and volunteers to our beneficiaries, or do we also have a responsibility to reach out laterally? I am clear that we have a duty, a responsibility, to share our experience, our learning if you like, with others who work in the same endeavour. If we believe that the Sphere standards, or their precursor the Code of Conduct, are right and add value to our work, then we must strive not only to ensure that our own organisations meet these standards, but that others do as well.
The Sphere standards seek to be universal, applicable to all response agencies and all disasters. They therefore set minimum standards, not optimal ones. You may ask what is the value of such standards for the more established agencies. We already seek to perform to Sphere standards and often do better. The Sphere standards, however, because they are public and universal take us beyond the realm of what we do in our own agencies.
They publicly commit us first to strive towards a defined and measurable level of competence and delivery. This is new. We have never had such a benchmark before.
Secondly, Sphere standards speak to what we could do, not just to what we already do. The International Federation for instance has considerable competence in the delivery of health services. We work to attain and even exceed the Sphere standards in our work. But, we have less expertise in shelter. Sphere allows us to identify and address gaps in our expertise in that area as well.
Thirdly, federations and coalitions like ourselves generally cannot claim universal competence within their membership. We have strong members and weak members. We believe that to maximise the value of being a Federation we have to follow a strategy based on defining core areas of competence and within those areas, minimal standards we should all seek to achieve. For us, emergency disaster response is one of those core competencies. Next year, at our General Assembly, we will be recommending that National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies accept the Sphere standards as the yardstick against which emergency disaster response as a core competency should be judged.
Let me now take a few minutes to tell you how our International Federation intends to turn its public commitment to the Sphere standards into an institutional reality.
We believe that the Sphere standards are more than just a technical issue. As I noted a moment ago, we will be recommending our governance accept the Sphere standards as the yardstick for standard measuring of a key area of core competence.
Within our international secretariat and our worldwide delegations, we will be adjusting our training programmes for relief managers to include knowledge of Sphere standards. Sectoral specialists in health and water will be asked to implement their work, using Sphere as a base line for competence. We will test looking to eventually revising our delegates handbook and our standard operating procedures to take Sphere into account, and we will be moving one of our most experienced health professionals out of field work and charging him to design and implement the institutionalisation of Sphere into the Federation over the next two years.
We fully realise it is not all going to be smooth sailing. Sphere, and our commitment to it, will be tested by extreme events. Where violence and insecurity precludes the insertion of relief workers - volunteers or staff - do we do nothing or do we seek to do something far below Sphere standards? For me the answer is clear. Of course we must act. But Sphere also gives us a basis on which to advocate. If we can get Sphere standards accepted in a universal way they will add weight to the field reality of impartiality and neutrality. This will allow us to be much more specific about what we seek to deliver and what we expect people to allow us to deliver.
We will be tested by extremes like hurricane Mitch where initial funding levels in no way allowed us to provide for the minimal rights of all those who were suffering. With Sphere we have a powerful tool to lobby for the necessaries funds, not as we do now, on a competitive level with fellow agencies, but against a clearly defined and accepted level of service.
Sphere is a beginning. We will need to test it to find the best way to express the standards so that they can be used effectively by field staff and their managers. Sphere cannot address all the hurdles we face in the field. It will not help us address issues of long-term rehabilitation after disaster, nor of political indifference to suffering.
Sphere is a brave endeavour. It is not without risks, but I believe those risks are worth taking because Sphere has the potential to significantly improve the way that we do business: the way the international community discharges its responsibility to provide for life saving services in disasters. And if that potential exists, we really do not have a choice, we have to explore it.
Speaker: General Guy Tousignant, Director General, CARE International
_______________________________________________________________________________
I am delighted to be here as a member of the SCHR and to represent CARE International to this conference. Even though the invitation is to debate the meaning and use of humanitarian standards in disaster response, it could very well have been to celebrate the publication of the "The Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response".
When the Sphere project was initiated by the Steering Committee on Humanitarian Response and InterAction on July 1st '97, some of us expressed the usual scepticism that this new initiative would simply produce another paper that no one would pay any attention to. What was probably under estimated at the time was the strong sense of commitment within the group of agencies that participated in the development of the set of minimum standards. If we are not here today to celebrate their accomplishment, we would nonetheless be remiss if we did not praise them for the work they have done to enhance the quality and accountability of the humanitarian system. From CARE International's point of view, the launching of Sphere II is a significant milestone and a credit to the dedication shown by the team that made phase I a successful collaboration. They certainly have carried the goal of the Sphere project and deserve our appreciation.
Consistent standards in the delivery of humanitarian assistance and accountability are not often used in relation to NGOs, but these are vital credentials that NGOs must attain.
Consistent standards can be built into the design process of humanitarian projects but will only occur if the agency involved stay true to the organisation's identity and has not been significantly deflected by funding factors. As for accountability, it is seldom demanded unless the media kicks up a fuss, or those calling for it are donors. Those expecting accountability also tend to be concerned with the allocation of money and the proportion reaching the beneficiaries. Rarely is the quality of assistance given in emergencies challenged by donors, beneficiaries or indeed the humanitarian community. Sphere proposed to address that gap in at least five core areas: water and sanitation, food and security, health Services, nutrition, and shelter and site management.
CARE International welcomed the initiative and devoted resources to it. In fact, CARE remains not only committed to the concept but has embarked on an initiative of its own to develop standards that will strengthen CARE's programming, promote organisational consistency and, ultimately, ensure the organisation's long term viability.
As most of you may or may not be aware, the CARE International Code currently contains only general programming principles. Adopted in the mid-1980s, these principles contain little means for reporting or even evaluating whether or not they were successful in meeting their goals. In 1992 an initiative was undertaken with the intent to define minimum standards. Unfortunately, the timing was wrong, and for many, the initiative was viewed as an effort to "police" members.
Over the past year it has become evident that the time has come for CARE to renew our focus on programme standards. Increasingly both donors and the host countries with which we partner are seeking greater accountability and increased results. Within CARE, the continued desire to design and maintain high-quality programming has never been more pronounced.
It is with a similar mind-set that CARE will be approaching the second phase of the Sphere project. In one of our National Offices, for example, CARE Australia is raising funds from the Australian Government to ensure that all the main Australian humanitarian agencies, under the guidance of ACFOA, will participate in conferences aimed at pursuing the main objectives of Phase II of Sphere. Indeed, they are also intending to have a "mini-launch" down-under, on December 4, tomorrow, involving aid agencies, donors and the Australian Defense Force, who are very often involved in disaster response programmes. And most of our other CARE Offices will be involved in comparable initiatives around the world.
This is to say that CARE certainly considers that in order to produce the desired effect of improved quality and accountability in practice, it is necessary to follow up the phase one publication with activities that will institutionalise them with the humanitarian system. Institutionalisation of the standards will require adoption and adaptation of policy statements, organisational system and field practices. CARE not unlike other NGOs will need to incorporate the standards throughout its structure. We subscribe to the notion that agency governance and management systems will need to be held accountable for programmes performance according to the Sphere standards.
I am looking forward to the dialogue that this conference will provide and to take note of others' perspectives and perceptions of the Sphere initiative. I would hope that at the end of the day, the approach that Sphere is promoting would receive your full endorsement and support.
End
NGO Commitment to Trialing Standards
December 3, 1998
Sphere Conference, London
Speaker: Jean-Luc Trouillard, Secretary General, Caritas Internationalis
I would like to very briefly state the four reasons why we think that the Caritas family should buy and possibly implement the Sphere standards. I am insisting on these four reasons because I see them as the rational behind any decision from our member organisations. The Caritas family is not a top-down type of organisation and each member organisation is fully autonomous and therefore it's impossible to say, I mean, how the standards are going to be accepted.
But I would just like to list here these four reasons, very briefly:
The first one is that the size of our network at Caritas, which represents something like 190 countries - weak members, strong members, some more involved than others in emergency operations on a regular basis etc - and the growing complexity of humanitarian intervention. I don't need to draw a chart. Man-made disasters, variety of cultures, political and natural disasters, the necessity to co-ordinate with other players, and faith based organisations. As Miriam (Lutz) was telling me a few minutes ago we are now referred to as FBOs. I knew about UFOs and now we are faith-based organisations, as opposed to religious organisations which are supposed to serve their customers only and faith based who are suppose to be more open to the rest of the world. This necessity to co-ordinate with other players calls for a common platform of minimum standards of qualities. There is a practical need for common platforms and common standards for co-operation at grass roots.
Second reason. There is a growing competition for funds globally and this is creating a growing confusion in people's minds. When I say people I mean private or institutional donors. Just refer to the type of conversations you may have at home or with friends. Frequent questions are 'how can I choose?' 'How can I make sure my money is going to be put to good use?' or, drawing on my French background, 'how can I distinguish the good wine from the bad wine since I cannot even taste them?' So this calls for benchmarks, quality standards and the necessity to publicise them. That is the second reason: competition demands commonality of standards.
Third reason. Institutional donors, by which I mean governments, inter-governmental organisations such as the European Union, and international organisations such as the UN system. These donors are becoming very important players in the humanitarian field and in parallel their willingness to work jointly with NGOs is becoming more and more explicit. This is progress, but each of these institutional donors legitimately develops its own agenda, priorities, guidelines, financial guidelines, etc. This in turn is adding to the complexities of fund-raising and humanitarian management, financial reporting and all that, and tends to increase competition among beneficiaries. Again this is not out of ill will rather a technical necessity coming from within each organisation or each institutional donor. We believe therefore that common quality standards could be very helpful in smoothing out and enhancing official co-operation among NGOs and institutional donors for the greater benefit of people in need.
The fourth and last reason is that common universal standards, starting with the humanitarian field, are a first step towards the promotion of universal standards in other fields. For a family of organisations such as Caritas, this potentially means a stepping stone to similar initiatives in the field of combating mass poverty in general.
This is why we believe that the idea of common standards might be well accepted by our membership. This project offers a real challenge of between ten to twenty years, I would say!
SPHERE LAUNCH
3 December 1998
NGO Commitment to Trialing Standards
REMARKS BY MIRIAM LUTZ, ACT Co-ordinator for WCC and LWF
INTRODUCTION
Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen.
To avoid you choking on acronym soup, I should first offer you a brief introduction to ACT International: Action by Churches Together, or ACT, is the emergency response network of the Lutheran World Federation and the World Council of Churches. This 'ecumenical family' as it is sometimes dubbed, has for most of this century linked Protestant and Orthodox church communities from around the globe in relief, development, and human rights advocacy. In relief, this family is known as 'ACT'.
The Co-ordinating Office is based in Geneva.
In the field, we are known under many
different names, such as the Korean Christian Federation, Lutheran World Service,
the Comision
Cristiano de Desarollo in Honduras, and
Christian Aid.
Our work on Sphere has been through the Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response (SCHR), of which the World Council of Churches and the Lutheran World Federation are members.
SPHERE as a RIGHTS BASED APPROACH
Essentially we are committed to Sphere because it is NOT really about latrines and boreholes, but because it is about our commitment to the basic human rights which are upheld and strengthened by this initiative.
Sphere will not guarantee that other humanitarian actors play responsible roles, and we know that too often humanitarian action is conducted in a vacuum. We can not assume responsibility for the entire humanitarian community, and we recognise the limitations upon us when our response is too often predicated upon the presence of other humanitarian actors, as well as upon the vagaries of warring parties, inter-agency competition, limited resources, and many other factors. But that does not exonerate us from pro-actively responding to the lessons of the past and doing what we can to clean up our own act -- to ensure that we are less a part of the problem and more a part of the solution.
Let's take the example of Sphere's call for Assessments to inform humanitarian action: An understanding of the needs is essential, no matter what the origin of the humanitarian response channel, to ensure quality response; and if the responding agency is external in origin (Western European NGO operating in Kosovo, or a West African NGO operating in the Great Lakes), then it is all the more important to commence with an Assessment to ensure that the needs are analysed and determined from the perspective of the disaster affected population and not solely from that of a European or North American mental framework.
This may seem self-evident, and yet -- it has never been so explicitly stipulated. There have been insufficient written guidelines in humanitarian action.
Now, an emergency is an imperfect environment in an equally imperfect world. That is its very challenge and can not nor should not render it a science unto itself and, in so doing, create justification for its self-perpetuation.
But the aim of Sphere is something quite different -- it is accountability and values which are truly humanitarian at their core, which are concerned first and foremost with the wellbeing of a person in distress, have no cause to shy away from calls for accountability vis-à-vis those they aim to assist.
We need to be accountable. The lives of disaster affected people are not a playground for the expatriate relief worker seeking adventure nor for the indigenous relief agency seeking to make a name. The Humanitarian Imperative does not grant us the right to intervene wherever and however we deem fit.
Moreover, humanitarian values compel us to protect not only the physical wellbeing--the right to basic guarantees of life -- but also the right to personal dignity. Disaster affected peoples do not claim copyright when their photo is taken or when their lives are written up... It is time their rights were encoded and Sphere is one step - a very basic step – in that process. Sphere's aim is to serve as a tool as we conceptualise our work within a human rights framework.
CROSS-CULTURAL ADAPTATION
We will each be challenged by different aspects of Sphere. NGOs that are North-South-East-West, such as the global church networks of ACT and Caritas, as well as the Red Cross and others, have a particular responsibility to ensure the cross-cultural adaptation of the Standards -- taking into account different historical, cultural and economic contexts.
When listing women as Heads of Household, in an attempt to ensure their access to food, or 'targeting' of pregnant mothers for supplementary food aid does not translate culturally in a context where it would bring shame on the women in question as well as the entire family to put such women's nutritional needs before that of other family members, we will need to reflect together on how to proceed. Phase II of Sphere is designed specifically for this purpose.
But Sphere has given us a common point of departure from where we can build together, a benchmark to be strengthened and refined.
We are committed to rendering Sphere accessible and adaptable to all whose wellbeing it aims to preserve and all who aspire to implementing its guidelines. The churches consider cross-cultural adaptation, or 'inculturation' as it is known in ecumenical circles, to be a human right.
LOCAL CAPACITIES
Another innovative aspect of Sphere is the prominence given to such notions as building on local capacities. A concept that in most cases never makes it beyond the threshold of politically correct speeches. Because it is the most difficult path to choose. It requires identification of strengths which pre-date the arrival of external assistance; it requires consultation, and careful strategising in order to ensure an inclusive way forward in humanitarian response; and it sometimes requires taking a back seat, and in so doing, giving up precious visibility and accepting a Sudanese rather than a Danish face in the area of emergency response.
UNIVERSALITY OF STANDARDS
The Churches are well aware of the dangers of universality, and have brought caution to bear on the consequences of, for example, economic globalisation, precisely out of a concern that it will create exclusivity and marginalise many. However, as Berthel Haarder writes 'Human dignity and the importance of justice and fair treatment are no more Western than Asian. Universality does not mean uniformity.'
We have, de facto, global economics; global ethics need to keep pace. And we need to come together in this effort, so that disaster affected peoples do not suffer the consequences of our fragmentation. Sphere has been inclusive from its inception and will continue to be so.
Cross-cultural adaptation will be our strategy for countering the potentially negative effects of globalisation of standards and, as long as we lead from human rights as our value base, the two do not have to be in creative conflict.
We recognise the principle of universality
in many positive expressions, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
End
The Sphere Project
3 December 1998
UN/Donor Perspectives
The World Food Programme sees the Sphere Project not just as a programme that has set out to invent new standards but more as a way to consolidate and reach agreement on existing ones. We are not in the business, or at least we shouldn't be in my opinion, of setting new ways to reinvent the wheel, but we are, in seeking ways that apply our assistance in a constant manner.
Phase 1 has been about getting the ball rolling and we would like to commend the project team for doing exactly that. A special mention should be made on the way that the document was assembled. Colleagues have informed me of the open and frank level of discourse that enabled each organisation to pitch its views and opinions in a healthy environment unhindered by protocol and formality. Getting agreement amongst ourselves, (and I'm from the UN bureaucracy - so I should know what I'm talking about) is often a greater challenge than brokering agreements amongst the fierceness and belligerence on the ground.
The project, and why WFP sees it being useful? Well, intervention, whether it is a man-made, natural, environmental or other categorised disaster is by its very nature going to change events, and change them for the better we hope. That motivation that inspires us is based upon human will, a collective will, to assist those in need. However, well-meaning intentions need to be backed with concrete plans, with coherent policies and practices.
I can't think of any current or ongoing operation where WFP acts alone. We are players upon a stage but one component, one element, within the many responding to humanitarian disasters. We need the co-operation of others whether commercial entities, services, the shipping sector, the co-operation of local authorities, or our partners the international or local NGOs.
Setting standards is important, but getting the message down to the field, training our staff on their importance, and implementing best practices is vital. Guidelines, operational manuals, and directives are only really useful when they are available, understood and digested by those who have to implement them.
Ownership has to be worked at and will only be achieved when the standards set down by the Charter are adopted by all. Food aid is rarely the only instrument required in resolving or addressing food security problems. The issues are frequently more complex and inter-linked. Given the inter-dependency emerging in our activities, whether it be by sector, food and health for example, or by phase, such as relief to recovery, clear communication is essential. 'The Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards and Disaster Response' provides us with a useful tool. We can communicate and set about tackling our response with agreement on minimum standards and with, as importantly, a clear political commitment from us all to approach the response on a common front
The World Food Programme is establishing a comprehensive set of modules for next year's training. The modules include adherence to the Sphere Project's proposals regarding our area of competence and it is hoped that our commitment to the Sphere Project will help attain its goals. In addition recently implemented training has also adhered to that concept.
In conclusion I would like to thank
all the project team for, one, addressing and completing the first phase, and
two, on its organisation of the consultative elements and stages which has resulted
in an excellent initial document.
End
| EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY HUMANITARIAN OFFICE (ECHO) Strategy, Planning and Policy Analysis (ECHO 4) |
Good Morning,
The Sphere Project
3 December 1998
UN/Donor Perspectives
Speaker: Dr. Mukesh Kapila, Head of CHAD, DFID
_________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you very much Chairman and colleagues. I am glad to see such a good gathering here. I'm delighted that London has been chosen as one of the two places to launch this important initiative. We, like ECHO, have been very proud and privileged to be associated with this venture and certainly welcome the publication of the results.
I think others have already spoken eloquently and I won't repeat the points they have made concerning the many positive features of this initiative - the fact that it offers a framework of accountability, the fact that it offers some concrete standards and that those standards are not just quantitative ones but also qualitative ones, they exhort us to certain better processes of working and certain processes of consultation with beneficiaries and that all, of course, is a very good thing.
We also particularly welcome the fact that the conclusions of this phase of the Sphere Project are very much based on a rights approach, which as you know Clare Short is extremely keen on (she has spoken about that on many occasions and indeed she is giving a major keynote speech on human rights this evening at the Law Society - so there is a little publicity for her) and so the recognition that humanitarian standards and humanitarian principles are based on a wider universal set of rights is most welcome.
From DFID's part, we will certainly wish to incorporate these considerations into our own working and we would like to invite those who will be responsible for disseminating this product to come and disseminate it inside the DFID as well. Not only that but when you go into Phase 2, when you come to actually study the implementation of this initiative, to come and study how it's incorporated inside DFID and whether or not it's successful and the other sort of limitations and successes of doing that.
So all that is a good thing but you would be surprised if I didn't have one or two doubts as well. I think Mikael (Barford) has mentioned some of them already and I will repeat, one of the points he made and then talk about a second additional point.
The point he made, and which I would like to reinforce, is the question of access. The problem we have, as you know only too well, is that it is very difficult to provide humanitarian assistance according to certain standards in complex emergencies where warring parties restrict access to beneficiary populations. Under those circumstances it is a somewhat sort of cruel joke to be talking about, to be promising even minimal if not optimal standards of humanitarian support when we know that those are essentially undeliverable.
People have referred to the need for political will and resources. I think the problem is not that of political will, as a government on the Security Council, I don't think there is any lack of political will by the British government and I think other governments in a similar position are also constantly thinking about this subject. The question is really how to actually implement in practice some of the very difficult operational challenges that lie in terms of actually gaining access to beneficiary populations. I'm afraid, gone are the days when one could just send in the Marines and simply, you know, clear the way and impose peace and demand access. I think, you know, we can discuss that at some other time but that is not necessarily the most constructive or feasible way of working nowadays.
In the face of all these sorts of obstacles perhaps the Sphere Project, or its derivative or its associated initiatives, might actually look at practical ways in which access might be gained and also when it comes to disseminating this type of initiative to actually disseminate it amongst the warring factions themselves because, in a sense, they have to be held accountable for allowing this to happen in areas under their control.
My second challenge really is the question of resources. Somebody mentioned that humanitarian funding has been going down. Well I suppose in absolute amounts it is probably true in terms of figures, but that does not mean there are inadequate resources available for humanitarian aid work. Perhaps what it means is that we're getting simply smarter at funding and the challenge is not more funding but smarter funding and this initiative is actually a useful contribution to help us to make smarter funding - if I can put it that way.
However, having said that, let us have no doubt about it. Resources are always limited, even in our own National Health and Social Security services in this country, rationing is now a way of life and the same is true for all fields of human endeavour. Resources are always limited whatever you do, wherever you do it. So having that is just a statement, I think of reality. Having said that, therefore the challenge for the standards set by the Sphere Project is to consider how we adapt the standards to a world of limited resources. All these questions arise. Do we provide, if resources are limited, do we provide the minimal standards set by the Charter to a smaller number of the population because your money isn't going to go that far or do we provide a sub-minimal level of provision to the whole population. So questions of equity come into mind and these are obviously questions raised not necessarily to solicit clever answers because these are quite difficult questions, but it does pose practical, it does have practical implications. For example, when one has a proposal in front of you as donors and your resources are limited and you then see the proposal says 15 litres of water times half a million people times so many cents per litre divided by the number of this that and the other and you have a very neat mathematical formula by which you might fund the water and sanitation services in Central America, for example, or whatever.
Now I'm not sure decision-making processes quite follow that very logical computerised way of working. If they did, life would be very much easier for us. In fact all you'd have to do is like an airport, so you get self check-in - agencies could just check in their project proposal into a slot machine outside the office and then the computer would write out a cheque because it would all be set out according to a mechanical mathematical formula.
Now clearly that, I think there is some merit in going down that route - maybe if we can achieve that it would be very easy and I can tell you having been grappling with these issues it would make our lives definitely much easier, but sadly we are far away from that sort of state of affairs. Therefore in the interim I think one of the challenges for dissemination is going to be not simply to exhort us to adopt these particular standards but to actually work with us in trying to interpret these standards in the sort of day-to-day pragmatic decision-making.
And unless we do that, unless we actually do that together, then this thing is either at the level of some beautiful theoretical construct or worse still it is at the level of a cruel joke and cruel con to people round the world who depend on us to provide them with the support that they need
Having said all that, these are not doubts but these are challenges. In other words these are things that I am sure are addressable as we go through the next Phase of this particular programme.
So again, congratulations, we are delighted to be part of it and we will certainly be putting these recommendations to Clare Short and asking for her endorsement on basically institutionalising it inside the DFID and we will use our presence as a member of the European Union, with Mikael and elsewhere to see this adopted more widely inside the European Union, including ECHO.
Thank You.
Please note the following verbal presentation does not include slides due to logistical difficulties duplicating them in this document. Therefore the presentation has been subject to minor editing without referral to the author.
The Sphere Project
A programme of The Steering Committee for Humanitarian
Response & InterAction with VOICE, ICRC & ICVA
First, though, I want to ask you a few questions:
A disaster can happen at any time… in any place… to any people.
When the folks in your family or neighbourhood talk about disasters don't they often described events close to home? I want to ask you to take two minutes now to talk to a couple of people sitting next to you about a disaster you have either experienced or heard about.
--- Pause for thought/discussion. ---
Slide 1: Sphere Document
Today we are examining the Sphere Humanitarian
Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response.
In describing how we got here, I'd like
to focus on a few more questions:
Slide 2: Why, What, How, Who, Where
Slide 3: Why
The why has a lot to do with what we
were just talking about amongst ourselves.
Slide 4: Family
People like to live lives where they
have the opportunity to meet their needs / their family's needs. They like life
to be a little bit predictable. They like the chance to make things better…
better for themselves…
Slide 5: Kids
Better for their children…
This is why we came together to work
on the Sphere Project… to try to help make things better for people.
Slide 6: Clashing Arrows
We know that sometimes things happen
which disrupt people's normal lives.
Slide 7: World
These cataclysmic events can happen anywhere…
they can happen to any people… they can have a variety of causes.
Slide 8: Wave
Sometimes the forces of nature overwhelm
human settlements – a tidal wave in New Guinea, a cyclone in Bangladesh…
Slide 9: Fire
vast fires in Indonesia… or in Oakland,
California. Sometimes we think that the disasters in developing countries take
too much time and too much money to deal with… or that the victims are somehow
to blame because there were human factors at play in the degree of destruction.
News reports of the Indonesia fires described the cause as farmers setting fires to clear cropland.
Did you know that the Oakland, California fire was the result of a small grassfire that was not adequately put out by the fire department and that major amounts of damage were the result of poor choice of building materials in homes worth hundreds of thousands of dollars?
Slide 10: Earthquake
Sometimes we bemoan the fact that people
in developing countries require assistance for such a long time after a disaster…
This is a photograph of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in Santa Cruz, California.
After this disaster businesses and churches were housed in tents for three years! Things didn't just return to normal. There are still holes where buildings used to stand, and this is 10 years later. Long-term costs are the norm for disasters everywhere not just in developing countries.
Slide 11: Corn in North Korea
We also know that human and natural actions
work in concert to exacerbate disaster. This is the failed corn crop in North
Korea. Famine / starvation is one of the most insidious and discriminatory of
disasters. In the case of North Korea, we are quick to blame the political system.
But the fact is that there has been a worldwide silent emergency called poverty
that should be reckoned with. The fact is "rich people don't starve."
Slide 12: Tank
Certainly we have seen the effects of
war — not only acute effects but also the long-term impact on people. The destruction
of infrastructure, the breakdown of society… fear and mistrust… and health consequences.
A review of the annual unicef statistics on the State of the World's Children
shows that countries that have experienced recent war lead the world in highest
rates of under five mortality. It used to be Mozambique and Angola, then Afghanistan
and Somalia, then Liberia… who's next?
Slide 13: Floods in North Dakota
Sometimes it seemed that the Sphere standards
focused on the needs of refugees from African civil conflict… but the victims
of this flood in North Dakota needed external assistance first to try to prevent
the disaster… and after the levee broke… for shelter, food, health care.
Slide 14: Flying Doctor
In response to emergencies where local
systems are overwhelmed, humanitarian workers rush in to provide assistance.
Lessons from the Goma experience, reported in 1996 in the evaluation of response
to the 1994 Rwanda crisis, showed that not all relief efforts met acceptable
standards. That evaluation recommended that a set of common standards be agreed
among non-governmental organizations in order to improve the quality of service
delivery and the accountability of the humanitarian system.
Slide 15: What?
In July 1997 the Sphere project was initiated
with four goals articulated:
It is founded on international human rights law, international humanitarian law, and refugee law.
Explicit in an agency's commitment to the Humanitarian Charter is a commitment to accountability not only to donors, but more especially to the very people affected by conflict and calamity.
Slide 17: Technical Sectors
The technical standards focused emergency
requirements in five sectors: 'water and sanitation', 'nutrition', 'food aid',
'shelter and site', 'health services. Each of the sectors was facilitated by
a field-experienced person (or persons), expert in the subject, seconded by
member agencies of the Sphere project's sponsoring consortia.
John Adams from Oxfam UK led the water and sanitation sector.
Lola Gostelow and Anna Taylor of Save the Children UK spearheaded the nutrition sector.
Food aid was led by Harlan Hale of CARE US.
Philip Wijmans of Lutheran World Federation led the work on shelter and site with Tom Corsellis of University of Cambridge.
The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies fielded Jo Kreysler. He was joined by Jean Roy, formerly of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Special recognition is due Isobel McConnan for the terrific work she has done meshing all the concepts into the document for publication.
Slide 18: How
Slide 19: Process
From the onset, it was clear that for
this effort to succeed would require unprecedented interagency cooperation.
We have said many times that the process was equal in importance to the content.
In fact, this is the intent of the third goal of the project.
The secondment of staff by participating agencies was just the first step in the process of doing the work. The sector managers collected various guidelines and handbooks from humanitarian agencies worldwide and reviewed them for content relevant to the establishment of common standards.
They reached out through personal contacts, letters to field-project directors worldwide, sectoral newsletters, e-mail lists and various publications in order to involve as many interested persons as possible in the process of analyzing existing recommendations.
It was quite a test of each person's ability to sit at the table and remove his or her 'institutional hat' in order to debate the core substance of issues. Ultimately the groups came to agreement on common sets of standards for each sector. Consensus was not possible on every issue and there remain some areas for further discussion.
Slide 20: Who
Who was involved?
Many people and organizations gave support through thoughtful effort and through funding.
Slide 21: Management Committee
Initial support for the concept of a project to develop interagency agreed standards came from the members of the Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response (CARE International, Caritas Internationalis, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Lutheran World Federation, Médecins Sans Frontières, Oxfam International, Save the Children Alliance, World Council of Churches). In the spirit of interagency collaboration, they sought out, and were quickly joined by, InterAction (a consortium of private voluntary organizations based in the U.S.).
VOICE, a consortium of European humanitarian
agencies, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and ICVA, a worldwide
consortium of non-governmental organizations, also actively participate in the
project, attending management committee meetings as non-voting observer members.
Slide 22: UN Agencies
While it was important to retain the
NGO-focus and management of the project, it was also important to include participation
of many other relevant agencies in Sphere discussions. UN agencies (UNHCHR,
UNHCR, UNICEF, UNOCHA, WFP, WHO) actively contributed thoughts, comments and
resource documents over the course of the year.
Slide 23: Funders
Initial funding for the project came
through contributions by the member agencies of the Steering Committee for Humanitarian
Response and by the Ford Foundation through InterAction.
Additional funds were requested by donor government agencies in proportion to their overall contribution to humanitarian assistance. During Phase I governmental contributions were received from the Australian Aid Agency (AusAID), the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), Danish International Development Assistance (DANIDA), the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID), the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO), the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs Humanitarian Aid Division, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), the United States Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (US-BPRM) and the United States Agency for International Development Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (US-OFDA).
Slide 24: Briefings
Over the course of Phase I, meetings, briefings and discussions were held far and wide… not only in the cities of the 'North' (Geneva, London, New York, Washington, Honolulu, Brussels, Amsterdam, Moscow, Tokyo, Sarajevo)… but also in cities in the 'South' (Rio de Janeiro, Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok, Dacca, Abidjan, Conakry, Nairobi, Dar Es Salaam, Harare, Johannesburg.
A lot of effort went into bringing the
Sphere document out today, and much more work remains to be done as we continue
to collaborate across agencies, countries, disciplines, languages in the work
of improving assistance to persons affected by conflict and calamity.
End
On the Meaning of the SPHERE Standards to States & Other Humanitarian Actors
December 3, 1998
London, United Kingdom
Speaker: Dr. James Orbinski, President, MSF International Council
______________________________________________________________________________________
Good Morning. This conference is a continuation of a dialogue that began among SCHR members in 1996. The conference marks both the end of phase 1 of the SPHERE project with the release of a preliminary edition of the standards, and the beginning of PHASE 2 of the project where the SPHERE standards will be field tested in a climate of open and constructive dialogue and debate.
I would like to thank the conference organizers for giving MSF the opportunity to speak today. The potential subject matter is very general and diverse, so let me frame my comments in terms of the MSF movement, who we are, and how we see the contexts in which the SPHERE standards may apply, and particularly their meaning for states and other humanitarian actors.
Since its inception in 1971, MSF has been an association rooted in civil society, and fundamentally committed to humanitarian action - which is for MSF both medical action, and temoignage for populations in danger. Temoignage is a French word meaning essentially both witnessing and advocacy. For MSF both medical action and temoignage are the two indivisible components of humanitarian action: they are two sides of the same coin that is our currency. Humanitarian action then is the driving force of the MSF movement. As an association rooted in civil society, MSF considers itself open and accountable primarily to civil society. Its legitimate authority is therefore informal, and this has its locus relative to the formal legitimacy of state structures and the political nation state system and their formal responsibilities in international law and international humanitarian law. It is in this informal legitimacy where we wish to remain to sometimes engage in a kind of dialectic relationship with formally legitimate state structures around humanitarian action.
Humanitarian action for MSF adheres to certain principles that are not necessarily unique to MSF: neutrality, impartiality, and independence of action in our pursuit of humanitarian action. Closely held though for MSF are the additional principles of proximity and volunteerism. Proximity for MSF means that we wish to be and to remain in solidarity, in actual physical contact with the populations in danger that we serve, and whose suffering we seek to address. Volunteerism for MSF means that we are not a professional organization, nor do we seek to be. But rather, we bring professional medical skills within a spirit of volunteerism that is itself a willingness to voluntarily respond to the common humanity in the other - a humanity that is at risk in a particular population in danger.
The purpose or "enjeux" of humanitarian action for MSF is very simple: it is to engage and promote humanitarian space for populations in danger, and when necessary, to catalyze a political or social response that addresses either the failure to achieve humanitarian space, or that identifies the root causes of that failure that creates a population in danger in the first place.
So MSF does not simply or exclusively engage in meeting humanitarian needs, or simply providing humanitarian services. For MSF humanitarian action as both medical action and temoignage is a kind of categorical imperative that finds expression by using core humanitarian principles in conjunction with a voluntary proximity to populations in danger. Our aim is not to be solely responsible for humanitarian action, but also to catalyze formally legitimate states and the community of states to engage their duty to both provide and protect humanitarian space. There is a clear distinction between informally legitimate actors who engage and promote humanitarian space, and formally legitimate state actors who have a duty and responsibility to provide and protect humanitarian space.
Over our twenty eight years, MSF has grown from one of its early forms known as the "committee against genocide in Biafra" to a movement rooted in 19 nations with over 400 projects in 80 different countries. During this time we have tried to both engage and push the limits of humanitarian space. Part of this effort has meant creating our own standards of medical humanitarian action, and also working with the WHO, other IGOs, and other NGOs to continually redefine and improve the quality of medical humanitarian action. This in fact, is not a fixed but a permanent process for MSF - as it is for many other humanitarian actors. In this sense, participating in SPHERE has been nothing new for MSF, and the technical aspects of the SPHERE standards are indeed a valuable accomplishment and tool for humanitarian NGO actors. This is particularly true when we remember the poor quality of humanitarian assistance delivered by some actors in Goma, 1994.
MSF has participated in creating the SPHERE standards, and indeed endorses them from a technical perspective. But as implicitly emphasized in the Humanitarian Charter which recalls international humanitarian law and refugee law, the 'tool' that SPHERE represents should not be confused with the principles with which they are applied, nor with the goal of humanitarian action.
The SPHERE standards are an accomplishment. However, they do not mark a 'new era' for humanitarianism, and nor should they be portrayed as such. They are simply a codification and an extension of technical competencies and knowledge to the full range of humanitarian NGOs, but not necessarily to the full range of circumstances and contexts in which they work.
The experience from which the SPHERE standards derive is largely based on grouped populations in relatively stable circumstances, where humanitarian space is possible. This has been highlighted and indeed should be remembered as the standards are tested over the next year. It is likely that the standards will also apply in stable situations where humanitarian space is possible or de-facto present, as in for example, natural disasters. But their universality or applicability to all situations is by no means clear. Indeed, one cannot use a particular technical standard where the basic assumptions around the provision and protection of humanitarian space are not respected.
In the Kivu region this very issue challenges us today. Changing and multiplying political and military actors make it difficult if not sometimes impossible to locate legitimate authority. At the same time OCHA and ECHO are organizing NGO actors to implement programs according to rigorous standards, possibly underestimating the fluidity of the political situation and the possibility of being manipulated by that context. NGOs, other humanitarian actors, institutional donors and peripheral states often share immediate interests and goals in a particular situation, but not always. Efforts at humanitarian program co-ordination and extended coverage are usually good, yet in some situations can be used to limit or control legitimate HNGO actions. In funding humanitarian NGOs and holding them accountable to potentially politicized standard program objectives, there is a risk of coercion of HNGO actions, and an active or passive disregard of humanitarian principles and goals. The Humanitarian Charter emphasizes humanitarian principles. For humanitarian NGOs, impartiality, neutrality and independence in the pursuit of humanitarian goals must inform firstly an ongoing assessment of the viability of humanitarian space, and then and only then must they inform any effort toward achieving any particular technical standard. By definition, this is a very difficult process, not easily open to standardized or algorithmic approaches.
In applying any standard, there is always the risk that the goal and the principles by which it is achieved can become instrumentalized. For example, in the Goma camps during 1994 to 1996 basic humanitarian principles were lost sight of, while technical objectives where achieved to the very highest of standards. To avoid this risk of instrumentalization or coercion, NGOs must absolutely insist on independence of action in their pursuit of humanitarian principles and goals.
The SPHERE standards do not apply to, or take account of the role humanitarian NGOs play in promoting protection of populations in danger. Yet, the very presence of independent, neutral, and impartial humanitarian NGO actors plays a pivotal role in promoting protection of populations in danger. In Rwanda 1994, the ICRC and MSF failed to achieve by any measure adequate humanitarian standards in their medical and surgical care of those who suffered under the most brutal and inhuman of acts, genocide. But both ICRC and MSF, by being proximate or present on the ground, played a pivotal role - the ICRC for the first time in its history - in publicly advocating for international protection of a population against genocide.
Humanitarian action must not be co-opted in a way that allows Nation States or parties recognized by the international community to avoid their duty and responsibility to provide and protect humanitarian space. In August 1998, the SPLA and two consultants conducted an evaluation of MSF's feeding program in Ajep, Sudan. According to established guidelines, MSF failed in its humanitarian action because it decided to open its therapeutic feeding center only to children who were less than 60% of weight for height. Yet the report grossly underplayed or ignored significant field constraints, the centrality of the political and military environment, that there was no or little access, and the impact of the diversion of food aid. If accountability implies responsibility, then this, under the guise of 'failure to achieve a specified standard', allows recognized parties (and by extension, the international community) to avoid accountability for their failure to achieve and protect an effective humanitarian space. It also potentially shifts the burden of responsibility for both humanitarian space and service from formally legitimate state actors to informally legitimate non-state actors such as Humanitarian NGOs.
Standards of any kind must not become a cover for masking the active or passive failure to achieve humanitarian principles, responsibilities and goals. According to its own figures, the WFP has distributed sufficient food in Sudan to meet its targets. But it has done this by focusing on targets that are relatively easy to access. The result is that less accessible areas - but where the needs are greatest - have received a much smaller ration of food per head. Technical standards appear to have been reached, but not humanitarian principles or goals.
In attempting to achieve minimum standards for humanitarian action, there is a risk that humanitarian action may simply become a technical and purely professional pursuit. This of course, appeals to those who wish to privatize humanitarian action so that it becomes a commodity or service product, open to subcontracting. Again, the SPHERE standards are, and must remain firmly embedded in the principles of international humanitarian law that entrusts disinterested - and I emphasize 'disinterested'- neutral, impartial and independent agencies with the responsibility to assess needs, and provide and monitor assistance. This will be a challenge against a growing trend among some governments or donor agencies that themselves seek to identify need, define response, and essentially sub-contract a technical response to a willing agent.
Speaking for MSF, humanitarian action is both medical action and temoignage, and depends vitally on volunteerism and proximity. For humanitarian NGOs in general - including MSF- humanitarian action depends too on initiative. In closing, let me say that there is no formal obligation for informally legitimate humanitarian NGOs to impose humanitarian action. There is however a formal obligation and duty for formally legitimate states and the international community to both provide and protect humanitarian space. Under cover of standards that can potentially discipline the action of humanitarian NGOs, we must ensure that the rights of peoples to humanitarian assistance and the duties of states to both provide and protect that space are not displaced.
As noted already, the SPHERE standards are rooted in the legal framework of international humanitarian and refugee law. This is particularly relevant to the issue of accountability for humanitarian space, which rests not ultimately, but primarily with nation states and the nation state system, and not with informally legitimate non-state actors such as humanitarian NGOs. This is not to say that humanitarian NGOs are not accountable: they certainly are, but not simply to standards, but like states, also to humanitarian principles and goals.
Within the parameters and constraints that I have raised here today, MSF is pleased to have participated in Phase 1 of SPHERE, and we look forward to a continued open and constructive process in the dissemination and training phase of SPHERE in the year ahead. Thank you.
Introduction: Proposals for Phase 2
Speaker: Nan Buzard, Sphere Project Manager, Phase 2
This is only in my sixth week as project manager for Phase 2 of the Sphere Project so that I feel, if slightly overwhelmed, extremely excited by the intensity and scope of discussions this morning.
As we have heard, the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards developed out of a highly collaborative effort. This work was the work of Phase 1 and it is due to this process and effort that the Sphere Project has gained momentum and credibility. It has the broad-based support of a significant proportion of aid agencies, an achievement that we should feel very good about.
There are, however, challenges that we face, both practical field-based and philosophical.
I am aware of the philosophical concerns regarding the application of standards. I am aware that agencies prepared to adopt the standards have various levels of readiness and operate in a variety of settings that will affect the implementation process. For some adopting the standards will represent very significant change for other minimum change.
Phase 2 will work very carefully to establish working methodologies that relate and respond to the wide variety of agencies that we hope will adopt the Sphere Standards
Due maybe to my own background, I am particularly concerned about field-staff, frequently overburdened with competing priorities and sometimes resistant to headquarter directives. Phase 2 will need to demonstrate that the 'Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards' will add value to their work. To do this we will need to ensure that the Standards remain fresh and relevant.
I welcome and encourage any kind of dialogue. I will work very hard to provide an environment which allows clear and respectful dialogue and lends itself to the credibility of the work and to the respect of those involved.
These are just some of the challenges we face and which I believe Phase 2 will very honestly and I hope creatively address as they arise.
In the past 6 weeks I have seen the incredible amount of work that has been done and the tremendous calibre of people involved. I have seen the excellent product of that work in the preliminary edition of the Charter and Humanitarian Standards and look forward to working with an outstanding group of people that I am now very honoured to be part of.
I ask you to think of the session on
institutionalising standards as an opportunity for interactive brainstorming.
The purpose is not to criticise particular ideas but to start addressing the
practicalities of making the standards work as we go forward.
End
Dissemination
We have this week placed the standards
in the hands of the 220 of ours members most active in emergency response. The
majority of these are in the field, but some are resource agencies such as Church
of Sweden Aid, Dan Church Aid, Christian Aid. We have been working with the
draft standards as part of our emergency management work curriculum for some
time.
Policy Work
We will seek feedback from the entire
membership as part of Phase 2, especially in respect of cross-cultural adaptation.
Organisational best practice, not included in Phase 1 because of insufficient consensus, will be the other major area of work to which we hope to make a considerable contribution in Phase 2. An entire session at the next annual meeting of our Emergency Committee in January 1999 has been set aside to determine our contribution and input in the coming Phase.
Training
Training will continue to take place
at both policy and field level. Our Emergency Committee was introduced to the
Sphere concept in 1996, which we have since been working to disseminate within
our network/membership. This will continue in 1999. At field level, the focus
of the majority of our efforts, we have three training components envisaged
or ongoing.
ii. Regional training on a topical/sectoral basis. Our fortes vary across the Sphere sectors. Local and national capacities among our local and national members rather than international members lie mainly in 'food', 'nutrition' and 'water and sanitation'. The exceptions being the Lutheran World Service in 'site', and pharmaceutical inputs in respect of 'health'. Other areas of traditional assistance, agricultural inputs and psychosocial services, are outside Sphere for the moment. In future training programmes will focus more time on sectors most pertinent to us rather than the entire Sphere gamut.
iii. Cross agency training. We will
be looking to Sphere to facilitate this activity.
End
(From an individual who works with a big operational INGO)
From the ICVA perspective, there has been a worrying lack of feedback from its member organisations, in particular those from the developing countries. Perhaps this is because not all are aware that ICVA is back on its feet. However, it may also be due to other factors such as the (mis-) perception that Sphere is not intended for them because they are southern, or because they are more focussed on sustainable development, or a combination of both.
I would particularly like to pick up on the (current) limitation of Sphere to the context of humanitarian emergencies and point out such a limitation may no longer be appropriate in respect of national NGOs from the South in particular.
i. Raise and ensure commitment of big operational INGOs to engage in training and capacity building of national NGOs / national staff on Sphere
ii. Research value and relevance of Sphere standards to the post-conflict rehabilitation
phase and long term development
National NGOs from developing countries
traditionally consider themselves more development oriented than humanitarian.
In many cases they believe that humanitarianism is a western concept or has
a too narrow connotation in terms of human and social development. At the same
time, as said earlier, northern NGOs that have more a development focus should
give attention to Sphere in their training and capacity building programs. Having
said this, it becomes vital that we do not limit Sphere to the emergency phase.
We should research which of the standards are applicable – and to what extent
– in post-disaster situations, in particular the rehabilitation phase. Linked
to this, we should increase the involvement of organisations that have a specific
interest in sustainable development in terms of promoting the sphere standards
within their training and capacity building initiatives.
________________________________________________________________________
The challenge that faces OXFAM is what do we do now that we have this blue folder (the Charter). The first thing to stress internally is that Sphere is not the new panacea for humanitarianism able to resolve all ills within the system.
I remember Hugo's characterisation in his excellent paper 'Doing the Right Thing' re the propensity of NGOs to colonise everyone else's problems. Don't allow the humanitarian ills of the world to come and sit at Sphere's door in the expectation that despite its limited resources it can provide solutions. A number of points made by Ed (Schenkenberg) are good correctives to being overly ambitious with Sphere, but others assume unlimited resources and a capacity to undertake an enormous amount of operational institutionalisation. It does not have that kind of resourcing and is unlikely to have a massive capacity. Therefore, we need to look primarily to ourselves and ask what we are going to do with this product and in what way are we going to make it change the way that we work?
I will briefly mention a long-term project of OXFAM's to mainstream our gender policy within programmes. One of the few initiatives, which the organisation has undertaken in a clear-minded policy sense, challenging itself to change the way it works in order to meet its commitment to gender equity. Many of those involved in this process will remember the history and will, no doubt on occasion, have despaired at the very limited impact, despite a very real organisational commitment and necessary resourcing. I think we at OXFAM face a very similar problem in relation to the institutionalisation of Sphere.
It comes back in the end to a question of management. What we will have to do in crude terms, because I think the problem is in the end a fairly straight-forward one, is to ask everyone involved in humanitarian work in OXFAM - 'What will you do differently tomorrow because of Sphere?' ' How will you change the way you work?' As your manager, I will ask you to tell me explicitly what it is you will do differently tomorrow and we will write it down in your performance objectives. I will build it into my relationship with you and hold you accountable to the changes that you have committed yourself to fulfilling in relation to this policy. As far as I can see it is the only way in which we have made any progress on our gender policy. Even that progress has been somewhat limited because we haven't used the management tools available to us as vigorously as we should, but I believe that it is the primary way to elicit change.
Training capacity is critical and materials are critical, but I believe that in the Handbook we have an extraordinarily accessible and readable document, thanks to the work that has been done by the sector managers and then finally by Isobel McConnan in the task of editing it. It provides an extremely good record already for training purposes and I am not that convinced that we need vast amounts of additional materials and equipment and technology, as it were, from hereon.
Armed with sufficient copies of the Charter - the 5,000 published to date are by no means sufficient to engage the community at large - we will need to internalise it in management procedures and working practice, and ask everyone involved to give serious thought to what the adoption of Sphere will mean for the way in which they and we work tomorrow.
This is the key issue for all of us
when talking about institutionalisation. I really would warn strongly against
looking to the Sphere project to have the operational capacity to do this for
us.
End
|
|
|
|
|