1. Introduction
During the past decade the humanitarian community has initiated a number
of inter-agency initiatives to improve accountability, quality and performance
in humanitarian action. Four of the most widely known initiatives are
the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian
Action (ALNAP) , Humanitarian Accountability Partnership International
(HAP-I), People In Aid and the Sphere Project. Representatives of these
initiatives meet together on a regular basis in order to share common
issues and harmonise activities where possible. It is hoped that the
group may expand in the future: if you work for an initiative that you
think may be compatible with the aims of this group, please contact
one of the members.
This short paper provides a response to questions that are sometimes
asked about the four initiatives.
2. Who are we and what do
we do?
ALNAP: established in 1997, the Active Learning Network for Accountability
and Performance in Humanitarian Action is an international, sector-wide
network which aims to promote a culture of learning across the humanitarian
sector in order to improve performance. ALNAP is involved in a range
of activities including the production of an annual Review of Humanitarian
Action which monitors the performance of humanitarian action though
a synthesis of evaluative reports provided by the Membership. It also
monitors the quality of the evaluations themselves using an ALNAP quality
pro-forma, and works with agencies to improve their evaluation skills.
The ALNAP Secretariat hosts a comprehensive evaluative reports database
and ALNAP’s Biannual Meetings provide the membership with extensive
opportunities for networking and learning on a range of important issues.
ALNAP also produces practical tools, such as guidance booklets and training
modules, on subjects and themes prioritised by the Membership. ALNAP
has over 50 Full Members and nearly 400 Observer Members, and has a
Secretariat based at the Overseas Development Institute in London. www.alnap.org
Humanitarian Accountability Partnership – International –
HAP-I: was founded in 2003 by a group of humanitarian agencies committed
to making humanitarian work more accountable to its intended beneficiaries,
following on from several years of research and field trials conducted
by HAP-I’s antecedents, the Humanitarian Ombudsman Project and
the Humanitarian Accountability Project. HAP-I is now building a system
of voluntary self-regulation, and is currently developing self-evaluation
and peer review techniques for accreditation and certification of compliance
with the HAP-I Accountability Principles. Registered as a Swiss NGO,
the HAP-I Secretariat is based in Geneva with 9 full members as of October
2004. New members are required to submit an Accountability Workplan
mapping out how their organisation will seek to implement the HAP-I
Accountability Principles. Eventually, through the accreditation of
affiliated NGO networks and associations with the authority to certify
their own members as being compliant with the HAP-I accountability principles,
it is hoped that HAP-I’s vision of an accountable international
humanitarian system at large will be realised. www.hapinternational.org
People In Aid: formally established in 1995, People In Aid’s first
output was the People In Aid Code of Best Practice in the management
and support of aid personnel. The Code, now revised as the Code of Good
Practice, comprises 7 principles defined by indicators which are monitored
and assessed by agencies, using the social audit process. People In
Aid’s mandate as a central resource to the sector, supporting
agencies in improving the quality of their human resources management,
is further carried out through workshops, published guidelines, research
and exchange of information between the 70+ members around the world.
www.peopleinaid.org
The Sphere Project: launched in 1997 by a group of humanitarian NGOs
and the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement, Sphere has developed a handbook
of standards for 4 sectors (Water/Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion;
Food Security; Nutrition and Food Aid; Settlement and non-Food Items
and Health Services). The cornerstone of the book is the Humanitarian
Charter, which describes the rights of people affected by disasters.
The standards, each with key indicators and guidance notes (covering
‘cross-cutting issues’ such as people living with HIV/AIDS
and gender), aim to articulate the implications of fulfilling these
rights. An introductory chapter outlines standards which are common
to all sectors, such as Participation, Initial Assessment and Evaluation.
The Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross/Crescent Movement
and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) in Disaster Relief is an annex
in the Sphere handbook.
Sphere is not a membership organisation. The process of developing
the handbook, and its revision for 2004, were based on extensive collaboration
involving over 4,000 people from 400 organisations in 80 countries.
The Sphere Project has developed a training pack consisting of four
modules, which were published in 2003. The project runs ‘Training
of Trainers’ courses to enable people to use the training materials
effectively, and supports agencies implementing Sphere at country level.
Following consultations with people and organisations that use Sphere,
the Management Committee has decided that the Sphere Project will continue
from 2005, with a slightly different focus and structure. While some
existing activities, such as training, will continue, there will be
a greater emphasis on facilitating the work of people already using
and promoting Sphere at national and regional levels.
The project operates in three languages: English, Spanish and French.
Most project materials are available in all three languages, and the
handbook has been translated into several more.
www.sphereproject.org
3. Why do we do what we do?
All 4 initiatives were formed for very compelling reasons, as explained
in the Joint Evaluation of Emergency Assistance to Rwanda (1997) - a
time of serious reflection that represented a sea change in humanitarian
strategy and practice. The processes that gave rise to each initiative
have, for the most part, been extraordinarily collaborative, involving
hundreds of agencies and many thousands of individuals across the humanitarian
sector. Hundreds of agencies spanning bilateral and multilateral donors,
the UN system, the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement, NGOs and inter-agency
umbrella organisations have participated in, or are members of, one
or more of the initiatives.
Although the debates about the appropriateness and value of these initiatives
are ongoing, the need for learning, standards and codes of best practice
is not in doubt. Indeed, the current experiences from all ALNAP Reviews
of Humanitarian Action suggest that poor human resource practices, a
lack of lesson learning, weak accountability to intended beneficiaries
and patchy application of technical standards are still all too common
in humanitarian action.
4. What are the similarities
between us?
All initiatives share a common goal which is to improve accountability,
quality and performance in humanitarian action. There are many paths
to achieving this goal and while each initiative takes a different route,
they sometimes overlap and they have a shared destination. All the initiatives
are governed, managed and supported by humanitarian agencies and individuals,
and there is a commitment to work closely together towards greater harmonisation
and impact.
5. What are the differences
between us?
Although the initiatives share the same goal, there is also a necessary
distinctiveness. Quality and accountability in the humanitarian sector
are multi-faceted and each initiative has chosen a distinct entry point
and methods for addressing specific component(s). In this way, each
one requires a different combination of skills and competencies, and
has developed its own unique way of addressing its specific objectives.
This distinctiveness can be described under the following 3 headings
–mandates, constituencies and structures.
a) distinct mandates
Each initiative aims to improve one or more component parts of humanitarian
quality and accountability. ALNAP is concerned with promoting learning,
especially through improved evaluation, whilst HAP-I aims to make humanitarian
action accountable to its intended beneficiaries through promoting compliance
with the HAP-I accountability principles. People In Aid has created
a code of good practice which assists its members to improve their human
resource practices. Sphere has developed and supports the use of standards
and a humanitarian charter in disaster response, in order to improve
the quality and accountability of performance by humanitarian professionals.
b) distinct constituencies
Because each initiative has a distinct approach, each one has different
core constituencies, although there is considerable overlap between
them. For example, an important part of ALNAP’s constituency is
the evaluation community who are centrally involved in producing one
of ALNAP’s core products, the Review of Humanitarian Action.
HAP-I, on the other hand, was created to ensure that humanitarian action
is accountable to its intended beneficiaries, and thus its efforts are
largely directed to the development and application of consultative
processes that promote that goal.
People In Aid’s main constituency are the human resource departments
among its Member agencies, and much of its work comes from and is directed
at them.
Sphere’s core constituents are humanitarian professionals managing
and implementing work in the main technical sectors. Improved accountability
to those affected by disasters is also explicitly part of Sphere’s
overall goal, so there are increasingly efforts to work with community
members in establishing specific indicators that can be monitored for
effectiveness.
c) distinct structures
Given that each initiative has distinct aims, approaches and core constituencies,
each needs different organisational structures and governance. Although
there are literally hundreds of agencies involved in various ways, it
is worth noting that only one humanitarian agency has a governance role
on all four initiatives.
ALNAP’s network structure helps promotes a culture of learning
throughout the humanitarian sector by creating safe places for discussion
(biannual meetings), communities of practice, sector-wide initiatives
and so on. The most effective way of achieving this is to put people
in touch with each other through the multiple connections that a well
functioning network can provide. The ALNAP Secretariat’s main
function is to facilitate/operationalise the decisions made by the Membership.
HAP-I has been created to promote compliance with relevant standards
through accreditation and certification, which is managed on a self
regulatory peer review based model. Thus, the HAP-I Secretariat requires
a level of autonomy that is guaranteed by a formal constitution, which
includes for example, rigorous criteria for the appointment of independent
board members.
Like ALNAP, People In Aid responds to the priorities of its member
agencies and increases the knowledge of its members by facilitating
the exchange of information throughout the network. People In Aid is
a registered charity and company limited by guarantee. At least 10 members
have nominated employees on People In Aid’s Board, with up to
5 independents making up the full Board.
Sphere has some elements of a network structure, but it does not have
formal members and is effectively ‘owned’ by those who use
it. This ownership is based on the informal acknowledgment of added
value and therefore, unlike HAP-I and People In Aid, there is no formal
compliance mechanism ensuring adherence to its standards.
Thus, each initiative has developed a distinct organisational structure,
governance and modus operandi. However, conscious of the considerable
overlap amongst members, partners and stakeholders, the four initiatives
are aware of the need to ensure that their work is harmonised effectively
(see How is complementarity assured? below).
6. How is complementarity
assured?
Several mechanisms are in place to ensure that the work of each initiative
is harmonised sensibly. For example, all the initiatives come together
twice a year to review their respective workplans and to discuss overlaps
and gaps. The minutes from these meetings are posted on each of the
initiatives’ websites. HAP-I, People In Aid and Sphere are all
Full Members of ALNAP and are in constant touch through circulars, e-mail
and face to face meetings. The ALNAP Biannual Meetings provide a forum
for regular updates and discussing work-plans. There is also crossover
on various working groups – for example HAP-I is on the Working
Group of the ALNAP Global Participation Study and is also a member of
People In Aid. Increasingly, the initiatives are looking at ways of
working together on certain initiatives and in certain countries.
7. How much do we cost?
The four initiatives represent a significant element of the collective
efforts of the sector to work together to improve accountability, quality
and performance. Their total annual costs are around $3 million in 2004.
This represents a tiny percentage of global humanitarian spending which
is about $4 billion per annum. When compared to other service delivery
sectors it could be argued that this proportion is much lower than it
should be. However, it is also recognised that money spent on these
initiatives is taken out of the international humanitarian budget, the
primary purpose of which must always be to provide direct assistance
to the most vulnerable.
8. How do we know that we
are making a difference?
Like many other humanitarian agencies we are collectively concerned
with this question. Although the question has by no means been answered
satisfactorily, each initiative has its own means of tracking its performance
and impact. As mentioned above, ALNAP closely monitors the quality of
evaluations through a quality proforma and also monitors usage of its
materials though annual visits to member agencies. It is also currently
(autumn 2004) being evaluated by DfID. HAP-I will support a research
programme, to be undertaken by independent and authoritative bodies,
designed to examine the costs and benefits associated with the practical
application of accountability principles. People In Aid provides external
verification of the social audit process for agencies working through
the Code of Good Practice and has also recently been evaluated by DfID.
An independent evaluation of Sphere was completed in 2003 by Columbia
University, USA, in collaboration with Makerere University, Uganda.
An external consultation with over 400 Sphere users about the future
of Sphere was held from February to May 2004. The outcome of the consultation
process informed decisions of the Sphere Management Committee about
how Sphere should evolve from 2005 onwards.
Like most humanitarian agencies, each initiative recognises that there
is still some way go to be able to give credible answers to what impact
they have. Thus, each is involved in studies and debates on how to meet
this challenge.
For further information or to give feedback on the above, please
write to the initiative(s) concerned: alnap@odi.org.uk
secretariat@hapinternational.org
info@peopleinaid.org
info@sphereproject.org
Minutes
from meetings between the initiatives, October 2004
Minutes
from meetings between the initiatives, March 2005
