Report of consultations undertaken
to inform decisions on the
Future of Sphere beyond
2004
May 2004
Sphere Project Office
CONTENTS
1. Executive
Summary
1.1 Overview
1.2 Key findings
1.2.1
Should
Sphere continue?
1.2.2
Sphere’s
products, services and support
1.2.3
Possible
structures for a future Sphere
1.2.4
Funding
1.2.5
Duration
1.2.6
Sphere’s
support to improved quality and accountability in humanitarian assistance
1.3 Possible options for consideration
for the future
1.3.1
Should
Sphere continue or not?
1.3.2
Possible
structures for a future Sphere
1.3.3
Activities
1.3.4
Funding
2.
Acknowledgements
3. Background
4. Purpose and
objectives
5. Approach and
Methodology
5.1 Participants
5.2 Meetings
5.3 Semi-structured interviews
5.4 Internet based discussions in collaboration with Aid Workers
Network
5.5 Community consultations
5.6 Analysis of Sphere Project staff time and the Sphere website
5.7 Promotion of the consultation process
8.1 Should Sphere continue?
8.2 Sphere’s products, services and support
8.2.1
The Sphere
Handbook: Humanitarian
Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response
8.2.2
Training on
Sphere
8.2.3
Website
8.2.4
Videos
8.3 Possible structures for the future
8.3.1
Independence?
8.3.2
Policy and
direction
8.3.3
Wider
structures
8.4
Funding
8.5 Duration
8.6 Sphere’s support to improved quality and accountability in
humanitarian assistance
8.6.1
Continued
promotion, institutionalisation and use, particularly
with local communities and governments
8.6.2
Relationship
with other quality and accountability initiatives
8.6.3
Monitoring
and evaluation of the use and impact of Sphere
8.6.4
Sphere as a
common language for quality and accountability
8.6.5
Sphere as a
rights based approach
1.
Executive Summary
1.1 Overview
The Sphere Project was launched in
1997 by a group of humanitarian NGOs and the Red Cross and Red Crescent
movement. Sphere is based on two core beliefs:
· that all possible steps should be
taken to alleviate human suffering arising out of calamity and conflict
· that those affected by disaster
have a right to life with dignity and therefore a right to assistance.
The Sphere handbook – Humanitarian
Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response – sets out minimum
standards, indicators and guidance notes for use in humanitarian emergencies.
The revised, 2004 edition of the handbook is the product of 18 months’ work and
the involvement of over 4,000 people in 400 organisations
in 80 countries.
With the planned closure of the
Sphere Project in its current form at the end of 2004, a key priority of the
final phase (Phase III Extension, October 2003 to December 2004) was to
identify mechanisms to sustain and build upon the achievements of the Sphere
Project beyond 2004. To inform the Management Committee’s decisions about how
best to achieve this, it was agreed that a consultation process should be
conducted, to allow people who use and are affected by Sphere to give their
views.
Those undertaking the consultation
process made it clear that its purpose was to gather data and hear perspectives
from a range of diverse stakeholders, and that the decision-making role rests
with the Sphere Project Management Committee. They will be making their deliberations
between June and September 2004
The consultation process on the
future of Sphere took place between February and April 2004. Just over 400
people (see section 5.1 for details) participated in group meetings, interviews
and/or an on-line consultation hosted by Aid Workers Network.
The following two parts of this
section present the key findings, and possible options for the future that
emerge from the consultation process. The purpose, objectives and key questions
of the consultations are outlined in section 4, and the approach and
methodology described in detail in section 5. The compilation and analysis of
data is described in section 6 and the process analysed
in section 7. The findings are presented in detail, indicating their
relationship to the key questions of the consultation, in section 8.
1.2 Key findings
The following section outlines the key findings of the
consultations undertaken. These findings are based on the key questions
addressed in the consultation process (see section 4) and grouped according to
the headings used in section 8 of this document. On the basis of these
findings, key options for consideration for the future of Sphere
have been developed in section 1.3.
1.2.1 Should ‘Sphere’ continue?
The consultations revealed that
there was overwhelming support for the continuation of Sphere in some form (as
detailed in section 8.1). The value of Sphere was identified in a number of
ways, as detailed in the following sections, and at this time in its history
the vast majority of respondents believed Sphere should continue in some form
into the future. Only 3 out of over 400 participants (0.75%) who engaged in the
consultations expressed a negative opinion towards Sphere.
A number of respondents expressed
the view that the Sphere Project had only been operational for 4 years and that
this was considered to be a short time when the aim of the project is to
improve the quality of humanitarian assistance through the implementation of
standards and indicators. Even in large organisations,
which were ‘institutionalisation’ pilots, many people
commented on the amount of work still to be done to achieve more consistent and
effective application of Sphere. The high turnover of staff and various demands
on time in humanitarian work were cited as reasons for this.
At the national level many local
NGOs and governments are still unaware of Sphere. Respondents said that there
were few examples of where Sphere has been discussed explicitly with
communities, which means that there has so far been little progress towards the
objective of improving accountability to people affected by disasters. It
is important to consider this timeframe issue as NGOs are often critical of
short term project funding (3 to 5 years) on the basis that it is an inadequate
period of time to maximise ownership and
sustainability of new ideas and concepts by key stakeholders. This appears to
be the concern NGOs are identifying in relation to Sphere.
There was a strong feeling that
the positive effect Sphere has had up till this point should not be lost, but
rather needs to be further built upon. Respondents believed that without some
form of continuing structure to support the ongoing revision of the handbook
and promotion of its effective use the progress made to date would inevitably
wither away and Sphere would become another book left on the shelf. The vast
majority of participants in the consultation process considered that if this
happens it would be a loss to the humanitarian community because of the intrinsic
value of Sphere.
1.2.2 Sphere’s products, services and support
a) Sphere handbook
As outlined in section
8.2.1, there was strongest support for the Sphere handbook, Humanitarian
Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response (74% of participants in
the consultation process expressed support for the handbook.) It is
considered as the core of
Sphere, and it is regarded as a most valuable
product. Its value in providing a common
reference point and 'language' to facilitate
coordination between actors in the humanitarian field is
considered particularly significant. It is in this context of
providing a common framework for the sector, that Sphere is
seen as most effectively contributing to improved quality in
humanitarian response. Importantly, these specific aspects
were highlighted by respondents in East Timor who
were presented with the handbook for the first time.
Many respondents reported that the Sphere handbook is regarded as a 'living'
document that needs to be updated on a regular basis. There was generally favourable response during the consultations to the 2004
revision, particularly in relation to the greater detail given about how to
take into account specific contexts (‘cross-cutting issues’).
In response to how often the handbook should be updated, the most frequently
mentioned time frame for future revisions was every 'few' (between 3 to 5) years. On this basis, it was
considered important not to revise the
current version again for some time, but rather to concentrate on the
handbook’s dissemination and wider utilisation.
To this end, the need to improve accessibility
to the handbook for all potential users was emphasised.
A range of suggestions was provided about how that could occur. The
following are some of the suggestions provided by respondents:
- Translations into as many
languages as possible
- Provide cheaper versions of
the handbook
- More user friendly versions,
including, for example, pocket versions for field work
- Use of pictures and simpler
language for people in the field and
local communities
The importance of having the handbook in
book form, as opposed to electronic
versions on CD and the website, was
also highlighted. It was considered much more accessible and more likely to be
used at field level in a paper copy.
In terms of future revisions of the handbook, two areas in particular were
most commented on by respondents. In terms of a sectoral
area, education was considered the most important to be developed for a
future edition. The second area to be included as part
of a revision of the handbook related to the possibility of adapting
indicators to be more regionally appropriate. This was
mentioned several times as a change that would be useful.
b) Training
Section 8.2.2 stressed a strong
demand for continued training, with the need for greater emphasis on the
importance of Sphere training workshops (half to three day training courses on
how to use Sphere) compared to training of trainers’ courses (eight day courses
to train people to run the shorter courses). 44% of participants in the
consultation process expressed support for Sphere workshops. Respondents
considered that more people using the handbook should have access to practical
and contextually appropriate training, in the appropriate language, in order to
be able to use the handbook more effectively. It was felt that training
therefore needed to be better targeted, taking place at different levels,
particularly the national level and needed to include government agencies, NGOs
and local communities.
Increased training of the
type identified above implies a need for more TOT graduates to ensure that
those who are already trained are enabled to conduct training themselves. It
was reported that there are practical difficulties in terms of TOT graduates
having support from the organisations, especially
sufficient time, agreement and support to be involved in Sphere training.
The establishment of an active network of TOT graduates,
that could act as a resource as well as a database of expertise for those
seeking trainers, was proposed as one way to address this issue. The
possibility that a Sphere central office could re-establish the capacity to run
the half to three day trainings was
also implied.
The issue of quality assurance of
Sphere training was frequently raised, and it was clear that this is an issue
that needs to be addressed for the future of Sphere. Some respondents proposed
that in practice the only approach would be to focus on the quality of materials,
while others advocated greater control, perhaps in the form of some kind of
accreditation of trainers, from a central training body.
c) Sphere project
website http://www.sphereproject.org
The website is considered a very
useful resource of Sphere, and should be maintained, as highlighted in section
8.2.3 (35% of participants in the consultation process expressed support for
the Sphere website). Respondents said that although access to the
internet is not possible for all users of Sphere, access is generally
increasing and there is scope for further development of this service. In
particular, the website could become a forum for best practice, with if
possible an interactive element. This could build on the experience of the
online discussions on the future of Sphere hosted by Aid Workers Network, which
demonstrated that there is considerable interest from users of Sphere to share
experiences and ideas over the internet.
d) Sphere videos
Section 8.2.4 reveals that a few
respondents referred to video material as useful. In particular, the 9 minute
video introducing Sphere was seen as a resource that continues to be valuable
and should be maintained. However, others emphasised
that audio visual materials prepared at a global level were not as useful or
relevant to their country or regional context, and should not be an activity of
Sphere in future.
1.2.3 Possible structures for a future Sphere
There was overwhelming support for
the view that Sphere should remain independent of any one organisation
or donor, as detailed in 8.3.1. Independence
in these terms is seen as a key element of the success of Sphere to date,
allowing a stronger position for advocacy and greater freedom of action. It is
a strength which should be maintained for the future. Such independence would
not exclude the possibility of Sphere continuing to be hosted by a larger organisation.
As outlined in 8.3.2, almost all
those who expressed an opinion on the governing body of Sphere believed it
should be more inclusive, to better represent those who use Sphere in practice.
This meant involving a wider range of NGOs, particularly ‘non western’, to
represent better those who actually use Sphere, as well as perhaps donors and
UN agencies (73% of respondents who expressed an opinion on the Management
Committee were in favour of broadening its base in
some way). Election to the committee, and rotating memberships were referred to
as possible mechanisms. The possibility of establishing an advisory committee
alongside a governing body for Sphere, which could include donors and UN representatives was also raised.
There was a strong feeling
expressed by respondents that the operations and processes of a future
management committee of Sphere should be more transparent in the way decisions
are taken. Several expressed the view that budget information should be made
public on the website. The need for better sharing of information within
committee members’ networks also arose. For example, some people working for organisations that are represented on the Management
Committee were surprised that they had not heard of the consultation process
first through their own organisation, rather than
directly through the Sphere Project Office.
In terms of broader structures of
a future Sphere, respondents expressed strong support, as detailed in
8.3.3, for a small central office (referred to as 1-3 people), to provide
cohesion, continuity and a sense of legitimacy for Sphere (72% of respondents
who expressed an opinion on broader structures were in favour
of a central office). It was felt this office would provide an external
impetus, recognising the reality of pressures on the
time of people working for other organisations, and
act as a reference point for questions and the central hub for the development
of Sphere.
Many participants favoured the idea of regional and national level ‘focal
points’ for Sphere. The precise form of such a structure was not elaborated,
although many referred to the possibility of building on existing networks and organisations. A greater focus at national and regional
levels was seen as necessary to provide support for the effective use of Sphere
in specific contexts, particularly up to date information to users of Sphere
closer to where they work. Many people supported the idea of national and
regional focal points combined with a central office, with strong information
exchange between the different levels to enhance learning and quality.
1.2.4 Funding
The majority of respondents (57%
of those who expressed an opinion on funding) favoured
a continuation of the existing situation in which Sphere is funded by a mix of
NGOs and donors (as detailed in 8.4). The resources required for a future
Sphere were highlighted to justify such a combination: it would not be
realistic to expect NGOs alone to support the level of investment required
adequately to resource activities. It would be necessary nevertheless to remain
vigilant to the possibility of undue donor influence. A range of donors,
including the possibility of UN agencies, was proposed in this light. The
possibility of a central office providing some form of coordination role in
funding arose, so that donors would not be approached several times for funding
for Sphere activities in different parts of the world, for example.
A smaller proportion of those
expressing a view on funding said they preferred solely NGO funding. The
greater sense of ownership this would encourage on the part of the principal
users of Sphere was highlighted. The possibility of graded membership fees and
in-kind contributions (such as staff time or translations of the handbook), to
allow smaller organisations to participate in the
funding of Sphere was raised on a similar basis.
1.2.5 Duration
A large majority of the
respondents who expressed a view on the need for a future Sphere structure (as
detailed in section 8.4), said it should be ‘ongoing’and
should continue as long as there was a need to support improved quality and
accountability in humanitarian assistance. These participants believed regular
reviews were required to assess the extent to which Sphere continued to fulfil unmet needs. The implication was that should Sphere
at some point be considered no longer to be fulfilling those needs, then Sphere
would end.
A few participants proposed that
Sphere continue for a limited period of time and
suggested that a clear strategy and indicators be developed to
guide the timing of this process. This group considered that a Sphere endpoint
should be determined on the basis of the achievement of indicators, allowing
for extension dependent on the results of such assessment.
1.2.6 Sphere’s support to improved quality and accountability in
humanitarian assistance
Most people who expressed a view
on how Sphere could contribute more effectively to improved quality and
accountability, believed this could best be done by continuing to focus on the
promotion and ‘institutionalisation’ – support to the
effective incorporation of Sphere within the policy and practice of organisations – of Sphere itself. There was a strong
feeling that a great deal still needs to be done to achieve better ‘institutionalisation’, particularly at field level. This is
the case both within agencies where this is supposed already to have happened –
where the gap between nominal and actual use of Sphere was highlighted – and
with new groups of people. UN agencies, governments in affected countries, and
local NGOs, were particularly mentioned as areas where Sphere needs to be
better promoted. Communities directly affected by disasters also need to be
made aware of Sphere, which respondents say is
an area where very little work has so far been done.
More technical support to the
effective use of Sphere at these different levels was proposed as a way to work
towards this end. This could include clearer guidelines on how to go about ‘institutionalisation’, as well as hands on support in
particular emergency situations.
In relation to Sphere’s
relationship to other quality and accountability initiatives (such as HAP
International, ALNAP), section 8.6.2 outlines the expressed need by respondents
for clearer links between the different initiatives and explanations of their
differences and similarities and how they interact and work together. While
joint initiatives were supported, no one expressed a desire for a merger with
any of these initiatives.
The crucial importance of improved monitoring and evaluation
of the utilisation of Sphere, and its outcomes and
impact, was clearly expressed by participants (as detailed in section 8.6.2).
Planning for such work would need to take into account the challenges in terms
of methodology, and committing the necessary resources to such activities.
There was little comment on how such resources could be found, or of where they
should be based.
The value of Sphere in facilitating dialogue and sharing
experience and good practice as a contribution to improved quality and
accountability (see Section 8.6.4) was recognised by
respondents and they believed this was a useful input by Sphere and should
continue. Respondents felt that there should be a particular focus on
accountability, notably the greater involvement of affected people.
Finally, as indicated in 8.6.5, a
significant proportion of respondents were in favour
of a rights based approach, as promoted by Sphere. However, the need to pay
greater attention to the link between principles and practice was highlighted.
Respondents considered this could be best achieved through closer work with
affected communities, to make people affected by disasters aware of their rights.
This would enable affected people to engage with those providing humanitarian
assistance on how most effectively to make a reality of those rights in a given
context.
1.3 Possible options for consideration for the future
From the findings detailed above,
it can be concluded that on the basis of the consultation process, the
following options could be considered for the future of Sphere beyond 2004.
1.3.1 Should Sphere continue or not?
The vast majority of respondents
consider Sphere to be a valuable resource for the humanitarian sector, and that
there should continue to be some form of structure to support it. Most of those
who expressed an opinion on how long Sphere should continue believed that it
should be ‘ongoing’, with regular reviews to ensure that it continues to meet
the needs of the humanitarian community. A smaller proportion believed that
there should be a time limit on any extension of Sphere, with an endpoint
dependent on the achievement of indicators of success.
1.3.2 Possible structures for a future Sphere
Independence
The consultation process concluded
almost unanimously that a future Sphere should be independent of any one organisation or donor. It could continue to be hosted by a
larger organisation, but should maintain an
independent identity.
Governance structure