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
The most popular proposal for a
governing body for a future Sphere was a management committee with a wider
range of members. In particular there should be representation of ‘southern’
NGOs. There was lesser support for the inclusion of donors and UN
representatives on a future management committee; an advisory committee incorporating representatives of these bodies could be
an option. Generally, members of a management committee for Sphere should be
people whose position means they are in touch with the use of Sphere in
practice.
A future governing body for Sphere
should be more transparent in its procedures. This could be achieved through
some form of election of members, and the publication of accounts, the
rationale behind decisions and the procedures of the committee on the website.
Operational structure
The operational structure that
emerged most strongly from the consultation process was some form of central
office, working with regional and national level Sphere focal points. A central
office for Sphere was generally proposed as ‘small’, though this was not
defined. There could be consultants associated with this office, who could be called upon to provide technical support to the
use of Sphere in emergency situations.
Regional and national focal points
could be based within existing structures, such as coordination bodies for
humanitarian agencies at these levels. They could support information exchange
about the use of Sphere both within the region, and
with a central Sphere office if one existed. They could also support the
process of agreeing the adaptation of Sphere indicators to local contexts.
1.3.3 Activities
According to consultation
respondents, the most important products of Sphere that should be maintained in
the future are the handbook, training and the website. A future Sphere
structure should support wide dissemination of the handbook, particularly
through translations and finding ways to make the handbook more cheaply and
easily available. A capacity for future revision of the handbook would need to
be established periodically (suggested as every 3-5 years).
Training should still be
supported, both Sphere training workshops and training of trainers
courses. Exactly how this should be achieved was not specified. However there
was a strong suggestion for facilitating better mobilisation
of training of trainers graduates who can run Sphere
training workshops, through the establishment of a network and database of
Sphere TOT graduates. A policy to address issues of quality assurance should be
established for Sphere training.
The website should be maintained
and developed, including for example the TOT graduate database described above.
The possibility of an interactive aspect to the site, so it could act as a
forum for discussion and reference on Sphere was proposed.
The Sphere 9 minute video in
particular is considered valuable and should continue to be distributed.
1.3.4 Funding
The overall conclusion of the
consultation was that funding for a future Sphere should continue to be
constituted of a mix of NGO and government donor funding. The possibility of
contributions from UN agencies was also raised by a few people. Self-financing
through membership fees and in-kind contributions were suggested as ways of
improving the sense of ownership of Sphere on the part of those who use it. The
sale of materials could also contribute to the funding base.
2. Acknowledgements
Many thanks to all those who have
participated in the consultation process, as contributors, facilitators of
meetings, or organisers/hosts of meetings. All are
listed in Annexes 1 and 2. Without the willingness of so many people to give
their time and effort, often at short notice, this process would have been
impossible.
Many thanks also to Mark Hammersley, Paul Currion and
colleagues from Aid Workers Network, for their support in hosting and
facilitating the online discussion.
Particular thanks to the focal points and ‘cross-cutters’ for the handbook
revision, and Sphere TOT facilitators, for their contributions to the drafts of
the Outline paper for the consultation process, and documents to support the
facilitation meetings. Thanks also to Randolph
Kent, Mohamed Hamza, and particularly Isobel McConnan for their support in designing and implementing
the process, and to Jan Cossar for her patience and
guidance in the preparation of the report.
Many thanks are due to Careen Abb and Huzeifa Bodal for data analysis and inputting.
Sphere Project team
Alison Joyner, Project Manager
Verónica
Foubert, Project Officer
Elly Proudlock, Senior Assistant
3. Background
Why a consultation on the future of Sphere?
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.
The Sphere Project was due to end
in October 2003, at the end of its third phase. However the Project Management
Committee [1]
decided that more time was needed to complete activities
designed to support the use and integration of Sphere within organisations, in line with the project’s original
objective of creating and disseminating the handbook. In particular, piloting
of Sphere at country level, taking place in five countries (Honduras, El
Salvador, Nicaragua, Democratic Republic of Congo and India), took longer to
start than anticipated, and had only just begun by the end of 2003.
The Phase III Extension, from
November 2003 to December 2004, focused on training of trainers, the promotion
of Sphere materials and implementation of Sphere at country level. A further
priority of this period 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 this
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.
It was also made clear that
this process
was different from the recent external Evaluation of the Sphere Project,
carried out by Columbia University in the United States in collaboration with Makerere University in Uganda. The consultations focused only
on the future, whereas the Evaluation had a wider set of objectives (see http://www.sphereproject.org/index_eval.htm).
The key findings and actions as a result of the Evaluation were explained
during consultation meetings in a document produced by the Sphere Project (see
annex 9), and decisions on the future of Sphere will take into account the
results of the Evaluation.
The consultation process took
place between February and April 2004. Just over 400 people,
excluding organisers and facilitators (see section
5.1 for details), participated in meetings, interviews and/or an on-line
consultation hosted by Aid Workers Network.
4. Purpose and Objectives
The overall purpose of the
consultation was:
To gather information and opinions
that will inform decisions by the Sphere Management Committee on what happens
to the work of the Sphere Project beyond 2004.
Its objectives were:
1. To find out how different stakeholders would like to see the work of the
Sphere project in future, in the light of wider developments in humanitarian
assistance.
2. To ensure that a participatory approach, which has been a critical part
of Sphere’s development, is maintained and informs decisions about the future.
The key questions addressed during
the process were:
1. Which products, services and support provided by the Sphere project have
been most valuable and should be maintained beyond Dec 2004?
2. Who should provide them? How would this be funded? For
how long?
3. What are specific ideas for structures that could support future work
relating to Sphere? How would this be resourced?
4. Should Sphere remain independent in some form? If so why?
5. What are other possible options for a ‘home’ for the different aspects
of Sphere (handbook, training, website etc)?
6. What other ideas are there for how Sphere could better support improved
quality and accountability in humanitarian assistance?
The data gathered during the
consultation process is presented in section 8, according
to the key questions.
5. Approach and Methodology
The consultations had to be
completed between mid February and the end of April 2004, to allow the Management
Committee to begin narrowing the options for the future by June 2004. In light
of this short timeline, a qualitative methodological approach was developed,
that established a framework to engage people in a variety of locations and
that could be coordinated from the Sphere Project office in Geneva.
As a result, the methods used for
consultation were group meetings, individual semi-structured interviews and an
online discussion forum. To allow the data collected from different locations
to be collated and analysed, the group meetings were
facilitated according to common guidelines including a suggested agenda and
session plans (see Annex 4 for the meeting agenda; other documents that were
provided to those facilitating and organising
meetings are available from the Sphere project office on request alison.joyner@ifrc.org). The same set
of questions was asked in the individual interviews (see Annex 6) to facilitate
comparison of answers in addition to interviewees being able to offer further
comments. The online discussion was conducted on the basis of two articles and
six questions sent out over a period of 8 weeks (see Annex 7). The questions
were related to the key questions listed in section 4, and all contributors
responded to the same questions to facilitate comparison of answers.
All methods were guided by the key
questions as outlined in section 4 above.
5.1 Participants
Consistent with objective 2, the consultation process set out to
involve a wide range of stakeholders including:
national and international staff of national and international humanitarian
agencies (NGO, United Nations, the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement);
representatives from affected communities where possible; donors; government
bodies; academics; advocacy groups; and people who have been closely associated
with the development of Sphere.
The total number of known
participants in the consultation process is 393 (see list in Annex 2),
excluding organisers and facilitators. However, names
of participants were not available for the consultations held in Bam and Rome,
hence 393 is a slight underestimate. It can therefore be assumed that just over
400 people participated in the process.
A complete breakdown of the
profiles of participants is not possible since people contributing to the
on-line discussion were not required to give details of their occupation.
However of the details that are known, 186 participants came from NGOs, and of
these, 133 (72%) came from NGOs that are represented on the Management
Committee organisation. A further 66 participants
came from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
and individual National Societies. Therefore, 199 respondents came from organisations represented on the Management Committee,
representing approximately half of the just over 400 participants. Thus the
consultation process represents an important complement to the information
gathered by Management Committee members during internal consultations carried
out at the end of 2003, in preparation for this wider consultation process.
266 people are known to have
participated in group meetings, although as noted above the details of people
at two of the meetings has not been provided. Of those
known, 147 participants in meetings were from NGOs, 57 from the Red
Cross/Red Crescent movement, and one from another
‘quality and accountability initiative’. There were 24 government
representatives, 5 donors and 9 UN agency representatives. The remainder were academics, and people who did not specify
their affiliation.
Of the 97 people interviewed, 40
were from international and national NGOs, 2 from training organisations,
9 were from the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement and 8 from United Nations
agencies. There were 6 donor representatives (in addition 2 of the NGO
representatives interviewed act as intermediary for a donor), 6 academics and 4
independents. There were 4 former Sphere staff, 7 focal points and cross
cutters for the revision of the Sphere handbook, and 7 Sphere training of
trainers facilitators.
In choosing representatives to
interview from NGOs, particular attention was paid to selecting people who had
experience of piloting Sphere, either as a member of a pilot institutionalisation agency, or at country level (see Annex
8 for details of these organisations).
65 people participated in the
online discussion hosted by Aid Workers Network. However, as indicated above,
participants were not obliged to give any personal details, so no analysis of
the composition of this group was possible.
It was considered inappropriate
for any of the thirteen Management Committee members to participate in group
meetings or any other components of the consultation process, since they would
be making decisions based on the data collected.
5.2 Meetings
By the time of the preparation of the final report, reports
had been received on 22 meetings held in 20 different countries (see Annex 1 for a list of meetings and locations) as follows:
Asia/ Pacific: India (2), Afghanistan, Australia, Philippines, Indonesia
Middle East: Iran, United Arab Emirates
Europe: Switzerland (2), Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Hungary
Africa: Angola, Lesotho, Kenya, Zimbabwe
Central and South America: Honduras (2), El Salvador, Peru
A further 26 expressions of interest in hosting a meeting
were received, but did not result in meetings being held, and the reports on 2
meetings that we believe took place had not been received. It should be noted
that it has unfortunately not been possible to include quotations from reports
from meetings that were received after 10 May. However, the information they
contained has been reflected in the figures given on points of view expressed
during the consultation process, as presented in section 8 and in Annex 3.
All meetings apart from the regional meeting in
Australia and the first meeting in Geneva were the result of
spontaneous offers from mostly NGO and Red Cross/Red Crescent movement representatives, in response to the request from the manager
of the Sphere Project to participate in the consultation process (see section
5.7 below). All but one
of the meetings were hosted, sometimes co-hosted, by Management Committee
member organisations or other NGOs, including three hosted by
institutionalisation pilot organisations. One meeting was hosted by a UN
agency.
People who expressed an interest in organising
a consultation meeting were sent guidelines for hosting and facilitating a
meeting, prepared by the Sphere project office. The guidelines included a suggested
agenda for a half or full day meeting (see Annex 4), detailed notes for
facilitators and organisers of meetings, and background information on the
Sphere project. These documents are available on request from the Sphere
Project office (alison.joyner@ifrc.org). Half of the meetings followed the agenda proposed in the
guidelines. The remainder that did not follow the proposed agenda adapted the
format for discussion, normally because of time constraints.
A voting process was proposed in the guidelines for the
facilitation of meetings. It was anticipated that this would provide a way to
glean the prioritisation of ideas expressed during
meetings. However, in practice only about half the meetings used voting. This
meant that it was not possible to reflect overall the number of people from a
meeting who expressed a given opinion. As a result, for consistency it was
assumed that all ideas recorded as emerging from meetings in the meeting
reports had at least some support from all those participating in the meeting.
Thus the figures for meetings alongside ideas for the future of Sphere
presented in Annex 3, represent the sum of the people
in each of the meetings where that idea was recorded.
The criteria developed for the selection of
facilitators for meetings was that they should have experience of using Sphere and
of facilitating meetings or training. It was decided that
participants attending the group meetings should already have knowledge and
experience of Sphere, to ensure a high knowledge baseline for sharing of
opinions within a short period of time.
Most meetings involved participants working in
one country, or part of a country. In addition, two regional meetings were
held. In Sydney, Australia, the Australian Council for International Development hosted a meeting
including NGO and donor government representatives from Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands. In Honduras, Catholic Relief Services [2] hosted a meeting involving representatives from El Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras.
Participants in the meetings were working in a variety of
different contexts, including conflict and post conflict, small scale chronic
instability, and at various stages after natural disaster (from Hurricane Mitch
to Bam). In most places, disaster preparedness was already an element of
programming. The range of participants covered people who had very little
knowledge of Sphere to people who were very experienced in its use and
implications.
As a contribution towards costs, organisations
that hosted consultation meetings were reimbursed on submission of the meeting
report and receipts, for refreshments and other relevant expenses, up to a
maximum of the equivalent of USD 500. Hosting and participating agencies
provided support in money or kind to complement this input as necessary. For
example, most facilitators did not receive payment for their time, being
members of participating organisations, or offering
their time in the case of consultants.
5.3 Semi-structured
interviews
89 semi-structured interviews were
conducted, 82 by the Project Manager (in English and French) and 7 by the
Project Officer in Spanish. Of these, 45 were conducted by the Project Manager
in individual face-to-face meetings. In addition, 7 people completed the
interview questions in written form, as towards the end of process finding
mutually convenient times to conduct interviews became more difficult. Thus
there were a total of 96 respondents to the interview questions.
The interview questions used as
the basis for interviews are given in annex 6. People who were interviewed were
chosen on the basis of their close involvement with Sphere: key involvement in
creation or development of Sphere; known to hold strong and well-informed views
on Sphere; having particular experience of using Sphere at field level.
It should be noted however that of the interviews carried out on a field
visit to East Timor, 9 were with people who had no
previous experience or knowledge of Sphere. This provided interesting
comparative information. A separate report on the visit to East
Timor is available from the project office on request
(alison.joyner@ifrc.org).
5.4 Internet based
discussions in collaboration with Aid Workers Network
Aid Workers Network, in close collaboration with the Sphere
Project Office, hosted an online discussion about Sphere in English, Spanish
and French. An interactive discussion forum was online during March and April,
prompted by six questions and two articles sent out on both the AWN and Sphere
list serves. The questions and articles (see Annex 7)
were compiled jointly by AWN and Sphere staff, and extra facilitation,
including prompting people to respond in order to stimulate the debate, was
provided by AWN.
Nearly 200 people signed up to receive the questions and
articles, and 65 posted contributions on the forum discussion. There were 109
contributions to the forum discussion by the end of April, indicating that many
people sustained an interest in the debate and posted several times. Most
contributions were anonymous, and the nature of the online process meant that
people with any or no knowledge of Sphere became involved. In order to capture
the interest of potential participants in the forum, the key questions were not
directly addressed immediately; rather more general questions, which attempted
to appeal to the personal experience of interested people, were used in the
first two to three questions (see
Annex 7 for full details of all the questions).
For example, the first question asked people what aspects of
the Sphere handbook they had used in their work, and how. The second and third
questions asked about the positive and negative aspects of using Sphere in
their work, and which aspects of Sphere should be developed further: these
questions elicited answers relating to the first key question (see section 4). The fourth question, about support provided by the Sphere office
generated information relevant to the second key question. The last two
AWN questions, about future structures, and resourcing
of Sphere, addressed more directly key questions 3/4/5/6 and 2 respectively.
5.5 Community consultations
It was aimed to involve
representatives of disaster-affected populations where possible, through organisations who already had a good knowledge of the
community, and had worked with them before on Sphere or related issues.
However, in practice there were few places where affected people had sufficient
knowledge of Sphere to allow them to participate effectively in a discussion on
its future. Several organisations expressed willingness to lead a
community focused consultation, but none actually took place. This was a
disappointing but perhaps predictable indication of the limited extent to which
Sphere has been used explicitly with affected communities. This point is
reflected strongly in the findings of the consultation process.
Suggestions for areas to cover in a community consultation, relating to
the key questions, that were sent to people expressing an interest in organising such a meeting are given in Annex 5.
5.6
Analysis of Sphere Project staff time and the Sphere website
(www.sphereproject.org)
In the process of preparing a document analysing their current use of time and the use of the website,
Sphere Project staff realised that a more useful
approach was to focus on lessons learned about managing the project. The
document details, for example, the process of preparation and translation of
materials, the maintenance of the website and the implications these have for
the number and skills of staff required. This document will be used to inform
the options for the future, and decisions taken by the Management Committee. It
is available on request from the Sphere Project office (alison.joyner@ifrc.org).
5.7 Promotion of the consultation
process
The consultation process was featured on the Sphere website (www.sphereproject.org) in English,
Spanish and French, giving information about the reasons for the consultation
and how people could get involved. This section of the website was regularly
updated with details of meetings that were planned or had taken place.
An announcement about the meetings and online
consultations were sent out to the Sphere Project and Aid Workers Network list
serves, and Sphere trainers, training of trainer course graduates and focal
points and cross cutters [3] received individual requests to support these
aspects of the process. Management Committee representatives also encouraged
members of their organisations to participate in the consultation process
through meetings and the online consultation.
6. Compilation and analysis of data
Data was collected in the form of
meeting reports, some of which were in the format proposed in the guidelines,
interview reports and postings on the AWN website.
Each set of data was analysed in relation to the 6 key questions, and answers categorised according to themes under the headings of the
key questions. An Excel spreadsheet was set up for each type of data, with a
slightly different format for each given the different nature of each data set.
As each set of data was analysed, a tally was kept of
different ideas that emerged. At the end of the process, the three spreadsheets
from the three different data sets were merged into the Compiled Data Analysis
spreadsheet in Annex 3.
The tallies against each idea give
an approximate idea of the number of people who supported that idea in the
process. However, given the inconsistencies across the different methods of
collecting data, these figures are not statistically reliable. For example, the
importance of Sphere as a common language was mentioned by 47 participants
across the meetings, interviews and AWN discussion. However, the fact that
other respondents did not mention this particular idea does not necessarily
mean that they disagree with it. This is the case for many of the opinions
expressed.
In addition, as noted above in
section 5.2, a voting system was proposed in meetings, in order to get an idea
of how participants ranked the ideas that arose. In practice, however, very few
meetings used the voting system. Ideas that arose in meetings have therefore
received a tally of the number of people who attended the meeting, on the
assumption that there was some level of consensus on the ideas that were
recorded as emerging from meetings.
As well as tallying the ideas that
emerged from the different sets of data, the detail of different ideas that
emerged was cut and pasted from electronic versions of each of the data sets
onto over 20 comment sheets arranged according to themes relating to the key
questions. These comment sheets formed the basis of analysis of the detail of
the ideas that emerged from the process, and of the quotations that are cited
in the presentation of the findings.
The information from the Compiled
Data Analysis sheet (see Annex 3) and the comments sheets has been analysed together, and presented according to the key
questions in section 8.
As indicated in Annex 3, the ideas
that have been tallied give very broad answers to the key questions. Given the
short timeline, there was not time to break down statistically the range of
opinions and ideas that fall into these broad categories of answer.
Consequently the more detailed analysis of the answers to each question gives a
range of ideas and opinions, with an approximation of where more or fewer
people expressed a particular point. However, it is not possible at this level
to provide a more precise weight of opinion.
7. Analysis of the consultation process
The principle constraint on the organisation of the process was the lack of time. This
meant that people who are already very busy were asked to volunteer time and
effort at short notice. The fact that there were more expressions of interests
to arrange a meeting (50) than actual meetings (24 in total, although 2 reports
were not received) suggests the implications of the time constraints. It also
highlights the significant level of interest that the process stimulated,
reflecting the apparently high level of commitment to Sphere across a wide
range of contexts. The relatively wide geographic and contextual spread of the
meetings that did take place is encouraging: there was no time to pursue people
to conduct meetings in particular places, so the range that emerged was
spontaneous.
On the other hand, it should also be
noted that all communication relating to the consultation process was carried
out by email and via the website. This means that we did not reach beyond the
‘web divide’: given the time frame, we did not pursue ways of contacting
potential participants – via, for example, organisations
which have local partners – who may not have access to digital
communication.
As indicated above, although
people conducting meetings received guidelines for a process that could guide
the agenda, this was frequently not followed. In some cases this was because of
lack of time. In others, facilitators and/or participants found the suggested
process constraining or inappropriate, so adopted their own approach. While
this was constructive in terms of the generation of ideas, it meant that the
reports received from many meetings were inconsistent, with the implications
for data analysis indicated in section 6.
The disappointing lack of any
community consultations could also reflect lack of time. However, the fact that
there were only 4 expressions of interest also indicates the very limited
number of contexts where Sphere is known amongst people affected by disasters.
This in itself is an important learning point from the consultation process.
Two months is short for an online
consultation; interest was stronger in the later stage of the process. It was
notable that people continued to post contributions after the formal end of the
consultation process (19 contributions were posted after 30th April 2004). Relatively few of
the online consultation contributions were directly relevant to the key
questions, however the debates that were stimulated often elicited useful ideas
that were captured where appropriate as ‘other ideas’. Similarly, other ideas
about, for example, the use of Sphere in different places, were captured from
meeting reports and interviews. It is planned to compile these into a reference
document that could be relevant in future.
Finally, a few people expressed
strong views about the consultation process itself. In the Honduras regional meeting, for example, they commented on the point that the
process was simply consultative, and that decisions would be made by the
Management Committee. Participants were frustrated by the fact that they had
been given a voice but no power in the process.
8. Findings
The key questions given in section
4 have been regrouped into six sections to avoid repetition. For clarity, each
section’s heading is followed by the key question to which it refers. Where a
place is given alongside the source for a quotation, it is the place where the
person quoted is currently working.
8.1 Should ‘Sphere’ continue?
An implied question in the
consultation process was whether Sphere should be maintained at all. Of all
those who participated in the process only three raised negative issues that
could imply the Sphere should not continue. One contributor to the online
discussion asked how much money had been injected into a project which has contributed
nothing to the humanitarian community. Two other online contributors raised
concerns about standards as ‘compulsory’ and denying the specificities of
beneficiaries, and as a tool which can be misused.
Apart from these examples, none of
the 393 people who participated in the consultation process suggested that
Sphere should end. As detailed in the following sections, the overwhelming
majority favoured some form of structure to support
the continued promotion and dissemination of Sphere.
8.2 Sphere’s products, services and support
Key
question 1: Which products, services and support provided by the Sphere project
have been most valuable and should be maintained beyond Dec 2004?
Note
that points about the support provided from the current Sphere office (section
A5 of Annex 3) are covered under section 8.3.3, Wider
structures.
8.2.1 The Sphere Handbook: Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards
in Disaster Response
As
indicated in Annex 3, strongest support (289 out
of the known 393 participants (74%) see section A1 of Annex 3) was expressed for the Sphere handbook, often described as
central to Sphere’s work.
“(It’s) the core.
Without that it would be very difficult to have things to hook training on, to
make the website real”
Independent
The
handbook’s role as a non partisan reference point for the different sectors, was strongly emphasised. The importance of this in
supporting an integrated approach and coordination in the field was
particularly highlighted.
“Anything that provides guidance, reference point, should be continued”.
UN agency representative
“Employing
it so as to coordinate with other disaster response players, NGO and
Governmental alike”
AWN contributor
“The book is a way of explaining activities of living: balance of watsan, health, nutrition, shelter etc is important at
every level – changing one affects the others”.
IFRCRCS representative
The
Sphere handbook is seen to have provided a concrete basis for more effective
work and a common language for discussion of particular operations, as well as
wider debates on humanitarian issues:
“ A reference tool – helping in developing proposals – very
useful. For example, providing water in West Darfur (it helped in) getting the right
things”.
NGO representative, USA
“An excellent tool to promote an analytical
approach and to improve the quality of humanitarian response”.
Donor representative
“A reference for the standards and indicators, universal language for
all of us, can’t beat that”.
Academic institution representative
There
was generally a positive response to the changes brought about in the 2004
edition:
“The handbook is very valuable and the new 2004 edition is much better
than the previous edition”.
Jakarta meeting, 17.05.04
“ You have more explanation in the 2004 handbook, therefore
it’s clearer”.
Independent
“The recent (edition) is much better than the previous one, speaking as
a health professional”.
Independent
Almost
everyone who expressed a view on the handbook was in favour of future
revisions. The handbook was described as a ‘living’ document which must be
updated on a regular basis, in order to remain relevant and take account of new
developments.
“The
Sphere manual is not a bible and shouldn’t become one. It lays down what is
appropriate at the time – contextualised in time”
Quality and Accountability initiative representative
Interestingly
though, there was a general feeling that the 2004 edition should be used and
disseminated for some time before being revised. Views of how long there should
be before the next revision ranged from about 3 to 5 years:
“(We) need to
disseminate – would not recommend any new book for several years, we need to
concentrate on the new one”.
NGO representative, head
office
“There definitely should
be updates….(but) no new edition for another few
years”.
Academic institution representative
“Every
5 years – should come out with the new version”
Independent
“Improvement/revision of handbook on three yearly basis”
Luanda meeting, 28.02.04
The
sector that was suggested most frequently for additions in future revision was
Education. Where people explained this choice, it was principally on the basis
of the right to education, which in one case was suggested as an addition to
the Humanitarian Charter.
“Look
at education – until people really have a clearer sense of what quality
education means in different contexts not know what it is”.
Academic
“The debate on including education should continue. Or at least
education materials for humanitarian disasters should be linked to Sphere”.
Former Sphere staff
“Include
education in the next handbook revision.”
Luanda meeting, 28.02.04
“(Add in future) Basic
education”
Rome meeting, 29.02.04
“ADD
AN EDUCATION CHAPTER TO THE HANDBOOK”
Afghanistan
meeting, 03.05.04
“Sphere may consider the
need to make minimum standards on Education more prominent, perhaps, as an
independent sector”.
Manila
meeting, 03.05.04
Other
topics for consideration for future inclusion were protection, the psychosocial
aspects of response, and guidelines on advocacy. The issue of avoiding
unnecessary terminology was raised in this context, with a particular
suggestion to eliminate the term ‘beneficiary’. One person suggested that the
development of standards for new sectors could be done by ‘franchising’ the
Sphere methodology to a specialist group in the sector, who would take
responsibility for developing standards and indicators.
Also
in relation to future versions of the handbook, several people commented on the
need to place further emphasis on recognising the differences in specific
contexts and for particular vulnerable groups and types of affected
populations:
“There are still improvements that could be made, on cross-cutting
issues generally….(we’re) still treating people as though they’re all the same,
without taking into account different needs and vulnerabilities”.
Former cross cutter
In
this context, there were several references to the potential for regional or
national adaptation of indicators:
“Maybe regional offices/organisations could try to create indicators
case by case – not using the same indicators for the whole world,
or even within regions”.
NGO representative, Head office
“Revision and adaptation of the
handbook to the sociocultural and regional context”
Peru meeting, 20.04.04
“Use what is feasible,
realistic, appropriate to the context, then develop what is optimal under the
circumstances. Therefore don’t assess only according to external indicators”
UN Agency representative
“If relevant locally
appropriate and proportionate indicators could be developed on the ground,
involving local NGOs as well, and looking at the community at a whole (as part
of DP/ contingency planning).”
The Hague Meeting, 27.04.04
A
particular example given of a current limitation in the handbook is the limited
reference to livestock moving with displaced populations. The current Sudanese
refugee crisis in Chad has brought this issue to the fore:
“(There
is) nothing about animals in the book. Refugees are coming with their herd, and
take the water before the people. Human priority – humans are before animals,
but this is not perfect. We have no measures of water for a cow. Animals are
dying, leaving other practical problems – bury them and take them away, sick
animals are making others sick. Therefore their wealth is dying”.
NGO
representative, head office
There were a few positive references to the
Humanitarian Charter (24 people, including 2 meetings, see Annex 3, section
A1), and the need to increase its profile:
“ Develop
a framework for respect for the Humanitarian Charter”
Sphere trainer
“Give
the humanitarian charter much more prominence; raise importance of the
Humanitarian Charter”
Nairobi
meeting, 29.04.04
Related
to this, was the need to place more emphasis on a rights based approach in
general:
“An expanded chapter on the human rights based approach should be added
to the Sphere handbook to include references to civil society and development”.
Afghanistan
meeting, 03.05.04
On the other hand, there
was some criticism of the Humanitarian Charter. The following quotation is
relatively long in order to allow elaboration of the point in detail:
“The Humanitarian
Charter – has always led to useful discussions …it raises a lot of basic and
important questions – what are we doing as humanitarians, why etc? (However) it
is international law for dummies. It simplifies, it puts the wrong focus on a
number of points. For example, Who is the ‘we’?...
Would it decrease the
value of the handbook if you didn’t have the Charter? …The Code of Conduct
brings an ethical value which is important; put that more in the forefront. Say
that there is International law which defines the obligations of warring
parties, each organisation has its mandate, almost a consensus on Code of
Conduct, then what’s important is that we focus on the technical standards”.
Sphere trainer
A
few people opposed the addition of extra sectors in future editions of the
handbook, arguing that the indicators are too many and too ambitious. A future
revision should therefore aim to be slimmer and better prioritised:
“If ever there was another version, should be much simpler, prioritised
and streamlined. Should be discussion about what to take out rather than what
to add; anything to add should take something else out”.
Donor representative
The
importance of translations of the Sphere handbook into as many languages as
possible, as essential to its effective dissemination and use, was mentioned
specifically by 69 people (24% of those who expressed an opinion on the
handbook) (see section A of Annex 3). For example:
“There was a lot of demand for an Indonesian language translation of the
new edition and in the interim for a supply of the English version to be made
available. It was asked whether copies could be printed cheaply for local
consumption”.
Jakarta meeting, 17.05.04
“Translate
into local languages e.g. Kiswahili”.
Nairobi
meeting, 29.04.04
“Translations: Access to
it is a problem: Can people afford it? Languages?
There needs to be assistance to getting it translated”.
IFRCRC representative
“More
books, more languages, much more availability”.
Sphere trainer
As
the last two points highlight, the availability of the handbook in relevant
languages is related to its accessibility. Elaborating this, there were several
references to the importance of developing versions of the handbook that would
be more appropriate to specific contexts and audiences. In particular, pictures
and examples from different countries were suggested as ways to make the book
easier to use. ‘Popular’ versions of the handbook for use at community level
were also proposed.
“Some
of the words are not easy to understand. Is it possible to review using simpler
language, bearing in mind people who implement the book? Give more examples,
more case studies – make it simpler….. including some
pictures in the handbook would be very useful. Pictures can describe and
explain”.
NGO representative, Cambodia
“Vocabulary is an issue
compounded by the translation…. Use a phrase rather than a jargon word”.
NGO representative, Bosnia Herzegovina
“Develop and publish a popular version of the Sphere
handbook”
Peru meeting, 20.04.04
The
need for simpler, smaller versions of the handbook that would be easier to use
in the field was also raised:
“We need a field
version, for quick reference in case of emergency”
AWN contributor
“A
pocket version – key standards for easy reference in the field (in tandem with
the handbook)”
IFRCRCS representative
Also
related to accessibility, the need for cheaper versions of the handbook arose
several times:
“Improve accessibility to
the handbook: it’s difficult for people to get it”.
NGO
representative, East Timor
“Need to make the book
cheaper”.
UN agency representative
“It
should be made available as cheaply and easily as possible”.
Independent
While
the addition of the CD Rom in the 2004 edition was welcomed by many, several
people stressed the importance of improving access to the book itself, as still
the most valuable format in the field.
“Should
not get carried away by information technology – regardless of machines the
book is much more important than CD Roms, etc”
IFRCRCS representative
“We still need the book, the CD rom in the field is not enough”.
UN agency representative
Finally,
it is important to note that those in East Timor who had not seen the handbook before were also
enthusiastic about its potential. They stressed particularly the value of a
single document that provides a common language and reference point for
humanitarian work:
“Useful
as a reference”.
NGO representative, East Timor
“The book should be
distributed by the hundreds to government at all levels, schools, churches”.
UN Agency representative, East Timor
“Never seen it
before, it looks fantastic; creating a common language, a single reference
book. To support a rights based approach: a way to
overcome the resistance to targeted distributions in East Timor”.
NGO representative, East Timor
8.2.2 Training on Sphere
After
the handbook, Sphere training was most frequently mentioned as the most
valuable product of Sphere. 171 participants (44% of the known 393 participants
in the process - see section A2 of Annex 3) mentioned training
workshops specifically as being of importance, in particular in enabling more
effective use of the handbook. For example:
“…Without training (the handbook) is
difficult to grasp…”
NGO representative, Europe
“Need
language appropriate training and workbooks to support the use of the handbook”.
NGO Representative, East Timor
“Without
the proper training, the handbook may give you the feeling that you’re a
specialist”.
Sphere trainer
“Training … helps to ensure that people will use the handbook”.
Former Sphere staff
Sphere
training materialswere
praised specifically by 74 respondents as a tool to support training. The
Sphere training modules are designed to run a training workshop on Sphere for
between half a day and three days. During the period from 2000 to 2002, Sphere
project staff ran three-day training workshops around the world utilising
different modules for different contexts. Since that time, the project has
focused on running training of trainers (TOT) courses, which last eight days
and enable participants to run and facilitate Sphere training courses using the
Sphere materials.
It is
notable that more people referred to Sphere training workshops – workshops and
training in country appropriate to the language and context – as opposed to
training of trainers courses specifically (241 as opposed to 140, or 63% to
37%). One person specifically elaborated this point:
…“
Training on these guidelines at the field level in a variety of useful
languages; not always ToTs, because few people in an
emergency have time to organize a training when they
return to site.”
AWN
contributor
There
was a strong body of opinion in favour of more, and
better targeted training. At the Sydney regional meeting, for example,
there was a call for:
Better targeted training initiatives:
·
Country specific
·
Operation specific
·
Organisation
Specific
Sydney meeting, 25.03.04
Several
people reinforced the need to target new and local NGOs within countries:
…“Support
Sphere training for national NGOs in disaster-prone countries, making
the training extremely hands-on and focused around the areas that national NGOs
do well and that don’t require large logistics eg. site selection and planning, latrine construction, NFIs etc. The ‘hows’ of
humanitarian assistance in addition to the ‘whys”’
NGO
representative
Training
at community level and with local government was also mentioned, particularly
as a way to inform communities about their right to appropriate levels of
assistance:
“- Sphere training for communities as part of entry to programme
- Increased training for government officials”
Nairobi meeting, 29.04.04
“Include
other structures not usually involved eg. school students, universities, schools of architecture and
community – beneficiary – level training”.
Luanda
meeting, 28.02.04
70
participants (41% of those who expressed an opinion on workshops) referred specifically to the need for wprkshops to take place at country or regional level, and
in ways that are most relevant to the particular people and place where the
training is taking place:
…“Training must be done by people who know the relevant language and the
context very well, so that training is relevant to participants. Training should
be used to build the capacity of people who need it: NGOs, government, UN”
NGO
representative, East Timor
In
this context, the need for trainers to be able to adapt and develop the Sphere
training materials to the particular local context was highlighted:
“(For example)… not all case studies are appropriate; it’s up to
trainers to feel confident to change the materials as necessary”.
Independent
Many
respondents referred to the value of interagency trainings, and particularly
the need to involve relevant government ministries and donors in training. The
potential of such an approach was highlighted by a contributor to the AWN
discussion, who cited this example from a recent training in which he had
participated:
...“The
most encouraging aspect of the training was how a senior government officer
felt that Sphere would be made a reference material when the Disaster
Management policy document will be reviewed in the near future”
AWN contributor
This
point refers also to the need to link Sphere with Disaster Preparedness and
Disaster Management training in general, particularly with national
governments, which was raised specifically 5 times.
Of
the 140 participants who referred to Sphere training of trainers
courses, most were very positive about the quality of the course. Reflecting on
the need for more training, several people mentioned the importance of having
more TOT graduates, as well as the need to mobilise better existing Sphere TOT
graduates. The idea of developing a central registry and/or network of people
who have been trained to run Sphere training courses, as a way to support this
process, was raised by 61 participants in total (see section D6 of Annex 3).
The meeting in Manila exemplifies this view:
…“Sphere should find more creative measures to mobilise Sphere training
graduates as a network of advocates and practitioners.”
Manila meeting, 03.05.04
Such
a system could serve as a way for Sphere trainers to share experiences and
information, and for people looking for trainers to access them. A limitation
of the TOT training cited by a few respondents was that it was difficult to
release workers from busy jobs for such a long period of time.
…“The challenge of TOTs is finding the time
for people to do the training (afterwards) – people have other jobs, therefore
this is difficult.”
NGO representative, head office
Various
opinions were expressed regarding ways to ensure the quality of training. There
was recognition of the importance of this, but also of the difficulty in
reality of implementing an effective system of control. Some people felt the
quality of materials was the most important, and that the rest would have to be
left to the users to ensure quality:
Issue
updates and good quality training materials and make sure they’re available;
then leave it open for people to interpret and use as they will
Sphere trainer
“Need to have the right people to develop training materials, then not
too much control. …In a perfect world, would follow up everybody, but in
practice there isn’t time. From each training you get
a few excellent trainers and most are ok: the more training the better, even if
it’s bad training”.
Training institution
Others
felt there was need for more control from some form of central body:
“Ideally Sphere staff
should be there to ensure the quality of training. Smaller agencies can’t
afford to provide training for staff; therefore selection criteria for training
should include a minimum number of new organisations”.
NGO representative, head office
“How to do quality control – how do you ensure that those trainers can
actually deliver? If you let go of it centrally, how to ensure that there’s
consistency in messages, and the quality? Sphere could get a bad name because
of the trainers”
IFRCRCS representative
One
person suggested the establishment of a system of accreditation for Sphere
trainers, while another proposed that all Sphere TOT training should be kept
within a training institution for the time being, to guard against too much
dilution of training quality.
The
need for training to be as practical as possible, and linked to field
experience, was frequently expressed in relation to both TOT and general Sphere
trainings.
“Practical,
on the job training is most useful. Training should be done through the
government department that is responsible for disaster response”.
NGO representative, East Timor
“To discuss
the implementation of the standards in the field is very important. Sometimes
you don’t have enough funding to fulfil all the standards therefore need to be
able to discuss that. Clearly offer Sphere training to the UN office
responsible for peacekeeping”.
NGO representative, Head office
Follow
up support to people who attended 3-day workshops or TOT courses was suggested
as a way to support use of Sphere, and to find out more about the issues
involved in applying Sphere to practice:
“Follow
up….Post training consultations: to enable people to say – we have a problem
and what to do about it? ‘After training service’
UN
Agency representative
“Weakness in the last revision was that the training and the revision
not linked – there’s real potential for linking: training, then hanging around
when people use the standards, then documenting what happens and feeding that
in on an ongoing basis..”
Former Sphere staff
Finally,
31 people in two meetings mentioned the possibility of using distance learning
(see section D6 of Annex 3), an idea also recommended by the Sphere Project Evaluation.
Training videos to complement Sphere training courses were also suggested.
8.2.3 Website
Following
the Sphere handbook and training, there was strongest support for the Sphere
project website. As shown in section A3 of Annex 3, 138 respondents (35% of the
known 393 participants in the consultation process) mentioned the website as a
valuable resource that should be maintained. The fact that the website is too
heavy for some connections was mentioned by some, who suggested that people
outside capital cities would probably not be able to access it. On the other
hand, in some places, such as relatively remote parts of DRC, there are
increasing numbers of internet cafés, while Humanitarian Information Centres
hosted by OCHA are also able to offer a fast connection. It was also suggested
that most local NGOs should have access to an internet connection through an
international partner.
Ideas for possible future
expansion for the role of the website included that it could be used as a forum
for best practice on Sphere:
“If I had to choose,
would leave the website as a forum for best practice. Accessibility
and interactivity, including someone maintaining the website who could
respond”.
Sphere TOT facilitator
Regionally based websites were also suggested :
“Create a web site on news and issues concerning South
America”
NGO representative, South America
8.2.4 Videos
As indicated in section A4
of the Compiled Data Analysis spreadsheet (Annex 3), 10 respondents mentioned
videos as a valuable provision of the Sphere project. The first, nine minute
video was particularly highlighted:
“The nine
minute video is very useful to present Sphere’
NGO representative, South America
“The 9 minute video, when working with local partners who have no
knowledge of Sphere or outside world (eg in Burma), is very useful as an initial
starting point.”
NGO representative, head office
Apart
from these participants, however, several also mentioned that the second 45
minute video in particular is too focused on international aid workers, and is
not useful at field level. For example:
“ Given the
importance of putting all materials into their regional context … we believe it
would be best for Sphere not to engage in producing any more videos»
Honduras regional meeting, 30.04.05
8.3 Possible structures for the future
Key
question 2: Who should provide them? (rest of question
in sections 8.4 and 8.5 below)
Key
question 3: What are specific ideas for structures that could support future
work relating to Sphere? How would this be resourced?
Key
question 4: Should Sphere remain independent in some form? If so why?
Key
question 5: What are other possible options for a ‘home’ for the different
aspects of Sphere (handbook, training, website etc)?
8.3.1 Independence
The overwhelming majority - 90 out of 93 - of
respondents who expressed an opinion on Sphere’s independence, believed it
should remain independent (see section B of Annex 3). Independence, perceived in terms of freedom
from the influence of any
one political position, donor or organisation, was seen as one
of the key
strengths of Sphere:
“Independence
is cornerstone of Sphere. It must be maintained in order to sustain the
credibility it has built up. If Sphere were to lose its
independence due to, say, political issues, it would lose its
credibility and weight and its moral authority would be significantly
diminished”
NGO representative, Central America
“Part of the key to
success is that people haven’t felt that Sphere is coming from one
organisation”.
NGO representative, head office
“It is crucial that Sphere retain its independence, without which it
would lose its universality”
NGO representative, South America
“The trouble with resting with one NGO is that it’s an egotistical
world”.
Academic
The
importance of independence from political influence was seen as particularly
critical in the interests of preserving the necessary freedom to serve the
needs of people affected by disaster:
“Independence is important because people who suffer from disasters
and/or conflicts must be assisted according to their needs, not according to
political agendas or institutional mandates.”
NGO representative, Central America
“(Sphere should continue to be) an independent body serving the whole of
the humanitarian community, primarily to those who need humanitarian
assistance. Freedom from donors etc, in order to advocate more strongly on
their behalf”.
Sphere TOT facilitator
“Sphere is not yet well assimilated by the humanitarian and development
sector, so independence is very important, in order to
maintain the freedom to prioritise as is seen fit”.
NGO representative, Europe
On the other hand, strong links with the United
Nations, for example, were seen as valuable if they could support Sphere:
“It should remain sufficiently independent from any kind of agency, but
sufficiently connected to the IASC to get support”.
UN Agency representative
“It should be
seen whether the United Nations could be actively integrated into the Sphere
initiative”
NGO representative, Central America
Independence was also seen as independence from
undue influence from funders:
“Need to ensure it’s not influenced by donors and key western NGOs”
UN Agency representative
“Independent from
donors, to ensure it remains there for the NGOs
and ‘owned’ by NGOs”
NGO representative, Asia Pacific
There was no support for
Sphere merging with a similar initiative for quality and accountability (see
below, section 8.6).
8.3.2 Policy and direction
The
great majority of people who expressed an opinion on the Management Committee
were in favour of changes to its composition and operation, while acknowledging
the valuable role it has played in the operation of Sphere until now. 133
respondents (73% of those who expressed an opinion on the Management Committee)
were in favour of broadening the base of the Management Committee in some way,
in particular by including more representation from so-called ‘southern’
representatives (see section C1 of Annex 3):
“Continue the existing
Management Committee, but include some non-western people amongst those who
represent the member agencies”
NGO
representative, head office
“Keep it about that size
– 4 user-type agencies (rotating as staff change) – prominent NGOs, local or
international; 3 donors; 3 other thinkers”.
Academic
“Need
to bring in donors’ perspective to the whole thing… needs a stronger profile,
recognition by governments”.
NGO
representative, Asia
“Small Sphere board to include wider participation of stakeholders”
Nairobi meeting, 29.04.04
Several people suggested
that inclusion of the agencies which were involved in piloting Sphere, and
those that are currently involved in piloting at country level, would be an
appropriate way to expand the base for the committee. There was emphasis on the
need for people on the Management Committee to represent people actually using
Sphere:
“Representation from
piloting countries should be promoted”.
NGO representative, Asia
“The Management Committee and pilot agencies should come together”
NGO representative, head office
There was also considerable
discussion of the possibility of involving the United Nations in some way in
the governance structure of a future Sphere:
“Would
like to see Sphere raised to the level of the UN for the political influence ….OCHA makes most sense”
Donor representative
“A taskforce established
by the IASC on minimum standards….. each member
(agency) would appoint a focal point, who would become a member (of the
task force)…(that would) review the work of the secretariat (of Sphere) and act
as a sounding board for ideas coming out of it”.
UN Agency representative
On the other hand, it
should also be noted that 19 participants in the consultation (10% of those who
expressed an opinion on the Management Committee) mentioned that the size of the
management group should not be too large, in the interests of effective
operation (section C1 of Annex 3).
Another idea that arose
several times for adapting the current Management Committee was to establish
some form of advisory committee alongside:
“Maintain the Management Committee in its current form, but create a
complementary “Advisory Council” which would include regional representatives
(regional working groups to designate representatives). The council would meet
twice a year to advise on Sphere strategy and
policies. Sphere would thus become more democratic, representative and
transparent”
NGO representative, Central America
The possibility of donors
and/or UN representatives sitting on an advisory board to a Sphere Management
Committee was raised in this context.
“ If
there’s any way the UN could be invited to join…it might be a way to enhance
ownership. …Maybe not a full member, but some kind of observer, to improve the
inclusion”
UN agency
representative
Finally,
there was commentary on the procedures of the current Sphere Management
Committee. 31 respondents (17% of those who expressed an opinion on the
Management Committee) referred explicitly to the need to review the procedures
of the Management Committee (section C1, Annex 3):
“The Sphere Management Committee has not informed very well. Decisions
have not been communicated. The Management Committee should be more
transparent, or should ensure that the members inform the networks”.
NGO representative, head office
“The headquarters of several of our organisations have evidently taken
on greater responsibility regarding Sphere and have failed to share information
with our field offices. For instance: how much do they budget for Sphere? We
request that such information be made public on the Sphere website”
Honduras Regional Meeting, 30.04.04
There
was a feeling that a future Management Committee should be more open about how
it operates and spends the funds of Sphere:
“It
would need to be truly democratic. …or anything that moves us in that direction, would be welcome… At least to publish the
criteria and process of becoming a member of the MC. Transparency to publish
financial statements on the website”
Facilitator
of Sphere TOT
8.3.3 Wider structures
As
indicated in C2 of Annex 3, there was strong support (as expressed by 182
respondents, representing 72% of those who expressed an opinion on wider
structures) to maintain a central office. Of those, 128 participants (51% of
those who expressed an opinion on wider structures) explicitly proposed
combining a central office with regional and national structures to support the
promotion of Sphere, although this option was not excluded by those who
referred only to a central office. A further 70 respondents (28% of those who
expressed an opinion on wider structures) referred to the need for forums to be
established at national and/or regional level, although again, this did not
necessarily exclude some form of central office.
The
importance of a central point was often described in terms of a reference
point, and to provide cohesion and a sense of identity:
“…A
body that provides continuity with Sphere as it was developed – to be able to
go back to for comment”
Independent
“…A
Sphere project office as a reference point, focus. As soon as you break it
apart you lose that cohesion, Sphere as ‘something’. Most people are staggered
by how modest it is”
NGO representative
“…It’s
important to have a common reference point for Sphere, about how to implement
and assess”
UN
agency representative
In this context, it should
be noted that 31 people identified support from the current central project
office as one of the products or services of Sphere that should be maintained
(See A.5 of Annex 3).
Perhaps most importantly,
several participants voiced the following view of the need for external
impetus, recognising the reality that people in their own organisations are
busy and don’t have time to focus on Sphere:
“…Sphere would peter out
if there was no external impetus. If there is no central point it will become
everyone’s responsibility and then it won’t happen. You need to have ‘the
person from Sphere’ to be available.”
NGO representative
The last point about the
need for representation for Sphere at a global level is echoed by the following
comment on the role such an office could play in relation to training and other
Sphere activities:
“…The
central office would provide advocacy and legitimacy to regional offices.
Rather than ‘permission’ to hold trainings etc, there would be a connection to
the central Sphere office, which would enable them to go to the donor and say
they are connected to the Central Sphere office”
NGO representative, Australia
A
potential central office was viewed in almost all cases as small, drawing on
the expertise of other people on a part time basis as required:
“…A
small technical structure with the assistance of key external people”
Independent
“…(You)
need people in different places….. willing to be a resource to help people find
training, find out how to audit, evaluate etc”
Donor
representative
In addition to the 128
people who suggested a combination of central and regional /national points for
Sphere, the idea of country and/or regional level fora,
without explicit mention of a central office to complement this, was expressed
70 times. The rationale for such national and regional Sphere structures would
principally be to address the applicability of Sphere in particular contexts:
“…(Indicators) need to be tailor made
to suit the context where they are being implemented. The enforcement of these
standards in programmes should be by the locals themselves and not from the
outsiders. Local capacities therefore need to be built for the sustenance of
the standards”
AWN
contributor
“…Have
different levels of standards at regional level, led by a regional Sphere
committee composed of NGOs, government, UN.”
NGO representative
The need to combine a
central office with regional and national structures generally envisaged
building such structures on existing mechanisms. Having expressed support for a
global Sphere office, the Sydney meeting, for example, proposed:
“…Incorporate
Sphere into organisations’ strategic and operational processes (a nominated
Sphere representative within the organisation) at national level.”
“…National level Sphere representatives would
come together once a year (regionally) to share experience, using existing
networks to facilitate such meetings. Could be an ongoing email networking, and
link with a Network of Sphere Trainers (NEST), set up after the last TOT in Geneva”
Sydney meeting, 25.03.04
The idea for a governance
structure linking national, regional and global levels of Sphere also arose
several times. For example:
“…Global, Regional,
National and then District structures should be put in place. Global
being current structure with the involvement of governments/states through
representation by structures such as European Union, African Union, etc. Regional constituted of
representatives of national core teams. National being
the country government and implementing partners. District being stakeholders working in those areas.”
Harare
meeting, 30.04.04
“…(A
central committee of) a maximum of 10 people, rotating every 3 to 4 years, with
rights to be reelected; national coordinations
would elect … who would represent them at international level”
NGO
Representative
Regional and national
offices could support a central office in the role of a central point for
information, recognising the scale of the task of collating information on the
use of Sphere globally:
“It’s a huge amount of
work to track 6 regions and countries in relation to Sphere”
Former Sphere staff
“Regional focal points
would help to ensure information is most appropriate. Need some kind of central
point to refer to, otherwise it eventually becomes out of date; access to up to
date information is critical”.
NGO representative.
8.4 Funding
From Key Question 2. How would this be funded?
As
indicated in section C3 of Annex 3, of 119 respondents who expressed an opinion
on how Sphere should be funded in future, 68 (57%) favoured a continuation of
the current situation in which government donors and organisations share costs.
A further 3 participants suggested contributions from UN agencies to complement
this. There was a sense of the need to recognise the reality of the costs of
activities, and that resources, including donor funding, would therefore be
needed:
“The idea that people will pick it up and do it just because they like it, won’t happen. If there’s no budget line, or it’s not a
requirement, then it doesn’t happen”.
Independent
Some
were concerned about undue government donor influence, and a mix of donors was considered important.
“(We would) trust Sphere
to know how much donors are influencing and to resist if they were getting
heavy handed”.
NGO representative
Several
people suggested that a central Sphere office support the regional and country
level work on Sphere to locate funding:
“……a
clearing house for proposals for Sphere work around the world”
Donor representative
“…Budgets for projects should have a budget line on Sphere”
NGO representative
An
additional 22 participants (18% of those who expressed an opinion on funding)
suggested that non governmental organisations alone should share the costs of
implementing Sphere, and 26 respondents (22% of those who expressed an opinion
on funding) raised various suggestions for forms of self financing for Sphere
such as membership fees and income from the sale of the handbook. It should be noted
that these people did not explicitly exclude the possibility of donor financing
as well, but focused on NGOs finding their own funds. A key point made was the
importance of NGOs demonstrating a commitment to Sphere and
feeling a greater ownership of it hence making a financial
investment came up several times in this context
“Membership fees on a
sliding scale should help even grassroots NGOs to be a part of the process.
Sphere should not be an exclusive group. It should be felt and owned by all”.
NGO representative
“People respect what they purchase rather
than what they are given”.
Academic
In
kind contributions such as staff being available to another agency on loan for
6 months were suggested as ways to build capacity across different agencies,
and to enable agencies unable to contribute money to participate in other ways.
The idea that Sphere could charge for services such as
training complemented this idea. The point was summed up in the
suggestion that
“Those who see a benefit (should pay). If not, then maybe it’s not as
successful as we hoped”
Independent
8.5 Duration
From Key Question 2. For how long?
The
question of how long a future Sphere structure should continue was only
directly addressed in the individual semi-structured interviews. As indicated
in section C4 of Annex 3, 70 (88%) of the 80 people who responded on this issue
described some form of ‘ongoing’ Sphere. This generally meant a continuing externally
supported structure, if a small one. The principal justification for this was
the need that Sphere aims to meet, and that will continue to exist:
“The
nature of the profession requires us to have a structure like Sphere. Sectors
are evolving very quickly, therefore there is a need
for a structure like Sphere to review regularly the standards and approaches”.
NGO
representative, USA
“Sphere filled a needed space, and if it stopped that space would be open
again”
Sphere TOT facilitator
“The endpoint is when we
have perfected emergency response and have no more need to learn from lessons”.
Academic
Several
people elaborated on this by saying there was still a great deal of work to do
before you could be confident that Sphere standards are being effectively used.
“There’s
still a long way to go, new people are coming on board, and Sphere needs to
evolve, otherwise it will become out of date and no longer useful”.
NGO representative
“Sphere standards are still not very well known, nor very systematically
used. …There are not so many (evaluations) where Sphere standards used as
criteria”
Donor representative
“Sphere
should continue as long as it’s felt to be needed, until we use it effectively
at community and district level”
Independent
“It would be a shame to lose the contribution Sphere has made, and
definitely we wouldn’t want to start up something similar again in a few years
time, if it stopped now”.
Donor representative
One
person highlighted that donors and agencies preparedness to fund Sphere
is one means of assessing its ongoing need:
“ It
will last as long as people are willing to fund it, and die when people no
longer want it”.
Academic
Several
of those respondents who suggested a need for an ongoing Sphere structure
qualified this comment by saying that there needed to be a regular reassessment
of Sphere’s role. For example,
“The
problems (Sphere) set out to achieve are not solved yet. Therefore it should be
ongoing, but we should keep checking to see it is working”
NGO Representative, USA
The
10 people who envisaged an end-point for Sphere referred to periods of between
2 and 15 years as periods during which a formal Sphere structure would need to
continue to exist before its cessation. Several referred to the need to have a
clear plan over that time period:
“3
years, with a clear workplan and indicators”
NGO representative, Bolivia
“A 3-5 year strategy”
NGO representative
Also relevant to this was a
comment from the Nairobi meeting:
“The group felt that the
Sphere Project needs a mission statement and clear mandate that will serve as
the basis of setting objectives and a timeline for activities. It was
felt that Sphere should move forward quickly in the next 18 months or they will
lose credibility and momentum”
Nairobi meeting 29.04.04
Other respondents gave
suggestions of different types of indicators that would signal when the formal
structure for Sphere should cease:
“An indicator for ending
Sphere could be the number of proposals including Sphere – from assessment
onwards”
NGO
representative, USA
“…10-15 years. If
it needs to be maintained, I think there’s a problem. Should become a matter of
instinct; people don’t need special training because it’s institutionalised”.
IFRCRCS representative
As
the above quotations imply, a number of respondents believed that there needed
to be an end time for Sphere but that there should be flexibility as to
when this will be, based on an agreed set of indicators. The following sums this up:
“A slim secretariat for 3-4 years, then again an open question”.
Donor representative
8.6 Sphere’s support to improved quality and accountability in
humanitarian assistance
Key
question 6: What other ideas are there for how Sphere could better support
improved quality and accountability in humanitarian assistance?
8.6.1 Continued promotion, institutionalisation and use, particularly
with local communities and governments
By
far the greatest number of participants who expressed an opinion on how Sphere
could better contribute to improved accountability and quality in humanitarian
assistance, proposed a continuation of the promotion and support for the use of
Sphere, particularly at national level. As indicated in D1 of Annex 3, there
were 415 references to:
·
the need for ongoing promotion:
‘advocacy and dissemination’ (130 respondents)
·
stronger work to
promote Sphere with local communities and governments (188 respondents)
·
continued
‘institutionalisation’ of Sphere, both within and beyond the international
agencies. (97 participants)
As
the figure 415 indicates, more than the number of participants in the process,
there is overlap of respondents expressing these ideas. Nevertheless, it is
clear that these points taken together represent the most significant body of
opinion in relation to the question of how Sphere can best contribute to
improved quality and accountability.
Echoing
points made under possible future structures for Sphere (see section 8.3), the
great majority of people referred to the need for greater involvement in its
use and adaptation by agencies local to affected populations, and by the
affected populations themselves:
“In our experience
translation of the Sphere book into many languages has not helped to get wider
support (outside these international agencies and their field staff). We
believe that a more holistic approach …. and a more
participatory process (eg joint development of
indicators for drought prone pastoralist areas) would arrive at more
enthusiasm. In general local NGOs that are part of the affected society have
good understanding of the needs and standards, but do not use the same concepts
as we do. The question is: should they learn our concepts, or do we need to
learn their language?”
The Hague meeting, 27.04.05
“Quality
and accountability in humanitarian action can be improved by using Sphere for awareness
building within the Government and among the
population in general”.
NGO representative, Latin America
“… Sphere must be disseminated at community level.
… Training and dissemination must be emphasized at all levels”.
NGO representative, Latin America
“I
think that those applying these principles should disseminate them to the
beneficiaries, which will give them the right to
demand services based on those principles”.
AWN
contributor
“Training
has shown there is a great desire for local authorities and stakeholders to
know more and to improve their response programmes”.
AWN
contributor
A few people suggested that the existing pilot agency
experiences should be reinforced as a basis for this. One suggestion for how
this could be done was that:
“Sphere should….
help institutionalise by developing an institutionalisation package for
agencies – tools, kits, indicators and guidance….a mechanism by which agencies
can become totally Sphere compliant within their organisations, in relation to
knowledge, staff capacities, response mechanisms, assessment, planning and
monitoring”.
NGO
representative, Asia
This
was complemented by the identification of a need to
“Promote
responsible resource chains within the organisations to ensure that Sphere
institutionalisation processes are being taken up by the agencies”.
Orissa meeting 12.04.04
Other
suggestions included the need for technical support on Sphere from some form of
Sphere structure:
“there
should be more Sphere specialists that go into the field in emergencies and
help agencies use Sphere to plan, implement and monitor programmes
- this would promote interagency collaboration and give advice at the right
time”.
Revision focal point
“ …monitoring visits from the Sphere
central authority
follow-up
on institutionalisation
promote exchanges
on Sphere expreriences, at least at regional level”
NGO representative, Central America
“Sphere adaptation, dissemination and learning should be further
developed, coordinated and mainstreamed within organizations the world over.”
NGO representative,
Central America
“Technical assistance
for organisational commitment.... providing assistance to organisations, such
as facilitation of meetings and advice on how best to support better use of
Sphere, in order to help them enhance organisational commitment to Sphere”
Geneva
meeting, 16.02.04
Apart
from working more closely with communities, several respondents referred to
other forms of cooperation that could support wider and more effective use of
Sphere. UN agencies involved in coordination and assessment themselves were
highlighted as places where Sphere could be better promoted:
“Look at the main
agencies that do coordination – OCHA, UNICEF, WFP, UNHCR. Sphere could also
support better monitoring through things like the CAP; it doesn’t have to be
very complicated – a few forms”
Independent
“Joint assessments around Sphere focuses on the field, brings
people together, to come with their critical faculties intact to examine how
things are or are not working. This could be a useful way to make things
interagency. Include the right person/people from relevant UN agency (also
contributors to the technical chapters)”
UN agency representative
“An initial step could be to develop standards relating to UN country
teams, how they respond to humanitarian situations, then flag it as an issue to
be discussed… how to improve quality and accountability. The whole point of the
IASC has been that it works very well at HQ level...it should also work at the
country level as an IASC structure”
UN agency representative
The
findings therefore clearly indicate a need for continued work on more effective
use of Sphere within agencies where it is already supposed to have been
‘institutionalised’, as well as to find ways for it to be introduced to and
accepted by organisations that are not already aware of Sphere. The need to
find ways for Sphere to be used effectively with communities affected by
disasters, their governments and local NGOs, was presented as the most urgent
aspect of this process.
8.6.2 Relationship with other Quality and Accountability initiatives
The
relationship between Sphere and other quality and accountability initiatives
was raised by 81 respondents (21% of the known 393 participants in the
consultation process - see section D2 of Annex 3). The other initiatives most
commonly referred to were HAP International (Humanitarian Accountability
Project International), ALNAP and People in Aid. Several people also referred
to projects based with French NGOs which address quality and accountability,
notably Synergie Qualité project,
hosted by Coordination Sud, and Projet
Qualité led by the Groupe Urgence Réhabilitation Développement.
Almost
all favoured closer links between the different initiatives, and clearer
information on their different roles, without supporting a merger of Sphere
with other groups. It was felt that such an elucidation of the similarities and
differences between the organisations with similar goals would be useful both
for NGOs and donors:
“If
(the different quality and accountability initiatives) are doing similar
things, agree who does what, don’t duplicate. (This would also be useful) for
donors. People know about Sphere more than HAP, People in Aid. By bringing them
together, highlight the roles of the other organisations”
Independent
“….Could have some discussion of how Sphere fits into a broader set
of initiatives that have a bearing on performance – the differences between
them should be made clearer”.
UN agency representative
“in favour of a 'getting together' of Sphere and other quality
initiatives”.
Donor representative
Pragmatic
reasons were cited as part of the rationale for having closer and clearer links
between the various initiatives:
“….None of them will survive if there
is not some kind of common approach. People are attending workshops by
different initiatives with very similar content and facilitated by the same
people…..(Therefore) a meeting between all the different initiatives in one
place at one time (including the French initiatives). It’s ambitious, but it’s
becoming more and more difficult to justify having different initiatives”.
Sphere TOT facilitator
The
time and financial resources involved in sending staff to training were
highlighted to complement this:
“…
All three (HAP International, ALNAP and Sphere) are useful. However
organisations don’t have the resources to look at all of them separately”.
NGO representative, Asia Pacific
Specific
examples of how cooperation between the different initiatives could be promoted
to avoid duplication was that Sphere:
“Should
promote that members sign up to HAP as the way to cover accountability. Take it
out of the Sphere discussion – rather leave it within HAP”
“Clearer
definition of the links between the three initiatives, and what they can offer
in improving effectiveness would make promotion of all of them easier. A
booklet which describes this would be helpful. Training which incorporated all
three would be useful, particularly for local agencies”
Asia Pacific NGO representative
“…a ‘landscape’ body as
an alternative to SCHR/Interaction…to house all inter-agency NGO humanitarian
projects (such as HAP International Inter agency projects on education in
emergencies, on separated children, Sphere) under one roof or virtual roof.
…This would provide for a single website as an entry point to all these types
of projects. The Governing Body would aim to ensure effective coordination
between projects and each single project would grow and diminish in importance
and time/funding at different times. …Under this model, Sphere would be
semi-independent under the joint governing body”.
Former Sphere staff
The
overall point of view of those expressing an opinion on this issue could be
summed up by the following statement:
“…joint ventures shouldn’t be excluded, but I wouldn’t go for merger…”
UN Agency representative
8.6.3 Monitoring and evaluation of the use and
impact of Sphere
There
was strong support for the need to establish ways of monitoring the use of
Sphere, and if possible to estimate its impact. As indicated in D3 of Annex 3,
129 respondents (33% of the 393 known participants in the consultation process)
expressed a view on this issue, many focusing on the importance of
demonstrating the impact of Sphere as essential to the next step:
“Demonstration
of the impact of Sphere – when we can say that Sphere made a big difference,
then people will start using it.”
IFRCRCS representative
“It
probably has been positive, but the link between the process of having Sphere
and a net improvement, is that rigorously demonstrable?”
UN
agency representative
“It is essential to look
at the impact of whatever is done: what the work is achieving rather than
spending. Sphere has to be able to answer this question. We are still
relearning lessons: we need to be able to act better on information shared
after trainings etc”
Donor representative
“This is what Sphere is
all about. Profile raising, sharing of lessons learnt. You can’t underestimate
the importance of impact of using Sphere… to get some scientific and academic
credibility.”
Revision
focal point
Challenges to achieving this, and reasons why
it has not happened to date, were identified as inadequate resources, lack of a
baseline, and cultural issues in terms of the perception of evaluating use and
impact:
“It was noted that there
is limited capacity to monitor whether Sphere is being implemented by
stakeholders.”
Harare
meeting, 30.04.04
“The
difficulty of proving that Sphere has had an impact (or not, as the case may
be), is partly because of the lack of initial baseline of where agencies work
stood before they started using Sphere. It was observed that the Project has
simply not had the resources to take a ‘scientific’ approach to its work.”
Geneva 16.02.04
Various mechanisms for enabling better
monitoring of the use of Sphere, and its impact, were proposed:
“There should be a body
to monitor the compliance; analysis of obstacles to achieve Sphere standards;
evaluation/audit; develop M&E tools”
Nairobi meeting, 29.04.04
“Create an interinstitutional
body to consider
the implementation of Sphere”
Honduras
Regional meeting, 30.04.04
On the other hand, the challenges to achieving better monitoring of
Sphere were highlighted, indicating why it has not happened to date. Primary
amongst these were lack of capacity:
“It was noted that there
is limited capacity to monitor whether Sphere is being implemented by
stakeholders”.
Harare
meeting, 30.04.04
“The
difficulty of proving that Sphere has had an impact (or not, as the case may
be), is partly because of the lack of initial baseline of where agencies work
stood before they started using Sphere. It was observed that the Project has
simply not had the resources to take a ‘scientific’ approach to its work”.
Geneva
meeting, 16.02.04
Methodological
issues, then, also exist – how to measure the impact of something if there is
no baseline to work against? Cultural issues which affect the way that
evaluation is perceived, and therefore its success, exacerbate this:
“Evaluation
is such a cultural thing: (seen as) policing rather than learning”.
Sphere TOT facilitator
Those involved in implementing Sphere may
therefore be very reluctant to admit challenges or mistakes, for fear of being
seen to have failed.
8.6.4 Sphere as a common language for quality and accountability
As
indicated in section D4 of Annex 3, one of the key contributions of Sphere has
been facilitating dialogue and the sharing of best practice and resources: a
common language in which people can engage in issues of common concern in the
humanitarian field. This aspect was raised 48 times and was seen as something
essential to maintain in continuing to work towards better quality and
accountability in future.
“NGOs talk a lot about
partnership and sharing, but they have a lot of limitations… (Sphere) has
managed to achieve working together, this is by and
large part of the process. It’s a big achievement and
foundation for the future”.
NGO representative
“The sharing of best
practice and resources: guidelines, reference material etc. is excellent for
the sector. It’s a unique resource that shouldn’t be lost”.
Independent
“The
Sphere standards provide an opportunity for co-ordination and standardisation
of direct emergency support in the field - which is valuable. It can prevent
big variations in support offered”.
The Hague meeting, 27.04.04
However,
several people identified a difference in the extent to which Sphere has
contributed towards improved quality compared with accountability.
“Sphere
has already improved some of the quality, but not so much accountability – to
donors etc, local, beneficiaries….. Sometimes beneficiaries are not aware at
all, so they cannot require anything. This is an area for future for emphasis”.
NGO representative
“Sphere
helps in catching up (in relation to the development sector) in terms of issues
such as gender, participation…..On accountability Sphere has lost some ground”
NGO representative
There
was a sense that in future more attention should be paid to achieving better
accountability through effective application of Sphere:
“For improving
accountability Sphere is probably the best vehicle we have at the moment,
accountability is implicit. HAP (Humanitarian Accountability Partnership
International) have higher goals. Further emphasising
the use of Sphere is sufficient – trying to broaden itself
too much, could lose sight of core of Sphere”.
NGO
representative, DRC
“The
focus of the next phase should be the involvement of the community. People are
more or less sold on the idea – now have them involve the community, and by
doing that get more involved”.
Independent
Relevant
to this were comments on the universality, or not, of Sphere:
“Sphere will be taken as a ‘foreign standard’ despite its
universality”.
NGO representative
“(Sphere)
needs to be able to demonstrate that the need for standards is universal, not
just Anglo Saxon….this should be a major preoccupation of the next phase”.
Independent
One way
to do that, it was suggested, was to work more closely – and accountably - with
people affected by disasters, to find out their priorities and how they view
the idea of standards generally, and Sphere in particular.
8.6.5
Sphere as a rights based approach
References
to the Humanitarian Charter specifically have already been dealt with in
section 8.2.1. More general references to Sphere’s approach focusing on the
rights of people affected by disasters were made in a positive light 105 times
(see section D5 of Annex 3).
“The human rights
dimension of the Minimum Standards was the most important”
NGO representative, Latin America
“Sphere provides a
fantastic framework for humanitarian action and development in general. In
particular, the rights based approach, meaning that
ultimately people receiving the assistance in theory have an absolute
control over the process – holding NGOs accountable for the process. This is
the theory….”
Independent
However,
reinforcing the last point of the above quotation, many people highlighted the
big difference between theory and practice:
“The principles are
good, but in practice they are often not implemented. Implementation goes
through non official representatives of parties in conflict – government of
‘civilian representatives’ of rebel groups – this makes it difficult to
understand the framework of the society and the aspects of civil society which
are not party to the conflict – ie real ‘civil society’”.
UN agency representative
“The Humanitarian
Charter and principles are not necessarily appropriate in practice”
NGO representative,
Pacific region
“Sphere I always thought
was about upholding rights of disaster affected populations (i.e. protection
and accountability) but so often accountability is seen only in very limited
terms of accountability to donors for monies spent…(this is) a major gap in
general understanding and even a missed opportunity”.
Academic
The
need therefore to make more of a reality of the rights of those affected by
disasters was emphasised. This was sometimes expressed in terms of ways of
working, and was echoed in calls for working more effectively to affected
populations (as described in 8.6.1). For
example:
We should begin to do
work with a higher level of community participation to better ensure that the
rights based approach is being considered.
Afghanistan 03.05.04
“Looking
at our work from a rights based perspective should ensure that we are
advocating for AND with disaster affected populations to ensure at a minimum
their rights are not violated and that disaster response programmes actually
build on the local capacities”.
AWN
contributor
At the
meeting in Luanda, there was a call for making a stronger case for the rights of people
affected by disasters by creating a stronger legal instrument:
“Advocacy
and lobbying to turn the Sphere Standards into an International Convention for
the Rights of those Affected by Disaster and Conflict (to ratify the
Convention, national Governments would have to create more specific national
regulations drawing on the indicators)”.
Luanda 28.02:04
On the other hand, it should also be noted that apart
from the 105 who supported a rights based approach, a few expressed
reservations. For example:
“The rights approach is
hampering. People often don’t get the minimum indicators even in normal
situations – provision of that in an emergency is therefore unrealistic”.
Donor representative
This
section has described in detail the findings which emerged from the
consultation process. Key findings are highlighted, and the options for the
future which follow from them, are summarised in sections 1.2 and 1.3
respectively, of the Executive Summary.
28
May 2004