Typically, old hands cherry pick the indicators they can identify with, never re-read the guidance notes after an initial skim through and very rarely look at any other sector but their own. This does not necessarily mean that the impact is low as what they do know they know well, using this knowledge extensively in planning project activities. Increasingly, we are seeing evidence of standardisation across different agencies regarding numbers of water points and numbers of latrines.  The construction of washing and bathing areas is becoming the norm, rather than an after thought; privacy and dignity are much higher on the agenda than they have ever been.

Most agencies use Sphere indicators as a basis for the design of their monitoring systems, rather than using the indicators as they are. It is indeed unrealistic to expect Sphere indicators to be sufficient without modification for a specific context.  Each emergency is different and there are far too many indicators to monitor them all. Nonetheless, frustration was evident in both the Aceh and Pakistan responses because we were yet again re-inventing the wheel of monitoring systems, a process that some expect should by now be standardised. However, if we are too prescriptive, users under pressure would be tempted to short-cut the analysis and use standardised forms rather than developing indicators that are context specific.  Hence, although the frustration at having to develop the indicators in each situation will continue, Sphere indicators do provide a sound starting point from which appropriate indicators can easily be developed.

New users: with all the new organisations that responded to the Tsunami in Aceh and Sri Lanka and in the Pakistan earthquake response it was far easier to see the obvious impact of Sphere. In Aceh, in response to pressure from a number of agencies promoting Sphere, the Government changed the dimensions of the family rooms in the emergency “barracks” to conform to Sphere indicators on space per person. In NWFP, Pakistan the army commanders setting up the camps changed the lay out and decreased the density of tents to meet Sphere standards, again due to pressure from agencies.  This also led to some Sphere training for army commanders that led to improved camp conditions. The Philippine authorities in the floods in January 2007 also changed their approach on camp set up due to pressure from Sphere-wielding NGOs. What I thought was extremely useful was Sphere’s approach of sending people to do Sphere training straight after the emergency.  Oxfam hosted this in Aceh and in Pakistan, Sphere trainers linked up with the RedR training programme which used in-situ expertise for carrying out the training. This was essential for informing local NGOs who had never come across Sphere about the general principals of humanitarian response and the level of response expected in each sector.

I hope very much that Sphere will continue the in-situ field training after every large scale emergency.  This is incredibly valuable for local NGOs who mostly are very enthusiastic about receiving the training. I do believe that such training during an emergency (i.e. after the first 3-4 weeks) when people can immediately put their learning into practice is infinitely preferable to regular country or regional training. No agency can afford to relax in their promotion of Sphere, thinking that is now the currency of humanitarian response.  New staff are entering the system all the time and need to be constantly informed. Within Oxfam we think that just having Sphere as part of the induction is insufficient:  where possible we organise in-house field training. 

Importantly, Sphere acts as an essential accountability reference. Staff can be held accountable if Sphere Standards are not met.  They need to justify why it is not possible to meet the standards.  This makes it essential that project managers also have a good overview of Sphere.

Regarding the future of the Handbook and how it links to other initiatives on accountability etc, I strongly feel that it is important to retain the field focus.  This is Sphere’s strength. Whilst I do think the Handbook would benefit from an update of the common standards section, Sphere should resist the temptation to add sectors that are not about 1st phase humanitarian response. It is already a tremendous challenge to keep the Sphere Handbook alive and in use at field level. It should be kept short, simple and practical.

Andy Bastable