LESSONS LEARNED THROUGH THE

The Sphere Project was launched in 1997 with the aim of increasing the effectiveness of humanitarian assistance and making humanitarian agencies more accountable. Phase I focused on developing the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards for disaster response. In Phase II of the project from September 1999, a pilot programme was introduced to test implementation in practice.

Sphere pilot agencies have been tasked with implementing the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards, learning from the experience and helping to identify pathways for their effective application in humanitarian practice in the future. The challenge is not only to identify what has been effective in implementation, but also to identify how to take this learning forward and feed it back into practice.

Eighteen agencies based in Africa, Asia, Central America, the USA and Europe have participated in piloting since the programme began in September 1999. Agencies were expected to integrate the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards into policy, procedures around the project cycle and training at central and field levels. The responsibility of the Sphere Project Team was to provide presentations and training on Sphere and help with analysing how each agency could integrate Sphere.

Lessons learned from the first year of piloting have been consolidated in this report.

Over the past year, there has been a notable increase in the application of the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards, albeit in an ad hoc rather than systematic form
Pilot agencies appear to have moved faster on measures to increase the effectiveness of humanitarian assistance than on accountability. This is principally as project monitoring remains very weak.
In the face of competing priorities and very little time to plan for implementation, a demand-driven strategy, based at field level seems to be the most realistic to increase outreach. As field staff recognize the value of Sphere as a tool, use will increase. The role of central level is systematic dissemination and providing case studies of how to apply the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in practice.
There is a great deal of work to be done in dissemination of Sphere to local partners and the multitude of national NGOs that contribute to disaster response.
There are already examples of inter-agency disaster response planning using Sphere. The impact of this work should be further explored.
Advocacy for the rights of disaster affected populations using the Sphere handbook has been more successful than the Sphere Team expected.
Interest in using Sphere as a tool in disaster preparedness planning is growing, both in community based mitigation and planning and at country/district level.
There has been no feedback on gender issues and this will be addressed in Phase III of the project.

Phase III of the Sphere Project begins from November 2000 and piloting will continue through the same agencies in order to consolidate some of the lessons learned. The above conclusions will be debated in detail at a global meeting to be held in the early part of 2001. The most likely outcome is that working groups will be established around issues, according to the interest and specific competence of each of the pilot agencies. There will be further reporting back on lessons learned in early 2002.

The Sphere Team thanks all the pilot agencies for their drive and determination to test out the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards over the past year. In particular, we would like to recognize your impressive willingness to share ideas and tools with other pilot agencies. The openness and spirit of cooperation of agencies involved in Sphere piloting is a tribute to a genuine effort to improve the quality and accountability of humanitarian assistance. We sincerely look forward to continuing to work with you in Phase III.

· PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE REPORT

To inform the debate on what is effective in implementation of the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards and how it may contribute to improving quality and accountability in disaster response.

1. To share information on how the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards are being implemented and identify what has been successful and what problems have been encountered.

2. To register issues identified by pilot agencies in implementation of the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards.

3. To clarify the future path of the incorporation programme with particular emphasis on testing what is effective in the field.

The report is aimed at being as practical and useful as possible to agencies piloting the HC/MS and beyond. It does not intend to be an academic document.

In compiling the report, we have collected as many experiences as possible in piloting and implementation of the HC/MS but there are inevitably many others of which we are not aware. It intends to be a broad cross-section of experiences, not a comprehensive record.

Many of the examples in the report of how Sphere is being used and the results of these activities are broad brush-strokes, rather than detailed case examples. This is because in large organisations the sheer number of staff and programmes are barriers to obtaining detailed feedback from the field. A second reason is that most pilot agencies are still at an early stage of experimenting with Sphere implementation in programmes, systems, procedures, guidelines and so on. In many cases, ideas on how Sphere will be used are still germinating and developing, so the detail is not yet in place.

Sphere implementation is work-in-progress and lessons will continue to be shared for several years to come.

The Sphere Team

The Sphere Project Team comprises four full time members (Project Manager, Training Manager, Workshop Coordinator and Project Officer) and two part-time members, working with pilot agencies, known as the Sphere Implementation Team. In the body of the report, references to the Sphere Project Team refer to the whole team and those to the Implementation Team refer only to the two part time members working directly with pilot agencies.

· THE PILOT AGENCIES AND PILOTING PROCESS

The objectives of the pilot process, established in the Terms of Reference for pilot agencies in September 1999, are to:

i) Take sustainable policy decisions to incorporate the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards into disaster response;

ii) Identify and introduce methodologies to integrate the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards into every stage of the project cycle, including monitoring the implementation of the Minimum Standards in practice;

iii) Institutionalise the Minimum Standards within all departments of the organisation and into existing systems and operating procedures.

The Terms of Reference aimed to have achieved the following outputs within twelve months:

i) Agencies will have moved towards institutionalising the Standards into policy and practice at HQ level and in the field.

ii) Sphere staff and agencies together will have identified the most effective methodologies for incorporating the Standards, as well as how to overcome obstacles and difficulties.

The Sphere Project proposed a division of responsibilities between pilot NGOs and the Sphere Implementation Team.

· An initial presentation to NGO staff at HQ level (and at field level, when possible);

· A framework to analyse Sphere implementation at each stage of the project cycle and by department;

· A visit by the Implementation Team to facilitate analysis of implementation and follow up during the implementation phase, including reports to record action points and work completed;

· Seek to apply the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in ongoing and new humanitarian operations;

· Institutionalise the Sphere Standards through policies and procedures by department

· Identify how the organisation will apply the Standards at each stage of the project cycle and design appropriate tools for assessment, project proposals and systems for monitoring on Sphere indicators (as appropriate);

· Nominate a key staff member to coordinate all work with the Sphere Implementation Team

The Sphere Project aimed to include a broad cross-section of pilot agencies. Aspects taken into consideration in the selection of pilot agencies were: the size and geographical base, national and international agencies and faith-based and secular organisations.

Many organisations were self-selecting as they were members of the Management Committee of the Sphere Project or of networks with representation on the Management Committee.

NGO pilot agencies did not begin the process simultaneously; in some cases considerable progress had already been made prior to September 1999 and in others, understanding and institutionalising the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards began following a visit by the Sphere Implementation Team.

Eighteen NGOs committed to incorporate the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards into their policy and practice from September 1999. Contact was maintained with a further two organisations (International Islamic Relief Organisation in Saudi Arabia and Okutiuka in Angola), but piloting is expected to begin in Phase III of the project, as the handbook had not been translated into their national languages at that stage (Arabic and Portuguese).

AHA is an international NGO, working exclusively in Africa (Ethiopia, Angola, Rwanda, Uganda and Zambia). AHA focuses on providing humanitarian relief and sustainable development to displaced and refugee populations. Some country programmes are quite small, while Uganda as the largest has a staff of 300 working on community based health projects.

CNEB is an Alliance of 10 Protestant Churches in Burundi with five departments: Emergency, Women, Youth, Peace and Reconciliation and Development. Christian Aid has a field office in Burundi working very closely with CNEB on a regular basis, providing funding and technical support. The Emergency Department has regularly implemented sizeable distributions of non-food and agricultural items countrywide using the churches network.

Caritas India is a network of 143 local partners in all States of India, each having their own office and personnel. Twelve regional offices support partners at Diocese level.

Caritas works in disaster response and plans to establish a rapid response team.

CHA is an umbrella body of national and international NGOs in Sri Lanka, aimed at coordinating and improving the quality of humanitarian assistance. CHA is facilitating the exchange of information and experiences in Sphere implementation in Sri Lanka.

DMI is focused on disaster mitigation and response. Working at three levels, DMI promotes policy dialogue with national government, operational processes at State level and practice at local level in the State of Gujarat. It is linked to Indira Ghandi Open University and has a staff of 12 in Ahmedabad and 30 in the field.

Sarvodaya is the largest NGO in Sri Lanka with a strong philosophy of participatory development and members in over 11,000 villages in Sri Lanka. It aims to work in all districts of the country, but movement is severely restricted in parts of the north and east at the present time. With UNHCR Sarvodaya continues to work in Trincomalee and Mannar, two areas particularly affected by the conflict.

CCD is the largest national NGO in Honduras, with a focus on education and sustainable development of rural communities. CCD played an important role in the response to Hurricane Mitch in 1998 and continues to work in disaster preparedness.

Cordaid was established in early 2000 by bringing together three independent agencies:Bilance, Memisa and Caritas Netherlands. Cordaid has an emergencies department of about 15 staff members and works closely with local partners in disaster response and development.

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) Switzerland

The IFRC is a Federation of 176 independently constituted national societies. There are delegations of the Federation in some 56 countries of the world, coordinated by 13 regional offices. Red Cross and Red Crescent societies have a special status as auxiliaries to national governments in disaster response.

The Lutheran World Federation is a global communion of 128 Lutheran churches in 70 countries. The Department for World Service serves as the international relief, rehabilitation and development arm of the LWF and in emergency response focuses on humanitarian assistance to refugees and the displaced. LWF, as a founder member of ACT (Action by Churches Together) participates in this worldwide network of churches and related agencies in coordinated emergency response.

Oxfam works in development and emergencies and has a specialised Emergency Department with over 50 staff. It has the capacity to rapidly deploy technical staff to emergencies in any country of the world. Currently, Oxfam-GB is undergoing a process of decentralisation through which the locus of responsibility for disaster preparedness, vulnerability mapping and response will be with regional offices. Oxfam-GB is part of the Oxfam Alliance.

SC-UK works in disaster response and development aimed at making a reality of the rights of the child. SC-UK has specialist technical capacity in food security, nutrition, health and child separation in disasters. It has an Emergencies Department but no rapid response team. SC-UK is part of the Save the Children Alliance.

ADRA provides disaster relief and community development in more than 120 countries regardless of ethnic, political or religious affiliation. Each country office has its own national disaster response plan. The Bureau of Disaster Preparedness and Response at ADRA International Headquarters works with regional directors and rapid response teams to coordinate emergency response operations and has stockpiles of emergency supplies at strategic locations.

CARE works in development and disaster response. CARE has an Emergency Group. It does not have a rapid response team but utilizes a roster of disaster trained staff and consultants for rapid deployment. As part of CARE International, CARE US participates in the alliance Emergency Response Working Group that coordinates emergency intervention globally.

CRS works in development and disaster response programmes in 80 countries. It has an emergencies department based in Nairobi, no rapid response team but plans to nominate staff in the field that can be redeployed at short notice. CRS is a member of the Caritas Internationalis Federation and works closely with Caritas and other partners at local level.

IRC has a long history of working with refugees and has strong institutional connections with the Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children. IRC has an Emergencies Department but no rapid response team.

MCI is a relatively young international organisation, with a strong focus on a rights based approach to relief and development. MCI works in Turkey, the Balkans, Tajikistan, China. An emergencies team has recently been established that will develop field based capacity in disaster response.

World Vision is an alliance organisation with independent country offices and a Partnership Office in the USA providing policy guidance and support. WVI has recently established a 20-person rapid response team to be based in the field and deployed to emergencies. It is also in the process of establishing pre-positioning warehouses.

· METHODOLOGY USED IN WORKING WITH PILOT AGENCIES AND COLLLECTING INFORMATION

The Implementation Team visited each pilot agency for an average of two days during the year[1]. During visits, the Team worked systematically through a set of questions[2] on institutionalisation of the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards, meeting with personnel from different departments. Reports were prepared following the visits, including a set of proposals of actions to integrate into an implementation plan.

The reports registered issues raised during the visit and these were collated and used as a basis for discussion on implementation with each agency at the end of the year.

E-mail and telephone contact was maintained with agencies throughout the year and a series of phone interviews conducted in August and September to consolidate experiences and views on issues raised by pilot agencies.

Visits and reports on pilot agencies
Correspondence with pilot agencies during the year, including sharing of pilot agency tools and documents
Semi-structured follow up telephone interviews in the months of August and September
Comments by pilot agency staff in workshops and meetings (especially during a one-day meeting of some of the pilot agencies, following the Training of Trainers Workshop in Geneva in May 2000).

1.1 WHAT IS IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HUMANITARIAN CHARTER AND MINIMUM STANDARDS?

Pilot agencies were expected to incorporate the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards into policies, procedures and implementation around the project cycle and into training and dissemination at central, regional and national levels. The aim was also to seek opportunities to use the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards as an advocacy tool and in inter-agency coordination. In order to identify organizational entry points, the first aspect to analyse was how Sphere resonates with agency philosophy and existing priorities.

1.2 HOW THE HUMANITARIAN CHARTER AND MINIMUM STANDARDS RESONATE WITH PILOT AGENCY MISSION AND PRIORITIES

By analysing agency mission, policy and programme priorities, the Sphere Implementation Team aimed to help pilot organisations to identify ways in which the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards could be dovetailed into existing work, rather than being an additional burden. In many cases, this proved to be clearer with the smaller or national agencies that could immediately identify advantages of using the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in existing or planned programmes. For larger, more complex agencies with multiple departments and country offices, links were less direct, relating to mission or philosophy. Some examples are as follows:

Caritas India aims to improve the quality of disaster response and establish a rapid response team. The Sphere handbook was regarded as a source to identify the major competencies required for effective disaster response and as a focus for training. Caritas aims to train staff in using the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards, as well as in sector specific basic training in water and sanitation, nutrition, food aid, sites and shelter and health.

CCD aims to reinforce community level disaster preparedness following Hurricane Mitch. Sphere provides standards and indicators for the community to debate and decide what they need to have in place in order to reach those standards and appropriate indicators in the shortest possible time after a disaster.

CRS has a strong focus on improving the quality of its work in all sectors. The Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards are seen as providing benchmarks to define quality in disaster response.

IRC has a major focus on accountability through effective project monitoring, review and internal evaluation. The Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards provide standards and indicators to help to monitor projects and measure the effectiveness of disaster response.

Various strategies are being used to broaden out piloting within the international agencies.

World Vision considers that the most effective strategy to promote the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards is to allow implementation to 'bubble up' from the field, on a demand driven model. As staff recognize the value of the tool, they will actively seek to use it in practice.

For World Vision, this is an active process with specific activities, standards and vehicles that act as catalysts to mainstreaming Sphere. The four regional relief management teams and the 20 Global Rapid Response Teams are the vehicles or catalysts by which Sphere standards are being disseminated within World Vision. The Asia, Africa and Latin America Regions have all used Sphere materials for training and dissemination with the objective of integrating the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards into programme planning and implementation. Sphere standards have also been incorporated into WV's large scale emergency preparedness and response standards which are used globally.

This model avoids placing additional pressure on staff in the field and allows them to incorporate the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards into existing work at their own pace.

ADRA and CARE are using experimentation in specified geographical zones to provide lessons for other country programmes. ADRA has selected 10 country programmes and tasked them with piloting Sphere and reporting back to central level by a fixed date. CARE is expecting to focus piloting on Bangladesh and India because of the extensive experience of these states in disaster mitigation and response.

Oxfam-GB and LWF's strategy is to introduce the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards into as many meetings, training workshops and field based activities as possible. Oxfam-GB has the advantage of having a large emergency team with regular meetings and training sessions (including Sphere) at central level. Members of the team are placed in the field on short-term assignments in emergencies and actively seek opportunities to use Sphere. This approach has prompted the use of Sphere in many different ways, albeit in an ad hoc, rather than systematic, manner.

Opportunities for using these individual agency strategies with the wider group of pilot agencies will be discussed in the conclusions.

There was general agreement that sharing experiences and tools between pilot agencies is the principal strength of the piloting process. This has included:

A meeting in May 2000 of 10 representatives of pilot agencies at the Sphere Training of Trainers workshop
The Sphere Newsletter
Inter-agency Sphere Training workshops
The Sphere Implementation Team as an intermediary to forward tools and information on other agencies
Sharing information through the Sphere website
Sharing an Oxfam-GB assessment tool and IFRC reporting tool with pilot colleagues

There was general agreement that the most effective methodology for sharing experiences is through meeting and discussing experiences directly. Pilot agencies recommended holding annual meetings to coordinate and further develop Sphere implementation. Most agencies felt that future meetings should be held at global level, but that there should be opportunities for regional networking on Sphere and possibly regional working groups within a global meeting (depending on the agenda).

Three agencies, CCD, CARE and CRS felt that one of the strengths of the pilot process is that it allows organisations to work at their own pace and according to agency (rather than Sphere Project) priorities and targets.

Most agencies considered the report written by the Sphere Implementation Team following visits to be useful as a reference document and record of approaches and ideas.

The principal weakness identified by the larger pilot agencies is the lack of time available to dedicate to thinking and planning the implementation of the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards. In the midst of competing priorities, staff at central level struggle to formulate useful policies, procedures and tools to help the field take Sphere forward and at field level immediate programme demands limit the time available for analysis.

This appears to be a greater problem for the larger, more complex organisations than for national organisations. National agencies with direct control over programme activities, such as AHA, Sarvodaya and CCD had fewer difficulties in identifying the links between the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards and existing programmes. These organisations were quickly able to establish ideas and action plans in which the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards were seen as an opportunity to enhance the quality of programmes, rather than being an additional burden.

CCD felt that there should be more pro-active coordination in information exchange and debate between pilot agencies at regional level and that this is a weakness of the current programme. SC-UK, however, considers that this is not the role of the Sphere Implementation Team; coordination should be driven by pilot agencies as they consider it to be useful.

One agency observed that the fact that pilot agency reports are confidential limited the exchange of information and experiences between agencies. In most cases, reports were not used as expected: to facilitate an implementation plan (see Operational plans:1.6). In one case, there had been considerable changes in practice and structure by the time the report was submitted, however, it was still felt to be a useful record.

Several of the larger international agencies observed that internal feedback mechanisms on Sphere activities in the field are weak. One contributory factor to this problem is that many field-based staff are not aware that their agency is piloting Sphere, nor of their commitment to feedback information on their experiences. Although agencies are systematically disseminating their policies and procedures incorporating the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards, many have considered the responsibility of piloting to be a headquarters or centralised commitment. A second reason for the lack of feedback is that field-based staff do not have the time to document their experiences.

One agency felt there should be more active feedback and commentaries from the Sphere Implementation Team on individual agency efforts and initiatives to incorporate Sphere in tools and programmes.

Only four of the pilot agencies (SC-UK, IFRC, LWF and Oxfam-GB) have introduced the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards into written policies or board level decisions. These are organisations that have participated in the development of Sphere since 1997 and have had time to form mature policy perspectives.

Eight of the organizations had been introduced to the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards during the past year (CCD, DMI, AHA, Cordaid, Caritas India, Sarvodaya, CHA and CNEB) and most had no detailed knowledge of Sphere prior to participation in the pilot programme. For these agencies, it may be too early

Two agencies (CRS and MCI) considered that existing policies were adequate to allow for the implementation of Sphere as a tool to improve programme quality. Three organizations (ADRA, CARE, WVI and IRC) plan to introduce Sphere into emergency policies at a later date.

On the whole, policies were not considered to be particularly important in implementing Sphere; positive experiences in field practice were felt to be far more important.

1.6 OPERATIONAL PLANS TO IMPLEMENT THE HUMANITARIAN CHARTER AND MINIMUM STANDARDS

The Sphere Implementation Team had assumed that pilot agencies would establish agency-wide plans for Sphere implementation during this year. This has not happened as anticipated. Only three agencies have set out written implementation plans (SC-UK, IFRC and Sarvodaya). These include guidelines by department at central level, training and dissemination plans for the field and plans for use within specific areas of work, such as disaster preparedness planning. As a national agency, Sarvodaya has been able to link operational plans directly with existing programmes and has defined which programmes will experiment with the use of Sphere in project proposals, how technical reviews in relation to water and sanitation Standards will be conducted and has set up a training programme.

Three agencies observed that they had not yet drawn up agency-wide plans, but still intended to do so. The main constraint on planning was the lack of time to analyse the best approach in the face of many other competing priorities. Decentralised organisations (for example, CRS, WVI, IFRC, Oxfam-GB) consider detailed operational planning to be most useful at regional or country level.

In summary, operational plans at central level have not been a driving force for implementation and there is broad agreement that detailed planning is most useful close to the field. At country level, it is easier to identify how the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards can make a useful contribution to existing programmes.

Disseminating basic knowledge of the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards agency-wide is a considerable task, given the constraints of geographical dispersion, information-overload and staff turnover. Not surprisingly, it has been easier for agencies to disseminate knowledge of Sphere to headquarter level of organizations than to regional and field offices. Most agencies agree that while the majority of staff at the central level is aware of the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards, the percentage of field-based staff is much lower.

Awareness at central level is due in part due to the fact that the Sphere Project Team has made at least one presentation to staff of different departments in sixteen of the eighteen pilot agencies. The two that have not received presentations (AHA and DMI), have smaller staff groups and have been able to share information on Sphere amongst colleagues more easily than the larger organisations.

Across levels of agencies, a variety of methods have been used in dissemination. Some examples are as follows:

Distribution of the handbook, in some cases with an accompanying letter from Head Office reinforcing the importance of the project
Presentations and discussions inserted into the agenda of regular meetings, often drawing on the Sphere video and in some cases on Sphere Powerpoint or transparency presentations. In some cases, transparencies and speaker notes have been distributed to encourage heads of departments and regional staff to provide the same presentation to their own teams.
Presentations in the field during visits by central level staff (in some cases this is being planned in a strategic way - for example Mercy Corps will task the Emergency Response Team with giving presentations on a systematic basis during field visits)
Introduction of Sphere into disaster response training, for example CARE has an eight day Foundations of Disaster Response training programme and has included the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in the sections on preparedness and planning, water and sanitation and assessments.
Attendance at Sphere inter-agency workshops
Direct e-mailing to country directors and senior programme staff
Distribution of a CD-Rom downloaded from the website, with the complete handbook, together with other publications on emergency response
Installation of the handbook on the hard drive of new computers going out to the field
Interviews for new posts and staff orientation
Internal agency newsletters

In general, agencies agree that direct contacts (presentations, meetings, workshops, interviews) are more likely to be successful in dissemination than indirect contacts (mailings, CD-Rom, installation of the handbook on the hard drive). However, this appears to depend to some extent on the size of the agency. Mercy Corps, for example, as a smaller international agency, observed that most of their staff in the field are aware of Sphere through e-mail contacts.

At least half of the pilot agencies work through local partners in the role of donor, or together with local partners in programme implementation. The focus is on building national capacity. For most of these organisations, the scale of the disaster determines the extent to which local partners take responsibility for programmes. In small-scale disasters, local partners commonly design and manage the response independently. In large-scale disasters, international agencies become operational, often supporting the work of the local partner.

It is essential that these agencies find ways to disseminate the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards to local partners and assist in reinforcing Sphere implementation capacity. This is an even greater challenge than dissemination throughout a large NGO. The number of local partners can be vast, with very different capacity to absorb new concepts and practices. In addition, there are language barriers in some countries, especially where local languages are a more effective means of communication.

Agencies recognize that broad dissemination to local partners is a very long and slow process. IFRC, in particular, has referred on a number of occasions to the enormity of the task. In their case, in addition to the central offices in 176 countries, there are a multitude of local branches of the Red Cross in each country. Dissemination will be through Regional Delegations to National Societies to local branches. Heads of Regional Delegations have been provided with copies of the handbook in all available languages, as well as sets of transparencies and speaking notes and all 176 National Societies have received copies of the handbook.

LWF has begun a process of disseminating the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards to local partners by including them in presentations and staff members of local partner and field offices have been supplied with Sphere resources (handbook, transparencies, video).

Dissemination can also take place through broader training programmes. In Angola, CRS is working on capacity building with local partners in emergency preparedness and response. A handbook prepared as part of the training process explains the concept of the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards and Code of Conduct and has used Sphere in a case example of planning, monitoring and evaluation of an emergency project.

These are examples of initiatives to reach a small number of local agencies, but the Sphere Project may need to consider a more strategic approach to dissemination, especially in Asia and Latin America where vast numbers of small organisations participate in disaster response.

There are at least three possible approaches to identify pathways to broader dissemination: i) solicit the participation of NGO umbrella bodies by country to disseminate the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards to local NGOs ii) bring pilot agencies and partners together at country level to debate the most useful approach in the local context iii) create space in a pilot agency meeting for those working with local partners to debate the most effective way forward. These options could be further debated in Phase III of the Sphere Project.

1.8 USING THE HUMANITARIAN CHARTER AND MINIMUM STANDARDS AROUND THE PROJECT CYCLE

Examples are beginning to emerge of assessments based on the handbook (or assessment tools derived from the handbook), both by individual pilot agencies and groups of agencies.

There was extensive use of the Minimum Standards in assessments following the super-cyclone in Orissa, India, prompted by the use of Oxfam-GB's Public Health Assessment Tool, based on Sphere. The tool provides checklists in the sectors of health, logistics, food and nutrition, site/ shelter planning and water and sanitation. In Orissa, groups of NGOs together with government officials debated which questions were relevant in the local context and assessments were coordinated between agencies.

This did not happen in the same way during the floods in Mozambique, perhaps influenced by the fact that many of the first assessments were undertaken by air due to difficulties with access. Later meetings, however, drew on Sphere, especially in planning projects in water and sanitation (see next section: 1.7: Analysis and Project Proposals).

In East Timor, Oxfam-GB notes that the handbook was used at the assessment stage, particularly in relation to water and sanitation.

More recently, the Sphere handbook and WHO standards were used to provide common standards and benchmarks for a Rapid Needs Assessment coordinated by OCHA[3], together with the Government of Angola and NGOs in Angola in May 2000. The driving force behind this initiative was an inter-agency Taskforce, including Sphere pilot agencies, which set the parameters of the Needs Assessment and recommended that the assessment teams use the same standards to analyse humanitarian conditions. The process of assessments and coordinated inter-agency planning, has subsequently been taken to national and provincial levels.

The fact that the Portuguese version of the handbook only became available in September 2000 and has still not been widely distributed in Angola has been a limitation on the impact of Sphere within the process. Many important government and NGO actors have had access only to specific Sphere Minimum Standards and indicators cited in the needs assessment questionnaire (drawn up by the Task Force), rather than to the broader concepts discussed in the handbook. Nevertheless, the Angolan process is important in the generalisation of the use of standards in humanitarian intervention to all actors in a complex emergency. For this reason, further mention is made of the process in various sections of this report.

In addition to the Oxfam-GB tool for assessment, Christian Aid has created a binder to facilitate assessments undertaken by its own staff and partner agencies. The aim is to standardise information-gathering in the early stages of disaster response. Within the programme section of the tool, the Sphere Minimum Standards are used as a point of reference and guide the information for collection. This tool has yet to be field-tested but is evidence of another initiative towards using the Sphere Minimum Standards as a basis for assessment.

In the State of Gujarat, India, DMI is planning to translate the Oxfam-GB Public Health Assessment Tool into Gujarati and held a meeting with 18 representatives from government, national and international NGOs to explain the use of the tool.

In conclusion, there is some evidence of the increasing use of Sphere in assessments, perhaps particularly in joint assessments, although humanitarian agencies are a long way from systematising the use of the Sphere handbook (and tools based on Sphere) as a basis for assessment in all disasters. Assessment appears to have been weak in the Mozambican floods and the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) evaluation of humanitarian intervention in Kosovo also concluded that assessments had been weak[4]. It seems that although pilot agencies are making a good start in developing tools for assessment based on Sphere, more work needs to be done to ensure that they and the Sphere handbook are used consistently.

Pilot agencies report that there has been a considerable increase in references to Sphere in project proposals. Given that agencies do not hold centralised banks of project proposals it was difficult to confirm the assertion amongst most agencies that there has been an increase in reference to Sphere over the past year. However, there is evidence of a growth in systems, procedures and technical reviews to promote the use of Sphere in analysis and project proposals. For example:

· IFRC requires appeals and project proposals for emergency projects to be guided by Sphere.

· ADRA, Mercy Corps and CRS review project proposals in relation to the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards and make suggestions for how they may be incorporated.

· World Vision is using Sphere as a basis for the design of disaster response programmes.

· The CARE-US Emergency Response Fund expects disaster response proposals to refer to Sphere and asks for specific reference if it is not clear.

· IRC has developed a problem analysis and project planning system that refers to Sphere and ensures that the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards are taken into consideration at the planning stage.

Below are some specific examples in which Sphere standards and indicators have been used in project proposals. The references are not comprehensive and it is likely that far more proposals have referred to Sphere.

CRS used the Standards in Orissa to guide the materials and design of sites and shelter, in Madagascar in relation to the quantities of water and in Venezuela in relation to the food basket. In analysing assessment information and preparing project proposals, CRS staff are advised to use the Sphere handbook in conjunction with an internal handbook "Project Proposal Guidance" that includes a variety of tools for analysis including problems trees and logframes. This will be taken a stage further in the near future, as CRS is in the process of developing an Emergency Preparedness and Response Handbook that will complement the Project Proposal Guidance and will contain references to the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards throughout.

ADRA used Sphere in proposals for Albania and Kosovo. Mercy Corps cited the Minimum Standards in proposals for Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bosnia and Kosovo. WV-US, Canada and Australia have all cited the Sphere Standards in proposals. CARE-US used the Standards as benchmarks in proposals for Ethiopia and Kosovo. IRC used the standards and indicators in proposals for Thailand and Afghan refugees. Save the Children has used the standards and indicators in most project proposals for emergencies during the past year.

In East Timor, the Humanitarian Charter was used as a reference point to analyse information derived from the initial assessment. The joint assessment team found concepts of the right to life with dignity and the distinction between combatants and non-combatants especially useful in defining a protection strategy.

In the context of joint assessments and planning, OCHA and the Government of Angola (GoA) are introducing the use of standards and indicators into analysis and project planning at Provincial level, between government authorities, UN agencies and NGOs. Working groups were established to analyse the needs assessment data by sector, identify principal problems and set standards and indicators for operational plans. Pilot agency representatives (CARE, Oxfam-GB, LWF, Okutiuka, SC-UK) have participated in working groups at provincial and national levels. Once again, this process has been constrained by the lack of availability of Portuguese copies of the Sphere handbook.

In conclusion, there appears to be a growth in the use of the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in programme and project analysis, planning and proposals in most of the pilot agencies. It is possible that there is more use of Sphere in analysis and planning than in assessments. This could be due to agency guidelines and procedures promoting the use of Sphere in proposals, but not necessarily in information gathering. Given that a good proposal is dependent on the quality of the assessment information, as well as its analysis, agencies may consider widening procedures and guidelines to include assessments based on Sphere.

The examples of joint analysis and planning drawing on the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in East Timor and Angola point towards opportunities in coordinated planning using Sphere in the future.

A number of independent studies have observed that the monitoring and internal review of programmes are areas of particular weakness in NGO disaster response[5]. Sphere's own study on accountability[6] also concluded that there is a need for improved internal monitoring as a step towards more effective accountability. Pilot agencies accept that programme and project monitoring are areas of weakness and that training in monitoring techniques, as well as simple, robust systems for collecting and collating data against indicators are areas that need further investment in the future.

Some pilot agencies had already recognized monitoring as a particular weakness prior to participating in the pilot programme and regard the Minimum Standards as an opportunity to enhance existing work in improving accountability. IRC, for example, considers increasing accountability as the central aspect of piloting and has nominated a senior staff member from the Monitoring and Evaluation Unit as the key contact person for Sphere. IRC is in the process of making an organisation-wide investment in improving the quality of project assessment, planning, monitoring and evaluation through a tool developed together with Columbia University. The Causal Pathway Framework draws on Sphere indicators as signposts to whether projects are achieving objectives based on the Minimum Standards.

Oxfam-GB is working to improve monitoring systems and has designed a toolkit aimed at helping based field staff to analyse hazards in emergencies, design Logframes with indicators based on Sphere and to set up systems to collect and collate data on selected indicators[7]. The framework takes monitoring on Sphere indicators a stage further in proposing that agencies could consider emergencies in three phases: immediate (1-3 weeks), stabilisation (0.5-2 months) and recovery (2-6 months). At each stage, there could be differing expectations of how far the Minimum Standards (and selected indicators) should be achieved. Sample Logframes have been drawn up using different means of verification in each phase. Importantly, the paper also discusses context indicators, ensuring that the user is directed towards an analysis of the external environment (security, access, human rights, economic, social and political environment).

Oxfam-GB's view is that it is probably necessary to place a monitoring and evaluation specialist in the field in the early stages of a disaster to set up the system. There should also be much greater emphasis on strengthening the capacity of field based staff to monitor emergency projects.

The International Federation of the Red Cross is also conscious of the need for improved monitoring and has developed a series of five draft questionnaires based on the Sphere handbook to support programme monitoring and better reporting against the Standards. More experience is needed in using this tool but it is also anticipated that these questionnaires will be incorporated into emergency needs assessment.

Reference was made on a number of occasions to the experience of MSF Holland in monitoring in emergencies. Since 1997, MSF-H has played an active role in developing concepts, methodologies and frameworks for monitoring and evaluation in humanitarian interventions[8].

In conclusion, no pilot agency felt that their monitoring systems were adequate and most expressed interest in collaborating to improve monitoring and accountability. Collaboration could take two forms: i) sharing and developing systems, tools and field-based experiences in project monitoring ii) undertaking collaborative assessments and evaluations. The second proposal, collaborative assessments, was advanced in the Sphere accountability research. Phase III of the Sphere Project will provide an opportunity for the pilot agencies to make choices about options to strengthen monitoring.

No agency reported undertaking internal programme/project evaluations (project staff evaluating their own performance) or evaluations of disaster response projects drawing on Sphere.

However, external evaluations have begun to refer to the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards. ACT has introduced guidelines for the evaluation of programmes funded through their appeal mechanism that require the use of Sphere as one of the criteria for evaluation for programmes with a target of over $5 million.

The DEC (a joint funding mechanism for UK NGOs) evaluation of Kosovo included a chapter on performance standards and sections on Sphere, the Code of Conduct and the People in Aid Code. The evaluation observed that most of the Sphere health indicators were met in Albania and Macedonia, but that sanitation often did not meet the Standards and food and non-food items varied greatly from agency to agency. Barriers to the use of Sphere in the field were identified as: limited awareness among staff, high staff turnover, poor knowledge of emergency work in general, lack of pressure to improve because of strong donor support in Kosovo, poor coordination mechanisms and limited access to the population during the bombing campaign.

The report recommends that the DEC require agencies to support the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards as a condition of membership. No decision has been taken on that recommendation to date. A second recommendation is that DEC and individual agencies should move towards 'real-time' evaluations, or analysing the situation as it is happening, rather than waiting until after the emergency response.

The DEC is currently undertaking an evaluation of the response to the floods in Mozambique. The report of the first phase refers to Sphere, although more detailed reference is made to the Code of Conduct.

Dutch NGOs also have a joint funding mechanism; Cordaid observed that they could consider joint evaluations using Sphere in the future.

In summary, there were no examples of pilot agencies undertaking internal evaluations based on the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards. At least one funding mechanism, DEC, is using Sphere as a point of reference in external evaluations and the tendency to include the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards, Code of Conduct and People in Aid in terms of reference for evaluation is likely to grow among donor agencies.

There have been several successful experiences in using the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards as a tool to negotiate and promote standards in humanitarian assistance. In all of these cases, the most powerful argument was that the Sphere handbook represented internationally recognized standards.

NGOs lobbying governments to defend the rights of populations affected by calamity or conflict

The Danish Red Cross used the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards to successfully lobby the Danish Government not to provide shipping containers as temporary accommodation for refugees in Kosovo, citing the Minimum Standards in Sites and Shelter.
The Disaster Mitigation Institute in the State of Gujarat, India is using the Sphere handbook to compare the State Relief Code with Sphere internationally accepted Standards. DMI subsequently expects to lobby for change in some key standards.
Oxfam-GB in Sierra Leone used the handbook to negotiate (successfully) with the Government of Sierra Leone to increase the land allocated to internally displaced people on the basis that it did not meet Sphere standards.
NGOs in Sri Lanka cite the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in lobbying the Government of Sri Lanka to allow items essential to humanitarian programmes into Tamil held territory.

Governments using the Minimum Standards as a tool to establish Standards among humanitarian providers

The Ministry of Health in Turkey is introducing the Standards into training and disaster preparedness planning in public health, supported by Mercy Corps. In the future, humanitarian agencies will be expected to respect the standards and indicators in public health interventions in disasters.

Following on from the Rapid Needs Assessment and planning process, the Government of Angola has drafted a Presidential Decree to set Minimal Operational Standards for the Resettlement and Return of the displaced populations. The Standards are based on the Deng Principles and include some Sphere indicators. If approved, they will oblige all humanitarian actors to work towards the same Standards.

NGOs using Sphere as a tool to promote the rights of populations affected by conflict or calamity across the humanitarian system

The Finnish Red Cross will be using the Sphere handbook as one of the reference tools to promote the rights of populations affected by 'forgotten' emergencies
Mercy Corps, as Chair of the NGO Working Group of the US-Japan Common Agenda, are pressing for the Sphere Standards to be included in written agreements, thereby committing both governments to minimum standards in humanitarian assistance

Not all attempts at advocacy using the Standards have been successful: in Macedonia, CRS negotiated for an increase in land allocation for Kosovar refugees. The Government did not agree, but the Standards and indicators provided good backing for the argument.

In addition to experiences of using Sphere as a advocacy tool in current practice, the International Federation of the Red Cross has proposed that Sphere could contribute to international law in the future. In the World Disasters Report of 2000, the IFRC noted that there is currently no international legislation to protect the rights of populations affected by calamities and that Sphere "..may well be a case study for customary international law in formation … Sphere is the closest we come to a set of comprehensive standards for disaster response" (World Disasters Report, 2000: 153).

The breadth of these experiences demonstrates the great potential of using the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards as a tool in advocacy.

There has been considerable discussion of the use of the Sphere handbook as a framework for disaster preparedness planning and some concrete examples are beginning to emerge. Disaster mitigation and preparedness planning can take place at two levels:

i) a macro level, involving government bodies and NGOs at the level of country or district, and ii) community based mitigation and preparedness planning with a focus on the population planning for its own safety and development.

Within the group of pilot agencies, two southern NGOs (DMI in India and CCD in Honduras) are focusing on community based mitigation and preparedness planning, while the international agencies have tended to focus at national level, often jointly with government. DMI in Gujarat has been working with a large group (some 100) villages in community based mitigation and disaster preparedness planning. The Minimum Standards are being introduced into this work with the question of what the community, drawing on external assistance as necessary, needs to do to reach these Standards and ensure that they are maintained in the event of a disaster.

CCD in Honduras plans to implement a series of disaster mitigation and preparedness planning workshops with communities affected by Hurricane Mitch. The programme will begin with staff training and analysis of how to use the Sphere standards most effectively in community based preparedness planning. The aim will be for communities to identify how to reach the Standards in the minimum time possible in the event of future disasters.

LWF also works at the community level in disaster mitigation and preparedness planning. The ACT network, of which LWF is a founder member, conducts ongoing disaster response training at the field level which includes using the Sphere handbook as a key reference point.

Mercy Corps, at the macro level, has undertaken contingency planning for disasters, together with the government, in Turkey, Tajikistan and in the Balkans (Kosovo, Albania and Montenegro). These plans have used the Sphere handbook as a reference point for services to be provided in emergencies and standards to be achieved.

Save the Children has designed guidelines for emergency preparedness planning that require plans to be supported by reference to the Sphere principles and standards and Code of Conduct. The handbook is used in explaining how the Standards will be reached in the case of an emergency and in identifying items required for disaster response. All country programmes have been asked to design plans by the end of 2000.

In a programme to complement the work of the Emergency Response Team, World Vision is establishing global pre-positioning warehouse centres for disaster response. The Sphere handbook is being used to guide the type and quantities of items required.

These examples indicate a growing recognition that to achieve the standards as early as possible in disaster response, long-term planning is essential. In Phase III of the project, progress will be monitored and case studies distributed on community based and macro level disaster mitigation and preparedness, based on Sphere.

Two issues on participation have arisen through piloting: i) whether the standards and indicators should be shared with the affected population and in what circumstances;

ii) the observation that participation of the affected population is much more than political correctness: it is extremely difficult for NGOs to maintain the technical standards in the absence of effective participation of the population.

i) Although all pilot agencies are in agreement that project planning should be shared with the affected population and this should be achieved with the maximum of transparency, there are mixed views on the question of informing affected populations of their rights and on the notion of debating indicators with the population.

Some agencies consider that the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards are still work in progress and that NGOs do not yet have enough experience of working within these parameters to inform affected populations of their rights. There is an inherent risk in sharing Standards and indicators and then not being able to meet them. Other agencies consider that there are degrees of sharing with affected populations: implementation plans are discussed and shared with affected populations, but not the notion of standards and indicators in a rights based framework.

IFRC felt that transparency is the key to this issue. It is important to promote a real debate together with the population about what rights mean in practice and about the constraints of the context of disaster response settings. The population has a right to live with dignity as represented by the Standards. This does not imply a right to a fixed number of bars of soap, for example, as defined by the indicators; specific items and quantities will depend on the prevailing situation. The issue is about how good we are at engaging the local population, and particularly local leaders. In IFRC's experience, the more open we are, the more tension is reduced.

The IFRC has successfully used the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in two refugee camps in Southern Africa to create a better dialogue between the Red Cross personnel and the camps' community leaders. For example, use of the Sphere standards for water and sanitation as a self-assessment and training tool for hygiene promoters from the Congolese refugee community in northern Zambia was well accepted. In Namibia, work with the Humanitarian Charter has helped to make clear to the Red Cross volunteers the difference between old-fashioned charity and a rights-based approach to the provision of humanitarian assistance.

Mercy Corps also has a strong focus on civil society as a force to prevent, mitigate and manage in disasters. MCI is investigating issues related to civil society programming in relief situations and did a great deal of work to mobilise the population in a refugee camp in Macedonia. Committees were elected to work with the NGOs on planning and service delivery. A study is being undertaken on the experience and will refer to how questions of rights and standards were addressed with the population.

Part of the concern about sharing standards and indicators with populations relates to timing: most agencies agree that it is easier to debate standards and indicators with the population in a stable, recovery phase than in the early acute phase. It may be more productive still to debate these issues with communities prior to disasters occurring. If agencies are able to prepare populations about their rights and about standards and indicators in the context of disaster preparedness planning, the community may regard it as a joint responsibility to work towards these standards in the event of a disaster. The work of DMI and CCD in this regard may help to provide pathways for the future.

ii) With regard to the importance of participation in achieving and maintaining the standards, Oxfam-GB in Sri Lanka selected a displaced camp to be improved to the level Sphere Standards and indicators in water and sanitation. This has involved building wells and latrines to the standards and indicators and organising campaigns and systems for solid waste disposal. It proved possible to achieve the standards and indicators but the population did not participate in the project management and took no responsibility for maintenance, allowing services to fall again below the Standards.

In summary, questions to be further investigated in Phase III concern how and when to promote an effective debate with the population on rights, standards and indicators and what approaches have been the most successful in participatory disaster response design and management.

There has been a considerable investment in Sphere training amongst pilot agencies during the past year. Over 120 staff members of seventeen of the pilot agencies[9] have attended inter-agency workshops in 12 countries[10] since November 1999. In addition, eleven of the eighteen pilot agencies have hosted workshops.

LWF has placed particular emphasis on inter-agency training workshops and has set a standard for all field programmes to either host or participate in inter-agency training workshops.

Reviewing the impact of Sphere training over the year, most agencies report that the inter-agency workshops have been particularly valuable in providing an opportunity for government, UN and NGOs to analyse Sphere implementation in the country context. Importantly, they have also made a significant contribution in disseminating Sphere to field based staff. Many Sphere champions in the field who look for opportunities to implement the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards have participated in inter-agency workshops. Experience suggests that participants will not necessarily use Sphere training immediately in their work; but will identify situations at a later date in which Sphere could enhance their work.

In addition to inter-agency workshops, ten of the pilot agencies were represented at a Sphere Training of Trainers workshop in Geneva in May 2000. As places were limited and the aim was to spread training as widely as possible, only those pilot agencies working in more than one country were invited. The workshop provided an opportunity for pilot agencies to review the training materials[11] and consider how they could be incorporated into internal training sessions.

At least half of the pilot agencies gave internal Sphere presentations or training sessions during the year, some of which used or adapted the training materials, and more agencies plan to use the materials in future. MCI used materials introduced at the Training of Trainers session to disseminate Sphere to Country Directors. SC-UK has used training materials in meetings at HQ level and in regional workshops and expects to adapt part of the training materials on disaster preparedness for use in the future.CARE (as mentioned in 1.7 Dissemination) has introduced Sphere into their eight-day course in the Foundations of Disaster Response, including a two-day simulation exercise that develops awareness of Sphere in practice. These trainings were held in South Africa, Atlanta and England.

CCD in Honduras aims to adapt the Sphere training materials for internal use and to train communities in disaster mitigation and preparedness. CARE is planning to draw on Sphere materials in workshops in Atlanta and Europe. Oxfam-GB aims to carry out a training of trainers workshop, using Sphere materials, with the objective of filtering Sphere training to the field through Emergency Advisors and Regional Humanitarian Coordinators.

CHA has used the training materials in workshops in Eastern Sri Lanka, but felt that the use of English limited the impact and that the case studies should be adapted for Sri Lanka. Together with other pilot agencies in Sri Lanka, CHA plans to 'Sri Lankanise' the training materials.

Some agencies are calling for more sector specific training, in addition to the existing Sphere training, to enhance the capacity of generalists working in disaster response. Caritas in India is establishing a rapid response team and aims to provide

basic training in emergency health, food aid, nutrition, sites and shelter and water and sanitation. Each sector will focus on the theory and practice of providing services to Sphere standards. Caritas has invited other pilot agencies with representation in Delhi to discuss cooperation in establishing a training programme.

SC-UK has also recognized a need to develop more in-depth materials for the use of Sphere in health and nutrition. An inter-agency working group has been set up to choose the most important indicators from the handbook and develop a training module on how the indicators should be adapted to different contexts. The module will complement existing Sphere modules.

The IFRC has taken an innovative approach to Sphere training by implementing field workshops in refugee camps with groups of staff and volunteers where the principal task is to compare the prevailing standard of provision with the Sphere handbook. A motivating and practical exercise, participants have found that the handbook becomes a live working document. In many cases standards had been achieved and some indicators had been exceeded.

In the evaluations from inter-agency workshops, there has been a strong appeal for more live case study material from actual experiences. Plans are being made to systematise the case material used in this report and integrate it into Sphere training materials.

In conclusion, there has been extensive participation by pilot agencies in Sphere workshops during the past year, as well as new developments in adapting training materials for internal use, growing interest in sector specific training and experimentation with hands-on field based training. Case studies are regarded as key tools to helping agencies to understand how to implement the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in practice. Pilot agency contributions to training materials will be particularly important in Phase III of the project.

In addition to inter-agency coordination in joint assessments in Orissa and humanitarian system-wide planning in Angola, other examples are beginning to emerge of how the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards can facilitate inter-agency coordination.

In Sri Lanka, the CHA has been nominated as the Emergency Preparedness Focal Point. Part of this role is to facilitate information exchange on Sphere implementation and training. The CHA will bring Sarvodaya and other pilot agencies with representation in country together on a regular basis. By debating the use of Sphere in this way, the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards will feed into joint disaster preparedness planning as well as planning for disaster response.

During the floods in Mozambique, the Standards were introduced (by Oxfam-GB) into coordination meetings chaired by UNICEF. This led to detailed discussion of the most appropriate indicators in the local context and time frame. The group took a joint decision that it would unrealistic to work towards the indicator of 1 latrine to 20 people with a short-term displaced population. The indicator was fixed at 1:100 for the acute phase and programmes in various camps aimed to reach or exceed this indicator.

In addition to country examples of the inter-agency coordination, promotion of the use of the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in the field by the UN agencies is likely to lead to improved co-working based on Sphere. At a meeting of the UN Inter-Agency Steering Committee (IASC) in New York in September 2000, Sphere was endorsed by the UN agencies, particularly in field operations. The endorsement will encourage OCHA, UNHCR and UNICEF, in particular, to promote the widespread use of Sphere in joint work with NGOs and governments.

In summary, the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards have been used as a common point of reference in disaster response, but there is a long way to go before this happens systematically in every disaster. At present, inter-agency coordination using Sphere depends to a large extent on the drive and capacity of the individuals involved in disaster response. The decision by the IASC to endorse the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards may contribute to systematising the use of Sphere across agencies.

Three aspects of human resource deployment are significant in the dissemination and implementation of the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards.

i) The introduction of the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards into recruitment procedures (job descriptions, interviews and orientation). Job descriptions and interviews focussed on Sphere demonstrate its value to the agency and importance in programmes. In one case example, a water and sanitation engineer working in the displaced camps in northern Sri Lanka observed that the main focus of his job description is to achieve the Minimum Standards in the camps.

Virtually all the international agencies are introducing Sphere into recruitment procedures. SC-UK includes Sphere in job descriptions for emergency personnel and the Sphere video is part of orientation for all international staff, including those taking up development posts. Oxfam-GB, in asking questions on Sphere at interview, has found that most candidates are not yet aware of the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards, but that discussing Sphere at that stage raises awareness. CARE has not yet included Sphere in job descriptions, but it is discussed at interview and orientation. IRC includes Sphere in a package of information sent to staff prior to orientation at central level. WVI, LWF and IFRC are also moving towards including Sphere in recruiting procedures and job descriptions.

ii) The movement of emergency personnel around the world is showing signs of spreading awareness of the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards. For example, an engineer who had lobbied for more space for the displaced in Sierra Leone based on the Sphere standards was subsequently transferred to Sri Lanka and has looked for opportunities to use the Minimum Standards in that context.

Spreading awareness through direct experience is likely to increase as more organisations establish emergency teams that will circulate between disasters. WVI, Oxfam-GB, Caritas India, CRS, CCD, IFRC, MCI all have or are establishing emergency response teams. Equally, the movement of staff between agencies will spread awareness of Sphere and, given time, agencies are likely to be able recruit staff already trained in the use of Sphere.

iii) The use of Sphere still depends to a large extent on the individuals in key posts in disaster response. If there are one or two Sphere champions within the group of NGOs or even UN personnel in disaster response, they can influence colleagues from other agencies and catalyze the wider use of Sphere. In the Angolan example above, a core group of some three staff members of pilot NGOs and OCHA introduced the use of the Sphere across the entire inter-agency process. On the other hand, in Mozambique, there was perhaps only one strong Sphere champion promoting its application and the result was that the application of Sphere was ad hoc. The best indicator of the institutionalization of Sphere will be systematic application in all disaster response regardless of the personnel in post.

Indicators to test the influence of these aspects of human resource deployment on Sphere implementation could be applied in Phase III of the project.

There has been no feedback from pilot agencies on gender issues relating to Sphere implementation. This may imply that there have no experiences in piloting that have drawn attention to questions of gender, or it could mean a lack of awareness of gender issues.

Gender issues could be the focus of further attention in Phase III of the project.

Two points on logistics were raised by pilot agencies: i) initiatives in linking the Sphere handbook to logistics in disaster preparedness ii) the need to include more information on logistics in future revisions of the handbook.

i) SC-UK included a component of logistics planning based on the Sphere handbook in disaster preparedness in Zimbabwe and WVI (as noted in 1.10 Disaster preparedness) is setting up global pre-positioning of emergency items based on the Sphere handbook.

DMI in Gujarat has drawn up a simple handbook with calculations of quantities of items related to population size. This includes identifying an appropriate food basket for the local area and typical prices, so that budgets can be calculated based on this information.

ii) Two logistics departments of pilot agencies consider that there is not enough on this area in the Sphere handbook and that it should be given greater attention in future revisions. One suggested a sub-section on logistics in each chapter.

The following are some of the issues raised by pilot agencies during visits. They were recorded and key contact persons were invited to express their views on these questions during telephone interviews. To avoid interviews becoming too lengthy, respondents were invited to select the questions they felt particularly relevant. Included here are questions that attracted five or more replies and have not been addressed in Section 1 above. Where replies are likely to be individual viewpoints, agency names have not been cited.

2.1 Could one pilot agency act as a resource (focal point) to other NGOs in future disasters in relation to the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards? i.e. when a large emergency occurs, one (or more) pilot agencies offer to facilitate discussion on how the response can be framed within the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards, potentially leading to a joint assessment and coordinated programming.

Would this be an effective way of ensuring that common principles are established and the Standards are taken on from the beginning?

This question provoked a great deal of discussion. While agencies could see the potential benefit of having a facilitator (or more appropriately a catalyst) available in the early stages of an emergency, issues of ownership could be a serious problem. Inter-agency coordination to promote the use of Sphere was considered more important.

i) The use of Sphere could be promoted by lead agencies in each sector, thereby dividing the ownership between various agencies. A lead agency in nutrition, for example, could encourage the use of the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in the initial assessment and project planning within that sector.

ii) A second alternative would be to promote coordination using Sphere through a UN coordination body, most commonly OCHA or UNHCR. The Angolan example of coordination through OCHA seems to have been successful and has not provoked questions of ownership.

2.2 Could NGOs set up Memoranda of Understanding with States about the aim to deliver humanitarian assistance to Sphere standards? What are the risks/benefits of this?

Most agencies considered that work in this area is not sufficiently consolidated to make a commitment to States. Such agreements could lead to unrealistic expectations. An alternative proposal was that agencies that have long term programmes in each country (especially the Red Cross that has an auxiliary role to States in disaster response) could play an important role in explaining the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards to States. This would promote understanding of the aims of NGOs in striving towards implementing the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards, while not reaching a formal commitment between NGOs and States.

2.3 If we accept that disasters relate to vulnerability and poverty and that the most effective way to prevent disasters is through development (more secure housing, effective drainage systems, efficient water distribution systems etc.), can we use the Minimum Standards as a framework for development? Should the Minimum Standards be tested in development programmes?

WVI at regional level is debating the possibility of using Sphere standards in development programmes in Latin America and Africa. Oxfam-GB has discussed the notion of using the standards in this way with the Government of Uganda. Other pilot agencies are interested in watching the results of practical examples of using Sphere in development programmes[12].

2.4 There has been a lot of discussion about the use of Standards and Indicators and there are differing views.

Standards are what we should aim to achieve and are generic while indicators are specific and may be aspirational. The indicators can be adjusted according to local circumstances. i.e. if 15 litres of water per person per day is not possible, we can perhaps set an indicator of 10 litres pppd. The discussion to set appropriate indicators can be a vehicle for inter-agency coordination. Government, UN and NGO reps can meet to set indicators according to local circumstances.
Standards are objectives and indictors are more specific and useful because they are specific and internationally agreed. We should not adjust the indicators - they should apply to all programmes as they stand. However, we should explain the reasons why they cannot be met or are exceeded.

There remain differing views on this issue. Of the key persons that responded to this question, three took the view that Sphere standards are universal but the indicators must be adjusted according to local circumstances, while a further three considered that indicators should not be changed, rather agencies should explain why they can or cannot be met at that particular time.

Those in favour of adjusting the indicators, raised the point that there as many actors as possible should be involved in setting indicators in a transparent debate. Indicators should be defined in the local situational and time context and may change from the acute to the recovery phase.

Respondents arguing that the indicators should not be adjusted presented two arguments. i) The Standards are effectively programme or project objectives and the indicators represent internationally agreed minimum levels. Organisations should explain why they can or cannot be achieved at different points in time, but they should not be adjusted.

ii) In many cases, the resident population cannot achieve the indicators and this makes it even more likely that indicators will be considered too high in the local context. However, all emergencies are public health emergencies and the disaster-affected population is more vulnerable than the resident population. The indicators have been established as minima for disaster-affected populations and, for that reason, should be used as they stand.

The main difference between these two positions may be timing. It is not always possible to achieve the indicators at the specific point in time. This may be because the population is in the immediate post-disaster phase, but expects to achieve the indicators in the recovery phase or because the only hope of achieving the indicators will be through long-term development.

The experience in Mozambique cited in this paper and in the Sphere accountability research is that given that 1 latrine per 20 people was not possible in the acute phase, a short term indicator was set of 1 per 100. Setting short term indicators could lead to a risk of slippage; once a lower indicator has been established, could it be used for longer than the period anticipated? May this be a reason for maintaining the original indicator and explaining why it cannot be achieved at this stage?

2.5 Should the media become familiar with the HC/MS or are they liable to use the Standards to criticise NGOs when they cannot be met?

Most respondents took the view there is an inherent risk in informing the media as the reality of disaster situations may not be well understood. One expressed the view that we should focus clearly on the rights based approach in information passed to journalists and especially on the right to life with dignity. One possible way forward would be to introduce Sphere into courses for journalists on reporting on disasters.

PART THREE: CONCLUSIONS

1. Over the past year, there has been a notable increase in awareness and use of Sphere at field and HQ levels within pilot agencies. Implementation tends to have taken an ad hoc, rather than systematic, form.

Pilot agencies are applying the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in many different ways, but the tendency at present is towards ad hoc use rather than systematised institutionalisation of Sphere. Policies and central level planning appear to have been important in creating a framework for institutionalisation in a limited number of agencies[13], but policies alone have not been sufficient to catalyse implementation. The relevance and value of the tool at field level appear to be at least as important as a policy framework. It is likely that both of these elements, a policy framework and field-level demand, will need to be present for Sphere institutionalisation to be systematic and sustainable in the long-term.

2. Increasing the effectiveness of humanitarian assistance appears to be moving faster than making agencies more accountable.

The two principal aims of the Sphere Project are to increase the effectiveness of humanitarian assistance and to make humanitarian agencies more accountable. Among the pilot agencies there is evidence of the growing use of the Sphere handbook in ways that are likely to increase effectiveness: in project design and proposals, advocacy for the rights of disaster affected populations, inter-agency coordination and human resource management. However, there is less evidence that agencies are becoming more accountable. Use of Sphere in internal monitoring and evaluation has not grown significantly and questions have been posed about how far the standards can be shared with affected populations. This does not represent the complete picture in terms of accountability: external evaluations and agency transparency in relation to the Standards must also be considered. These are issues to be addressed in the future.

There has been more use of Sphere in project proposals than in assessments.

Pilot agencies report a considerable increase in the use of the handbook in project proposals, but there was more limited reporting of use in assessments, although a number of assessment tools have been developed. This is likely to be because of agency demands to enhance the quality of proposals to donors with reference to Sphere, while other factors intervene to limit assessments (access, time constraints). The more limited use of Sphere in assessments appeared to be a result of weak assessments in general, as opposed to a lack of confidence in the tool. This question will require further debate in the future as detailed assessments are essential to ensure that project planning is firmly grounded in local reality.

Monitoring systems are weak because of limited experience in tracking data on indicators and because of time constraints and priorities in emergencies. No agency considered their monitoring capacity and systems were adequate, although there is a growing consciousness of the need to improve tracking on quality, quantity and process indicators. Given the impressive level of collaboration between pilot agencies, joint work in this area in the future is a strong possibility.

4. The debate on whether indicators should be adjusted to local circumstances or should be used without adjustment has not been resolved.

There are two positions on the adjustment of indicators according to local circumstances:

5. A demand driven implementation strategy for field-based staff is the most realistic in the face of competing demands on staff time

The principal weakness in piloting identified by most agencies is the lack of time available to dedicate to thinking and planning implementation. For Sphere to be adopted and implemented in these circumstances, it must be seen as a valuable tool that can be used to enhance existing or new disaster response programmes, without being an additional time burden.

For this reason, the most realistic implementation strategy at field level appears to be a demand-driven model, facilitated by an active training and dissemination strategy, as well as procedural guidelines promoting the use of Sphere. As staff recognize and become more familiar with how Sphere could be used to enhance existing programmes or plan new projects, implementation is likely grow. The Sphere Project Team can help to catalyse this process by distributing practice examples of how Sphere has been applied.

6. Although awareness of Sphere is growing, agencies agreed that dissemination has been greater at HQ level than in the field. Among local partners there is very limited knowledge of Sphere.

Agencies agreed that there is much more work to be done in i) disseminating awareness of Sphere within pilot agencies to staff in the field and ii) disseminating Sphere to local partners and the host of local NGOs that participate in disaster response. In general direct methods of disseminating Sphere (workshops, presentations, meetings) are felt to be more successful than indirect methods (mailings, CD-Rom etc.).

About half the pilot agencies work with local partners but no agency is clear as yet on the most effective methodology for dissemination of Sphere to vast networks of partners and the wider community of southern NGOs. Three possible approaches have been identified: i) solicit the participation of NGO umbrella bodies by country ii) debate strategies at country level bringing together pilot agencies and partners iii) create space in a global pilot agency meeting to identify a strategy.

7. Training on Sphere is developing and changing according to agency needs.

Pilot agencies are increasingly adapting the training materials for their own use and introducing new perspectives on training (eg. field schools, sector specific training). Case studies are seen as key tools in understanding how to apply Sphere in practice and pilot agency experiences will be increasingly important in this respect.

Pilot agencies have cited a variety of examples of the successful use of the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in lobbying for the rights of disaster-affected populations. Lobbying is based on the fact that the Standards are internationally recognized as the quantifiable rights of disaster affected populations. In most cases, it is unlikely that lobbying would have taken place in the absence of the handbook.

In addition, the International Federation of the Red Cross has raised the question of whether Sphere could be a case study on international law in formation.

9. There is a gradual increase in recognition of the importance of disaster preparedness planning and of the potential of Sphere in that context.

Practice has been limited in disaster preparedness using Sphere to date, but several agencies are planning to pilot in this way. Phase III should offer opportunities to learn lessons in disaster preparedness on two levels: i) community based mitigation and preparedness training and planning ii) national, provincial and district planning, based on Sphere.

10. Experience in sharing the Standards and indicators with affected populations is limited and there are concerns about whether this is viable, especially in the acute phase of disaster response.

Although participation of the affected population is included in every chapter of the handbook, there are still concerns about how this can best be achieved. Timing and methodologies for participation as well as sharing standards and indicators with the population remain live issues for pilot agencies. There was agreement that it is easier to share the notion of standards and indicators with stable populations, for example in refugee or long-term displaced camps, but less agreement about debating indicators with populations in the early post-disaster phase. Evidence is emerging that the standards can be achieved, but not maintained, without participation of the affected population in design an

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

· PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE REPORT

The Sphere Team

· THE PILOT AGENCIES AND PILOTING PROCESS

· METHODOLOGY USED IN WORKING WITH PILOT AGENCIES AND COLLLECTING INFORMATION

PART THREE: CONCLUSIONS