Institutionalising Sphere...A Great Start, Next Steps

Lessons Learned in Sphere Implementation from 2000 - 2002

Date of Report: September 2002

Consulter ce document en français
Consultar este documento en español

CONTENTS

Note from the Sphere Management Committee

Executive Summary

1. Pilot experiences in applying Sphere

1.1 Who are the pilot agencies?

1.2 Staff awareness and understanding of Sphere
Are pilot field staff aware of Sphere?
Do staff have a good understanding of the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards?

1.3 Institutionalisation within pilot agencies
Disaster response policies and procedures
Human resource policies and procedures

1.4 Sphere application
The project cycle
Disaster preparedness
Participation of affected populations
Interagency coordination
Advocacy
Government policies and procedures in disaster-affected countries

1.5 Attitudes towards the Sphere Project
Views expressed on the Sphere project
Views on how Sphere has helped to enhance effectiveness and accountability
Views expressed on the Sphere handbook

1.6 Factors contributing to Sphere application in the field

2. Training

2.1 How effective has Sphere training been?

2.2 How far have pilot agencies participated in training?

2.3 Lessons in implementing interagency workshops
Selection of participants
Interagency workshops
Factors influencing learning

2.4 Lessons in implementing training of trainers workshops
Selection of participants
Content
Follow up

2.5 Lessons in the creation of training materials

3. Experience of Sphere outreach

3.1 Which UN agencies use Sphere and why?

3.2 Which academic institutions use Sphere and why?

3.3 How effective is the website in disseminating information?

3.4 How effective is the introductory video?

3.5 The translation of Sphere materials

4. Issues and dilemmas in Sphere implementation

4.1 Sphere as development indicators

4.2 Generalised poverty and tensions between resident and disaster affected populations

4.3 Local customs

4.4 Orientation of the handbook towards camp-based populations

4.5 Adaptation of the indicators

4.6 Short term displacement

4.7 Standards or guidelines?

4.8 Access

4.9 Resources

4.10 Other actors - the role of the military and private sector in disaster response

4.11 Donor support

5. Future directions

Annexes

1: Indicators of institutionalisation
2: Indicators of inter-agency coordination
3: Pilot agency activity to implement Sphere 2000-2002
4: Acknowledgements

 

Note from the Sphere Management Committee to the Sphere pilot agencies: June 2002

Dear Sphere Pilot Agency Colleagues:

On behalf of the Management Committee, I want to thank all of you for taking the time to participate in the very valuable exchange during our joint meeting in May 2002 in Geneva. Each of us on the Management Committee appreciated the opportunity to hear more about the creative energy and great ideas that have emerged during this truly pioneering, collective effort to make Sphere valuable for our community. It was a pleasure to meet each of you - and wonderfully affirming to hear the many innovative and useful ways that Sphere has taken shape in our many agencies and countries.

The Lessons Learned document that captured the lessons and ideas from the
pilot agency experience will be considered in more detail by the Management Committee and many other stakeholders in the months to come. We look forward to a continued dialogue on many of the important issues raised in that document and further in the meetings in Geneva.

More than anything, however, the Geneva meeting underscored the conviction that the future of Sphere is truly in the hands of the many diverse members of our community who are using Sphere in their work. Your energy and ideas will necessarily shape what Sphere becomes in the future, as illustrated by the initiatives generated during the Geneva meeting. The true value of Sphere is ultimately its ability to mobilize our powerful collective strength to work more effectively and accountably.

The dialogue in Geneva is a continuation of the discussions that began Sphere initially and will need to be continued in the future with a broad and diverse set of voices, with all of us remaining alert to how to make that happen in a successful and inclusive manner.

Once again, congratulations to all of you on the many achievements in the different agencies and countries represented at the Pilot Agency meeting. Thanks for the rich and thoughtful discussion, and we look forward to a continued dialogue.

On behalf of the Management Committee,
All the best,

Nancy Lindborg, Chair

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

After more than two years piloting the use of the Sphere Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in twenty different organisations worldwide, it is time to reflect and take stock of progress in order to set the direction for the institutionalisation of Sphere in the future.
This paper aims to represent the experiences and perceptions of key actors in the Sphere process: pilot agencies at headquarter and field levels, the Sphere team and Sphere trainers, and the Management Committee.
The findings represented here are based on a series of visits to 102 pilot agency field offices in Central America, East Africa and South Asia conducted in late 2001, together with the views of participants who attended Sphere training workshops over the last two years.
The next steps are largely proposals and decisions made by pilot agency representatives during a meeting in Geneva in May 2002, which aimed to evaluate the piloting process.

SUMMARY OF LESSONS LEARNED

Awareness of Sphere
There is evidence of a growing awareness of the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards - Sphere in shorthand - amongst humanitarian actors at all levels: pilot agencies, the NGO community, UN agencies and national government disaster management departments.

Sphere is being incorporated into agencies' policies and procedures for disaster response. In some countries, national governments have chosen to incorporate some of the Humanitarian Charter principles and minimum standards into national policies and even legislation.

Gap between awareness and application
Although Sphere has been incorporated into many pilot agency procedures, the Humanitarian Charter and minimum standards are not yet implemented systematically by agencies in the field. While there are many good practice examples represented in this paper, there remains a gap between awareness and application.

Sphere application
The following factors appear to have been particularly influential in cases where Sphere has been effectively applied in disaster response:

• Country level leadership
• Significant investment in well-planned staff training prior to a disaster, i.e. as part of disaster preparedness
• Skills, commitment and experience in promoting participation of the affected population in programmes
• Skills in project cycle management
• Agency-wide commitment to Sphere

Capturing and systematising these and other factors are key to promoting application.

Has Sphere enhanced quality and accountability?
Pilot agencies considered the application of Sphere was powerful in promoting enhanced quality and accountability in disaster response, especially in the following ways:

• Sphere checklists provide points of reference to ensure a systematic response rather than 'shots in the dark'
• Sharing Sphere between agencies can help to ensure uniformity of approach, equity in provision and more effective coordination during a disaster response
• Sphere outlines skills required for a professional response to disasters
• Participation of the affected population, a fundamental principle in Sphere, ensures greater accountability to the population

Sphere training
Sphere training has been extremely well received and a range of independent Sphere training activities are taking place around the world. This is a strong indicator of the growing demand for Sphere training and of the positive impact of the Training of Trainers programme. The lessons learned through the process have been documented and are being incorporated into the Sphere approach to learning in the future. In particular:

• Targeted selection of participants is essential for training to be effective
• Training should reflect relevant practice to promote implementation, for example the 'field school' approach as well as other practical activities
  
• Trainers are most effective when they are able to use their own style and words. The new version of the Sphere training materials encourages trainers to adapt materials to their audience and context

Sphere outreach
Considerable investment has been made in disseminating Sphere to UN agencies, academic institutions and other humanitarian stakeholders. The key elements for agency engagement with Sphere are identifying synergies with the Humanitarian Charter and minimum standards. For OCHA, Sphere has been useful in bringing agencies together to formulate the humanitarian strategy during the Consolidated Appeals Process, while for UNICEF, the human rights framework has proved important. Sphere has been incorporated into academic syllabi in many disaster management courses around the world.

Sphere translations
Language remains an issue in outreach. The Sphere Project is multilingual (English, French and Spanish) and the handbook is available in six languages through 'official' translations and a further twelve through spontaneous translations. Maintaining all versions updated as the handbook and training materials are revised is a considerable challenge that would require vastly more funding than is currently available.

SUMMARY OF NEXT STEPS (click here for full version)

Develop a strategy for continued Sphere institutionalisation
Pilot agency representatives at the May 2002 meeting observed that the pilot programme has moved a long way towards the original goals of organisational learning through experience of Sphere implementation. However, the pilot programme was always intended to be temporary and it was agreed that the time is right to shift focus and seek new paths for Sphere institutionalisation.

Pilot agency representatives made many suggestions for the future direction of Sphere institutionalisation and requested the Management Committee to consolidate these and other proposals into a broad strategy and plan.

Proposals that will be considered within the plan are:

• A greater emphasis on networking on Sphere and joint agency implementation at field level
  
• Decentralised training strategies designed at regional or field level and (ideally) across agencies
• A learning focal point aimed at promoting learning through training events/case studies and other examples of implementation

For their own part, pilot agencies concerned at promoting greater joint work for institutionalisation at country level, have developed a proposal to promote Sphere at field level in Afghanistan.

Indicators for Sphere institutionalisation
In the context of identifying factors that create the environment for Sphere institutionalisation, pilot agencies identified indicators for single and joint agency application of Sphere (annexes 1 and 2). These can be followed as a framework for implementing Sphere within and between humanitarian agencies.

Broaden ownership of Sphere
Pilot agency representatives recommended broadening the ownership of Sphere through promoting more exchanges on Sphere between southern agencies, extending networking at country level and encouraging a stronger recognition that a Sphere Secretariat would act as a facilitator rather than an implementer.

1: PILOT EXPERIENCES IN APPLYING SPHERE

1.1 Who are the pilot agencies?

The twenty pilot agencies comprise large international organisations and national agencies, faith-based and secular and have a wide geographical base. They are:

Most of the pilot agencies have been experimenting with applying Sphere since early 2000 and feeding back information to the Sphere team.

1.2: Staff awareness and understanding of Sphere

Are pilot field staff aware of Sphere?
Field based visits to pilot agencies showed a growing awareness of Sphere. Some 90% of offices interviewed in the field had at least one team member (usually more than one) who was aware of Sphere and most offices have at least one copy of the handbook. The majority had first heard of Sphere through internal communication or training, suggesting that pilot agencies have made concerted efforts to communicate information on Sphere to field level. National NGOs tended to hear about Sphere later than international agencies.

In addition to 'vertical' communication from head offices, disasters in some parts of the world during 2000/2001 also spread awareness of Sphere between agencies. For example, some NGO staff members learned about Sphere following the earthquake in Gujarat as organisations referred to Sphere in meetings and their own agencies encouraged planning in the context of Sphere.

Some pilot agencies referred to the enormity of the task of disseminating Sphere to large numbers of partner agencies. 1

Interestingly, pilot agencies report that non-pilots sometimes have a better knowledge of Sphere than the pilot organisations themselves.

Do staff have a good understanding of the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards?
Although the majority of staff interviewed have a good notion of the purpose of the Humanitarian Charter and minimum standards, only a limited proportion have applied it in practice, suggesting that there is more learning to be done on the relevance and application of the Humanitarian Charter and minimum standards.

1.3: Institutionalisation within pilot agencies

Disaster response policies and procedures
Over the past two years, most pilot agencies have incorporated Sphere into disaster response policies and procedures 2. Most agencies have communicated these policies and procedures to the field: 70% of field offices interviewed in September-November 2001 were aware that Sphere is incorporated into their agency's policies and/or procedures for disaster response.

Human resource policies and procedures
Some pilot agencies have introduced Sphere into staff selection interviews, orientation procedures and performance management systems, although this does not yet seem to be significant at field level: less than 25% of offices recalled Sphere being mentioned in interviews or orientation procedures.

1.4: Sphere application

The project cycle
While there is growing awareness of Sphere and incorporation into agency policies/procedures, practical application around the project cycle is still relatively limited. Results of questionnaires conducted during field visits (Box 1) show that Sphere is applied more extensively in project planning and proposals than in assessments, monitoring and evaluation, but that overall application is still limited.

The principal reasons for limited application of Sphere in assessments are i) pressure to respond rapidly following a disaster and ii) a weak skills base in project cycle management.

In relation to time pressures to respond to disasters, most pilot agencies accept that assessment should be iterative, gathering and reviewing situational information over time. For that reason, pilot agency representatives consider that the shortage of time is not an adequate justification and that Sphere should be used to analyse assessment information, even if it does not happen in the first-stage response. Further skills building in project cycle management should help to reinforce the use of Sphere in assessments.

Citation of Sphere in project proposals is often an agency and sometimes a donor requirement, which explains the greater use in that phase.

In relation to the use of Sphere in monitoring, pilot agencies are aware that monitoring in general is a particular weakness. Additional simple monitoring tools in the Sphere handbook could help to reinforce monitoring capacity. To promote more effective participation of the population at all stages in the project cycle, it would also be helpful to include meaningful indicators on participation in the revised edition. Next steps to enhance monitoring for donors should include two aspects: i) inclusion of a budget line in project proposals to cover the costs of monitoring ii) a paradigm shift from regarding monitoring as a largely extractive exercise aimed at providing information for donors, towards a partnership relationship with donors in which monitoring is a joint activity to test and review progress.
To ensure that Sphere is reviewed at the time of evaluation, pilot agencies propose that evaluation teams should always include personnel trained in Sphere, as well as referring to Sphere in the Terms of Reference.

Although Sphere is not yet applied systematically around the project cycle in disaster response, there are many individual examples of how Sphere has been used by pilot agencies within the project cycle.

Examples of applications in the project cycle are shown in Box 2, including those that reflect successes and those that reflect difficulties. These experiences have generated useful pilot agency conclusions on issues and dilemmas, as well as helping to form views on why Sphere is important and how it can enhance quality and accountability.

Several pilot agencies expressed particular difficulties with monitoring disaster response projects.

Disaster preparedness
Within the context of disaster preparedness, Sphere has been used in three ways:

i) to train staff in applying standards and indicators in disaster response, as well as using humanitarian principles as a framework for response
ii) as a tool in logistics and pre-positioning
iii) as a framework of analysis with government for what policies, systems, procedures and training needs should be in place to respond effectively to disasters

Of the regions visited by the Sphere team, Central America is the most active in disaster preparedness and mitigation, as a result of Hurricane Mitch. Many NGO projects are focused on community or local level risk management, including risk analysis, mitigation projects and community disaster preparedness planning.

Some agencies are considering incorporating Sphere into this process by working with communities to establish the indicators they aim to achieve if a disaster occurs, using Sphere as a reference point. World Vision in El Salvador is training large numbers of community leaders in risk management and plans to include Sphere in the training.

Pilot agency representatives consider that there is great deal of work to be done across world regions to reach a common understanding of the various terms used loosely in the context of disaster preparedness. More work is also needed in analysis of the role of Sphere within disaster preparedness. The example of the use of training in disaster preparedness over time, followed by rapid refresher training when a disaster occurs 3 was felt to be particularly useful.

Participation of affected populations
The use of Sphere within participatory disaster response programmes appears to be growing. Agencies with previous experience of participatory methodologies can envisage the value of sharing Sphere with communities.

Agencies with long-term experience of participatory methodologies have been able to share Sphere standards and indicators with communities and negotiate disaster response or rehabilitation targets based on the indicators. Responsibility for achieving the targets has been divided between the community and agency.
Some agencies are debating the relevance of Sphere as long-term development indicators in addition to use in disaster response.

Pilot agency representatives considered these examples particularly important in the context of accountability to the affected population. More active preparation and distribution of case study examples of participation would help to increase experiences of this nature.

Inter-agency coordination
Pilot agencies in most countries acknowledged that inter-agency coordination on humanitarian assistance is weak. In some countries, agencies recognised that Sphere has the potential to enhance coordination and a common perspective on disasters, although this has not happened in most country contexts.

Although there has been limited coordination in disaster response using Sphere there are a number of examples of joint agency work using Sphere. There are three different models:

• Integration of Sphere as a tool for quality and accountability into an existing NGO umbrella or coordination body and promotion of Sphere application by members e.g. CHA in Sri Lanka and ACFOA in Australia.
• Establishment of new interagency (pilot) groups to promote Sphere as discussed in Honduras, Kenya and India. It is not yet clear whether these initiatives were sustained.
• Inter-agency work planned in the context of disaster response that is not likely to be ongoing and does not have a separate structure e.g. Joint assessments using Sphere in the refugee camps in Pakistan and attempted joint work in Orissa.

Box 5 includes examples of all three types of co-working on Sphere. The most sustainable appear to be those based within an existing umbrella body.

In debating coordination, pilot agencies considered that joint assessments using Sphere, a nominated lead agency that supports Sphere and working with OCHA as an ally (as OCHA is using Sphere in the Consolidated Appeal Process and in some country assessments) can all reinforce coordination. However, at least as important is a more informal perception of networking using Sphere. Inter agency networking is considered as one of the most positive next steps in promoting Sphere at country level.

Advocacy
Advocacy using Sphere has had varying rates of success, but can be significant in raising the awareness of government officials and donors of the rights of disaster-affected populations.

For many, the concept of life with dignity is the most significant principle in advocacy. Pilot agencies report that they are confident using Sphere as a basis for advocacy in view of the level of legitimacy it has achieved through wide consultation, consensus and use.

In debate on the application of Sphere in lobbying and advocacy, there was a suggestion that national NGOs can make a greater mark in lobbying at local level while international NGOs may be more effective in lobbying at national and international levels.

To support lobbying efforts, it could be helpful to share Sphere with local journalists so that the circumstances of disaster-affected populations can be investigated with standards in mind.

Government policies and procedures in disaster-affected countries
Pilot agency staff members in various countries 4 reported that it is essential for NGOs to share Sphere with government agencies in order to create a favourable policy framework for implementation. Governments also expressed interest in using the Sphere handbook to inform the development of disaster policies, procedures and legislation in Nicaragua, Honduras, India, Rwanda, Ethiopia and Kenya.

In Angola, the Government used Sphere and the Guiding Principles on Internally Displaced Populations to inform legislation for the displaced. The Government has since trained Provincial Humanitarian Coordinators in all eighteen provinces in Sphere and uses Sphere in planning humanitarian services.

Early in the development of the Sphere Project, agencies expressed concern that Sphere could be used as a tool by some governments to make increased demands on international agencies and donors, by holding them accountable for resources to the level of the indicators. This does not appear to have been the case, except in extreme circumstances 5. On the contrary, it seems that most governments of the nine visited by the pilot implementation team understand that achieving standards is a joint responsibility that can be constrained by resources.

Pilot agencies consider that the best time to involve governments may well be at the disaster preparedness stage and particularly in training. However, NGOs should be cautious of results. Although attendance of government personnel at Sphere workshops is encouraging, in many cases they may lack real authority in policy formulation or resource allocation. In addition, including humanitarian principles in policy or legislation may not imply a real commitment to implementation of the principles. Nevertheless, these are arguments for more work with governments, not less. Pilot agencies observed that national NGOs may be best placed to lobby governments on humanitarian principles.

Agencies should think strategically about entry points with national governments and work more closely with local government.

1.5: Attitudes towards the Sphere Project

Views expressed on the Sphere Project
During the pilot meeting, some representatives of pilot agencies expressed the view that there needs to be a broader sense of ownership of the handbook and Sphere process. To some extent, Sphere is still viewed by agencies as being owned by the Management Committee and implemented by the Secretariat. Greater ownership will require agencies to develop the confidence to apply and adapt Sphere in ways that are appropriate to the organisation and to local circumstances. The examples of DMI and CHA's adaptations and development of local training materials demonstrate growing ownership.

A group of representatives during the pilot meeting considered that humanitarian agencies should recognise the importance of diversity amongst agencies in adopting Sphere (large and small, north and south, faith-based and secular). In this context, 'south-south' networking and training, and the promotion of trainers from disaster-affected countries, could help to diversify Sphere institutionalisation.

Concern was also expressed that Sphere is one of a number of initiatives in the field of enhancing quality and accountability in humanitarianism. Some representatives felt that linkages (both conceptual and institutional) should be clarified and explained to the broad community of NGOs.

Some pilot representatives also registered concern about the term 'Sphere' having become a catch-all for its component parts: the Humanitarian Charter, international law, the Minimum Standards and Code of Conduct. Rather than refer to Sphere, it may be more helpful to refer specifically to each one of these components.

Views on how Sphere has helped to enhance effectiveness and accountability
On field visits, pilot agencies commented more frequently on how Sphere has helped to improve the quality or effectiveness of humanitarian assistance than improving accountability.

Effectiveness

• Sphere provides a target to aim for with technical indicators rather than basing proposals on previous emergencies.
  
• Using Sphere as a comprehensive checklist has drawn attention to issues that may otherwise not have been noticed, for example gender issues and participation.
  
• Exposure to Sphere helps to minimise the misuse of aid. In the Gujarat earthquake response, for example, it tended to be agencies that were not aware of Sphere that provided culturally inappropriate items which were subsequently rejected by the population (clothing and some food items).
  
• Sphere outlines the skills required for a professional response to disasters and demands that NGO staff are better trained and adopt a more professional approach.

Accountability

• Sphere helps to promote accountability to the affected population by encouraging participation in assessment and project design/management. In examples where the population has been informed about the Sphere standards and indicators, pilot agencies report that communities felt valued and expressed satisfaction with the disaster response.
  
• Some pilot agencies reported that Sphere is particularly important in promoting equity in the distribution of goods and services. The existence of standards helps to increase predictability and reduce differences between agencies working in the same disaster response. One pilot agency observed that this is particularly important in contexts of ethnic tension where differences in rations can rapidly be blamed on discrimination. In trying to promote global equity, Oxfam has used Sphere to analyse differences in disaster response between different global regions (e.g. the Balkans and African contexts).

Views expressed on the Sphere Handbook
Comments collected through field visits, workshops and the pilot meeting are as follows:

Technical aspects

• There needs to be a much greater focus on HIV/AIDS: i) prevention of transmission in camps ii) gender issues iii) the treatment of blood supplies.
  
• Ebola disease has changed some practice in health and should be addressed.
  
• The fact that the handbook is limited to food aid rather than food security renders that sector inadequate.
  
• Include more simple monitoring tools in the handbook and include the application of these tools in training workshops.
  
• The shelter chapter could usefully take agencies through a step-by-step process on how to select appropriate shelter.
  

Programme Management

• The handbook is orientated towards camp based contexts and is more difficult to apply to resident populations.
  
• Some indicators require a time element (i.e. what to achieve in the first stages of a disaster, in the relief phase, etc).
  
• It is extremely useful as a comprehensive checklist.
  
• There needs to be greater analysis of cross cutting issues of vulnerable populations and protection, as well as further review of gender based issues.
  
• A user's guide that covers key issues that have been debated for the last few years would be helpful.
  
• The revision should include indicators on participation.

Format of handbook

• The handbook is too long and some sections are repetitive (especially analysis standards and human resource standards).
  
• It would be useful to have the handbook on fully searchable CD-Rom to rapidly look up questions by key word.
  
• The format should be standardised with assessment checklist in each chapter.
  

Languages

• There are currently official translations into English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Arabic and Swahili, plus ten or more versions. Should the Management Committee establish a policy on handbook revisions in relation to language? Will they all be upgraded each time the book is revised?

Handbook revision working groups

• These should be representative (including representatives from disaster-affected countries) and include field experience.
  
• The selection of focal points should be more open.

Further comments on the handbook are particularly welcome as the project is currently launching a review of each chapter, to be managed by key sector professionals from six agencies. More information on this activity can be found on the Sphere website.

1.6: Factors contributing to Sphere application in the field
In organisations or country offices where Sphere was effectively applied at country level, the following factors appeared to be common:

• Country level leadership on the application of Sphere in disaster response and/or preparedness.
  
• Significant investment in staff training and awareness raising amongst a critical mass of staff at country level prior to disaster response.
  
• Skills, commitment and experience in promoting participation of the affected population in programmes.
  
• Skills in project cycle management.
  
• Awareness of whole-agency commitment to Sphere in policies and procedures.

These factors were considered in drawing up indicators for implementation that can be used as a pathway to implementation (annexes 1 and 2).

2: TRAINING

2.1: How effective has Sphere training been?
Sphere-sponsored training has been extensive (over 1000 people have attended Project funded interagency workshops, and an equal number have attended training that has been implemented by some of the 158 graduates of the Training of Trainers Programme).

The Project has inconclusive data on whether training has led to behaviour change, however it is clear that behaviour change is by no means straightforward. Training can be effective at facilitating behaviour change only if all of the following occur: participants are well-targeted, objectives are clear, training is well implemented, there is follow up, and there is responsible organisational support to the participants so that they can implement what they learned. Training needs to go hand-in-hand with other measures in relation to agency commitment to Sphere, leadership at country level and skills building in generic project cycle skills.

2.2: How far have pilot agencies participated in training?
Of the total number of participants in inter-agency workshops, over half are linked to pilot agencies. This is borne out by the field visits; 70% of pilot offices reported that at least one person had undergone some form of Sphere training.

Likewise more than half of the participants from the Training for Trainers programme are from pilot agencies. Pilot agencies appear to be following this through with internal training within agencies. All pilot agencies have conducted some form of internal training or awareness raising on Sphere much of which has been extensive. 6

2.3: Lessons in implementing interagency workshops

Selection of participants

• Participant targeting is highly critical to the impact of Sphere training. Participants in training should have relevant skills and experience, and a job function which allows for influencing their organisation. This either requires seniority, or it requires clear communication and effective support from senior management.
  
• The amount of time invested in selecting and working with participants prior to a workshop will directly and positively impact on the results achieved.
  
• Training operational level staff does not guarantee organisational change / learning.

Interagency workshops

• Interagency workshops are effective at fostering a clearer understanding of the respective interests of the actors in the humanitarian system.
  

Factors influencing learning

• People learn in different ways. Workshops are more effective when they prioritise the creation of a safe learning environment that validates each of the different learning styles of the participants.
  
• Trainer skills and experience are a key issue. A poorly facilitated or implemented workshop can damage participant learning and attitudes.
  
• There is a set of obligations that is associated with training. The trainers are obliged to conduct training that is as professional and targeted to participants needs as possible. Organisations are obliged to encourage the most appropriate people to attend, and to support participants after the training to allow the learning to be applied. Participants are obliged to take the training seriously, and to make efforts to apply the learning upon completion. Training impact requires clarity and agreement on obligations.

2.4: Lessons in implementing training of trainers workshops

Selection of participants

• People attend training for a number of reasons, and some participants are motivated by politics rather than learning. One cannot depend on all ToT participants to conduct training following the course.
• Political selection criteria of participants is the most evident for a new policy initiative such as Sphere, however it creates difficulties for the trainers as the experiential and skill levels of participants is non-homogeneous.
• Potential trainers of Sphere need to know the "politics" of the initiative, in order to prepare for and anticipate difficult questions from participants in their training.

Content

• Half of the course time needs to be devoted to training / learning skills and methodologies, and the other half to learning consistency in messages by the participants.

Follow up

• Follow-up to training is just as important as the training itself. Competing priorities, workload and turn-over all serve to quickly diminish new learning.
  

2.5: Lessons in the creation of training materials

• Trainers will be effective only if they present training in their own style and words. Training materials are more realistic if they are not prescriptive and detailed. In other words, the most important elements of a set of training materials are the aims, objectives, main messages and the suggested activities/exercises/ methodologies.
  
• Assumptions need to be made about the target audience of the training materials.
  
• Multi-lingual training projects are resource intensive, as they require careful attention to the pedagogical norms of the target language and cultures. This requires more than simple translation of vocabulary, and possibly parallel sets of materials with completely different exercises.
  

3: EXPERIENCE OF SPHERE OUTREACH

In addition to the lessons learned by piloting agencies and by the project's own training staff, there are some observations and information about the general outreach activities of the project that may prove valuable to others involved in the implementation process. The project's outreach activities are based in the understanding that: i) NGOs do not work in isolation from other humanitarian actors; and ii) there are places, such as academic institutions, and products, such as videos and published material, that can provide "homes" for or semi-permanent messages of the project, thus contributing to the sustainability of the project.

3.1: Which UN agencies use Sphere and why?

• While all the operational agencies have received Sphere presentations, the key element for agency engagement with Sphere seems to be recognition of their contribution to the handbook (most agencies are closed to external initiatives) and the mandate of the organisation. For example, OCHA, in its coordination role, finds Sphere's common language and key indicators valuable in the formation of the humanitarian strategy for the Consolidated Appeals Process (CAP) while UNICEF finds synergy with the human rights framework of Sphere. UNHCR, the most frequent partner with NGOs in the field, is slowly moving towards an active engagement with the handbook, because they understand that it does not replace their materials and can be a useful tool in working with implementing partners.
  
• It appears that agencies without an organisational emergency handbook are more likely to be open to using Sphere than those that have agency-specific handbooks.
  
• The UN, like NGOs, requires simultaneous headquarter and field level engagement.
  

3.2: Which academic institutions use Sphere and why?

• It appears that one consequence of the growing "aid business" is the increasing number of academic institutions who offer humanitarian specialisation. This humanitarian focus seems to concentrate primarily in schools of public health and humanitarian studies programmes.
  
• The handbook/project is relevant to academic courses because it represents a general NGO voice, for example, its basis in consensus around key indicators. Also, the project addresses popular issues such as human rights and accountability to beneficiaries, which has inspired at least 10 masters theses on the project.
  
• The project's web-based research provided many potential contacts but did not generate many southern academic institutional contacts, which in turn, contributes to the northern bias of the project.
  
• Finally, many academic institutions incorporated Sphere into syllabi prior to contact by the project, which probably reflects initial access through the website. Worldwide, dozens of schools use the Sphere handbook.
  

3.3: How effective is the website in disseminating information?

• Since launching the website in 1999, it has grown in popularity and use, as demonstrated by the increasing number of visits, time spent during a visit, and number and origin of countries visiting. In 1999, monthly visits averaged 10,000, in 2001 monthly visits were 60,000 and in 2002 monthly visits are averaging over 100,000.
• The entire site is available in three languages (English, French, Spanish). Additionally, Russian, Portuguese and Arabic texts of the handbook are posted. Analysis shows the majority of visits originate from northern-based stations, which is not surprising given the faster access time available. The difficulty of accessing websites (in general) seems to limit southern visits. In general, access by southern-based NGOs may be inhibited by other-than-technological factors.
• The Sphere website is in html (as opposed to pdf) which allows for easier and faster online access time.
• To date, the most visited parts of the website are, in descending order: handbook text, training, Sphere in Practice, and general information.

3.4: How effective is the introductory video?

• Preliminary feedback about the 10-minute introductory video indicates that individual users, NGOs, academic institutions and trainees find the video informative.
• Spontaneous productions of Chinese, Russian and Arabic translations indicate conviction in the importance and usefulness of the video on the part of the translators (local NGOs, UN and Red Crescent respectively).
• Feedback indicates that the video is most useful when it is shown at the end of a presentation (as a recap) rather than as an introduction.
  

3.5: The translation of Sphere materials

• Handbook translations have a greater chance of success and acceptance when a glossary is agreed upon by a group of mother-tongue humanitarian aid workers (and not done by individuals even when professional).
  
• There are 12 spontaneous translations of the Sphere handbook with a concentration from Eastern Europe (Serbian, Macedonian, Albanian) and Asia (Japanese, Chinese, Hindi, Korean, etc.).

4: ISSUES AND DILEMMAS IN SPHERE IMPLEMENTATION
For many people working with Sphere, the following issues have been frequently raised. There are no easy answers to most of the following issues and for that reason they will continue to be debated over time.

4.1: Sphere as development indicators
In a situation of chronic poverty in which the issues relate to livelihood protection rather than immediate life-saving intervention, many of the indicators could only be attained through long-term development and probably over many years. While some pilot agencies are beginning to use Sphere for development indicators (see box 4) in this type of context, others consider that Sphere is much more applicable to fast onset disasters where the five life-saving sectors are immediately relevant. This is an issue for further debate.

Some pilot agencies in East Africa mentioned the possibility of comparing Sphere indicators with those used in Poverty Reduction Strategy Plans aimed at long-term development.

4.2: Generalised poverty and tensions between resident and disaster affected populations
Tensions can arise between disaster-affected populations and resident populations in the context of generalised poverty and livelihood insecurity. In these circumstances, the disaster-affected population (often displaced or refugee) may receive sufficient assistance to achieve standards higher than those of the surrounding resident population. Although Sphere is not the cause of inequity, providing resources at Sphere level could exacerbate the degree of inequity and tension between communities if there is not an adequate situation analysis and dialogue between representatives of the communities.

Pilot agencies report that this situation has arisen and the most positive solution appears to be to promote dialogue between the two communities, share some resources with residents and develop criteria for distributions with representatives of both groups.

Used in the context of generalised poverty, Sphere can also act as a tool to strengthen advocacy for development.

4.3: Local customs
In some contexts pilot agencies have attempted to implement the water and sanitation standards and indicators but found that they were not in agreement with local customs. For example, in Ethiopia and India latrines were built, but not used. It may be questionable whether agencies should attempt to reach the indicators when they are not in harmony with local customs, even if the adherence to indicators would improve health levels.

4.4: Orientation of the handbook towards camp-based populations
While most pilot agencies accept that there are many aspects of the handbook that are applicable to resident populations, many found the general orientation of the Sphere Handbook focused on camps and was therefore easier to apply in that context. The revision of the Sphere Handbook will aim to mitigate this orientation towards camps.

4.5: Adaptation of the indicators
There has been considerable debate by humanitarians about whether the indicators should be adapted to local circumstances. Most agencies agree that indicators should be fixed and humanitarians explain and try to close the gap towards the indicator. This approach recognises the difference between attainability (whether the indicators can be reached by a population, with support from humanitarian agencies) and applicability (whether the indicator can be used to measure the situation).

However, the operational reality is that some agencies are choosing to modify indicators for any or all of the following reasons:

• The context and local practices
  
• Operational feasibility
  
• Status of the security situation
  
• Availability of resources
  
• The vast number of indicators included in Sphere making tracking of indicators difficult due to the extensive list in each sector

To help all organisations in applying Sphere, pilot agencies recommend that the Management Committee make a policy decision on the issue of modifying/adjusting indicators.

4.6: Short term displacement
In some contexts 7 temporary shelter of affected populations may be extremely short term, sometimes as brief as a week or so. Pilot agencies raised the question of whether it is appropriate to provide assistance to the Sphere standards and indicators in this context.

4.7: Standards or guidelines?
Some pilot agencies questioned whether Sphere should be considered as standards to aim for in all disaster response or guidelines to be followed where appropriate. The most important difference between these two positions is that some agencies believe that standards are a useful trigger to advocacy while others argue that guidelines are less imperative and consequently easier to use.

4.8: Access
In some cases, secure and adequate access to the affected population prevented agencies providing assistance to Sphere standards and indicators. However, there are examples of the Sphere Handbook being used to promote greater access and resources for affected populations (see box 6).

4.9: Resources
In the case of very large affected populations, such as in the camps in South Sudan or in the earthquake in Gujarat India, achieving the indicators would vastly increase the budgets of current humanitarian programmes. It is not clear whether donors would be willing to provide increased levels of financial support.

4.10: Other actors - the role of the military and private sector in disaster response
Some pilot agencies feel that NGOs are fast losing ground to the military and to the private sector in disaster response. Humanitarian agencies should focus on the difference in roles and purpose. The purpose of humanitarian agencies is to respond to disasters, according to principles defined by those agencies and international humanitarian law, human rights law and refugee law, as enshrined in the Sphere Humanitarian Charter. This is not the purpose of the military and private sector who have other goals. It is essential that humanitarian agencies are clear about this distinction and make the distinction clear to the military and to private business. NGOs can reinforce this message with explanations of how NGOs are able to go beyond pure relief to mitigation, preparedness and risk reduction.

NGOs should take a two-pronged approach in engaging with other actors in dialogue and possibly training but maintain distance and autonomy. They should also lobby to limit the space of other actors in a way that does not harm NGOs or the humanitarian sector. Finally, NGOs should collect and document data showing their distinct role and professionalism in humanitarian assistance. Sphere is valuable in this latter context.

4.11: Donor support
Donor support for Sphere appears to be inconsistent. In the experience of pilot agencies, some donors have required agencies to plan projects drawing on Sphere and expect Sphere indicators to be used and monitored through logical frameworks. Other donors have argued it is not always necessary to meet Sphere indicators and have discouraged their use especially with large populations where the total cost of projects would be beyond available funds.

5: FUTURE DIRECTIONS
The May 2002 Lessons Learned meeting clearly showed that while Sphere pilot agencies have to date made significant progress in training and dissemination efforts, practical application of Sphere guidance in fieldwork remains modest. This "gap" must ultimately be bridged in order for Sphere to become a relevant and powerful resource in disaster assistance operations. According to participants at the May Sphere pilot agency meeting in Geneva, this bridging process will clearly take time, but must include a concerted effort to support direct application at the field level. While much of this effort must be done individually and collectively by agencies themselves, the Sphere Project office should support these efforts through modest, targeted activities that build on existing foundations and NGO interest.

To this end, and within the limited resources (time & money) available, the project staff and Committee members concluded that the project should focus its training and institutionalisation resources in two directions:

1. Strengthen the Geneva office communications capacity to provide regular communications and support to agencies and staff who are working with Sphere around the world and which will include focused efforts to share learning and information about the project to southern-based NGOs and target communications in Spanish and French to respective readers.
2. In three countries support the NGO/pilot community in their efforts to disseminate, institutionalise and train on Sphere.

The project will be a catalyst for agencies in the country/region to work together in the funding and management of national staff who will be identified as the Sphere resource and the principal goal of their effort is to facilitate single and joint agency work to reach the indicators defined by the pilot agencies during the May meeting.

The Sphere project office will provide modest funds to supplement salary and travels costs and provide in-kind support of materials (handbooks) as well as Sphere staff coaching. By working directly with national staff in country, there will be significant opportunity for capacity-building as well as sharing and documenting applications.

This programme will go some way in addressing some of the following other recommendations for action that arose from the May 2002 meeting. These are recorded below:

Recommendation 1
Interest in the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards is extensive. However, a high level of interest and awareness does not necessarily lead to individual or organisational behaviour change or implementation in practice. NGOs need to 'close the gap' between awareness and implementation.

Pilot agencies recommend that to maintain the dynamic in the Sphere Project and respond to new challenges, the Management Committee should draw up a strategy for institutionalisation. In the context of a new strategy, the pilot programme itself has been useful to learn lessons on institutionalisation, however the piloting programme was always intended to be short term. Piloting should shift focus and experimentation and learning continue through the new strategy.

The following are suggestions of where pilots and the Sphere Project could focus resources for institutionalising the Sphere Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards within organisations in the future:

• Inter-agency networking on Sphere at country level, including introducing Sphere into sector groups and perhaps establishing country or regional level focus groups. Networking is probably more important than a more formalised notion of coordination at this stage and could help to ensure that organisations achieve a common language and starting point for planning at country level.
  
• Enhancing south-south networking, training and exchange of experiences.
  
• Decentralised training strategies designed at regional or field level and (ideally) across agencies. This could include joint agency training needs assessments and should take into consideration all the points on what is effective in planning training.
  
• Establishment of a learning focal point with the role of capturing learning events and materials, distributing information dedicated by theme/sector or country and feeding outputs back into the Sphere process.
  
• Approaches to influencing national government disaster policies and principles and seeking strategic entry points (including thinking about the respective roles of national and international agencies).
  
• Building greater ownership of the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards by organisations in the field (see experience of Sphere outreach).

In the context of 'closing the gap', a number of existing pilot agencies have developed a proposal to undertake more intensive experimentation in Sphere at field level in Afghanistan. If this work is successful it should provide rich examples of how a greater field focus can promote Sphere implementation.

Recommendation 2
The factors that are most influential in institutionalising of Sphere should be common knowledge so that agencies have a pathway to follow.

Initial indicators have been established for single agency adoption and institutionalisation of Sphere and for inter-agency application of Sphere (annexes 1 and 2). Agencies should feel free to experiment with these indicators and communicate with the Project to suggest adaptations.

Recommendation 3
To ensure long-term sustainability of Sphere as a tool and maximum diversity in humanitarians using the tool (national NGOs, international NGOs, faith-based, secular etc.), the Sphere Project and NGOs should promote broad balance and ownership.

Growing balance and diversity will involve the following:

• South-South training and networking.
  
• Promotion of trainers from disaster-affected or high-risk countries.
• Inclusion of humanitarians from disaster-affected countries on the focal groups to review sectors of the handbook.
  
• A greater focus on raising awareness of Sphere within partnerships, networks and alliances.

Growing ownership will entail:

• Further work to disseminate the concept that the Sphere Project is not an implementer; on the contrary, the broad and diverse group of humanitarian agencies should take the role of implementation.
  
• Adaptation of the training materials by individual organisations to local circumstances, as well as incorporation of Sphere into other types of training, e.g. security, human rights.

Recommendation 4
Although most agencies accept that the most effective way to use Sphere indicators is to explain the gap between the indicator and prevailing situation, operational realities show that indicators are occasionally being adjusted to local circumstances.

Pilot agencies requested a policy statement from the Management Committee on adjusting indicators.

Recommendation 5
Sphere can help to enhance quality and accountability of disaster response throughout the project cycle. A number of lessons are emerging about what measures could help to promote use in the project cycle.

• NGOs need to strengthen staff skills in project cycle management. These generic skills provide the basis for understanding how to apply Sphere.
  
• Meaningful participation of the affected population can enhance accountability. Experiences, especially those from Central America, need to be shared more broadly through case studies. Inclusion of indicators for meaningful participation in the revised handbook could help to reinforce participation.
  
• Monitoring continues to be a weakness, but could be enhanced by the development of simple tools for inclusion in the revised Sphere Handbook. Training should include the practical application of those tools.
  
• Evaluation teams should include personnel trained in Sphere and Sphere should be in the terms of reference.
  

Recommendation 6
Through debate on the role of other actors in disaster response, pilot agency representatives acknowledged that NGOs are losing ground in rapid disaster response to the military and to the private sector. However, humanitarian agencies should be clear that they alone have a distinct purpose to provide humanitarian assistance in disasters. This is not the raison d'être of other sectors.

As distinct from other sectors, humanitarian agencies are guided by clear sets of principles and practice and are often present prior to the arrival and after the departure of other sectors.

To ensure that humanitarian agencies are clear about their role and are in a position to adequately explain that role, pilot agencies propose a two-pronged approach:

• Lobby to limit the space of other actors in a way that does not harm NGOs or the humanitarian sector
  
• Collect and document data demonstrating the distinct role of NGOs as humanitarians in disaster response, including working to humanitarian principles and standards as well as longer-term intervention with communities (mitigation, preparedness, rehabilitation etc.).

Footnotes
1 For example Caritas India has 140 Diocesan partners within India alone and the Federation of the Red Cross has 175 National Societies.
2 From four pilot agencies including Sphere in policies/procedures in 2000, virtually all have written Sphere into policies or at least include Sphere in policy expectations by 2002.
3 LWF El Salvador, Box 3
4 India, Sri Lanka, Honduras, Nicaragua and Ethiopia
5 IRC report that the former Taliban Government in Afghanistan saw Sphere as an opportunity in that way.
6 See Annex 3 - Pilot Agency Activity to implement Sphere
7 For example, some camps in Burundi's complex emergency are set up for less than a week before the population is dispersed. Likewise in some calamities, such as the floods in Mozambique, some camps may be of a very short-term nature.

ANNEX 1: INDICATORS OF INSTITUTIONALISATION

Indicators for single agency institutionalisation of Sphere

1: Policies
Sphere is incorporated into policies:

• Sphere is presented to and endorsed by the Board within emergency policy
  
• Disaster response/emergency policies explain why the agency endorses Sphere and how it will be applied
  
• Policy is disseminated to staff at all levels and alliance partners, if appropriate
  
• Vision/strategic plan reference Sphere

2: Procedures
Sphere is integrated into tools and procedures:

• Formats for assessment, project proposals, monitoring tools, evaluation and reporting formats
  
• Logistics (procurement and pre positioning) procedures
  
• The organisation's emergency manual
  

3: Human resource management
Sphere is integrated into agency-wide staff development:

• Staff performance is evaluated against achieving objectives of Sphere
  
• Sphere is included at all stages of recruitment procedures for disaster response staff/consultants and for Country Directors in countries vulnerable to disaster
  
  • Job descriptions/Terms of Reference
    
  • Candidates are asked questions on Sphere at interview
• Orientation briefings refer to Sphere and a copy of handbook is provided
  
• Sphere handbook is available for all staff, including in district offices
  
• Non-operational departments are briefed on Sphere (e.g. Press office, Finance)

4: Projects and programmes
Sphere is applied in assessment and data analysis leading to proposals that reflect:

• Sphere guidance i.e. seek to achieve indicators and/or explain why they cannot be achieved in current context
  
• Programmes are monitored against selected indicators based on Sphere
  
• Programmes are evaluated against achieving the objectives of Sphere, including analysis of humanitarian principles, participation and gender
  
• Disaster response projects include a budget line for Sphere dissemination and learning from best practice
  
• Sphere is incorporated into broader work plans/action plans at country level

5: Demonstrated commitment

• Agencies monitor organisation-wide application of Sphere
  
• Country directors show leadership on Sphere application
  
• Agency senior management has attended a Sphere training workshop
  

ANNEX 2: INDICATORS OF INTER-AGENCY COORDINATION

Indicators of interagency coordination using Sphere in a single country context

1: Discussion on common principles relevant for the context

• As many agencies as possible participating in the disaster response discuss codes and principles and their contextual significance
• Agencies develop a shared understanding of humanitarian principles and common language (including agreement on the importance of participation and gender issues)

2: Activities occur which facilitate joint application

• Systematic introduction of Sphere in coordination/sectoral meetings
  
• Joint assessments leading to consistency and equity in outputs (quality and quantity) across area of service provision
  
• Inter-agency Sphere training
  
• Agreement on which criteria for distribution will be shared with the affected population with a view to transparency and accountability
  
• Agreement on indicators for joint monitoring (including what data should be collected, how, frequency and methodology/repository for collation). Monitoring should include humanitarian principles as well as minimum standards
  
• Joint sectoral programming decisions are made based on humanitarian principles and minimum standards
  
• Where appropriate, Memoranda of Understanding between agencies refer to use of the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards as a framework
  
• Local good practice case examples of Sphere application are shared amongst agencies
  
• Joint agencies share Sphere with government bodies and consider how Sphere could inform national disaster response policy
  
• Joint agencies use Sphere as a tool in the formulation of Provincial and/or National Disaster Preparedness and Response plans

3: Procedures defined for systematic review of progress

• Agencies undertake a joint periodic evaluation of progress relative to Sphere application: humanitarian principles and minimum standards
  
• Agencies periodically jointly consult the affected population in relation to the quality and accountability of humanitarian assistance (this should include issues of participation and gender)
  

ANNEX 3: PILOT AGENCY ACTIVITY TO IMPLEMENT SPHERE 2000-2002

Catholic Relief Services: Institutionalising Sphere throughout the organisation
CRS has established a systems approach to Sphere implementation, introducing the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards into policies, procedures and training. CRS has incorporated Sphere into:

• An international program of Emergency Preparedness and Response Training for local partners
  
• Emergency Corps training for the CRS rapid response team
  
• Referred to Sphere in the CRS Technical Review format that provides guidelines for project appraisal
  
• The CRS Emergency Response and Preparedness Handbook
  
• The Strategic Humanitarian Response Plan

What worked well?

• Sphere has presented CRS and partners with a common language in emergency response
  
• CRS is using Sphere as a basis for rapid assessment
  
• There is increased reference to Sphere in project planning and development
  
• It has been useful having the handbook in several languages

Challenges

• Raising awareness amongst a vast plethora of partners
  
• Some negative responses from donors insisting on the minimum standards as a baseline for funding

Save the Children UK: Institutionalising Sphere throughout the organisation
SC-UK has a small Emergencies Department that was set up just three years ago. The department has an advisory, rather than management, role that tends to limit its coverage. However, Sphere is being driven forward by a small group of enthusiasts in the department and has achieved growing awareness at field level. Challenges for the future are to:

• Adopt a more systematic approach to institutionalisation through more efficient information flows
  
• Introduce partners to Sphere as SC-UK moves increasingly towards working through partnership
  
• Sphere recognised as only one of many new policies and approaches being introduced throughout the organisation
  
• Sphere needs to be seen as offering tangible benefits while not constituting an unwelcome additional management burden

SC-UK will develop a new strategy for institutionalisation of Sphere, based on indicators emerging from the Geneva meeting.

Mercy Corps: Sharing Sphere with local partners
Mercy Corps is working with local partners in many regions of the world. In Maluku Indonesia, MCI, has partnered national NGOs working with a large displaced population and provides small scale sub-grants for shelter, non-food items, water and sanitation. Sphere is written into partnership agreements and sub-grant applicants are encouraged to include Sphere in project design and monitoring.

Successes

• A common framework and approach in humanitarian assistance amongst partner agencies - 'Sphere has provided a baseline and departure point for identifying needs'
• Parity - Sphere has helped to ensure parity and avoid jealousy between communities
  
• Credibility - partners feel that communities take the notion of international standards seriously

Challenges

• Which standards? - there is sometimes confusion over which international procedures should be followed by assessment teams
  
• Translation - there were difficulties in translations into local languages that need good guidance on translation from an early stage
  
• Monitoring - the distinction between monitoring and evaluation is not always fully understood

International Rescue Committee: Using Sphere with refugee populations
IRC works with refugee populations in many countries of the world and drew on examples of using Sphere in work in water and sanitation in New Shamshatoo Camp in Pakistan and in Burundi.

What worked well?

• In New Shamshatoo, the assessment was completed in under two weeks
  
• Gaps between the actual situation and Sphere indicators were produced, targets were set based on the gap and costs per unit calculated
  
• Donors funded part of the plan even though there was deep donor fatigue in relation to the refugee population in Pakistan
  
• The population gained dignified, accessible and safe latrines
  
• Staff were proud of their work
  
• IRC used Sphere in ToR for local partner in inspecting the latrines etc. post construction

Lessons learned in quality and accountability

• If used well, Sphere can create a positive response even in a context of donor fatigue and prompt greater accountability to the donor
  
• Some additional indicators could reinforce accountability and could be considered in the Sphere Handbook revision, for example:
  
  • Objective real-time evaluation of Sphere outputs to provide timely information on appropriateness and relevance
    
  • Standards for measuring and re-measuring vulnerable segments of the population to ensure that all stakeholders factor in the dynamic nature of a complex emergency
    
• Continuous promotion of Sphere is essential
  
• There needs to be a strong focus on community collaboration, gender balance, representation of the population and in keeping Sphere application very simple

International Federation of the Red Cross: Using Sphere with Governments and in Advocacy
IFRC has a special role as an auxiliary to governments in disaster response as well as having observer status with the UN Agencies. In that context, the IFRC has:

• Promoted Sphere within the Consolidated Appeal Process of the UN agencies and NGOs at country level
  
• In some countries, the IFRC and national Societies are entering into dialogue with governments about the possible incorporation of Sphere into national disaster management policies and plans
  
• Internally, the IFRC has included Sphere in internal training workshops and courses and piloted the 'field school' approach (i.e. holding training workshops in refugee/displaced camps to gain immediate hands-on experience of applying Sphere)
  

Disaster Mitigation Institute, India: The Sphere in India Campaign
The Sphere in India Campaign was launched by DMI in 1998, inspired by a discussion on 'downward accountability' (to affected populations) at an ALNAP meeting in London. Oxfam India is a major partner in the campaign.

Successes

• Inter-agency and inter-disciplinary collaboration is at the core of the campaign
  
• The methodology is through a series of National Courses on the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response, bringing people of different institutional backgrounds
  
• The Eighth National Course will be held in June 2002
  
• Publications:
  
  • The Experience Learning Series, including ideas on the use of the Sphere standards for designing local relief packages and application in drought
    
  • A Media Kit to facilitate descriptions of Sphere to the Indian media
    
  • Preparedness pocket books - a summary version of Sphere
    
  • Afat Nivaran - a regular newsletter that reaches 2000 grassroots leaders and state level decision makers every month - has included four features on Sphere
    

Challenges

• Bringing Sphere away from lectures and laptops and into the field
  
• Putting field workers in the 'front row' with policymakers
  
• Providing resources for local road shows on Sphere
  
• Facilitating local networks - connecting to one another tirelessly and autonomously
  
• Given that the humanitarian sector is changing rapidly, standards must be reconfigurable
  
• Supporting well resourced partnerships - local-global and South-South - to set the trend in the humanitarian field
  

CARE India: Lessons learned through disaster response in the Gujarat earthquake

What went well?

• CARE had used experience from previous disaster response to make rapid decisions on relief operations and the start-up was characterised by excellent resource mobilisation, some of which was based around Sphere (particularly shelter requirements)
  
• The experience, resilience and dedication of CARE staff

What could be improved?

• Advanced planning on how to set up assessment and logistics operations
  
• Setting up a central logistics supply/management capacity to plan, keep and reconcile records
  
• Training of core rapid response teams in countries/regions with a high risk/frequency of disasters

What happened after Gujarat?

• CARE has initiated Sphere training for large groups of staff as part of disaster preparedness planning drawing on CARE personnel trained through Sphere Training of Trainers workshops

CARITAS Internationalis: Institutionalising Sphere throughout a global organisation

What has gone well?

• Northern members have incorporated Sphere well
  
• Sphere is included in training and emergency manuals/procedures
  
• Very committed people in several Caritas organisations in the south
  

Challenges

• Slow trickle down of Sphere
  
• Feeling of imposition of Sphere onto Members in the South
  
• Sphere is most applicable to camp situations
  

What could be improved?

• South-South learning and experience sharing
  
• Inclusion of Sphere into emergency preparedness training
  
• Training material related to the reality in the South
  
• Dissemination process moved forward by local interest

Next steps

• Strengthen the implementation effort within Caritas
  
• Better coordination of training and better use of human resources within the Confederation
  
• Distribution of case studies on good practice and highlight the importance of Sphere

ADRA: Sharing Sphere with the Government in Peru

What did we do?

• 3 day workshop to review the minimum standards with various government representatives
  
• Presentation of the conclusions of the workshop for each department to incorporate into administration
  
• Trained field personnel and volunteers
  
• Presented Sphere to Youth Congress and others
  
• Coordinated with World Vision in Southern Region
  
• Participated in the Training of Trainers in Lima
  

What went well?

• Assimilation of Sphere was more efficient than other similar projects
  
• Sphere has helped to strengthen relations between NGOs and the government
  
• ADRA Peru had opportunities to apply Sphere in several disasters during 2001
  
• There is a more comprehensive approach to disaster response amongst agencies
  

What was not successful?

• Consistent implementation of the minimum standards
  
• Training on a mega scale and adequate training with limited time

Oxfam: Sharing Sphere with governments
NGOs tend not be very good at working with government, either at national or local level, yet one of the findings from the evaluation of the disaster response in Gujarat is that the Government of India provided 90% of humanitarian assistance - NGOs were very small in comparison.

What has worked well?
Oxfam has some good examples of collaboration with government and in some cases sharing Sphere in that context:

• In Kenya, Oxfam has had great success in sharing criteria for distribution with the community and gaining government endorsement for the system and methodology. Sphere promotes the methodology although there are relatively few practical examples
  
• In Ethiopia, Oxfam has shared Sphere with the Government through training workshops and has particularly promoted aspects of the Humanitarian Charter and principles. There is also debate about the Government using Sphere to inform nutrition assessment methods.
  
• In Nicaragua, Oxfam has shared Sphere with the Government at a strategic time - when the GoN is drawing up new legislation and policies for disaster response
  

Okutiuka, Angola: The changing environment for NGOs, using Sphere in rights-based advocacy

What have we done?
Angola only legalised the existence of NGOs with the collapse of the one-Party state in 1991. They still have relatively limited experience of acting as a lobbying force to oblige the Government of Angola to assume its responsibilities for basic services to poor people.

In relation to Sphere, OCHA has promoted the adoption of the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards through national legislation. In January 2001 the Council of Ministers approved a Decree that set out the 'Norms on the Reintegration of the Displaced' based on the Guiding Principles on Displaced Populations (Deng 1998) and Sphere. In August 2001 the Government published a draft set of regulations for implementation of the Decree and OCHA sponsored a Training of Trainers course for government Humanitarian Coordinators in each of the 18 Provinces in the application of Sphere and the Decree. Subsequently workshops were held across the country for groups of NGOs. In this way, national NGOs nationwide were very rapidly made aware of Sphere.

What went well?

• The Training for Trainers in Sphere followed by workshops across the country
  
• The possibility of using Sphere and the Decree as a tool to lobby for basic services
  
• Sphere is mentioned ever more frequently in key meetings and conferences (at least as much by non-pilot agencies as by pilots!)
  

What has not worked well?

• The Government is likely to have passed the Decree in order to gain favour with the international community and may not intend to implement it
  
• Pilot agencies, especially international pilot NGOs, have not yet taken on board the Humanitarian Charter as a means to lobby for rights. As a linked point, INGOs do not appear to consider the possibility of forming a lobbying group together with national NGOs
  

LWF, El Salvador and globally: Accountability to the population through Sphere

What have we done?
At HQ, LWF has integrated Sphere into every major meeting as well as distributing Sphere Handbooks and videos to all offices. LWF, together with the ACT network, has participated to the maximum in interagency training workshops and in Training of Trainers workshops.

In El Salvador, LWF feels there is real and deep participation by the affected population in all development and emergency work throughout the project cycle, as well as strategic coordination with other actors working in the region.

• After Hurricane Mitch in 1998, LWF was conscious that staff and volunteers needed to be more effectively prepared for disaster response. Over a period of a year, LWF staff were trained in Sphere, the Code of Conduct and Community Based Risk Management.
  
• When the earthquake struck El Salvador in early 2001, LWF immediately held a refresher course in a tent the following day for staff and volunteers and then grounded the response in humanitarian principles with the specific objective of being accountable to the population. An essential element of accountability was sharing all aspects of assessment, project planning, implementation and monitoring with the population.
  
• Projects were planned with the community, defining role division and responsibilities from the beginning. LWF and the community set up working groups to carry out activities related to water and sanitation, food aid, housing, community health and agricultural production. Sphere principles and key indicators were shared with beneficiary communities in the context of human rights.
  

What worked well?
The community had greater control and informed choice than is common in disaster response, as well as there be