SPHERE WORKSHOP REPORT
Interagency Workshop. Tegucigalpa, Honduras. September 2001
When, Where and Who:
From September 4th
to the 7th, 2001 in Tegucigalpa Honduras the 26th
Interagency Sphere Workshop took place CO-hosted by Consejo Cristiano de
Desarollo (CCD), Catholic Relief Services (CRS) and the International
Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (Federation). The workshop was attended by 24 participants
from 20 organisations, and was facilitated by Juan Saenz, Independent
Consultant, Ana Urgoiti from Spanish Red Cross, Luis Morago from Action Aid,
and Dario Alvarez from the Federation. Organisations present included: national
& international NGO’s, as well as
Government of Honduras organisations. IOM from the UN attended selected
sessions. (see detailed list of participants).
The Workshop concluded
with a 90-minute presentation with the presence of approx. 60 people. Heads of
agency, members of the donor community, government representatives and members
of the NGO community attended this two-hour event where they were presented
with an overview of Sphere, a summary of the workshop and the follow up
conclusions to the workshop by participants. A cocktail followed the presentation.
With an estimated Gross
National Product of US$650 per capita, Honduras is one of the poorest countries
in the Americas, and over 50 percent of the population (total pop. approx. 6
million) live in poverty. Almost half of the people lack access to safe water.
Since hurricane Mitch, the number and presence of humanitarian organisations
(both national and international) has notable increased in the country.
The workshop in Honduras
was held just over two months prior to presidential elections. The political
campaigns reminded participants about the need to explore ways to
institutionalise the Humanitarian Charter (HC) and Minimum Standards (MS) in
order to ensure continuity within organisations that may be affected by a
change of government. Otherwise long-term commitments will not be possible.
The countries in the
Central American region have many commonalities, and also many differences;
historical, economical, political and cultural differences. Regardless of the
fact that Central America has enjoyed a decade of relative peace in the region,
the interaction between the countries in the region is now changing and some
interviewees expressed their concern in terms of “underlying tensions” building up. As a concrete example we can
note the recent 35% duty on Honduras imports established by the Nicaraguan
Government, or the recent allegations of
the Honduran Government that El Salvador was caught spying. Informants
interviewed expressed that some of the underlying causes that led to conflict
in the past are still “latent”.
The present time
provides an opportunity for organisations to train, create spaces for the
strengthening of civil society and further promote the principles and standards
included in the Sphere handbook.
The workshop's aim was: to give stakeholders involved in and responsible
for emergency response an opportunity to start a process of discussion around
humanitarian effectiveness by using the Sphere Minimum Standards in Disaster
Response and Humanitarian Charter as tools to increase the effectiveness of
humanitarian assistance, and to support humanitarian agencies in becoming more
accountable.
The specific objectives of the
workshop were: a) To
familiarize participants with the Humanitarian Charter, Minimum Standards, and
Key Indicators presented in the Handbook; b) To help participants understand
how to use the Sphere Handbook as a disaster management tool; and c)To provide
participants with hands on experience using the Sphere Handbook in disaster
case studies.
The four day agenda
included the following elements; Half day for Module I “Introduction to
Sphere”, one and a half day on Module II, “Humanitarian Charter”; One day for
Module III “Assessments, Analysis, Monitoring and Evaluation” as well as follow up steps for future. (See detailed
agenda attached).
Day 1 (morning), A
Common Understanding: Participant's and facilitators introduce each other
through an icebreaker exercise using their organization's mission statement;
Participants discuss expectations in groups and present in plenary; The Vision
for the workshop is presented and the programme is briefly explained;
Participants take a Quiz; Participants are presented with the background,
history, needs and approach of the Sphere project. An exercise to familiarize
participants with the handbook is conducted. The distinction between Minimum
Standards, Key Indicators, Guidance Notes and Appendixes is highlighted.
Through group work, participants identify challenges/risks and opportunities
for the application of Sphere in their respective contexts; The Sphere video is
projected in order to wrap up the session and reinforce some main messages and
key learning points.
Day 1 (afternoon) and day 2, the Humanitarian
Charter: The
previous day is reviewed and evaluated; A recently developed session entitled
“Basic Concepts, civil society, rights and law” is presented and very welcomed
by the group. This session consisted on a journey through human society and how
the concepts developed and evolved. This session finalized with a group work
where each group discusses a concept and its relationship to human rights, e.g.
civil society and human rights. In plenary a discussion analyzes the key values
and principles in humanitarianism as they relate to the Sphere Project, the
video Code of Conduct is projected to end the session; A coordination exercise
is conducted where participants explore relations between organizations and
expectations (as well as perceptions) of each other; Three case studies are
analyzed in order to reflect or organizational options. These case studies
include elements of relief and development continuum, contributing to war
economies, and sovereignty Vs interventions; The day ends with an introduction
to the Project cycle where participants are presented with the tools to be used
in the following day, i.e. problem tree, logical framework, etc.
Day 3, Sphere and the
project cycle: The previous day is reviewed and evaluated; The group is
divided into 5 groups and presented with a hypothetical scenario called
"Domistan"; Participants are asked to prepare ToR for an assessment
mission; Once the ToR are finalized participants are presented with the results
of the assessment and asked to analyze the findings; a problem tree is used as
a tool for the identification of focal problems in order to ensure timely and
appropriate disaster response program that addresses root causes of
vulnerability. MS and KI are then used to gauge the severity of the problem;
Once participants have their problem tree they design an intervention using the
“objectives tree”. New information about Domistan is feed to the group and then
they are presented with a brief 15 minute lecture on monitoring and evaluation
followed by the evaluators quiz. The groups are then request to identify the
three types of Standards and indicators that could be used in M&E, as well
as mechanisms for actually conducting the monitoring and evaluation. End of
day.
Day 4, Implications of
Sphere within the organizations present:
Participants are divided into organizations and asked to discuss amongst
themselves how they envisage Sphere could impact their day to day work, and how
they could mainstream and implement the HC and MS within their organizations;
After the exercises a plenary discussion is held and possibilities for follow
up are identified and recorded (see below); Participants take a few minutes to
reflect on the Key learning points from the previous days and prepare a
socio-drama to present to the rest of the group; Participants are asked to individually fill the evaluation
forms; the closing speeches and certificates distribution take place; end of
day 4 at 12:30.
Methodology: Case studies and group
work prevailed. Practical use of MS and KI in case studies and fictitious
scenarios were the main method utilized, and it was complemented with lectures,
plenary discussions, brainstorming and demonstrations followed by discussions
amongst participants about their own experiences. Role-plays and dramas where
also included.
a) Participants expressed that the
humanitarian community in Honduras lacks cohesiveness, and that since Mitch,
very few initiatives have taken place to ensure that organisations are
co-ordinated. Therefore this interagency workshop was welcomed as an important
step towards community building and co-ordination.
b)
Participants
constantly referred to the “pre-Mitch” and the “Post Mitch” eras. There is a
clear distinction between these two eras, the later being characterized by a
proliferation of humanitarian actors in Honduras, increased funding, as well as
increased recurrence of hazards and increased occurrence of disasters.
c) Another notable difference
expressed by participants is the increased presence of the government’s
disaster office COPECO in the humanitarian arena. And even tough this presence does not yet cover the expectations
of some humanitarian actors, their increased presence, and an effort to improve
their performance (e.g. presently undergoing a restructuring) was acknowledged.
d) Participants acknowledged that
there is limited knowledge about human rights and rights based approach within
the humanitarian community in Honduras. Participants expressed that the
workshop helped as a reminder about the importance and need to further familiarize
themselves with existing national legal frameworks.
e) Generally the handbook was
welcomed and proved to be a relevant tool in the Honduran context. Furthermore,
the interaction amongst and between organisations was very welcomed.
Identified as potential
risks
-
Not using the manual, even
though we now know it exists.
-
It is a guide and should not
be regarded as “the law”.
-
That the Government does not
consider it.
-
Not being able to meet the
minimum standards
-
No political support at the
top of our organisations.
-
Too focused on emergencies.
Identified as opportunities
-
Have all that information
concentrated in one manual.
-
Harmonize interventions of
different actors.
-
Rationalization of
resources.
-
Increase in effectiveness
and efficiency
-
Stimulates and aids in
co-ordination.
-
It is flexible and not “a
straitjacket”, it is a process that we can be part of its development.
-
Some indicators are also
relevant for development work.
Participants identified these points as follow up actions
On a personal level: Use the handbook as a tool for monitoring and
evaluation; read and research more on topics related to human rights;
Disseminate amongst colleagues; Internalise the principles of the humanitarian
charter into the day-to-day work; Use the handbook when planning and
implementing programmes.
Within the Red Cross Movement, four areas were identified: a) As part of ongoing
training initiatives, distribute the material reviewed during the workshop; b)
Reinforce advocacy about the HC and MS using meetings and gatherings; c) Reflect in reports elements related to the
Handbook; d) Share what is Sphere is all about with colleagues on a regular
basis.
Within CARE: Use the handbook to define the desired “level of
response” that the organisation wants to achieve; Reproduce the workshop at a
regional level; Design HQ and field plans that include SPHERE elements.
World Vision and “Plan
International”: Organize a workshop for internal
dissemination; Design pilot projects to ensure that Sphere does not remain at a
theoretical level but also at a field level; Include Sphere in the Plan of
Action; Organize specific workshops using a modular approach.
Government of Honduras: Co-ordinate programmes and efforts; Design
general criteria needed to include Sphere in humanitarian assistance
programmes.
Follow up as a humanitarian community
in Honduras: A committee was
created in order to ensure continuity, information sharing, training and
co-ordination on matters related to Sphere. A date was defined for the
committee’s first meeting
a) The general tone and level of discussions in the
workshop was high. There was a very good rapport and team spirit amongst
facilitators, organizers and participants.
b) Participants noted the absence of important humanitarian
actors, e.g. UN and OXFAM.
c) Out of the 24 participants only 4 where woman, and
at times participants where unable to maintain a learning environment that was
conducive for this minority to express their views openly and freely.
d) Facilitators would like to note that the training
materials in Spanish need a serious revision in order to ensure that the
translation is correct. It seems that most translations where “literal”
translations, therefore the meaning of many phrases is lost.
e) Facilitators found some of the training materials
to be “too restrictive”, “rigid and not allowing room for creativity”, and
would like to recommend to include a variety of training methodologies
currently not contemplated (e.g. demonstrations, socio-drama, flipchart based
exercises, etc)
f) Case studies need to be further adapted to the
Latin American reality. Participants where interested and engaged, but many
expressed that they felt too distant from the realities portrayed through the
case studies.
g) The module 3 worked brilliantly, the group work was
welcomed and very successful.
h) A lesson to be learned is that facilitators need
extensive preparation individually followed by a team 2-day preparation session
prior to the workshop. Internet communication went well, but definitively a
“face to face” session is highly recommended prior to the workshop. The
preparatory “London meeting” proved to be very important for the success of the
workshop.
i)
The design of the
agenda proved to be successful. The topics where well balanced and the flow and
cohesion between sessions worked very well.
j) The inclusion of the new session “basic concepts”
in Mod. 2 proved to be very successful. This session allowed participants to
build conceptual foundations that allowed them to better understand the context
in which the right and duties embedded in the HC came from. Specific
recommendations about this module where given to Luis who will be further
developing the training materials to include our recommendations (e.g. to
include a session were participants analyse the existing legal national
frameworks that guide humanitarian work in the context where the workshop is
being held.)
k) On the
video: Facilitators, are aware of the forthcoming shooting of a new video,
nonetheless they would like express
their concern about the image the current video is promoting. Particular
reference we would like to make is the way the video portrays the relationship
between people affected by disasters, and humanitarian workers. Furthermore the
video is promoting the erroneous notion that the handbook was developed by
“northern” NGO’s and that disasters only occur in the “South”.
l)
The following people
where identified by the facilitators as key to future implementation
initiatives in Honduras and possible contributions to the next edition of the
handbook: Maynor Ceron – Responsable de Emergencias de Comision Cristiana de
Desarrollo (CCD); Marco Tulio Villela – Experto en Seguimiento y Evaluacion de
Vision Mundial; Nelson Aly – consultor de Juventud de Federacion Internacional
de Sociedades de Cruz Roja y Media Luna Roja; Rafael Perdomo Vaquero –
Responsable de Proyecto VIH-SIDA de Cruz Roja Hondurena. (see list of
participants for contact information)
m) The facilitation team would like to record their
appreciation to the support received from the host agencies as well as from the
Sphere Project office in London and Geneva.
The
following three issues identified by the host committee directly affect the
organisation of this type of workshops:
1)
Most agencies expressed interest and willingness to further train themselves in
humanitarian topics. Nonetheless the level of commitment prior to the workshop
did not meet the committee’s expectations.
2)
There is a high turnover of personnel within humanitarian organisations in
Honduras. This presents a challenge for sustainability and follows up.
3)
Honduras is currently undergoing a national presidential electoral process.
This may result in changes within government actors, and therefore may
jeopardize ongoing government led efforts towards interagency co-ordination.
In
general terms the host committee expressed satisfaction about the level and
frequency of communications with the Sphere Project offices and with the lead
facilitator. They felt supported and expressed a sense of belonging towards
Sphere Project, in their words “Esfera somos todos” We are Sphere.
The
host committee noted some challenges and negative aspects to learn for future:
a)
The process of
inviting participants through the head of agency in some cases proved to be
counterproductive as the selection of participants was out of control of the
host committee.
b)
There was not enough
follow up after the invitations were sent.
c)
The manual for
organising an interagency workshop was not made available to the hosts until
late in the organising process, i.e. only until the focal point became the lead
facilitator.
d)
Some concerns were
expressed about the manual. Namely: too rigid, does not stress enough gender
balance amongst participants, written in a way that dictates instead of
recommending or suggesting.
The
expectations were met, and the workshop was labelled as a success. In the
committee’s words: “The workshop will allow us to have more ‘rowers’ to pull
the boat [implementation of Sphere] in the region”
Monitoring
and follow up will be conducted in order to find out if other expectations will
be met in coming months: e.g. Are participants and their organisations aware of
the importance of the legal framework in which the HC is based? The standard 3
month follow up may help to identify this.
Where the goals and objectives met?
Future
support requested from the staff of the Sphere Project
a)
Reserve two slots in
the Peru ToT for participants from Central America.
b)
Follow up in three
months
c)
Further training,
national and regional.
d)
Information sharing
and updating about Sphere in other parts of the world.
End of report
ANNEX 1:
AGENDA
TALLER ESFERA HONDURAS
DEL MARTES 4 AL VIERNES 7 DE
SEPTIEMBRE 2001
AGENDA
TENTATIVA
|
Horario |
DIA 1- Martes |
DÍA 2 - Miercoles |
DÍA 3 – Jueves |
DIA 4 - Viernes |
|
08:30
09:00 |
|
Revision
del dia anterior |
Revision
del dia anterior |
Revision
del dia anterior |
|
09:00 10:30 |
Modulo 1 Introducción al Proyecto de
la Esfera |
Valores y principios en el
Humanitarianismo |
Evaluaciones utilizando
Esfera |
Seguimiento y planes a
futuro en Honduras |
|
10:30 |
Descanso |
Descanso |
Descanso |
Descanso |
|
11:00 12:30 |
Continuación M 1 |
Funciones y
Responsabilidades en el Complejo
Humanitario |
Análisis utilizando el
manual de Esfera |
Revision de mensajes claves,
evaluacion y cierre del taller. |
|
12:30 |
Almuerzo |
Almuerzo |
Almuerzo
|
Almuerzo |
|
13:30 15:00 |
Modulo 2 Los instrumentos legales de
la Carta Humanitaria |
Opciones de las
organizaciones e individuos, dilemas |
Supervision utilizando
Esfera |
Fin del taller inter-agencias y comienzo del taller para Directores de las agencias humanitarias
en Honduras |
|
15:00 |
Descanso |
Descanso |
Descanso |
|
|
15:30
17:00 |
Leyes para no-abogados |
Modulo
3 Introduccion al Modulo |
Evaluacion utilizando Esfera |
|
|
17:00 |
Fin del dia |
Fin del dia |
Fin del dia |
|