Accountability in the humanitarian system

Global Cluster Leads Donor MeetingApril 21st 2009

ALNAP – Who are we?

UN Members: UNICEF, FAO, UNHCR, OCHA, WHO, UNDP, WFP

Red Cross Members: BRCS, ICRC, IFRC

Donors: AECID, AusAID, CIDA, Danida, DFID, ECHO, Germany, Irish Aid, JICA, Netherlands, Norad, Sida, Switzerland, USAID

ALNAP who are we? (cont.)

• NGOs; AAH, AHA, AIDMI, CAFOD, CARE, Christian Aid, CRS, DEC, DRC, FOCUS, HAP, ICVA, IRC, Mercy Malaysia, MSF Holland, NRC, OFADEC, Oxfam, People In Aid, ProVention, RedR, Save the Children US, SCHR, SPHERE, Tearfund, VOICE, World Vision

• Academics and consultants: ODI, DARA, Tufts, ETC UK, Groupe URD, HFP, CENDEP, IECAH and 2 independent consultants

ALNAP Vision: some key elements

• … humanitarian assistance will be more systematic, and delivery will more closely reflect humanitarian principles, norms and codes. Active partnership with affected people, local administration and civil society groups will be more evident and will reflect an explicit recognition by the international community of the importance of local skills and knowledge. Humanitarian agencies will act accountably and will ensure that learning and change processes, including evaluations, are part of a commitment to continuous improvement.

• Key ideas (interlinked and interdependent)• systematic and better coordinated delivery; • affected people at the heart of the response; • agencies acting accountably.

`

How have agencies tried to become more accountable?

A combination of 3 broad approaches:

(i) Improving participation of affected communities

(ii) Developing codes, standards and principles

(iii) Focusing on performance and results

Approach 1: Improving participation - current initiatives Humanitarian Accountability Partnership: NGO membership

committed to Quality Management Standard Collaborative Development Action: the Listening Project on views

of affected populations Fritz Institute: use of beneficiary surveys Promotion of participatory evaluation methodologies Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (VCA) through Red Cross Quality COMPAS – quality management approach Global Study on Participation – participatory techniques and

monographs

Approach 2: Codes, Standards and Principles Red Cross/Crescent NGO Code of Conduct. Debates about IHL and humanitarian principles (neutrality,

independence and impartiality) after Rwanda genocide, Chechnya and Afghanistan

International Disaster Response Law (IDRL) development of legal frameworks

SPHERE: technical standards, sectoral approach People in Aid: promotion of HR best practice HAP Standard mentioned previously is a standard

focusing on participation

Approach 3: Performance and Results Evaluations – OECD-DAC Criteria

ALNAP Evaluations Impact assessments, innovationsHumanitarian Performance Project (HPP)

Results based management Quality approaches – Compas, EFQM and ISO

9000 Emergency Capacity Building Project (ECB)

Good enough guide

What tools are out there that the clusters might consider?

Participation HAP standard

Codes, Standards and Principles SPHERE Indicators– updated version due for publication Red Cross/Crescent Code of Conduct People in Aid Code of Best Practice (IHL; Refugee Law; Human Rights Law; International Disaster Response Law;

ALNAP and ICRC Guides to Protection)

Performance and Results ALNAP Guide to applying OECD DAC Criteria in Humanitarian Assistance Quality COMPAS ECB Good Enough Guide

Key questions for today: What are the common functions of the clusters? Cannot determine common accountability

frameworks without identifying common functions across the clusters Exploring accountability presents valuable opportunity to

revisit rationale and modus operandi

Clusters are collaborative mechanisms and therefore a ‘network’ approach may be useful in identifying key common functions ALNAP-ODI-ICVA work on network functions

Networks perform 6 functions (overlapping, non-exclusive). Possible questions: which of these are priorities for the clusters? What is the appropriate balance in different contexts? How is the balance maintained over time?

Filters

Learning / Facilitators

Community builders

Investor/providers

Amplifiers Convenors

Key questions for today, once functions are determined: What would an accountable cluster look like? Three underlying questions:

What are the priorities of cluster accountability with respect to affected populationprinciples and valuesperformance and results?

How can cluster accountability mechanisms (collective) be balanced and streamlined with single agency accountability mechanisms

How can cluster accountability support and reinforce (a) ongoing cluster development (b) other reform initiatives?

Recap Intro to ALNAP

Three models of accountability

Possible tools and techniques

Key questionscommon cluster functions Accountability priorities and modalities