Accountability towards beneficiaries

1. Accountability towards beneficiaries Nicholas Stockton Executive Director Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP) INTERNATIONAL NOT-FOR-PROFIT EVENT WORKSHOP 1

2. The Humanitarian Accountability Partnership - International • Founded in 2003 – "to achieve and promote the highest principles of accountability through self-regulation by members linked by common respect for the rights and dignity of beneficiaries" • Objectives: • Set standards of accountability • Support members • Promote greater accountability • Monitor and certify compliance • Complaints-handling

3. ACFID (Australia) ACTED (France) CAFOD (Caritas UK) CARE International Christian Aid (UK) Church World Service – Pakistan/Afghanistan COAST Trust (Bangladesh) CONCERN Worldwide DanChurchAid (Denmark) Danish Refugee Council Medair (Switzerland) Medical Aid for Palestinians (UK) MERCY Malaysia Muslim Aid (UK) Norwegian Refugee Council OFADEC (Senegal) Oxfam GB Save the Children UK Sungi Development Foundation (Pakistan) Tearfund (UK) Women's Commission on Refugee Women and Children (USA) World Vision International HAP full-members

4. Official donors AusAID DFID (associate member) Danish MFA (associate member) Swedish MFA (associate member) Irish MFA Netherlands MFA Norwegian MFA Foundations Oak Foundation Ford Foundation Current Donors

5. Horn of Africa 2009 A simulation

6. Scenario • August 2009 • Horn of Africa Famine • 12 million people affected • Global crude mortality: 3/10,000/deaths/day • 2,160 children under five dying per day • UN Emergency Appeal 30% funded

7. Dodoth: A badly affected district in Karamoja, Uganda • Population: 80,000 with 27,000 children under 5 • Crude Mortality Rate @ 6/10,000/day • 48 deaths per day of which 34 are children under 5 • District wide caseload of 4,160 moderate-severely malnourished children

8. FlashAid and Qualaid • Qualaid is HAP Certified, FlashAid is still thinking about it. • Both agencies arrive 1st August on OCHA charter • Both deploy 5 international staff • Each given 50% of OCHAemergency funds available for supplementary feeding in Dodoth District

9. Day 1 – “hits the ground running” Day 3 – Supplementary feeding programme for 2,080 children up and running Day 4 – crowd control problems due to registration anomalies and lack of information Day 1 to Day 3 “community consultations” Day 4 – Verification of registered beneficiaries completed with help from community leaders Comparative Response FlashAid Qualaid

10. Day 5 – Beneficiary criteria and detailed distribution schedule displayed on public notice-boards Day 6 Supplementary feeding for 2,080 children up and running Comparative Response FlashAid Qualaid

11. Day 7 - Both agencies have underestimated demand as migrants from un-assisted neighbouring district start arriving generating an additional 1,000 caseload of malnourished children. Queues form in both project areas, although these are much longer at FlashAid’s feeding centre because distribution schedule has not been published.

12. Day 8 – Feeding programme expanded to meet new demand: total caseload 3,000 Day 9 – Rates of dehydration and diarrhoea increase due to effect of long queues in un-shaded waiting area Day 10 – Programme disrupted by riots. International staff withdrawn. Day 8 - Consultations with community and patients Day 9 – Feeding programme expanded to meet 3,000 caseload. New distribution schedule communicated to community Day 10 - New shaded waiting area constructed for additional caseload Comparative Response FlashAid Qualaid

13. Day 12 - Team given advice on reducing security risks by community leaders Day 20 to Day 80 186 complaints handled targeting improved 2 members of staff sacked for sexual exploitation of beneficiaries Day 15 – Warehouse looted Day 20 – International staff return Day 21 – National staff ambushed on road Day 25 – Security consultant brought in to advice on new security guidelines Comparative Response FlashAid Qualaid

14. Day 70 – Evaluation Team arrive Day 72 – Evaluation Team depart Day 80 – Evaluation Report given to HQ with inter alia recommendations for improving queuing & registration practices and dealing with poor community relations due to staff "behavioural" issues. Comparative Response FlashAid Qualaid

15. Day 82 – Field informed of evaluation findings Day 83 – Registration anomalies addressed Queuing conditions improved Day 90 – Nutrition targets reached - project closed Comparative Response FlashAid Qualaid

16. Day 100 – Nutrition targets reached. Project closed Comparative Response FlashAid Qualaid

17. FlashAid – mortality data

18. Qualaid - mortality data

19. Bad queuing conditions leads to slower rate of decline in mortality rate in FlashAid centre The speed dividend The accountability dividend Death rates increase sharply with influx from neighbouring districts, although higher in FlashAid area. FlashAid's early achievements undermined by staff insecurity and temporary evacuation FlashAid’s evaluation recommendations implemented Quick start by FlashAid brings initial gains in reducing mortality, but - Qualaid’s early consultation and public communications reduce queues, stress and registration mistakes Qualaid’s Complaints handling system leads to improved targeting as registration anomalies are resolved early Qualaid’s improved targeting and better environmental conditions produces earlier closure of project

20. FlashAid Area 1,207 Qualaid Area 604 Dodoth DistrictCumulative <5 death toll after 100 days

21. Comparative Costs

22. Qualaid's management system produced: • Better humanitarian outcomes in terms of mortality, morbidity and the dignity of disaster survivors • Improved programme cost-effectiveness • Better staff security and risk management • Reduced losses through fraud and theft through the application of…..

23. … five simple quality management practices: • transparency in mandate, objectives, beneficiary and entitlement criteria and implementation reporting • consultation with "principals" (disaster survivors) right from the beginning to gain their informed consent • feedback/complaints & redress-handling system • competence of staff • learning for continuous improvement

24. The Challenge • Imbalance of power between humanitarian principals and humanitarian agents. For example: • Disaster survivors are only rarely represented in: • Donor resource allocation procedures • UN coordination mechanisms • NGO governance arrangements • Disaster survivors are: • Often not consulted in assessments by relief agencies • Given no choice in selection of relief agency • Often treated as a homogenous group • Often subjected to "veterinarian" style relief interventions • Rarely able to submit a complaint or seek redress

25. ..compounded by • Host country national regulatory mechanisms are weak or compromised in most humanitarian crises • Donor country NGO regulation that usually seeks to strengthen accountability to domestic stakeholders, not to disaster survivors • Fragmentation and proliferation of standards setting initiatives • The absence of an effective “industry-wide” voluntary quality assurance system

26. …..the consequences • The humanitarian system is thus particularly vulnerable to the risks of: • Moral hazard (e.g. sexual exploitation of children by aid workers) • Inappropriate choice (i.e. agencies taking on jobs that they are not qualified to do – e.g. post-tsunami boat building and house reconstruction) • The relative power of donors (both official and private) means that market-share “success” is a function of supply-side contracting and marketing rather than demand-driven programming

27. the situation • The credibility of international humanitarian action is threatened by perceptions of: • lack of impact • poor coordination • waste/inefficiency • corruption and fraud • political instrumentalisation/co-option • lack ofprofessionalism • Increasing calls for official regulation (e.g. International Disaster Response Treaty)

28. HAP's proposition: • The adoption of HAP's accountability and quality management standard will improve the impact and cost effectiveness of humanitarian action • HAP's certification assures optimal programme quality in any given context • HAP certification improves risk management • HAP certification helps to curb abuse of corporate power thereby reducing vulnerability to hostile legal action • HAP certification benefits all stakeholders(staff, donors, partners and disaster survivors) • HAP certificationstrengthens the comparative advantage of certified agencies

29. The Humanitarian Accountability and Quality Management Standard

30. What is different about the HAP Standard? • Addresses the quality of humanitarian action, as perceived by its intended beneficiaries and other key stakeholders • Focussed only upon "mission critical" elements of an agency's humanitarian quality management system • Prepared in accordance with the ISO guidelines for the development of international quality management standards

31. Standard Development Process

32. The 6 benchmarks and 19 related requirements were selected for: • Relevance (mission criticality) • Feasibility • Affordability • Measurability

33. The HAP Standard comprises: • Foreword • Introduction • HAP Accountability Principles • Brief history • Qualifying norms for certification • Key definitions • Humanitarian Covenant • Principles for humanitarian action • Outline of Benchmarks • Working with partners • Benchmarks for the HAP Standard

34. Benchmark 1: The agency shall establish a humanitarian quality management system Benchmark 2: The agency shall make the following information publicly available to intended beneficiaries, disaster-affected communities, agency staff and other specified stakeholders: (a) organisational background; (b) humanitarian accountability framework; (c) humanitarian plan; (d) progress reports; and (e) complaints handling procedures Benchmark 3: The agency shall enable beneficiaries and their representatives to participate in programme decisions and seek their informed consent Benchmark 4: The agency shall determine the competencies, attitudes and development needs of staff required to implement its humanitarian quality management system Benchmark 5: The agency shall establish and implement complaints-handling procedures that are effective, accessible and safe for intended beneficiaries, disaster-affected communities, agency staff, humanitarian partners and other specified bodies Benchmark 6: The agency shall establish a process of continual improvement for its humanitarian accountability framework and humanitarian quality management system 

35. "The Guide to the HAP Standard" now available from Oxfam publishing Order from www.oxfam.org.uk/publications

36. A more informed choice for staff, volunteers, partner agencies, donors and disaster survivors Enhanced credibility and standing of certified agencies Strengthening of accountability and professionalism HAP certification is: Applicable regardless of agency size, place of origin, operational or partner-based Available to all agencies who meet the qualifying norms HAP certification offers the sector…

37. Steps to Certification • Baseline analysis • Submission of application • Preparation of documentation • Self-assessments of all field sites • Head office audit • Field site audit • Interviews with stakeholders • Auditor's report • Authorisation by HAP Certification and Accreditation Review Board • Certification – 3 year validity with interim check

38. Typical certification time-line Decision If audit findings reveal any major non-conformities, certification would be delayed until these are addressed A certificate is issued for a period of 3 years, with a mandatory mid term (18 months) monitoring audit Preparation 2 – 4 weeks Ensure agency on board Baseline Analysis 6-8 weeks Prepare HAF Prepare HQMS Improvement Head Office: 3 days Field Site: 3 days Report, including drafts and feedback: up to 1 month Audit Within 6 months Consultation, support and organization response to baseline recommendations Certified Head Office: 3 days Field Site: 3 days

39. Certification • 2007: First round of membership certification completed with OFADEC, Danish Refugee Council and MERCY Malaysia certified. • 2008: Second round of membership certification underway with 6 more members (DanChurchAid, Tearfund, Concern, Christian Aid, World Vision (FPMG) & Cafod) involved

40. Is the accountability burden too great?

41. Task: In Groups of 6 If HAP Certification benefits all stakeholders, as HAP claims is the case, what are the major blockages preventing your agency from enrolling in the HAP Certification scheme?