Humanitarian Certification Review Project Discussions and conclusions from the

1. Humanitarian Certification Review Project Discussions and conclusions from the Humanitarian Standards Forum, Geneva28 June 2013

2. A reminder of what we discussed • Context and rationale – why focus on certification • Project overview and approach – building a consensus • What is certification? – some definitions and examples • Stakeholder views on certification - donors, host governments and others • How can certification contribute to impact – examples from other sectors and reflections from participants • Defining a successful model: • Six key questions for workshop discussions • Some conclusions

3. Context and Rationale

4. Does anyone remember Mitch?

5. Trends and choices… Trends • Increasing demands for transparency, accountability and results • Affected communities and local actors more assertive in expressing their rights • More competition from non-humanitarian players like private sector • Complicated operating environments and growing needs Choices • Most quality and accountability initiatives came as a reaction to our failures in the past • Opportunity to be pro-active and decide how to bring more consistency, coherence and professionalism to our work • We can determine what it means to be a principled, credible and trust-worthy humanitarian organisations and how to demonstrate this to affected populations, partners and supporters

6. Project Overview

7. Project in brief • Two-year consultation and study process • Exploring if certification can improve quality, effectiveness and accountability • Identify options for an sustainable certification model for sector, based on cost-benefit analysis • Sponsored by SCHR, with funds from UK, Denmark, Switzerland • Steering Group and Technical Advisory Group help orient the project so it adds value to sector

8. Approach • Listen, listen, listen! • Learn from what we have achieved so far • Build on Joint Standards Initiative (JSI) and other initiatives • Research gaps in our knowledge • Consult widely with different stakeholders • Propose and debate options to move the sector forward

9. Expected outcomes • Consensus on the potential benefits (and risks) of certification; • Agreement on core assessment criteria, verification mechanisms and a sustainable model; • Agreement on how to implement the project findings.

10. Projecttimeline Oct 12 Dec 12 Jun 13 Oct 13 Dec 13 Mar 14 Jun 14 Sep14 Engage with stakeholders on how to implement findings Define project scope and research agenda Research & stakeholder consultation to collect inputs and ideas Consult to define sustainable model and how to achieve it Propose a model and conduct cost/ benefit analysis Light review & testing of model Consult with States / donors on benefits of model Review and refine model based on findings

11. What is certification?

12. What is certification? A systematic and regular independentexternal assessment against widely agreed, measureable criteria around an organisation’s capacity, performance and accountability.

13. Approaches to monitor and verify compliance with standards Certification Peer Reviews Voluntary compliance Legal requirements External Evaluations Less formal More formal Internal Audits External reporting mechanisms Self-assessment

14. What is the focus?

15. Developing a coherent system

16. What do stakeholders think about certification?

17. What are stakeholders’ views? • Some organisations want more robust, external verification of standards; but others are sceptical • Donors governments interested, but not likely to realign processes unless model is widely-endorsed • States interested in framework to identify good partners, but want links with local systems, organisations and communities • Affected populations’ views still missing from debates, as are more southern and smaller NGO voices

18. What are the concerns? • Undermines humanitarian ethos and values • Costs, resources and time • Bureaucratic and inflexible • Reinventing the wheel • Reinforcing inequity • Mis-use and instrumentalisation • Makes us risk-averse

19. Areas of common ground • Focus on principles and affected populations • Demonstrate benefits and added value • Build on experiences in sector • Reduce complexity, but don’t oversimplify • Make it open to all, regardless of size and capacity • Voluntary participation, not mandatory or imposed • Use a graded approach to support capacity-building • Make it sustainable, affordable, flexible and future-oriented

20. Can certification lead to better quality and accountability?

21. Examples from outside the sector 1 2 3 4 5 6

22. Examples from outside the sector 1 2 3 4 5 6

23. Potential benefits • Distinguish humanitarians from others • Systematic way of getting populations’ views • Common framework for reporting • Evidence base on how standards are used • Influence behaviours of other actors • Give States a framework for coordination • Give donors a basis for decision-making • Reduce administrative burden

24. What is the best approach for the sector?

25. Existing approaches Sphere Standards ACFID HAP Legislation Social norms ISO 9001 DEC Less formal More formal INGO Charter GRI People In Aid InterAction PVO Code of Conduct

26. Six key questions: • Focus on principles, practices, and participation? • Make it open, inclusive or set minimum entry requirements? • Focus on learning or on compliance? • Which governance model is best? • How can this be sustainably funded? • How do we prepare for the future?

27. Some conclusions • Meeting ethical obligations & relationships with affected populations take priority over more “technical compliance” • It is time to check and verify that actions & practices have a positive impact for people • A graded/tiered approach will allow inclusion, encourage participation and promote continuous improvement. • Identify learning incentives for compliance & not risk-adverse, “compliance mentality”. • Numerous existing regional structures & networks, could contribute significantly to certification. • Tackle the continued reluctance by traditional donors to engage with organisations from the south. • Make quality and accountability an integral part of humanitarian programming & financing as a priority. • A paradigm shift needed: put affected people first, involve them in decision-making let them make informed choices. • Language matters: Find ways to use more inclusive, positive language and ways of engagement • Be realistic: ambitious changes require time and patience

28. “Say what you do. • Do what you say. • Measure it and prove it”