Accountability in the humanitarian system

1
Accountability in the humanitarian system
Global Cluster Leads Donor Meeting April 21st
2009
2
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

3
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

4
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.

5
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

6
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

7
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

8
Approach 3 Performance and Results

• Evaluations OECD-DAC Criteria
• ALNAP Evaluations
• Impact assessments, innovations
• Humanitarian Performance Project (HPP)
• Results based management
• Quality approaches Compas, EFQM and ISO 9000
• Emergency Capacity Building Project (ECB)
• Good enough guide

9
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

10
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

11
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?
Learning / Facilitators
Community builders

• Filters

Investor/providers
Amplifiers
Convenors
12
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 population
• principles and values
• performance 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?

13
Recap

• Intro to ALNAP
• Three models of accountability
• Possible tools and techniques
• Key questions
• common cluster functions
• Accountability priorities and modalities