1. “making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries” The HAP Standard 2009-2010 Review Highlights Monica Blagescu mblagescu@hapinternational.org mblagescu@hapinternational.org “making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries “making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries“

2. “making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries” Why review the Standard and The Guide? To reflect learning from application to date To incorporate emerging good practice To improve accessibility To ensure they are “live” documents that drive improvements on accountability and quality management

3. “making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries” The review process HAP Secretariat Steering Committee Working Groups Reference Group/consultations HAP Board and GA Management Leadership Technical input Wide ownership Endorsement Main steps so far Preliminary consultations; January – June 2009 Online feedback; July 2009 – March 2009 Consultation workshops; September 2009 – March 2010 Summary from consultations

4. “making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries” Who contributed  Consultation meetings, focus group discussions and workshops:  Hosted by: ACFID, CARE International, COAST Trust, Concern Worldwide, CWS Pakistan/Afghanistan, DEC, DRC, LWF, Muslim Aid, Naba’a, NCA, OFADEC, PMU Interlife, SEEDS; ECB Project and the IASC.  in Bangladesh, Georgia, India, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Lebanon, Norway, Pakistan, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Southern Sudan, Switzerland, Uganda and the UK.  Online, email, phone  Over 120 organisations in 42 countries

5. “making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries” A total of 1,595 individuals: o198: national NGOs and other CSOs o81 staff from implementing partners o813 were direct beneficiaries of aid programmes, representatives of host communities, and local authorities o394 were national and international staff of international NGOs o65 were representatives of the donor community and the UN; 28 representatives of Red Cross Societies; 97 were independent consultants or from other quality and accountability initiatives. Who contributed

6. “making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries” Overall comments No significant changes in the content of the Standard It is short; helpful to have requirements and MoVs “it challenges agencies to address power imbalances between aid workers and communities” “it breaks down accountability to affected populations into distinct and logically-linked parts” “First attempt to meaningfully go beyond voluntarism and set up quality benchmarks that are monitored”

7. “making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries” However… Make language more user-friendly Clarify linkages and avoid overlap Balance policies and practice Balance the weight of different requirements Standard / audit process differences Benchmarks 1 and 6 are least clear Benchmark 3 is least explicit

8. “making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries” Highlights (1) Handling complaints of exploitation and abuse –No new Standard or benchmark –Standards of behaviour for staff/codes of conduct –Role of managers –Partners: as stakeholders in the CRM; should they be required to have standards of behaviour? Financial accountability –The Standard to reflect current audit practice –Financial accountability between partners Requirements for agencies working with partners

9. “making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries” Gender Application to multi-mandate agencies Coherence and complementarity –Content: Sphere –Content and process: ACFID, DEC, People In Aid, INTOSAI No additional benchmarks –Coordination –Supply chain –Ethical fundraising Highlights (2)

10. “making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries” Immediate next steps Sphere Handbook revision meeting Input from People In Aid Follow up meeting with the DEC Support from ICVA on complementary approaches

11. “making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries” Tentative Timeframe June: public consultation on first draft end July: Steering Committee review 26 July to 3 September: public consultation on the second draft, including: othe Reference Group oeach member agency requested to submit formal feedback 20 September: final draft shared with the Steering Committee 4 October: Final draft ready for approval

12. “making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries” Outputs Reports from all consultations Summary of suggested changes from the Standard Review consultations Feedback on the two draft versions Briefing paper on main lessons learnt from the implementation of the Standard to date Report on benefits and challenges of implementing the HAP Standard Revised Guide, auditor guidelines, other tool

13. “making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries” Unresolved issues Working with partners (Group 1) Accountability Framework (Group 2) Quality Management System (Group 3) “Other stakeholders” (Group 4) Principles (Group 5)