Humanitarian Certification

Review ProjectDiscussions and conclusions

from theHumanitarian Standards Forum, Geneva

28 June 2013

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

Context and Rationale

Does anyone remember Mitch?

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

Project Overview

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

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

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.

Project timeline

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

Engage with stakeholders on how to implement findings

Oct 12 Dec 12 Jun 13 Oct 13 Dec 13 Mar 14 Jun 14 Sep14

What is certification?

What is certification?

A systematic and regular independent external assessment against widely agreed, measureable criteria around an organisation’s capacity, performance and accountability.

Less formal

Moreformal

Voluntary compliance

Legal requirements

Self-assessment

Peer Reviews

Certification

External reporting

mechanisms

Internal Audits

External Evaluations

Approaches to monitor and verify compliance with standards

What is the focus?

Capacity

PerformanceAccountability

Developing a coherent system

What do stakeholders think about

certification?

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

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

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

Can certification lead to better quality and

accountability?

Examples from outside the sector

1 2

3 4

5 6

Examples from outside the sector

1 2

3 4

5 6

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

What is the best approach for the

sector?

Less formal

Moreformal

Social norms Legislation

Code of Conduct

Sphere Standards

ISO 9001

HAP

People In Aid

InterAction PVO

INGO Charter

GRI

ACFID

DEC

Existing approaches

Six key questions:1. Focus on principles, practices, and

participation?2. Make it open, inclusive or set

minimum entry requirements?3. Focus on learning or on compliance?4. Which governance model is best?5. How can this be sustainably funded?6. How do we prepare for the future?

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

“Say what you do. Do what you say.

Measure it and prove it”