humanitarian certification review project discussions and conclusions from the humanitarian...
TRANSCRIPT
Humanitarian Certification
Review Project
Discussions and conclusions from the
Humanitarian 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
Performance
Accountability
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”