“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries” hap 2007 humanitarian accountability...

““making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”

HAP 2007 Humanitarian Accountability and Quality

Management Standard


• Please note that these slides are meant for training, educational and informational purposes and when used, full acknowledgement should be made of their source.


OutlineOutline• Defining the problem• Humanitarian Accountability Partnership -

International• Humanitarian Accountability• Humanitarian Quality Management• The HAP 2007 Standard in Humanitarian

Accountability and Quality Management• HAP Certification• HAP and the Quality and Accountability

Initiatives


Defining the ProblemDefining the Problem

The Imbalance of Power in Humanitarian Action


Discussion / brainstorming ideasDiscussion / brainstorming ideas

• Who are the key stakeholders in humanitarian action?

• What types of power do they each have?• How might these types of power impact upon

other stakeholders?

or• In what ways do humanitarian organisations

derive power and how might it be expressed?

• How might the power of humanitarian organisations impact upon beneficiaries and local communities?


Power- a serious issuePower- a serious issue• There is a clear imbalance of power between

humanitarian actors and the recipients of their services

• Lack of effective regulatory mechanisms

• Risks of sustaining power imbalance are often not obvious

• Frank discussion of power (and power abuse) is difficult when ‘giving’, ‘compassion’, and ‘benevolence’ are important and defining values

So that despite the desire to help…


International humanitarian action International humanitarian action is vulnerable to:is vulnerable to:

• Waste and inefficiency

• Corruption and fraud

• Being used for the political agendas of others

• Staff misconduct such as sexual exploitation

• Priorities driven by for e.g. competition for market share and the power of donors rather than by measured assessment of need

• Inappropriate decisions, for example agencies taking on jobs that they are not qualified to do


Humanitarian organisations are unique in that Humanitarian organisations are unique in that the consumers of their services:the consumers of their services:

• Have little or no influence upon their operations,

• Rarely have means by which to appeal or complain

• Are rarely reported to

• Are not represented in– NGO governance arrangements

– Donor resource allocation procedures

– UN coordination mechanisms


Disaster survivors are often:Disaster survivors are often:

• Given no choice in who helps them

• Treated as though they are all the same

• Subjected to "veterinarian" style relief interventions that undermine their dignity

• Forced to remain for long periods of time in detrimental circumstances

• Not reported to by relief agencies


In 1995, the Joint Evaluation of the International In 1995, the Joint Evaluation of the International Response to the Genocide in Rwanda foundResponse to the Genocide in Rwanda found::

• Need to improve accountability by monitoring performance of humanitarian action

• Need for sector-wide learning• No standards in quality/ quantity of services • Negligence by some agencies led to increase in suffering and

death• Agencies increasing but are unregulated• Staff abuse of beneficiaries rights and dignity• No regard given to local capacities, e.g. staff• Lack of consideration for culture and context• Low level of inter-agency coordination• Protection, safety and security concerns


A Rights-based ArgumentA Rights-based Argument

Clear international legal foundation was established through the Sphere Project, for e.g.,

– The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, – International Refugee Law, – International Humanitarian Law, – The Convention on the Rights of the Child, – The Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against

Women

For the right to humanitarian protection and assistance;

A right to a say in the manner in which this is provided, and;

The right to be heard in all stages of the appraisal, implementation and evaluation cycle


Humanitarian Accountability Humanitarian Accountability PartnershipPartnership


The Forerunners to HAP InternationalThe Forerunners to HAP International From the Rwanda evaluation, a number of the

accountability initiatives were born including:

• Humanitarian Ombudsman Project 1999-2001– a research project designed to examine the applicability

of ombudsman systems within the humanitarian domain, which led to…

• The Humanitarian Accountability Project (HAP) 2001-2003

– Established to identify, test and recommend a variety of accountability approaches and mechanisms

– 3 main field trials carried out from in Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, and Cambodia


Recommendations of the Recommendations of the Humanitarian Accountability ProjectHumanitarian Accountability Project

• Accountability mechanisms need to be integrated into existing programmes and operations

• Incentive for monitoring and reporting

• Creation of a strong self-regulatory association of agencies committed to monitoring and reporting on the application of relevant “mission-critical” standards to strengthen accountability to beneficiaries

Humanitarian Accountability Partnership International (HAP) set up in 2003


Humanitarian Accountability PartnershipHumanitarian Accountability Partnership

HAP is a partnership of member agencies that share a commitment to making humanitarian action accountable to disaster survivors

HAP Members:

– Seek to comply with and promote the HAP Principles of Accountability

– Are committed to taking account of the views, needs and capacities of disaster survivors so that the quality and effectiveness of their humanitarian work is improved


HAP Vision and MissionHAP Vision and Mission

VisionVision• A humanitarian system championing the

rights and the dignity of disaster survivors

MissionMission• To make humanitarian action accountable to

its intended beneficiaries through self-regulation, compliance verification and quality assurance certification


Our PropositionOur Proposition (1)(1)

Aside from the fact that accountability makes sense and is the right thing to do….

• Impact and cost effectiveness will be enhanced by:– Adoption of quality management practices– Including participation and consultation with

beneficiaries

• Q&A will help to:– Curb abuse of power towards beneficiaries– Reduce vulnerability to legal action


Our PropositionOur Proposition (2)(2)

• A certification scheme will:– Promote programme quality as a significant factor

in “success”– Recognise good practice and provide assurance

to disaster survivors and other stakeholders

• HAP certification will:– Be attractive to donors – Strengthen the comparative advantage of certified

agencies

““making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”HAP membersHAP members1. ACT International2. ACFID (Australia)3. ACTED (France)4. CAFOD (Caritas UK)5. CARE International6. Christian Aid (UK)7. Church World Service –

Pakistan/Afghanistan8. COAST Trust (Bangladesh)9. CONCERN Worldwide10. Coordination of Afghan Relief

(CoAR)11. Centre for Peace & Development

Initiatives (Pakistan)12. DanChurchAid (Denmark)13. Danida14. Danish Refugee Council15. DFID16. Lutheran World Service17. MANGO

18. Medair (Switzerland)19. Medical Aid for Palestinians (UK)20. MERCY Malaysia21. Merlin22. Muslim Aid (UK)23. Naba'a (Lebanon)24. Norwegian Refugee Council25. OFADEC (Senegal)26. Oxfam GB27. People in Aid28. Save the Children UK29. Sida30. Sungi Development Foundation

(Pakistan)31. Tearfund (UK)32. Women's Commission on Refugee

Women and Children (USA)33. World Vision International

6 Associate Members

22 Full Members

5 Certified Full Members


HAP Services & ActivitiesHAP Services & Activities• Accountability workplan support (members)• Field support (Pakistan and Darfur plus selected

"new emergencies")• Field compliance monitoring• Capacity building and advisory services• Research• Building Safer Organisations• Complaints handling• HAP Standard 2007 and review• Baseline analyses• Certification• Accreditation (NGO networks – from 2008)


Humanitarian AccountabilityHumanitarian Accountability


Accountability involvesAccountability involves

Proactive and retrospective components-

• Taking account of the views of others

• Accounting for your actions


AccountabilityAccountability

The means by which power is used responsibly

– Power brings responsibility, and with responsibility comes accountability

– Accountability is about the right to a say and the duty to respond


1. Increased media presence during emergencies.

2. Increased public awareness and scrutiny.

3. Agencies are no longer able to use their charitable ethos and good will as a defence for poor quality work.

4. Allegations of misconduct within the sector.

5. Pressure from donors to show improved practices.

6. Government regulating the sector.

7. Pressure from watchdogs and other rating agencies

8. Humanitarians have recognised the need to improve quality and increase responsibility.

Recent Factors calling for Recent Factors calling for improved accountabilityimproved accountability


3 Dimensions of HAP’s Definition of 3 Dimensions of HAP’s Definition of AccountabilityAccountability

• Processes through which individuals, organizations and states make decisions that affect others

• Mechanisms through which individuals, organizations and states seek to explain their decisions and actions

• Processes through which individuals, organisations and states raise concerns about, and seek redress or compensation for, the consequences of the decisions and actions of others


Humanitarian AccountabilityHumanitarian AccountabilityHumanitarian accountability involves taking account of, giving an account to and being held to account by to disaster survivors

– Managers and staff in relief programmes properly consider and prioritize the needs, concerns and views of disaster survivors in all their policies and activities

– Always practicable and should never be delayed until conditions improve

– Means by which the power of aid agencies is qualified and legitimized


The “Accountability Deficit”The “Accountability Deficit”

The gap between promises made by aid agencies to deliver accountable and effective disaster relief and persistent evidence to the contrary

– A growing perception that most relief aid isn't accountable to affected populations

– The Tsunami Evaluation Coalition found agencies failed to consult and involve local communities and authorities in managing programmes

– Recommendations for quality control, regulation, accreditation and certification


Humanitarian Accountability Humanitarian Accountability Report 2006Report 2006

“While there are many examples of good practice, and some evidence of improvement, overall, humanitarian organisations continue to offer inadequate accountability to disaster survivors, resulting in poor quality services.”


Humanitarian Accountability Humanitarian Accountability Report 2007Report 2007

“The humanitarian system reports yet more progress in codifying accountability and quality standards and tools, but still lacks consistency in their application.”

“HAP’s annual humanitarian accountability opinion survey reveals growing optimism about increasing standards of accountability, but disaster survivors still fare worst in the accountability stakes.”


HAP Accountability PrinciplesHAP Accountability Principles1. Commitment to humanitarian standards and

rights of disaster survivors

2. Setting standards and building capacity to deliver

3. Communication, including transparency and consultation with intended beneficiaries

4. Participation (of intended beneficiaries) in programmes

5. Monitoring and reporting on compliance

6. Addressing complaints (from beneficiaries)

7. Implementing Partners (encouraged to comply)


Think of a time when you had a problem with your telephone carrier or utilities provider. What did you take into account when deciding whether to make a complaint?


These "good practices of accountability" amount to a "humanitarian quality management system" that places the disaster survivor at the centre of the design, implementation and learning systems for humanitarian service delivery

• Correlate with ISO 9000 Quality Management Standard and the Global Accountability Project's "four dimensions of accountability" (transparency, participation, evaluation and complaints-handling)

• Foundation of the HAP 2007 Standard in Humanitarian Accountability and Quality Management


Humanitarian Quality Humanitarian Quality ManagementManagement


A A Quality Management SystemQuality Management System

• A set of coordinated activities undertaken to continually improve the effectiveness and efficiency of an organisation in meeting the expectations of its customers

• Comprises a documented quality policy, quality objectives, quality manual, and other documents needed to ensure effective integration and implementation


A A Humanitarian Quality Humanitarian Quality Management SystemManagement System

• A set of activities and processes that enable continual improvement in an agency’s performance in meeting the essential needs, and respecting the dignity, of disaster survivors

– Promoting the optimal application of proven quality management practices across the humanitarian system,

– Protecting disaster survivors, – Enhancing their life-chances and dignity, and – Securing the reputation of the system.


Your values as humanitarian workersYour values as humanitarian workers

What principles guide your personal work and the work of your organisation?


Principles

Principles

Beliefs & Values Action

Action

Action

ActionAction


Basic Basic ElementsElements of a QA of a QA SystemSystem

Standard setting: – Defining the quality of a product, service or

process (so that it is measurable)

Certification: – An award granted by a certification body to an

organisation on the basis of a product, service or process standard being met

Accreditation: – Recognition by a standard setting body that a

certification body is competent


The HAP 2007 StandardThe HAP 2007 Standard

In Humanitarian Accountability and Quality Management


The HAP 2007 Standard The HAP 2007 Standard The HAP 2007 Standard in Humanitarian Accountability and Quality Management offers a means to help relief agencies measure, validate and improve their humanitarian activities

– A basic minimum requirement for agencies engaged in humanitarian action

– An objective measure against which agencies can be assessed

– The result of 7 years of research, consultation, and field tests

– Designed to be simple, affordable and effective– Aim to become a widely recognised, authoritative

brand


Standard Development Process Standard Development Process


The HAP 2007 Standard The HAP 2007 Standard includes:includes:

• HAP Accountability Principles• Covenant

– Qualifying Norms– Hierarchy of Principles for Humanitarian Action– Declaration of Interests– 6 Humanitarian Quality Management Benchmarks – Working with Partners

• Benchmark requirements and means of verification


HAP 2007 Standard HAP 2007 Standard (1)(1)

Defines quality management requirements to help senior and programme managers put humanitarian principles into practice

• Requires senior managers to establish: – A humanitarian quality management system

(benchmark 1), and – A process for continual improvement

(benchmark 6)


HAP 2007 Standard HAP 2007 Standard (2)(2)

• Requires programme managers to implement the quality management system by:

– Making available relevant information (benchmark 2)

– Ensuring meaningful participation by beneficiaries in programme decisions (benchmark 3)

– Determining competencies required for staff (benchmark 4); and

– Establishing complaints-handling procedures (benchmark 5)


……Reflects 5 Simple Reflects 5 Simple Quality Management PracticesQuality Management Practices

• Transparency in mandate, objectives, beneficiary and entitlement criteria and implementation reporting

• Consultation with disaster survivors right from the beginning to gain their informed consent

• Feedback/complaints & redress-handling system

• Competence of staff

• Learning for continuous improvement


Benchmark 1:The agency shall establish a humanitarian quality management system

“Senior management needs to be prepared to empower an accountability function right up to Program/ National Director level if it is to be truly able to address beneficiary concerns”


Benchmark 2:The agency shall make the following information publicly available to intended beneficiaries, disaster-affected communities, agency staff and other specified stakeholders: (a) organizational background; (b) humanitarian accountability framework; (c) humanitarian plan; (d) progress reports; and (e) complaints handling procedures

“Community information provision laid the foundation for community participation in project activities. The accountability team ensured communities were informed throughout the project management cycle. This improved participation across sectors and contributed to the empowerment of people over the decisions that affected their lives”


Benchmark 3:The agency shall enable beneficiaries and their representatives to participate in programme decisions and seek their informed consent

“Creating a function to listen to and communicate with communities helped to build trust, improving information exchange and increasing understanding of core problems– leading to better project designs”

“Through good community engagement and liaison with stakeholders, the accountability programme was able to save the operation over USD 5 million in construction costs by preventing either unsuitable or unneeded construction”


Benchmark 4:The agency shall determine the competencies, attitudes and development needs of staff required to implement its humanitarian quality management system

“Greater analysis and consideration of community perspectives have helped to educate our national staff on the need to have field staff who are reflective of the communities that they work in. Their teams now better reflect the areas where they work and they could be more effective in meeting the needs of the community.”

“Accountability to beneficiaries could provide a way to measure how well staff interact with communities and this could be useful information to use in appraisals as an indicator of the values that staff show in their day to day work.”

““making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”Benchmark 5:The agency shall establish and implement complaints-handling procedures that are effective, accessible and safe for intended beneficiaries, disaster-affected communities, agency staff, humanitarian partners and other specified bodies

“Accountability works as a community based warning system that can help to significantly reduce organizational risk and flag issues early”

“Having a dedicated humanitarian accountability function in field offices through Stakeholder Representatives helped to reduce/ deter corruption as community complaints may uncover this”


Benchmark 6:The agency shall establish a process of continual improvement for its humanitarian accountability framework and humanitarian quality management system

The Senior Management Team needs to build a collaborative organizational culture between departments where complaints and raising of issues/ problems is viewed as a positive opportunity to improve. This is essential if one department is to be able to chase up difficult issues and raise problems with other departments.


Humanitarian CovenantHumanitarian Covenant

• Commits organisations to applying their principles

• A solemn, unilateral contract of accountability to people affected by disasters

• Tool for analysing when principles shouldn’t be applied, requiring explanation

• Requires declaration of additional interests and policies that have a direct bearing on beneficiaries


Qualifying NormsQualifying Norms

• Commitment to provide humanitarian assistance on an impartial basis

• Formally declared as a not-for-profit organisation

• Compliance with the requirements for financial accountability

• A publicly available statement of the humanitarian accountability framework


Humanitarian Accountability Humanitarian Accountability FrameworkFramework

Specifies how the organisation will ensure accountability to its stakeholders, and includes:

• Statement of the commitments made – External standards, codes, principles and

guidelines, in addition to internal values, mandate, principles, charter and guidelines

• Baseline analysis of compliance – Current status of the HAF and related quality

management system

• Indicators for improvement with time frame– An action or implementation policy, strategy or

plan


HAF ExampleHAF Example

Internal / External Quality Commitments

Implementation SystemAssessment of

Compliance

Red Cross Code of Conduct

Management systems set up to implement each commitment e.g.:

1. Management responsibilities

2. Staff (who is this relevant for)

3. System (for e.g. Policies, Guidelines, etc.)

4. Monitoring and evaluation/ continual improvement

Draft objectives which are measurable – i.e. an Action Plan to show how Caritas ensures that their staff apply this.

Outlines where you are at present against compliance and or against your objectives as noted in the implementation column.

Organisation

Mandate

Stakeholder Analysis: Accountability needs / expectations


Principles for Humanitarian Principles for Humanitarian ActionAction

Tertiary– Transparency– Neutrality– Complementarity– Independence

Primary –Humanity

–Impartiality

Secondary–Informed Consent

–Duty of Care

–Witness

Agencies seeking to comply with the HAP 2007 Standard first commit themselves to accounting for their humanitarian work in relation to the general Principles for Humanitarian Action


Why the HierarchyWhy the Hierarchy (1)(1)

• When a HAP-certified agency is unable to achieve full compliance with the Principles of Accountability, an explanation is required.

• The Covenant provides guidance when facing tough choices and refers back to basic principles inherent in humanitarian action.

• Each principle is categorized by its relative importance, with the primary principles being non-negotiable


Why the HierarchyWhy the Hierarchy (2)(2)

• At times, the consequence of complying with one principle may impede fulfilling another. – For e.g. the publication of a relief distribution plan may place

intended beneficiaries and staff in danger, justifying lack of transparency.

• The agency must be able to explain that it chooses to operate in breach of one or more of the principles as an unavoidable condition for being able to comply with a higher-level principle in those circumstances.

• The agency acts in good faith and thus in accordance with the HAP 2007 Standard


CertificationCertification

Against the HAP 2007 Standard


HAP CertificationHAP CertificationThe formal evaluation of an agency against the HAP 2007 Standard using an established method to measure complianceAdvantages for individual agencies include:

• Independent validation of good practice and compliance with HAP Principles

• Verification by stakeholders including people affected by disaster

• Improved knowledge management, learning and continuous improvement

• Building trust and confidence of disaster-affected communities and donors


HAP HAP CertificationCertification offers the sector… offers the sector…

• A more informed choice for beneficiaries and donors

• Enhanced credibility and standing of certified agencies

• Strengthening of accountability and professionalism

• A voluntary code that enables agencies to hold themselves to account

Certification is:

• Applicable regardless of agency size, place of origin, whether they implement directly or through partners

• Available to all agencies who meet the qualifying norms


……And is designed to be realisticAnd is designed to be realistic and and supportivesupportive


Key Steps to Certification Key Steps to Certification (1)(1)

• Baseline analysis – trial run, including:– Preparation of documents, including HAF and

HQMS– Self assessment against the standard at HQ and

field sites– Documentation review– Interview verification– Observation– Feedback, identify gaps, – Develop and implement action plan


Key Steps to Certification Key Steps to Certification (2)(2)

• Submission of application file• Document review• Self assessments of all field sites• Head office audit• Field site audit• Interview verification with stakeholders• Observation• Auditor report• CARB• Certification – 3 year validity with interim check


Time Line Towards CertificationTime Line Towards Certification

2 – 4 weeks

Ensure agency on board

6-8 weeks

Prepare HAF

Prepare HQMSHead Office: 3 days

Field Site: 3 days

Report, incl. drafts and feedback: up to 1 month

Around 6 months

Consultation, support and organization response to baseline recommendations

Head Office: 3 days

Field Site: 3 days

If audit findings reveal and major non compliance certification would be

delayed until these are met

A certificate is issued for a period of 3 years, with a mandatory mid term

(18 months) monitoring auditBaseline Analysis

Audit

Improvement

Preparation

Decision

Certified


AccreditationAccreditation

Realizing HAP’s vision of an accountable international humanitarian system at large

– through the accreditation of affiliated NGO networks and associations with the authority to certify their own members as being compliant with the HAP Standard


HAP and the Q&A InitiativesHAP and the Q&A Initiatives


Group discussionGroup discussion

• Can you list any quality and accountability initiatives?

• Do you use any of their work?

• Why, in your opinion, have they been set up?


Tracking the emergence of the initiativesTracking the emergence of the initiativesSCHR 1971

• Voluntary alliance, now of 9 of the largest organisations• Began peer review in 2003

Code of Conduct (1994): Principle 9 ‘we will hold ourselves accountable to those we seek to assist and from those we accept resources’

People in Aid 1995• Improving human resource management in the sector, including staff

consultation and capacity building and training• Today has about 100 members

ALNAP - 1997• Sector-wide active learning membership network to improve Q&A by

sharing lessons, identifying common problems and building consensus

Sphere Project - 1997• Humanitarian Charter, guidance notes in 4 sectors• Today 16 member board and a learning programme


One World Trust - 2000• Global Accountability Framework and Report

Good humanitarian donorship 2003• Principles of accountability and assessment

Tsunami Evaluation Coalition TEC - 2005• 46 members (UN-research-donors-NGO) • Key message #1: ownership and accountability to

affected populations

UN Special Envoy (Clinton initiative) - 2005• Promoting transparency and accountability • NGO impact initiative

More recent initiativesMore recent initiatives


HAP and the other initiatives…HAP and the other initiatives…

The HAP 2007 Standard – Provides a management system enabling

coordinated implementation of all relevant standards, practices, codes, humanitarian principles, and mandates

– Is intended to be compatible and complimentary to help implement recognized good practices

– Is concerned with improvement of the whole: relies upon the technical guidelines, tools and methods for improvement of specialist areas


InitiativInitiative/e/

ProjectProject

Area of FocusArea of Focus ComplementaComplementarity to HAPrity to HAP

Red Cross Code of Conduct

“Self-policing” code for monitoring standards of relief delivery e.g.

Benchmark 2

People in Aid

Code of Good Practice - management tool to enhance the quality of human resources managementSocial audits verify adherence to the code

e.g.

Benchmark 4

Sphere Project

Technical standards and a humanitarian charter in disaster response, to improve the quality and accountability of performance by humanitarian professionals

e.g.

Benchmarks, 2, 3, 4

ECB2

“Good Enough Field Guide to Accountability” Support to strengthen practice in accountability, impact measurement, joint evaluations of emergency responses

e.g.

Benchmark 6

Quality COMPAS e.g.

Benchmark 1, 6

Quality Assurance methodTools, training and consultancy services Project management and project evaluation


InitiativInitiativee/Project/Project

Area of FocusArea of Focus ComplementaComplementarity to HAP rity to HAP

Synergie Qualité

Method of inquiry to identify risk at each stage of the project cycle e.g.

Benchmark 6

ALNAP Improving humanitarian performance through increased learning and accountabilityTools and evaluations, share lessons, identify common problems, build consensus

e.g.

Benchmark 6

Do No Harm

Avoid exacerbating conflict through aidDevelop systems for settling causes of conflict

e.g.

Benchmark 3

MANGO Strengthen financial management e.g.

Benchmark 1

SCHR Standards and accountability agenda focuses on the peer review process as well as promotion of Sphere and other quality and accountability initiatives

e.g.

Benchmark 6


The Initiatives – Areas of Focus The Initiatives – Areas of Focus Red Cross / Crescent Code of Conduct

Covenant to capture values

The Sphere Project Generic and Technical Benchmarks for improving quality of aid delivery

ALNAP M&E & Impact; Research

HAP International Accountability to beneficiaries through compliance and Regulatory Mechanism

People In Aid HR Management

MANGO Financial Management

ECB2 Developing How to Guide – tools

Clinton Initiative Research / recommendations

Group URD – Quality Compas

Project management guide / tool


Similarities Between the InitiativesSimilarities Between the Initiatives

• All share a common goal - to improve accountability, quality and performance in humanitarian action

• Each takes a different route, with some overlap

• All the initiatives are governed, managed and supported by humanitarian agencies and individuals

• Commitment to work closely together towards greater harmonisation and impact


Differences…Differences…• Each has a distinct entry point and methods for addressing

specific component(s) parts of humanitarian quality and accountability

• Distinct mandates, constituencies and structures

• The HAP Standard – is a compliance verification mechanism– is concerned with quality from the perspective of

intended beneficiaries and other key stakeholders– has been developed to address the most "mission

critical" elements– is analogous to a simplified "ISO 9000" (quality

management) standard for humanitarian action

“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries” hap 2007 humanitarian accountability...

Documents