REPORT PSO Workshop. Beneficiaries Accountability in Humanitarian Assistance The Hague, 10 December Henk Tukker

Transcription

1 REPORT PSO Workshop Beneficiaries Accountability in Humanitarian Assistance The Hague, 10 December 2009 Henk Tukker 1

2 1. INTRODUCTION This report reflects the proceedings of the PSO workshop on Beneficiaries Accountability in Humanitarian Assistance, held in The Hague on 10 December The workshop was attended by 22 participants from member organisations of PSO, other NGOs, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the Netherlands, Unicef, the University of Groningen and private sector consultants. The resource persons were Sheryl Haw and Lieske Pott Hofstede of the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership in Geneva and Niels Bentzen of the Danish Refugee Council. Beneficiary accountability is on the agenda of many humanitarian organisations. In reality most organisations give more attention to upwards accountability towards the donors rather than down wards towards their primary stakeholders: the beneficiaries. This workshop intended to improve the accountability towards beneficiaries. It looked into questions like: How can we better communicate to beneficiaries? How can we involve beneficiaries in monitoring? How can we arrange complaint handling? How can we formalise beneficiaries accountability in our organisations in practice? The workshop provided plenty of opportunities to share experiences on the subject. The Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP) has developed standards for accountability Humanitarian organisations can apply for membership of HAP, which involves a commitment to principles of accountability. For those agencies wishing to confirm they are applying the HAP Accountability and Quality Management Standard, can request a quality assurance audit and if successful be certified. There are six HAP benchmarks, measured through 19 requirements in the accountability and quality management standard. The benchmarks cover accountability commitments to all stakeholders, but are primarily focused on beneficiary accountability. At the workshop we looked at how these can be operationalised and formalised within the participating organisations. Niels Bentzen shared his experiences with the application of HAP standard by the Danish Refugee Council and the process of certification and its benefits. Sheryl Haw shared her experience as chief auditor of HAP and gave her view on the relation between HAP certification and ISO and how the HAP Standard is applied to organisations working with many partner organisations. Multi mandated and agencies working with partners are able to use the HAP Standard effectively and apply for certification so as to validate their good practice. Participants of organisations which were seriously considering HAP certification got the opportunity to discuss the steps to be taken with the resource persons from HAP at the end of the workshop. 2

3 2. SUMMARY OF PROCEDINGS 2.1 Summary presentation of Niels Bentzen, DRC DRC gives a high priority to improving the quality of their work and this requires systematic feedback from beneficiaries about the products DRC delivers. DRC was early involved in HAP and contributed towards the development of the HAP standards. DRC wants to improve quality. It has taken a lot of effort to obtain HAP certification and this process had its up and downs. The involvement of HAP international provides the opportunity to systematically look at the procedures of DRC. HAP provides a mirror. This helped DRC to look into areas they thought they are good in, but through HAP they learned that there is still scope for improvements. HAP certification is a process that requires continuous monitoring and improving, in particular in the areas which are ranked minor according to where the HAP auditors register a Minor Non-Conformity, which the agency MUST improve ( majors result in certification not being granted). HAP certification is only valid for a period of three years. Does HAP certification provide added value? The answer is yes. It has improved the quality and resulted in a 70% higher turnover, although for the latter the causal relation is difficult to prove. The support received from HAP was very valuable for improving the quality. There was full support from the DRC s management from the beginning. HAP certification forces to document and reflect. The HAP standards have been integrated into DRC procedures. For Powerpoint presentation see annex I. 2.2 Summary presentation of Sheryl Haw, HAP Sheryl provided an overview over the history and relevance of the HAP initiative. She stressed the importance of continued effort to improve accountability. The HAP Standard is made up of 6 Benchmarks and 19 Requirements ( that are essential in ensuring accountability to beneficiaries. HAP was developed by the aid sector for the aid sector. It includes aspects of ISO and other quality management systems but also focuses in on mission critical elements for ensuring accountability to beneficiaries through clearly defined requirements. In order to apply for certification the agency needs to meet 4 qualifying norms: a commitment to impartiality, not for profit, financial integrity and a publicly accessible accountability framework. ISO focuses on the document side of the management system, whereas HAP prioritises evidence of good practice at project sites. Organisations which are certified by ISO already fulfil to a large extent the requirements for HAP Benchmark one on quality management and the Benchmark six on continual improvement. HAP takes ISO further, ensuring impact and good practice are evident through the perceptions of the beneficiaries and partners, The core benchmarks that make the difference are: 3

4 Transparency and information provisions to beneficiaries (2), Consultation and Informed consent through enabling participation (3), Competent staff (4), Safe and accessible complaints mechanism (5) The HAP Standard is able to include agencies who work with partners, an attribute the ISO does not Benchmark 6.2 requires agencies to agree with the partners on how they will strengthen good practice and accountability to beneficiaries. This will include improving the capacity and quality of partner, agreeing how best to monitor and evaluate commitments and holding one another to account. One way of supporting partners to strengthen their accountability is through helping them apply the HAP Standard. Some may even want to be certified themselves. 2.3 Outcome group discussions In the afternoon there were four discussion group to discuss: how to improve beneficiaries accountability in practice for the following themes. 1. Communication 2. Safe complaint handling 3. Involving beneficiaries in monitoring 4. Role of partner organisations 5. Formalizing beneficiaries accountability in management and quality systems All groups discussed one theme and if, time allowed the fifth theme. The outcome was reported on posters ( see annex 3). 3. CONCLUSIONS ISO certification alone is insufficient to guarantee beneficiaries accountability in practice. Beneficiaries often have very limited power, especially in a humanitarian emergency context. Additional tools and instruments are required for improving beneficiaries accountability in areas such as information, participation and complaints handling. The HAP standard consisting of six benchmarks and 19 requirements are valuable instruments for improving quality management systems of organisations and their partners. These HAP instruments can make humanitarian action more accountable to beneficiaries. The workshop contributed to an increased insight on how beneficiaries accountability can be improved in practice among the participants. The degree that the workshop contribute to improve accountability of beneficiaries will be dependent on the steps the organisations take. Beneficiaries accountability needs to be formalized in the quality improvement and management systems to be successful. Applying for HAP certification has the advantage of getting support from HAP international for realising the necessary improvements. 4

5 Annexes Annex 1: Annex 2: Annex 3 Annex 4 Annex 5 Power Point Niels Bentzen, Danish Refugee Council Power Point Sheryl Haw, Humanitarian Accountability Programme Outcome group discussions Questions and Propositions for group discussions. List of participants 5