‘ENHANCING QUALITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN HUMANITARIAN ACTION’

A 6‐DAY MULTI‐AGENCY COURSE HELD IN JULY 2012 IN KENYA

REPORT AND KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

PREPARED BY SYLVIE ROBERT ‐ COURSE DESIGNER AND LEAD FACILITATOR with ASTRID DE VALON ‐ CO‐FACILITATOR

organized by the Inter Agency Working Group (IAWG), Quality and Accountability Sub Group and FAO

QUOTES FROM PARTICIPANTS TO THE COURSE AND PANELISTS

‘The course was an eye opener on Q&A.’

‘Great idea made reality!’

‘Keep it up!!!’

‘This was an excellent course, unlike any other.’

‘Adult learning clinics have been very helpful.’

‘Plan such trainings for field practitioners at field level.’

‘We should have had a course like this, working with our standards as a whole, a decade ago.’ Kurt, IAWG co‐chair

‘Sometimes merging approaches is not always the best decision: the challenges we face constantly demand innovation and entrepreneurial solutions which can’t be sustained if all the initiatives are dumped together.’

‘The fragmentation and proliferation of Q&A standards is a sign that agencies are not held accountable. Many of them are developed by the agencies for the agencies instead of putting the beneficiaries first. There is so much pressure on individuals to deliver and spend the money in order to return a good report to the donor that we often lose sight of the affected communities.’

‘If there is no will in senior management to institutionalize these systems, they will not work.’

‘The uneven quality of staff in the humanitarian system is leading to ineffective aid.’ Sheila, ELRHA

‘Every time there is a new marker it is because something is not working well. Today there are already too many standards and not enough implementation. Do not create new ones!’

‘What communities think and feel about us is far more important than what we think and feel about them.’

‘Approaches should be simple but not simplistic.’ Gerry, PFIM

‘Asking people to complain about aid received from an agency to that same agency risks bias. Maybe a better system would be to have an external ombudsman instead of dealing with complaints within the agency alone.’

‘We can no longer work on the assumption that staff capacity building is through a series of changes eventually benefiting disaster affected populations. ECB, as the rest of the humanitarian community, realized the need to measure more clearly whether the activities we implement are actually having an impact on the beneficiary populations and is shifting its focus from ‘assuming’ to more defined impact measurement.’ Massimo, ECB

‘The solution is not developing new initiatives because we have barely tasted the potential of what already exists. For now we should explore more fully the tools which exist: are they functional or not? We also need to reshape our focus towards the beneficiaries.’

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 2 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

Participants to the course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ Naivasha, Kenya – July 2012

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 3 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ACRONYMS Page 5

A. COURSE OVERVIEW Page 6 1. Overall comments Page 7 2. Team and facilitation Page 7 3. Participants Page 7 4. Agenda Page 7 5. Venue, administration and logistics Page 7 6. Course methodology and overall content Page 7 7. Summary of participants’ evaluations Page 12

B. COURSE OUTPUTS Page 13 1. Recommendations to the Quality and Accountability initiatives from a field practitioner point of view Page 13 2. Recommendations to the Quality and Accountability initiatives on transversal themes of interest Page 16 3. Proposal for a common set of cross cutting issues to be mainstreamed for all Quality and Accountability initiatives Page 18 4. Proposal for a common set of core standards for all Quality and Accountability initiatives Page 19 5. Draft action plans by the participants Page 20 6. Capitalisation of the learning, networking and library of handbooks Page 21

C. ANNEXES Page 22

ANNEX 1: Course participants’ list Page 23 ANNEX 2: Agenda as delivered Page 30 ANNEX 3: A short note on a humanitarian ombudsman Page 31 ANNEX 4: Share fair participants’ list Page 33 ANNEX 5: Background to the recommendations Page 37 ANNEX 6. Testimonies from the field on Q&A Page 41 Quality and accountability in remote control contexts Complaints and feedback mechanisms Linking emergencies with early recovery and development Evaluation and impact Using gender and vulnerability analysis to strengthen Q&A in beneficiary targeting Livelihoods and resilience in humanitarian action Increased involvement of the private sector in humanitarian action Project cycle management Applying protection principles Assessments Linking Q&A initiatives with government and agency standards ANNEX 7: Draft action plans by the participants Page 64

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 4 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator LIST OF ACRONYMS

ALNAP Active Learning Network on Accountability and Performance

ECB Emergency Capacity Building Project

ELRHA Enhanced Learning and Research in Humanitarian Assistance

GEG Good Enough Guide

HAP Humanitarian Accountability Partnership

HRI Humanitarian Response Index

IASC Inter‐Agency Steering Committee

INEE International Network on Education in Emergencies

LEGS Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

OECD‐DAC Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development Development Assistance Committee PFIM People First Impact Method

PiA People in Aid

Q&A Quality and Accountability

SEEP Minimum Economic Recovery Standards

UN United Nations

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 5 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

A. COURSE OVERVIEW

Course on Quality and Accountability (Q&A): Overview

Participants:

Primary  Have attended previously a training of trainers course or a workshop Target conducted by one of the Q&A initiatives  Are leaders in promoting Q&A Audience  Have experience in implementing Q&A approaches and tools, managing projects or programmes, training and learning  Have a ‘good enough’ command of English

This course aims to gather professional humanitarian workers from around the world who are leaders in promoting and implementing approaches for enhanced Q&A.

By the end of the course, participants should be able to:

 Identify the key Q&A initiatives and their products  Outline the opportunities and challenges faced by humanitarian workers Aim and Objectives in implementing Q&A approaches and tools  Select and adapt existing Q&A tools and resources to overcome challenges unique to their context  Identify key Q&A activities and commitments for each stage of the project cycle  Design a practical Q&A work plan tailored to their team’s activities  Identify means by which they and their colleagues can collaborate and coordinate with other agencies to improve the quality and accountability of a humanitarian response

 The latest news and developments in Q&A  Shared learning and experience from peers on the practical ‘Take Away’ implementation of Q&A  An extended network of colleagues working towards a shared goal  An update on training skills and more tips on adult learning

6 days

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 6 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

1. Overall comments  The group of participants was extremely interested, knowledgeable, respectful and committed.  The facilitation and support team worked together very well.  Logistics and administrative support as well as the venue were fully appropriate, allowing for quality work on the contents.  Host and organisers: The FAO and IAWG have played a strong role in preparing and hosting the course and the share fair, with a valuable support from the ECB Project.

2. Team and facilitation The training team was composed of a total of five persons, including three co‐facilitators and two support persons:

 Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator, independent consultant, [email protected]  Astrid de Valon, co‐facilitator, FAO, [email protected], [email protected]  Paul Gol, co‐facilitator, World Vision, [email protected]  Elizabeth Myendo, logistics and administrative support, The Emergency Capacity Building Project, [email protected]  Halae Fuller, note taker, FAO, [email protected]

The team’s work during the course was extremely good and dynamic, with a mix of styles and cultures and each playing his or her role as agreed, leading to a very complementary approach appreciated by the participants.

3. Participants The group was composed of 28 participants coming from 22 organizations worldwide and representing 12 nationalities. All were humanitarian practitioners with previous knowledge and experience in quality and accountability. Selection proved to be appropriate: the group was excellent and very much committed to the course. The full list of participants is available in Annex 1: Course participants’ list.

4. Agenda The agenda as delivered is available in Annex 2: Agenda as delivered. It has been adjusted throughout the course to fit the context and reflect the participants’ interest. As the group was rather large (28 participants), more time was needed at several points for feedback sessions and discussions in general.

5. Venue, administration and logistics The venue – Sawela Lodge, in the outskirts of Nairobi ‐ perfectly fit the requirements for this type of course, i.e. a conducive and supportive environment, very pleasant for a residential event and providing professional support. The logistics, administration and note taker support have all been excellent. As a result of the previous points, the content, session delivery, group dynamics, etc. all reflected a high degree of quality.

6. Course methodology and overall content Methodology The methodology chosen has been very participatory, allowing participants to be involved in a dynamic way at all times through presentations, debates, experience sharing, group work, learning pairs, writing workshops, design of proposals and recommendations, etc. Short adult learning sessions were conducted every day to share knowledge and tips among participants.

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 7 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

Participants have each been provided a set of hard copies of some original handbooks in an individual bag:  The Sphere handbook  The LEGS handbook  The Good Enough Guide from ECB  SEEP Minimum standards for Economic Recovery  People in Aid Code of Good Practice  INEE Minimum Standards for Education  The Compas board from Groupe URD  The 2011 Humanitarian Accountability Report from HAP

And print outs of the following key documents:  4 pager on Synergie Qualité  Quality Compas companion book  DARA executive summary of the Humanitarian Response Index (HRI  ALNAP 4 pagers on ‘strengthening humanitarian action through evaluation and learning’  ALNAP lessons paper, october 2011, on ‘humanitarian action in drought related emergencies’  ALNAP pilot study on ‘the state of the humanitarian system’, executive summary  ‘What is new in the 2011 edition of the Sphere handbook?’  HPN number 26 ‘Rwanda 10 years after from March 2004’  HPN number 52 on ‘humanitarian accountability  BOND diagram on ‘integrating value for money into the programme cycle’  BOND checklist for ‘assessing the quality of NGO evidence of change’  The’ IASC principals commitments on accountability to affected populations’

Yoko presenting the People in Aid Code of Good Practice Habon and Yosef discussing the Good Enough Guide

Plenary presentations alternating with group work Exploring the Quality Compas board

Exploring the LEGS handbook Presenting the Quality Compas board

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 8 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

Use of new media The course created a Twitter account to capture and disseminate in real time key comments from the group. By the end of the course it was followed by 59 people, including aid workers around the world, UN agencies, international non‐governmental organizations and accountability initiatives such as the Active Learning Network on Accountability and Performance (ALNAP) and the Sphere project. A special session during the course was dedicated to answer the questions raised by followers during the course.

The announcement of the course and of the share fair were posted on major websites such as the Sphere project, including on their Facebook page.

Outline of the course content The course lasted six full days, divided into five days for classical course delivery and the last day for organising a share fair on Q&A in Nairobi.

Day 1: Global context on Q&A The first day has been dedicated to the introduction to the course, a global overview on quality and accountability in the humanitarian sector, and finally two presentations on both the Sphere Project and LEGS.

Day 2: Updates and latest news on Q&A The second day has enabled the group to reach a common knowledge on a number of initiatives. SEEP, INEE, ALNAP, URD/Quality Compas & Sigmah, Synergie Quality and HAP approaches and tools were introduced. IASC principals, gender markers and HRI were also described. In the afternoon a panel hosted representatives from PiA, ECB/GEG, ELRHA, PFIM and JSI which enabled sharing views and ideas for the future.

Participants asking questions during the panel Teresa from People in Aid explaining that the Code of Good Practice needs to be concretized by examples and best practices

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 9 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

Panel of representatives from the Quality and Accountability ‘We don’t need to do new initiatives present in the East Africa region things. A panel of experts from various Q&A initiatives was organized, after which We just need to do things workshop participants and panelists discussed the various challenges of implementing the initiatives. At the heart of these challenges were the differently.’ questions of how to enhance the use of the initiatives and tools, and how to Teresa, institutionalize and internalize complaints mechanisms. All recognised that among the biggest challenges were the difficulties associated with the fact People in Aid that the pressure to spend funding and deliver on the project is so great that agencies often lose sight of the affected communities.

Possible means of improving agency buy‐in to the Q&A initiatives were suggested, including a global review of Q&A initiatives and their impact on how agencies operate, the use of external ombudsmen to deal with complaints – see Annex 3: A short note on a humanitarian ombudsman ‐, standardized budgeting across agencies, and greater effort on the part of the Q&A initiatives to incorporate experiences from the field.

There was general agreement that support and leadership from senior management is key to implementing Q&A initiatives, particularly in ensuring that they are adopted both at headquarters and in the field. Participants raised concerns that agencies tend to impose procedures on field workers instead of tailoring projects to meet the identified needs of affected communities. More broadly, the discussion highlighted the importance of neutral and impartial Q&A mechanisms, keeping the best interests of the affected communities at heart.

At the end of the discussion, participants considered whether moving towards more joint or merged Q&A initiatives would solve the problems outlined above. Although no consensus was reached, the discussion highlighted several important points: the challenges faced by humanitarian agencies constantly demand innovative and entrepreneurial solutions, instead of developing new initiatives we should explore more fully those which already exist, and humanitarian workers in the field should support the revision and updating of Q&A initiatives by sharing their experiences.

Day 3: Implementing Q&A: Views from the field The third day participants have been deeply involved into reflection in small groups based on their experiences. The outputs have been recommendations on some Q&A initiatives, as well as analysis of challenges and opportunities when implementing Q&A approaches and tools jointly in the field.

Day 4: Capitalising, learning and sharing A brainstorming session on transversal themes of interest followed by a writing workshop allowed participants grouped in pairs to produce 2‐pages papers on topics of interest.

Day 5: What future? Next steps This last day has encompassed some work to design recommendations to the Q&A initiatives and draw proposals to have common sets of both core standards and issues to be mainstreamed.

Day 6: Share fair on Q&A ‘The idea to conclude the A share fair was organised in Nairobi, Zen Garden, to share with the training with a share fair is broader Nairobi based humanitarian community the learning and greatly constructive as it is a recommendations from the course. Funded by the ECB Project and high incentive on deepening hosted by FAO and the IAWG, the share fair enabled participants to present and discuss in small groups with external stakeholders the knowledge on a subject of various Q&A Initiatives as well as transversal themes, based on the 2‐ interest, as well as being a pages papers developed during the course. The event gathered about good tool to share that 90 participants including donors, NGOs, UN agencies and media. See knowledge’ Annex 4: Share fair participants’ list.

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 10 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

The twelve tables of the share fair covered the following subjects:

Q&A initiatives Thematic areas

1. Sphere and INEE/SEEP 1. PCM, assessments and M&E, impact 2. ECB and GEG measurement 3. LEGS 2. Targeting gender and vulnerabilities 4. HAP 3. Complaints and feedback 5. ALNAP and PFIM mechanisms 6. PiA and ELRHA 4. Emergency/recovery and livelihoods/resilience 5. Protection 6. Links with government

Plenary presentation to introduce the share fair

Habon and Yoko presenting HAP to visitors

The Good Enough Guide table The project cycle table

Emergency/recovery and livelihoods/resilience Welcoming visitors to the share fair

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 11 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

7. Summary of participants’ evaluations

A summary of the final evaluation from the participants is available in the table below. It shows a high level of overall satisfaction with the course, although it is also indicating the need to review its pace and balance (considered by some to be too dense) as well as the pre‐course assignment (which was felt to require too much advanced work).

1 5 2 3 4 (low) (excellent)

Achievement of the course aims and objectives 2 16 11

Relevance of the content to your work and future 2 8 17 application Pace and balance of the workshop 2 6 17 3 Relevance of the variety of methods used 1 3 11 13 Quality of the learning materials, resources and 6 22 aids (documents, handbooks, etc.) Facilitation of the training 3 14 11 Quality of pre‐training information 7 10 11 Quality of the venue and accommodation 5 23

Participant recommendations for improving the course If this course is replicated the following should be taken into account (according to participant profile and context).

Keep...  A panel with external resource persons  Adult learning clinics: one each morning  The share fair, but preparation should be with groups of more than two persons

Change...  Pace and balance of the course: the days should be lightened and a half day break provided mid week  Pre‐course assignment: should be lighter, assigning one or two key documents maximum  Two‐page papers/writing workshop: if kept, more time should be allocated, another option could be to have shorter testimonies

Add...  A practical exercise on the use of standards in an integrated way (for the initial assessment or all project cycle management phases). Format could be: simulation, scenario/case study, real life field school, technical stations (Sphere type), etc.  Distribute a written report/notes at the end of each day

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 12 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

B. COURSE OUTPUTS

Six main products were designed during the course on Q&A: 1. Recommendations to the Q&A initiatives from a field practitioner point of view 2. Recommendations to the Q&A initiatives on transversal themes of interest 3. Proposal for a common set of issues to be mainstreamed for all Q&A initiatives 4. Proposal for a common set of core standards for all Q&A initiatives 5. Draft action plans by the participants 6. Capitalisation of the learning, networking and library of handbooks

Some background to the following sets of recommendations is provided in Annex 5: Background to the recommendations.

1. Recommendations to the Quality and Accountability initiatives from a field practitioner point of view

Q&A initiatives considered during the course 1. The Sphere Project and companions: LEGS (Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards), INEE (international Network on Education in Emergencies) and SEEP (Minimum Economic Recovery Standards) 2. The ECB Project (Emergency Capacity Building) and the Good Enough Guide 3. HAP (Humanitarian Accountability Partnership) 4. ALNAP (Active Learning Network on Accountability and Performance) 5. Francophone initiatives: Compas Quality, Sigmah and Synergie qualité 6. PFIM (People First Impact Method) 7. PiA (People in Aid) 8. ELRHA (Enhancing Learning and Research in Humanitarian Assistance) 9. JSI (the Sphere Project, HAP and PiA) 10. The IASC principals (Inter‐Agency Steering Committee) and Gender Markers

L E GS SE EP The Sphere A LN AP Project IN E E

JSI - Joint H AP Standards Other Initiatives worldwide initiatives Q & A People in Aid

The E C B URD - Project Quality Synergie C O MPAS Qualité

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 13 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

General recommendations to the Q&A initiatives

1. Harmonize core standards and cross‐cutting issues of the Q&A initiatives preferably in one single document, to simplify the work of field practitioners and ensure coherence. See proposals in sections 3 and 4 hereafter: ‘Proposal for a common set of issues to be mainstreamed for all Q&A initiatives,’ and ‘Proposal for a common set of core standards for all Q&A initiatives.’

2. Widely share experiences and reports to enable an analysis of what is or is not working and to ensure more learning (for example, following up on the current work led by ALNAP).

3. Increase advocacy for capacity building, funding and resource mobilization as a whole.

4. Set up a system of Quality and Accountability advisors in the main humanitarian hubs in the field. The Q&A advisors should have global knowledge (both in theory and in practice) of the Q&A initiatives, approaches and tools, and would also support cluster systems when activated. They would not be deployed only in emergencies: a key part from their TORs would be to support stakeholders during prevention, mitigation and preparedness, to ensure the Quality and Accountability is indeed improved when an emergency occurs.

5. Conduct an evaluation of the application and implementation of the Q&A standards (i.e. compliance) by the humanitarian organizations.

6. Conduct an independent evaluation of the Q&A initiatives themselves using at least the classic OECD‐DAC criteria and considering the past 20 years.

7. Provide guidance to improve the links between the Quality and Accountability initiatives, national institutional mechanisms (Governments and higher education entities), donors and other stakeholders.

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 14 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

We need the objectivity of an external body to see how the initiatives have Design capacity building strategies truly improved the quality and and materials that are tailored accountability of aid in the field. to the various types of stakeholders,

including donors, private sector, An independent evaluation cluster leads, and government. of all Q&A efforts since about 20 years

Astrid, co‐ facilitator should be launched.

Sylvie, course designer and lead facilitator

Specific recommendations to selected Q&A initiatives

GEG  Increase focus and guidance on how to do impact measurement in the tools section.  Provide translations into local languages. INEE  Provide additional guidance on informal education structures, e.g. madarassas.

LEGS  Increase the focus on draught animals and animal wellness.  Address risk management issues.  Ensure proper and wide dissemination as well as capacity building. SEEP  Provide an index for consultation with specific pages references.  Provide proper background on the types of enterprises to which SEEP is meant to apply (e.g. formal and informal).  Increase capacity building in innovative ways to ensure effective implementation of SPHERE the standards.

 Include specific references to the Sphere standards in agency project evaluations.

Plenary discussions to share group recommendations Analysing challenges and opportunities for each Q&A initiative

Group work on joint use of the Q&A initiatives Field practitioners with a variety of handbooks explored by field practitioners during the course

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 15 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

2. Recommendations to the Q&A initiatives on transversal themes of interest Participants worked on transversal themes of interest which they selected and designed specific recommendations to the Q&A Initiatives on supporting field practitioners in those themes. The full content of their 2‐pages testimonies is available in Annex 5: Testimonies from the field on Q&A.

Quality and accountability in remote control contexts  Play a role in bridging the existing gap with regard to the scarcity of Q&A resources in remote management contexts by continuing to promote research, funding (through mechanisms such as the Humanitarian Innovation Fund) and publications on good and innovative practices in insecure and volatile contests.  Continue to raise awareness and build the capacity of field practitioners on Q&A issues. Consider translating key initiatives like the GEG and HAP into local languages for easier use by national staff.  Assist practitioners in taking serious steps towards the establishment of Q&A compliance systems.

Complaints and feedback mechanisms  Advocate to extend the same principles to the private sector when involved in humanitarian operations.  Explore the donor‐humanitarian organization‐beneficiaries triangle as far as complaints mechanisms are concerned.

Linking emergencies with early recovery and development  Use the common principles contained in the Q&A initiatives to advocate with donors (e.g. through the cluster system) on the importance of including elements of linking relief, rehabilitation and development in all humanitarian interventions.  Promote documentation of the impacts of best practices and success cases in linking emergency with early recovery and long‐term interventions.  Include elements of early recovery in existing training modules from Q&A initiatives, drafting a checklist and a set of standards to incorporate early recovery in all humanitarian intervention plans.

Evaluation and impact  Transparency and accessibility of evaluation: All agencies working on Q&A should as much as possible (with rare exceptions) disclose publicly what worked and what did not in the drive towards Q&A. This requires intentional action by senior management to provide appropriate incentives, and minimize disincentives, for staff at all levels to foster a culture of accountability and learning.  Development of a guideline: Develop an evaluation/impact assessment guideline reflecting the various Q&A instruments to simplify what needs to be done by program development agents both during and in the aftermath of humanitarian crises.  Joint evaluation: Conduct one joint evaluation in each region (Africa, Asia, Latin America, Middle East and Euro Asia) by drawing experts from various Q&A implementing institutions and share the findings in a conference for non‐governmental organizations, UN agencies and other actors.  Inclusive Evaluation: Develop a mechanism for the inclusion of the marginalized and vulnerable (children, women, elderly and the disabled) while designing and conducting evaluation and impact assessments.

Using gender and vulnerability analysis to strengthen Q&A in beneficiary targeting  Global Q&A standards (HAP, COMPASS and People in Aid) should make gender and vulnerability issues visible and explicit in upcoming standard revisions and publications.  Integrate the IASC Gender Marker into global and field Q&A standards and practice.  Recommend that the structure of Sphere be used as a template for other sectoral Q&A standards, specifically introducing the myriad dimensions of vulnerability in the lead chapter. This will inform comprehensive gender and vulnerability analysis and responsive actions throughout the sectoral response.  People in Aid should review the Code of Good Practice to strengthen focus on recruiting, managing and equipping gender‐balanced teams able to mainstream the various dimensions of vulnerability

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 16 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

routinely into their work. Critical is ensuring that all trainings integrate inclusiveness throughout the project management cycle.  Use gender analysis to integrate a comprehensive vulnerability and capacity assessment into all standards and related field guidance/tools.

Livelihoods and resilience in humanitarian action  Develop and disseminate Q&A tools to promote their use/inclusion in livelihoods and resilience interventions at field level in emergency response plans.  Promote joint lesson learning forums and capacity building on Q&A for livelihoods and resilience programmes.  Use Q&A standards to advocate for government and donors to support livelihoods and resilience enhancement at community level.

Increased involvement of the private sector in humanitarian action  Develop an advocacy toolkit to sensitize private sector engaged on a commercial basis in humanitarian action. The toolkit would, for instance, include a section on protection of the right of privacy in case of extending beneficiary data to third parties.  Ensure that cluster leads are trained on the importance of sensitizing private sector stakeholders on accountability to beneficiaries.  Document best practices on joint feedback mechanisms between the private sector and humanitarian stakeholders where partnerships exist.

Project cycle management  Future editions of Q&A initiative handbooks should create straightforward annexes which map their content to the stages of the project cycle.  While no standard is perfect in this regard, the Quality Compass provides the clearest example for other standards to follow in making the standards easily accessible in a highly relevant way that supports the performance of humanitarian workers in the field.

Linking Q&A initiatives with government and agency standards  Identify best practices and disseminate case studies documenting how to incorporate or harmonise Q&A standards with government guidelines and frameworks.  Ensure that government is considered as a key stakeholder when designing Q&A initiatives from conception to implementation, including the development of capacity building strategies and material.

Applying protection principles  Develop a protection chapter and training module common to all Q&A initiatives. Additional recommendations to IASC:  Encourage the use of the Sphere Project and ALNAP Guides.  Harmonise existing protection standards, training materials and practices to reduce confusion at field level.

Assessments  The use of these initiatives is still somewhat limited within humanitarian assessments. There is a need for advocacy to donors to increase demand for accountability in assessments, for instance by demanding joint assessment processes to support their initial decision making.  Currently, standards and principles for assessments exist within many of the Q&A initiatives. This can be confusing; bringing all of these tips on good practice into one resource would support implementation by field practitioners.  More training is required to support practitioners in the practical application of the key actions and guidelines within the initiatives.

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 17 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

3. Proposal for a common set of issues to be mainstreamed for all Q&A initiatives The ‘issues to be mainstreamed’ encompass the classical cross‐cutting issues from all Q&A initiatives, which have been merged and prioritised to provide the following list which every agency should keep in mind while developing programs.

Issues related to the people themselves:

 Gender (consistency of definition across agencies should be checked)  Life threatening diseases (including HIV/ADS, cancer, etc.)  Disabilities  Children, youth and elderly  Psychosocial issues

Issues related to the context where the people are:

 Protection and security (including ‘do no harm’)  Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) and link between Relief, Rehabilitation and Development (LRRD)  Environment

The following matrix shows which initiatives currently consider some of the cross cutting issues:

Compass GEG HAP INEE LEGS PiA SEEP Sphere Gender x x x x x x x HIV/AIDS x x Protection x x x x x Environment x x x Children/youth x x x x Elderly x DRR x x x Minorities x x Disabilities x X Psychosocial X Vulnerabilities x x x x x

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 18 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

4. Proposal for a common set of core standards for all Q&A initiatives The course participants advocated for a single set of core (or common) standards for all Q&A initiatives in order to ease the work and also ensure coherence. The following table attempts to list what could be those main standards.

Competency Coordination

 Staff  Leadership and governance  Agency  Policy and advocacy  Policies and systems  Collaboration and sharing  Delivering on commitments  Integrated programming

Participation (in decision making) Issues to be mainstreamed

 Community => See above ‘Proposal for a  Staff common set of issues to be  Other stakeholders mainstreamed for all Q&A initiatives’

Project cycle management

Analysis, reflection and learning Design and implementation

 Assessments  Targeting design  Monitoring and evaluation (M&E)  Implementation  Accountability, complaints and  Preparedness, risk feedback reduction and resilience  Ongoing learning  Sustainability, exit strategies

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 19 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

Guide to the guides! The following is an abstract from the 2‐pages paper ‘Project cycle management’ and is complementing the reflection on a core standard on project cycle management as proposed above.

‘There are a lot of standards in humanitarian response. Some of these guides are pretty big. When you are pushed for time, what is the one page you should start with at each stage in the project cycle?’

Initiative Assessment Design Implementation Evaluation & Monitoring

SPHERE p61 p65 p68 p68 WASH p124 p89 ‐‐ p89 FSN p214 p176 ‐‐ p176 Shelter & NFIs p278 p249 ‐‐ p249 Health p338 p309 ‐‐ p309 Protection ‐‐ p33 ‐‐ p33 Good Enough Guide p13‐15 p17 p24 p25 SEEP p43,47,49 p20‐24 p31 ‐‐ INEE p35‐40 p 41‐44 p 45, 53 p 48 COMPAS p17‐18 p23 p29‐33 ‐‐ HAP ‐‐ p18‐19 p18‐21 p23 People in Aid ‐‐ ‐‐ p8, p7, p4 ‐‐ LEGS p32 p 50 ‐‐ ‐‐ Destocking p81 p70 p42 p42 Vet Services p108 p98 p52 p52 Feed p135 p122 p139 p139 Water p162 p153 p154 p164 Shelter p181 p175‐7 p183 p183 Restocking p204 p198 p206 p206

5. Draft action plans by the participants The course participants reflected on and drew up two commitments they would wish to implement following this course in order to put into practice some of the course learning: one commitment at an individual level and one commitment at an organizational level. Those commitments have been inserted in a matrix available in Annex 6: Draft action plans by the participants. Upon the proposal of the facilitators, the group has expressed the wish to monitor those commitments, and 1st October 2012 has been agreed upon as a date to do so and support each other on the implementation of the action plans. For this purpose a Yahoo D‐group is being created to facilitate communication among all participants.

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 20 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

6. Capitalisation of the learning, networking and library of handbooks

A Webpage As agreed with the course participants, all the background documentation related to the course will be posted on the www.disasterriskreduction.net website, on a special page called Quality and Accountability. The Webpage will also feature links to the main Q&A Initiatives website, to electronic version of the handbooks and additional key reports on the subject such as the recently released ALNAP ‘State of the Humanitarian System 2012’.

A Yahoo D‐group will be created, that will encompass all the course participants interested in keeping in touch in the future.

A library in Nairobi Based on the difficulties encountered by the course organisers to get the handbooks from the Q&A initiatives headquarters in Geneva, Oxford or New York, the prohibitive cost of shipment per DHL and the issues to clear the books at custom, a library will be created with the additional copies that have been ordered. The library will be hosted by the ‘Training and Capacity Building Sub Group’ of the Inter Agency Working Group (IAWG), hosted by Save the Children. Organizations wanting to organise specific training will be able to borrow the handbooks, in exchange of the proof that they have ordered the handbooks overseas. They will then return the handbooks to the library as soon as they receive them from overseas. The objective is to avoid that capacity building efforts are hampered or postponed due to procurement issue.

Our request to the Q&A Initiatives:

Ensure the availability of your products where they are the most needed, i.e. at field level.

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 21 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

C. ANNEXES

ANNEX 1: Course participants’ list Page 23

ANNEX 2: Agenda as delivered Page 30

ANNEX 3: A short note on a humanitarian ombudsman Page 31

ANNEX 4: Share fair participants’ list Page 33

ANNEX 5: Background to the recommendations Page 37

ANNEX 6. Testimonies from the field on Q&A Page 41

Quality and accountability in remote control contexts Complaints and feedback mechanisms Linking emergencies with early recovery and development Evaluation and impact Using gender and vulnerability analysis to strengthen Q&A in beneficiary targeting Livelihoods and resilience in humanitarian action Increased involvement of the private sector in humanitarian action Project cycle management Applying protection principles Assessments Linking Q&A initiatives with government and agency standards

ANNEX 7: Draft action plans by the participants Page 64

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 22 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

ANNEX 1: Course participants’ list

Job Country of Name Organization Nationality E-mail address position/Title work

Assessment Emese Csete ACAPS Kenya British [email protected] Analyst

Australian Senior Agency for Solomon Program East & Horn International Kenyan [email protected] Ngari Manager - of Africa Development Humanitarian (AusAID)

Emergency East & Horn Nelly Shonko CAFOD Kenyan [email protected] manager of Africa

Monitoring Miinyan Caritas and Evaluation Kenya Kenyan [email protected] Ngasike John Officer

Programme Concern Leina Mpoke Manager Kenyan [email protected] Worldwide ASAL areas

Responsable Emmanuelle Coordination pôle d’appui France French [email protected] PONS SUD aux ONG

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 23 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

Disaster and MAHMUDUL Climate Risk FAO Ethiopia Ethiopia Bangladeshi [email protected] Islam Management Officer

Programme Marcella FAO Kenya Assistant Kenya Italian [email protected] Randazzo, M&E

Cluster and Martina FAO Rome Partnership Global Italian [email protected] Buonincontri Expert

National Okori, FAO Uganda Program Uganda [email protected] Edward Officer

Global Food Paul White Security Global Australian [email protected] Cluster

Social HelpAge protection Peter Lokoel Kenya Kenyan [email protected] International Rights Manager

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 24 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

Christine Islamic Relief Accountability Kenya Kenyan [email protected] Nyawira Kenya Officer

Regional Funding & Cynan East & Horn Oxfam GB Capacity Australian [email protected] Houghton of Africa Building Coordinator

Senior Manager of the Monitoring SAJJAD Save the Evaluation Pakistan Pakistani? [email protected] AKRAM Children Accountability and Learning (MEAL) Unit

Monitoring, Benson Save the Evaluation, South Sudan Kenyan [email protected] Maina Children Accountability and Learning

Abdiwahab Operations SCF USA Ethiopia Ethiopian [email protected] Aden Ali manager

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 25 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

Senior Specialist, Yosef SCF USA Design, Africa Ethiopian [email protected] Gebrehiwot Monitoring and Evaluation

Habon M&E Co- Kenya Solidarités Kenyan [email protected] Hussein coordinator Somalia

Acting Emergency Temesgen World Vision Response Ethiopia Ethiopian [email protected] Adnew Operations Manager

Accountability ERNEST Monitoring MIDEGA World Vision Kenya Kenyan [email protected] and Evaluation SIGAR Officer

TAREKEGN TOLA FAO Ethiopia DRR Officer Ethiopia Ethiopian [email protected] GINDABA

Caleb Paul Accountability World Vision Kenya Kenyan [email protected] Mbalukha Officer

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 26 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

IASC GenCap Adviser in Linda L. Humanitarian FAO-Somalia Kenya Canadian [email protected] Pennells Action–FAO FSNAU Somalia

Tshome Donkey Project Ethiopia Ethiopian [email protected] worku Sanctuary Manager

Church Program World Yoko ITO Coordinator Japan Japanese [email protected] Service Emergencies Asia/Pacific

Regional M&E Specialist For the world Rogers Muite International Kenya Kenyan [email protected] concern Relief &Development Organization.

Andrew [email protected], Save the Kenya Kenyan Butali [email protected] Children

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 27 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

Course Independent Sylvie Robert designer and Spain French [email protected] Consultant lead facilitator

Astrid de FAO Facilitator Kenya French [email protected] Valon

Paul Gol World Vision Facilitator Kenya Kenyan [email protected]

Elizabeth Project Officer ECB Kenya Kenyan [email protected] Myendo ECB HOA

Halae Fuller FAO Intern Kenya American [email protected]

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 28 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

M/F Name Organization Job Position/Title Country of Work Nationality E‐mail

EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS PANEL

F Teresa Kamara People in Aid Regional Consultant East Africa American [email protected]

M Massimo The Emergency Capacity Horn of Africa Field Facilitator Horn of Africa Italian [email protected] Nicoletti Building Project Altimari

M Gerry McCarthy People First Impact Method Consultant East & Horn of Irish gerrymccarthy@p‐fim.org Africa

F Sheila Waruhiu Save the Children UK People Development Manager East & Horn of Kenyan [email protected] ELRHA Africa

M Edwin Kuria Save the Children UK Regional Emergency Advisor East & Horn of Kenyan [email protected] Africa

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 29 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

ANNEX 2: Agenda as delivered

in Naivasha in Nairobi Quality and Accountability DAY 1 DAY 2 DAY 3 DAY 4 DAY 5 DAY 6 Sunday 1st July Monday 2nd July Tuesday 3rd July Wed. 4th July Thursday 5th July Friday 6th July

Global context Updates and latest Implementing Q&A: Capitalising, learning What future? TOPICS Share fair on Q&A on Q&A news on Q&A Views from the field and sharing Next steps

Early 8.00 – 8.30 Review and opening Review and opening Review and opening Review and opening morning Travel to Naivasha Check out & (60’) 8.30 – 9.00 & Check in Adult learning clinic Adult learning clinic Adult learning clinic Adult learning clinic Travel to Nairobi

Block 5 9.00 – 10.00 Block 3 Implementing Block 7 Block 9 Block 11 30’ break Block 1 Q&A approaches and Updates on more Cross-cutting What future Preparation (150’) 10.30 – 11.00 tools: Sharing Morning Morning OPENING Q&A initiatives thematic for (joint) Q&A? of the share fair 11.00 – 12.00 experiences from the field on Q&A

12.00 to 13.30 (1h30’) LUNCH

Early 13.30 – 14.00 Adult learning clinic Adult learning clinic Adult learning clinic Adult learning clinic afternoon

Block 2 Block 6 Block 10 Setting the global Implementing Block 8 Block 12 14.00 – 15.00 Next steps context on Q&A Block 4 Q&A approaches and Sharing learning Share fair on Q&A 30’ break tools: Opportunities Recommendations (120’) Q&A initiatives Latest news on Q&A from the field

Afternoon Afternoon 15.30 – 16.30 and challenges and conclusions (workshops) CLOSURE …Safari… End of workshops Late Group work on Preparation of the Preparation of the Travel back afternoon 16.30 – 17.30 Preparation of the Q&A initiatives share fair on Q&A Group work: share fair on Q&A to work station (60’) Cross-cutting thematic share fair on Q&A

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 30 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

ANNEX 3: A short note on a humanitarian ombudsman

By a course participant: Paul White, Senior Protection Officer, Global Food Security Cluster

This is a short note on a Humanitarian Ombudsman. It contains quite a few ideas in it but needs refining depending on policy decisions and whether the action of the Ombudsman needs to be sparked by a complaint or not, whether it is real time or both real and ordinary time, etc. There are many policy questions that need to be answered before the legal framework can be done but the legal framework is not hard once the policy choices have been made.

‘You need someone completely independent

who has the power to leverage change in a system deep in inertia’ John Mitchell, Director of ALNAP, in the Guardian, Wednesday 4 July 2012.

What is a Humanitarian Ombudsman?

The Humanitarian Ombudsman is a person who acts as a trusted intermediary between organizations and our internal or external constituency. While representing the broad scope of constituent interests the welfare of the beneficiaries of humanitarian organizations shall be at the fore. The Humanitarian Ombudsman is appointed (not elected) and needs a significant degree of independence from all parties to ensure s/he can be and can be seen to be acting independently.

What does a Humanitarian Ombudsman do? The Humanitarian Ombudsman is an independent and impartial authority, appointed for five/ten years by xxx to:

a) In real time, evaluate, report on and make recommendations in relation to o the key reasons for time delays, whether goals were adequately defined, whether agencies consulted with recipients in their setting and used their input in programming, any issues raised in reviews; o whether speed of response, delay in the production of needs assessments and co‐ ordination are a result of systemic problems; o ways to improve the humanitarian response in terms of timeliness, preparedness, human resources, co‐ordination, leadership and monitoring and evaluation;

b) in ordinary time investigate, evaluate, report on and make recommendations in relation to o tracking trends in progress, inaction, or areas of retreat, in order to increase accountability and transparency of the entire system, not just any single context, sector or set of actors; o the extent to which the acts, omissions, decisions and recommendations of or by humanitarian organizations are consistent with Humanitarian Charter and Core Principles (etc.); o (annually) provide information and guidance about Quality & Accountability; o identify any significant disconnects between early warning systems and response, and between technical assessments and decision‐makers; o identify who bears ultimate responsibility in the event of things going wrong; and o assess whether supplies are adequately prepositioned in a range of remote locations.

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 31 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

How are investigations conducted? The Office of the Humanitarian Ombudsman investigations are conducted in an impartial and non‐ adversarial way. The Humanitarian Ombudsman is not an advocate for either the complainant or the agency concerned. Investigations are conducted in private. The Office of the Humanitarian Ombudsman and staff will maintain discretion in respect of all matters that come to their knowledge in the exercise of their function. The Humanitarian Ombudsman will make matters public if s/he is of the opinion that: a) matters ought to be disclosed for the purposes of an investigation; b) a report should be published on any particular investigation; or c) matters ought to be disclosed to establish the grounds for his or her conclusions and recommendations. The Office of the Humanitarian Ombudsman respects the privacy of individuals and confidentiality but do not investigate anonymous complaints.

‘The ombudsman approach could assess on an

interagency basis, not just for single agencies, so that the

responsibility of oversight becomes more collective. ‘

What form do investigations take?

Before commencing any investigation, the Ombudsman will notify the chief executive of the agency concerned, of his or her intention to undertake an investigation. However, in appropriate cases, an Ombudsman may ask a member of the investigating staff to approach an agency informally and seek to resolve a matter without the need for a formal investigation. This approach may be appropriate where an element of urgency is involved.

Upon receipt of a complaint against an agency the Humanitarian Ombudsman will decide whether: a) the complaint should be investigated formally, in which case the agency concerned will be notified accordingly; b) the complaint appears capable of informal resolution, in which case an informal approach will be made to the agency concerned; c) further clarification needs to be sought from the complainant to enable the Humanitarian Ombudsman to decide whether or not there is a valid ground of complaint for investigation; or d) having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, informal enquiries should be made of the agency concerned to try to gain a clearer understanding of the issue raised by the complainant to enable the Humanitarian Ombudsman to decide whether or not there is a valid ground of complaint for investigation.

Before deciding whether or not to investigate a complaint, the Humanitarian Ombudsman will also consider whether there are any circumstances which allow him or her to decline to investigate the complaint. The Ombudsman may decline to investigate a complaint if: a) it appears that there is an adequate remedy to which it would have been reasonable for the complainant to resort; or b) the complainant has known about the matter for more than 12 months; or c) the subject‐matter of the complaint is trivial; or d) the complaint is frivolous or vexatious or is not made in good faith; or e) the complainant does not have a sufficient personal interest in the subject matter of the complaint.

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 32 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

ANNEX 4: Share fair participants’ list

NAME ORGANIZATION POSITION/TITLE E‐MAIL ADDRESS

Kurt Tjossem International Rescue Committee Regional Director, Horn and East Africa [email protected]

Jorge Castilla Echenique ECHO ‐ European Commission jorge.castilla‐[email protected] Fausto Prieto ECHO ‐ European Commission fausto.prieto‐[email protected]

Esther W. Njuguna CARE International in Kenya Technical Advisor, Animal Health [email protected]

Wevine Bichanga Save the Children (Kenya Humanitarian Leadership and Development [email protected] Programme) Programme (HLDP)

Hannah Ndungu Adventist Development Relief Emergency Management Coordinator [email protected] Agency (ADRA) Regional office

Teresa Kamara Regional Consultant Regional Consultant [email protected] Vivan Murigi Agrosphere INGO

Emma Watathi Agrosphere INGO Accountant/Administrator [email protected] Lisa Parrott Save the Children Regional Programme Manager ‐ East Africa [email protected] Esther Njeru FAO Kenya Agricultural Program Assistant [email protected], [email protected]

Marilyn Mbogua Redr UK Kenya Programme Training Facilitator [email protected] Damiano Lotteria COOPI Regional Representative [email protected] Evelyn Njue COOPI Regional Coord [email protected] Alessia Riccardi COOPI Regional Administrator [email protected] Ambrose Oroda [email protected]

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 33 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

Kennedy O. Nanga Food and Agriculture Organization of Food Security Data Analyst/ Statistician [email protected] the United Nations

Martin Dwan Trocaire Regional Humanitarian Coordinator [email protected],

[email protected] Caroline C. Ruto Transparency International‐Kenya Deputy Programme Officer (Humanitarian Aid)

Wycliffe Wasike ARK Multimedia Documentation [email protected]

Sammy Ole Oinyiaku Save the Children M&E Advisor [email protected]

Fiona Clark Helpage International Head of Programmes East, West & Central Africa [email protected]

Gustavo Trigo Communication Specialist [email protected]

Lily Murei IFRC M&E Senior Officer [email protected]

Ambasa Elijah TI Kenya Governance and Policy Officer [email protected]

Robert Basil FAO Gender Officer [email protected]

Maureen Mbaka ACTED Reporting Officer [email protected] Deborah Dwetugu FAO Community Development Officer Daniele De Bernareli FAO‐Regional Food Security Analyst

Robin Lands WFP Info & Knowledge Manager [email protected]

Allish Byrne Independent consultant [email protected]

Judith Mulinge FAO‐Regional Communications Assistant [email protected]

Musse Hassan FAO Fisheries Consultant [email protected]

Lillian Onyango Daily Nation Reporter [email protected] Anne Njuguna Child Fund Kenya Emergency Coordinator [email protected], [email protected] Sylvester Morleke World Vision Accountability Advisor [email protected]

Karimi Gitonga Save UK Regional DRR and CCA Intern [email protected]

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 34 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

Festus Pyoko Save UK Humanitarian Advocacy Intern [email protected]

Anne Mitaru SCUK Regional Humanitarian Advocacy advisor [email protected]

Cristiano F. Mandra WFP Senior Regional Disaster Risk Reduction Advisor [email protected]

Dr. Musse Gabobe Hassan FAO Fisheries Consultant [email protected], [email protected]

Melissa Kaminker Kimetrica Business Development Associate [email protected]

Fiona Lithgow WFP Regional Emergency Preparedness Officer [email protected]

Gerry McCarthy P‐FIM [email protected]

Kellie C. Leeson International Rescue Committee Deputy Regional Director [email protected]

Roseline Kihumba Helpage International Contracts Management Coordinator [email protected]

Sheila Waruhiu Save the Children People Development Manager [email protected]

Massimo Altimari ECB Projects Field Facilitator [email protected]

Glenn Hughson NRC CALP focal Point‐Kenya [email protected]

Emese Csete ACAPS Assessment Analyst [email protected]

Solomon Ngari Australian Agency for International Senior Program Manager ‐ Humanitarian [email protected] Development (AusAID)

Nelly Shonko CAFOD Emergency manager [email protected]

Miinyan Ngasike John Caritas Monitoring and Evaluation Officer [email protected]

Leina Mpoke Concern Worldwide Programme Manager ASAL areas [email protected]

Emmanuelle Pons Coordination SUD Responsable pôle d’appui aux ONG [email protected]

Mahmudul Islam FAO Ethiopia Disaster and Climate Risk Management Officer [email protected] Marcella Randazzo, FAO Kenya Programme Assistant M&E [email protected] Martina Buonincontri FAO Rome Cluster and Partnership Expert [email protected] Okori, Edward FAO Uganda National Programme Officer [email protected]

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 35 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

Paul White Global Food Security Cluster [email protected] Peter Lokoel HelpAge International Social protection Rights Manager [email protected] Christine Nyawira Islamic Relief Kenya Accountability Officer [email protected] Cynan Houghton Oxfam GB Regional Funding & Capacity Building Coordinator [email protected] Sajjad Akram Save the Children Senior Manager of the Monitoring Evaluation [email protected] Accountability and Learning (MEAL) Unit Benson Maina Save the Children Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning [email protected] Abdiwahab Aden Ali SCF USA Operations manager [email protected] Yosef Gebrehiwot SCF USA Senior Specialist, Design, Monitoring and Evaluation [email protected] Habon Hussein Solidarités M&E Coordinator [email protected] Temesgen Adnew World Vision Acting Emergency Response Operations Manager [email protected] Ernest Midega Sigar World Vision Accountability Monitoring and Evaluation Officer [email protected] Tarekegn Tola Gindaba FAO Ethiopia DRR Officer [email protected] Caleb Paul Mbalukha World Vision Accountability Officer [email protected] Linda L. Pennells Independant consultant [email protected] Tshome worku Donkey Sanctuary [email protected] Yoko Ito Church World Service Asia/Pacific Japan [email protected] Rogers Muite world concern [email protected]

Andrew Butali Save the children Kenya Programme Manager Kenya [email protected]

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 36 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

ANNEX 5: Background to the recommendations

Background to the recommendations, both general and specific Participants first worked on analysing the key opportunities and challenges for selected Q&A Initiatives. The results of those exercises are provided hereafter for each initiative.

The Sphere Project

Opportunities Challenges  Sphere is a credible reference tool which can be used  Use of sectoral standards without reference to core for advocacy. standards.  It is capable of evolving to reflect developments in  Lack of understanding of standards vs. indicators (still). the humanitarian field (links to early recovery,  The ‘finding excuses’ trap: encourage discussion and inclusion of cross‐cutting issues, etc). reflection instead of finding excuses for why a Sphere  The standards are qualitative, which perhaps should standard was not met. be further highlighted for the more quantitative  Compartmentalizing response: for instance mindsets of field workers. ‘humanitarian’ interventions isolated from  It can be used to help planning and preparedness ‘development’ interventions. and to allow for fast responses.  No monitoring and evaluation recommendations.  Sphere provides a yardstick to measure  What happens when the Standard is not met? performance.  Sphere sets Standards but it requires a lot of contextual  Donor sensitization is equally important. information and a needs assessment process to  Standards are meant to be achieved eventually, not translate that into action. necessarily during the first stage of the project.  It is a challenge to operationalize qualitative Standards because most field workers want to work with technical specifications.  Many people try to apply Sphere before they are trained on how to use it. Because formal training can’t reach every aid worker, or even keep pace with the new people coming into the sector, we need to look for informal options.  Need to consider core Standards common to all sectors even while conducting sector‐specific interventions.

LEGS

Opportunities Challenges  Enhanced training available from partners and  Limited to only six interventions/technical areas. experiential learning, especially pastoral field schools  Gaps concerning working animals (such as donkeys) and and community animal health workers (CAHW). communities left behind during pastoralist migrations.  Leveraging government budgetary support for  Need more explicit gender analysis in tools to quantify veterinary/extension services. capacity and needs of women and men involved in  Enhancing preliminary assessments with input from livestock production. affected communities (which should be gender  No guidance on animal welfare: transportation, humane disaggregated). slaughter, etc.  An effective entry point for community managed  More guidance on how to use one or more tools. disaster risk reduction.  Handbooks and other manuals can be very lengthy;  Can be adapted to suit local contexts. effort should be made to summarize them more  Documenting success stories involving livestock service succinctly. providers to influence government policies regarding CAHW.  Lots of guidance on how to conduct initial assessments.  Focuses on improving livelihoods, meaning that it is complementary longer‐term development initiatives.

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 37 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

The Good Enough Guide

Opportunities Challenges  Often we are implementing the principles of the GEG  During rapid onset emergencies it is difficult to find without realizing it, but we should make an effort to tie the time and staff capacity necessary to implement our activities to specific principles. the GEG. This can be resolved by better  Beneficiaries should be profiled and the data preparedness: undertake training and sensitization disaggregated by gender, capacity and age. before the emergency takes place, identify focal  During the Horn of Africa response, World Vision found points in each agency, and fully incorporate that conducting focus group discussions was much more accountability into project work plans and budgets. advanced using the GEG than it could have been using  It is very important to have an exit plan for the internal tools. project which fully involves the communities.  FAO found that using the GEG to guide focus group  Need to be translated into local languages in an easy discussions and interviews allows for better streamlining and accessible way so that they can be used more of results and data analysis. widely in the field—the ECB is a lead resource for  The Catholic Agency for Overseas Development (CAFOD) translating the initiatives. policy is to inform beneficiaries about their project  Sensitization and knowledge sharing is often focused through local diocese (also sharing the assessment on district administration officers or heads of findings), followed up by CAFOD field staff. department, leaving out the wider community.  Agencies must find a way to keep communities updated  After receiving initial accountability training, staff of on how their comments and complaints are being taken various agencies requested regular follow‐up training. on board.  Concern World Wide and World Vision have both utilized the GEG in South Sudan.  World Vision’s internal system, LEAP, has complementarity with the GEG, allowing it to be applied more easily.  Save the Children in Dolo Ado uses the GEG principles whenever it introduces a new project to regional leaders, local administration and districts. The people with whom the information is shared then take the information to the communities in a trickle‐down effect.  In Somalia Concern World Wide‐UK noticed that it took time to introduce its project to the community because of the confusion created in the community by the introduction of several initiatives

People in Aid: Code of Good Practice

General Challenges Challenges  During group discussion it emerged that only one  Security briefings focus mostly on international staff, person had used the Code, which indicates that it is not not national staff. well known.  Is the Code used by the UN?  The Code of Good Practice is useful as a self‐audit tool  The Code does not mention staying up to date with and checklist at both field level and headquarters. humanitarian competencies in recruitment or learning. However, it is not a tool to implement HR policy  No consideration of timeliness. because it is too general.  The Code focuses entirely on field staff, not HQ staff. It  People in Aid also produces other practical tools and should be linked to the principles in the Humanitarian handbooks which are more useful for the field, Charter, which apply to anyone employed at the although they not yet fully contextualized. headquarters or field level.  The Code is task‐oriented more than human resources‐ or value‐oriented.  There is no explicit reference to the humanitarian principles, child protection responsibilities, inclusion of minorities, or gender.  Lack of guidance notes, indicators are vague, and the Code in general needs to be updated.

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 38 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

HAP

Opportunities Challenges  There are many creative ways to get feedback from  Given that the initiative is still new to most agencies, communities (i.e. mobile phones) which can be there are often human and financial resource tailored to fit specific community needs and the limitations. needs of individuals within those communities (i.e.  Resistance from staff who see HAP as a policing women). Experience has shown that communities initiative rather than improving program quality. themselves can recommend feedback mechanisms  Conflicting interests among community groups, for (i.e. peaceful demonstrations). instance: elderly, youth, community leaders, etc.  Define commitment to information sharing.  Increased expectations of communities beyond the  Improved financial accountability by limiting objective of the project. abuse/misuse of resources. Also better human  Constraints of remote programming in complex resources management through critical emergencies for complaints. investigations of staff.  Cultural barriers to complaints, particularly among  Enhance good conduct and accountability among women and the vulnerable. staff especially in regard to sexual exploitation.  Setting up a complaints mechanism from the outset  Complements monitoring and evaluation systems. which creates platforms for knowledge sharing and  Improving program delivery through frequent meaningful consultation with communities. consultation with the community.  How to deal with gender issues within HAP.  Principles and framework share similarities with the  Enhance community participation in complaints GEG and HAP, so there is a possibility for closer response mechanism. integration.  Building capacity of staff and community focal points.

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 39 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

Participants also analysed the opportunities and challenges of jointly using the Q&A initiatives from a field practitioner point of view.

Field practitioners analysis of jointly using Q&A initiatives Opportunities Challenges  Some initiatives have elements which can be  Lack of links or “road map” to easily navigate applied directly in the field (Sphere, the GEG the core standards and their unique elements and HAP), and others can be incorporated in (access‐methods‐focus). the field more indirectly (People in Aid,  Lack of guidance on joint implementation (time, Compass, and ALNAP). resources, etc). Prioritization of tools.  Commitment is emphasized across all the  There is no assessment of what the initiatives initiatives. have achieved in terms of results, therefore it is  Capacity building and shared learning as difficult to choose among them or combine priorities. them.  Participation.  Low awareness of standards other than Sphere:  Principles and approach. a pre‐coherence problem.  Sphere and LEGS have the following linkages:  The challenge multiplies when using more than common standards, technical standards. one initiative, which can be very difficult when  HAP and the GEG have the following linkages: working on a tight timeline. emphasis on community engagement (process  Lack of field preparedness to be able to indicators), learning and continuous incorporate the initiatives during emergencies. improvement.  Expectations of core and specific standards  These initiatives deal with human resources: should be transparent. People in Aid, Synergie Qualité, and  Lack of commitment from leadership or organizational human resource strategies or sufficient management support. policies.  Lack of staff knowledge and understanding of  These initiatives deal with Q&A assessments: various Q&A tools. GEG, Sphere, LEGS, HAP, and organizational  Trickle down of Q&A initiatives in the field is methods. limited.  These initiatives deal with service delivery:  Lack of hands‐on implementation and evidence Sphere, the Good Enough Guide, PFIM, LEGS, on past experiences. and INEE.  Most of the tools are not fully integrated by  HAP, People in Aid, Compass and the GEG are organizations or into projects. useful for agencies to create their own  Issue of Remote management in monitoring standards. and verifying compliance.  The technical standards of the GEG, LEGS, INEE,  Reliance on individuals to drive the Q&A Sphere, MERS and HAP are useful in the field. process, the “changing faces” problem.  Many agencies already have internal Q&A  Gender Marker not linked to field or mechanisms: code of conduct (World Vision, headquarters standards. CAFOD), whistleblower policy (World Vision,  There is no leverage to make sure that people CAFOD), accountability framework (World commit to the initiatives. One solution may be Vision and CAFOD), LEAP (World Vision), animal to tie them in more closely to national bills of welfare assessment (Donkey Sanctuary). rights.  Some agencies have taken the initiatives on board: HAP (World Vision, ACAP, CAFOD), Sphere (World Vision, CAFOD, DoL), Red Cross code of conduct (World Vision, CAFOD), People in Aid (CAFOD), LEGS (DoL, Donkey Project), GEG (World Vision, CAFOD).

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 40 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

ANNEX 6: Testimonies from the field on Q&A

Background to those testimonies

The morning of the fourth day of the course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ was dedicated to a brainstorming session on transversal themes of interest. It was then followed by a writing workshop which allowed participants grouped in pairs to produce 2‐pages papers on topics of interest they had firstly identified, prioritised and selected. The following papers should be considered as reflection pieces from this group work.

The 2‐pages papers produced are listed and made available hereafter:

Quality and accountability in remote control contexts Complaints and feedback mechanisms Linking emergencies with early recovery and development Evaluation and impact Using gender and vulnerability analysis to strengthen Q&A in beneficiary targeting Livelihoods and resilience in humanitarian action Increased involvement of the private sector in humanitarian action Project cycle management Applying protection principles Assessments Linking Q&A initiatives with government and agency standards

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 41 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

ANNEX 7: Draft action plans by the participants

Name Individual commitment Organizational commitment Yosef Strive to incorporate Q&A key code of conducts in agency Conduct training on Q&A for country office staffs. HR manual. Habon I will raise awareness and build capacity of colleagues on I will work towards integrating Q&A indicators in the M&E workplans. the Q&A initiatives as well as continue to develop my own learning in Q&A. Emese Promote all assessment accountability principles in all To direct other staff to the initiatives and principles (not all are sensitized to the work that I am involved with. them at the moment). Temesgen Work to set up Q&A system in WVE. I personally will internalize the Q&A initiatives and share what I learned from the workshop with staff. Sajjad I will share learning and resources with my colleagues, I will incorporate standards in the monitoring and accountability manual of including technical specialists and M&E colleagues. Save the Children and we will monitor them. Aden Internalize Q&A tools and standards to promote Develop and disseminate tools (standards), based on the organization programs in my agency. policy and regulation internally, to promote Q&A. Paul Pass Q&A information to WFP HQ with a view to assist in GFS cluster: Encourage organization links with Nairobi‐based networks with building responsive feedback mechanisms. a view to establishing a pilot project for Regional Q&A Adviser with TOR that include: assist with assessment, deploy in emergency, and do trainings. Tarekegn Share Q&A resources with NGOs and donors. Conduct FAO Ethiopia: organize a seminar for professionals on Q&A initiatives (with informal observation of the application of Q&A initiatives Mahmud). within NGOs. Mahmud I shall forward to DM Education Network the Q&A FAO Ethiopia: organize a seminar for professionals on Q&A initiatives (with initiative for teaching course. Tarekegn). Emmanuelle Lobbying to review, translate and sensitize on Synergie Leaflet introducing the different Q&A initiatives in French for CSUD Qualité initiative. members. Cynan Read/reflect farther on Sphere Core Standards and Run one 90 minute webinar for 10‐100 Oxfam staff globally about lessons SEEP/MERS. from this workshop. Use this session to identify/discuss gaps in our institutional approach. Study more about People in Aid. Reflection about my way of working. Include Q&A standards and specific tools in the next trainings on data collection.

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 64 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator

Name Individual commitment Organizational commitment Share with HelpAge Network the assistance of the Accessing the partners and training them on Q&A. initiatives. Be able to participate in training workshops with other Carry out training sessions for project staff. agencies working within and outside my county. Develop a Q&A lens in all my work, referring to tools and Carry out a training on Q&A initiatives during out mid‐year review sessions practical application. (scheduled already). Tshome Q&A will remain a cross‐cutting issue in my career! Share summarized information on Q&A issues learnt and make use of them in future emergency response work. Read thoroughly. Train other staff on the same. I will review the Q&A tools provided in depth to understand I will include the Q&A tools in designing and enriching training of staff, them better so as to be able to enrich my professional capacity. beneficiaries and partners in program enhancement, then conduct trainings using these initiatives. Edward Inclusion of Q&A LEGS standards in my routine interventions. Promote all Q&A standards in current and future urgent interventions. Familiarize myself more on the tools, join a network and train Develop an accountability framework with budget allocation for training and staff/others on the major tools. staffing. Linda Orient and share information with my FAO FSNAU counterpart, Suggest to the GenCap Secretariat that a GenCap adviser be given a 2‐month the Gender Analyst Robert Basil, and discuss LEGS feedback with contract to put the 12 key Q&A standards for HA through a gender lens for the selected and appropriate FAO staff. IASC sub‐Working Group on Gender and the IAWG. Rogers Create time and read all the Q&A documents to familiarize Conduct a training for our staff (Kenya and Somalia) on Q&A initiatives, myself. Priority: Sphere, LEGS and SEEP. especially Sphere, LEGS and SEEP. Share what I have learned with my colleagues, especially the Try my best to include references to the tools and standards in my work at HQ ones I think could really be using these tools. level, e.g. the work on Standard Operating Procedures. Training PDQ team on existing Q&A standards. Review of tools and M&E training modules. Include/reflect key Q&A standards. Institutionalize Q&A by including some key Q&A standards in my organization’s monitoring, evaluation, accountability and learning policy framework— currently being developed. Network and continue sharing my work on Q&A with colleagues Share with work colleagues information on various Q&A initiatives. from this training. Share evaluation Q&A initiatives with NGOs involved in the Raise awareness on the Q&A initiatives and create forums for joint learning and education sector. monitoring of implementation. Deepen my understanding of the various initiatives (more Share key issues about the various initiatives with my colleagues/agency. reading). Introduce different Q&A initiatives to QAWG members.

Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012 page 65 of 65 Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator