‘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
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
page 2 of 65
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
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
page 3 of 65
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ACRONYMS
Page 5
A. COURSE OVERVIEW
Page 6
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Overall comments
Team and facilitation
Participants
Agenda
Venue, administration and logistics
Course methodology and overall content
Summary of participants’ evaluations
B. COURSE OUTPUTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Recommendations to the Quality and Accountability initiatives
from a field practitioner point of view
Recommendations to the Quality and Accountability initiatives
on transversal themes of interest
Proposal for a common set of cross cutting issues to be mainstreamed
for all Quality and Accountability initiatives
Proposal for a common set of core standards
for all Quality and Accountability initiatives
Draft action plans by the participants
Capitalisation of the learning, networking and library of handbooks
C. ANNEXES
Page 7
Page 7
Page 7
Page 7
Page 7
Page 7
Page 12
Page 13
Page 13
Page 16
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
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
Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
Page 64
page 4 of 65
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
PFIM
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Development Assistance Committee
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
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
page 5 of 65
A. COURSE OVERVIEW
Course on Quality and Accountability (Q&A):
Overview
Participants:
Primary
Target
Audience




Have attended previously a training of trainers course or a workshop
conducted by one of the Q&A initiatives
Are leaders in promoting Q&A
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:


Aim and Objectives






‘Take Away’


Identify the key Q&A initiatives and their products
Outline the opportunities and challenges faced by humanitarian workers
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
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
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
page 6 of 65
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,
sylvierobertconsulting@yahoo.fr
Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator, FAO, astrid.devalon@fao.org, astriddevalon@gmail.com
Paul Gol, co-facilitator, World Vision, paul_gol@wvi.org
Elizabeth Myendo, logistics and administrative support, The Emergency Capacity Building Project,
elizabeth_myendo@wvi.org
Halae Fuller, note taker, FAO, halae.fuller@fao.org
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
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
page 7 of 65
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
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
page 8 of 65
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
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
page 9 of 65
‘We don’t need to do new
things.
We just need to do things
differently.’
Teresa,
People in Aid
Panel of representatives from the Quality and Accountability
initiatives present in the East Africa region
A panel of experts from various Q&A initiatives was organized, after which
workshop participants and panelists discussed the various challenges of
implementing the initiatives. At the heart of these challenges were the
questions of how to enhance the use of the initiatives and tools, and how to
institutionalize and internalize complaints mechanisms. All recognised that
among the biggest challenges were the difficulties associated with the fact
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
training with a share fair is
greatly constructive as it is a
high incentive on deepening
knowledge on a subject of
interest, as well as being a
good tool to share that
knowledge’
A share fair was organised in Nairobi, Zen Garden, to share with the
broader Nairobi based humanitarian community the learning and
recommendations from the course. Funded by the ECB Project and
hosted by FAO and the IAWG, the share fair enabled participants to
present and discuss in small groups with external stakeholders the
various Q&A Initiatives as well as transversal themes, based on the 2pages papers developed during the course. The event gathered about
90 participants including donors, NGOs, UN agencies and media. See
Annex 4: Share fair participants’ list.
Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
page 10 of 65
The twelve tables of the share fair covered the following subjects:
Q&A initiatives
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Sphere and INEE/SEEP
ECB and GEG
LEGS
HAP
ALNAP and PFIM
PiA and ELRHA
Thematic areas
1. PCM, assessments and M&E, impact
measurement
2. Targeting gender and vulnerabilities
3. Complaints and feedback
mechanisms
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 project cycle table
Emergency/recovery and livelihoods/resilience
The Good Enough Guide table
Welcoming visitors to the share fair
Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
page 11 of 65
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
(low)
3
4
5
(excellent)
Achievement of the course aims and objectives
2
16
11
Relevance of the content to your work and future
application
2
8
17
2
Pace and balance of the workshop
2
6
17
3
Relevance of the variety of methods used
1
3
11
13
6
22
Quality of the learning materials, resources and
aids (documents, handbooks, etc.)
Facilitation of the training
3
14
11
Quality of pre-training information
7
10
11
5
23
Quality of the venue and accommodation
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
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
page 12 of 65
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
LEGS
SEEP
The
Sphere
Project
ALNAP
Other
worldwide
initiatives
INEE
JSI - Joint
Standards
Initiatives
HAP
Q&A
People
in Aid
URD Quality
COMPAS
The ECB
Project
Synergie
Qualité
Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
page 13 of 65
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
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
page 14 of 65
We need the objectivity of an external
body to see how the initiatives have
truly improved the quality and
accountability of aid in the field.
Design capacity building strategies
and materials that are tailored
to the various types of stakeholders,
including donors, private sector,
cluster leads, and government.
An independent evaluation
of all Q&A efforts since about 20 years
should be launched.
Astrid, co- facilitator
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





SEEP
SPHERE
Increase the focus on draught animals and animal wellness.
Address risk management issues.
Ensure proper and wide dissemination as well as capacity building.
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
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
by field practitioners
Field practitioners with a variety of handbooks explored
during the course
Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
page 15 of 65
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
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
page 16 of 65

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
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
page 17 of 65
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
Gender
GEG
HAP
INEE
LEGS
PiA
SEEP
Sphere
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
HIV/AIDS
x
Protection
x
x
x
Environment
x
x
x
Children/youth
x
x
x
x
x
x
Elderly
x
DRR
x
Minorities
x
Disabilities
x
x
x
x
X
Psychosocial
Vulnerabilities
x
X
x
x
x
x
Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
x
page 18 of 65
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
Agency
Policies and systems
Delivering on commitments
Participation (in decision making)



Leadership and governance
Policy and advocacy
Collaboration and sharing
Integrated programming
Issues to be mainstreamed
=> See above ‘Proposal for a
common set of issues to be
mainstreamed for all Q&A
initiatives’
Community
Staff
Other stakeholders
Project cycle management
Analysis, reflection and learning




Assessments
Monitoring and evaluation (M&E)
Accountability, complaints and
feedback
Ongoing learning
Design and implementation




Targeting design
Implementation
Preparedness, risk
reduction and resilience
Sustainability, exit
strategies
Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
page 19 of 65
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
& Monitoring
Evaluation
p61
p65
p68
p68
WASH
p124
p89
--
p89
FSN
p214
p176
--
p176
Shelter & NFIs
p278
p249
--
p249
Health
p338
p309
--
p309
--
p33
--
p33
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
--
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
SPHERE
Protection
Good Enough Guide
LEGS
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
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
page 20 of 65
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
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
page 21 of 65
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
Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
Page 64
page 22 of 65
ANNEX 1: Course participants’ list
Name
Organization
Job
position/Title
Country of
work
Nationality
E-mail address
Emese Csete
ACAPS
Assessment
Analyst
Kenya
British
ec@acaps.org
Solomon
Ngari
Australian
Agency for
International
Development
(AusAID)
Senior
Program
Manager Humanitarian
East & Horn
of Africa
Kenyan
ngari.australianaid@regionaloffice.org
Nelly Shonko
CAFOD
Emergency
manager
East & Horn
of Africa
Kenyan
nshonko@cafod.or.ke
Miinyan
Ngasike John
Caritas
Monitoring
and Evaluation
Officer
Kenya
Kenyan
miinyanjohn78@live.com
Leina Mpoke
Concern
Worldwide
Programme
Manager
ASAL areas
Kenyan
Leina.Mpoke@concern.net
Emmanuelle
PONS
Coordination
SUD
Responsable
pôle d’appui
aux ONG
French
pons@coordinationsud.org
Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
France
page 23 of 65
FAO Ethiopia
Disaster and
Climate Risk
Management
Officer
Ethiopia
Bangladeshi
Mahmudul.Islam@fao.org
Marcella
Randazzo,
FAO Kenya
Programme
Assistant
M&E
Kenya
Italian
marcella.randazzo@fao.org
Martina
Buonincontri
FAO Rome
Cluster and
Partnership
Expert
Global
Italian
Martina.Buonincontri@fao.org
Okori,
Edward
FAO Uganda
National
Program
Officer
Uganda
edward.okori@fao.org
Paul White
Global Food
Security
Cluster
Global
Australian
paul.white@wfp.org
Peter Lokoel
HelpAge
International
Kenya
Kenyan
Plokoel@helpage.co.ke
MAHMUDUL
Islam
Social
protection
Rights
Manager
Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
page 24 of 65
Christine
Nyawira
Islamic Relief
Kenya
Accountability
Officer
Kenya
Kenyan
christine.nyawira@islamic-relief.or.ke
Oxfam GB
Regional
Funding &
Capacity
Building
Coordinator
East & Horn
of Africa
Australian
cynanh@gmail.com
SAJJAD
AKRAM
Save the
Children
Senior
Manager of the
Monitoring
Evaluation
Accountability
and Learning
(MEAL) Unit
Pakistan
Pakistani?
sajjad.akram@savethechildren.org
Benson
Maina
Save the
Children
Monitoring,
Evaluation,
Accountability
and Learning
South Sudan
Kenyan
BMaina@savethechildren.org.sd
Abdiwahab
Aden Ali
SCF USA
Operations
manager
Ethiopia
Ethiopian
AAden@savechildren.org
Cynan
Houghton
Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
page 25 of 65
Yosef
Gebrehiwot
SCF USA
Senior
Specialist,
Design,
Monitoring
and Evaluation
Habon
Hussein
Solidarités
M&E Cocoordinator
Kenya
Somalia
Kenyan
m&e.coo@solidarites-kenya-som.org
World Vision
Acting
Emergency
Response
Operations
Manager
Ethiopia
Ethiopian
Temesgen_Adnew@wvi.org
ERNEST
MIDEGA
SIGAR
World Vision
Accountability
Monitoring
and Evaluation
Officer
Kenya
Kenyan
Ernest_Sigar@wvi.org
TAREKEGN
TOLA
GINDABA
FAO Ethiopia
DRR Officer
Ethiopia
Ethiopian
tarekegn.tola@fao.org
Caleb Paul
Mbalukha
World Vision
Accountability
Officer
Kenya
Kenyan
Caleb_Mbalukha@wvi.org
Temesgen
Adnew
Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
Africa
Ethiopian
ygebrehiwot@savechildren.org
page 26 of 65
Linda L.
Pennells
FAO-Somalia
IASC GenCap
Adviser in
Humanitarian
Action–FAO
FSNAU
Somalia
Tshome
worku
Donkey
Sanctuary
Project
Manager
Ethiopia
Ethiopian
teshome_worku@yahoo.com
Yoko ITO
Church
World
Service
Asia/Pacific
Program
Coordinator
Emergencies
Japan
Japanese
yokoito45110@gmail.com
world
concern
Regional M&E
Specialist For
the
International
Relief
&Development
Organization.
Kenya
Kenyan
rogersm@wcdro.org
Kenya
Kenyan
andrewbutali@hotmail.com,
A.Butali@scuk.or.ke
Rogers Muite
Andrew
Butali
Save the
Children
Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
Kenya
Canadian
linda.pennells@fao.org
page 27 of 65
Sylvie Robert
Independent
Consultant
Course
designer and
lead facilitator
Spain
French
sylvierobertconsulting@yahoo.fr
Astrid de
Valon
FAO
Facilitator
Kenya
French
astrid.devalon@fao.org
Paul Gol
World Vision
Facilitator
Kenya
Kenyan
paul_gol@wvi.org
Elizabeth
Myendo
ECB
Project Officer
ECB HOA
Kenya
Kenyan
elizabeth_myendo@wvi.org
Halae Fuller
FAO
Intern
Kenya
American
Halae.fuller@fao.org
Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
page 28 of 65
M/F
Name
Organization
Job Position/Title
Country of Work
Nationality
E-mail
Regional Consultant
Horn of Africa Field Facilitator
East Africa
Horn of Africa
American
Italian
Teresa@peopleinaid.org
Massimo_Altimari@wvi.org
East & Horn of
Africa
East & Horn of
Africa
East & Horn of
Africa
Irish
gerrymccarthy@p-fim.org
Kenyan
S.Waruhiu@savethechildren.org.uk
Kenyan
E.Kuria@savethechildren.org.uk
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS PANEL
F
M
People in Aid
The Emergency
Building Project
M
Teresa Kamara
Massimo
Nicoletti
Altimari
Gerry McCarthy
People First Impact Method
Consultant
F
Sheila Waruhiu
Save the Children UK
M
Edwin Kuria
Save the Children UK
People Development Manager
ELRHA
Regional Emergency Advisor
Capacity
Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
page 29 of 65
ANNEX 2: Agenda as delivered
in Naivasha
Quality and
Accountability
TOPICS
Early
morning
(60’)
in Nairobi
DAY 1
st
Sunday 1 July
DAY 2
nd
Monday 2 July
DAY 3
rd
Tuesday 3 July
DAY 4
th
Wed. 4 July
DAY 5
th
Thursday 5 July
DAY 6
th
Friday 6 July
Global context
on Q&A
Updates and latest
news on Q&A
Implementing Q&A:
Views from the field
Capitalising, learning
and sharing
What future?
Next steps
Share fair on Q&A
Review and opening
Review and opening
Review and opening
Review and opening
Adult learning clinic
Adult learning clinic
Adult learning clinic
Adult learning clinic
Travel to Nairobi
Block 7
Block 9
Block 11
Cross-cutting
thematic
What future
for (joint) Q&A?
Preparation
of the share fair
on Q&A
Adult learning clinic
Adult learning clinic
8.00 – 8.30
Travel to Naivasha
8.30 – 9.00
& Check in
Check out &
Block 5
(150’)
Morning
9.00 – 10.00
30’ break
10.30 – 11.00
11.00 – 12.00
Block 3
Block 1
OPENING
Updates on more
Q&A initiatives
Implementing
Q&A approaches and
tools: Sharing
experiences from the
field
12.00 to 13.30 (1h30’)
Early
afternoon
LUNCH
13.30 – 14.00
Adult learning clinic
14.00 – 15.00
(120’)
Afternoon
Block 2
Setting the global
context on Q&A
30’ break
15.30 – 16.30
Q&A initiatives
Adult learning clinic
Block 6
Block 4
Latest news on Q&A
Implementing
Q&A approaches and
tools: Opportunities
and challenges
Block 10
Block 8
Sharing learning
from the field
(workshops)
Next steps
Block 12
Share fair on Q&A
Recommendations
and conclusions
CLOSURE
…Safari…
Late
afternoon
(60’)
16.30 – 17.30
Group work on
Q&A initiatives
Preparation of the
share fair on Q&A
Group work:
Cross-cutting thematic
Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
End of workshops
Preparation of the
share fair on Q&A
Preparation of the
share fair on Q&A
Travel back
to work station
page 30 of 65
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 coordination 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
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
page 31 of 65
How are investigations conducted?
The Office of the Humanitarian Ombudsman investigations are conducted in an impartial and nonadversarial 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
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
page 32 of 65
ANNEX 4: Share fair participants’ list
NAME
ORGANIZATION
POSITION/TITLE
E-MAIL ADDRESS
Kurt Tjossem
International Rescue Committee
Regional Director, Horn and East Africa
Kurt.Tjossem@rescue.org
Jorge Castilla Echenique
ECHO - European Commission
jorge.castilla-echenique@echofield.eu
Fausto Prieto
ECHO - European Commission
fausto.prieto-perez@echofield.eu
Esther W. Njuguna
CARE International in Kenya
Wevine Bichanga
Save
the
Programme)
Hannah Ndungu
Adventist
Development
Relief Emergency Management Coordinator
Agency (ADRA) Regional office
hannah@adra-afro.org
Teresa Kamara
Regional Consultant
Regional Consultant
teresa@peopleinaid.org
Vivan Murigi
Agrosphere INGO
Emma Watathi
Agrosphere INGO
Accountant/Administrator
nairobi@agrosphere.org
Lisa Parrott
Save the Children
Regional Programme Manager - East Africa
Esther Njeru
FAO Kenya
Agricultural Program Assistant
esther.njeru@fao.org,
kawiranjeru@yahoo.com
Marilyn Mbogua
Redr UK Kenya Programme
Training Facilitator
Marilyn.Mbogua@redr.org.uk
Damiano Lotteria
COOPI
Regional Representative
rep.nairobi@coopi.org
Evelyn Njue
COOPI
Regional Coord
njue@coopi.org
Alessia Riccardi
COOPI
Regional Administrator
riccardi@coopi.org
Children
esther@care.or.ke
Technical Advisor, Animal Health
(Kenya Humanitarian
Leadership
Programme (HLDP)
Ambrose Oroda
Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
and
Development W.Bichanga@scuk.or.ke
Lparrott@savechildren.org
Ambrose.Oroda@fao.org
page 33 of 65
Kennedy O. Nanga
Food and Agriculture Organization of Food Security Data Analyst/ Statistician
the United Nations
kennedy.nanga@fao.org
Martin Dwan
Trocaire
Regional Humanitarian Coordinator
MDwan@trocaire.or.ke,
Caroline C. Ruto
Transparency International-Kenya
Deputy Programme Officer (Humanitarian Aid)
cruto@tikenya.org
Wycliffe Wasike
ARK Multimedia
Documentation
wycwasike@yahoo.com
Sammy Ole Oinyiaku
Save the Children
M&E Advisor
s.oinyiaku@scuk.or.ke
Fiona Clark
Helpage International
Head of Programmes East, West & Central Africa
fclark@helpage.co.ke
Gustavo Trigo
Communication Specialist
Lily Murei
IFRC
M&E Senior Officer
lily.murei@ifrc.org
Ambasa Elijah
TI Kenya
Governance and Policy Officer
eambasa@tikenya.org
Robert Basil
FAO
Gender Officer
robertbasil@fao.org
Maureen Mbaka
ACTED
Reporting Officer
nairobi.reporting@acted.org
Deborah Dwetugu
FAO
Community Development Officer
Daniele De Bernareli
FAO-Regional
Food Security Analyst
Robin Lands
WFP
Info & Knowledge Manager
robin.lands@wfp.org
Independent consultant
ailishbyrne63@hotmail.com
Allish Byrne
gtrigoarana@hotmail.com
Judith Mulinge
FAO-Regional
Communications Assistant
judith.mulinge@fao.org
Musse Hassan
FAO Fisheries
Consultant
gabobe@gmail.com
Lillian Onyango
Daily Nation
Reporter
laonyango@ke.nationmedia.com
Anne Njuguna
Child Fund Kenya
Emergency Coordinator
anjuguna@kenya.childfund.org,
annenju@gmail.com
Sylvester Morleke
World Vision
Accountability Advisor
sylvester-murl@wvi.org
Karimi Gitonga
Save UK
Regional DRR and CCA Intern
kigitonga@scuk.or.ke
Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
page 34 of 65
Festus Pyoko
Save UK
Humanitarian Advocacy Intern
f.pyoko@scuk.or.ke
Anne Mitaru
SCUK
Regional Humanitarian Advocacy advisor
a.mitaru@savethechildren.org.uk
Cristiano F. Mandra
WFP
Senior Regional Disaster Risk Reduction Advisor
cristiano.mandra@wfp.org
Dr. Musse Gabobe Hassan
FAO
Fisheries Consultant
musse.hassan@fao.org, gabobe@gmail.com
Melissa Kaminker
Kimetrica
Business Development Associate
melissa.kaminker@kimetrica.com
Fiona Lithgow
WFP
Regional Emergency Preparedness Officer
fiona.lithgow@wfp.org
Gerry McCarthy
P-FIM
Kellie C. Leeson
International Rescue Committee
Deputy Regional Director
kellie.leeson@rescue.org
Roseline Kihumba
Helpage International
Contracts Management Coordinator
rkihumba@helpage.co.ke
Sheila Waruhiu
Save the Children
People Development Manager
S.Waruhiu@savethechildren.org.uk
Massimo Altimari
ECB Projects
Field Facilitator
massimo_altimari@wvi.org
Glenn Hughson
NRC
CALP focal Point-Kenya
calp@som.nrc.no
Emese Csete
ACAPS
Assessment Analyst
ec@acaps.org
Solomon Ngari
Australian Agency for International
Development (AusAID)
Senior Program Manager - Humanitarian
ngari.australianaid@regionaloffice.org
Nelly Shonko
CAFOD
Emergency manager
nshonko@cafod.or.ke
Miinyan Ngasike John
Caritas
Monitoring and Evaluation Officer
miinyanjohn78@live.com
Leina Mpoke
Concern Worldwide
Programme Manager ASAL areas
Leina.Mpoke@concern.net
Emmanuelle Pons
Coordination SUD
Responsable pôle d’appui aux ONG
pons@coordinationsud.org
Mahmudul Islam
FAO Ethiopia
Disaster and Climate Risk Management Officer
Mahmudul.Islam@fao.org
Marcella Randazzo,
FAO Kenya
Programme Assistant M&E
marcella.randazzo@fao.org
Martina Buonincontri
FAO Rome
Cluster and Partnership Expert
Martina.Buonincontri@fao.org
Okori, Edward
FAO Uganda
National Programme Officer
edward.okori@fao.org
gerrymccarthy@p-fim.org
Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
page 35 of 65
paul.white@wfp.org
Paul White
Global Food Security Cluster
Peter Lokoel
HelpAge International
Social protection Rights Manager
Plokoel@helpage.co.ke
Christine Nyawira
Islamic Relief Kenya
Accountability Officer
christine.nyawira@islamic-relief.or.ke
Cynan Houghton
Oxfam GB
Regional Funding & Capacity Building Coordinator
cynanh@gmail.com
Sajjad Akram
Save the Children
Senior Manager of the Monitoring Evaluation sajjad.akram@savethechildren.org
Accountability and Learning (MEAL) Unit
Benson Maina
Save the Children
Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning
BMaina@savethechildren.org.sd
Abdiwahab Aden Ali
SCF USA
Operations manager
AAden@savechildren.org
Yosef Gebrehiwot
SCF USA
Senior Specialist, Design, Monitoring and Evaluation
ygebrehiwot@savechildren.org
Habon Hussein
Solidarités
M&E Coordinator
m&e.coo@solidarites-kenya-som.org
Temesgen Adnew
World Vision
Acting Emergency Response Operations Manager
Temesgen_Adnew@wvi.org
Ernest Midega Sigar
World Vision
Accountability Monitoring and Evaluation Officer
Ernest_Sigar@wvi.org
Tarekegn Tola Gindaba
FAO Ethiopia
DRR Officer
tarekegn.tola@fao.org
Caleb Paul Mbalukha
World Vision
Accountability Officer
Caleb_Mbalukha@wvi.org
Linda L. Pennells
Independant consultant
pennells.canada@gmail.com
Tshome worku
Donkey Sanctuary
teshome_worku@yahoo.com
Yoko Ito
Church World Service Asia/Pacific
Rogers Muite
world concern
Andrew Butali
Save the children Kenya
Japan
yokoito45110@gmail.com
rogersm@wcdro.org
Programme Manager Kenya
Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
A.Butali@scuk.or.ke
page 36 of 65
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
for advocacy.
 It is capable of evolving to reflect developments in
the humanitarian field (links to early recovery,
inclusion of cross-cutting issues, etc).
 The standards are qualitative, which perhaps should
be further highlighted for the more quantitative
mindsets of field workers.
 It can be used to help planning and preparedness
and to allow for fast responses.
 Sphere provides a yardstick to measure
performance.
 Donor sensitization is equally important.
 Standards are meant to be achieved eventually, not
necessarily during the first stage of the project.
 Use of sectoral standards without reference to core
standards.
 Lack of understanding of standards vs. indicators (still).
 The ‘finding excuses’ trap: encourage discussion and
reflection instead of finding excuses for why a Sphere
standard was not met.
 Compartmentalizing
response:
for
instance
‘humanitarian’
interventions
isolated
from
‘development’ interventions.
 No monitoring and evaluation recommendations.
 What happens when the Standard is not met?
 Sphere sets Standards but it requires a lot of contextual
information and a needs assessment process to
translate that into action.
 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
experiential learning, especially pastoral field schools
and community animal health workers (CAHW).
 Leveraging government budgetary support for
veterinary/extension services.
 Enhancing preliminary assessments with input from
affected communities (which should be gender
disaggregated).
 An effective entry point for community managed
disaster risk reduction.
 Can be adapted to suit local contexts.
 Documenting success stories involving livestock service
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.
 Limited to only six interventions/technical areas.
 Gaps concerning working animals (such as donkeys) and
communities left behind during pastoralist migrations.
 Need more explicit gender analysis in tools to quantify
capacity and needs of women and men involved in
livestock production.
 No guidance on animal welfare: transportation, humane
slaughter, etc.
 More guidance on how to use one or more tools.
 Handbooks and other manuals can be very lengthy;
effort should be made to summarize them more
succinctly.
Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
page 37 of 65
The Good Enough Guide
Opportunities
Challenges
 Often we are implementing the principles of the GEG
without realizing it, but we should make an effort to tie
our activities to specific principles.
 Beneficiaries should be profiled and the data
disaggregated by gender, capacity and age.
 During the Horn of Africa response, World Vision found
that conducting focus group discussions was much more
advanced using the GEG than it could have been using
internal tools.
 FAO found that using the GEG to guide focus group
discussions and interviews allows for better streamlining
of results and data analysis.
 The Catholic Agency for Overseas Development (CAFOD)
policy is to inform beneficiaries about their project
through local diocese (also sharing the assessment
findings), followed up by CAFOD field staff.
 Agencies must find a way to keep communities updated
on how their comments and complaints are being taken
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
 During rapid onset emergencies it is difficult to find
the time and staff capacity necessary to implement
the GEG. This can be resolved by better
preparedness: undertake training and sensitization
before the emergency takes place, identify focal
points in each agency, and fully incorporate
accountability into project work plans and budgets.
 It is very important to have an exit plan for the
project which fully involves the communities.
 Need to be translated into local languages in an easy
and accessible way so that they can be used more
widely in the field—the ECB is a lead resource for
translating the initiatives.
 Sensitization and knowledge sharing is often focused
on district administration officers or heads of
department, leaving out the wider community.
 After receiving initial accountability training, staff of
various agencies requested regular follow-up training.
People in Aid: Code of Good Practice
General Challenges
Challenges
 During group discussion it emerged that only one
person had used the Code, which indicates that it is not
well known.
 The Code of Good Practice is useful as a self-audit tool
and checklist at both field level and headquarters.
However, it is not a tool to implement HR policy
because it is too general.
 People in Aid also produces other practical tools and
handbooks which are more useful for the field,
although they not yet fully contextualized.
 The Code is task-oriented more than human resourcesor 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.
 Security briefings focus mostly on international staff,
not national staff.
 Is the Code used by the UN?
 The Code does not mention staying up to date with
humanitarian competencies in recruitment or learning.
 No consideration of timeliness.
 The Code focuses entirely on field staff, not HQ staff. It
should be linked to the principles in the Humanitarian
Charter, which apply to anyone employed at the
headquarters or field level.
Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
page 38 of 65
HAP
Opportunities
Challenges
 There are many creative ways to get feedback from
communities (i.e. mobile phones) which can be
tailored to fit specific community needs and the
needs of individuals within those communities (i.e.
women). Experience has shown that communities
themselves can recommend feedback mechanisms
(i.e. peaceful demonstrations).
 Define commitment to information sharing.
 Improved financial accountability by limiting
abuse/misuse of resources. Also better human
resources
management
through
critical
investigations of staff.
 Enhance good conduct and accountability among
staff especially in regard to sexual exploitation.
 Complements monitoring and evaluation systems.
 Improving program delivery through frequent
consultation with the community.
 Principles and framework share similarities with the
GEG and HAP, so there is a possibility for closer
integration.
 Given that the initiative is still new to most agencies,
there are often human and financial resource
limitations.
 Resistance from staff who see HAP as a policing
initiative rather than improving program quality.
 Conflicting interests among community groups, for
instance: elderly, youth, community leaders, etc.
 Increased expectations of communities beyond the
objective of the project.
 Constraints of remote programming in complex
emergencies for complaints.
 Cultural barriers to complaints, particularly among
women and the vulnerable.
 Setting up a complaints mechanism from the outset
which creates platforms for knowledge sharing and
meaningful consultation with communities.
 How to deal with gender issues within HAP.
 Enhance community participation in complaints
response mechanism.
 Building capacity of staff and community focal points.
Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
page 39 of 65
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
Challenges
Opportunities
 Some initiatives have elements which can be
applied directly in the field (Sphere, the GEG
and HAP), and others can be incorporated in
the field more indirectly (People in Aid,
Compass, and ALNAP).
 Commitment is emphasized across all the
initiatives.
 Capacity building and shared learning as
priorities.
 Participation.
 Principles and approach.
 Sphere and LEGS have the following linkages:
common standards, technical standards.
 HAP and the GEG have the following linkages:
emphasis on community engagement (process
indicators), learning and continuous
improvement.
 These initiatives deal with human resources:
People in Aid, Synergie Qualité, and
organizational human resource strategies or
policies.
 These initiatives deal with Q&A assessments:
GEG, Sphere, LEGS, HAP, and organizational
methods.
 These initiatives deal with service delivery:
Sphere, the Good Enough Guide, PFIM, LEGS,
and INEE.
 HAP, People in Aid, Compass and the GEG are
useful for agencies to create their own
standards.
 The technical standards of the GEG, LEGS, INEE,
Sphere, MERS and HAP are useful in the field.
 Many agencies already have internal Q&A
mechanisms: code of conduct (World Vision,
CAFOD), whistleblower policy (World Vision,
CAFOD), accountability framework (World
Vision and CAFOD), LEAP (World Vision), animal
welfare assessment (Donkey Sanctuary).
 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).
 Lack of links or “road map” to easily navigate
the core standards and their unique elements
(access-methods-focus).
 Lack of guidance on joint implementation (time,
resources, etc). Prioritization of tools.
 There is no assessment of what the initiatives
have achieved in terms of results, therefore it is
difficult to choose among them or combine
them.
 Low awareness of standards other than Sphere:
a pre-coherence problem.
 The challenge multiplies when using more than
one initiative, which can be very difficult when
working on a tight timeline.
 Lack of field preparedness to be able to
incorporate the initiatives during emergencies.
 Expectations of core and specific standards
should be transparent.
 Lack of commitment from leadership or
sufficient management support.
 Lack of staff knowledge and understanding of
various Q&A tools.
 Trickle down of Q&A initiatives in the field is
limited.
 Lack of hands-on implementation and evidence
on past experiences.
 Most of the tools are not fully integrated by
organizations or into projects.
 Issue of Remote management in monitoring
and verifying compliance.
 Reliance on individuals to drive the Q&A
process, the “changing faces” problem.
 Gender Marker not linked to field or
headquarters standards.
 There is no leverage to make sure that people
commit to the initiatives. One solution may be
to tie them in more closely to national bills of
rights.
Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
page 40 of 65
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
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
page 41 of 65
ANNEX 7: Draft action plans by the participants
Name
Yosef
Habon
Emese
Temesgen
Sajjad
Aden
Paul
Tarekegn
Mahmud
Emmanuelle
Cynan
Individual commitment
Strive to incorporate Q&A key code of conducts in agency
HR manual.
I will raise awareness and build capacity of colleagues on
the Q&A initiatives as well as continue to develop my
own learning in Q&A.
Promote all assessment accountability principles in all
the work that I am involved with.
Work to set up Q&A system in WVE.
I will share learning and resources with my colleagues,
including technical specialists and M&E colleagues.
Internalize Q&A tools and standards to promote
programs in my agency.
Pass Q&A information to WFP HQ with a view to assist in
building responsive feedback mechanisms.
Share Q&A resources with NGOs and donors. Conduct
informal observation of the application of Q&A initiatives
within NGOs.
I shall forward to DM Education Network the Q&A
initiative for teaching course.
Lobbying to review, translate and sensitize on Synergie
Qualité initiative.
Read/reflect farther on Sphere Core Standards and
SEEP/MERS.
Study more about People in Aid.
Reflection about my way of working.
Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
Organizational commitment
Conduct training on Q&A for country office staffs.
I will work towards integrating Q&A indicators in the M&E workplans.
To direct other staff to the initiatives and principles (not all are sensitized to
them at the moment).
I personally will internalize the Q&A initiatives and share what I learned
from the workshop with staff.
I will incorporate standards in the monitoring and accountability manual of
Save the Children and we will monitor them.
Develop and disseminate tools (standards), based on the organization
policy and regulation internally, to promote Q&A.
GFS cluster: Encourage organization links with Nairobi-based networks with
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.
FAO Ethiopia: organize a seminar for professionals on Q&A initiatives (with
Mahmud).
FAO Ethiopia: organize a seminar for professionals on Q&A initiatives (with
Tarekegn).
Leaflet introducing the different Q&A initiatives in French for CSUD
members.
Run one 90 minute webinar for 10-100 Oxfam staff globally about lessons
from this workshop. Use this session to identify/discuss gaps in our
institutional approach.
Include Q&A standards and specific tools in the next trainings on data
collection.
page 64 of 65
Name
Tshome
Individual commitment
Share with HelpAge Network the assistance of the
initiatives.
Be able to participate in training workshops with other
agencies working within and outside my county.
Accessing the partners and training them on Q&A.
Develop a Q&A lens in all my work, referring to tools and
practical application.
Q&A will remain a cross-cutting issue in my career!
Carry out a training on Q&A initiatives during out mid-year review sessions
(scheduled already).
Share summarized information on Q&A issues learnt and make use of them in
future emergency response work.
Train other staff on the same.
I will include the Q&A tools in designing and enriching training of staff,
beneficiaries and partners in program enhancement, then conduct trainings
using these initiatives.
Promote all Q&A standards in current and future urgent interventions.
Develop an accountability framework with budget allocation for training and
staffing.
Suggest to the GenCap Secretariat that a GenCap adviser be given a 2-month
contract to put the 12 key Q&A standards for HA through a gender lens for the
IASC sub-Working Group on Gender and the IAWG.
Conduct a training for our staff (Kenya and Somalia) on Q&A initiatives,
especially Sphere, LEGS and SEEP.
Try my best to include references to the tools and standards in my work at HQ
level, e.g. the work on Standard Operating Procedures.
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.
Share with work colleagues information on various Q&A initiatives.
Read thoroughly.
I will review the Q&A tools provided in depth to understand
them better so as to be able to enrich my professional capacity.
Edward
Linda
Rogers
Organizational commitment
Inclusion of Q&A LEGS standards in my routine interventions.
Familiarize myself more on the tools, join a network and train
staff/others on the major tools.
Orient and share information with my FAO FSNAU counterpart,
the Gender Analyst Robert Basil, and discuss LEGS feedback with
selected and appropriate FAO staff.
Create time and read all the Q&A documents to familiarize
myself. Priority: Sphere, LEGS and SEEP.
Share what I have learned with my colleagues, especially the
ones I think could really be using these tools.
Training PDQ team on existing Q&A standards.
Network and continue sharing my work on Q&A with colleagues
from this training.
Share evaluation Q&A initiatives with NGOs involved in the
education sector.
Deepen my understanding of the various initiatives (more
reading).
Carry out training sessions for project staff.
Raise awareness on the Q&A initiatives and create forums for joint learning and
monitoring of implementation.
Share key issues about the various initiatives with my colleagues/agency.
Introduce different Q&A initiatives to QAWG members.
Course ‘Enhancing Quality and Accountability in Humanitarian Action’ – Kenya, 2012
Report prepared by Sylvie Robert, course designer and lead facilitator with Astrid de Valon, co-facilitator
page 65 of 65