INTER-AGENCY STANDING COMMITTEE
XYZ MEETING
Accountability to Affected Populations: An Operational Framework
DD MMMM YYYY
Rome
Circulated DD MMMM YYYY
I
Introduction
At their meeting in April 2011, the IASC Principals acknowledged the fundamental importance of
accountability to affected populations. They agreed to integrate accountability to affected populations
into their individual agencies' statements of purpose as well as their policies. Further, they requested that
the Sub Group on Accountability to Affected Populations (part of the IASC Cluster Sub Working group)
in consultation with HAP, SPHERE, CDAC, national governments and other relevant initiatives develop
a proposal for inter-agency mechanisms that would enable improved participation, information provision,
feedback and complaints handling.
The Sub Group held an initial consultation with a number of actors in early July. Invitees included
organizations directly involved in developing standards or systems to strengthen humanitarian
accountability, donor representatives and representatives from various UN agencies, IOs and NGOs,
including those with cluster leadership responsibilities.
The Sub Group have completed a draft operational framework1 based on cumulative lessons learnt, best
practices, and experience from past and ongoing projects from a variety of humanitarian organisations.
Several field pilots are being planned to validate and strengthen the framework. SPHERE standards,
Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP) benchmarks or other methodologies provide a means of
verification of the operational framework. An outline of potential collective feedback and complaints
mechanisms is also described, with arguments in favour and others against using particular
methodologies.
A short list of “collective commitments” was also considered, aimed at providing a common baseline for
agencies to elaborate or enhance accountability, to monitor that accountability and to provide coherence
and a clear understanding of what accountability to affected populations really means.
II
Operational Framework
The operational framework2 that has been developed by the Sub Group is aimed at field practitioners and
therefore is structured around the program framework. Clearly an operational framework for
accountability to affected populations that is understood and used by IASC and partner organizations
cannot be effective if it is divorced from the overall humanitarian architecture, and therefore clusters and
1
2
An outline of the framework can be found in the Annexe to this paper.
Idem
1
the current humanitarian response architecture has also been taken into consideration. What is also clear
however is that, whether implemented through clusters or other joint programming arrangements,
improved accountability can only be as effective as the capacity and willingness of individual
organisations to uphold their responsibilities.
If an “accountability to affected populations” approach is to be adopted by the humanitarian system as a
whole, it will require that organizations, their partners as well as donors endorse this approach to engage
with communities in a more systematic way. Organizations need to adapt their programming; including
those of their partners; donors need to provide more flexible funding lines for programming to be
adequately adapted. What is being suggested is in fact a modification or change in guidance and rules in
some cases and in others a shift in behaviour and culture.
Given the diverse contexts within which humanitarian organizations work, the operational framework as
described below3 needs to be applied in a flexible manner, and adapted to the context as necessary.
In order for the framework to be of practical use, minimum standards also need to be integrated. The HAP
and SPHERE standards have been reflected in the framework, making best use of an existing in-depth,
cross sectoral consultation process that has developed the standards.
A more detailed framework will be made available for the proposed field pilots.
III Accountability to Affected Populations at Policy level
There are many variations in the understanding of what accountability to affected populations is. This has
been demonstrated by different approaches within organizations, but also by the number of separate
initiatives, albeit from different perspectives, to achieve greater accountability. It would be therefore
useful to have a shared understanding of the broad tenets of accountability to affected populations.
This is why it is proposed that several commitments (building on the existing work of the Emergency
Capacity Building project (ECB)4) be put forward to the IASC Principals for the inter-agency community
to endorse and promote. Not unlike the “Principals of Partnership”, these commitments can then be used
within country strategies, programme proposals, staff inductions, partnership agreements, Letters of
Understanding or even by the cluster themselves, to help ensure more systematic understanding and
implementation of activities that address accountability.
This said accountability cannot be fully captured in a checklist of commitments; it is not a programmatic
technical process but is rather built on the nature of the relationship between “receiver” and “provider” of
assistance both prior to and following an emergency. The proposed commitments must therefore be seen
as some initial steps that will encourage and, where needed, force a firmer commitment from the
management and staff of organisations to act in to act in such a way that accountability in humanitarian
response is mandatory rather than an element of humanitarian rhetoric.
The commitments can be assessed based on agreed upon indicators and progress can be followed in
evaluations and reviews.
Based on “Impact Measurement and Accountability in Emergencies, The Good Enough Guide”, Emergency Capacity
Building Project, 2007.
4
The Good Enough Guide: Impact Measurement and Accountability in Emergencies, Emergency Capacity Building
project, 2007
3
2
In addition, by articulating a common understanding of what it is to be accountable to affected
populations, there be a clearer basis upon which to have a dialogue with a broader set of humanitarian
actors, beyond the IASC, including national NGOs, CBOs, host governments and donors. By agreeing to
commitments it will also be easier to expect and promote accountability to affected populations.
Suggested Commitments for Accountability to Affected Populations
LEADERSHIP/GOVERNANCE: Demonstrate their commitment to accountability to affected
populations by ensuring feedback and accountability mechanisms are integrated into country
strategies, programme proposals, monitoring and evaluations, recruitment, staff inductions, trainings and
performance management, partnership agreements, and highlighted in reporting.
TRANSPARENCY: Provide accessible and timely information to affected populations on
organizational procedures, structures and processes that affect them to ensure that they can make
informed decisions and choices, and facilitate a dialogue between an organisation and its affected
populations over information provision.
FEEDBACK and COMPLAINTS: Actively seek the views of affected populations to improve policy
and practice in programming, ensuring that feedback and complaints mechanisms are streamlined,
appropriate and robust enough to deal with (communicate, receive, process, respond to and learn from)
complaints about breaches in policy and stakeholder dissatisfaction5.
PARTICIPATION: Enable affected populations to play an active role in the decision-making
processes that affect them through the establishment of clear guidelines and practice s to engage them
appropriately and ensure that the most marginalised and affected are represented and have influence.
DESIGN, MONITORING AND EVALUATION: Design, monitor and evaluate the goals and
objectives of programmes with the involvement of affected populations, feeding learning back into
the organisation on an ongoing basis and reporting on the results of the process.
IV Challenges and Risks
As a humanitarian community, to be truly accountable to affected populations, all stakeholders within the
system must adapt their programming and systems to ensure consistent and ongoing consultation,
communication, and programming that is adaptable to the needs of the relevant communities. It also
requires flexibility to change the direction of a project or a program if it is not meeting the needs of the
affected populations.
Organizations need to adapt their programming; including those of their implementing partners; donors
need to provide more flexible funding lines. Donors, as stakeholders in the humanitarian system must also
ensure that there funding lines are flexible enough to adapt to feedback and/or complaints from affected
populations. As mentioned above, what is being suggested is in fact a modification or change in
programme guidance and procedures in some cases and in others a shift in behaviour and culture. An
added challenge is the coordination of messages and mechanisms to avoid communication overload
and/or the provision of conflicting information.
5
Specific issues raised by affected individuals regarding violations and/or physical abuse that may have human rights and
legal, psychological or other implications should have the same entry point as programme-type complaints, but
procedures for handling these should be adapted accordingly.
3
One particular and often discussed component of accountability to affected populations that may pose
complex challenges are joint feedback and complaints mechanisms. Effective feedback and complaints
mechanisms require a clear referral system to the organization that receives the feedback or complaint
and, in the case of a complaint, a clear system for investigating that complaint and taking timely and
appropriate action. If, in the case of a joint system, a participating organization that is not adequately
responsive, what was initially feedback can become a complaint. If there is a failure to address a
complaint, this can become an even more serious issue and pose a threat to all organizations working in a
community. Everyone is at risk of being seen as equally culpable. There are good practice examples in
many countries, but these experiences must be captured and replicated more systematically.
For these reasons, complaints and feedback mechanisms have been separated from the Operational
Framework in this document. Different models are listed in the next section.
V
Models for joint Feedback and Complaints
Combining Feedback and complaints into one system encourages both positive and negative issues to be
communicated and also demonstrates an openness to listen to all concerns being voiced, forming a critical
aspect of the dialogue between humanitarian organizations and affected populations.
Regardless of what feedback complaints mechanism is chosen however, and how it is introduced in a
community, if a serious concern is raised, the organisation that needs to address this complaint must have
the required internal systems in place. There needs to be management buy-in from all the agencies
concerned as well as from the HC/RC in country.
Feedback and Complaint Mechanisms: Advantages and Disadvantages
Mechanisms
Local agencies/Ombudsman6
Trusted local agencies or an
independent
individual
collect
feedback and pass it on to the
Organization
Cluster
Cluster Coordinators are trained and
establish system for and by the cluster
with affected populations
Advantages
Disadvantages
• Communities may be more honest
with intermediaries than with the
agency giving aid
• Can be manipulated by the local
agency
• Reinforces community structures
• People excluded by existing power
structures may continue to be excluded
• Transparent process that the
Organization accepts and responds to
complaints
• If an independent individual is
appointed, this may incur additional
stand alone costs
• Cluster Coordinator is already
involved in coordinating and shaping
the sector wise response
• Success dependent on selection of
commitment
of
the
Cluster
Coordinator and buy in from members
of the Cluster/ HCT.
• Problems can be solved by the
cluster members
• Requires time and investment to set
up, including training of staff and
resources for them to use.
Based on the World Vision International. 2009, “Complaint and response mechanisms: a resource guide, first
edition”. Monrovia, U.S.A, p57.
6
4
Capacity Development Exercise in
Country
• The team that is working together is
trained together in the relevant tools
within context
Training/
capacity
development
support is made available at the
country level.
• A context
established
specific
system
is
• Such training would need to be
replicated at each emergency
• Requires time and investment to set
up, including training of staff and
resources for them to use.
Mechanisms for the feedback and complaints also need to be established. All methods used also have
both positive and negative aspects. They range from establishing a Community Help Desk where a group
of community members who receive complaints at meetings and distributions; an Office day, or regular
time per week allocated for communities to come to the office to give feedback or make a complaint; a
suggestion box which is a locked box for receiving complaints and feedback that would include options
for the illiterate e.g. access to tape recorder and tapes or literate volunteers. Telephone or SMS systems
have also been used, where a telephone number is published for receiving feedback and complaints. All
these system require resources, and once established a mechanism for providing the feedback or
complaints to the relevant organizations7.
VI Pilot Countries
There already has been some informal discussions with ECB and we will be able to take advantage of
already planned and funded projects to make field based recommendations on the best way forward
Further discussion is needed and other pilot options are also being explored.
VII Requested Action by IASC Working Group:
The IASC Cluster SWG requests the following for IASC WG’s consideration and endorsement:
IASC WG agrees that the Sub Group on Accountability to Affected Populations will propose to the
Principals Task Team in December:
 That the IASC organizations commit to promoting the Accountability to Affected Populations
Commitments within their own agency, with operational partners, within HCTs and amongst
cluster membership;
 That the operational framework be piloted with relevant inter agency feedback and complaints in
several countries for further validation and refinement;
 That once piloted, reviewed and endorsed by the IASC that the IASC organizations use and
promote the Operational Framework.
Please see World Vision International. 2009, “Complaint and response mechanisms: a resource guide, first edition”.
Monrovia, U.S.A, p57 for more details of possible options.
7
5
ANNEXE
Operational Framework for Ensuring Accountability to Affected Populations in Humanitarian Emergencies (summarised version)
Phase
Throughout all phases
of the program cycle:
System wide
learning and
establishing means
of mainstreaming
and verification
Throughout all phases
of the program cycle:
Systematically
communicate with
affected populations
using relevant
feedback and
communication
mechanisms
Responsibility
Activities
Challenges
Individual
Organizations/
Coordination bodies
(OCHA, NGO
Consortia, Clusters,
HCT)
Humanitarian
organizations,
clusters, HC
(supported by
OCHA), HCT
 Mainstreaming
accountability
 Initiate a dialogue with
donors
 Time and resources
 Management buy-in
 Adequate skills and
capacity
 Open up existing
humanitarian information
systems
 Develop and/or support
multi-agency response
communications
initiatives
 Implement
communications projects
that already deliver on a
response-wide level
 Need to further develop
system-wide
communications
coordination function
and methodology for
collating feedback
 Feedback processes
often only focus on
project-level
information
Tools
Means of verification
 HAP Standard
Benchmark 18
 Feedback on progress
made through IASC
 HAP Standard
Benchmark 3, 4 and 5
 Affected populations
have access to
information,
possibility to provide
feedback and receive
response
 Humanitarian funding
mechanisms adapted
8
The HAP Standard Benchmarks 1 refers to Establishing and delivering on commitments; 2 refers to Staff competency, 3 refers to Sharing information, 4 to Participation and 5 to
Handling complaints.
Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC)
6
Before assessment
and/or during
contingency
planning
During assessment
During project
design and/or
response planning
9
NATF/ Needs
Assessment Teams
in the Field/
Clusters/ Inter
Cluster mechanisms/
Individual
organizations
Clusters/ Inter
Cluster
mechanisms/
Individual
organizations
Clusters/ Inter
Cluster
mechanisms/ HCT
/Individual
organizations
 Include accountability in
job descriptions, staff
development and
appraisals
 Inform local communities
 Adapt communications to
local culture/ customs
 Deploy Q&A officers at
the beginning of response
as a cross-cutting
capacity
 Allow for separate and
private discussions with
different community
groups
 Describe methodology to
communities
 Feedback and complaints
mechanisms established
 Integrate the activities
above in any joint needs
assessment planning
 Share findings of
assessment within the
humanitarian community
and with affected
populations
 Involve local community
in project design
 Design complaints and
response mechanism with
 Common commitment to
accountability to
affected populations
 Sufficient resources
 Ensuring common
standards for
 Staff awareness
 Inclusion in staff and
programme performance
evaluation
 Reaching out to all
community groups
 Creating an
environment where
people/groups can
speak openly
 Communicating in local
language(s)
 Managing expectations
 Ensuring that activities
are measurable and
transparent
 Ensuring that resources
for accountability are
included in country
strategies and
emergency appeals
 Reflect commitments in
 Include
accountability into
strategic and
planning
documents
 Include
accountability
principles and
mechanisms in
trainings, ToR,
appraisals etc.
 HAP Standard
Benchmark 2, 3, 4
and 5
 Use of CAP
indicators to monitor
and evaluate the
sector
 WFP’s
Vulnerability
Analysis and
Mapping
 UNHCR’s Age,
Gender and
Diversity
Mainstreaming
methodology
 NATF and joint
needs assessments
 HAP Standard
Benchmarks 3, 4 and
5
 Sphere Core Standard
3: Assessment, Key
Indicator 19
 Good practice
examples of
feedback and
complaints
mechanisms
 HAP Standard
Benchmark 1, 2 and 6
 Sphere Core Standard
1 and 2: Coordination
and Collaboration:
Key Indicator 410 and
guidance note 1.
Assessed needs have been explicitly linked to the capacity of affected people and the state to respond.
The agency’s response takes account of the capacities and strategies of other humanitarian agencies, civil society organisations and relevant authorities (Guidance note: explicit
efforts to listen to, consult and engage people at an early stage will increase quality and community management later in the programme)
10
Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC)
7
local input
During project
implementation
During distribution
and service delivery
During monitoring/
evaluation
Clusters/ Inter
Cluster
mechanisms/
Individual
organizations
Clusters/ Inter
Cluster mechanisms/
Individual
organizations
Clusters/ Inter
Cluster
mechanisms/
Individual
organizations
 Local community groups
assist in developing
criteria for selection of
beneficiaries
 Criteria and selection
process is made public
 Implement complaints
and response mechanism
 Gather feedback on the
quality/accountability of
the response
 Where relevant, form a
distribution committee
and/or consultative group
 Inform local communities
in advance (security
allowing)
 Invite local community
representatives to take
part in
monitoring/evaluation
process
 Share and discuss
findings with local
communities
 Hold an internal learning
review
partnership agreements
 Ensuring means to
respond to feedback and
to address complaints
 Respecting the privacy
of individuals and
providing means for
confidentiality
HAP Standard
Benchmark 4
 Public knowledge of
feedback and complaints
mechanisms
 Prioritization of
vulnerable groups
 HAP Standard
Benchmarks 3, 4 and 5
 Analysis of feedback
and complaints
(trends in number and
type of complaints and
feedback received over
time)
 Reporting in a timely
manner to affected
populations, partners,
authorities, donors, etc.
 Feedback from
communities
 HAP Standard
Benchmark 3, 4 and 5
 Sphere Core Standard
5: Performance,
transparency and
learning: Key
Indicator 1 and 211
 Sphere Core Standard
1, Key Indicator 312
11
Programmes are adapted in response to monitoring and learning information; Monitoring and evaluation sources include the views of a representative number of people targeted by the
response, as well as the host community if different
12
The number of self-help initiatives led by the affected community and local authorities’ increases during the response period
Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC)
8
Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC)
9