FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions about HAP – Click on the question to see our answer.

What is accountability?
What is humanitarian accountability?
What are the benefits to my organisation of being a member of HAP?
What makes a humanitarian project accountable?
Is it okay for relief workers to be less accountable during acute emergencies?
Why be accountable to beneficiaries only?
To whom should my organisation be most accountable?
How can my organisation become accountable?
What does HAP do?
Who is HAP accountable to?
What’s the background of HAP?
What are the HAP Accountability Principles?
What is the difference between HAP, ALNAP and the Sphere Project?
What is the link between accountability and transparency?
Why focus on humanitarian agencies?
Why doesn’t HAP focus on accountability in development contexts?
What is the point of your research? Isn’t accountability a good thing anyway?
Do we need more standards in the humanitarian sector?
What is compliance and accreditation, and why is HAP advocating for that?
Shouldn’t beneficiaries just be happy with whatever they get?

1. What is accountability?

Accountability is about using power responsibly. HAP’s definition of accountability goes beyond an exclusive focus on the process or duty to report. It involves taking account of the needs, concerns, capacities and disposition of affected parties, and explaining the meaning of, and reasons for, actions and decisions. Accountability is therefore also about the right to be heard and the duty to respond. The HAP definition of accountability thus involves three process domains:

Processes through which individuals, organizations and states determine their decisions and actions.
Processes by which individuals, organizations and states report upon and explain their decisions and actions.
Processes through which individuals, organisations and states may safely report concerns arising from the decisions and actions of others, and gain redress as and where appropriate.

To be "accountable" therefore requires responsible and considerate behaviour within all three of these domains.

2. What is humanitarian accountability?

Because humanitarianism is founded upon the fundamental principle of human dignity and solidarity, the idea of Humanitarian accountability should by definition be instrinsic and inseperable from all "humanitarian" work. It should be obvious that to undertake relief work without first consulting the intended beneficiaries is to deny disaster survivors a voice and, paradoxically, to treat people as if they were the objects of veterinary work rather than the subjects of humanitarian action. Arguably, if emergency relief is planned and implemented in a manner that does not respect the views, capacities and disposition of disaster survivors, it can better be described as "charitable" rather than "humanitarian" in nature. Sadly however, many international aid agencies still tend towards servicing the accountability needs of those in power rather than those in need.

3. What are the benefits to my organisation of being a member of HAP?

Membership of HAP means participation in the humanitarian community’s foremost independent self-regulatory body.
Peer support for improving your organisation’s accountability practices and operational cost-effectiveness in new emergencies.
Peer review of your organisation’s accountability practices.
Learning from and participation in HAP’s action research programme.
Access to HAP’s collective complaints-handling mechanism.
Involvement in HAP’s Accountability Standards Development Project.
Participation in the design and testing of HAP’s quality assurance certification scheme.
Enhanced public standing and credibility.
The satisfaction of knowing that your organisation is playing an important leadership role in humanitarian reform.

4. What makes a humanitarian project accountable?

This is a bit like asking "how long is piece of string?". At it´s most basic level, an accountable humanitarian project will have been the subject of early consultation with its intended beneficiaries, will have publicised beneficiary entitlement criteria, and will provide a safe and accessible mechanism for complaints handling. A more advanced form of accountability will involve learning and continuous improvement. Like all "quality management" approaches, humanitarîan accountability has costs as well as benefits, and the higher the proportion of a project´s resources are devoted to improving accountability, the closer that project will get to a point where diminishing returns on effort expended upon accountability will set in. HAP recommends an optimal rather than a maximal effort, where the resources devoted to accountability and quality management can be justified in terms of humanitarian results. We think that very few organisations have yet achieved such an optimum and thus considerable humanitarian gains have still to be made through increasing the accountability and quality management quotient of most relief projects.

5. Is it okay for relief workers to be less accountable during acute emergencies? After all they are busy saving lives.

If being accountable means making a dedicated effort to manage the quality of humanitarian action through ensuring that due account is taken of the needs, capacities, perspectives and actual circumstances of the intended beneficiaries; then the answer must be an emphatic "No!” Good intentions alone are an insufficient basis for designing effective humanitarian operations. The earliest possible consultation with disaster-affected people will generate the greatest benefits in terms of improved humanitarian outcomes, and conversely, the longer that agencies postpone such consultation, the greater the quotient of waste and inefficiency in their work. But, as well as the cost-effectiveness of humanitarian action being at stake, so too is the dignity of disaster survivors, and relief work that treats them as little more than objects to be fed, watered and housed, scarcely deserves to be described as humanitarian.

6. Why be accountable to beneficiaries only?

HAP believes that our partner agencies should be held to account by all their stakeholders, including donors, staff and relevant authorities. However, because disaster survivors are typically amongst the least able to demand accountability, our partnership is founded upon the belief that the members must make an especially concerted and conscious effort to be accountable to their intended beneficiaries. HAP does not advocate that humanitarian agencies ignore the legitimate interests of others, but rather that they first attempt to ensure that due account is taken of the needs, capacities and actual circumstances of the intended beneficiaries. They are, after all, the "principals" for whom humanitarian action is designed to serve.

7. To whom should my organisation be most accountable?

HAP believes that in general organisations should be accountable to all their stakeholders, although especial attention needs to be given to people and groups with little or no political power or influence in the governance of your organisation. Most disaster survivors will qualify for special attention on these grounds alone. Particular groups of disaster survivors; people with disabilities, older people, young children, women, members of political, ethnic or religious minorities; will often be visible in media images (at least in higher profile emergencies) but paradoxically become politically invisible and without a voice in the processes that plan, allocate and coordinate emergency relief, unless that is, the agencies themselves ensure that they are consulted. HAP believes that consultation with intended beneficiaries (or, in very special cases with their representatives) is a fundamental characteristic of genuine humanitarian action, on the grounds that people whose lives may literally depend upon an agency´s decisions and actions, must surely have the chance to offer their informed consent at least to those elements of that organisation´s operations that may have a direct impact upon their welfare and safety, and indeed, upon their prospects for survival.

8. How can my organisation become accountable?

Although it is quite easy to identify and formally commit to codes, principles and standards, truly accountable organisations can achieve this status without such formalities. An agency that is built upon and that nurtures a "culture of accountability" will, through experience and common sense, place a high value on the views and capacities of its stakeholders, especially those with little or no formal power. As a consequence, it will listen to, learn from and explain its intentions and its performance to all those significantly affected by its actions. Smaller organisations perhaps find this easier to do without external support, while larger more complex agencies may require a more formalised approach, such as that being pioneered by the HAP Standards Development Project.

9. What does HAP do?

HAP was established in 2003 as an independent self-regulatory body designed to define, research, promote and support good practices of accountability, and to accredit its members accordingly. We do this through building the capacity of our members, especially in new emergency situations; through the identification of affordable good practices of accountability; through monitoring the compliance of our members with the HAP Principles of Accountability; through reviewing complaints made against humanitarian agencies; and through the development of a system of quality assurance certification (due for trialling in late 2006).

10. Who is HAP accountable to?

As a Swiss association, HAP is formally accountable to its General Assembly, consisting of members and associate members. More particularly, the Secretariat is accountable to the Board appointed by General Assembly. HAP is not a "humanitarian claimants union", and it does not pretend that it "represents" the intended beneficiaries of humanitarian action. However, through its complaints-handling mechanism, through the independent members of the HAP Board, and through the full members of HAP, the Partnership is also indirectly accountable to disaster-affected people.

11. What’s the background of HAP?

The origins of HAP go back to the Joint Evaluation of the International Response to the Genocide in Rwanda. This seminal study included the following recommendations:

Systems for improving accountability need to be strengthened ....... The Red Cross/NGO Code of Conduct commits signatories to "hold ourselves accountable to both those we seek to assist and those from whom we accept resources". Full implementation of this commitment would entail establishment of NGO mechanisms for consultation with people affected by humanitarian emergencies......
Establish a unit in UN/DHA that would ..... serve as ombudsman to which any party can express a concern related to the provision of assistance or security
Identify a respected, independent organisation or network of organisations to act on behalf of beneficiaries of humanitarian assistance

Shortly after its publication in 1996 it became clear that the UN was unwilling (probably because it was also unable) to act as a "humanitarian ombudsman", and thus it was left to the NGO community to and thus it was left to the NGO community to explore alternative approaches. Various attempts were made to interpret, develop and implement the recommendations of the Joint Evaluation, most prominent of which are the Sphere Project and ALNAP. However, within the Sphere Project the discussion about how to strengthen accountability to beneficiaries generated considerable controversy and eventually a seperate inter-agency project was set up in 1998 to examine the feasibility of this particular concept, under the rather misleadingly named "Humanitarian Ombudsman Project", hosted by the British Red Cross. This initiative has often been (mis)represented as an attempt to create a "humanitarian claimants union", with the objective of facilitating hostile litigation against international humanitarian agencies. In fact the Humanitarian Ombudsman Project was nothing more than a research project designed to examine the applicability of "ombudsman" systems within the humanitarian domain.

At an international conference in Geneva in March 2000 to review the findings of the Ombudsman project, it was recognized that an international Humanitarian Ombudsman was not be the best approach possible to tackle accountability problems. Thus the Humanitarian Accountability Project was born to identify, test and recommend a variety of accountability approaches and mechanisms.

From 2001 to 2003, some seventy staff and consultants conducted field operations in Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, and Cambodia, undertaking five research projects, and engaging in a variety of advocacy activities on accountability.

A fundamental conclusion to emerge from the pilot phase was that accountability would best be strengthened and implemented through the creation of a strong international self-regulatory body that would insist on monitoring and compliance, while providing strategic and technical support to member agencies. The Chief Executive Officers of fourteen humanitarian agencies endorsed this recommendation in January 2003. HAP was officially registered in Geneva, Switzerland, in March of that year, although it only formally came into existence in December 2003 when the first HAP General Assembly met and elected the first HAP Board. HAP International thus became the humanitarian sector´s first international self-regulatory body.

*Borton J. et al, The International Response to Conflict and Geneocide: Lessons from the Rwanda Experience - Humanitarian Aid and Effects. (1996) Copenhagen

12. What are the HAP Accountability Principles?

The HAP Principles of Accountability:

Commitment to humanitarian standards and rights.
Members state their commitment to respect and foster humanitarian standards and the rights of beneficiaries.
Setting standards and building capacity.
Members set a framework of accountability to their stakeholders
Members set and periodically review their standards and performance indicators, and revise them if necessary.
Members provide appropriate training in the use and implementation of standards.
Communication
Members inform, and consult with, stakeholders, particularly beneficiaries and staff, about the standards adopted, programmes to be undertaken and mechanisms available for addressing concerns.
Participation in programmes
Members involve beneficiaries in the planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of programmes and report to them on progress, subject only to serious operational constraints.
Monitoring and reporting on compliance
Members involve beneficiaries and staff when they monitor and revise standards.
Members regularly monitor and evaluate compliance with standards, using robust processes.
Members report at least annually to stakeholders, including beneficiaries, on compliance with standards. Reporting may take a variety of forms.
Addressing complaints
Members enable beneficiaries and staff to report complaints and seek redress safely.
Implementing partners
Members are committed to the implementation of these principles if and when working through implementation partners.

13. What is the difference between HAP, ALNAP, the Sphere Project and other similar initiatives?

HAP is a formal partnership of member agencies with a shared obligation to comply with the HAP Accountability Principles and a common commitment to compliance monitoring and accreditation. The Secretariat of HAP is registered in Switzerland as an independent association, governed by a legally constituted Board and General Assembly.

Sphere is an inter-agency humanitarian standards development initiative hosted by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. ALNAP is an inter-agency learning initiative hosted by the ODI, mainly concerned with promoting good practices of evaluation.

HAP meets regularly with Sphere, ALNAP, People in Aid, Coordination Sud, the ECB Project and Groupe URD. Minutes of these meetings and a jointly authored FAQ about these "quality and accountability initiatives" can be found on the websites of all these agencies.

14. What is the link between accountability and transparency?

Transparency is an essential condition for accountability, but alone it is an insufficient one. Transparency is achieved through allowing public scrutiny of policies and practices. An organisation that says, "this is what we are, take it or leave it", will rate high on transparency, but low on accountability overall, since this posture means that it is unwilling (and perhaps unable) to "take account of" the legitimate concerns of its customers, clients or beneficiaries.

15. Why focus on humanitarian agencies?

Human "life-chance" vulnerability is at its most extreme in humanitarian crises, and this vulnerability can be both reduced and exacerbated by the decisions and actions of humanitarian agencies. It is therefore all the more important to take the relatively little time required to listen to and learn from people living in humanitarian crises in order that their needs, views, capacities and vulnerabilities are properly understood and respected. Yet paradoxically, so many relief projects are planned and implemented on the very unsound principle of "I´m too busy saving lives to be bothered with this accountability stuff". Surgeons who behave in a similar manner tend to have short careers. Not so it seems for unaccountable humanitarians.

16. Why doesn’t HAP focus on accountability in development contexts?

This is more an accident of history than it is a logical and rational decision. The founders of HAP were all concerned about the absence of regulatory instruments and quality assurance systems within the humanitarian domain, and took action accordingly. Arguably, in the "development context", political oversight and formal regulatory mechanisms, including judicial and administrative review systems, are more likely to be in place than in emergency contexts. Thus, in theory, cases of abuse of vested authority, criminal negligence and simple waste are more likely to be addressed satisfactorily. In fact some commentators have suggested that because so much development aid is in the form of budget support, it is even more vulnerable to corruption, mismanagement and abuse than the relatively smaller, more visible and identifiable projects financed by humanitarian budgets. Whatever the case, HAP´s mandate has formally sets its sights upon the humanitarian emergency response system, and it would take HAP’s General Assembly to amend its terms of reference before this could change. Why not send us your views on this question?

17. What is the point of your research? Isn’t accountability a good thing anyway?

At first glance, the answer appears to be yes. But like every business model, there is a balance between time and resources spent on accountability and getting the job done safely and efficiently for all involved. At HAP, we call this the ‘humanitarian business case’.

The ‘humanitarian business case’ examines this balance from three perspectives: 1) beneficiaries, 2) aid agencies, and 3) aid workers.

To do this, HAP Research performs three types of research:

HAP Research carries out small research projects (either desk studies or through member agencies) to collect good practice and analyze the less resource intensive aspects of this issue.
HAP Research commissions research projects to consultants, individuals researchers, members, research institutions, or through cooperative arrangements with other initiatives.
HAP Research acts as a support function to the program areas of HAP, carrying out their required research when necessary.

Visit the research pages or email the HAP Researcher.

18. Do we need more standards in the humanitarian sector?

The last 10 years have seen the development of a number of guidelines, technical benchmarking, codes of conduct and principles of good practices within the humanitarian aid sector. These have all been timely and born out of a real need to ensure that when implementing disaster response projects, higher standards are aimed for and met.

However, as necessary as these standards are there they are not as yet firmly anchored in quality management and accountability to beneficiaries.

We must have an overall set of practical and verifiable standards (good practices) linked to robust indicators that measure accountability to beneficiaries.

Click here to visit the Standards Development pages

19. What is compliance and accreditation, and why is HAP advocating for that?

Some definitions:

Accreditation: the formal recognition by a specialized body - an accreditation body - that a certification body is competent to carry out certification in specified business sectors. Accreditation is like certification of the certification body. An accrediting body, agency, or association is a non-governmental entity that sets standards for accreditation, administers the process of accreditation, and provides assistance, as it is able, to institutions, programmes, and the general public. Accreditation is a process by which an institution periodically evaluates its work and seeks an independent judgement by peers that it achieves substantially its own objectives and meets the established standards of the body from which it seeks accreditation.
Certification: the issuing of written assurance (the certificate) by an independent, external body that has audited an organization´s management system and verified that it conforms to the requirements specified in the standard. Certificates issued by accredited certification bodies - and known as "accredited certificates" - may be perceived on the market as having increased credibility.
Registration: adding the name of an organisation to a recognised list of certified agencies. The organization´s management system has therefore been both certified and registered.
Compliance: when agencies voluntarily observe and perform according to accepted standards.

A reliable, robust and accessible accreditation system will:

Create incentives for improving the quality, effectiveness and accountability to beneficiaries of the humanitarian work of certified agencies;
Confirm that a reasonable level of compliance with the HAP Accountability Principles is being achieved by certified agencies;
Provide a framework for recognising and rewarding agency staff that implement the HAP Accountability Principles;
Ensure learning and continuous improvement within certified agencies;
Enhance the credibility of certified agencies;
Protect certified members against harmful internal and external pressures;
Enable donors (private as well as official) to make more informed choices.

If HAP is to become more than a small mutual admiration club, it must develop and promote incentives for greater accountability to beneficiaries. An accessible and robust accreditation system is probably the most powerful tool that could be deployed for this purpose.

20. Why should beneficiaries have complaints mechanisms? Shouldn’t they be happy with whatever they get?

This is actually a real question from someone we know!

We hope by now that you can answer this question. If not, and you still think that it is a reasonable question, then with all due respect, we suggest that you do not pursue a career in humanitarian work.

Please email us to ask any more questions or to send us feedback on these answers