Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Global Stakeholder Consultation 2013
Transcript of Global Stakeholder Consultation 2013
Joint Standards Initiative
4 lines of
Use and accessibility of standards
Implementation of standards
Established by three leading humanitarian quality and accountability initiatives
Aim: seek coherence of current humanitarian standards – ulitimately improve humanitarian action for those affected by conflict and disaster
A global stakeholder consultation conducted from
November 2012 to April 2013
Generate robust evidence
Consult broad humanitarian sector
Inform JSI decisions
consultants gathered feedback
Focus groups, interviews, online survey,
conducted in Arabic, English, French and Spanish
regional workshops and field visits –
Survey and interviews
“Many of the standards are still far too high to be achieved even in the best of situations in developing countries even without
a disaster taking place”
Finding 1: Standards are well known and used by a high majority of the traditional international humanitarian actors although a need for further awareness raising and training was highlighted.
Finding 2: Awareness of the standards is significantly lower amongst national and smaller NGOs when compared to the larger INGOs, the UN or the International Red Cross/Crescent Movement.
Finding 3: Sphere is the most frequently used, followed by HAP and People In Aid.
Finding 4: Anecdotal evidence shows that use of the standards improves the quality of programming and is also considered to be the greatest benefit of using them. There is however limited concrete evidence to support this.
Finding 5: Language and terminology hinder access to standards compounded by lack of common terminology and structure within the texts of the three standards.
Use of main standards
(Aid worker, India)
“These standards are impressive in principle but we need to see them implemented”
Finding 11: Dedicated financial resources would assist in standards implementation.
Finding 6: Lack of knowledge and inadequate training is the main barrier to implementation of the standards.
Finding 7: Contextualisation of the standards in complex and fluctuating environments is difficult for aid workers whose capacity is often stretched or limited.
Finding 8: When working with partners, focusing on standards is often not the priority for INGOs and the UN.
Finding 9: Embedding the standards into operational procedures and training of current and potential users, including identifying champions or focal points, is one step to ensuring increased implementation.
Finding 10: Lack of systematic presence and uniform support from Q&A initiative staff in the field is impeding increased implementation.
(Disaster-affected population – West Africa)
Finding 12: No consensus was reached with regard to the best approach for verifying compliance with the standards.
Options for verification
Internal organizational self-monitoring alone
External with a focus on education not enforcement
Internal self-monitoring then periodic peer review
Internal self-assessment with external verification
Peer review alone
External by global certification agency
Verification by disaster-affected populations
Internal verification was however favored over external verification although many sought a combined approach.
Finding 13: A mandatory approach was favored over a voluntary approach although many concerns were raised about introducing a punitive approach and were cautious that discussions around mandatory versus voluntary systems should not be the priority particularly with new and emerging actors.
“It’s very easy for bigger organizations which operate with large budgets to have one person dedicated to compliance with standards. We have a small budget and find ourselves
looking at compliance only at times
of donor reports”
(Aid worker – Middle East region)
Finding 14: The role of donors is seen as fundamental in any verification system.
Finding 15: The majority are in favor of having a verification system combining different levels that can be aspired to.
Finding 16: Inclusion of affected populations in verification systems is seen as important.
Finding 17: Broad consensus is seen for action on greater awareness, consolidation/harmonization, putting affected populations at the center of standards and for humanitarian principles to be at its cornerstone.
Finding 18: A more detailed concept for consolidation of standards was proposed although it was not of high priority for aid workers.
Finding 19: The implications for the structure of the three initiatives is not a focus of feedback although a coherent approach implied greater harmonization between the organizations and the services offered and closer proximity to humanitarian action.
Finding 20: Aid workers do not want the current situation to continue as it is or to face undue pressure from donors and systems that would lead to exclusion of some actors.
Finding 21: There is a need for a structure to oversee governance of quality and accountability with broad representation of all stakeholders.
“One global standard is unlikely to be universally applicable but the principle and guidance it provides is important.”
(Red Cross/Red Crescent Representatives – Asia Pacific Region)
“There should be one global reference point, an internet platform for example, to
access all the different
(Aid worker – Latin America region)
Most felt existing standards were not sufficiently known, clear, used and supported.
Detailed consolidation of standards could be a lengthy process so immediate actions on harmonization of core standards and text is advocated
The voice of affected populations needs to be at the heart of standards development and validation
Compliance and verification systems would need to be educative rather than punitive and contain several levels with affected populations at its core
Harmonisation implies that the services of the three initiatives should be more consistent and have a broader global reach
Support from quality and assurance bodies and the broad humanitarian community would be key to move foward
Boosting awareness raising & training
Produce a core standard
the three standards
Increase integration within organisations
Consider harmonised support services & proximity to
Reach out to new
actors and affected
Consider in-depth consolidation
findings for SCHR certification review
Consider need for oversight body / framework
for more details
Created by Peter Puklus at YourPrezi
Lois Austin (London)
Glenn O'Neil (Geneva)
Patricia Goldschmid (Geneva)
Inji El Abd (Cairo)