Katherine Purvis :
The CHS Alliance, a new over-arching body for humanitarian standards launched this week, aiming to bring about more accountability for NGOs, and harmonising three separate initiatives, after months of consultations.
The focus of the alliance’s work will be the Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability (CHS), which aims to improve how humanitarian work is delivered and held accountable. So what does the humanitarian sector make of this new standard? Does it do enough to guide organisations to work effectively in humanitarian crises? And does the sector need yet another set of standards?
The aim, according to the website, is “to become the key reference framework for humanitarian standards, supporting quality and accountability in all programmes”. The standard is said to have been developed in consultation with “many hundreds of humanitarian actors” around the world.
The CHS is for anyone delivering direct humanitarian assistance, or supporting organisations to do so – NGOs, governments, and even the military and the private sector are all encouraged to apply the CHS to any humanitarian work. Anyone who is now a member of Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP International) or People In Aid will become members of the CHS Alliance automatically. This includes 266 organisations in more than 160 countries.
There are nine broad commitments to communities and people affected by crisis, for example: “Communities and people affected by crisis receive assistance appropriate and relevant to their needs.” These commitments are supported by guidance notes and indicators – detailing how humanitarians can deliver high-quality programmes consistently and be accountable to those they assist – which are themselves supported by technical guidance notes elaborating on the performance indicators.
Following the humanitarian responses to the Haiti earthquake and the Pakistan floods in 2010, there was a feeling that multiple overlapping initiatives might not be the best approach. “[There was] a widespread sense among many humanitarians and organisations that there was limited interoperability between these different initiatives, and that the sector lacked a key statement of what people could expect from humanitarian organisations,” says Marian Casey-Maslen, executive director of HAP International.
The CHS is intended to replace the previous standards developed by HAP International, People in Aid and the Sphere Project, and follows the same principles as the International Red Cross’ code of conduct (pdf).
While the CHS outlines what organisations need to do to be accountable in humanitarian situations, it can also be used by communities and people affected by crisis as a guideline of what to expect from the organisations providing help. In essence, NGOs can be held to account by the people they seek to serve.
Organisations and individuals can also review and comment on the guidance notes – the parts that describes how member organisations can show compliance with the standard – until 30 June. (You can read the full guidance notes and indicators here, and make comments here.)
There’s been a mixed response. Sandrine Tiller, MSF’s humanitarian advisor, thinks the standard is too generic. “It’s good to have standards and the humanitarian sector should definitely hold itself up to the highest standards. But the CHS is too simplistic and generic to be really meaningful – we doubt that they’re going to have much effect,” she said. “We think the Sphere standards are still an excellent reference. We have our own at MSF that are very challenging.”
But Simon Eccleshall, who helped to develop the standard as head of disaster and crisis management at the IFRC, says that the point of the CHS is simplicity. “There are a large number of community-based organisations and NGOs in developing countries using standards that are too complex. The idea was to create a simple set of standards that everyone can relate to, a low hurdle that every humanitarian organisation should be able to leap over.” As organisations grow, they can aspire to use more technical standards that more established NGOs might already be working with.
Organisations formally committing to the CHS are expected to work consistently to improve the quality and accountability of their humanitarian responses, while aiming to fulfil all of the nine commitments.
For young, local or community-based organisations Eccleshall says that, initially, the CHS will help to give them a common identity. “They can say ‘We subscribe to the CHS, we’re going to do work in alignment with them, and we’re willing to be measured by them.'” But, he says that the standard is encouraged to be optional: “Organisations must decide to adopt the standard by their own constitution and their own commitment.”
(Katherine Purvis is a content coordinator for the Global Development Professionals Network.)
The CHS Alliance, a new over-arching body for humanitarian standards launched this week, aiming to bring about more accountability for NGOs, and harmonising three separate initiatives, after months of consultations.
The focus of the alliance’s work will be the Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability (CHS), which aims to improve how humanitarian work is delivered and held accountable. So what does the humanitarian sector make of this new standard? Does it do enough to guide organisations to work effectively in humanitarian crises? And does the sector need yet another set of standards?
The aim, according to the website, is “to become the key reference framework for humanitarian standards, supporting quality and accountability in all programmes”. The standard is said to have been developed in consultation with “many hundreds of humanitarian actors” around the world.
The CHS is for anyone delivering direct humanitarian assistance, or supporting organisations to do so – NGOs, governments, and even the military and the private sector are all encouraged to apply the CHS to any humanitarian work. Anyone who is now a member of Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP International) or People In Aid will become members of the CHS Alliance automatically. This includes 266 organisations in more than 160 countries.
There are nine broad commitments to communities and people affected by crisis, for example: “Communities and people affected by crisis receive assistance appropriate and relevant to their needs.” These commitments are supported by guidance notes and indicators – detailing how humanitarians can deliver high-quality programmes consistently and be accountable to those they assist – which are themselves supported by technical guidance notes elaborating on the performance indicators.
Following the humanitarian responses to the Haiti earthquake and the Pakistan floods in 2010, there was a feeling that multiple overlapping initiatives might not be the best approach. “[There was] a widespread sense among many humanitarians and organisations that there was limited interoperability between these different initiatives, and that the sector lacked a key statement of what people could expect from humanitarian organisations,” says Marian Casey-Maslen, executive director of HAP International.
The CHS is intended to replace the previous standards developed by HAP International, People in Aid and the Sphere Project, and follows the same principles as the International Red Cross’ code of conduct (pdf).
While the CHS outlines what organisations need to do to be accountable in humanitarian situations, it can also be used by communities and people affected by crisis as a guideline of what to expect from the organisations providing help. In essence, NGOs can be held to account by the people they seek to serve.
Organisations and individuals can also review and comment on the guidance notes – the parts that describes how member organisations can show compliance with the standard – until 30 June. (You can read the full guidance notes and indicators here, and make comments here.)
There’s been a mixed response. Sandrine Tiller, MSF’s humanitarian advisor, thinks the standard is too generic. “It’s good to have standards and the humanitarian sector should definitely hold itself up to the highest standards. But the CHS is too simplistic and generic to be really meaningful – we doubt that they’re going to have much effect,” she said. “We think the Sphere standards are still an excellent reference. We have our own at MSF that are very challenging.”
But Simon Eccleshall, who helped to develop the standard as head of disaster and crisis management at the IFRC, says that the point of the CHS is simplicity. “There are a large number of community-based organisations and NGOs in developing countries using standards that are too complex. The idea was to create a simple set of standards that everyone can relate to, a low hurdle that every humanitarian organisation should be able to leap over.” As organisations grow, they can aspire to use more technical standards that more established NGOs might already be working with.
Organisations formally committing to the CHS are expected to work consistently to improve the quality and accountability of their humanitarian responses, while aiming to fulfil all of the nine commitments.
For young, local or community-based organisations Eccleshall says that, initially, the CHS will help to give them a common identity. “They can say ‘We subscribe to the CHS, we’re going to do work in alignment with them, and we’re willing to be measured by them.'” But, he says that the standard is encouraged to be optional: “Organisations must decide to adopt the standard by their own constitution and their own commitment.”
(Katherine Purvis is a content coordinator for the Global Development Professionals Network.)
