Guidlines 4haii, Final

7/31/2019 Guidlines 4haii, Final

1/96


2/96

Public Interest Research and Advocacy Center

Humanitarian Forum Indonesia

2011

GUIDELINESFOR HUMANITARIAN

ACCOUNTABILITY

IN INDONESIA


3/96

Author : Editorial team, Guidelines for Humanitarian

Accountability, 2011

First edition : October 2011

ISBN : 978-979-3597-69-0

Editor : Kristanto Sinandang, MSi

Maria R. Nindita Radyati, PhD

Design & Layout : Moelanka

Publisher : PIRAMEDIA

Jl. M. Ali No. 2 RT. 003/04,

Kel. Tanah Baru Beji Depok 16426

Telp/Fax: 021 7756071

e-mail: [email protected]


4/96

PREFACE

In principle, accountability is the obligation of every

humanitarian aid agency, be it a government body or other

institutions, such as local and international NGOs (non-

governmental organizations), the mass media, educational

institutions, corporations and faith-based organizations. Some

humanitarian aid agencies understand accountability simply as

the submission of reports audited by the public accountant.

Accountability, in fact does not only involve reports, national

laws and policies but also other essential components such as

beneficiary engagement, swift distribution, well-targeted

beneficiaries and aid efficiency, and the organizations ability to

respond to emerging issues related to the management of

humanitarian aid. As such, humanitarian accountability refers

to the state of being answerable to donors as well as the public

at large and beneficiaries.

From the accountability perspective, both the public and

beneficiaries as target groups earn the right to be involved in

program planning, oversight, evaluation, implementation and

reporting, and offer criticisms and feedbacks, and make inquiries

to humanitarian aid agencies with regard to the implementation

of their humanitarian responses within society.


5/96

iv

Public Interest Research and Advocacy Center (PIRAC)

together with Humanitarian Forum Indonesia (HFI) with support

from the Ford Foundation have initiated efforts to establish

accountability guidelines for managing humanitarian aid. This

initiative is preceded by a study and mapping of accountability

practices and issues in managing humanitarian actions in four

disaster-stricken areas, namely Bandung-West Java, Padang

Pariaman-West Sumatera, Aceh Besar-Aceh and Bantul-DI

Yogyakarta. In addition, PIRAC and HFI have also reviewed six

sets of international guidelines for managing humanitarian aid

which encompass key aspects related to accountability. Results

of the study and mapping exercise were disseminated to various

humanitarian aid agencies and the general public to generate

feedback for improvement and building awareness.

Subsequently, PIRAC and HFI in collaboration with members

and partners have helped draw up accountability guidelines

involving a broad range of organizations engaged in the

management of humanitarian aid, including NGOs, OPZ

(organisasi pengelola zakator alms management organizations),community-based organizations, the mass media, and the

Government of Indonesia represented by BNPB (Badan Nasional

Penanggulangan Bencana or National Agency for Disaster

Management). The guideline formulation team draws together

representatives from these organizations, as shown below:

Team Coor dinator :1. Hamid Abidin (Public Interest Research and Advocacy

Center/PIRAC)

2. Hening Parlan (Humanitarian Forum Indonesia/HFI)

Team Member :

1. A. Eddy Sutedja (KOMPAS)

2. Apri Sulistyo (HFI)


6/96

v

3. Catur Sudira (Masyarakat Penanggulangan Bencana

Indonesia/MPBI)

4. Dear N. B. Sinandang (HFI)

5. Dian Lestariningsih (KARINA)

6. Hari Eko Purwanto (LAZIS Muhammadiyah)

7. Husnan Nurjuman (MUHAMMADIYAH/Universitas Prof.

Hamka)

8. Joyce Manarisip (Yayasan Tanggul Bencana di

Indonesia/YTBI)

9. Ninik Annisa (PIRAC)10. Nor Hiqmah (PIRAC)

11. Robby Reppa (YEU)

12. Sigit Budhi Setiawan (PIRAC)

13. Syahri Ramadhan / Adhong (Catholic Relief Services)

14. Syamsul Ardiansyah (Yakkum Emergency Unit/YEU)

15. Tomy Hendrajati (PKPU/FOZ)

16. Victor Rembeth (HFI)

17. Vincentia I. Widyasari (Karina)

18. Yus Rizal (Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana/

BNPB)

The formulation team had intensively conducted meetingsand FGDs necessary for establishing the accountabilityguidelines. Through meetings and discussions, the team hadmanaged to gather feedback from experiences related tohumanitarian accountability, and generate opinions and ideason accountability concepts. Team members finally agreed on13 (thirteen) fundamental principles for the management ofhumanitarian aid. These basic principles were subsequentlytranslated into indicators, measurement tools, and means ofverification, also drawn from the field experiences or lessonslearned from Humanitarian Forum Indonesia (HFI) members,


7/96

vi

Hamid Abidin

Director, PIRAC

Hening Parlan

Director HFI

such as Muhammadiyah, PKPU/FOZ, Wahana Visi Indonesia,Karina (Caritas Indonesia), Yakkum Emergency Unit (YEU), andPerkumpulan Peningkatan Keberdayaan Masyarakat (PPKM),

as well as from other institutions outside of HFI, includingCatholic Relief Services (CRS), and MasyarakatPenanggulangan Bencana Indonesia (MPBI). The team alsogained valuable insight from several resource persons whowillingly contributed constructive ideas, namely Lusi Herlina(Konsil LSM Indonesia), Whisnu Yonar (CARE Indonesia), AriWibowo and Indra Y. Meira (Karina), and Surya RahmanMuhammad (HFI).

From the outset, this initiative was not meant to developaccountability guidelines as the only source of reference forhumanitarian aid agencies operating in Indonesia, but intendedto encourage and facilitate these agencies to conduct self-assessments from which results can serve as the basis forbuilding the capacity of the respective organization.

These guidelines are laid out to help humanitarian agencies

assess on the extent to which they have been accountable fortheir performance. The open nature of these guiding principlesmeans that any other civil society organization can avail itself ofthese guidelines.

We sincerely hope that the established guidelines can helpfoster understanding, attitudes and practices related tohumanitarian accountability in Indonesia, whereby the deliveryof aid should engender benefits for the people of Indonesia,

allowing them to lead a more dignified life.

Jakarta, August 2011


8/96

vii

Preface ............................................................ iii

Table of Contents ............................................................ vii

Part One Why Establish Accountability Guidelines? ...... 1

Part Two How to Use these Guidelines? ........................ 9

1: As Accountability Guidelines ...................... 10

2: As An Accountability Measurement Tool .... 11

Part Three Principles and Definitions ............................... 19

1 : Independence ........................................... 19

2 : Organizational Commitment ...................... 19

3 : Competence .............................................. 20

4 : Non-Discrimination .................................... 20

5 : Participation............................................... 206 : Transparency ............................................. 20

7 : Coordination .............................................. 20

8 : Lessons learnt and Improvement .............. 20

9 : Partnership ................................................ 21

10: Non-Proselytizing ...................................... 21

11: Feedback Mechanism............................... 21

12: Self-Reliance ............................................. 21

13: In Favor of Vulnerable Groups .................. 21

Part Four Indicators and Field Experience in

Implementing Accountability ........................... 23

Principle No.1: Independence ..................... 23

Principle No. 2: Organizational Commitment.. 25

TABLE OF CONTENTS


9/96

viii

Principle No. 3: Competence ...................... 26

Principle No. 4: Non-Discrimination ............ 28

Principle No. 5: Participation ....................... 30

Principle No. 6: Transparency ..................... 32

Principle No. 7: Coordination ...................... 34

Principle No. 8: Lessons learnt and

Improvement................................................ 36

Principle No. 9: Partnership......................... 37

Principle No. 10: Non-Proselytizing............. 39

Principle No. 11: Feedback Mechanism ..... 41

Principle No. 12: Self-Reliance ................... 42

Principle No. 13: In Favor of Vulnerable

Groups ......................................................... 44

Part Five Assessment Sheet: Application of

Humanitarian Accountability Guidelines ......... 47

Appendixes ............................................................ 57

Appendix 1.Basic Definitions .......................... 57

Appendix 2.Code of Conduct for IFRC ........... 63

Appendix 3.Karinas Volunteer Application

Form ............................................. 67

Appendix 4.Reference on Equal

Partnership between YakkumEmergency Unit (YEU) and

Lutheran World Relief (LWR)........ 71

Appendix 5.Organizational Profile of

Contributors ................................. 75

References ............................................................ 85


10/96

PART ONE

Relief aid must strive to reduce future vulnerabilities to

disaster as well as meeting basic needs

Why Establish

Accountability Guidelines?

A crucial milestone reached in the wake of the tsunamidisaster in Aceh in 2004 with regard to disaster management in

Indonesia was the initiative to formulate a regulatory framework

for disaster management which culminated in the passing of

Law No. 24/2007. This serves as the legal foundation for the

establishment of BNPB (National Agency for Disaster

Management), followed by the formation of local-level disaster

management offices across Indonesia that specifically deal with

disaster situations. Apart from the establishment of theseagencies, multi-party forums on disaster management have also

emerged and discourses on disaster risk mitigation explored in

a body of academic literature and in the countrys development

planning process.

The role of civil society should not be taken lightly. Recent

developments with regard to disaster response have seen the

emergence of many community-based organizations making a


11/96

2

Part One

Why Establish Accountability Guidelines?

GUIDELINESFORHUMANITARIAN

ACCOUNTABILITYININDONESIA

noticeable effort to strengthen their disaster management

capacities. These organizations are often at the front line of

disaster response.

Apart from community groups which have professionally

built their disaster handling capacities, other elements in society

acting as volunteers in the spirit of mutual help have also played

an equally central role in disaster response. Different community

groups constituting housewives, youths and heads of

neighborhood associations are in fact often the first to provide

early response in times of disaster. This was recently illustratedby groups of housewives who took it upon themselves to prepare

packaged meals in response to the Mount Merapi eruption in

2010. Another example concerns the ingenious advocacy efforts

of local neighborhood associations representing dwellers along

the Kali Code riverbank which was inundated by the Merapi

cold lava floods in 2010-2011. These are only minor illustrations

of the actual breadth of community engagement in disaster

situations.

The strengthening of capacities and widespread attention

on disaster-related issues have afforded a propitious momentum

for building the resilience of the public and communities

inhabiting areas known as the ring of fire, making them the most

susceptible to disasters. This is an opportune time to create an

enabling environment for all disaster management actors that

allows them to play an optimal role in order to engendermaximum contribution. Disaster management involves a series

of concerted efforts, including the establishment of development

policies that take into account disaster risks, disaster prevention,

emergency response and rehabilitation.1

1 Law No. 24/2007 on Disaster Management


12/96

3

Part One




John Cosgrave has put forward several key points in the

Tsunami Evaluation Coalition2 report which among others include

the following:

In line with humanitarian principles of aid, we must do

better at delivering aid that is based on sound and

commonly-owned assessments. Assistance should be

proportionate to need, and must be carried out with

those we aim to support at the heart of spending

decisions taken.

One of the most crucial elements in building humanitarianresponse capacities is the need to guarantee the accountability

of humanitarian efforts thus far implemented. Accountability is

an oft-mentioned word in several key documents guiding

humanitarian work, be it in the Humanitarian Charter or Code of

Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent

Movement. The Humanitarian Charter contains the following

sentence:

We expect to be held accountable to this commitment

and undertake to develop systems for accountability

within our respective agencies, consortia and

federations. We acknowledge that our fundamental

accountability must be to those we seek to assist.3

Why are accountability principles so essential for

humanitarian work? Point 9 (nine) of the Code of Conduct forthe International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement

provides a normative formulation on the importance of

accountability in managing humanitarian aid. The Code of

Conduct places emphasis on the institutional role of

2 Cosgrave, J (2007). Synthesis Report: Expanded Summary. Joint evaluation of the

international response to the Indian Ocean tsunami. London: Tsunami Evaluation Coalition.

3 Humanitarian Charter in SPHERE Edition 2004.


13/96

4

Part One




humanitarian agencies in linking partnerships between those

who wish to assist and those who need assistance. Transparency

and openness as key factors for humanitarian accountabilitycontribute to ensuring that relief aid effectively reduces future

vulnerabilities, in addition to fulfilling fundamental needs

necessary in times of disaster.

Accountability principles have inspired various humanitarian

agencies in Indonesia to work towards applying them in existing

accountability guidelines. A review conducted by PIRAC and

HFI has taken note of at least six sets of guidelines onhumanitarian accountability standards.

1. People in Aid, Code of Good Practice in the

Management and Support of Aid Personnel

2. Humanitarian Accountability and Quality Management

Standard 2007 (the 2010 version is already available)

3. Impact Measurement and Accountabi li ty in

Emergencies: The Good Enough Guide4. ALPS (Accountability, Learning and Planning System

of ActionAid International)

5. The Active Learning Network for Accountability and

Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP)

6. The Sphere Project, Humanitarian Charter and Minimum

Standard in Disaster Response

In addition to the foregoing guidelines, Indonesia has alsopassed several laws and regulations which serve as reference

for applying accountability principles in managing relief aid, such

as:

1. Law No. 9/1961 on Mobilizing Funds or Goods.

2. Decree of the Directorate General for Social Aid and

Social Security of the Department of Social Affairs No.


14/96

5

Part One




57/BJS/2003 concerning General Guidelines on Social

Aid for Disaster Victims.

3. Health Ministerial Decree No. 145/Menkes/SK/I/2007concerning Guidelines on Disaster Management in the

Health Sector.

4. Law No. 24/2007 on Disaster Management.

5. Government Regulation No. 23/2008 on the

Engagement of International and Foreign Non-

Governmental Institutions in Disaster Management.

6. Presidential Regulation No. 8/2008 on the NationalAgency for Disaster Management.

7. Government Regulation No. 22/2008 on Funding and

Management of Disaster Relief.

8. Regulation of the Head of the National Agency for

Disaster Management No. 7/2008 on the Procedure for

Aid Distribution for the Fulfillment of Basic Needs.

9. Government Regulation No. 21/2008 on theAdministration of Disaster Management.

The aforementioned guidelines and legislation have been

adopted and applied by humanitarian aid organizations operating

in Indonesia. The willingness of disaster management actors in

Indonesia to comply with existing accountability standards

demonstrates good will and early awareness in applying the

aforementioned principle that relief aid must strive to reduce

future vulnerabilities to disaster as well as meeting the basic

needs.

If the foregoing guidelines are already in existence, then

why must humanitarian accountability guidelines be formulated

in Indonesia? Several key findings of a joint study, followed by

a series of focus group discussions facilitated by Public Interest

Research and Advocacy Center (PIRAC) and Humanitarian


15/96

6

Part One




Forum Indonesia (HFI) showed the underlying importance of

formulating humanitarian accountability guidelines in Indonesia.

First, not all humanitarian agencies are oriented to

accountability standards recognized by various stakeholders.

This implies on the need to continually disseminate information

on the importance of applying accountability standards to ensure

the effectiveness of humanitarian work.

Second, in addition to awareness building, almost all

accountability standards adhere to the principle of

volunteerism. As such, the compliance of an institution towarda given accountability principle often depends on

encouragement from donor agencies.

Third, with regard to user friendliness, these guidelines fill

the need for guiding principles that incorporate relevant

illustrations as well as practical and empirical reflections based

on the Indonesian context for easier understanding and

application, while inspiring others to similarly establish their ownhumanitarian accountability standards.

It should be noted that these guidelines are a living document

which should be reviewed periodically, in view of the fact that a

whole range of new experiences, lessons learnt, feedback and

findings will certainly emerge to enrich and refine these guidelines

for better understanding and application of humanitarian

accountability principles in Indonesia.


16/96

7

Part One




Objectives

1. To provide reference for minimum humanitarianaccountability standards within the context of Indonesia.

2. To serve as a learning medium for humanitarian

agencies, particularly disaster management actors, in

increasing the accountability of their respective

institutions.

FunctionThis document essentially functions as basic guidelines for

assessing/measuring the accountability of humanitarian

agencies and disaster management actors.

In addition, this document also serves as an internal

educational instrument for humanitarian agencies and to help

build awareness on humanitarian accountability.


17/96

8

Part One





18/96

PART TWO

This document sets forth humanitarian accountability

principles along with inter-related indicators and measurement

tools. The link between principles, indicators, and measurement

tools allows for easier comprehension of this document. In order

to gain a systematic understanding, this document should be

read in sequential order. On the other hand, these guidelines

can also be understood by reading each part in a modular

manner according to the readers need.

This document essentially funct ions as:

1. Guiding principles or reference. This document presentsbasic accountability principles which users can use as

reference and guidance, whereby humanitarian agencies

must comply with in order to work in an accountable

manner.

2. Measurement and assessment of accountability

practices for humanitarian agencies. An explanation on

this function shall be provided in the following section.

How to Use these

Guidelines?


19/96

10

Par t One



How to Use these Guidelines?

In Part Four, details will be presented on indicators,

measurement tools, and means of verification for each

accountability principle, supplemented with anassessment sheet in Part Five.

3. Internal oversight of humanitarian agencies with regard

to accountability through participatory focus group

discussions (FGDs).

4. Effort to increase the accountability of humanitarian

agencies.

From these four functions, this document shall essentiallylook at two key functions: as accountability guidelines and as a

measurement tool for institutional accountability in the

management of humanitarian aid.

1. As Accountability GuidelinesThis document guides every agency in the execution of its

mandate, of mobilizing and managing humanitarian aid.Principles and indicators presented in this document can serve

as reference for each disaster response phase beginning from

preparedness, rescue operations, rehabilitation, reconstruction

to empowerment, even during non-disaster situations. With

regard to competence, an organization should among others,

possess and develop relevant capacities for managing

humanitarian aid in conformity with humanitarian standards.

It is essential to review and gauge such competencies by

assessing on the adequacy of human resources within the

organization. Do staff members implementing humanitarian

activities have adequate knowledge and skills? Does the

organization have adequate management standards in relation

to personnel, resource mobilization and distribution, and

operational support, including logistics, administration, and

finances? For further information, these principles along with


20/96

11

Par t One




their definitions can be found in Part Three and explored further

during field experiences presented in Part Four.

2. As an Accountabilit y Measur ement ToolAs an accountability measurement tool, this document

provides consideration of facilitator selection and accountability

assessment methods for humanitarian aid agencies. In selecting

assessment facilitators, two options are available, each having

distinct consequences on assessment results. The first option

is by using internal FGD facilitators, while the second optionrefers to the appointment of external FGD facilitators (outside

of the organization). For measuring institutional accountability,

this assessment method can be used internally by the

organization by performing self-assessments. On the other hand,

these guidelines are also useful for an external evaluation of

institutional accountability.

The following are points to consider when choosing between

internal and external facilitators:


21/96

12

Par t One




In accordance with accountability assessment, it can be

assessed through the following methods:

a) Review of Or ganizational DocumentsAccountability assessment of an organization can be

carried out through the review of relevant organizational

documents. Documents indicative of the level of

accountability in an organization include: organizational

policies (standard operating procedure/SOP,

memorandum of association, articles of association,directives on the appointment of employees, strategic

plan, program planning and others) and program

implementation reports (monitoring & evaluation report,

progress report, external/internal evaluator report, audit,

minutes of meetings, and others).

The following are the strengths and weaknesses of using

this method in assessing organizational accountability.


22/96

13

Par t One




b) Inter view

Accountability can also be assessed through interviewswith staff and executives. Interviews can enrich

information not found in organizational documentation.

Interview material covers organizational policies

(consensus as well as written and official

documentation) related to accountability principles/

indicators for the management of humanitarian

assistance. Principles and indicators included as

interview material are provided in Parts Three and Four.

The weaknesses and strengths of the interview method are

as follows

c) FGD (Focus Gr oup Discussion) forSelf-AssessmentAnother method for assessing the accountability of an

organization is through focus group discussions. The

specific characteristic of this method lies at its highly

participatory process as it involves all staff and

executives of the organization. During FGDs, information


23/96

14

Par t One




is shared, while document reviews and interviews are

clarified, thus enhances the knowledge and

understanding of FGD participants on theimplementation of accountability principles in managing

programs.

FGDs for assessing accountability shall be attended by

all staff and executives of the organization. The facilitator

will preside over FGD sessions, which essentially covers

discussions on the following aspects:

a) Instruments for measuring institutional accountability.

b) The condition of the organization to be measured

according to the respective accountability principle.

c) Individual assessment (scoring) of the organization

in relation to accountability principles and indicators.

This allows each individual the opportunity to assess

the organizations actual situation.

d) Compilation and discussion of scoring results.

Provide justification/rationale/insight on the

organizations situation for the scoring/assessment

of each principle/indicator.

When the facilitator has explained on the available

accountability assessment tools, two options are available for

the facilitation of accountability assessment. The first option

relates to direct assessment from FGD participants on the

organizations situation based on principles and indicators. Thesecond option is by holding discussions on the organizations

situation in advance prior to the assessment.

Consequences arising from the respective options are as

follows:


24/96

15

Par t One




Facilitation Flowchart1

4 Adapted from the Organizational Capacity and Performance Assessment Tools (OCPAT)

compiled by Yappika.


25/96

16

Par t One




Calculation of Assessment ResultsAssessment is performed through interviews and FGDs at

the respective organization, involving executives and program

implementers (staff and volunteers). For the interview process,

every personnel shall use their own assessment sheet. Each

personnel provide an assessment of the organizations situation

by awarding a score of 1 to 5. A score of 1 indicates the lowest

assessment rating while a score of 5 is the highest value.

Description of the score range is explained below:

1 = Organizational policies for this indicator are notdocumented (written and official), and are not put

into practice.

2 = Organizational policies for this indicator are

documented, but are not put into practice.

3 = Organizational policies for this indicator are not

documented, but several good practices have

become the organizational consensus, or are putinto practice but are not embedded in internal

policies.


documented, but inconsistently implemented, or are

consistently implemented, but several practices are

not documented in organizational policies.


documented and put into practice, and are even

been adapted in accordance with developments in

the organizations situation.

Assessment is performed when each indicator has been

thoroughly discussed. In general, discussions for each indicator

are carried out in a participatory manner according to the

following stages:


26/96

17

Par t One




1. Begin with the discussion of each indicator from each

principle presented in Part Five. The following questions

may be put forward: a. What is the current situation? b.Are there any proof of the said situation? c. Is this

situation equally known to everyone? This is intended

to obtain baseline data understood by everyone.

2. Individual assessment affords each personnel with the

opportunity to make use of the one person one vote

mechanism, as a means to exercise democracy and

prevent the dominance of relatively vocal and highly

influential individuals in the organization.

3. Compilation and assessment process for generating the

total score of the respective indicators and sub-

indicators, as well as the agreement level for each score

(e.g., score = 2.5, with an agreement level of below 0.5)

4. Discussion of results (total score) by re-examining the

obtained score and the level of agreement.

The final assessment stage is totally the scores of each

indicator and divide the amount with the total number of

indicators.

Final Score = Total Score / Total Indicators


27/96

18

Par t One





28/96

PART THREE

In this document, 13 (thirteen) principles along with their

corresponding definitions have been formulated and agreed

upon in order to explain various aspects related to humanitarian

accountability.

The 13 (thir teen) pr inciples are as follows:

1. IndependenceThe state of being autonomous and free from the influence

and vested interest of the government, political parties, donor

agencies, business sectors and any other person who mayundermine the organizations independence in taking actions

for the purpose of serving public interest.

2. Or ganizational CommitmentThe organization has clear and well-defined policy

instruments with regard to quality and accountability for

application in managing humanitarian aid.

Principles and

Definitions


29/96

20

Par t Thr ee



Principles and Definitions

3. Competence

The organization has the relevant capacity in managinghumanitarian aid and develops these capacities in conformity

with humanitarian standards.

4. Non-DiscriminationThe humanitarian aid agency consistently applies the

principle of not discriminating against people on the grounds of

sex, ethnicity, religion, race and political leaning.

5. ParticipationThe organization ensures the involvement of relevant

stakeholders and beneficiaries in all phases related to aid

management.

6. TransparencyThe organization provides clear and truthful information and

can be held accountable for the management of humanitarian

aid.

7. CoordinationThe organization communicates with stakeholders and other

humanitarian agencies through existing coordination forums for

managing humanitarian assistance.

8. Lessons learnt and improvementEvery experience gained in managing humanitarian aid

serves as a lesson learnt for further improvement.


30/96

21GUIDELINESFORHUMANITARIAN


Par t Thr ee


9. Partnership

Cooperation in managing humanitarian aid should be carriedout in compliance with the principle of equality.

10. Non-proselytizingThe organization does not engage in the proselytization of

religion, faith, belief, and political ideology through the distribution

of humanitarian aid.

11. Feedback mechanismThe organization has an appropriate mechanism in place to

receive suggestions, criticisms and feedback from stakeholders

for the purpose of strengthening and improving aid management.

12. Self-reliance

The organization has the capacity to mobilize resources anddistribute humanitarian aid in a manner which does not create

dependency.

13. In favor of vulner able gr oupsThe organization is clearly in favor of vulnerable groups

(expectant and nursing mothers, children, senior citizens, the

disabled, people living with HIV/AIDS, sex minority) in every

phase and impact related to the management of humanitarian

assistance.


31/96

22

Par t Thr ee





32/96

PART FOURIndicators and Field

Experience in

Implementing Accountability

1. Adoption of a policy

that prohibits theholding of concurrent

positions as decision-

maker and/or an

equivalent interest

between humanitarian

agencies and govern-

ment bodies, private

corporations, execu-

tives and members of

political parties, orother organizations

affiliated with practical

politics

2. Organizational

programs and

activities are indepen-

dent and open in

nature

Measurement

toolComment

Means of

VerificationIndicator

Policy

documentson

organizations

independence

Organizational

vision and

mission

Organizational

values

Interview

and FGD Docu-

ment

review

Pr inciple No. 1: Independence


33/96

24

Par t Four



Indicators and Field Experience in Implementing Accountability

PKPU: Sor r y Teungku, it s impossible!At the time whenhumanitarian aid for

landslide victims in

Tangse was to be

distributed, the advance

team dispatched by

PKPU was intercepted

by an armed group whodemanded that PKPU

distribute the aid through

them.

Through a courteous yet firm approach, the advance

team explained about the nature of the organizations

humanitarian work, and succeeded in thwarting the armed

groups demand, eventually managing to deliver the reliefaid directly to beneficiaries.

Sorry Teungku, we are from PKPU. It is our policy to

distribute these directly, said Wayir Nuri, head of PKPU

operations division in Aceh.


34/96



Par t Four


Measurementtool

CommentMeans ofVerification

Indicator

Interview

and FGD

Docu-

ment

review

1. Availability of a written

and official document

on the organizational

vision and mission

2. Implementation of

humanitarian response

programs, and

strategic programsand activities

3. Procedures or mecha-

nisms (SOP) are in

place within the

organization for the

implementation of

activities

4. Adoption of policies

that protect staff andbeneficiaries

Memorandum

of associa-

tion/articles of

association

Organizations

strategic plan

and/or

programs

SOP

Organiza-

tional profile

Website

Pr inciple No. 2: Or ganizational Commitment

PKPU: The CommitmentKeeper s Manual

PKPU strives to instill an

organizational culture based on

honesty, responsibility, cooperation,

promptness and care as laid out in a

technical procedure set forth in the

Implementation Manual for 7 PKPU Key

Programs (printed in 2010).


35/96

26

Par t Four




The delivery of aid during an

emergency response covers three main

phases: the first 3 hours, the first 3 daysand a 9-day response involving various

parties. This SOP reflects the dynamic

culture of rapid aid delivery,

accountability, cooperation and

honesty which seeks to dispense aid

consistent with the entrusted mandate,

whereby this chain of activities

constitutes the manifestation of a

culture of care.***

Measurement

toolComment

Means of


1. Adequate personnel

2. Sufficient knowledge

and skills among staffresponsible for

program implementa-

tion.

3. Availability of

management

standards, the ability

to manage aid,

personnel and their

distribution (human

resource, systems

and operational

support such as

logistics, administra-

tion and finances).

4. A security and rescue

procedure is in place

for field staff and

volunteers.

Organogram

(number and

composition)

Annual

report and/or

program

report

Documents

related to the

eligibility

testing of

staff and

volunteers

(during

recruitment)

Job descrip-

tion

Interview

and FGD

Documentreview

Principle No. 3: Competence


36/96



Par t Four


YEU: Peer Review to Hone Competency

Ensuring competent and ethical personnel is achallenge for YEU as an accountable humanitarian

agency. This refers to all personnel, both at the

management and operational levels. YEU has made

encouraging progress with regard to nurturing an

accountable organizational culture as indicated in a

survey conducted by members of the Steering

Committee for Humanitarian Response (SCHR)

shown in the Peer Review on Accountability toAffected Population (PRAAP) in 2009.

One of the survey findings describes that YEU in

many respects can be considered as a model NGO

that has succeeded in demonstrating good practices

in promoting accountability to affected populations.

Hence, organizational culture plays an important role

as are its policies and guidelines. YEUs internalpolicies and procedures are as similarly important as

ACT policies and procedures.

The foregoing finding is presented in the Peer Review on

Accountability to Affected Population Report, 2009, published

by ACT Alliance.***


37/96

28

Par t Four




Principle No. 4: Non-Discrimination

Measurementtool CommentMeans ofVerificationIndicator

1. Clear information on

the selection proce-

dure of targeted

beneficiaries.

2. Clear information on

the staff and volun-

teer recruitment

procedure.3. Representation of all

beneficiary groups in

the implementation of

activities / projects.

4. Availability of

infrastructure to

support the engage-

ment of all groups

and categories.

Document

on the

recruitment

procedure

and criteria

for prospec-

tive benefi-

ciaries

Document

on the

recruitment

procedure

and criteria

for staff and

volunteers

Minutes of

meeting and

attendance

list

Interview

and

FGD

Document

review

Indicator

no.3 refer

to Principle

No. 9

Indicator

No. 2:

concerning

the active

involve-

ment of all

parties in

decision

making

YEU: Upholding Humanitar ian Pr inciplesYakkum Emergency Unit (YEU) is a

humanitarian agency that abides by universal

humanitarian principles. One of the initiatives aimedat integrating humanitarian principles is realized

through the formulation of the YEU Code of

Conduct, primarily Article 2 which reads working

with victim/survivor communities, ethics, and

common attitudes in which Clause G asserts that

there shall be no discrimination against those

receiving assistance.


38/96



Par t Four


Aside from the consistent internalization of

humanitarian principles among staff members,efforts are also being made to build the

awareness of affected communities concerning

these principles in order to engender common

understanding. This is reflected in a statement

made by Ustadz Nazarudin, a respondent

participating in the research on YEU

Accountability of Humanitarian Work in Padang

Pariaman, West Sumatra, who mentioned: withregard to aid, differences in religion is not an

issue. If someone is willing to give, (we) accept.

On the other hand, when someone is in need,

even if the person is a Christian, we will

reciprocate. This is in accordance with the

teachings of Muhammad, our revered prophet.

Source: Hairus Salim and Firdaus. 2011. AkuntabilitasKegiatan Kemanusiaan YEU di Padang Pariaman, Sumatera

Barat. Yakkum Emergency Unit (YEU).


39/96

30

Par t Four





1. Participation of men,

women and children

in program planning,

implementation and

evaluation (identifica-

tion of needs)

2. Participation of

beneficiaries (men,women and children)

in meeting needs

3. Actively engaged in

coordination with

other stakeholders

Activity

report

containing:

* process

and

mechanism

for identify-

ing needs* coordina-

tion pattern

and

organiza-

tional

structure of

program

implementer

Minutes ofmeeting and

attendance

list

Interview

and FGD

Document

review

Principle No. 5: Participation

YEU: Survivor Participation in DisasterResponse

The eruption of Mount Merapi in 2010 was anopportune time for Yakkum Emergency Unit (YEU) to

reassess its internal mechanism for the development

of a community-based disaster risk reduction system.

One of the distinct characteristics of YEU intervention

program is the continual development of appropriate

systems and the strengthening of the capacity of

affected communities in facing the threat of disasters.


40/96



Par t Four


We must not underestimate the role of survivors,

and must keep in mind that YEU is simply helpingsurvivors develop their many potentials, which need to

be explored further, particularly in managing disasters,

explained Arshinta, Director of YEU.

Arshinta gave the example of the volcanic eruption

in 2010 where young adults, housewives, and survivors

from all elements of society were forced to take refuge

in temporary shelters in which Salam, a villager from

Ganden, Srumbung Sub-district was afforded with the

opportunity to be involved in making decisions on how

to best manage the refugee barracks.

A similar situation was also observed in Boyong

Hamlet of Harjobinangun, Sleman where disaster

survivors had worked in concert with YEU from October

to December 2010. Village officials together with local

housewives and youths had joined forces to manageevacuations.

Nevertheless, organizations such as YEU also have

its limitations. In view of this, knowledge transfer on

disaster management from the organization to the

community should immediately be realized. Certain

circumstances, such as the Merapi disaster have

provided the opportunity to systematize publicknowledge on disaster handling in order to develop a

more sustainable community-based disaster

management system.

All of these can only be attained if we fully recognize that

survivors have the potential to empower themselves, which can

be developed in a participatory manner, added Arshinta.***


41/96

32

Par t Four





1. Availability ofinformation whichcan be easilyunderstood andaccessed (funding,duration, implemen-tation method, typeof aid/program).

Example: theconstruction oftemporary settlementshould also take intoaccount the localenvironment.

2. Availability ofpublications andother informationmedia on activity

processes andfinancial details(including the amountof donation andname of donor)accessible to thepublic, in particularrecipient communi-ties and otherstakeholders.

3. Availability of periodicreports on theutilization of re-sources in develop-ing projects acces-sible to the publicand mainly forrecipient communi-ties and otherstakeholders.

Annual

report

Website and/

or publica-

tions of the

organization

SOP /

guidelines oninformation

dissemina-

tion or

program

reporting

Interview

and FGD

Document

review

Principle No. 6: Transparency

Indicator

No. 3

refers to

Principle

No. 8

Indicator

No. 2:

Periodicplanning

and

evaluation

mecha-

nism on

aid

manage-

ment

through

briefings,periodic

reviews


42/96



Par t Four


WVI: I Now Know How My Opinions can be Hear d I now know how my opinions and complaints can be

heard, admittedImran, 47 years old.

The foregoing comment was made during a focus

group discussion (FGD). Imran is a survivor who

benefited from the placement of a public information

board initiated by WVI.

WVI has thus far repeatedly made use ofinformation boards strategically positioned in busy

public places to disseminate information on WVI

activities in a given area. As was the case for an

emergency response during the earthquake that

shook West Sumatera in 2009, WVI erected a number

of information boards at village head offices,

puskesmas (community health centers), and local

government offices in locations where WVI undertookhumanitarian work.

These boards provide information on hotline

services and suggestion boxes to help affected

communities put across their inputs, criticisms and

ideas concerning WVI-run programs. Apart from WVI,

the government has also availed itself to these public

information boards to deliver information ongovernment-initiated programs and activities.

Information boards are the selected medium because

of their simplified form and easy accessibility to affected

communities.***


43/96

34

Par t Four




Measurement

tool CommentMeans of


1. Coordination is

established with the

local government or

authorities (relevant

local offices and

departments)

2. Involved in routine

coordination orinformation sharing

with other relevant

stakeholders.

3. Fills the gap for

humanitarian re-

sponses.

SOP

Organiza-

tional values

Program

report and/or

situation

report

Interview

and FGD

Minutes of

meeting

and

attendance

list

Documentreview

Principle No. 7: Coordination

HFI: Progress through PartnershipHumanitarian Forum Indonesia (HFI) consists of eight

member institutions, seven of which are agencies

normally involved in disaster response. One of the key

functions of HFI Secretariat is to build and develop a

coordination mechanism among institutional members

as well as between members and the government in

ensuring the effective implementation of humanitarianwork.

One of the outputs of coordination activities

undertaken by HFI Secretariat is the situation report on

humanitarian actions organized by HFI members. As a

representative of civil society organizations in the

Humanitarian Country Team, HFI releases situation reports


44/96



Par t Four


to not only serve as a medium for sharing information

with members, but also as reference for UN-OCHA and

UN agencies operating in Indonesia.

HFI-facilitated coordination is also aimed at both

local and national government agencies. An example

is the emergency response for the Mount Lokon

eruption in North Sulawesi where HFI Secretariat began

work on formulating a coordination mechanism

between HFI members and the Local Disaster

Management Agency (Badan PenanggulanganBencana Daerah, BPBD) of North Sulawesi. This was

necessary to orchestrate responses undertaken by HFI

members to meet local needs through the respective

local government agencies.

This will not only bring benefit to members, but also the

government.***


45/96

36

Par t Four




Measurement

toolComment

Means of


1. Availability of

structured and

scheduled field

reports (not only on

agreeable progress,

but also disclose

obstacles faced onthe ground)

2. A periodic planning

and evaluation

mechanism on aid

management is in

place through

briefings and periodic

reviews

3. Availability ofcapacity building

programs on aid

management

Field reports

Documents

on the

monitoring

and evalua-

tion mecha-

nism, and

the follow-up

plan

Research

report (good

practices

and lessons

learnt)

Interview

Document

review

Pr inciple No. 8: Lessons Lear nt and

Improvements

Kar ina: Tur ning Lear ning Reviews into a Cultur eSince the Padang earthquake, Karina has held learning

reviews which refer to reflections on emergency responses.

Learning reviews involve the field team, management teamand partner institutions. Outcomes of learning reviews canhelp improve actions in the future. For example, after

conducting a learning review of the Padang disaster, the

Emergency Response SOP was improved and the VolunteerHandbook approved. Learning reviews should become

common practice, thus the need to conduct such reviews

for the Wasior and Merapi disasters.


46/96



Par t Four


Principle No. 9: Partnership


1. Establishment of a

written agreement

between aid provider

and implementing

partner by paying

heed to the principle

of equality

2. Active involvement ofall parties in decision

making

3. Beneficiaries are

provided with more

opportunities and

time in program

implementation

MOU or

cooperation

agreement

Reference for

equal

partnership

Interview

and FGD

Minutes of

meeting

and

attendance

list

Documentreview

A sample

of

reference

on equal

partner-

ship is

provided

in App

PKPU and Muhammadiyah: Complementar yPartnership

After aid was distributed and a needs assessment

conducted for communities affected by the tsunami in

Mentawai in 2010, the PKPU team held a meeting with

Australian-based organization, Shelter Box. At the meeting,

a cooperation agreement was reached between PKPU andShelter Box Australia for the delivery of aid.

Based on findings of the needs assessment performed

by PKPU, Shelter Box Australia and PKPU had agreed to

the assignment of roles. PKPU provided the dome tents,

while Shelter Box prepared temporary shelters for evacuees,

tools and equipment, school supplies, cooking utensils,


47/96

38

Par t Four




sleeping bags, and mattresses,

explained Suharjoni, PKPU

Emergency Response Team.

A similar situation was also

experienced by LPB Muham

madiyah. When responding to

the earthquake in Yogyakarta in

2006, LPB Muhammadiyah

partnered with Direct Relief

International (DRI) to provide thenecessary services for disaster

victims in refugee camps. DRI made available essential

medicines and an ambulance, while LPB Muhammadiyah

made arrangements for the availability of physicians and

paramedics, as well as medicines and 30 ambulances

obtained from Muhammadiyah-run hospitals.

In dealing with the West Sumatera earthquake in 2009,LPB Muhammadiyah pooled resources with AusAID to

undertake several rehabilitation programs, and provided

medical services, child counseling and sanitation. Emergency

responses were made possible through financial support from

AusAID, LAZIS Muhammadiyah and public funds raised by

several Muhammadiyah regional executives. Partnership for

each program was jointly financed from external sources and

Muhammadiyahs independent funds.

The partnership strategy employed by PKPU and

Muhammadiyah was aimed at making optimal use of the

advantages and limitations of the respective parties. As such,

responses would both be effectively and efficiently

implemented.***


48/96



Par t Four


Measurementtool

CommentMeans ofVerification

Indicator

1. Every individual or

personnel involved in

programs and

activities agree to an

internal pact.

2. All parties are

involved in decision

making.

Willingness

and commit-

ment sheets

completed

by volunteers

and staff that

upholds

human rights

Interview

and FGD

Minutes of

meeting

and

attendance

list

Sample

of

volunteer

applica-

tion form

from

Karina

(pro-vided in

Appen-

dix 3)

Principle No. 10: Non-Proselytizing

HFI: Inter -Faith Emer gency Response

Soon after Padang was struck by an earthquake in

December 2009, member institutions under HFI had initiatedemergency responses. The people of West Sumatera, known

for being a religious society deeply rooted in Islamic values,

at the time rejected assistance from non-Islamic agencies.

This was prompted by allegations on the Christianization of

local residents that was fast circulating among the local

people.


49/96

40

Par t Four




HFI took stock of the situation before convening an

internal meeting in Jakarta and later organized two meetings

with the West Sumatera-branch of MUI (Indonesian Ulama

Council) to reach common understanding and perception of

such issues and ways to resolve them. An inter-faith dialogue

was also held in West Sumatera attended by various

humanitarian agencies in open discussions with the common

goal of understanding the situation and engaging in reciprocal

humanitarian actions regardless of race and religion.

An output of this agreement was an MoU between HFIand several agencies in West Sumatera for inter-faith

emergency response. This was later followed by a workshop

on creating synergy between faith-based organizations and

traditional institutions in rehabilitation and reconstruction.


50/96



Par t Four


Pr inciple No. 11: Feedback Mechanism


1. A mechanism is

established for

beneficiaries to make

inquiries, and give

suggestions and

feedback

2. The delivery of

structured andscheduled field

reports (not only on

agreeable progress,

but also disclose

obstacles faced on

the ground)

3. Follow-up on reports,

inquiries and feed-

back

Documents

on proce-

dures

(feedback

and follow-

up plan)

Field report

Filing on thehandling of

feedback

Interview

and FGD

Document

review

Interview

with field

staff and

benefi-

ciaries

on the

ad-

equacy

of

proce-

dures in

place

CRS: Testimony of a Beneficiar yMrs. Desmaiti, a 44 year old woman from Pauh Kambar

Hilir Village, Padang Pariaman: Me and people in my

community are aware of the availability of a 24-hour

complaint service with clearly written telephone numbers to

contact and visible from our village roads. If nobody

contacted CRS, this means that they have no problems.

Many local residents have come to speak to me or

others in the village committee each time they face a problem

or have a question to ask about the program. Most questions

are related to the actual date for cash disbursements. As

CRS has often paid us a visit, it has made it possible for us

to communicate with them. I am involved in the selection of


51/96

42

Par t Four




beneficiaries and also during operational oversight.

(Humanitarian response for the earthquake in West Sumatera

in 2009 cash distribution to 11,000 disaster victims in

temporary shelters).***

Pr inciple No. 12: Self-r elianceMeasurement

toolComment

Means of


1. Sustainable availabil-

ity of resources(material and non-

material)

2. Involvement of local

capacities (material

and non-material

resources) in pro-

gram implementation

3. Active involvement of

all stakeholders indetermining pro-

grams

Organiza-

tional profile Annual

report and/or

other

periodic

reports

Minutes of

meeting and

attendance

list

Interview

and FGD Document

review

Special

careshould

be given

to ensure

that aid

does not

increase

vulner-

ability

PKPU: Mobilizing potential of survivors of theTasikmalaya earthquake

As PKPU was assisting earthquake victims in the villageof Cigorowong, Suka Mukti, Cisayong Sub-district,

Tasikmalaya in 2009, local villagers of their own accord had

established a relief collection center, albeit in a somewhat

disorganized manner Together with PKPU it was agreed

that a common kitchen be set up, providing that the facility

be self-reliantly managed and PKPU shall transfer the


52/96



Par t Four


necessary management knowhow. PKPU provided the

necessary funding on a daily basis for the first two weeks.

The common kitchen carried on for a month as localresidents managed to organize themselves and coordinate

daily meal preparations by establishing a roster for women

who take turns cooking and mobilizing the potential of the

local people.

In the beginning we were doubtful that we could ever

manage the aid, but after management briefings from the

PKPU team the local people and I together ran the commonkitchen, managed incoming aid for distribution to the local

people in an equitable and orderly fashion. Women took

turns cooking according to the agreed menu schedule, while

the men distributed the prepared meals to all residents.

Thankfully our relief collection center could survive longer

than expected because we had all participated, said Budi,

coordinator of the relief post in the village of Cigorowong,

Suka Mukti.


53/96

44

Par t Four




Pr inciple No. 13: In Favor of Vulner able Gr oupsMeasurement

tool CommentMeans of


1. Availability of policies

and programs

oriented to vulnerable

groups (groups

considered as

vulnerable are

provided in Part

Three on Basic

Definitions)

2. The majority of direct

program beneficiaries

are vulnerable groups

3. Policies on the

protection of benefi-

ciaries are adopted

Policy

documents

Annual

report or

other

periodic

reports

Documenta-tion on

program

beneficiaries

Interview

and FGD

Document

review

Documen-

tation on

beneficia-

ries

include

informa-

tion on

whether

they are

consid-

ered as

vulnerable

WVI: Prioritizing Childrens InterestAs an organization that focuses on childrens

welfare, Wahana Visi Indonesia (WVI) places priority

on the best interest of children as a vulnerable group

by making available pre-positioning items, such as

children kits and also ensuring the fulfillment of

childrens needs during emergency situations.

Disaster response programs in West Sumatera were

built on the results of a rapid assessment and in-depth

study conducted two months following the disaster

response period. Study results helped guide the

selection of the most appropriate type of intervention

and identification of beneficiary groups.


54/96



Par t Four


As an organization dedicated to the wellbeing of

children, WVI awards undivided attention to childrenas one of the most vulnerable groups during times of

emergency. Nevertheless, WVI does not only provide

direct aid to children, but also assists schools and

parents to achieve the overriding purpose of ensuring

that children live and grow naturally within an enabling

environment and school setting.

Children targeted as beneficiaries are those living

in areas worst affected by the 2009 earthquake.

Although WVI did not specifically focused on children

with special needs (disabled children, children living

with HIV/AIDS, or street children), WVI had

consistently contributed in empowering existing

institutions, such as KPA (Commission for Child

Protection) of West Sumatera and Forum Anak which

in the long term can spearhead efforts to better protectthe children of West Sumatera.

WVI has also helped rebuild permanent schools and

ensured that disabled children have access to available

facilities (sitting toilets or sloping aisles for wheelchairs).***


55/96

46

Par t Four





56/96

PART FIVEAssessment Sheet

on the Application of

Humanitarian

Accountability Guidelines

The following presents the appraisal sheet for institutions

on the application of humanitarian accountability guidelines. This

sheet assists in the assessment of humanitarian agencies with

regard to accountability, both through self-regulatory and external

regulatory appraisals. A scoring system is applied during the

assessment process based on the following scoring scale:

1. = Organizational policies for this indicator are not

documented (written and official), and are not put into

practice.

2. = Organizat ional pol ic ies for this indicator are

documented, but are not put into practice.


57/96

48

Par t Five



Assessment Sheet

on the Application of Humanitarian Accountability Guidelines

3. = Organizational policies for this indicator are not

documented, but several good practices have

become the organizational consensus, or are put intopractice but are not embedded in internal policies.

4. = Organizational pol ic ies for this indicator are

documented, but inconsistently implemented, or are

consistently implemented, but several practices are

not documented in organizational policies.

5. = Organizational pol ic ies for this indicator are

documented and put into practice, and are even beenadapted in accordance with developments in the

organizations situation.


58/96



Par t FiveAssessment Sheet


Nameo

fOrgan

izat

ion:

______________

Fa

cilita

tor:

____________

__

Da

te:

_______________

INO

ASSESSMENTCOMPONENT

Assessm

en

t

Resu

ltor

Scoring

Fac

ilita

tor

No

tes

ASSESS

MENTSHEET

APPLICATIONOFHUMANITARIANACCOUNTABILITYGUIDELINES

Indepen

dence

Adop

tiono

fapo

licy

tha

tpro

hibits

the

hold

ingo

f

concurren

tpositionsas

dec

ision-ma

kerand

/oran

equ

iva

len

tinteres

tbe

tween

human

itarianag

enc

ies

an

d

governmen

tbo

dies,

priva

te

corpora

tions,

execu

tivesan

dm

em

berso

fpo

litica

lpart

ies,

or

otherorgan

iza

tionsa

ffiliatedw

ithprac

ticalp

olitics

Organ

iza

tional

programs

an

d

ac

tiv

itie

s

are

indepen

den

tand

open

inna

ture

Organ

iza

tionalC

omm

itmen

t

Ava

ila

bilityo

faw

rittenan

do

fficialdocum

en

ton

theorgan

iza

tiona

lv

isionan

dm

iss

ion

Imp

lemen

tation

ofhuman

itarian

response

programs,

an

ds

tra

teg

icprogramsan

dac

tiv

ities

II


59/96

50

Par t Five



Assessment Sheet


Proce

duresorm

ec

han

isms

(SOP)are

in

place

withintheorganiza

tion

for

the

imp

lementa

tiono

f

ac

tiv

ities

Adop

tion

ofpo

lic

ies

tha

tpro

tec

tsta

ffan

d

bene

fic

iaries

Compe

tence

Adequa

teperson

ne

l

Su

fficien

tknow

ledge

an

d

skills

among

staff

respons

ibleforprogram

imp

lemen

tation

Ava

ila

bilityo

fma

nagemen

ts

tan

dards,

the

ability

to

managea

id,

personne

lan

d

the

irdistr

ibu

tion

(humanresource,

sys

temsan

dopera

tionals

upport

suc

has

log

istics,

adm

inistra

tionan

dfinanc

es

)

Asecuri

tyan

dres

cueproce

dure

isinp

lace

for

fie

ld

staffan

dvo

lun

teers

NO

ASSESSMENTCOMPONENT

Assessm

en

t

Resu

ltor

Scoring

Fac

ilita

tor

No

tes

III


60/96





Non

Discr

im

ina

tion

Clear

informa

tio

non

these

lec

tionproce

dureo

f

targe

tedbene

fic

iaries

Clear

informat

ion

on

the

staffan

d

vo

lun

teer

recru

itmen

tproc

edure

Represen

tation

ofa

ll

bene

fic

iarygroups

in

the

imp

lemen

tationo

fac

tiv

ities

/pro

jec

ts

Ava

ila

bility

of

infras

truc

ture

to

supp

or

tthe

engagemen

to

fa

llg

roupsan

dca

tegories

Par

tic

ipa

tion

Part

icipa

tiono

fmen,

women

an

d

children

in

program

plannin

g,

imp

lemen

tationan

dev

alua

tion

(iden

tifica

tionof

nee

ds

)

Part

icipa

tion

of

bene

fic

iaries

(men,

wom

en

an

d

children

)inmee

tingnee

ds

NO

ASSESSMENTCOMPONENT

Assessm

en

t

Resu

ltor

Scoring

Fac

ilita

tor

No

tes

IV V


61/96

52

Par t Five



Assessment Sheet


NO

ASSESSM

ENTCOMPONENT

Assessm

en

t

Resu

ltor

Scoring

Fac

ilita

tor

No

tes

VI

Ac

tive

ly

engag

ed

in

coord

ina

tion

with

other

stake

ho

lders

Transparency

Ava

ila

bilityo

fin

forma

tion

which

can

be

eas

ily

un

ders

too

d

and

accesse

d

(fun

ding,

du

ration,

imp

lemen

tation

me

tho

d,

type

ofa

id/pr

ogram

)

Examp

le:

thecon

struc

tiono

ftemporaryset

tlemen

t

shou

ld

also

t

ake

into

accoun

t

the

loca

l

env

ironmen

t

Ava

ila

bilityo

fpu

blica

tionsan

do

ther

informa

tion

me

diaonac

tivityprocessesan

dfinanc

ial

de

tails

(inc

luding

theamoun

to

fdona

tionan

dn

ameo

f

donor)accessi

ble

to

the

pu

blic,

in

part

icu

lar

rec

ipien

tcommu

nitiesan

do

thers

take

hol

ders

Ava

ila

bilityo

fpe

rio

dicreportson

theu

tiliza

tiono

f

resources

indeve

lop

ingpro

jec

tsaccess

ibletothe

pu

blican

dmain

lyforrec

ipien

tcommunit

iesan

d

others

take

ho

lders


62/96





NO

ASSESSME

NTCOMPONENT

Assessmen

t

Resu

lto

r

Scoring

Fac

ilita

tor

No

tes

VII

Coor

dina

tion

Coord

ina

tion

is

es

tablis

he

d

with

the

loca

l

governmen

tora

uthori

ties

(re

levan

tlocalo

ffices

an

ddepartments

)

Invo

lve

d

inroutinecoord

ina

tionor

inform

ation

sharingw

itho

the

rre

levan

ts

take

ho

lders

Fillsthegap

for

human

itarianresponses

Lessons

lear

ntan

dimprovemen

t

Ava

ila

bilityo

fs

truc

ture

d

an

d

sc

he

du

led

fie

ld

reports

(no

ton

ly

onagreea

bleprogress,

bu

ta

lso

disc

loseo

bs

tacle

sface

don

thegroun

d)

A

perio

dicp

lann

ingan

d

eva

lua

tionmech

an

ism

ona

idmanagem

en

tisinp

lace

throug

hbri

efings

an

dperio

dicrevi

ews

Ava

ila

bilityo

fcapac

ity

bu

ildingprogramsona

id

managemen

t

VIII


63/96

54

Par t Five



Assessment Sheet


NO

ASSESSME

NTCOMPONENT

Assessmen

t

Resu

lto

r

Scoring

Fac

ilita

tor

No

tes

IX X

Par

tners

hip

Es

tablis

hmen

tof

awri

ttenagreemen

tbe

tw

eena

id

prov

ideran

dimp

lemen

tingpartner

bypayin

ghee

d

totheprinc

ipleo

fequa

lity

Ac

tive

invo

lvemen

to

fa

llp

art

ies

indec

ision

ma

king

Bene

fic

iariesareprov

ide

dw

ithmoreopportun

ities

an

dtime

inprogr

am

imp

lemen

tation

Non-

Prose

lyt

izing

Every

individua

lo

rpersonne

linvo

lve

dinpr

ograms

an

dac

tiv

itiesagrees

toan

interna

lpac

t

All

part

iesare

invo

lve

dindec

isionma

king

Fee

dbac

kMechan

ism

A

mec

han

ism

is

es

tablis

he

d

for

bene

ficiaries

to

ma

ke

inqu

iries,an

dg

ivesugges

tionsan

dfe

edbac

k

The

de

liveryo

fs

truc

ture

d

an

d

sc

he

dule

d

fie

ld

reports

(no

ton

ly

onagreea

bleprogress,b

uta

lso

disc

loseo

bs

tacle

sface

don

thegroun

d)

XI


64/96





NO

ASSESSME

NTCOMPONENT

Assessmen

t

Resu

lto

r

Scoring

Fac

ilita

tor

No

tes

XII

XII

Fo

llow-uponreports,

inqu

iriesan

dfee

dba

ck

Se

lf-

Re

liance

Sus

taina

bleavaila

bilityo

fresources

(mate

ria

lan

d

non-ma

teria

l)

Invo

lvemen

to

flo

ca

lcapac

ities

(ma

teria

lan

dnon-

ma

teria

lresource

s)inprogram

imp

lementa

tion

Ac

tive

invo

lvemen

to

fa

lls

take

ho

lders

indete

rmining

programs

InFavoro

fVulnera

bleGroups

Ava

ila

bilityo

fpo

lic

iesan

d

programsorie

nted

to

vu

lnera

blegroups

(groupsconsideredasvulnerable

areprovidedinPartThreeonBasicDefinitions)

Thema

jori

tyo

fdirec

tprogram

bene

fic

iariesare

vu

lnera

blegroups

Po

lic

ieson

the

pro

tec

tion

ofbene

fic

iar

iesare

adop

ted


65/96

56

Par t Five



Assessment Sheet



66/96

APPENDIX 1Basic Definitions

GuidelinesFundamental guiding principles by which to determine or

implement a course of action.

Accountability (Humanitar ian)The obligation of an individual or institution responsible for

managing public resources to be accountable for the finances,

management and implementation of activities related to the

delivery of assistance, logistical or material, human resource,

and other forms of aid. This obligation is part of the response

toward a humanitarian crisis for the main purpose of saving

lives, alleviating sufferings and preserving human dignity.

Accountability GuidelinesFundamental guiding principles by which to determine or

implement the obligations attached to an individual or institution

responsible for managing public resources and be accountable

for the finances, management and implementation of activities

related to the delivery of humanitarian assistance.


67/96



Appendix 1

Basic Definitions

Principle

A fundamental statement or basic and individual truth bywhich a person or group accepts as guidance and the basis for

reasoning and conduct. Humanitarian aid organizations/

institutions that engage in a series of efforts to seek, provide,

distribute, and be accountable for resources (facilities, personnel,

funds and other forms) mobilized from various parties for delivery

to those in need of aid or assistance as part of a response to a

humanitarian crisis for the main purpose of saving lives,

alleviating sufferings and preserving human dignity.

Humanitar ian AidResources (facilities, personnel, funds and other forms)

mobilized from various parties for delivery to those in need of

aid or assistance as part of a response to a humanitarian crisis

for the main purpose of saving lives, alleviating sufferings andpreserving human dignity.

Disaster ManagementA series of efforts encompassing the establishment of

development policies by taking into account disaster risks,

disaster prevention, emergency response and rehabilitation.5

Disaster Emergency ResponseA series of prompt actions mounted immediately at the time

of disaster in order to tackle the resultant harmful consequences,

5 Law No. 24/2007 on Disaster Management


68/96



Appendix 1

Basic Definitions

which covers the rescuing and evacuation of victims and material

possessions, fulfillment of basic needs, protection, making the

necessary arrangement for refugees, as well as the salvagingand rehabilitation of facilities and infrastructure.6

Disaster MitigationA series of efforts to reduce disaster risks, either through

physical development or awareness building and strengthening

the capacity to deal with the threat of disaste

Guidlines 4haii, Final

Documents

Transcript of Guidlines 4haii, Final